NAB - What's your camera wishlist?

[dop16mm]

I don't expect to see anything truly revolutionary this year. Increments as they say.

Af100 series, remove the SDI for the budget shooter to save a few bucks for something never used, add genlock to the SDI model. Acknowledge that a GH camera will be in most everyones AF kit and make a way to match them, most likely a preset profile in AF menu, may not be the look you want, but will match stock profiles and you do the rest in post.

Sony: FS100 performance in handycam package, removable xlr top handle, basic buttons for exposure parameters and WB, everything else can be in menus. Under $3000. With no ND's the stock zoom should come with variable ND, you shouldn't have to source that aftermarket. A better 16mm pancake for steadicam work.

Canon: Cut the lens off the xf-100 and add ef mount and c300 chip. Price in line with Sony and Pany 100 series, no need to re-invent the wheel here.

 

[Tzedekh]

USA Retail Price for an AF-100 = $4,995

WISHLIST #1 = $6,995 for an AF-100 with (2) P2 Slots and DVC Pro HD (just like the good ole HVX200)

WISHLIST #2 = $8,995 for an AF-100 with (2) P2 Slots and AVC-Intra

Panasonic has the technology, but do they have the desire?

There's probably no reason you shouldn't be able to get wish #2 for the AF100's price. B+H has the HPX250 for about $5K. Though its sensors are only third-inch, it's arguably a more expensive camera to build than the AF100 (or a theoretical m4/3 P2/AVC-Intra camera with the AF100's form factor) -- there's complex imaging block and a 22x integrated zoom. I know Barry Green would say that the HPX250 is bigger than the AF100 and it would be difficult for Panasonic to cram all that stuff into a smaller form factor, but Panasonic has had a couple of years to work on it. Besides, they've announced AVC-Ultra 10-bit 4:2:2 LongG, which is undoubtedly intended as a consumer format and thus will fit into a smaller camera.

 

[Bassman2003]

I don't expect to see anything truly revolutionary this year. Increments as they say.

Af100 series, remove the SDI for the budget shooter to save a few bucks for something never used, add genlock to the SDI model. Acknowledge that a GH camera will be in most everyones AF kit and make a way to match them, most likely a preset profile in AF menu, may not be the look you want, but will match stock profiles and you do the rest in post.

Sony: FS100 performance in handycam package, removable xlr top handle, basic buttons for exposure parameters and WB, everything else can be in menus. Under $3000. With no ND's the stock zoom should come with variable ND, you shouldn't have to source that aftermarket. A better 16mm pancake for steadicam work.

Canon: Cut the lens off the xf-100 and add ef mount and c300 chip. Price in line with Sony and Pany 100 series, no need to re-invent the wheel here.

These are excellent suggestions. Too bad I do not expect any of the companies to do them.

A "cheaper" AF-100 would be a big hit given the GH2 elephant in the room. A sort of main camera with audio approach that can be color matched with the GH2 would be purchased by me for sure. I see the AF-100 dropping in resale price every month and does not look like a good investment if purchased new. It was a quick release that made some folks happy but it is shaping up to be a transitional camera until something better come out imho.

 

[mik303]

There's probably no reason you shouldn't be able to get wish #2 for the AF100's price. B+H has the HPX250 for about $5K.

I agree with you. But, I was just trying to be fair. At one point, I believe that Jan admitted that the reason why Panasonic did not put a p2 card slot into the AF-100 was because it would add approximately $2000 to the price tag. I am not intentionally trying to put words in her mouth, but I remember that statement being made somewhere.

That's why I listed the prices that I did. An AF-100 shooting AVC Intra 100 at even $6995-$8995 retail, would completely and utterly destroy Sony FS100, Sony F3 and Canon 7D. But at the same time would be the best option Panasonic camera for indie film use over the Varicam, HVX200, HPX 250 and just about every other camera in the Pansonic line-up. That would probably not be the best business model for them.

 

[Jay Birch]

I'm not heavily invested in lenses... So don't mind. Square format is very exciting, for me, as our business revolves around video wallpapers for android. So I always have to think in portrait and landscape mode.

4K square would be perfect.

