AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Bassman2003 said:
Just to be clear again, the 4:2:0 codec for 4k was never the issue for me. I have always wanted a 10bit 4:2:2 1080p mode. No doubt the 4k footage will be killer from this camera. But 4k might not be used at all times.
Click to expand...

If you have the option to run the footage through post before delivery, then shooting in 4k internally would give you 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 in post. I know not all jobs will offer that option, but for those that do, you could potentially get even more than you're asking for.
 
Barry_Green said:
A-frickin'-men. I have been saying this since the first DSLR rig showed up. I have a GH2 for its tiny size and there are times where that tininess is necessary
Click to expand...
Barry_Green said:
But when it's time to work, I put the little camera away and reach for something purpose-built to do the job that I need done. I am looking forward to trying out the DVX200. As much as I have used the AF100 over the years, the big gaping gap with that camera has always been trying to use the Lumix lenses. For strictly cinema you can use manual lenses, and the 14-140 can technically do some of the job, but my experience with the PX270 and HC-X1000 recently has reminded me just how far stills-camera lenses are from proper video lenses.

If the DVX200 maintains f/2.8 over a decent range, it will completely replace the AF100 in my uses for anything that doesn't need a cinema lens. Even then, consider that the Lumix X lenses maintain f/2.8 over only a 3x zoom range (the 12-35 and 35-100). If the DVX holds even f/3.5 out to 100mm, I will be quite happy with that. For the tiny percentage of jobs that will need faster, I still have a GH for those few shots.
Click to expand...


I used to shoot for pleasure as well as work using XF series Canon video cameras. Then we moved to C100s and Sony a7s. All of a sudden I would pick up a camera only at work. And I literally stopped using the a7s even at work (anyone want it?) after one shoot because it was such a pain to use as video camera with audio and fast moving subjects. I suddenly remembered way I had sold our GH2. Even the Canon C100s were a pain to use despite their great image, manual focusing using short throw still lenses was difficult and had to carry several lenses. They are cinema cameras designed for a more deliberate pace of work. A few weeks ago I got the opportunity to shoot on a XF when I worked as a camera operator; I had a huge smile on my face even after a grueling 10 hour shoot. That experience is why I have decided to return to integrated video cameras designed for the type of work that we do - run and gun, events and web shorts. As soon as I made the decision to return to true video cameras I found myself starting to plan passion projects, I had thought that I had lost the desire to shoot for joy but it was simply that I hated using tools that are a PIA to use.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
Just to be clear again, the 4:2:0 codec for 4k was never the issue for me. I have always wanted a 10bit 4:2:2 1080p mode. No doubt the 4k footage will be killer from this camera. But 4k might not be used at all times.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my issue as well. The lack of 4:2:2 10 bit 1080P is my biggest reservation about the file types. 4:2:0 4k is not the concern.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think 10bit is more important than 4:2:2 when it comes to 1080p footage. But I don't think there is much 10bit 4:2:0, it is usually 10bit 4:2:2. So while the 4:2:2 might not be so important, they seem to go hand in hand.

Files with more information give you more options rather than look so much better straight off the card.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true - but even more important is the quality of what the front end outputs. There's no use having the best codec in the world if the front end is very noisy in the first place. All 10 bit will then do is more accurately record the noise..... :)
joe1008 said:
Have in mind that many of the artefacts associated with 8 bit, like banding and blockyness, are rather due to bad implemented consumer codecs.
Click to expand...
And again very true. There is this huge fixation with 10 bit and 4:2:0 - but much of the time it's looking for problems in the wrong direction. Too heavy compression is far more likely to give artifacting like blockiness than 8 bit as such - and unless the bitrate is raised, such as 4:2:2 are just going to make the compression even heavier.

If anyone is in any doubt of that, the best demo I've ever seen is to make a gradient in Photoshop, then save it at the highest possible JPEG compression setting. You shouldn't see any banding in the original image - which is 8 bit - but boy, will it be visible in the compressed version!

So that said, whilst the 4:2:0/8 bit part doesn't unduly bother me about this camera, then I still cannot see why they couldn't have put AVC-Ultra in it. That's especially true with wanting it to be seen as "B-camera to a Varicam".

As far as the comments about weight etc go, then (like so many other cameras) it's not the absolute weight that matters, but far more the balance when you get to this sort of size. I can work with a much heavier shouldermount camera for far longer than something like an EX1, in spite of the latter being so much lighter. Maybe a full shouldermount design is too much to hope for with this size of camera, but even going for something like the semi-shouldermount styling of the FS7 would have been a big improvement.

