DSLR decision for "creative" work

[PerroneFord]

Allow me to re-quote you with a slight modification that represents my viewpoint on the issue:

mmmhhmmm...

One company trying to patch a consumer DSLR into making it somewhat more appropriate doing a professional video job... the other company starting from the ground up to build a dedicated digital cinema camera the right way, not needing any patching. I know which way I'm leaning!

There is absolutely ZERO about the GH1 that is digital cinema. Handheld video camera from the ground up? Yes. Digital Cinema. No. Neither of these cameras are digital cinema, but at least the Canon's let you monitor the signal. And odd you mention the phrase, "not needing any patching", because a patch NOT FROM PANASONIC, is exactly the reason we are even having this conversation.

Also, this whole thing about Canon and how fast they work, has always puzzled me. The difference between the two companies is night and day. Panasonic always produces the best products with today's technology. Canon produces the best products with yesterday's technology. As an example, look at the XF300. Wow, a 1/3" camcorder that records to solid state memory with variable frame rates and a 4:2:2 codec. Where have we heard of that before? Oh yeah, the HVX200, introduced FIVE YEARS EARLIER. Five years. I mean, sure, congrats to Canon for coming out with something, but -- seriously, five years later? And yes it has a sharper image and less noise, but ... five YEARS later? And now that even Sony has started to migrate to H.264, Canon decides now's the time to introduce MPEG-2? And while Panasonic's moving on to SDXC in the AF100, Canon goes with CompactFlash?

Let's not confuse things here. Canon's still camera division and Canon video are not the same. I TOTALLY agree about their video division being slow as molasses. That said, my problem with Panasonic is that they ALWAYS seem to build down to a price. If they truly built the best products with today's technology, they'd be leading the industry. But they don't. So they aren't. They do a good job with current technology at "affordable prices". And that has been the way it is since I first got involved with them over 15 years ago.

Canon's video division needs to take some lessons from the still division because the still division has been cutting edge since the EOS1 was introduced.

I'm not telling you which one to like. I'm only pointing out that one of the companies is first on the block, with the newest technology, and the other company is last to the party and shows up with last-generation technology. Some people like to be on the newest, some may take comfort in the "tried and true", to each their own. I know which I prefer, everyone else's mileage may vary.

Panasonic is often first. First with 24p, first with affordable HD recording, first with consumer 3D. But their development cycle is so slow, that products seem to get left languishing. Maybe that just goes with the territory, I don't know. Barry, I know you and I have gone around on the Panny vs Sony, and slightly on the Panny vs Canon on the DSLR front. I know your allegiances and that's fine. I also respect your views. I am just not tied to anybody's brand.

So, yeah -- Canon might refine a DSLR to, what -- maybe have an accessory port where you could plug in some XLRs? Or maybe have a modified live HDMI out that actually puts out a full signal... I don't know what they plan on doing to refine their DSLR. But while they're doing that, Panasonic will be building a dedicated-purpose digital cinema camcorder, and will probably be on their third or fourth iteration before Canon comes out with something comparable.

If I had to bet money, I'd say the next iteration of the Canon DSLRs will have live HDMI out before Panny gets the AF100 released. And I'd also bet that Hollywood will not abandon Canon for one moment to embrace the Panasonic. They never have, and likely never will. And I believe you are right that we won't see a Canon comparable to the AF100 for 3 years or more. Canon as a brand earns it's paycheck from selling still cameras and glass. Video is a tiny sliver of their business. Panasonic on the other hand is the opposite. Video is their bread and butter. More broadcast and consumer than anything else. Sadly, Panasonic and "digital cinema" are just two phrases which don't go together. Maybe Panasonic has a desire to change that, but I've not seen a shred of evidence to suggest it.

 

[Barry_Green]

But Canon did beat Panasonic to the DSLR video market (behind Nikon of course), so I wouldn't say they are always behind.

Well, that depends on what you consider the "DSLR video market". If, by that, you mean patching a video mode onto a still camera, then yes, they did it first. If you mean making a hybrid still/video camera with the functionality of a video camera (meaning, autofocus, exposure, all that) then Panasonic did that way before Canon; in fact, Canon hasn't done it YET.

The order of video on a stills camera, as I remember it, was D90, followed by 5D with no manual control, and 30p-only, then GH1 with 24p, 60p, full manual controls, and autofocus.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I believe that was the correct order as well. The truth is, before Nikon there was no market. I bought a D90, and still have it, but man it was THE WORST ever for video!

But yes, I mean in terms of just getting video onto a DSLR. It's actually funny to me that Nikon beat everyone (and certainly showed it was desired). Being a person who built a 35mm adapter for a video camera, I couldn't wait for something that worked better in low light as most 35mm adapter setups I have seen are abysmal in terms of having to pass through 2 lenses.

I will say this though, even if I could use autofocus during record, I would not use it. With the Canon you can focus before you start the video, but, I can focus faster on most of my lenses and DEFINITELY at night. I prefer to do it this way. I just know the camera and the lenses that well now.

I still don't understand why the D90 and 5D had no manual exposure control. Just playing with either camera for 5 minutes and the frustration is UNBELIEVABLE. I definitely give Panasonic the thumbs up for 'getting it' before they did.

I hope in a few years we can all look back and laugh at the little things that annoyed us (even though they are not little to us now!)

 

[Barry_Green]

There is absolutely ZERO about the GH1 that is digital cinema.

