Camera Expert
Well-known member
I was going to write H.265 as well but decided not to thinking it would probably take too much processing power but it's true that you already have Samsung using it. Plus, you'd be able to halve the bit rate.
AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder
- Thread starter Screenforme
- Start date
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Hey if Panasonic can cram all those cores into the tiny GH4 surely they can get enough processing power for h.265 in the DVX200!
How about this question...
What if Panasonic took the DVX200 and removed the ENG lens and then added a robust Micro 4/3 lens mount ?
I would definitely buy one of these, and I might even pony up for a DVX200 to use as a B-camera.
I too got a DVX100 a few months after it's initial release, but I came from a different faction of video production. I didn't come from the world of Beta SP, I came from the world of Hi-8 and miniDV. You know, the Canon XL-1 and the Canon GH1. The Sony VX1000 and PD150. Many of us got our start that way.
And as an aspiring filmmaker, the goal was ALWAYS to figure out a way to make SD video look more like film. 24 frames per second was the Holy Grail at that time, and previous to the DVX100 there were all different post-production alchemies we tried to get the 24p look. Deinterlacing, frame-blending, Magic Bullet plug-ins, etc. Everyone had their own recipe.
Another goal to achieve a film look was a contrast curve that more resembled film. We didn't really talk about dynamic range much back then, but we knew that by crushing the blacks or adding contrast, the results looked more filmic.
Then the DVX100 hit, offering 24p and Cinelike Gamma to us mere mortals for the first time. We were one step closer to making our Hollywood masterpiece with a $3500 camera.
THAT'S what made the camera a hit to indie filmmakers. Not it's ergonomics or anything practical. It was the DREAM. The notion that the entry barrier to making a film was no longer the price of 35mm film stock and all that entailed. All I can say is that I made a lot of short films on the DVX100 as it really fueled the creative fires with its look.
The game changed again, of course, when DSLRs introduced shallow depth-of-field into the mix. And with that, an introduction into the culture of interchangeable lenses. Both of these aspects bringing us closer to the dream of making "real" movies.
The GH4 then brought us 4k, and here we are. Most of us invested in the MFT format, owning some Lumix glass and various other primes and zooms (I even have some Switar c-mount lenses). We're so, so close to attaining the dream of eclipsing film at a reasonable price.
And what does Panasonic do? They give us a fixed lens. And even though it may be a fine lens, it doesn't sell the DREAM of filmmaking. I'm not being cynical here, I'm being serious. A slow fixed lens, which limits your creative palette and which doesn't emulate the approach of higher-end cinematography feels like a step backwards. In all practicaiity, I'm sure it will be a great camera. But would it be the camera I shoot my weekend masterpiece with? No. Is it a camera I'd want to shoot a feature with? No.
And that's why people are disappointed with the DVX200. It isn't cool. It isn't sexy. It doesn't promise to take you to a higher place like the DVX100 did in 2004. In fact, it feels like it's taking you to a lower place. It's taking you back to the quaint old days when you thought fixed lenses were OK because you didn't have experience with anything else. We've all been using interchangeable lenses now for over 5 years and we've learned to love their individuality, and the creative variety we can get with them. The DVX200 just cuts this off.
And if we adopt the DVX200, what are we supposed to do with our lens collection? Somebody else above asked why Panasonic didn't just release 2 versions of the camera. A fixed and an interchangeable. I have to wonder the same thing. After all, Panasonic co-developed the MFT mount. Wouldn't they benefit from selling more Lumix lenses? From a marketing standpoint, the camera seems wrongheaded to me.
Last edited:
+1
I bought a DVX100 and was thrilled to be able to shoot 24P with pretty good low-light performance.
I later bought an HMC-150 as my upgrade to my DVX100 camera.
But now, I do NOT want to go back to using an ENG camera. I will use it as a B-camera, but my main camera has to be able to use my Micro 4/3 lens collection. If this is not possible, then I am forced to move to another format. ( I love my GH4, and will love it even more once I can shoot V-log with it, but I'm looking for a proper cine camera as my main camera. )
combatentropy
Veteran
Your computer might encode H.265 more slowly than H.264, but is that not because it uses a general-purpose processor, like a Core i7, which also opens spreadsheets, surfs the internet, and several other things?
Cameras typically don't use a general-purpose processor to encode video though. They use an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit), a chip whose sole purpose in life is to encode and decode H.265 video, for example. Since it need not also open and close spreadsheets, surf the internet, or play Crysis, it is simpler, faster, and cooler.
For example, here is a seven-year-old chip for H.264:
"Mobilygen’s H.264 HD codec system-on-a-chip (SoC), the MG3500 . . . can encode HD content, including 720p60, 1080p24, 1080p30, or 1080i60 material. It additionally may be used to encode two 720p30 sources or encode and decode 720p30 content simultaneously.
