Are these realistic expectations for an AF100 successor?

[joesiv]

Either from Panasonic, or another manufacturing in the coming couple years, for around $5k-$8k? I think this combination in a camera would really just be the pinacle of what I've always wanted a camera (for me) to be:
(snip)
What am I missing here? What do you guys want to see?

I think this is the problem, if manufacturers gave you everything you ever needed in a camera for 5k-8k, what else would you need to buy from them in the future? Where's the upgrade path? These aren't consumer devices, they will never sell in the same volume as an ipod, so there needs to be profit as well as a upgrade path to continued sales, or else companies won't have money to R&D newer gear.

It does sound like a dream camera though! And on the flip side coming from the photography side of things, often times a camera is released that "is everything photographers have ever wanted or needed" and "will never need to upgrade from this or that", and the new model comes out and offers features/updates that entices for another upgrade again... so maybe the future isn't so grim if they gave you everything you wanted, and sold it at next to cost!

 

[David W. Jones]

if manufacturers gave you everything you ever needed in a camera for 5k-8k, what else would you need to buy from them in the future?

As fast as technology is advancing I can imagine many new things appearing in the future.

Same holds true across many fields. For example, at one point in my life I was big into auto racing. But you could only campaign a car for so long before advancements in suspension geometry, chassis design, valve timing, fuel management, caught up with you. If you wanted to remain competitive, you needed to upgrade. Thank God I got that out of my system, if you think shooting professional video gets expensive, try owning a few race cars. Sorry, I digress.

At any rate, if you would like to add to the list of future features you would like to see on a replacement for the AF100 series of cameras, please post in the following thread link.

All the Best!

Dave

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?283222-3-things-for-an-AF-successor

 

[filmguy123]

Hi,

for the modularity of which you speak, that is not a $5000 camera. It is much more complicated than you think, and tus more expensive. The rest of your suggestions are maybe possible,
Jan

If modularity adds that much cost, it's not a big deal, since the only thing I was talking about having modular was the recording media so the user could choose. I would suggest just recording straight to SSD than (better bandwidth than SD cards, cheap price, ubiquitous & non-proprietary format). Which really does just leave 3 things:

1.) ProRes/RAW 12-bit 444 recording (mandates SSD recording)
2.) Better Screen (4.8" IPS 1920x1080)
3.) S35 Sensor (mandates different lens, hence the 35mm PL/Canon EF/Nikon mounting)

All features currently on AF100 is a given. The 4K/13 stops DR/VFR improvements all go hand-in-hand with the upgraded CPU/sensor circuitry.

I'll post this in the sticky.

A lot of what people are asking for seems like a much more expensive camera than the AF100 price point. For the next generation all I really want to see is more dynamic range (12 or so stops would be nice), a little sharper image, and a more robust internal codec like an implementation of AVC Ultra at 4:2:2 at 10bit to avoid banding.

A "much more expensive camera" based on what's on the market TODAY, not what's truly realistic and feasible in the coming 24 months. And that's all you want to see? Stop settling! That would be a super lame upgrade, and I'd jump ship in a second if that's all that was updated.

 

[filmguy123]

Also, in the sticky, I want to know why everyone is settling for a request of 10-bit 4:2:2 when the BMC camera is doing 12-bit RAW this June for $3k. That is just a COMPRESSION/bandwidth/processor issue, all of which with today's technology (and rapidly improving mobile tech) can be bypassed and sent straight to SSD at RAW recording! So why settle? This is very doable.

 

[filmguy123]

I think this is the problem, if manufacturers gave you everything you ever needed in a camera for 5k-8k, what else would you need to buy from them in the future? Where's the upgrade path? ... so maybe the future isn't so grim if they gave you everything you wanted, and sold it at next to cost!

I think like you said, there's ALWAYS something new/better coming out. The point would be a camera that finally hits all the requirements (honestly, inability to focus or judge accurate color on screen is a huge compromise, as is non-standard cinema sensor sizes (S35 is the current "normal" standard), as is HAVING recording to compression formats that limit your ability to work with an image in post, etc. etc.