Not talking about the GH1, I'm talking about the AF100. We were talking about what these camera manufacturers are doing next. You said that Canon was modifying their DSLR. I was saying that Panasonic's tactic is not to modify anything, they're building a digital cinema camcorder from the ground up specifically for the purpose of shooting digital cinema and video. To me that's an entirely different approach, and I have much more optimism for a purpose-built product from the broadcast division, than I do for a modified consumer camera.

That said, my problem with Panasonic is that they ALWAYS seem to build down to a price.

Not sure I understand this statement? What manufacturer doesn't? I mean, I guess you can say the F35 wasn't "built to a price", it just costs what it costs, sure... but they've sold how many of those, six? Every manufacturer builds the best product they can within the price bracket they've targeted, and that leaves them all with making different choices of what they think is "best."

Canon's video division needs to take some lessons from the still division because the still division has been cutting edge since the EOS1 was introduced.

No argument there. In fact, that's rather the point -- I don't WANT a still camera. I'm looking for a video camera to shoot moving imagery with.

Panasonic is often first. First with 24p, first with affordable HD recording, first with consumer 3D. But their development cycle is so slow, that products seem to get left languishing.

Not sure I'd disagree with you there. The DVX100 is still a current model in their lineup. I think they introduce products pretty quickly, but they do leave them on the market for quite a while.

If I had to bet money, I'd say the next iteration of the Canon DSLRs will have live HDMI out before Panny gets the AF100 released.

AF100 is due in about four months. I would think it's possible a 5D Mark III might come out, but none of the others are due for replacement in four months, are they?

And I'd also bet that Hollywood will not abandon Canon for one moment to embrace the Panasonic. They never have, and likely never will.

Not sure I understand this statement. When have they ever embraced Canon before? How is there a track record?

As far as I know, nobody in Hollywood is bothering with the 7D or T2i, they're only looking at the 5D, and they're looking at the 5D primarily because of the wide angle and hyper-shallow DOF of a FF35 frame. If that's what they want, then of course they wouldn't abandon that to go with a product that doesn't offer either of those.

But to suggest that Hollywood would rather shoot on a frankensteined-together DSLR rather than a dedicated-for-the-purpose digital cinema tool like the AF100? I'm not sure I'd buy that assertion.

Sadly, Panasonic and "digital cinema" are just two phrases which don't go together. Maybe Panasonic has a desire to change that, but I've not seen a shred of evidence to suggest it.

I think the evidence is all around -- just look. The VariCam was designed specifically for the cinematographer. There's a list of A-list directors who bought HVX200s; I got to personally train Peter Jackson in how to use his pair of HVXs. And in the press release from the AF100 where they specifically said it was aimed at "digital cinema". Even the original HVX200 had a "FILM CAM" mode that gave a simulation of a film camera's shutter, in degrees. And they were first with 24p in the affordable market, and have consistently added 24p to every product since. And they've formulated their CineLike gammas specifically to replicate the exposure curves of film, as best as can be done on a video chip.

Granted they blew it on the VariCam 3700 -- that should have been a large chip, and the fact they didn't do it, just points to that they woefully misjudged where the market was headed. But I think with the AF100 they've decided to hit the bullseye.

 

[PerroneFord]

Not talking about the GH1, I'm talking about the AF100. We were talking about what these camera manufacturers are doing next. You said that Canon was modifying their DSLR. I was saying that Panasonic's tactic is not to modify anything, they're building a digital cinema camcorder from the ground up specifically for the purpose of shooting digital cinema and video. To me that's an entirely different approach, and I have much more optimism for a purpose-built product from the broadcast division, than I do for a modified consumer camera.

Ah then that makes sense. Thought you were talking GH1. But the AF100 still doesn't strike me as a digital cinema camera. Maybe I just don't know enough about it. Seems like an HPX with a large sensor. And does not make it digital cinema to me.

Not sure I understand this statement? What manufacturer doesn't? I mean, I guess you can say the F35 wasn't "built to a price", it just costs what it costs, sure... but they've sold how many of those, six? Every manufacturer builds the best product they can within the price bracket they've targeted, and that leaves them all with making different choices of what they think is "best."

My point in making these statements is that Panasonic cut's corners that just mystify me. Putting in chips that aren't full raster. Understandable given how early they were to market with the HVX, but taking that through the HPX170 and HMC... Come on. By that time, sub-$1k units had full raster chips. Things like putting ONE card slot on the HMC-150. Come on. What did that save? $50? It's like Panny gets it, and gets right to the edge of greatness, and then backs away. It's maddening.

No argument there. In fact, that's rather the point -- I don't WANT a still camera. I'm looking for a video camera to shoot moving imagery with.

Understood. I'm actually rather enjoying the DSLR format for a change. I'm tired of lugging around a big Portabrace case to shoot 15 minutes of footage. I can darn near put my new camera in my pocket. Add tripod and sunny spot, and I'm ready to shoot. Well, there's that audio thing... but the Zoom H1 is making quick work of that. And it fits in my other pocket....

Not sure I'd disagree with you there. The DVX100 is still a current model in their lineup. I think they introduce products pretty quickly, but they do leave them on the market for quite a while.

The DVX is a nice camera, but frankly one who's time has come and gone (along with the HVX). I'd rather see that money from Panasonic go into developing other products. Personal opinion of course.

AF100 is due in about four months. I would think it's possible a 5D Mark III might come out, but none of the others are due for replacement in four months, are they?

The 5D is the focus for video development, and rightly so. The 1D is too pricey, and the 7D/550D don't have the full sized sensor. Nice cameras all the same and I like mine, but we just wrapped our second DSLR movie. It was shot on a 5D and I did production stills on the 550D instead of doing 2-camera.

