AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Mike Harvey said:
Is anyone messing around with any of the other scene files? Curious what the others look like and what their picture emphasis is.
Click to expand...

Okay, time to break the news. There is a reason I haven't spent much time at all on scene files and the like, and that's going to be revealed on 11/16. There's a new firmware update coming for the DVX200, and it makes some rather notable changes in color rendition. The new version is said to be more accurate to the Varicam in VLOG-L, and in all cases it's supposed to reduce the yellow in the skin tones and especially to greatly reduce the shift to yellow that happens in overexposure. It also is going to substantially clean up the grit that can happen in the shadows. And there's another feature they've mentioned that they're adding, but since it doesn't directly have to do with color rendition, I'll leave them to say what that is.


I don't know if there will be any changes to the default scene file settings I sincerely doubt that the default settings are going to yield glorious beauty. But the way the sensor delivers color to the processing engine is being refined. Better input should lead to better output. I do feel like finally, this new version of the firmware will represent the camera the way that it should be viewed, and that with proper attention to scene file settings, it should be able to make the kind of images that the hardware is capable of. I'll work up an "accurate" scene file for it right away; I'll also try to match it to a GH4 using the "natural" scene file on the GH4, but I can't say how quickly that will get done.
 
Barry_Green said:
And there's another feature they've mentioned that they're adding, but since it doesn't directly have to do with color rendition, I'll leave them to say what that is.
Click to expand...

Great to hear. I know you are fond of this product Barry. I hope this color update does raise the camera to Panasonic's standards. So far this camera has represented a lot of "almost there" and missed opportunities to me. Regarding the yet to be announced feature, one thing that would sway me to a net positive on this camera is a 10bit 4:2:2 1080p recording option. They already own it and it is called AVC-Ultra. Just for 1080p and under, not 4k. Why put such great color controls only to record the footage with 8bit 4:2:0? Such a waste imho and more 'sumer than pro.
 
Thank you for this announcement, Barry.

I hope we can see a firmware update to make this camera practical for sports shooting. Specifically, the algorithm for Focus Ring Drive Fine setting seems to be fixed and tied to the zoom setting and also seems to become less fine depending on the particular focus range. So when the camera is zoomed to Z99, the Fine control is, well, very fine—the focus numbers change about 10 for every 90 degrees of ring movement. With the zoom at Z00, the focus numbers change from 00 to 99 in the same 90 degrees of ring movement—not very fine at all.

I shot 7 ice hockey games with the DVX 200 in the past two days and ran into the following problem. Common zoom range for me is Z00-Z60. In those ranges, I am in focus with numbers from MF75-95, most of my adjustments are 88-93. At Z00-Z60 I only get about a 1-2 degree throw to move from MF88-MF93, making manual focus impossible. What I find more exasperating is that the algorithm seems to drastically reduce the fine adjustment in the MF range where I am needing fine control most.

Numbers at other zoom ranges for both the DVX200 and the AC90 (approximate):

[SMALLER NUMBERS ARE BETTER. Green shows useable control within my common zoom and focus ranges. Red shows unusable control within my common zoom and focus ranges.]

Z99 (We are only rarely at Z99, usually for hero shots.)
DVX200
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees
AC90
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees

Z75
DVX200
MF 5 number change per 90 degrees (16-21)
MF 30 number changer per 90 degrees (69-99)
AC90
MF 30 number change per 90 degrees (19-49)
MF 10 number changer per 90 degrees (89-99)

Z50
DVX200
MF 15 number change per 90 degrees (00-15)
MF 70 number change per 90 degrees (29-99)
AC90
MF 25 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees (89-99)

Z25
DVX200
MF 30 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 70 number change per 90 degrees (09-99)
AC90
MF 25 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees (89-99)

Z00
DVX200
MF 99 number change per 75 degrees (00-99)
AC90
MF 30 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees (89-99)

Looking at the red numbers, you can imagine see that fine control really is almost no different than having the ring drive set to coarse. At some ranges it is almost impossible to hit the desired number, for example often skipping from MF92 to MF94, where MF93 is sharp. Now imagine trying to do this in a rapidly changing situation.

I need to have control over Fine setting, or the algorithm needs to be tweaked.