This would finally give us a prosumer level DIGITAL cinema camera that does everything a cinema camera should. There would be plenty to entice future upgrades, icing on the cake type stuff that would make any filmmaker giddy (which is different than feeling like you are still living with major compromises in your tool). Like the Mark II to the Mark III - the Mark II really isn't compromising anywhere, you can shoot RAW, have a FF sensor, and all the features you really need to do pro DIGITAL photography... the Mark III makes everyone *want* to upgrade though (not need just to get rid of stupid limitations and compromises they've been living with). Killer ISO/low-light/auto-focus, sharper images, better ergos and controls, etc. Obviously the cinema world is more complicated and it's taking longer to get there, but it's getting time to arrive at a standard for prosumer cinema production, where the rest can be oo-la-la upgrades.

Giddy-inducing features whose lack wouldn't be a "compromise", but the presence would be an enticing upgrade:

* higher and higher VFR
* more and more DR
* increasing resolution
* larger sensors
* smarter software
* improved ISO
* faster autofocusing

etc.

There's ALWAYS a market for more upgrading, more lenses, more accessories, multiple cameras, cameras that broke, cameras that died, cameras that got old, etc.

 

[Mac]

you could only campaign a car for so long before advancements in suspension geometry, chassis design, valve timing, fuel management, caught up with you. If you wanted to remain competitive, you needed to upgrade. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?283222-3-things-for-an-AF-successor

Your analogy is a good one, but lacks a major consideration - I raced too (drags, off-road motorcycles, catamarans and windsurfers) and one thing all racing has in common is CLASSES. Not everyone tries to compete with the manufacturer-sponsored machines, and similarly, how many really expect that their film is ever going to exhibited in such a way as to take full advantage of the current technology, let alone the future's. Currently the best most of us can ever hope for is cable, Blu-Ray or Netflix streaming, and what we have now already surpasses that.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't dream big, I'm just saying that I don't believe the entire camera manufacturing business should be driven by the dream.. I think Panasonic should continue with MFT, make it a niche market - just improve the chip and dynamic range, both doable now - and maybe add P2...

Forgot to add, S35 is not THE industry standard, it is one industry standard, primarily for theatrical release, but if the film's compelling it could have been shot on a 1/3" camera..

 

[atarijedi]

4k and native 1080p/2k?

That doesn't make sense to me. Lets say it is a 4k S35 sensor, which is inbetween the sizes of APS-C and APS-H. That means native 2k would be like having a 1" sensor, close to the Nikon CX or 16mm.

Personally, I would rather have a S35 sensor, 2k, global shutter, high frame rate (up to 1000fps at 1080p), I know of at least 1 sensor which can pull this off.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Also, in the sticky, I want to know why everyone is settling for a request of 10-bit 4:2:2 when the BMC camera is doing 12-bit RAW this June for $3k.

Because RAW is not the end all be all, and I don't want to have to deal with it. That's a lot of hard drive space and color correction that I'm going need for projects that simply don't need it on budgets that can't afford it. RAW is great for higher end projects with the budgets to go with. But, I just got done with a project involving me shooting online bios for a 120 medical providers. The second phase is supposed to start this fall for an additional 350 specialists. The idea of doing all that in RAW for what the budget is makes my head hurt, as the headaches would far outweigh any advantages.

I rather like AVCHD for my needs. The option for AVC-LongG would be ridiculously fantastic for 95% of the users on here. Just because another camera is shoting RAW for $3k doesn't mean anything else is "settling", especially once you factor in everything that RAW involves.

 

[nothing]

Because RAW is not the end all be all, and I don't want to have to deal with it.

2nd that. I've shot extensively with the Alexa and I've never shot ArriRaw except in tests. When I own a Blackmagic later this year, I expect to shoot ProRes far more often than raw - in fact, it wouldn't be nearly as compelling a camera if it only shot raw.

(BTW, raw should not be all capital letters, it's not an acronym, it's just a word.)

 

[Mike Harvey]

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't dream big, I'm just saying that I don't believe the entire camera manufacturing business should be driven by the dream.. I think Panasonic should continue with MFT, make it a niche market - just improve the chip and dynamic range, both doable now - and maybe add P2...