Not sure I understand this statement. When have they ever embraced Canon before? How is there a track record?

Oh they haven't embraced Canon. I am not suggesting there is a track record with Canon. I am saying there is no track record with Panasonic. Except for documentary film.

As far as I know, nobody in Hollywood is bothering with the 7D or T2i, they're only looking at the 5D, and they're looking at the 5D primarily because of the wide angle and hyper-shallow DOF of a FF35 frame. If that's what they want, then of course they wouldn't abandon that to go with a product that doesn't offer either of those.

The 7D has been used for a few things, but yes the 5D and 1D have been the focus.

But to suggest that Hollywood would rather shoot on a frankensteined-together DSLR rather than a dedicated-for-the-purpose digital cinema tool like the AF100? I'm not sure I'd buy that assertion.

Time will tell, but I'm 99.99% convinced the will shoot with the 5D until something from either Sony or Canon becomes available. I wish Panasonic would take that market seriously, but that hasn't happened.

So you've never seen a Varicam? Or the list of A-list directors who bought HVX200s? Or the press release from the AF100 where they specifically said it was aimed at "digital cinema"?

Sure I've seen a Varicam. On documentaries. NEVER, EVER, in a feature narrative. Not once. Sure, I've seen James Cameron's HVX. And other's as well. But that doesn't make them digital cinema cameras. Do you want to lay a wager on who will have a full sensor (FF35 or S35), RAW output, PL capable camera first? Panasonic, Sony, or Canon?

But I think with the AF100 they've decided to hit the bullseye.

They've already missed the bullseye with the AF100. Maybe something else down the road.

 

[PerroneFord]

"I think the evidence is all around -- just look. The VariCam was designed specifically for the cinematographer. There's a list of A-list directors who bought HVX200s; I got to personally train Peter Jackson in how to use his pair of HVXs. And in the press release from the AF100 where they specifically said it was aimed at "digital cinema". Even the original HVX200 had a "FILM CAM" mode that gave a simulation of a film camera's shutter, in degrees. And they were first with 24p in the affordable market, and have consistently added 24p to every product since. And they've formulated their CineLike gammas specifically to replicate the exposure curves of film, as best as can be done on a video chip."

The Varicam was designed for the cinematographer? With a 2/3" chip? That's a MAJOR miss.

The fact that Panasonic SAYS the AF100 is aimed at digital cinema, and then misses the target by as much as it does, indicates they either don't understand the target, or can't meet the target. FILM CAM and FILM LOOK is not the goal. RAW is the goal. Baked in looks that can't be shifted in post isn't hollywood. This same philosophy was noted by Bloom in the Shootout. I have no doubt in my mind the AF100 will have the exact same issue. It will have the "Panasonic Mojo" that makes it the darling of broadcast, and the scourge of colorists.

If Panasonic REALLY want's the AF100 to be targeted to Digital Cinema, then give it RAW output, a LOG recording format, a PL mount option, an S35 sensor, and leave the "mojo" and other stuff out of it.

 

[Rick Burnett]

They've already missed the bullseye with the AF100. Maybe something else down the road.

I've thought long and hard about this as well. My biggest concern is the sensor, while being optimized for video as they say, is still last years technology. My struggle is with the price tag, as I see the sensor as the most expensive part of these systems. I don't see how they went from $1000 in the GH1 to $6000 with the additions they have made to the system. It seems overpriced for what it is taking into account the technology involved. I mean, we are talking almost a $5000 difference in price.

I am excited to see how the AF100 performs, as I so hope they push the sensor further, but I am not holding my breath just yet. I really do hope they actually optimize the sensor IN SILICON. But given that from what I have read it still pixel bins, I am very cautious about my excitement. I've spent enough time looking at GH13, GH1, 5D, 7D, 1D, T2I and D90 footage to know what I don't like, and what is distracting to the audience to me (Canon again being worse with it's rainbow technology).

I look at this and then I think about the S35 from Red. Sure, the date of its release is not know, and the price tag for a working system will be easily $12k for me (as I am getting the Scarlet Fixed first which will provide everything but the Canon mount) but I have seen the images from the Red One MX and Epic sensor that they've released. I've examined the video. THAT is the bullseye that Panasonic, Canon or whomever else needs to hit. Even the Alexa sadly suffers from a lot of Moire that is easily shown.

I find it hard to predict how good a camera the AF100 is going to be because we just don't have the details yet. Panasonic has had amazing and non-amazing cameras in the past, so their track record is more of an unknown in this new segment. One thing we do know for sure that I cannot say true about Canon is Panasonic came here asking people what they want. At least you know they know your concerns (if you've voiced them).

Additionally, I am not a huge fan of the 4/3 sized sensor. I like the APS-C size myself. I am not willing to give up more width in my shots. That's a personal taste and really is something that is not a yes or no answer. For instance, I am not a fan of the FF35 for my personal tastes. Moreso because I am probably used to working in S35 range.

 

[Barry_Green]

My point in making these statements is that Panasonic cut's corners that just mystify me. Putting in chips that aren't full raster.

Well, again, they have to make their choices as to what they're going with. Sony put 2/3" full raster chips on a $20,000 camera, and then saddled it with a 4:2:0 MPEG-2 codec, when Panasonic offers AVC-Intra on a $8,000 unit. So, it's a case of different priorities.