 

[Gary Huff]

That's why I listed the prices that I did. An AF-100 shooting AVC Intra 100 at even $6995-$8995 retail, would completely and utterly destroy Sony FS100, Sony F3 and Canon 7D.

Not really, unless a new sensor was involved (or at least a revamp of the OLPF). And even then you'd have people bash it simply because it's m4/3rds, and there's a lot of FUD about that format.

But at the same time would be the best option Panasonic camera for indie film use over the Varicam, HVX200, HPX 250 and just about every other camera in the Pansonic line-up. That would probably not be the best business model for them.

The indie film world right now is probably far and away Canon DSLR, so I don't see a new AF-100 model taking any business away from the Varicam/200/250. Those are completely different cameras for a different type of shooting environment than a DSLR/AF-100 type changeable lens camera.

 

[Barry_Green]

I know Barry Green would say that the HPX250 is bigger than the AF100 and it would be difficult for Panasonic to cram all that stuff into a smaller form factor, but Panasonic has had a couple of years to work on it.

Where did they get "a couple of years"? The HPX250 only came out six months ago.

Besides, they've announced AVC-Ultra 10-bit 4:2:2 LongG, which is undoubtedly intended as a consumer format and thus will fit into a smaller camera.

Why is AVC-Ultra 10-bit 4:2:2 LongG "undoubtedly intended as a consumer format"??? Sony presents 8-bit 4:2:0 long-GoP MPEG2 as a professional format, and one of their top-end formats is 8-bit 4:2:2 MPEG2. And Canon is pushing 8-bit 4:2:2 MPEG2 as their professional format. AVC-Ultra 10-bit 4:2:2 would destroy either of those, so why would it be positioned as a consumer format?

As far as I know, AVC-Ultra (in all its forms) has only been talked about in context with P2, and therefore it would de facto be a professional format and not a consumer format. Now, if they want to expand the AVC-Ultra family and allow Ultra LongG to be recorded on SDHC/SDXC cards, hey, I'm all for that, and I just hope they have the foresight to make it at least 50mbps so that it will once and forever remove any restrictions from their recording format (meaning, the BBC approved the AF100 for production, but only so long as you use a 50mbps+ external recorder; adding LongG @ 50mbps to it would remove that restriction).

 

[Barry_Green]

The indie film world right now is probably far and away Canon DSLR

Depends on what you classify as the "indie" film world. If you're talking about no-budget guerilla productions, you're probably right. But if you're talking about serious independent film efforts, no way.

It's kind of disappointing that what the term "independent film" has been co-opted to mean the same thing as "no budget film", because that hasn't traditionally been the case. "The Apostle" was an independent film, on 35mm, with a $5m budget. "Napoleon Dynamite" is an independent film, on 35mm film, with a $400,000 budget. I've worked on indie films with $500k-$1m budgets before, where we had full crews and makeup and hair and props and art departments and film permits and insurance and all that, yet it was most definitely not a studio film.

"Independent" filmmaking used to mean films that were made outside of the studio system, and had no connotation with budgets. We used to have the terms "microcinema" and "guerilla productions" to go along with "no-budget filmmaking", but it seems like all that is destined to be lumped together under the banner of "indie filmmaking", so ... what do we call independent films that have budgets and actors and crews? (Oh, I know, I know, some are thinking that those films are made by "elitist snobs"...) Sigh.

 

[mik303]

Depends on what you classify as the "indie" film world. If you're talking about no-budget guerilla productions, you're probably right. But if you're talking about serious independent film efforts, no way.

It's kind of disappointing that what the term "independent film" has been co-opted to mean the same thing as "no budget film", because that hasn't traditionally been the case. "The Apostle" was an independent film, on 35mm, with a $5m budget. "Napoleon Dynamite" is an independent film, on 35mm film, with a $400,000 budget. I've worked on indie films with $500k-$1m budgets before, where we had full crews and makeup and hair and props and art departments and film permits and insurance and all that, yet it was most definitely not a studio film.