Forgot to add, S35 is not THE industry standard, it is one industry standard, primarily for theatrical release, but if the film's compelling it could have been shot on a 1/3" camera..

I agree, m4/3 is great for a camera in this price range because it gives you most of what an S35 sensor gives you, but with more lens options, and native glass is cheaper and smaller... perfect for a ~$5k camera.

 

[Mike Harvey]

(BTW, raw should not be all capital letters, it's not an acronym, it's just a word.)

Nitpicky, nitpicky, nitpicky

 

[atarijedi]

The major issues is the data capture from the image sensor, which at 4k 12bit raw could be upwards of 20MB/frame. If you want to hit 60fps, that is 1.2GB/sec, and then processing it (debayer, possible encoding).

Suffice it to say, they don't use general purpose processors like what you would find in an iPad for these steps. I don't think they could handle it yet.

Companies today use an FPGA for prototyping, and then for the final product, move to an ASIC, which is similar to an FPGA, but it is trimmed down to the specific application. Actually, they probably use multiple ASICs for different things. One for capture and debayering, one for encoding, one for output to things like HDSDI, HDMI, LCD. Then they probably also have a GP microcontroller/microprocessor to control it all, and do the proper routing and such.

 

[filmguy123]

one thing all racing has in common is CLASSES

Forgot to add, S35 is not THE industry standard, it is one industry standard, primarily for theatrical release, but if the film's compelling it could have been shot on a 1/3" camera..

Ah but if you race, you also know that tech keeps improving and the classes today look very different than 20 years ago. I raced motorcycles, and I know that in 2007 a 600cc was faster and more capable of what a 1000c could do in 1997. Hence the 2007 600cc class was the equivalent of the 1997 1000c class. And in 2007/2008 they started introducing technology to throttle the 1000cc bikes because they were too much to handle! The GXR-1000s have switches on them to tone down the engine!

Also, you are right about "the" industry standard and a great film on a 1/3 chip. That wasn't the point so much as to say the VAST majority of theatrical and commercial releases are shot on s35. For professional theatrical/commercial/music videos, s35 is the standard/preferred format and what many filmmakers are after, since many want their work to have the same aesthetic as the majority of professional cinema/tv productions that people watch.

Because RAW is not the end all be all, and I don't want to have to deal with it. That's a lot of hard drive space and color correction that I'm going need for projects that simply don't need it on budgets that can't afford it....

I rather like AVCHD for my needs.... shoting RAW for $3k doesn't mean anything else is "settling", especially once you factor in everything that RAW involves.

OK, but I think you are missing the point. A camera capable of shooting 12-bit Raw and ProRes 4:4:4 doesn't mandate that you have to use that mode, it just means its capable. I specifically said "with options for AVCHD, AVCIntra, etc." Point being, you could select the format that best fits your needs, but Raw or ProRes is there for when you need it (this would be huge for music videos, short films, nature shots, lowlight, etc. Since recording Raw is and will be very doable, I don't see why we should settle for a spec that doesn't deliver that option, especially since its now being done in a $3k camera. it is merely a CPU/bandwidth issue (in fact, mostly all bandwidth, as it takes far more CPU to encode to AVC on the fly). It really shouldn't add much cost at all, or detract from any other features. Bandwidth of that magnitude is the norm nowadays. The real question here is not if it's feasible at a decent price, it clearly is, it's merely if Panasonic cares about the customer enough to not FORCE us to use their AVC formats. And I'm saying that as one who really does love and respect their AVC formats, I would use it all the time for event coverage. But I don't want to HAVE to use it when I'm trying to maximize my flexibility in post or shoot a music video or a special FX piece, etc.

The major issues is the data capture from the image sensor, which at 4k 12bit raw could be upwards of 20MB/frame. If you want to hit 60fps, that is 1.2GB/sec, and then processing it (debayer, possible encoding).

Suffice it to say, they don't use general purpose processors like what you would find in an iPad for these steps. I don't think they could handle it yet.

True, RAW recording would likely be limited to 24fps/30fps recording, with options for 60fps+ in ProRes and AVC.

