Brand New Panasonic AJ-HPX2700 for $19.5k?!?

[Christian m]

That's odd, since 720p converts to 480i or 1080i quite easily with todays technology. Shouldn't cost anymore than SD aquisition (in either time, equipment or money).

On the production side, HD lens, camera and the odd high speed for effects will cost X % more to rent or buy, just take a look at what a high end SD lens Vs. HD costs... Post production require more storage and time when finishing or more expensive gear to do...in order to save time(and maybe also a bit more time as every damn flaw in say an effect shows up in HD..). Also TG has a studio segment that would need a HD truck, which also cost a lot more than SD. Just a HD studio camera cost 3-4 times of what SD gear do...

What? These are definetly the same market. I am sure so
one considering the 2700 would get the 350.

350 sounds like an amazing animal! We are talking f900 quality for very low price!

When did a Cmos based, 4:2:0 xdcam 35mbit camera get close to the F900?!

Ofcourse real life performance counts more than specs, but some specs such as color space...well, specs are all you need.

 

[puredrifting]

Two different cams at opposite end of the spectrum. Codec and lens will be the biggest differences. I am sure that the Fujinon lens on the 350 is decent but how much can it be worth, $3 or $4k tops? If I bought a 2700, I would allocate a minimum of $12-20k for glass.

The other difference is that the 35mbps long GOP XDCAM EX codec is not in the same league as AVCINTRA 100 that the 2700 shoots. I have edited both codecs and AVCINTRA is superior. And I hate long GOP codecs, that is total old school technology that Sony insists on propigating. Talk to any computer/video engineer and pit the two codecs against each other and you will see that there is no comparison.

Nothing against the 350, it looks to be a Peach. If I sell a show, I will seriously consider it, it is probably a better camera than the 300/500. If you need to be under $19k including glass, it seems to be the front runner.

Sony always seems to get a free pass from broadcasters as far as codecs. Broadcasters used to hate long GOP 4:2:0 codecs but it seems as if Sony makes them all happy with the 2/3" imager, decent lens and the Sony rep.

Dan

 

[PDR]

The other difference is the HPX2700 is a 720p camera, upscaled internally. (along with vertical aliasing...)

There is no question that the 35Mbps MPEG2 would be inferior to AVCINTRA 100. But the 350 with nanoflash might proove interesting with 220/160 Mbps I-frame 4:2:2 MPEG2 (or choice of 100/160 long GOP )

If the lens isn't performing, couldn't you replace it with a better one on the 350? The press release mentioned 2 packages, one with the fujinon lens and one without

I was hoping Emre would provide his opinions and testing results, since he has tested all of these (except the 350)...

 

[dadoboy]

Too much credit is given to cameras like the F900/F900R which shoot 4:2:2.
The codec for HDCAM, may record 4:2:2 but it's over 10 years old. Betacam SP recorded in 4:2:2 but that doesn't say very much about the system behind it.
The chips and technology in the 350 are going to be better in many respects than those used in the F900 / F900R, probably better in low light.
It's the same principle, the newest and latest cheaper cameras often cannibalizes market share from older, more expensive legacy systems.

For those obsessive compuslives that want to compensate for the 4:2:0 by using Nanoflash, you're creating a lot more work for your camera crew and for yourself by recording at such a high data rate, for very little or no gain. Unless it's just for green screen studio work, I would not bother with it, especially not for run and gun time pressure shooting.

As for the 2700 vs the 350, yes the 2700 is in a different league because of it's rich specifications, but the 350 might have some real advantages. Sony's imagers are just extraordinary. Why don't we wait until it gets released and maybe someone at a rental place like Barry Green can do an in depth comparison between the two?

 

[Bassman2003]

For those obsessive compuslives that want to compensate for the 4:2:0 by using Nanoflash, you're creating a lot more work for your camera crew and for yourself by recording at such a high data rate, for very little or no gain. Unless it's just for green screen studio work, I would not bother with it, especially not for run and gun time pressure shooting.

I don't understand the nature of this comment.

On one hand an argument is saying the PMW-350 is lesser because of its 4:2:0 recording and on the other hand a better recording method is called obsessive compulsive?

More work for the Nanoflash high bitrate?

I can edit 100mbps long gop footage from my Nanoflash straight from the USB card reader.

One might like Panasonic over Sony, but I still don't see a huge difference between the specs of these two 2/3" HD camera bodies. Put the same lens on both and I don't think the end result would be that different after setup.

 

[zeke]

Two different cams at opposite end of the spectrum. Codec and lens will be the biggest differences. I am sure that the Fujinon lens on the 350 is decent but how much can it be worth, $3 or $4k tops? If I bought a 2700, I would allocate a minimum of $12-20k for glass.

The other difference is that the 35mbps long GOP XDCAM EX codec is not in the same league as AVCINTRA 100 that the 2700 shoots. I have edited both codecs and AVCINTRA is superior. And I hate long GOP codecs, that is total old school technology that Sony insists on propigating. Talk to any computer/video engineer and pit the two codecs against each other and you will see that there is no comparison.

