Nothing from Panny?

harddrive said:
But regarding the products they ARE bringing out, then the question has to be how they will fit in the market. Why on earth is the HPX600 single chip, for example! Why such a mystery surrounding the specifications and pixel count of that? Up against the PMW350 (it's closest rival) they may have been able to argue "superior codec" with some justification, even if an inferior front end, but that won't be true up against the PMW400.
Click to expand...


There's a video out on the HPX600 where they say it's a 3M pixel chip. So I guess it overscans to get 1920x1080, but I think you need 3.5 M pixels to get a really good overscan.
Here it is. The sensor is discussed at 2:25 in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTs5Owh_rQ0&list=PL-vpmw9-F1J0DoSoW86H7JoSLlyCbERl5&index=3


I like the 600, it's a cheap alternative for a 2/3" shoulder mount cam. I'm thinking they went for a single chip to hold the camera's cost down, to save weight, run cool and because it won't use much power. It certainly could be better and it will probably be cheaper than the PMW400. But given the two cameras, the 400 will most likely be the better camera.
I don't know how AVC/Intra 100 compares to XDCAM HD. I'm wondering if the 600 can be upscaled to AVC/Intra 200. Does anyone know?
 
harddrive said:
Out of interest, which part of the world is he based in?

The thing I've found is that for such as news, there is a general request for 35Mbs - it's considered fully acceptable (within Europe) for "journalism", and it means it can be shot to an SDHC card and just handed over. That aspect of the workflow becomes like the days of tape. Shoot, hand over media, forget. And that's true either directly with the handheld JVC cameras such as the BBC have bought, or a PMW500 with an adaptor.

Which is ironic - it's certainly not what Sony intended, and happened originally in spite of them. Yet it's become a big factor as establishing one flavour of XDCAM heavily as the main de facto standard.
Click to expand...

Dallas, TX….
I freelanced for AP for the web service….They only needed 480. I would shoot DV tape and then go to a service to upload in real time over a sat. feed to DC.
They never did need a deliverable. It was here today and gone tomorrow….
I have not shot for them for a few years. I would get calls to go out a moments notice to cover stuff that might have been 80-120 miles away.
They always thought stuff was in a 10 min driving range….plus the pay was lousy.
 
Note, MicroP2 will be applicable to any AVC-Intra-capable camera, but won't be an option for the DVCPRO-HD-only cameras (HVX200, HPX170, HPX500)...
 
Barry, is the HPX300 included? In the video they listed HPX371 as being updated in June 2013. I'd guess the same firmware might apply to the HPX300, but possibly not.
 
vanvideo said:
......., it's a cheap alternative for a 2/3" shoulder mount cam. I'm thinking they went for a single chip to hold the camera's cost down, to save weight, run cool and because it won't use much power. It certainly could be better and it will probably be cheaper than the PMW400.
Click to expand...
The trouble is the HPX600 isn't that cheap. It's difficult to do an exact comparison because it depends whether you buy packages with/without lens, with/without v/f (in the case of the HPX600) - and prices keep changing all the time. But it seems to be dearer than the PMW350. We'll see how it comes out against the PMW400, but it seems that likely PMW400 pricing may not be much different to that current on the PMW350. And in terms of power consumption (and hence heat dissipation) the HPX600/PMW400 are almost identical (again, depends on exact configuration).

In many respects, a reasonable rule of thumb is that a single chip will give results expected from three chips of half the area. So expect single chip 2/3" to be (very) roughly equivalent to three chip 1/2" with equivalent technology. So if cheapness is important, an equivalent 1/2" three chipper is likely to give much better value for money.
I don't know how AVC/Intra 100 compares to XDCAM HD. I'm wondering if the 600 can be upscaled to AVC/Intra 200. Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
When the EBU did their tests on camera codecs, AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM422 50Mbs both got given full approval for "unrestricted HD broadcast acquisition", which really should be the end of the story for most users. I suspect very strongly that will each have strengths and weaknesses, and those will vary depending on aspects of the source material, but to all intents and purposes they may both be considered full broadcast standard. End of story.

As far as the 600 being upgraded to AVC-Intra 200 - then..... why bother? For a camera in this class then the front end is likely to be a weaker link in the chain than recording codec - at least as long as something as good as AVC-Intra 100 or XDCAM422 is used. Go to a more expensive basic camera and there may be worth in a better codec, but I doubt it'll make a lot of difference with a camera in this class. (Except for doubling the datarate. :) )
 
It's an interesting thread, I read all 9 pages of it with an open mind. I am not brand loyal, so I too am interested in why Panasonic will or will not enter the race to the bottom for 4k, or not be updating their 4/3 cams.

What troubles me is that 4k UHD sets are arriving later this year. Once that happens, there's no going back to making HDTV sets, costs will come down, you'll buy it because it's what's offered as with 3d before, whether you care or not. But if you do care, where is the content going to come from? Broadcasting isn't going to adopt UHD overnite. In order to advance the premise that HD is dead, they will have to recycle slogans like 4k makes all your upscaled HD content look better! But then I expect a whole slew of new 4k consumer cams, with owners enthusiastically editing their cuts in-cam, then plugging it into the UHDTV and showing off their glorious videos until the novelty wears off. Then it's back to the usual news/sports/reality programming in regular 'ole upscaled HD.

So I'm left wondering, who will be the purchasers of professionally produced UHD content and equipment? And I keep coming back to big screen cinema and well, that's about it! Do I really want to jump in on the F5/55/700/C500/BMPC when all I really want is to make pretty pictures that few will get to experience in UHD? Well yes, I want to...but to spend big sums only to have the rug pulled out by cheap 4k consumer cams and a fickle consuming public that's likely to yawn about 4k in his home and we're right back to the only true plausible need for 4k, the big screen cinema.