"Independent" filmmaking used to mean films that were made outside of the studio system, and had no connotation with budgets. We used to have the terms "microcinema" and "guerilla productions" to go along with "no-budget filmmaking", but it seems like all that is destined to be lumped together under the banner of "indie filmmaking", so ... what do we call independent films that have budgets and actors and crews? (Oh, I know, I know, some are thinking that those films are made by "elitist snobs"...) Sigh.

All of those are great points, so I guess I'll be a bit more specific about my "independent" film. I am planning on shooting a $50,000 USD low budget 100 page feature film drama this fall that would go straight to DVD, and would like an alternative to the HVX200 with 35mm adapter rig that I currently own. An AF-100 with a better codec would be nice. Going to the HVX250 with the 35mm adapter rig would be an upgrade, but the entire rig is cumbersome and a bit outdated. If I had $12,000 to $14,000 for Scarlet, I wouldn't even care what Panasonic does, but since my budget is small, I'm still holding out hope for something better from Panasonic.

Going from a DVX 100 to an HVX 200 was a huge jump in technology for me. I'm ready for the next jump. I'm not unrealistic enough to think that I can have a 4k Scarlet for the same price as an AF-100 in 2012. I guess this discussion topic is for "wishing." And I wish that there were an AF100 with a AVC Intra available this year. And in another 2 years or so, An AF100 with AVC Ultra.

 

[Tzedekh]

Where did they get "a couple of years"? The HPX250 only came out six months ago.

Yes, but it was announced nearly a year ago, so it had to have been designed some months before that.

Why is AVC-Ultra 10-bit 4:2:2 LongG "undoubtedly intended as a consumer format"??? Sony presents 8-bit 4:2:0 long-GoP MPEG2 as a professional format, and one of their top-end formats is 8-bit 4:2:2 MPEG2. And Canon is pushing 8-bit 4:2:2 MPEG2 as their professional format. AVC-Ultra 10-bit 4:2:2 would destroy either of those, so why would it be positioned as a consumer format?

As far as I know, AVC-Ultra (in all its forms) has only been talked about in context with P2, and therefore it would de facto be a professional format and not a consumer format. Now, if they want to expand the AVC-Ultra family and allow Ultra LongG to be recorded on SDHC/SDXC cards, hey, I'm all for that, and I just hope they have the foresight to make it at least 50mbps so that it will once and forever remove any restrictions from their recording format (meaning, the BBC approved the AF100 for production, but only so long as you use a 50mbps+ external recorder; adding LongG @ 50mbps to it would remove that restriction).

Sorry, you're right, it was just a guess on my part, based on the assumption that it would be a little odd for Panasonic to develop such a low-data-rate GOP format that nonetheless required the expense of P2 recording. But the only mention of AVC-Ultra's recording requirements I've seen has been in the context of the AVC-Intra segment -- as far as I know, Panasonic hasn't released details regarding how the long-GOP format will be recorded. And I'd be willing to bet that if they include only AVCHD 2 and longG (but not any flavor of AVC-Intra) on the AF100's successor, they probably won't include P2. On a side note, I agree that 50-Mbps longG would be nice. I would even like to see them extend it to 60-75 Mbps for 60p.

 

[Digigenic]

Depends on what you classify as the "indie" film world. If you're talking about no-budget guerilla productions, you're probably right. But if you're talking about serious independent film efforts, no way.

It's kind of disappointing that what the term "independent film" has been co-opted to mean the same thing as "no budget film", because that hasn't traditionally been the case. "The Apostle" was an independent film, on 35mm, with a $5m budget. "Napoleon Dynamite" is an independent film, on 35mm film, with a $400,000 budget. I've worked on indie films with $500k-$1m budgets before, where we had full crews and makeup and hair and props and art departments and film permits and insurance and all that, yet it was most definitely not a studio film.

"Independent" filmmaking used to mean films that were made outside of the studio system, and had no connotation with budgets. We used to have the terms "microcinema" and "guerilla productions" to go along with "no-budget filmmaking", but it seems like all that is destined to be lumped together under the banner of "indie filmmaking", so ... what do we call independent films that have budgets and actors and crews? (Oh, I know, I know, some are thinking that those films are made by "elitist snobs"...) Sigh.