"The MG3500 supports H.264’s Baseline, Main, and High Profiles up to Level 4.1. . . . the MG3500 HD codec costs $30 in high volume."
--- Electronic Design, 2/28/2008
Camera Expert
Well-known member
This is why I should be more careful over what I post at night since your brain might not be entirely awake
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Technically you weren't wrong... it does take more processing power... in the form of a dedicated h.265 chip which isn't included in the GH4 but could be added to the DVX.
:cheesy:
ATL Media Group
Veteran
This is exactly right and yet not entirely right at the same time.. The history is 100% spot on... I also came from Hi8, Canon L2.. then got the unwieldy XL1 but it only did some odd 24F which wasn't really 24P so when the DVX100 was announced I plopped down my money and got one as soon as it was released. Where I find the part wrong with the above is what you are looking for.. Are you wanting to *replace* your GH4 with a camera like the DVX200 and that's why you need the lens mount so you can use your lenses? If that's the case, then yep.. you would be disappointed with this camera... If you however were wanting to buy a second camera to use *with* your GH4, then this is on the money... I could see this and a GH4 living happily on the same shoot... this getting one shot or for when you are in a hurry and just need the shot and the GH4 with several lenses when you need to be a bit more artistic with shallower DOF... But even then, we are *assuming* because of the lens we won't be able to get shallow DOF we learned to love from our mighty DSLRs.. (Or DSLM's for us GH fans)... But, if this camera is actually using all of the 4K sensor and not cropping, and if all of it makes it gather more light, then we have no idea what the DOF or low light ability will be like on this new "GH companion"... Just because you might want to buy a second camera doesn't make your current lenses obsolete.. What will you put on your GH5? GH6?... You could change two GH bodies and keep the DVX as your trusty sidekick.
It's all how you look at it. =)
philiplipetz
Veteran
In one of their interviews Panasonic stated the reason for a fixed lens system was that as part of the manufacturing process each lens was measured after it had been mounted and then a custom correction profile inserted into that particular camera so that that combination gave the best possible result. This is impossible with interchangeable lenses, even reusing the same lens, since there are minor variations every time the lens is mounted. So using a fixed lens allows the camera system to give much better bang for the buck than is possible with normal interchangeable lens cameras.
PL mount cameras, and recent EF mount positive lock systems, try to minimize this lens mounting variation with an expensive lens clamping system. That is why real cine cameras frequently use PL mount. Micro four thirds lens mounts do not have positive locks and so they cannot ensure the absolute best from any lens in a repeatable way.
Panasonic is trying to give the absolute best lens system possible at the lowest cost and this means a fixed lens camera with automatic correction for the variations that exist in lens manufacturing, especially with mid priced lenses such as used on micro four thirds mount cameras.
I also have a dozen lenses I could use with micro four thirds mount cameras but I also want to get the best possible image for each dollar our nonprofit invests. Please be open to the possibility that this camera might give that.
PL mount cameras, and recent EF mount positive lock systems, try to minimize this lens mounting variation with an expensive lens clamping system. That is why real cine cameras frequently use PL mount. Micro four thirds lens mounts do not have positive locks and so they cannot ensure the absolute best from any lens in a repeatable way.
Panasonic is trying to give the absolute best lens system possible at the lowest cost and this means a fixed lens camera with automatic correction for the variations that exist in lens manufacturing, especially with mid priced lenses such as used on micro four thirds mount cameras.
I also have a dozen lenses I could use with micro four thirds mount cameras but I also want to get the best possible image for each dollar our nonprofit invests. Please be open to the possibility that this camera might give that.
Last edited:
I am happy with the image I am already getting with my GH4 and I would NOT expect a proper Micro 4/3 cine camera to be any worse than the GH4 in terms of the image it captures. So while I understand what Panasonic is saying in terms of an optimized parfocal zoom lens for the DVX200, I don't think their argument holds water when it comes to using primes with a Micro 4/3 cine camera.
But what about all the people who are NOW where you were when you bought the DVX100 -- i.e., in the world of consumer cameras, ready to make their first leaps into semi-professional gear? All the interchangeable lenses, etc., aren't going to do them much good.
You've grown and advanced and moved beyond the entry-level, which is great. But lots and lots of people are on the bottom rung, and frankly, that's a bigger market -- the more advanced you get, the fewer of you there are.
There needs to be a camera to serve that entry-level market. This camera is fantastic for that, just like the original DVX was. And like Barry said, many of the more advanced shooters scoffed at the original DVX, and meanwhile, many, many people like you, who hadn't taken the leap into the world of professional cameras yet, ate it up. Those people are still out there.