I think someone mentioned the weight being roughly the same of a housebrick. I can only suggest trying the difference between holding a housebrick with the weight taken on your shoulder, versus holding the brick single handed in front of your face to get an idea of the difference!
 
joe 1008 said:
Dumb question: How time consuming is it to downscale 4K 8bit 4:2:0 to 2K 10bit 4:2:2?
Click to expand...

Do you want a "dumb" reply or a real one? On the outset, it looks like the 4k mode has some drawbacks - Less wide FOV and lack of 5-axis stabilization. If you are knowingly going to deliver in less than 4k, then it will make sense to shoot a lot in 1080p. Easier to edit and smaller file sizes for backup etc... as well. To me, this looks like an awesome 1080p camera that also shoots 4k. What I would expect from a Gen. 1 camera right now.

**Sorry if this is in the wrong direction. I initially read Joe's post to be sarcastic. It is tough to catch inflection on the internet. Sorry for the sharp tone if I was off-base. As Ron stated, it is realtime in Edius.**
 
Last edited:
Main value of UHD to me is to crop into the image for a 1080 project. In my case with my FDR-AX1 it is always on a tripod ( so no need for any stabilization ) but I do need a wide field of view so in this case the DVX200 doesn't match the FDR-AX1 but I would love a larger sensor for better low light all at 60P. Maybe Sony will bring out a competing 1" camcorder as my AX100 produces a lovely image. Downscaled UHD from my FDR-AX1 produces a lovely image.
 
joe 1008 said:
Dumb question: How time consuming is it to downscale 4K 8bit 4:2:0 to 2K 10bit 4:2:2?
Click to expand...

Very!. On my PC anyway. But I don't have a lot of money and after I got the HC-X1000 I could only afford an i5 cpu. As soon as the next model cpu comes out this year I'll be upgrading to one of those i7's.

But with the 4k I have already taken advantage of the fact I can use the downscale to 1080p as a zoom in and picture re-center, while keeping the quality of 1080.
 
I put my 60P UHD files from my FDR-AX1 on a 1080i timeline in EDIUS Pro 7 and export is less than realtime. I tend to not include while I do the multicam edit with the other AVCHD camcorder files but enable for export after I have done my cropping when it is used in the mix. If I just scale the file with crops it is less than realtime. So not a problem compared to the value of the crop and pan capability. My PC is an i7 4790K with 16G RAM running WIN 7 . My desire is a UHD camcorder with good wide angle lens and good low light capability shooting 60P. A larger sensor version of my FDR-AX1 would be fine, the FS7 is a little too costly for me.
 
No idea at this point to tell how committed Panasonic is to the camera. If sales are less than expected it might be another AF-100.
 
Bassman2003 said:
No idea at this point to tell how committed Panasonic is to the camera. If sales are less than expected it might be another AF-100.
Click to expand...
I would expect them to be very committed to it because the MFT fixed lens cameras are likely to become a staple on the consumer and the run-n-gun scenes very soon.
 
Josh Bass said:
You think? I don't think everyone wants shallow DOF all the time. SOME of us, sure. Not everyone.
Click to expand...

M4/3 is such an interesting formate because it serves both: Stop it down and you have endless DOF, shoot at f/2.8 and you have the equivalent of f/4.0 with a super 35 format, which is a classic aperture for feature films. Not really extreme shallow DOF but enough to create the perception of depth - without the risk that your talent is out of focus half of the time.

And you must also have in mind, bigger sensors not only give the possibility of shallow DOF, there are such important areas as dynamic range and low light capability where they are superior (that's why you can easily stop the camera down for shallow DOF if desired).

Designing a fixed lens camera like the dvx200 with a bigger sensor would probably produce a much bigger, heavier and more expensive camera. So M4/3 seems to be the perfect compromise. Superior, at least theoretically, to 1" sensors and cheaper and more compact than 35mm and full frame.
 
It will be interesting to see footage, but as I've looked closer, it looks more intelligently evolved and ergonomic than anything I've seen Canon do in a long time.
 
Josh Bass said:
You think? I don't think everyone wants shallow DOF all the time. SOME of us, sure. Not everyone.
Click to expand...
Joe1008 summed it up very well. I'll add that the small sensor (a smartphone equivalent) 4K cameras are already down to $600 with Panasonic's own FZ300 and there isn't much profit in that price range. A fixed lens MFT, on the other hand, has a lot more life in it. Once again, Panasonic's own GX8 has a 20 MPX sensor already. Install the pro features that many seem to be clamoring for on the DVX-200 type body and Panasonic should add two-three more years to this tech cycle.
 
Stop!!! You guys are getting me too excited!!! Now im going to have to run around the block ten times tonight just to go to sleep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top