And absolutely, I don't mean to suggest they should throw in a general purpose mobile ARM chip like seen in the iPad or what not. My point with that was to say that even dirt cheap, general purpose, low power consumer grade CPUs are getting remarkably competent. In fact, by next year we'll be seeing faster ARM chips, plus in quad-core configs, with even faster graphics, in devices that cost only a couple hundred dollars. These chips are already handling 1080p with electronic stabilization encoded to H264 on the fly without breaking a sweat. No doubt that ASICs specifically engineered for high end professional use, with access to far more power, should be able to outdo what these chips are doing in low cost consumer devices. I don't see any reason why in the next couple years there shouldn't be cost effective solutions for higher FPS AVC/ProRes encoding, and bandwidth for 12-bit RAW at affordable price points.

The real added cost comes down to the 1920x1080 LCD display at 4.8" (but this is already available TODAY): http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/the-worlds-smal-2.php

And to the s35 sensor (which we are already seeing today, sub $8k).

Enhanced DR & modern tech allowing for high bandwidth Raw/ProRes recording is already seen today in the BMC camera for $3k

I see no reason why by 2014 this can't all be rolled into a sub $8k product, and with relative ease. In fact, I don't see how it CAN'T be with all the competition on the market.

 

[filmguy123]

So, for all the people who say these specs are impossible at this price point, IN A YEAR FROM NOW, even after explaining the current state of mobile technology in terms or processors, bandwidth, bottlenecks, etc.

Thoughts on the new GoPro 3 Black Edition? This camera does 2.7k @ 30fps, 120fps 720p, in a TINY form factor where heat dissipation is a huge factor. Factoring in all the other elements of the GoPro (R&D, marketing, lenses, batteries, casing, etc.) and a profit margin we can say that the actual processor and hardware for recording these resolutions at these frame rates cost to manufacture must be very low.

The 1080p LCDs are becoming increasingly common, there are already phones out with this:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/17/...campaign=Feed:+weblogsinc/engadget+(Engadget)

13 stops of DR in the blackmagic cameras

Processor + LCD resolution can't be worth more than $500 at cost to manufacture tops
Blackmagic has produced an awful lot for a small camera company at $3k (camera body, lens mount, interfacing, productions costs, etc.) and they don't have the same manufacturing capability as a company like Panny

We know a profitable camera like the AF100 could be made years ago for $5k with ND filters, XLR, etc.

And S35 sensors can be made in camera bodies like the 7D-5D for under $2k with great ease.

Bigger sensors don't require more CPU power or bandwidth to move a codec at a given resolution/frame-rate through a pipeline, and smartphone displays KILL what we get native on cameras nowadays (yes, I am factorting in unsubsidized prices - FYI iPhone 5 cost to build is $202, in mass quantity, granted).

But the point is, an S35 camera that shoots 120fps with a 5 inch 1080p native LCD and built in WiFi and all features of AF100 should certainly be possible @ a 5K price point. It's getting embarrassing when $400 pocket size cameras are shooting high res/frame rates than our $5K production cameras. Stick that CPU power inside an AF100 and we could be shooting the same FPS (well, MORE - heat and space concerns aren't nearly as big of a concern).

Oh - and codec features are just software. A choice between ProRes, AVC Intra, AVCHD, DVCPRO, etc. should be standard in every camera firmware. It's pure profit games to software lock features to more expensive cameras. Good business, sure, but unnecessary and it won't sustain as more small rebel spring up.

I don't care what how much these features cost 10 years, camera companies seem to hold that over our heads to distract from the fact that the march of technology has made the history of what cameras cost in the past completely irrelevant.

Don't settle with your expectations for future cameras. Panny should be able to release an S35 camera that blows the FS700 out of the water for sub $5k within a year, easily.

I also look forward to the day this proprietary overpriced crap stops. I silenced a Sony rep the other day when he was telling me what a great deal it was to get a 128gb SSD for the FS700 for only $750 because for that price you get XXXX amount of recording on a super fast medium! And I said "or a terrible deal since I can get a 128gb SSD off newegg for $90. Why do you treat the customers like crap by forcing us to use your proprietary Sony casing when we know you just stick a $90 SSD that you didn't manufacture inside the shell anyway? Do you not think a $660 markup is slightly excessive?"