Beginners don't want interchangeable lenses and to have to worry about primes v. zooms, which mounts are what, which lenses are what, etc., etc. They want to get out and make those first movies or whatever other projects they have in mind. Wouldn't it have been the same for you, back then? Would you have bought the camera you're asking for, back then?
There's no reason not to serve that market. And doing it doesn't mean they won't come back around and serve you again.
Mike_Raddport
Well-known member
Well said, David.
I agree. I was only trying to explain why people are expressing their disappointment. Also, I would say there's a flaw in your argument: the people who are NOW where I was when I bought the DVX100 are now using DSLRs, and are not very intereted in a fixed lens solution.
In addition to being a freelance cinematographer, I also teach film and video to college students. For student projects, the HPX170s and AC160s do NOT get checked out by the students at all. They hate how it looks. Instead, they check out the Canon 60D from the equipment room. Now, certainly that may have more to do with the small sensor and not the fixed lens, but the culture has changed. Kids just starting out in the video world don't have a fixed lens camera, nor do they particularly want one. At least none of the students I have taught for the last 5 years do. The all have a T4i or something.
When I showed my students the DVX200 specs, they all said "Meh."
Also, I don't consider $5000 entry-level. Not when you can buy a DSLR for $600. Again, a lot of this is about advertising. It's about selling a dream beyond what the actual product offers. My students are all salivating over the Blackmagic Ursa Mini, not the DVX200. If you look at the Ursa Mini website, it's all about using it for films. Commercials, features. The images show a crew and lights on a location. They're selling the dream of filmmaking. They're not selling it as an entry-level camera to do bread-and-butter work. We all have to do that work to pay the bills, but that's not how you get people excited about a camera.
Last edited:
philiplipetz
Veteran
Were the Sony EX1 and Canon XF300 amateur cameras? No. With the possible exception of 4:2:2 the DVX200 replaces them. Even if the camera does not have HD 4:2:2 you can still get 10 bit 4:4:4 HD by downsizing from 4k. I had an XF camera and have been waiting since for a updated replacement. B
Last edited:
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I don't want a camera to take me to a higher place. I don't want it to be cool. I don't want it to be sexy. If I'm buying a $4,500-$5,000 camera, I don't want it to shoot my weekend masterpiece. I want it to make me money on Thursday morning. Honestly, as much as I love my AF100 and GH4, if the DVX200 was released when the AF100 was, I would have gotten the DVX200. I appreciate that a lot of folks love the creative freedom that one type of prime over another can give them when shooting a film or something, but I have one prime that I never use. 95% of my shooting is on the 12-35mm X and 35-100 X lenses. My clients simple don't care. They just want something that looks nice. And always having to swap lenses at critical moments has cost me shots and been a pain in the rear.
YMMV... but the DVX200 will help make me more money than having an AF200 would. I'll hold onto the GH4 for those instances where I need swappable lenses... but the reality is that it's going to be mostly a B-camera.
TheDingo make a great point... why not release a version without the lens? I don't know. I think they probably should have. But I'm not privy to their market research or their production costs. And if they felt it had to be one or the other, then it's not hard to figure out why they went this route, as they are going to sell WAAAAAY more DVX200's then they would AF200's
It's entry-level professional, with all the professional accoutrements that DSLRs don't have, but the DVX200 does.
Surely you remember all those DV cameras, like the GL2 perhaps, which were much less expensive than the DVX -- which at $3500 in 2002 isn't out of line with whatever price at which the DVX200 will actually street. No, they didn't have 24p, which was the DVX's killer app, but as a matter of the price tag of "entry level," it's informative.
There will, of course, always be those who simply want the (much) cheaper. There were tons of people even here who opted for the HV20 over the HVX200. The cameras were in no way comparable, but it was the price tag which mattered to them.
Chances are someone with the DVX200 and an interest in "filmic" will try to find some of the old/new lens adapters. It seems like the least expensive/most reasonable solution.
But, as the debate goes on, some people aren't in this 100%/0 (i.e., all event and corporate and nothing for themselves). Some may be 60/40 and some may be 40/60. So, while this may "check all the boxes" for some, it checks far fewer for others.
Thus, this product's fate depend on what the entirety of possible customers decide and, if this pleases only a small portion of them, it's unlikely to be a hit at best and conceivably cause a long term resentment of the company at worst. Buyers can be fickle but, should someone decide to dump his/her MFT lens collection for EF, what are the chances they are coming back to MFT at a later date?
PS. There's a trend for the larger sensors anyway. Even this camera is MFT, which is far bigger and better than the old and even most recent camcorders. But then URSA Mini and JVC LS 300 and C300 MK II have an s35 sensor and, for that, MFT lenses won't wor for the full coverage. Add another popular brand or two with s35 and you can see a major decline in the MFT popularity and that would really leave Panasonic SOL.
Last edited: