I think a little wishful thinking. The DVX appears to be a fixed lens HD 4/3 camera which crops into about 1" or smaller sensor for 4K likely the reason there is only OIS in 4K. So in 4K it is more like the Sony FDR-AX100 or X70 I do not think it will compete with the FS7 S35 sensor with multiple frame rates and a choice of lenses. It looks to be a great camera and I will look at it when it comes out to maybe replace my Sony NX5U.
AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder
- Thread starter Screenforme
- Start date
I think a little wishful thinking. The DVX appears to be a fixed lens HD 4/3 camera which crops into about 1" or smaller sensor for 4K likely the reason there is only OIS in 4K. So in 4K it is more like the Sony FDR-AX100 or X70 I do not think it will compete with the FS7 S35 sensor with multiple frame rates and a choice of lenses. It looks to be a great camera and I will look at it when it comes out to maybe replace my Sony NX5U.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Where are you getting this? No one has mentioned anything that it crops down to a 1" sensor in 4k... in fact, much of the footage released looks the opposite. And I'm not sure what is accomplished by croppping a native 4k 4/3 sensor down to 1" for shooting in 4k (especially when they have a 4/3 4k camera that already shoots in 4k at 4/3-- the GH4)
If it cropped down to 1", Barry or Noel would have stated so (and the interwebs would be aflame with folks ready to go all pitchforks and torches on Panasonic
)Naturally, it won't be equal to a larger sensor in terms of the low light performance and the DOF but, in terms of resolution, 13.5 MPX (~ 2660 lines) should give a legitimate 2000 lines or so. Most native - i.e., 8.8 MPX - 4K sensors will give you ~ 1,500-1,800. GH4 was tested at around 1,500-1,550 lines. Sony's A7RII has about the same math, where the 15.5 MPX oversampled s35 4K crop is sharper than the Full Frame 4K "bin".
Last edited:
It has been mentioned in several places. The wide angle reduces to 37mm indicating a crop of the sensor for QFHD at 60P 150Mbps and that is why there is also no 5 axis image stabilization because there are no extra pixel to move the image within. FHD the range is 28 to 365.3, 4K at 24P is 29.5 to 384.9, QFHD at 60P it is 37MM wide mentioned several times but now left off the spec !!! .
The spec sheet indicates
1549 megapixcel (FHD), 871 megapixcel (UHD/59.94p),
1289 megapixcel (UHD/29.97p), 1335 megapixcel (4K/24p
We will have to wait and see if these are crops or limitations in the processing capabilities to read the sensor and process. To me it does indicate a crop for some and a processing limitation for others. My interest is only in QFHD 60P so for me I think it is both a crop and a processor limitation to achieve QFDH at 60P.
Ron Evans
The spec sheet indicates
1549 megapixcel (FHD), 871 megapixcel (UHD/59.94p),
1289 megapixcel (UHD/29.97p), 1335 megapixcel (4K/24p
We will have to wait and see if these are crops or limitations in the processing capabilities to read the sensor and process. To me it does indicate a crop for some and a processing limitation for others. My interest is only in QFHD 60P so for me I think it is both a crop and a processor limitation to achieve QFDH at 60P.
Ron Evans
Barry_Green
Moderator
I have not put them side by side, obviously, but I wouldn't expect a <$5k camera to beat a >$10k camera (with lens).
Not true. In 4K/24.00 and 4K/25.00, and UHD 23.976, 25, and 29.97, it uses approximately the full width of the sensor. It only crops in for UHD/60p and UHD/50p.
I agree, I do not see them as competition. We don't know the price point of the DVX yet, we only know that the absolute highest price point it could possibly be is $4999 but it could be less... but even if it's $4999 it's still less than half the price of the FS7 with lens. I would expect that paying that extra for the FS7 will definitely get you some performance (not the least of which would include a larger sensor, more sensitivity, and higher frame rates).