My company shoots about 700-1000 hockey games a year and other than the low-light issues associated with the small-sensor we have loved the manual zoom and focus controls of the AC90s. MF is required for several reasons: Anyone coming to shoot for me from the broadcast world is using MF. My trainees coming from broadcast schools are being encouraged to learn and develop MF skills. Most importantly we are shooting through glass, seams, partitions, screens (netting), and other no intelligent auto setting is going to keep AF from hunting on those foreground occlusions. Foreground players and on-ice officials can also occlude the intended focus area and this is all happening in a dynamically changing environment, so manual focus control is imperative. Add to this, the shallow DOF with the 4/3 sensor and the lack of fine manual control is a killer.

I have been hoping to upgrade our cameras to the DVX200 but as the firmware stands now we cannot recommend this machine for manual focus sports applications. Can we please have a firmware update to fix this problem? You can imagine our disappointment in seeing that our AC90s have better lens control. Please ask the developers to just make it work like the AC90. Can we please get this added to the Nov 16 update?

Sports shooting is performance art with the camera as the instrument. This lack of fine MF control is like playing a guitar with the action set too high, or a piano with missing keys.
 
Last edited:
Wonderful news, Barry, thanks. I'm usually extremely tolerant about the quirks of cameras and other technology, and about as far from a pixel-peeper as you can get. Often, I read the critiques here, look at the sample images, and wonder what all the fuss is about, or how much it's reasonable to expect from these mid-priced, mass-produced products. But the DVX200 genuinely surprised me with some really unacceptable color rendering in the default scene file from the very first time I turned it on. Perhaps I've been spoiled by my PX270, which looked great from the beginning, and really superb after a few minor tweaks. But without some major surgery in the scene files, I couldn't see a way to use the DVX together with my other cameras in a real production. Your news gives me hope that it may reach its full potential, and that Panasonic is committed to fixing the problems.

Thanks for keeping us informed.

- Greg
 
Thanks for the update Barry. I've been a Sony FX-1 owner for quite sometime and I've been waaaay past due for an upgrade. After getting comfortable with the flexibility of my Nikon D800 I decided that the DVX200 was the camera for me.

With the FX-1 there were a lot of simple features like built in XLRs that I had been missing and I had to turn down some projects where timecode was mandatory. I really felt that within my basic budget the DVX200 was going to be the right tool for the job. I've only had it a week and my initial footage tempted me to return it but after working with adjustments to the scene files it has certainly improved on the run and gun image quality but it sounds like Panasonic is committed to getting this unit up to it's full potential.

I'm looking forward to the updated firmware and any offerings from users that are willing to post more refined scene files. I can't think that Panasonic has put this much time into engineering this camera with decent quality components for it not to be as good or better than anything in it's class.
 
bluesgeek said:
Thank you for this announcement, Barry.

I hope we can see a firmware update to make this camera practical for sports shooting. Specifically, the algorithm for Focus Ring Drive Fine setting seems to be fixed and tied to the zoom setting and also seems to become less fine depending on the particular focus range. So when the camera is zoomed to Z99, the Fine control is, well, very fine—the focus numbers change about 10 for every 90 degrees of ring movement. With the zoom at Z00, the focus numbers change from 00 to 99 in the same 90 degrees of ring movement—not very fine at all.

I shot 7 ice hockey games with the DVX 200 in the past two days and ran into the following problem. Common zoom range for me is Z00-Z60. In those ranges, I am in focus with numbers from MF75-95, most of my adjustments are 88-93. At Z00-Z60 I only get about a 1-2 degree throw to move from MF88-MF93, making manual focus impossible. What I find more exasperating is that the algorithm seems to drastically reduce the fine adjustment in the MF range where I am needing fine control most.

Numbers at other zoom ranges for both the DVX200 and the AC90 (approximate):

[SMALLER NUMBERS ARE BETTER. Green shows useable control within my common zoom and focus ranges. Red shows unusable control within my common zoom and focus ranges.]

Z99 (We are only rarely at Z99, usually for hero shots.)
DVX200
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees
AC90
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees

Z75
DVX200
MF 5 number change per 90 degrees (16-21)
MF 30 number changer per 90 degrees (69-99)
AC90
MF 30 number change per 90 degrees (19-49)
MF 10 number changer per 90 degrees (89-99)

Z50
DVX200
MF 15 number change per 90 degrees (00-15)
MF 70 number change per 90 degrees (29-99)
AC90
MF 25 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees (89-99)

Z25
DVX200
MF 30 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 70 number change per 90 degrees (09-99)
AC90
MF 25 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees (89-99)

Z00
DVX200
MF 99 number change per 75 degrees (00-99)
AC90
MF 30 number change per 90 degrees (00-30)
MF 10 number change per 90 degrees (89-99)

Looking at the red numbers, you can imagine see that fine control really is almost no different than having the ring drive set to coarse. At some ranges it is almost impossible to hit the desired number, for example often skipping from MF92 to MF94, where MF93 is sharp. Now imagine trying to do this in a rapidly changing situation.

