"Funny" but it's 2014 and we're still getting 4:2:0 cams (at multi fat stack prices) from all of the majors. It's sort of like they KNOW we'll buy this crap again and again as they incrementally upgrade.rogar-Mad(DBG):
I think we can answer this pretty definitively -- no, it's not the same sensor as the AC90.
It has all the same familiar scene file settings as any of the other Panasonic pro cameras.
If you're talking about a single sensor, the chroma resolution will be far lower than luminance resolution in both the horizontal and vertical axes.
No, that's not the issue. It won't be as good (for sensitivity) as a bigger sensor camera, but the diffraction issue is the lack of iris CONTROL or range you'll have without it going soft. Exactly the same problem as the similar Sony cameras that came out recently. With a Standard Def 1/3" camera you may be able to use it wide open and if the sun comes out stop down to f 8-11 and be OK. Keep that sensor size for HD, and you can't stop down as far without softening, probably only to around f5.6. Go to 4k and the problem gets worse still - you may only get good sharpness between (say) f2 and f2.8! You have to keep the lens virtually wide open to maintain performance.
In a single-sensor bayer system, this is true. This affects all single-sensor bayer cameras equally -- the Red One, the Alexa, the F65, F55, FS700, and HC-X1000. It also equally affects every DSLR ever made, from the $45,000 Hasselblad on down to a compact point 'n' shoot.
Well, not entirely. At 4k res, yes, you're accurate here. 4:2:2 color sampling would give a color matrix of 1920x2160, and the sensor only has 1920x1080 color samples on it, so it would be a complete waste of bandwidth. But when considering 1080 recording, it sure would be nice to have 4:2:2 since the sensor is fully capable of filling out that recording space properly.
Absolutely!
Yes, this is something people need to be quite aware of. Shooting at f/11 on a camera like this is likely to result in quite unsatisfactory footage. You pretty much will need to limit the iris to stopping down to no more than, oh, probably f/4 given the pixel density. Once I get one I'll test for diffraction performance. Sometimes the engineers do crafty things, such as the AC90's integrated ND filter which gives you the perception that you can stop down to f/6.4 before diffraction comes into play (even though internally the iris is limited to f/2.8).
My guess -- most definitely not! The AC90 is surprisingly useful in lower light situations; it was a huge step forward from the HMC40. So far we've got three generations of super-tiny-pixel cameras to consider, the HMC40, the AC90, and now this HC-X1000.
Yes, I was just presuming it was the 4k mode being referred to.
Again, agreed. If anybody is in any doubt, it's worth looking at a recent report on the JVC GY HM-890 camera by Alan Roberts for the BBC - https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s14.pdf . What's relevant here (and is equally applicable to all 1/3" cameras, from any manufacturer, not just JVC) is when he says:
And I'm relieved to see his figures of f4-5.6 agree with what I said in post 69!
It must be stressed they are for 1/3" sensor size and 1080 HD. For 4k, the relevant figures are f2-2.8.To an extent - but the real problem is less ability to deal with a given lighting level, than the useful iris RANGE. With this size sensor, for 4k you only really get an adjustment range of something like 1 stop or so between (say) wide open at f1.8 and the diffraction limiting point of f2-2.8.
I understand exactly what you're saying, and I did find this occasionally troublesome with the 1/3" HD AC160 and HPX250. Once the ND filter is set, there's not a lot of range you can work within; totally fine for staged shots but for reality or news it could be a tad troublesome.
Totally understand where you're coming from. All I can say is -- try it before you say it wouldn't work. As you said before, the engineers do have an understanding, so they've come up with something pretty useful to solve the issue. In the HC-X1000, the ND filter is actually seamless. I don't know how they do it, because I don't think it's electronic; it sounds like and feels like a physical filter wheel swapping in place, but there's absolutely no frame or ruin of the shot. Swapping in the ND filter looks about like an iris change. It's really vastly better than the situation with a conventional broadcast camera. It's not as seamless as the AC90 (where the filter is gradually introduced in 1/6-stop increments); it looks like you just stopped down a couple of stops on the iris. But if you're working in a range of 4 or 5 stops anyway, all I can say is -- this works. I'd be okay with it. Functionally, you basically ride the ND filter like as if it was a second iris wheel. I had no problem keeping the iris in the sweet spot of f/2-f/2.8 while in broad daylight and pointing the camera every which way, whether into shady trees or bright sky, you could easily quickly get it right in the sweet spot.
No doubt. But to be fair, I was one of the guys who said we'd never get 1/4" HD cameras because the diffraction would so severely limit their usefulness that they'd never see the light of day. I turned out to be 100% wrong on that, as the AC90 has ended up being one of my preferred cameras in spite of the tiny chips. I think the HC-X1000 involves compromises, as all low-cost cameras do and as all smaller-sensor 4K cameras will. The question is whether you can work within the compromises. To be brutally honest, I think I'm more annoyed by the lack of WFM and SDI than I am with the diffraction situation, as I think they've got it workably sorted out.
It actually provides the ability to customize up to 10 buttons. But, as said before, that's not really how you change the settings; it has six internal "scene file" setting slots, and you can change which scene file is active either by going into the menus, or by touching the scene file "virtual button" on the LCD.
Well, understand that this is a pre-preproduction unit. It's very early. Footage from this camera is not necessarily representative of what footage from the production version will be like.