Why non-full-raster chips on the HVX? Because they wanted 720/60p, and you couldn't do that with a full-raster CCD chip. Still can't. JVC uses two smaller chips butted together to get that. But for Panasonic the priority was to have variable frame rate progressive footage, and the only way to get that was to use fewer pixels on the chip.

Years later, people figured out how to do full raster on a small chip -- they had to go CMOS. Some would call that a compromise, others think it's just dandy, but the point is -- you gotta pick what your priorities are, at the given price point, because you can't have it all. Sony compromises codecs, Canon refuse(d) to go tapeless, Panasonic gave up pixels.

Things like putting ONE card slot on the HMC-150. Come on. What did that save? $50?

I don't know that it was cost-saving, as much as they didn't necessarily get why anyone would want or need more than one slot. I mean, by their reasoning, you can get 12 hours of footage on a single card, do you really NEED two slots? I've tried to explain over and over to them that we want two slots for REDUNDANCY. That hasn't sunk in yet.

It's like Panny gets it, and gets right to the edge of greatness, and then backs away. It's maddening.

They all do it though. Sony makes a great image with the EX1, and introduces the IR contamination, vignetting, and a mediocre codec. Canon makes a sharper/lower-noise image with interchangeable lenses, and they saddle it with HDV tape and "24F" mode and no variable frame rates. JVC makes an actual ENG-form-factor camera that looks like the bomb, but then they have a horrible split-screen issue and sometimes the tape just actually refused to record(!) Giving you no indication that it wasn't recording, of course... but when you go to play it back, it would just flash "mode changing"...

Sony makes a $2,000 NEX camera with interchangeable lenses. Heir to the DSLR customer base? Of course not -- no 24p, no manual controls, even though the Canon HV20 showed how that could be done on a $600 camera...

I seriously believe that these compromises are negotiated between the manufacturers, so that no one manufacturer will ever be able to deal a killing blow to the others.

Time will tell, but I'm 99.99% convinced the will shoot with the 5D until something from either Sony or Canon becomes available. I wish Panasonic would take that market seriously, but that hasn't happened.

Okay, this is curious to me -- answer this one then... if Canon had made the GH1, and Panasonic had made the 5D Mark II (in other words, *everything* about the products stays exactly the same as it currently is, except who was making it) do you still think that Hollywood would have shunned the Panasonic product and embraced the Canon?

I think they embraced the 5D because it gave them something they didn't already have -- VistaVision DOF/FOV in a disposable tiny body. I really don't think they cared which manufacturer made it. It could have been a Sony, it could have been a Panasonic, as long as it did the job that they wanted, they would have used it.

Sure I've seen a Varicam. On documentaries. NEVER, EVER, in a feature narrative. Not once.

Borat was a theatrical film made on it, but not exactly typical feature narrative. It's the 720p thing. If the VariCam had been 1080p, I am pretty sure that it would have had the market to itself. They way I heard it, Sony pretty much fought George, he demanded that they make the F900 with 24P.

Do you want to lay a wager on who will have a full sensor (FF35 or S35), RAW output, PL capable camera first? Panasonic, Sony, or Canon?

Full frame? I can't see any of those manufacturers making full frame. And raw? None of them are going to make raw. You're describing Red there.

And is there a price tag limit here? Because the F35 is already pretty close to that.

But if you want to actually bet, on if any of them are going to make that, at under $10,000... I would bet heavily on Panasonic over the other two. Film-style sensor, PL mount, and raw... heck, the AF100 with a Nano and a Hot Rod adapter is almost there as-is. The sensor is almost the same size as 35mm cine film, you can get a PL adapter for it today, and you can plug both the HD-SDI and HDMI outputs into an external recorder (nano, Ki Pro, uncompressed, whatever you want). But it won't be "raw". Nobody does video as raw, except Red.

They've already missed the bullseye with the AF100. Maybe something else down the road.

Well, to each his own. I find the concept of the AF100 profoundly superior to the concept of shooting on any stills camera, in every imaginable way. It seems as close to a bullseye as anyone is going to get, in this price bracket.

 

[Barry_Green]

The Varicam was designed for the cinematographer? With a 2/3" chip? That's a MAJOR miss.

Now, come on, be fair... the VariCam was introduced in 2001. What other chip were they supposed to use? And it's the exact same chip size as the F900, F950, etc. How does that qualify as a "miss"?

The fact that Panasonic SAYS the AF100 is aimed at digital cinema, and then misses the target by as much as it does, indicates they either don't understand the target, or can't meet the target. FILM CAM and FILM LOOK is not the goal. RAW is the goal.

Ah, well, I guess I see where you and I draw the line... if raw is what counts, then there is no video manufacturer even thinking about playing that game. (Dedicated digi-cine companies like Red and SI, maybe, but look at their price tags.) I'm looking at the product as something designed to allow or even assist the cinema shooter in getting the footage they want, without fighting the camera every step of the way. But if it's raw output you want, I think Red is the only manufacturer you're going to be looking to.

If Panasonic REALLY want's the AF100 to be targeted to Digital Cinema, then give it RAW output, a LOG recording format, a PL mount option, an S35 sensor, and leave the "mojo" and other stuff out of it.

You are aware that the price tag is under $6,000, right? The product you're describing is probably more appropriate for the VariCam II. If you want RAW output, nobody is gonna help you there, although you could pipe the HD-SDI output to an AVC-Intra recorder and at least have 10-bit. And who's to say whether it'll have FILM REC mode or not? It just might. As for PL mount, that's already available, you can use the Hot Rod or you can get a $299 one off ebay. As for S35, nobody but Red is even talking about that. The 7D/T2i aren't S35, their regular 35. And the AF100 sacrifices a grand total of 3mm - 22mm wide vs. 19mm wide. For some, that'll be 3mm too much. For others, that'll be a compromise they're happy to make.

