What do your clients want that you cannot currently give them?
Dear Panasonic : An Open Letter
- Thread starter LuckyStudio 13
- Start date
What do your clients want that you cannot currently give them?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, it's too much to ask on a large sensor camera. Search around, you won't find one anywhere. Zooms on cine-sensor-sized cameras are manual and they're astronomically expensive.
Yes. All cameras in this price bracket, or anywhere near it, are 4:2:0 (excepting the HPX250). Even the $14,000 Sony F3 is 8-bit 4:2:0.
If you want 4:2:2 you can get that through an external recorder. For $5500 you can have an 8-bit 4:2:2 system. The Canon C300 at $16k-$20k is 8-bit 4:2:2.
If you want 10-bit with a large sensor, there's the Alexa... otherwise, you'd have to use an external recorder. The F3 can get you 10-bit 4:2:2 when using an external recorder, so you're looking at a minimum of $15,000 for that setup.
In what way? If you're using a follow focus on a stills lens, it will be exactly the same as any other camera on earth when using a stills lens (IMO, kind of clumsy, as stills lenses aren't designed for that). If using a cine lens, it'll be exactly the same as any other camera on earth using a cine lens (including a 535 or an Alexa).
Don't know what to say there... color in the display looks reasonably accurate to me. Can't imagine what you were encountering, unless someone had maladjusted the display settings.
Point taken. It is rather colorful.
i cut my teeth on pro-sumer cameras, and i always groaned when i heard old dogs bitching about learning new cameras. but the AF100 doesn't scream "workhorse" to me.[/QUOTE]
Barry_Green
Moderator
Does an external recorder not bridge that gap?
G
Guest
Guest
mjmcneese
Veteran
No
Perhaps I'm talking about more features than just purely the codec. And, I'm not going to get into the whole 8-bit versus 10-bit thing again.
I don't wanna put words in Isaac's mouth, but we've heard the argument again and again that having better highlight handling, or more sensor size, or 10-bit output is going to make your non-existent feature film any better. I agree with that.
I'm only rhetorically mentioning that some of us are counting on our equipment to make us a living. While some blown highlights aren't going to make or break a narrative film project, they could really cause some headaches when a client is asking why the blonde lady's hair is whitish-magenta when she's standing in the sun.
I realize I'm talking more generally than codecs...I just sort of interjected here to say that my tools pay my bills. So, some of these nitpicky things that others are wishing for are more than niceties serving as excuses for why they haven't "made it" as a filmmaker.
Last edited:
mjmcneese
Veteran
Lost data in highlights has hurt me, so that's a big one. Higher data rates for the purpose of post processing would have helped me in several situations. Less video-ish sharpness and detail. More dynamic range. Higher frame rates would have saved me from renting another's camera on one occasion.
MPB
Well-known member
you certainly do find them. some are quite expensive, some certainly are not in the "astronomical" range. but are we talking about what you want to spend, or what i would?
i'm not sure what you're saying. that certain features cost more? ok.
it's a still lens. and not a very appealing one. see above.
i'm not sure if you read my earlier posts, leading up to this point. we seem to be losing some context.
you don't have say anything.
i'm glad that you're pleased with it. i wasn't. not sure what to say....
if you find it easy to work with, that doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. but to me, a "workhorse" is a camera that i can have attached to my shoulder, glued to my eye, for 12 hours a day, quickly focus, iris and zoom without having to change my grip, with reasonable certainty in the results, without having to buy an erector set to cobble it all together.
folks keep referencing the short-comings of other solutions as if we ought to be happy with franken-cameras because they aren't as bad as they might be. after a while it begins to sound like one of those Monty Python Four Yorkshiremen skits. the point is, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. put the damn camera on your shoulder so the big fat zoom lens isn't two feet in front of you, put the eyepiece in the appropriate position (NOT at the back of the camera), put all the controls where they normally are on a video camera...
what am i missing? maybe it takes more money (which i've said i'll pay) to make a video camera this way. all that R&D, they might have to open their own pro catalogues from a few years back instead of trying to improve on the modular/dslr paradigm.
i still don't geddit.
Seems to me you're describing an ENG camera and eng cameras never had a cine style chips in them. And all cine style chip and film cameras are frankenrigs that have to be built up. They were designed for a 2 person operation not for quick focus solo shooting, even if most of us attempt it anyway, because
its difficult. Cine style is not eng style thats why you don't get it.