I hope the days where customers will put up with this are soon to be over, and I hope Panny leads the charge.

 

[morgan_moore]

I think people should look at stills cameras to extrapolate a development curve.

Then: Kodak proback 16mp raw $15g, 200 ISO
Now: Sony 5nex5n 16mp raw 800ISO, $0.5g

Then: Kodak arrogant.
Now: Kodak. Bust (basically).

I think a camera 2 to 3 times the price of the BMC can and will be very good and hopefully soon

S

 

[Mac]

PLEASE not another S35 sensor - there are already too many awkward cameras out there that are limited by lens choices, we don't need another one. Not everyone shoots on a tripod or dolly - documentaries (as well as many other genres) require a light camera with manageable lenses (like fast zooms) and pro features - form factor, NDs and XLRs for three. The Black Magic, which unfortunately lacks those things and is stupidly designed, has a smaller sensor and look at the pictures it produces.

All of the improved processor, LCD, codec and dynamic range requests are relevant, but my request would be keep the box the way it is - so we can use what we've accumulated - but upgrade the insides - that would be affordable and keep the price where it should be. But please Panasonic, don't fall for this pointless S35 fad. The AF100 is unique - keep it that way but improve it!

 

[Mike Harvey]

*Everything* Mac said. I'll have sunk just over $3k into the new m4/3 zooms by year's end... I'd like for them to not be worthless the instant I one day sell the AF100 (which won't be anytime soon). Besides, the fact I can get good quality fast zooms (finally) for less than S35 or full frame is a huge selling point. I would wager S35 offers zero advantage over m4/3 for most users of the AF100. For some? Sure. But how many, realistically? I know I would get no practical benefit.

Regarding codec... AVC-Intra and AVCHD are industry standards. Every NLE worth beans made in the last 4 years can use them. There is limited practical use for ProRes, given how many folks edit on PC's... and if you're on a Mac, including ProRes and AVC-Intra is just redundant. Since Panasonic would no doubt have to pay a licensing fee to incorporate ProRes, seems kinda pointless when their own codecs can be used everywhere and by everyone, and are every bit as good.

And DVC-Pro just isn't as efficient or as high quality as AVC-Intra at similar bitrates. It's still good... but again, why bother with the redundancy?

You're right, Filmguy... it is a profit game. But that's the point of Panasonic's existence... to make make a profit.

 

[TheDingo]

But the point is, an S35 camera that shoots 120fps with a 5 inch 1080p native LCD and built in WiFi and all features of AF100 should certainly be possible @ a 5K price point

...Eventually this will happen, but I honestly think we are at least 5 years away from this becoming a reality.

If it was as easy as you think it is, we would already have several cameras like this on the market, but we don't because the technology and costs aren`t there yet.

Even a 5 inch 1080p phone display will translate to a starting price of $1,500 for a real video production monitor.

 

[Mike Harvey]

I think a good analogy for the S35 argument is that it's like arguing and demanding Coke to change it's recipe to taste more like Pepsi. Wouldn't it be easier to just go by a Pepsi, as it were?

 

[KyleProhaska]

I love how everybody just sees what another company has done like BMC and goes "well that means all other companies should do things that way and at that price." The GoPro has 4K now, so what? Is the GoPro a cinema camera? Is it designed for typical video production work? No. It's not like companies like Panasonic can just sit around at a computer and punch in specs and out pops a new camera with all the goodies at $3k with BMC DR, internal ND's, all the processing power needed to pump out 60p or 120p or more, great ergonomics, a 1080p LCD, all the professional outputs like HDMI and HDSDI, RAW, or whatever else people want. It costs money to develop new hardware and software, design the camera, pay your staff, cover your overhead overall, etc. let alone pay for the components inside once you figure out what it needs and how it all needs to work together.

There's a business ignorance here that's exhausting. I don't necessarily mean in this thread only but it's a mentality floating around the internet the last few years as things have gotten better and cheaper very quickly. Apparently it's a piece of cake to develop a bombshell camera, and cheap?

*sigh*