New camera April 5th?

Joshbalti said:
Yep just like 3d was the future... just riddle me this, what the hell is everybody going to watch all this 4k footage on and who's going to broadcast it? especially when the likes of the bbc and nhk are testing 8k, not 4k for next generation broadcast. 4k is a 35mm film replacement not a hd video replacement, i just feel sorry for all the people not working in feature films who get suckered by the manufacturers into feeling they "need" this new gear to replace perfectly good 1080p cameras.
Click to expand...

The future is mobile video. 4K will have its place in the high end. I would love to shoot 4K video - but I sure as hell would not want to post or have to distribute 4K. I shoot high res stills all the time
for use in post. The future is a really good 1080p quality camera the size of the iPhone. My clients are just now requesting Blu-Ray. But I have shown many of them you can view h.264 1080p
files directly on most new HDTV's.....leading from behind is the best way to turn a profit in this business.
 
It's very simple... very very simple...

4K is important for HD presentation. That means either a 4/5K post process to 1080, off of a somewhat 4/5Kish sensor. Or, a hardware specific process deriving 1080/2K from a true 4K source. 4/5K have other advantages, but they aren't all buried in only delivering a 4K master.

When 4K is as prominent as HD (1080), then it'll be about shooting 8K+ to get to 4K.
 
Kholi said:
It's very simple... very very simple...

4K is important for HD presentation. That means either a 4/5K post process to 1080, off of a somewhat 4/5Kish sensor. Or, a hardware specific process deriving 1080/2K from a true 4K source. 4/5K have other advantages, but they aren't all buried in only delivering a 4K master.

When 4K is as prominent as HD (1080), then it'll be about shooting 8K+ to get to 4K.
Click to expand...

Spot on, Kholi!

The only thing I'd add is that that "acquire 4K for 1080p delivery" could be "acquire at 4K, scale down nicely to 3K, deliver at 1080p" if budget is an issue.

If you took a FS700 or Alexa or RED or JVC 4K cam image (wow, quite a lot of things shoot >HD these days!) and just scaled it down 75% and stored in a 4:2:2 or better format, you wouldn't lose much. Personally I do a lot of RED stuff at about 3.2K.

Certainly, you don't need to be in an uncompressed 4K 4:4:4 world. That's a mistake a lot of folks make and a disk space pain factory.

A 16:9 4K, 16bit OpenEXR with light B44 compression and luma/chroma subsampling really doesn't take much more space than a good old full-frame 2K DPX. Likewise with ProRes.

Of course, for the feature film I'm delivering finals for right now (can't wait to tell you guys what it is!), we're doing full 4:4:4 uncompressed DPXes at 2.8K (to match Alexa RAW) because that's what the client wants. But they have the cash :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
bruceallen said:
Spot on, Kholi!

The only thing I'd add is that that "acquire 4K for 1080p delivery" could be "acquire at 4K, scale down nicely to 3K, deliver at 1080p" if budget is an issue.

If you took a FS700 or Alexa or RED or JVC 4K cam image (wow, quite a lot of things shoot >HD these days!) and just scaled it down 75% and stored in a 4:2:2 or better format, you wouldn't lose much. Personally I do a lot of RED stuff at about 3.2K.

Certainly, you don't need to be in an uncompressed 4K 4:4:4 world. That's a mistake a lot of folks make and a disk space pain factory.

A 16:9 4K, 16bit OpenEXR with light B44 compression and luma/chroma subsampling really doesn't take much more space than a good old full-frame 2K DPX. Likewise with ProRes.

Of course, for the feature film I'm delivering finals for right now (can't wait to tell you guys what it is!), we're doing full 4:4:4 uncompressed DPXes at 2.8K (to match Alexa RAW) because that's what the client wants. But they have the cash :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Hmmmm! This is interesting. Why haven't I heard of a 3K master versus 4K? I guess it's all the K marketing hype clouding my mind. xD
 
Kholi said:
Hmmmm! This is interesting. Why haven't I heard of a 3K master versus 4K? I guess it's all the K marketing hype clouding my mind. xD
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Another example, for Dragon Tattoo:
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/4k-di-on-the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo

"We color corrected the full 4.5K plate, but only 3600x1500 made up the actual frame. We have almost 1,000 pixels horizontally to do repositions, stabilizations and blow-ups. David was able to come into the DI suite, look at a shot and then say, "...zoom in a little bit" or "pan left" without any resolution penalty."

Of course there, they didn't do that 75% downscale that I advocated. They worked at 4.5K and just did a pan and scan for creative effect (of course... you need to shoot with that workflow in mind!).

Another example (closer to what I'm talking about, because a downscale is involved): Resident Evil 4 final was created at 2560 across. They used that resolution for the IMAX version.