MPB
Well-known member
does it cost an extra $2k? that's such a precise figure.
i don't get the argument made there, except that consumer solutions are better. because they're cheaper. ok. sell the cheap cameras. make mine the one that costs $2k more, please. i'll spend at least that much on a proper viewer and the machined aluminum to attach it (poorly) to my inexpensive camera.
i understand there's a pro-sumer market. i'm saying, there's also a professional market that is willing to pay more not to have to come up with make-shift solutions and fixes.
i am describing an eng type of camera. with a new chip.
all of the elements exist. the lenses, the chips, the bodies, the design, the recorders... in the past, all these items were integrated. i don't see why modern solid state recording devices (with speeds and codecs) can't be integrated into a camera. but let's just say... they can't. make them dockable.
Barry_Green
Moderator
An ENG-style lens on a large-sensor camera? Where?
No, what I'm saying is 10-bit doesn't exist in camcorders at all. Everyone seems so demanding about 10-bit, but I'm pointing out that other than the HPX250, there isn't a 10-bit camcorder anywhere. You'd have to go to either AVC-Intra or a Red Scarlet to get 10-bit. People act like it's commonplace, when it's really rarer than hen's teeth in the actual world. Canon doesn't make any 10-bit cameras at all. Neither does JVC. Neither does Sony -- at least, until you get up to HDCAM SR. Panasonic's the only one making 10-bit cameras, and they make a grand total of two that are priced under $20,000. Of course, part of this thread (or at least my participation in it) has been to ask them to bring that number up to three (put an AF100 sensor in the HPX250 body and voila).
It's not that 10-bit isn't desirable, of course it is. But it's so far proven to be pretty unrealistic. We hear about 10-bit all the time, all I can say is "where?" It just isn't out there. Even Canon's new $20,000 C300 is 8-bit, including 8-bit on the SDI output.
Neither do most of us. We all asked them for that. We told them to make it like an Aaton Prod. Every one of us who was in the design roundtables told them we wanted the viewfinder up front. But, that's not what they made. They made a handycam with the viewfinder at the back... not necessarily the worst thing in the world, but not the film-shooting camera we were asking for. Maybe next time...
Barry_Green
Moderator
I'm not talking about either of us, I'm talking about in context with a $5k to $6k body. When the Zeiss LWZ is $45,000 and even an inexpensive Angenieux Optimo DP is $20,000, those are astronomical in comparison to a ~$5,500 camera body. They're downright cheap in context with an $80,000 Alexa body, of course, but in this thread we're talking about an under-$8k body, and it seems reasonable to think that spending 3x to 6x that much on glass alone would fit the term "astronomical", doesn't it?
And none of those are ENG-style lenses, they're cinema zooms. ENG (at least to me) means a fast focusing ring and a servo zoom, and no, those don't exist for a large-sensor camera. Largest you'll find is 2/3", and the AF100's sensor is about 4x larger than 2/3" already.
Barry_Green
Moderator
But that's the problem -- all of the elements don't exist. The ENG-style lens simply does not exist, that can cover the larger chip.
The closest you're going to find to a large chip with an ENG lens is the F3 with its new 14x power zoom. So I guess Sony could make the camera you want, using that lens, but they'd have to come up with a front-mounted viewfinder and a decent codec (right now the only 10-bit codec they have is HDCAM SR, and that isn't inexpensive).
MPB
Well-known member
sony just made one for the f3. and it's not as if there aren't plenty of s35 or larger zooms.
i'd be happy with a higher bit rate on board. but again, if it's possible to manufacture a recorder that takes a 10 bit signal from an sdi spigot, it's possible to make a dockable recorder. nez pas?
my hat is off to you, sir.
MPB
Well-known member
it needn't weight a ton. for a mere $12k sony is selling one now.
the advantage? to me? vérité.
MPB
Well-known member
excellent point about the sr recorder.
tape? ok.
following along, to the next logical step....
Barry_Green
Moderator
I mentioned the Sony lens in a prior post, but at f/3.8 on the wide and f/6 on the tele, it's not likely to be viewed as a direct replacement for a lot of ENG glass and you might even likely get shallower DOF off a 2/3" camera with a fast lens. There's about a 2.5-stop difference in DOF from 2/3" to S35, so f/6 on the Sony is about the same as f/2.8 on a 2/3" camera, and f/2.8 isn't too hard to find in ENG lenses, so I wonder if you'd really see any benefit over a 2/3" camera for ENG use?
I found the Sony lens and boy is it big. ( but not too heavy at 2.25 Kg )
Sony SCL-Z18x140 18-252 mm Zoom
Sony SCL-Z18x140 18-252 mm Zoom