As someone speculated, it is possible that the DVX might actually be sharper than the FS7, but I would expect the FS7 to have overall better picture quality given its larger pixels and larger sensor. Realistically one should expect that if you're talking about two products with comparable generations of technology, the one that costs more than twice as much should outperform the one that costs half as much.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not sure how that would work. It's using the sensor to create its resolution, so -- in 4K, there's nowhere to go without losing res. Now, in 1080p mode, yes you can do exactly what you're talking about, there's an "i.Zoom" function which lets you zoom in even further, while still retaining fully resolved detail, because there's extra pixels to use to do so. But in 4K there aren't really any extra pixels to zoom into. I guess there could be a little bit, since there's about 25% oversampling in each direction, but zooming into that will mean losing a little resolution. There's nothing in-camera to provide that, but you could always do it in post just as well.
If you're talking about shooting in 4K for a 1080p finish, then yes you could crop in at up to 2x for better telephoto reach.
Last edited:
Yes I understand that the full sensor is used for most of the features but one of the main marketing points is UHD at 60P for which it does crop as you say and this is my main interest either in HD or QFHD. So I expect like some of the Sony's it will have a Panasonic " clear zoom " in HD to likely double the zoom range if it is like the Sony's. However at UHD 60P it will have a shorter zoom range than the HC-X1000, the FDR-AX1 or the PXW-Z100 and will have roughly a 2 stop disadvantage at the wide end too. Will be interesting to see how much better it is than these effective 1/3" models in real life at 60P UDH. I am hoping it is a lot better as I may then change my NX5U as it often looks a little sad next to my AX100 or FDR-AX1 in image sharpness.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's no crop in HD. There's only one mode at all that has any notable amount of crop, and that's UHD 60p (and 50p of course). All the others use fundamentally the full width of the sensor: 4K@24/25p, UHD at 24/25/30p, 1080p at 24/25/30/50/60p and 50i/60i, 720p @ 50/60p, even 480 @ 60/50i. They're all full-width. (well, there's a minor crop in UHD@24/25/30, but it's really minor, I think the stated equivalency is 29.5mm vs. 28mm).
So the only time you face any sort of notable crop at all is in UHD/60p (or 50p).
There is an i.Zoom feature that extends the zoom range when in 1080 mode, yes.
Well, yeah... those small-sensor cameras have a 20x optical zoom, the DVX200 has a 13x optical zoom. So it's got a shorter zoom range in all modes than they have, obviously...
Yes, smaller sensors have faster lenses, but also horrible sensitivity in comparison. Those cameras all claim f/1.6 at the wide end, which is about 1.67 stops faster than f/2.8 But consider that the XC-1000 is about 40 ISO. I haven't tested the Sonys, but can't imagine that they'd be any different. So even if you were to account for lens speed in the equation, that would make the small-chip cameras roughly equivalent to about 128 ISO. The DVX200's base ISO is currently at about 500, which is still a full two stops faster than the little-chip cameras. And the DVX200 easily goes to 2000 ISO while still looking perfectly good (pending final image sensor tuning, obviously). You can't get anywhere within a hundred miles of that with a tiny-sensor camera. I've worked a lot with the HC-X1000, I really like it for what it is, but it is not a camera that can be used for indoors filming without substantial lighting.
I'm not saying the DVX200 would be suitable for your purposes. Only you can decide that. I'm just trying to keep the conversation accurate as to what the DVX200 really does.
Thanks for clarifying Barry. I am sure the HC-X100 is much like my FDR-AX1 and not that good for the theatre stuff I do but I do use it when lights are bright. My use for UHD is as a full stage fixed camera so that I can crop,pan and zoom in post. I am really interested in the DVX200 just wish it was a little wider at 60P UHD but would fit to replace my NX5U. The FDR-AX1 is at least 2 stops slower than my NX5U.
philiplipetz
Veteran
GH4 base ISO is about 800, and Panasonic reps have said the goal for the DVX200 is about 3/4 of a stop more, or about 1400 ISO. Cleanest Image is reported to come at 400, which would mean a DVX200 base ISO of about 700 if they meet their stated objective. Based on absolutely no concrete evidence I am hopeful that the DVX200 will have more than 500 as the base ISO. Remember these are engineering samples with V 0.26 firmware.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
Or you can just go where there is light and film or take pictures. And where there is no light, bring some lights with you.