There are just SO MANY reasons to acquire at >1080p. And not all of these involve what people are imagining in post - eg some poor guy rendering out a 4096x2160 quicktime that's pointless overkill because the shot is not in focus anyway. That's the dumb way to do 4K.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Last edited:
... just riddle me this, what the hell is everybody going to watch all this 4k footage on and who's going to broadcast it?
Click to expand...

Well, it is not about watching or broadcasting 4K at all. It is about an acquisition format. Have you seen Epic or Scarlet footage? You have! There you go.
 
Panasonic should merge there video and still sensor development and adopt a dslr Nikon/Canon line of product. Build the sensor and image processor and sell it in as many form factor, functionality to compete at many price point.

Take a 16 megapixel gh3 sensor. Lets says a new generation gh2 sensor with 1 stop better low light and DR and faster readout for less jello. Put it in a $ 1000 gh3 and then in an entry level $ 1500 VG 20 camcorder.

Build a 8 megapixel (4K) sensor from the same tech with pixel twice the size of the gh3 sensor, so even better low light and DR in theory. Put in a line of camcorder:

(1) $ 3000 1080p (downscaled from the 4k, 8 bit avchd, 8 bit hdmi, xlr, nd)

(2) $ 5000 1080p (downscaled from the 4k, 10 bit avchd ultra, 10 bit hdmi, xlr, nd, metal body)

(3) $ 8000 1080p (downscaled from the 4k, 10 bit avc intra, 10 bit hdsdi, xlr, nd, metal body)

(4) $ 12000 4k ( 10 bit avc intra, 10 bit 3gsdi, xlr, nd, metal body)

These are just example of different market segmentation and how some different features like metal construction, hdsdi, 10 bit etc can be use to differentiate the product. Mostly same image quality at base, but things like 10 bit and sdi for the more advance user. The same as the Canon 7d to ti range. But the main cost which is the sensor and image processor are spread along the line. The example above shows how this 4k sensor could be implemented in many ways, they could even put a raw version if need be depending on competition.
 
I think that Panasonic with such an approach could build a complete line in the next 12 month. Contrary with what was discussed before I think that the AF-100 is in fact in no mans land and that is why it has lost about 1/3 of its value because Panasonic has only the price as the only selling point. I know that a lot of people won't agree with me, but if Pana was selling as many as they could manufacture, do you think that they would have decreased the price that much in not much more than 1 year.

The reason I say it is not appealing/catering for the two market for this type of camera. The first one is the value market (indie, enthusiast) which are at the base of the dslr revolution and secondly the more pro users. At first in the dslr market they were melt in the same one pot as the truly only affordable large sensor camera was the dslr. It was either the 2.5 k price or a redone package in the 25/30 k range.

For the first value users the primary thing is image quality. They could rig and use all type of workflow night mare for the best image quality they could get for the smallest price. They don't need to set up fast etc. For now the yardstick is the hacked gh2 for these. Now you will have the new crop of Canon dslr or even Nikon and eventually a gh3. For them the Af-100 does not bring anything in the most important aspect which is image quality. They will work with the vari-nd, external sound recorder and external monitor with peaking/false color, they can live with that.

The second pro user are people with much more budget and can afford to put more money but they want also better image quality. They want it + the internal ND, pro xlr sound recording, peaking etc. Look at the C300 which on paper is on par or bellow the af-100 (60p). But the image quality, mainly resolution and DR are on another level and selling for 10k more and apparently selling very well. The F3 is another example but with much better spec. The new FS-700 is also gathering a lot of attention for bellow $ 8000. The FS-100 I think suffers about the same as the AF-100.

To resume the Af-100 is a jack of all trade but a master of none. It sits in the middle of those two markets but does not meet their needs. I am not saying it is a bad camera but the large sensor market has its specifics. Some will like this versatility but it seems most won't.

Another thing to consider is the market or what will be left until Panasonic update its offering. Every dollar that is going to go to Sony or Canon, is dollar that is not going to Panasonic. If they want to have any market share in this new and expanding market they can't rely on the Af-100 even if they price it very competitively because those two above market already have cameras that are or will cater much more for their needs. So for the humble me. if they don't put a line and some kick ass tech or at least solid product at very competitive price they are going to suffer. If they want everybody to have invested in Canon or Sony lens to come good they will have big big problem.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the AF100 exists right now in a bit of a "no man's land" (as you put it). Emerging next-gen DSLRs are downselling people (because of their better picture quality), and competing & emerging digital cinema cameras are up-selling people (because of their better picture quality, better features, and S35 sensor).