I need to have control over Fine setting, or the algorithm needs to be tweaked.

My company shoots about 700-1000 hockey games a year and other than the low-light issues associated with the small-sensor we have loved the manual zoom and focus controls of the AC90s. MF is required for several reasons: Anyone coming to shoot for me from the broadcast world is using MF. My trainees coming from broadcast schools are being encouraged to learn and develop MF skills. Most importantly we are shooting through glass, seams, partitions, screens (netting), and other no intelligent auto setting is going to keep AF from hunting on those foreground occlusions. Foreground players and on-ice officials can also occlude the intended focus area and this is all happening in a dynamically changing environment, so manual focus control is imperative. Add to this, the shallow DOF with the 4/3 sensor and the lack of fine manual control is a killer.

I have been hoping to upgrade our cameras to the DVX200 but as the firmware stands now we cannot recommend this machine for manual focus sports applications. Can we please have a firmware update to fix this problem? You can imagine our disappointment in seeing that our AC90s have better lens control. Please ask the developers to just make it work like the AC90. Can we please get this added to the Nov 16 update?

Sports shooting is performance art with the camera as the instrument. This lack of fine MF control is like playing a guitar with the action set too high, or a piano with missing keys.
Click to expand...

Interesting - A very large percentage of my use for the DVX200 was planning on using this camera to shoot hockey games. I also own the AG-AC90 but have recently run into problems with the manual focus. I used to be able to zoom in all the way with the AG-AC90, set focus and then it would be good to throughout the entire focal range. I also tried shooting with the HC-X1000 but the dynamic range and noise from the camera made it less than ideal BUT the lens on that camera had parfocal like performance.

I remember asking Barry somewhere earlier in this thread whether the lens had par-focal like performance like the AG-AC90. I remember he stated that his initial tests seemed to indicate that the lens was behaving like a parfocal lens.

When you are using manual focus are you trying to set focus on the fly or are you zooming all the way, setting focus and then shooting from there? I only ask because it sounds like you are trying to set focus on the fly which will be extremely difficult to do in a hockey game.
 
When you do the parfocal trick it only puts you in focus across the zoom range for the subject you have focused on. So, if you are at center ice and you zoom in and focus on the goalie, that goalie should be held in focus as you zoom out. But a player standing at the near side boards at center ice will not be in focus. That's why you have to focus on the fly with sports... you don't have time to set your focus for each subject.

What I do is to get ideal focus readings for about 6 different subject distances (goalie, center ice face-off, center ice nearside boards, near and farside hashmarks, and for two medium focal lengths—medium wide and medium tele). I also get a reading for a few extreme tight framings. From these 12 readings I put together an approach for the entire surface.

For example:
Nearside boards center ice = MF83
Center ice face-off (wide MF89) (tele MF91)
Crease (wide MF91) (tele MF93)

So, you can see that I will be racking between about MF87 and MF93 for the most part... fairly easy to do if you have enough fine control.
 
No disrespect intended, but why in the world would you use this camera for shooting sports primarily? 1/3 inch yes. 2/3 inch yes... but a large sensor cam? Masochism.
 
Very pleased to hear about the firmware upgrade Barry. Maybe this forum DID make a difference!

I did a dance concert in a country hall last weekend, and although the lighting was not as challenging as the previous footage I put up here, the minor differences in blue ballet outfits looking mauve and dark red sparkling dresses turning orange I could not fix and was again disappointed by, so this news is very encouraging!

Cheers,

Vaughan
 
hotchkiss said:
No disrespect intended, but why in the world would you use this camera for shooting sports primarily? 1/3 inch yes. 2/3 inch yes... but a large sensor cam? Masochism.
Click to expand...

No offense taken but kindly point me int the direction of a 4K 60P integrated par-focal lens camera.....there is only one other on the market and its not very good and expensive.