And, actually, now that I think about it, it's entirely possible that a VariCam II would do everything you're asking for. They already implemented a 2K processor using JPEG2000 compression in their D-5 decks specifically for Hollywood use (and JPEG2000 is the compression that RedRaw is based off of, IINM). So it's possible; they have the pieces in place.

 

[PerroneFord]

Just as an aside here Barry, I am THRILLED to be having this little tit for tat with you. No egos, just laying things out. Love it! Ok, back to the Hatfields/McCoys!

Well, again, they have to make their choices as to what they're going with. Sony put 2/3" full raster chips on a $20,000 camera, and then saddled it with a 4:2:0 MPEG-2 codec, when Panasonic offers AVC-Intra on a $8,000 unit. So, it's a case of different priorities.

The thing is, you can get AROUND the codec. Sony makes that easy because every one of those cameras has an SDI port. You cannot work around a non-full raster chip. Ever.

Why non-full-raster chips on the HVX? Because they wanted 720/60p, and you couldn't do that with a full-raster CCD chip. Still can't. JVC uses two smaller chips butted together to get that. But for Panasonic the priority was to have variable frame rate progressive footage, and the only way to get that was to use fewer pixels on the chip.

As I said, I understand about the HVX. Good point on the JVC. Seems they've learned the lesson and moved on. The HPX was released AFTER the EX1, and still didn't have full raster. The HMC was released after any of the others, and still didn't have full raster. Should we look for the next iteration of the sub $10k P2 cameras to finally do it right? Or are we stuck with 7 year old sensor technology again?

Years later, people figured out how to do full raster on a small chip -- they had to go CMOS. Some would call that a compromise, others think it's just dandy, but the point is -- you gotta pick what your priorities are, at the given price point, because you can't have it all. Sony compromises codecs, Canon refuse(d) to go tapeless, Panasonic gave up pixels.

Fair enough. But as mentioned, Sony's compromise, as well as Canon's allow the consumer to work around the issue. In fact, the solution to both issues in their cases is the same. Add Nanoflash, Compromise disappears.

I don't know that it was cost-saving, as much as they didn't necessarily get why anyone would want or need more than one slot. I mean, by their reasoning, you can get 12 hours of footage on a single card, do you really NEED two slots? I've tried to explain over and over to them that we want two slots for REDUNDANCY. That hasn't sunk in yet.

Do you realize what you're saying? Panasonic, as a company, couldn't understand why someone might want to have continuous recording at the best bit rate for event work? Really? That's frightening. But completely in line with the thinking that a recording system that allowed 4 minutes of 1080p for $2k was ok. Apparently, the idea of long form recording is not in the consciousness of the company.

They all do it though. Sony makes a great image with the EX1, and introduces the IR contamination, vignetting, and a mediocre codec. Canon makes a sharper/lower-noise image with interchangeable lenses, and they saddle it with HDV tape and "24F" mode and no variable frame rates. JVC makes an actual ENG-form-factor camera that looks like the bomb, but then they have a horrible split-screen issue and sometimes the tape just actually refused to record(!) Giving you no indication that it wasn't recording, of course... but when you go to play it back, it would just flash "mode changing"...

IR contamination is solved with a $50 filter. Still should have been addresed in the camera, codec isn't the best, but can be worked around, and I am not familiar with the vignetting issue.

I have NO IDEA what Canon was thinking with the 24F thing. That's just foolishness. And JVC's was foolish as well.

Sony makes a $2,000 NEX camera with interchangeable lenses. Heir to the DSLR customer base? Of course not -- no 24p, no manual controls, even though the Canon HV20 showed how that could be done on a $600 camera...

Yea the NEX camera was never targeted to anything but a consumer market though so some of it is pretty understandable. As I've mentioned in the past, the fact the 5DMk2 only had 30.00p didn't slow down sales one iota. That NEX is going to sell like hotcakes. Hopefully, their next offering up the food chain will be better. There's at least $4k of margin for them to offer a real challenge to the AF100.

I seriously believe that these compromises are negotiated between the manufacturers, so that no one manufacturer will ever be able to deal a killing blow to the others.

You may be on to something... I've had my suspicions too. Especially with the current codec sharing (and not sharing) we've seen recently.

Okay, this is curious to me -- answer this one then... if Canon had made the GH1, and Panasonic had made the 5D Mark II (in other words, *everything* about the products stays exactly the same as it currently is, except who was making it) do you still think that Hollywood would have shunned the Panasonic product and embraced the Canon?

This is a very curious question. I don't think Hollywood shuns Panasonic because they don't like Panasonic. I think they shun Panasonic because Panasonic doesn't make cameras Hollywood wants. And doesn't show any evidence that they are "getting it" either. Canon, to their credit, didn't "get it" either, but sat down, listened, and started changing their products to MEET those needs. Had Panasonic done that, maybe there would have been a GH1 shooting House instead of a a 5D.

I think they embraced the 5D because it gave them something they didn't already have -- VistaVision DOF/FOV in a disposable tiny body. I really don't think they cared which manufacturer made it. It could have been a Sony, it could have been a Panasonic, as long as it did the job that they wanted, they would have used it.

The difference is Sony and Canon would MAKE that camera. Panasonic and JVC would not.