I'm really starting to get baffled by this high ISO entitlement mentality. I get it, the ability to produce images with a near zero footprint in production. But 98% of the images that capture my mind are the ones with beautiful lighting either by natural time of day from the sun or by produced elements in a lighting package. So now, just because a certain camera can shoot at 104,000 ISO (in which 90% of the footage I've seen with such still looks like crap) every camera to be released is expected of such? The A7s in outdoor sun lighting in S-log is a pain to work with, is it not? Unless you perpetually work the graveyard shift.
Man, some of the commentary I've read these past few years on high ISO... I remember when 400iso film was as grainy as the beach sand so we somehow compensated with lighting and used 100iso. And to think that today you can get a clean image off a digital sensor at 800iso.
Again, I understand the argument of "You can use 100 watt lights and will work equivalent to what was a 5000 watt light". But some 'Youngsters" just don't get how good they have it these days. "My camera is just so noisy at 5000iso". You would have had a hard time working with film....
electricjib
Active member
You're only going to get more annoyed as the years go on it seems.
Maybe instead of having a thought process of, "well you guys are spoiled because this is how it was when I started..." You should look at it as a positive and appreciate the growth and changes that are happening. Might also be good to remember this is the equipment youngsters are growing up with now. I'm sure in 10-15 years they'll say the same thing as you when cameras have clean images at even higher ISO's.
Lifes to short to be looking backwards.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Word!!!
I am also perplexed by the obsession to shoot with no lights. I understand budgets are a concern but lights don't have to be super expensive. Plus lights are that one piece of gear that can last 10+ years so its a pretty solid investment.
I don't know a single high production value TV show or movie that attempts to shoot with no lights. Thats just part of the equation to film making. To use Barry's cake baking example its like baking the cake without half the ingredients. I have seen SD productions with amazing light blow away HD productions with no light.
dustylense
Veteran
Valid.. But lets not lose sight of the technical art. Like I stated, I understand the positives of higher ISO leading to such things as lower foot print production, more energy efficient lighting system and so on.
You say," well you guys are spoiled because this is how it was when I started..." I'm pretty sure some will agree that lots of young wouldn't have stood a chance in the medium of film and photography of when we started. In fact, lots of the same principles of what some of us knew then are applied to technology used today. Maybe lighting changed in terms of output and size, the the principle of it is a over a century old. And guess what? The Sun's exposure index is quite older.
So when I hear things like "this cameras base ISO is 1600 and therefore if that camera only has 500" and then go on to think it's an unusable shame? Seriously. Go look at your own work and tell me what percentage of it is shot in near zero darkness and using 10watt practicals as lighting. If its higher than say 70%, then you NEED the full frame 12 micron pixel count of the A7s or equivalent. If it's 10% then you really shouldn't be too concerned about such a device and more concerned with the other advantages the camera can provide in your product delivered.
Does this mean I'm for the abolishment of progress in cameras capable of such feats? NO! It means that there is a certain point were the technical advance might just override the artistic capability. If you can't somehow take a camera that shoots a clean image up to 1600 ISO and that keeps you up at night as a determining factor for your art ad decision of the purchase of a camera.... To me its like saying, "Man, I can produce this film with my 15 watt lights". Compared to the yesteryear, some people don't understand just how good they have it. But all too often I hear comments of "This camera cost $850 and does things than that one costing $14,000 or more doesn't". Well then the decision is easy for you right? Why make a $8000 camera that shoots 800iso's when there are ones that can do 1600iso cleaner for $850, only to complain about the $8000 constantly? For me it because I have not ran into a single camera that can do everything.
Sure, 10-15 years ago we will look at cameras built today and wonder how we used them. They will be cheaper and more powerful. But guess what else will happen? People will complain about certain features. They might even say, "This $1500 8k raw camera that lights your shot for you is garbage because it doesn't levitate and I have to hold the damn thing. My brain camera can do that". It's not technological anti-progress. It the level of what people think they deserve as consumers that translates into entitlement that I often start to question.