When do you think this transformation took place?
Was it in the early 90's or was this something that's occurred periodically for quite some time?
Because I remembered adhering to the idea that "indie" films always had to be under $1 million (I don't know why) and have a certain level of uniqueness (totally subjective), take an unorthodox or difficult approach or just walk that tightrope between artistic and ambiguous for it to fit the indie label, but I know that's really not the case. There are certain people or groups out there who will throw a significant amount of money into a movie who aren't associated with a studio but feel some personal connection with the story or filmmaker.
I'm thinking "independent" filmmakers adhere to a restructure of the production formula or process as (and forgive the linear, I know it's not quite so simple): financier > producer > filmmaker > audience. Where as studios may typically follow: Studio > Producer > filmmaker > Test Groups > Studio > Distributors > Audience 1 (theater), Audience 2 (home).
So maybe it's the process itself that really separates indie from studio and not really the money.

 

[cowpunk52]

When do you think this transformation took place?
Was it in the early 90's or was this something that's occurred periodically for quite some time?
Because I remembered adhering to the idea that "indie" films always had to be under $1 million (I don't know why) and have a certain level of uniqueness (totally subjective), take an unorthodox or difficult approach or just walk that tightrope between artistic and ambiguous for it to fit the indie label, but I know that's really not the case. There are certain people or groups out there who will throw a significant amount of money into a movie who aren't associated with a studio but feel some personal connection with the story or filmmaker.
I'm thinking "independent" filmmakers adhere to a restructure of the production formula or process as (and forgive the linear, I know it's not quite so simple): financier > producer > filmmaker > audience. Where as studios may typically follow: Studio > Producer > filmmaker > Test Groups > Studio > Distributors > Audience 1 (theater), Audience 2 (home).
So maybe it's the process itself that really separates indie from studio and not really the money.

Barry is right, actually. It's always been that "independent film" refers to movies made outside of the studio system and independently financed. With the ever introduction and improvement of digital camcorders over the last decade or so, and the subsequence democratization of camera costs, I think there has been an increasing glut of "no-budget" films. Many more of those are being made now vs decades past when 35mm & 16mm film were really the only options. Naturally, as the percentage of no-budget or guerilla independent cinema has increased, the natural association of what "independent film" is has transferred to include the more prolific genre - especially in the minds of the increasing number of filmmakers that routinely practice that style or those that want to.

I don't think it has anything to do with approach, art, or uniqueness of the project. There are plenty of indie movies that have been made in the last ten years, and which will continue to be made, that aren't trying to do anything more than re-create hollywood type films at a fraction of the cost. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's still independent cinema.

 

[Barry_Green]

When do you think this transformation took place?

With the internet and internet distribution, really. Prior to that, getting a film made was so expensive, and distribution was impossible, that the microcinema/guerilla scene was much, much smaller.

Because I remembered adhering to the idea that "indie" films always had to be under $1 million (I don't know why) and have a certain level of uniqueness (totally subjective), take an unorthodox or difficult approach or just walk that tightrope between artistic and ambiguous for it to fit the indie label, but I know that's really not the case.

I think that's the vibe "indie" films had, but I think that may be looking at it backwards. Back in the day, movies were so expensive to get made, you would go to the studio if at all possible and have them buy it off you. If your film was something that a studio wouldn't possibly consider (read: uniqueness, unorthodox, difficult, or artistic/ambiguous) then the studio would say "no." And that left you with either walking away, or trying to raise money independently to make it yourself. And when you raise the money independently, it's likely (highly probable) that you won't be able to raise nearly as much as a studio film's budget. So, by nature of necessity, independent films were lower-budget productions.

So maybe it's the process itself that really separates indie from studio and not really the money.

Well, nowadays it's really tough to interest a studio in anything that's not a comic book superhero license, or some other licensed property (BattleShip, anyone? BATTLESHIP?!?!) So again, yes, I do think it's all about the money, the studios are putting out products that have the highest percentage likeliness of returning them a profit, and they're banking heavily on existing licensed properties with followings (books, board games, toys, television series, or comic book/superhero properties). Which leaves those who want to tell an original story, shut out of the studio system (largely).