Borat was a theatrical film made on it, but not exactly typical feature narrative. It's the 720p thing. If the VariCam had been 1080p, I am pretty sure that it would have had the market to itself. They way I heard it, Sony pretty much fought George, he demanded that they make the F900 with 24P.

Borat? Really? If that's all you got, I rest my case! As for Lucas having to fight with Sony, I can believe it! But the telling thing, is that Sony gave him what he wanted. And how many F900s have gone on to shoot on features since then? Great choice by Sony.

Full frame? I can't see any of those manufacturers making full frame. And raw? None of them are going to make raw. You're describing Red there.

Yes, I am describing RAW to a degree. So what? No one is asking for 4k here. Merely 1080p. We are asking for an SI2k. If Scarlet (I said if) can deliver 3k for $12k with an S35 sensor, why is it out of bounds to ask for a 1080p RAW camera in the $6k-$8k range?

And is there a price tag limit here? Because the F35 is already pretty close to that.

No, I am not saying there is a price limit. Well, maybe something south of the Genesis. But I think a LOT of people would applaud if Panasonic could issue a real challenger in the REAL Digital Cinema market. And maybe they'd learn new things. Let them compete with Epic, Alexa, F35, SI2K, etc. for a while. And bring those lessons down market.

But if you want to actually bet, on if any of them are going to make that, at under $10,000... I would bet heavily on Panasonic over the other two. Film-style sensor, PL mount, and raw... heck, the AF100 with a Nano and a Hot Rod adapter is almost there as-is. The sensor is almost the same size as 35mm cine film, you can get a PL adapter for it today, and you can plug both the HD-SDI and HDMI outputs into an external recorder (nano, Ki Pro, uncompressed, whatever you want). But it won't be "raw". Nobody does video as raw, except Red.

I don't care if it's under $10k. And you are EXACTLY right. The AF100 with the Hot Rod and Nano *IS* almost there. Which goes back to EXACTLY what I said before. Panasonic gets to the brink of greatness and backs down. So, ship the camera with the HotRod as a built-in, and find a way to incorporate a Nanoflash like device IN THE BODY with AVC-Intra. It's not RAW, but it's close enough for the price. Assuming Scarlet doesn't ship anytime soon.

Well, to each his own. I find the concept of the AF100 profoundly superior to the concept of shooting on any stills camera, in every imaginable way. It seems as close to a bullseye as anyone is going to get, in this price bracket.

You may be right. But I don't think so. I have a VERY strong suspicion that by the end of next summer, we'll have at least 2 cameras playing in this market that beat the AF100 at it's own game. And I suspect if that happens, Panny will not step up to challenge them.

 

[PerroneFord]

Now, come on, be fair... the VariCam was introduced in 2001. What other chip were they supposed to use? And it's the exact same chip size as the F900, F950, etc. How does that qualify as a "miss"?

They are still shipping Varicams right? This is 2010. Have them moved beyond the 2/3" yet? I'm not judging them based on what they did in 2001. I am judging based on what's shipping today.

Ah, well, I guess I see where you and I draw the line... if raw is what counts, then there is no video manufacturer even thinking about playing that game. (Dedicated digi-cine companies like Red and SI, maybe, but look at their price tags.) I'm looking at the product as something designed to allow or even assist the cinema shooter in getting the footage they want, without fighting the camera every step of the way. But if it's raw output you want, I think Red is the only manufacturer you're going to be looking to.

I am uninterested in the price tags. Make the camera. RED, as an absolute unknown has taken Hollywood by STORM with a $50k camera. For that market, the camera is a complete bargain. Sony is there with the F35. Panavision is there. Silicon Graphics is there. Arri is there with TWO cameras. It's like the old adage from racing. "Racing improves the breed". Build a camera that can compete with the best cameras available at any price, learn, and apply that down the chain as economics allow.

I also disagree completely that RED is going to be our only choice for RAW. Every other camera manufacturer (ok not JVC) already has an understanding of RAW and how to do it. And how to post and process it. Just a matter of time.

You are aware that the price tag is under $6,000, right? The product you're describing is probably more appropriate for the VariCam II. If you want RAW output, nobody is gonna help you there, although you could pipe the HD-SDI output to an AVC-Intra recorder and at least have 10-bit. And who's to say whether it'll have FILM REC mode or not? It just might. As for PL mount, that's already available, you can use the Hot Rod or you can get a $299 one off ebay. As for S35, nobody but Red is even talking about that. The 7D/T2i aren't S35, their regular 35. And the AF100 sacrifices a grand total of 3mm - 22mm wide vs. 19mm wide. For some, that'll be 3mm too much. For others, that'll be a compromise they're happy to make.

I am aware that the current price tag is $6k, yes. So make it $8k and give us RAW. Hell, make it $10k and give us RAW. People are chomping at the bit to get a Scarlet, ordering 2 years out.. for RAW.

Agree with you on the S35 deal. The Joe Blow's like me will live with the 3mm. Hollywood won't. And thus, the 7D isn't the choice in Hollywood. The 1DMk4 gets closest, but costs more money than the FF35.

And, actually, now that I think about it, it's entirely possible that a VariCam II would do everything you're asking for. They already implemented a 2K processor using JPEG2000 compression in their D-5 decks specifically for Hollywood use (and JPEG2000 is the compression that RedRaw is based off of, IINM). So it's possible; they have the pieces in place.

If they get the 2/3" out of the Varicam, and offer it with an S35 sensor, along with J2k as the codec, they would have something. Take the chip from the GH1, build in a PL mount, put in 5 P2 slots, or better yet a digimag of some kind, and they've have a beginning. I'd fall out of my chair if they did it though. Just hasn't been their business model.