Why is 4K 60P important you ask? In hockey, fast panning, slomo and cropping are important items. 4K 60P allows for better cropping options, slo-mo and allows for faster pans etc....The only other 4K 60P camera with an integrated parfocal lens is the HC-X1000, which I tried and it is not a camera I am interested in for the reasons stated earlier. Even if you take the Par-Focal lens performance out of the equation there are only 3 other 4K 60P integrated lenses on the market. All three use the same sensor and while the sensor is mush smaller it is not a very good sensor. One of the 3 cameras is close to $1000 more than the DVX200.

So there is your answer.
 
So after reading through many of the post here I got my hands on this controversial camera. Here is a quick example of what you can do with the V-Log and how this camera actually produces some really nice images.
Long time lurker so a little background on myself. I am not endorsed by Panasonic (although I would welcome the offer) and I primarily shoot on Canon's C100. I am used to working with Log footage and had no trouble grading this using Premier CC's new built in color tools. I did not use any LUT's. Stock PP6 with V-Log all handheld with OIS enabled. Shot at 1080 29.97fps at 50 mbps MOV.
 
tjt said:
I primarily shoot on Canon's C100. I am used to working with Log footage and had no trouble grading this using Premier CC's new built in color tools. I did not use any LUT's. Stock PP6 with V-Log all handheld with OIS enabled. Shot at 1080 29.97fps at 50 mbps MOV.
Click to expand...

Hi Tjt, nice footage. A question for an experienced C100 shooter: How does the DVX200 compared to it?
 
Bassman2003 said:
Great to hear. I know you are fond of this product Barry. I hope this color update does raise the camera to Panasonic's standards. So far this camera has represented a lot of "almost there" and missed opportunities to me. Regarding the yet to be announced feature, one thing that would sway me to a net positive on this camera is a 10bit 4:2:2 1080p recording option. They already own it and it is called AVC-Ultra. Just for 1080p and under, not 4k. Why put such great color controls only to record the footage with 8bit 4:2:0? Such a waste imho and more 'sumer than pro.
Click to expand...

I'm not holding my breath... especially since we don't know if AVC-Ultra is hardware based (at the very least, I've not read anything anywhere saying it isn't). That being said, if they managed to get 4:2:2 out of the existing codec on top of improving colors, I don't know how it won't be a huge seller for a while to come.
 
Greetings all
I have been reading in the manual that the max size of sd cards that the camera supports is 128 gb. Is that true? I was planing on two 256GB Professional 1000x UHS-II SDXC Memory Cards.
 
bluesgeek said:
Can we please get this added to the Nov 16 update?
Click to expand...
As a practical matter, I think there is no possibility that they could engineer and implement such a fix and test it properly within the amount of time left before the firmware is released. I have relayed your concerns on to the development team and hopefully they will be able to address it.

In the meantime, consider using SPEED instead of FINE. SPEED actually gives finer control than fine when moved slowly. Try it out, you should see it giving you more range than FINE does.
 
Mike Harvey said:
That being said, if they managed to get 4:2:2 out of the existing codec
Click to expand...
As far as I have been able to determine, there are hardware reasons why it will not be able to do 4:2:2 in the existing codec chip. Don't hold your breath on that one; the onboard codec recording is and always will be 4:2:0; if you need 4:2:2, the only way to get it is through an external recorder.
 
Barry_Green said:
As a practical matter, I think there is no possibility that they could engineer and implement such a fix and test it properly within the amount of time left before the firmware is released. I have relayed your concerns on to the development team and hopefully they will be able to address it.

In the meantime, consider using SPEED instead of FINE. SPEED actually gives finer control than fine when moved slowly. Try it out, you should see it giving you more range than FINE does.
Click to expand...

Thank you for following up. I understand about the development time... wishful thinking.

I tried SPEED but it seems to require a lot of attention to observing how fast the numbers are moving (too slow and the numbers don't change at all). Since I am only looking at the LCD or viewfinder about 5-10% of the time, both zoom and focus rings are mainly operated by feel (playing the instrument), with the occasional glance to monitor the status of framing and focus numbers.

Which brings to mind another suggestion. I find the thin font weight to be difficult to read, especially against light background. Again, the AC90 with its bolder font for display items is better for my use. Ideally, we would able to change that by preference.

I'd also like to have more control over what is displayed, depending on the type of shoot. For sports, I only want to see battery level, time remaining, audio levels, record status, and lens data... with the functionality to toggle other items without going into menu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top