But nowadays, it seems like instead of going the route of raising money to make the film, people have gotten obsessed with the idea of doing it on no money -- hence the explosion of the microcinema scene. Problem with that is, there's absolutely a glut of so unbelievably much stuff being made, and the vast majority of it is unwatchable, that it's making it harder than ever for the no-budgeteer to get any notice. There's a few here that have shown enough promise that I've actually backed them to some degree or other, ranging from pretty small contributions to pretty healthy contributions, but now it's up to those filmmakers (Kholi, Mark Harris, Doug Spice, Noel Evans, Zak Forsman, Jack Daniel Stanley, bosindy, and several more) to really make something happen with their films. If these films go nowhere ... well, I mean, yeah, good luck squeezing money out of me or anyone else again for the next one, y'know?

It's really tough for the no-budgeteer to understand this, they're so focused on "I can now actually make my movie!" that they don't necessarily stop to analyze the rest of the question, which is: "yeah, I could now make it myself, but should I?" If your idea's so amazingly good that it really has to be made into a movie, then surely you can convince the studio to buy into it, right? And if you can't... well, go indie and convince independent investors that your idea is good enough that it deserves a chance to be made right (with a crew and actors and the support that a production deserves). And if you can't convince the studio, and you can't convince investors, well... maybe that points to the notion that maybe your idea isn't that great after all? (on a fiscal basis, leaving your own desire to create your own work of art aside). And if (fiscally) it's not worth making, you then have two choices: a) go ahead and make it anyway (with the likelihood of torching $10k to $30k that you will never, ever see again) or, b), come up with a better idea that you can get other folks to actually believe in, and then go do it the right way...

I think the access to gear and editing software has made people reach for option A much more than they ever, ever would have in the past. Is that a good thing? Maybe, maybe we'll see that one-in-a-thousand breakthrough microcinema hit. But at the same time, we've now got 999 people (the non-one-in-a-thousand) now carrying around $15k to $25k of credit card debt and all they've got to show for it is a home-burnt DVD sitting on their shelf...

Anyway, sorry for the diversion...

 

[Washington Irving]

I would like the following camera:

3k footage (designed for a 2k resolution output)
Up to 100fps (even if only for 5 seconds, or at 2k)
Records to Prores 422
13 stops of dynamic range.
HD-SDI
ND-filters
Sensor M4/3 or bigger. Preferably S35.

Under 10k and I'll be all over that like a rash.

How's that sound?

 

[combatentropy]

Sounds very good, and technically doable.

OK, here's my list:
- VG20 size and shape, w/ 2 XLRs
- global shutter
- 2K S35
- CF, SDXC, or XQD
- $5K

Bonus:
- 10-bit 4:2:2
- more than 60 fps

 

[Gary Huff]

It's really tough for the no-budgeteer to understand this, they're so focused on "I can now actually make my movie!" that they don't necessarily stop to analyze the rest of the question, which is: "yeah, I could now make it myself, but should I?"

Don't forget the "I can make this movie for $10,000 and sell it for millions! Bwahahaha!" crowd, there's probably more of them out there than may be apparent at first glance.

 

[bitcrusher]

Something so awesome that I can pick up a used AF-100 for $2,500 when everyone upgrades.

 

[dregenthal]

I may be the only one that thinks this but in the interest of saving some manufacturing expense yet being able to offer "more for less" in terms of technology or capability, isn't it time to look at simply leaving the LCD off some products?
I understand that not everyone buys an external monitor but, like many that shoot more than just occasionally, I do!
I really don't need three little screens hanging off my rig, i.e., camera LCD + samurai/ninja or pix220/240 + TVLogic or SmallHD . . . that just looks (IMHO) dopey.

What I need are the ports we have now, with the wave form available to/through the HD-SDI connector.
Heck, for that matter, they could leave the eyepiece of too (yeah, I know . . . that'd be too rad for some folks).

 

[Samuel H]

my wish list: DBolex-like-camera with APS-C sensor and 2.5K Bayer pattern, $5K

 

[Gary Huff]

An AF-100A with a better OLPF to give it GH2 hacked quality out of the SDI port and then a P2 AVC-Intra portable recorder to go with it.