 

[Barry_Green]

The HPX was released AFTER the EX1, and still didn't have full raster. The HMC was released after any of the others, and still didn't have full raster.

Of course not. Full raster would have meant having to go CMOS, and that wasn't what those products were meant to be.

Should we look for the next iteration of the sub $10k P2 cameras to finally do it right?

Perrone, my friend, work with me here -- look on the shelf at the HPX370. Or the HMC40. Or the forthcoming HMC80. They've already been there and done that.

Or are we stuck with 7 year old sensor technology again?

Oooh, you know I want to say something about a 15-year-old codec technology here, right?

But CMOS is just as old as CCD. And CCD is just as current as CMOS, only in larger-chip cameras. Sony tried CMOS 2/3" and that hasn't worked out for them too well.

Fair enough. But as mentioned, Sony's compromise, as well as Canon's allow the consumer to work around the issue. In fact, the solution to both issues in their cases is the same. Add Nanoflash, Compromise disappears.

At what price? A NanoFlash is $3,000!

Point being, there's always a compromise. Either you compromise your wallet, or you compromise your features. It has always been such, and always will be.

Do you realize what you're saying? Panasonic, as a company, couldn't understand why someone might want to have continuous recording at the best bit rate for event work? Really?

Try it again -- Panasonic put out a system that would record THREE CONTINUOUS HOURS at its best bit rate. You're trying to hang them with the very rope they invented for that particular purpose! Three hours on one card. What else can record three hours on a card? Or a tape? Yes, you could use a full-size DVCAM righ and record three hours to tape, but then you'd have to still stop and change the tape. So cut 'em some slack, they matched the best the industry had ever produced. Hardly something to hang them over!

But completely in line with the thinking that a recording system that allowed 4 minutes of 1080p for $2k was ok.

Yeah, boy, that sure was a misfire, wasn't it? Look how quickly P2 died out... oh, wait... it's taken over 80% of worldwide broadcast... hmmm... perhaps they were on to something after all? Hey, I'll admit, it was tough to choke down the cost of the early cards, but today everybody's tapeless. Even Canon. So yeah, the pioneer had arrows in his back, but he still won the game.

Apparently, the idea of long form recording is not in the consciousness of the company.

I can't imagine how far your tongue is planted in your cheek on this one, but -- providing three hours at best bitrate, and 12 hours at maximim recording time, has surely got to count for showing that long form recording is totally in their consciousness...

That NEX is going to sell like hotcakes. Hopefully, their next offering up the food chain will be better. There's at least $4k of margin for them to offer a real challenge to the AF100.

I look forward to them offering up a digi-cine alternative, sort of like the EX1 to the HPX170. But if history is a gauge, a direct competitor is probably years away. It took 'em almost three years to come out with the EX1 to answer the HVX.

You may be on to something... I've had my suspicions too. Especially with the current codec sharing (and not sharing) we've seen recently.

They've always shared behind the scenes. The Canon XL1 used a Panasonic chipset. The Sony VX1000 used a Canon lens. The HVX's much-complained-about LCD is, I think, a Sony panel. And I'm wondering if the HPX370 and XF300 don't use the same chipset.

There are simply too many "missed opportunities" to go for the throat, to have me believing that there's not major collaboration and parcelling-out going on with the big manufacturers.

Canon, to their credit, didn't "get it" either, but sat down, listened, and started changing their products to MEET those needs.

Well, okay, but let's be clear here -- all they did was enable 24p and manual audio control. They haven't produced products specifically for the industry, nor have they shown any inclination to do so. They're not acting like Red (who custom-engineered some products to support the current project I'm working on) or Panasonic (who designs products in consultation with the end users). Canon (and, for that matter, Sony) make what they want to make, and they hope the end user buys it.

Had Panasonic done that, maybe there would have been a GH1 shooting House instead of a a 5D.

Not possible, because the reason Charters gave for using the 5D was the super-shallow 5D DOF.

The difference is Sony and Canon would MAKE that camera. Panasonic and JVC would not.

JVC won't, because they're clinging to life support and don't even have a stills camera division to draw from. Canon won't make anything dedicated-purpose, never have and never will. Sony gets it, and will make it, and will charge 2x to 3x as much for it. I think the very notion of the AF100 shows that Panasonic "gets it" -- how long has the community been clamoring for a large-sensor video camera with interchangeable lenses? So Panasonic is building it.

Borat? Really? If that's all you got, I rest my case!

For theatrical films, yeah, that's about all I've got. There's been plenty of Bollywood and direct TV movies shot on the VariCam, but I can't think of any theatrical...

And how many F900s have gone on to shoot on features since then? Great choice by Sony.

Yes, but what's the other side of that equation? Sony made a product that got the "halo" of digital cinema, but did they actually sell any? Here's where it gets really funny... the VariCam outsold the F900 by a factor of at least EIGHT to ONE. At least. Because while Sony was proprietizing its system and making the footage unable to be edited (unless you bought a proprietary Sony XPRI editing system!), Panasonic went and worked with Apple to develop firewire HD editing on the desktop. So the rental houses bought the F900, but the owner-operators bought the VariCams by an order of magnitude more. An owner-op could get outfitted with a complete Varicam setup including deck and editing, for the cost of a body-only for the F900 guy.

So, like I said, it's all a compromise somewhere or other. Panasonic didn't get the press and reputation, but they got the sales.