Nothing against the 350, it looks to be a Peach. If I sell a show, I will seriously consider it, it is probably a better camera than the 300/500. If you need to be under $19k including glass, it seems to be the front runner.

Sony always seems to get a free pass from broadcasters as far as codecs. Broadcasters used to hate long GOP 4:2:0 codecs but it seems as if Sony makes them all happy with the 2/3" imager, decent lens and the Sony rep.

Dan

I would never consider using the 35mb codec for feature work. Would rather hook up to a KiPro,IO HD, or a NanoFlash depending on workflow.

 

[puredrifting]

If the lens isn't performing, couldn't you replace it with a better one on the 350? The press release mentioned 2 packages, one with the fujinon lens and one without

Yeah, but then you lose autofocus ;-) Imagine, a 2/3" broadcast camera with autofocus.

D

 

[puredrifting]

I don't think that ENG cameras are the optimal setup for feature type of shooting anyway. I was strictly basing my comments off of TV production. If I was shooting a feature, I would probably rent something made to shoot features like a Viper or F35, rather than buying an ENG camera. In this economy, there are some amazing rental deals out there.

Dan

 

[dadoboy]

Sorry for the off-hand remark.
I personally have not been in a situation where I felt recording to Nanoflash for that extra information, and having an AC download the additional set of CF cards for editing later, was really worth it for a difference I can hardly see.
If it is appropriate for you and your uses, okay, there must be a reason.

I don't understand the nature of this comment.

On one hand an argument is saying the PMW-350 is lesser because of its 4:2:0 recording and on the other hand a better recording method is called obsessive compulsive?

More work for the Nanoflash high bitrate?

I can edit 100mbps long gop footage from my Nanoflash straight from the USB card reader.

One might like Panasonic over Sony, but I still don't see a huge difference between the specs of these two 2/3" HD camera bodies. Put the same lens on both and I don't think the end result would be that different after setup.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Too much credit is given to cameras like the F900/F900R which shoot 4:2:2.
The codec for HDCAM, may record 4:2:2 but it's over 10 years old.

HDCAM is NOT 4:2:2.

It is a 8-bit DCT compressed 3:1:1 codec.

 

[Nik Manning]

I think this camera is just what the nanoflash needed to really skyrocket into everyday professional use. The 350+nanoflash will almost certainly give you better image that the f900 to hdcam. So in theory you could shoot some serious starwars movies on this bad boy. I really think that 35mb is better for news. 1/3 less data than AVCIntra. This cam is going to be a game changer if it is under 18k with lens. I can see alot of made for tv movies shot on this bad boy!

FYI just heard dollhouse shots on HPX3700. Looks amazing!

Where can I get info about projects shot on the 2700?

 

[Bassman2003]

Sorry for the off-hand remark.
I personally have not been in a situation where I felt recording to Nanoflash for that extra information, and having an AC download the additional set of CF cards for editing later, was really worth it for a difference I can hardly see.
If it is appropriate for you and your uses, okay, there must be a reason.

No worries, but are saying that the EX codec is fine for the new 2/3" chip camera and is not a liability?

Because most folks here think the codec/bitrate is the worst part of the Sony cameras.

Up until today, the Nano was a better investment than a lot of SxS cards.

 

[Barry_Green]

Too much credit is given to cameras like the F900/F900R which shoot 4:2:2.
The codec for HDCAM, may record 4:2:2 but it's over 10 years old.

They don't. HDCAM is 3:1:1, not 4:2:2.

Betacam SP recorded in 4:2:2 but that doesn't say very much about the system behind it.

No it didn't. Betacam SP was analog, 4:2:2 is a digital notation. BetaSP was maybe an analog equivalent of 3:1:1, but it wasn't as good as 4:2:2.

 

[Barry_Green]

On one hand an argument is saying the PMW-350 is lesser because of its 4:2:0 recording and on the other hand a better recording method is called obsessive compulsive?

I don't quite get it either, but mainly I'm surprised that they stuck with 35mbps when they already have a 4:2:2 50mbps version. It automatically disqualifies it from HD production for the BBC, for example, because they specify that no long-GoP codec under 50mbps is acceptable as HD. They've got the codec, they've already released products with it (PDW700 and PDW800), so... why not here too?

Perhaps they're drawing a line between the low-cost 2/3" (35mbps and CMOS) and the high-cost 2/3" (50mbps/4:2:2 and CCD)? I don't quite understand them.

More work for the Nanoflash high bitrate?

He said more work for the crew, dealing with a separate recorder, wrangling cards at a 3x faster rate, cables & batteries, etc is likely what he meant.

One might like Panasonic over Sony, but I still don't see a huge difference between the specs of these two 2/3" HD camera bodies. Put the same lens on both and I don't think the end result would be that different after setup.

I think a 10-bit, intraframe, 4:2:2 AVC codec is going to make a pretty significant difference over an 8-bit, long-GoP, 4:2:0 MPEG-2 codec. Plus, we don't know what other things may differ; if they're indeed trying to position the memory-card recording units as "lesser" than the disc-based units, there may be compromises that we're not aware of yet. I don't know of any, I'm just pointing out that we don't really know anything about the 350 yet.