But I'll tell ya something... When I started professionally (primarily a stills shooter) I invested in a camera that lasted me nearly 20 years. I still have that camera and it works and performs today as the day I bought it. It made me a lot of money. Today, we buy 2,3 even 4 cameras a year it seems. Replaced by version II the year after. Or we jump ship because this one doesn't have moire and does 25 more bits/sec and has 1/2 stop better DR. Only to jump ship again the year after because the other brand built upon the previous. PROGRESS! Things are getting better and more advanced! Trust me man... I got caught up in it too. The amount of money I have dropped on cameras in the past 5-7 years is mind blowing. For instance. I just about owned every Blackmagic camera release up until the URSA. I don't own a single one now. None of them personally made me look at my work in a better light than what I was working with before. Gh2's, Gh3, Gh4, AF100, C100, C300, XF305, A7s, RX10, Blackmagic, the list goes on and on. And thats just cameras. Then I sat down one night and looked at my work, be it as it may. I noticed that none of them made me any more stellar in product as the other one did. In fact, I found that some of the work I did with the lowly 5Dmk2 looked and felt better to my eye than the latest and greatest camera produced that far exceeded it technically. I started thinking about that old camera I had for 20 years. My conclusion was to get of the "latest and greatest" crazy train and work with what seemed to be working best for what I do and what I deliver. Therefore, I'm gonna sit this wave out and not buy any of these cameras coming soon. Therefore, I'm not gonna drop $3000 or more just for an extra 1/2 stop of better lowlight performance. I'm gonna take the camera I choose to work with that I own, make $3000 and invest it towards a camera that levitates on it's own when the time comes.
So who is looking backwards when I'm making a decision to look further without having to justify minute stepping stone advances. I'm gonna jump over the pond and wait until a camera comes along that truly elevates my product. Because cameras don't make pictures. They take them.
When you shoot events you have no control of lights. An archive of a theatre production depends on the lighting designer for the available light. Either the camera is good enough to see the action on the stage or it isn't. Most modern cameras can see what the audience can see but maybe through a lot of grain due to high gain. If one also needs to not blow out the highlights on stage and still see the action in the shadows that is another issue and a desire for wide dynamic range. A reason I use more than one camera as often the full stage camera has a white blob on a black stage !!!!!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, let me clarify -- the LOWEST ISO that you can set on a DVX200 is 500 ISO. That could be indicative of it being its default ISO, or it could be representative of actually negative gain, I don't know. I don't know what the sensor is rated at yet, they haven't said. So it's possible that my claim about 500 being the "base" ISO may not be accurate.
Yes indeed. Well, mine is on version 0.31, so it's got a couple of advancements over what was being used, but it's still very very early.
Barry_Green
Moderator
I can see and agree absolutely with what Dusty is saying. The fastest film stock you used to be able to get was 800 ISO, and it was grainier than a jar of sand. And that was just all that there was, there wasn't anywhere else to turn. Today's cameras are absolutely omnipotent compared to what we had in film, so -- arguing about ISO does seem baffling to me.
On the other hand ...
Ron speaks the truth. I did my share of events stuff, and I had instances where the camera just plain wasn't good enough. I would have killed for a decent clean 2000 ISO back then. There are simply some jobs (not a lot, but some) where you cannot light something, and have to rely on the camera's sensitivity to deliver you something usable. For unscripted event stuff, low light sensitivity is a huge bonus. For doc work, there may be times where it's a big plus. But then again, for doc work, I wouldn't mind some grain if that's what it took to get the shot. If you do high-end weddings, you might or might not be able to supplement the lighting, but you most likely will not get away with supplying a grainy footage that looks like it's taking place in a gnatstorm.
The DVX200 is capable of +36 DB of gain, plus going into "high sensitivity mode" which should make it roughly the equivalent of about +42dB of gain. And then you can put it in slower shutter mode too, so ... it can definitely get shots in lower light that other some cameras might not be able to do. Being as it's oriented towards being an all-in-one camera, I do consider that a vital aspect of it. I do not think it's fair to consider this engineering sample as representative of what final image quality will look like so it's pointless to conduct detailed image analysis on it, but offhand right now I'd say ISO 2000 looks pretty good in 4K, and I think you can stretch it to ISO 4000 in 1080p and still have a nice, clean, good-looking image. Much higher gain is available depending on your appetite for grain; you may find even higher ISOs acceptable.