So, today, the situation is playing out again -- Sony builds the F35, pretty much unarguably the best digicine rig on the planet. And they've sold, last I heard, six of them. But everybody knows the F35. Panasonic, on the other hand, is building the AF100 and will sell sixty thousand of them. Sony will have the "halo", Panasonic will have the sales. To each his own.

Yes, I am describing RAW to a degree. So what? No one is asking for 4k here. Merely 1080p. We are asking for an SI2k. If Scarlet (I said if) can deliver 3k for $12k with an S35 sensor, why is it out of bounds to ask for a 1080p RAW camera in the $6k-$8k range?

Nothing "wrong" with it, but it's just ... not done. Video companies don't do raw. Never have. I don't expect them to in the future. And certainly not in the low-cost equipment, where the likelihood of taking the footage into a Hollywood post suite is unlikely. This is a video camera in the professional range, from the professional and broadcast division. It's got to record in a professional, accepted, standardized video format. I'd love it if they'd add raw to it, that would be ideal. I just don't expect it.

No, I am not saying there is a price limit. Well, maybe something south of the Genesis. But I think a LOT of people would applaud if Panasonic could issue a real challenger in the REAL Digital Cinema market.

Ah, herein lies the distinction then. To you, the "real" digital cinema market is the Alexa/Genesis. So, rental houses. Okay, that's possible, but that won't be the AF100! That would be the oft-talked-about VariCam II.

But the AF100 is aimed at the indie/professional, the guy who's been limping along with a 35mm adapter or trying to tolerate a DSLR. Totally different market.

So, ship the camera with the HotRod as a built-in, and find a way to incorporate a Nanoflash like device IN THE BODY with AVC-Intra.

And in doing so, alienate probably 95% of the potential buyers? Who has PL lenses? Who wants to rent PL lenses every time they shoot anything?

What you're describing is more like what I'd rather have -- an AF150, with AVC-Intra built-in, recording to P2. They've already said that would add $2,000 to the price. I say "do it". To me it's the same thing as the HMC150 vs. HPX170; the mass market may look at the 150 and say "I don't mind what I'm missing, but I love the lower price." And guys like you and me may say "forget the little unit, I need the big guns, and I'll gladly pay the price difference." But as a business decision, the marketbase has got to be at least 500x larger for the AF100, than for the unit you're describing with a PL mount on it.

You may be right. But I don't think so. I have a VERY strong suspicion that by the end of next summer, we'll have at least 2 cameras playing in this market that beat the AF100 at it's own game. And I suspect if that happens, Panny will not step up to challenge them.

Two large-sensor, digital-cinema cameras that compete with the AF100? Not DSLRs? Don't know what rumors you're hearing, but I haven't heard any indications from anyone. I mean, Sony showed a mockup at NAB for a unit due a year from now, but they said it'll cost $19,000. If that's one that you're counting, I don't know that I consider $19,000 vs. $6,000 to be even something to discuss, that's so obviously a different market.

And if you're talking about the oft-rumored Canon RAW module for the 5D... I do indeed believe that pigs will fly before such a product comes out. What would they record streaming raw video to? It isn't gonna happen. Canon can sit and listen to Hollywood clamor for what they want, and Hollywood can clamor for a raw module all day long, but are they gonna pay the R&D costs for such a unit? Not a chance...

And, at the end of this, I really think (like many times before) we aren't disagreeing, so much as we're seeing opposite ends of the spectrum. You seem to be talking about the Alexa market, and I'm talking about the DSLR move-up buyer.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I think the OP got more then they bargained for History 101!

 

[Barry_Green]

Hey, it ain't DVXUser if we don't run a thread totally off topic! :thumbsup:

 

[PerroneFord]

Hey, it ain't DVXUser if we don't run a thread totally off topic! :thumbsup:

I think this would be a far better place if more users could engage in these fun back and forths while being respectful.

For those unaware, Barry and I have a great deal of mutual respect for each other. We are both pros (he's a LOT more pro than me) and we both have a lot of fun doing this. I like to pick on Panasonic, and Barry has a lot of fun defending them. Makes for fun times!

So Barry, honest question. Why did Panasonic go with micro 4/3 when they could have gone for something more standard like S35? Especially since they were starting ground up as you say?

 

[Rick Burnett]

Oh believe me, I know! I've had quite a few discussions as well as I come from a IC design (CMOS) hardware background and enjoy discussing topics related to technology. I like that a lot of healthy debate happens here.

While I may agree and disagree about many things about many of these manufacturers, at the time, our HVX200 was the best thing since sliced bread. Sometimes we lose context of the industry at those times with all the latest and greatest.

The best part about discussing things around here, gives us something to do while we wait for better technology (when we aren't shooting!)

 

[Cieloent]

You guys have it all wrong......

The present and future are cameras like the Canon T2i and Iphone 4 which cost less and produce a great image with the correct settings and lenses.


Also the t2i can accept SDXC cards which is future proof . I believe that Canon has struck a gold mine with their DSLRS and the next version of the 7d, 5d and t2i will take the market by storm.


Quote me on this one as the game is changing..... It's all about the internet and these cameras for that purpose can compete with just about anything that cost a lot more

peace

 

[PerroneFord]

You guys have it all wrong......

The present and future are cameras like the Canon T2i and Iphone 4 which cost less and produce a great image with the correct settings and lenses.

That's kinda funny since I own a T2i.

 

[Ian-T]

lol....you guys make me wanna go buy some popcorn... Good stuff.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Funny enough, I helped a friend a week ago who was shooting a short with the iPhone4. That was the most painful experience EVER.