 

[Bassman2003]

True, any compromises are yet to be known.

But to your point on a other post Barry, the main compromises I can see are being made by the "meany" manufacturers.

These two cameras offer some monumental shifts in their businesses.

And while they have decimated a lot of value for existing customers, I applaud them for trying to me nimble.

 

[dadoboy]

If I'm shooting with an EX1/EX3 for budgetary reasons, the codec is usually the least of my worries. It's usually lighting budget and limitations on crew and schedule that stress me out and keep me up at night, and awful looking sets. Also, I'm not an editor so I don't really deal with the limitations of any codec in post. All I'm saying is what I've seen on monitors.

I know a lot of people here love panasonic, and I've shot with the Varicam DVCPRO HD a lot, but not the 2700. But I've always preferred the Sony F900 and F900R to the old Varicam because of the imagers and also because of the deeper tweaks you can do to the Cinealta camera settings. So I want to give the 350 a big leap of faith based on past experience, and my regard for Sony Cinealta lines.

Is the EX code a liability on 2/3"? Sure, it's gotta be a weak point. But I think the images you get with the 350 recorded onto EX1 mp4 will still be incredible, and *better* in many ways than the F900, which I've shot a lot but I realize it's chips haven't gone through major revisions in like 10 years now, except for the F950/F23/F35 which is not what we're comparing the 350 to.

I'm a big dvxuser geek who loves charts and lens errata, but I get a big wake up call on reality when I start prepping a shoot.
I know why people might put NanoFlash onto their 350's, but it's something I personally would never push for from production. I would rather spend the $$ and care on a bigger lighting package or more crew - stuff where I would really see a difference. I'm look forward to renting one out, and renting a 2700 too. Low prices mean low rents!

No worries, but are saying that the EX codec is fine for the new 2/3" chip camera and is not a liability?

Because most folks here think the codec/bitrate is the worst part of the Sony cameras.

Up until today, the Nano was a better investment than a lot of SxS cards.

 

[Bassman2003]

I agree.

In some ways, this era is kind of the last hurrah for image quality improvement. We are getting closer to the threshold of comfortable human perception of displayed detail.

I see wide shots on some NFL broadcasts that look like the same level of detail as human vision, as I would see across the stadium if I were there.

Sure images can always look better, but from a finacial perspective, it will not be worth chasing after the dimishing returns in improvements.

 

[zeke]

I agree with the others on the codec. What are they thinking? Is it a true pro camera or an overpriced prosumer camera? The fact that everyone (including myself) immediately sees the need for external recording accesories is going to be the products achiles heel.
btw, the nanoflash records 8bit 4:2:2, not 4:2:0.

 

[puredrifting]

Well, at least they didn't invent a new codec/format this week like they do the other 51 weeks of the year ;-)

I too prefer Panasonic cameras over Sony generally but as I go through the television development process, I must say, generally you encounter less resistance if you tell studios and networks that you are shooting with Sony cameras. P2, while my favorite format, is very unknown to studios and people at the networks. Now keep in mind I am not talking about news organizations, I am talking programming execs. But when you say you are going to shoot on a Sony camera, nobody bats an eye, unless it is a low end one like an EX1 or EX3.

I must say that I do see a gap in the Panny line that this Sony is hitting. I want a 2/3" HPX300, I would be in seventh heaven with that. Under $18k WITH a decent lens with CAC function, AVC INTRA100, at least four P2 slots, etc. The 2700 is just amazing but as discussed earlier, realistically about $40k to $50k minimum with really good glass, a really good tripod and Anton Bauer battery setup.

The HPX300 will be precluded from many delivery specs, only because it is 1/3".
The HPX500, while still a viable camera, is looking a bit last generation technology and the VF makes it a no go for me, my vision is getting worse as it is, I can't live with the handicap of an SD viewfinder when shooting HD.

Or possibly a used HPX2000 with the AVC-I board will do the trick? I have seen the bodies used lately for $12k to $14k. Sony is almost hitting that sweet spot with the 350 but I agree, the codec will be a deal breaker for BBC shooters and some other networks will not accept the footage possibly. We really need an HPX600 for low end cable programming. Oh yeah, MUST have VFR too and a great HD VF and the HPX300 LCOS flip out. That would be incredible and Panasonic could own that market again.

Dan

 

[dadoboy]

Right, that's why Sony can still sell the venerable F900 (updated in F900R) for something like $50K. The HDCAM and HDCAM SR workflow is familiar to networks.

I too prefer Panasonic cameras over Sony generally but as I go through the television development process, I must say, generally you encounter less resistance if you tell studios and networks that you are shooting with Sony cameras. P2, while my favorite format, is very unknown to studios and people at the networks. Now keep in mind I am not talking about news organizations, I am talking programming execs. But when you say you are going to shoot on a Sony camera, nobody bats an eye, unless it is a low end one like an EX1 or EX3.