On the other hand ...
Ron speaks the truth. I did my share of events stuff, and I had instances where the camera just plain wasn't good enough. I would have killed for a decent clean 2000 ISO back then. There are simply some jobs (not a lot, but some) where you cannot light something, and have to rely on the camera's sensitivity to deliver you something usable. For unscripted event stuff, low light sensitivity is a huge bonus. For doc work, there may be times where it's a big plus. But then again, for doc work, I wouldn't mind some grain if that's what it took to get the shot. If you do high-end weddings, you might or might not be able to supplement the lighting, but you most likely will not get away with supplying a grainy footage that looks like it's taking place in a gnatstorm.
The DVX200 is capable of +36 DB of gain, plus going into "high sensitivity mode" which should make it roughly the equivalent of about +42dB of gain. And then you can put it in slower shutter mode too, so ... it can definitely get shots in lower light that other some cameras might not be able to do. Being as it's oriented towards being an all-in-one camera, I do consider that a vital aspect of it. I do not think it's fair to consider this engineering sample as representative of what final image quality will look like so it's pointless to conduct detailed image analysis on it, but offhand right now I'd say ISO 2000 looks pretty good in 4K, and I think you can stretch it to ISO 4000 in 1080p and still have a nice, clean, good-looking image. Much higher gain is available depending on your appetite for grain; you may find even higher ISOs acceptable.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Understood and honestly I feel your pain. But you also have to factor in what other options you have with a 13x power zoom and a 4/3" sized sensor. If you could get away with 5 cameras with primes or mild zoom range lenses great but not everybody can do that and it isn't always practical.
When it comes to a 13x zoom lens on a large sensor camera the DVX200 will likely be king for exactly the type of production you have in mind. Most DSLR super zoom lenses at best have 10x zoom range and f4-f6.3 which is an entire stop slower than the DVX200 lens. so even if you have a larger sensor than the DVX200 you kind of have to factor in just what options the lens on the DVX200 actually gives you for stage productions. If you had a camera with a one stop larger sensor and mounted a super zoom the low light would likely be a wash due to the one stop loss from the slower lens.
Like Barry mentioned numerous times while 1/3" cameras may have a f1.6 lens on the wide end they almost all lose one stop or more as they zoom in. Those sensors are also significantly smaller than 4/3", basically 1/16th the size. So yeah those cameras kind of had to go down to f1.6 just to suck in a half way decent amount of light.
4/3" is massive for a 13x power zoom lens that starts at f2.8 and only looses 1 and 1/3 stop at the long end. Let me say that again. 4/3" is massive for a 13x power zoom lens that starts at f2.8 and only looses 1 and 1/3 stop at the long end. This sensor and lens combo is no joke and those who think it is are not really looking at the balance of what a sensor size and lens aperture can do for light gathering. A small sensor camera may have an extremely wide open lens while a FF sensor camera is stuck with a very slow zoom lens. The DVX200 strikes a perfect balance between both. It has a sensor that is already pretty darn big and a lens that is not too shabby on the wide end.
Sure in a perfect fictional world f2.0 constant would be stellar but unless you can bend the laws of physics such a thing is very hard to do. Point out a single 13x f2.0 constant lens or even constant f2.8 for that matter. Does a constant f4 with 13x even exist for any system? Maybe a cine lens or two with a price tag in the tens of thousands of dollars.
If primes are really your thing then I'm not sure why you would even be considering the DVX200. The Gh4 is a better choice if you can get away with using a prime lens at a stage production. Keep in mind if you do use a zoom like the 12-35mm f2.8 the DVX200 could very well be just as sensitive as that combo if not a tiny bit more. So really the only negative at all to the DVX200 is the inability to slap on a f1.4 prime lens, which can be very limiting in a stage production without the use of multiple cameras. Everything else in terms of using a zoom is either equal or superior to many DSLR + zoom lens combos.
Sure a FF camera and a f2.8 70-200 lens might inch a bit more low light but that is an entirely different beast of a setup and not a very big zoom range to work with.