In my opinion, what Panasonic needs to do to continue to compete is as follows:

1) Keep an AFx00 in the product line at the current $3,500 to $3,995 range; it could still be a 4/3 sensor, but improve the sensor overall (more GH2-like or FS100-like) -> higher resolution, greater sensitivity, more dynamic range, better highlight handling - plus, use a better codec - plus add 1:1 focus assist, and 10 bit out on SDI. This would be a killer utilitarian 1080p HD camera in this segment - and these minor hardware and firmware improvements should be do-able at this price point.

2) Add a "big brother" to the AF100 with a S35 sensor that competes within the FS700-to-F3/C300/Scarlet range. At this point in the game, it seems it's gonna have to be 4K, have high (>60fps) frame rates, and NOT be a 4/3 sensor.

I think that if Panasonic doesn't do these two things (or even pull some kind of innovation "leap frog" of the other stuff we see coming out)... they're going to get left behind pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with you, I just said the same thing about the lines being drawn again on another thread. Hopefully at least one manufacturer (panasonic please) will keep a "cinema" camera in that below 5 thousand range Everyone else seems to be raising the bar and price, leaving the under 5 thousand range to DSLRs and small chip cameras.
 
Yes, what I fear is a more upmarket response from Panasonic. But for me a revised af-100 with lets say a gh3 sensor (hopefully not more pixel but better DR and ISO and better) at the current price of the AF-100 (3.5 to 4k) with a better codec or at least clean uncompressed out-put would be nice. I can dream of 10 bit but I would even settle for good implementation of 8 bit if the price is very competitive.

I am getting a Nikon D800 for my photography. This is just Nikon second generation DSLR. If it did not have some moire/aliasing (it is a bit difficult with a 36 megapixel sensor even if seems less than the previous Canon) it would be next champion in putting a new bar on price/quality ratio for image quality. Look at the two example below shot with people that had some experience with video dslr that were invited by Nikon to test it(Many Nikonnians are new to video and you can see some horrible videos). The DR is very very nice and rolling shutter is very low. The overall image is very very filmic. Perhaps with moirer filter rummored to be in development this camera would be insane with its uncompressed hdmi out. I don't want to derail this threat but just showing why Panasonic has to move its but because the competition is going to get harder and harder.


 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm definitely keeping my eye on the D800, with its GORGEOUS filmic look - and with the rumored moiré filter coming, coupled with its clean HDMI out and audio controls, it looks mighty sweet! (And I've always been a "DSLR naysayer").

Wish Nikon would take that nice sensor and put it in a a serious video camera. But alas, they're not in that business...
 
Yes, what I fear is a more upmarket response from Panasonic. But for me a revised af-100 with lets say a gh3 sensor (hopefully not more pixel but better DR and ISO and better) at the current price of the AF-100 (3.5 to 4k) with a better codec or at least clean uncompressed out-put would be nice. I can dream of 10 bit but I would even settle for good implementation of 8 bit if the price is very competitive.

I am getting a Nikon D800. This is just Nikon second generation DSLR. If it did not have some moire/aliasing (it is a bit difficult with a 36 megapixel sensor even if seems less than the previous Canon) it would be putting a new bar on price/quality ratio for image quality. Look at the two example below shot with people that had some experience with video dslr that were invited by Nikon to test it(Many Nikonnians are new to video and you can see some horrible videos). The DR is very very good (best result for a photo camera with 14.4 stop of DR at DXOmark, it seems that part of it has migrated to the video side) and rolling shutter is very low. The overall image is very very filmic. Perhaps with moirer filter rummored to be in development this camera would be insane with its uncompressed hdmi out. I don't want to derail this threat but just showing why Panasonic has to move its bottom because the competition is going to get harder and harder.


 
Steve R said:
Yeah, I'm definitely keeping my eye on the D800, with its GORGEOUS filmic look - and with the rumored moiré filter coming, coupled with its clean HDMI out and audio controls, it looks mighty sweet! (And I've always been a "DSLR naysayer").

Wish Nikon would take that nice sensor and put it in a a serious video camera. But alas, they're not in that business...
Click to expand...

Yes that would be very nice, but I don't think we will see some dedicated video camera. We could perhaps see some specialized video version of some of their DSLR model. Perhaps a model with a stronger olpf or more pixel sampling with less line skipping or a burst 4 k or slow motion setting. I was always advocating, what we see Sony is doing with its burst mode in the FS-700.

But it does not need to be only for slow motion, it can also be for a short 2 min 4k or even 2.35 anamorphic 2500x1080p version. Something just for the people who do narrative and want/need the best image quality even for a short time. 1080p is enough for every other thing. I guess many thing will depend enormously on the impact/sales of the video market will do to the next series of Nikon. The more it impacts their bottom line the more they will invest in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top