With those points in mind, it's prudent in my view that Panasonic would wait and see before taking the plunge Sony did, which could corner the market share for high end cinema, but who knows what that's worth.
 
Tom Roper said:
who will be the purchasers of professionally produced UHD content and equipment?
Click to expand...

...I'm wondering about how is anybody going to deliver 4K content, as cable bandwidth won't be able to hack the data rate and Blu-ray is limited to 1080 HD resolution, so how the heck are you going to distribute 4K content?
 
Tom Roper said:
So I'm left wondering, who will be the purchasers of professionally produced UHD content and equipment? And I keep coming back to big screen cinema and well, that's about it!
Click to expand...
I'd refer back to what I said in post no 61 in this thread ( http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-Panny&p=1986304319&viewfull=1#post1986304319 ), and in particular the link to the latest big project from the BBC Natural History Unit:
http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/403-bbc-natural-history-unit-to-embrace-4k ? The BBC Natural History Unit has been a big past user of Varicams, but the implications of that article are that if any forthcoming Varicam can't do 4k, they'll go elsewhere.

But it's implications stretch much further than simply being the latest high profile BBC nature documentary. It shows that 4k is now a serious consideration for future-proofing content. It shows that the international market is looking to 4k for blue chip programming. .........And it hints that we're rapidly getting to the tipping point where any broadcaster or production looking to a) buy new camera equipment or b) produce anything of international note will at the very least be thinking carefully about 4k.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And with regard to that last sentence, by "tipping point" I'd draw parallels to the coming of HD. It went through a stage of pure R&D, little more than demonstrations, then was seen as a big luxury, rarely used - then the tipping point came where it became the production norm for big budget "showpiece" productions (even if mostly seen in SD at the time), then finally it became everyday, coexisting with SD channels.

And I think that's what the article means with a 4k tipping point arriving here. The content might not yet get seen in full glory by the vast majority, but people doing "blue chip programming" are likely to consider such programming worth 4k acquisition for future usage.

And even more important is that HD didn't really take off until the means to do it became effectively close to cost neutral with SD. When it became almost more difficult to buy a camera that *WASN'T* HD capable than one that was! We're not there with most of the 4K market yet - but the higher up the chain you go, the more it becomes the case. Red - Canon C500 - Sony F5/55. All 4k CAPABLE, but usable for 1080 for here and now as well.

If as a user you're happy now with what you've got, fine - stick with it. But if you're in the market for new equipment anyway, that's when I think you've really got to think seriously that whatever you get should be at least 4k capable - even if you don't want 4k yet. And manufacturers are most concerned with those who are about to make a purchase - not customers who are happily using something they bought a year or two back. That belongs on a previous years balance sheet.

I'd fully expected Panasonic to introduce something like a 4k large sensor high end camera this NAB, and hoped for it - without fierce competition it's not good for the consumer. There is certainly nothing actually bad AFAIK about the newly announced Varicam, but not even being available for a year, and at the cost it's likely to be I feel that the overwhelming reaction amongst it's target market is likely to be "How much?..... Yet not 4k!?" As with HD at it's tipping point, it's not a case of "why 4k?", it's a case of "why not, if it doesn't cost us any more?"
 
This is what I'd tell you, if you want a 4k camera right now then BUY IT, use it, enjoy it. Future proofing electronic data involves the selection of physical media and*data formats which are most likely to ensure the continued accessibility of the original information. 4k does not assure any of that. And the misuse of the term future proofing is so overused now, it should be obvious it's purpose is a marketing gimmick to get you to buy things that reason says are better to wait on. HD is already future proof. GONE WITH THE WIND in b/w and THE WIZARD OF OZ in color were both produced in 1939 yet the lack of color in the former was not obsoleted by the color filmstock of the latter. Whatever it is you're doing now isn't going to make or break because of 4k. I've gone through a dozen or more HD cams, and they always got better, the first ones, the early adopters are the ones collecting the dust. (The BBC's warning of a tipping point was met with what? The purchase of more HD cams.)
 
I agree, "early" buying never results in the equipment you want to keep anyway. Think of the entire HVX line. It was the first grab at HD but looking in the rear view mirror it was a version of HD. Sure they are still viable cameras but lets be honest, pixel shifting is not in vogue now. I think 4k would be in the same boat. More data than what people are prepared to handle on a daily basis right now, so there will be compromises to bring it to the masses. Only go there if you can charge more or land a big project. I went to HD kind of early but that was mostly caused by the 16x9 frame change rather than a need for higher resolution from a customer's point of view. I will not make the same mistake again.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I agree, "early" buying never results in the equipment you want to keep anyway. Think of the entire HVX line. It was the first grab at HD but looking in the rear view mirror it was a version of HD. Sure they are still viable cameras but lets be honest, pixel shifting is not in vogue now. I think 4k would be in the same boat. More data than what people are prepared to handle on a daily basis right now, so there will be compromises to bring it to the masses. Only go there if you can charge more or land a big project. I went to HD kind of early but that was mostly caused by the 16x9 frame change rather than a need for higher resolution from a customer's point of view. I will not make the same mistake again.
Click to expand...

Exactly...the place it will make the least amount of difference is to those who view content. Unless some company decides to make super super wide televisions, and it catches on. Lol. On a 42" TV from 8 to 10 feet....no one will see the difference. For creation of content and movies it makes sense for those who really want the most information to start with. Most of us don't need that though TBH.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Exactly...the place it will make the least amount of difference is to those who view content. Unless some company decides to make super super wide televisions, and it catches on. Lol. On a 42" TV from 8 to 10 feet....no one will see the difference. For creation of content and movies it makes sense for those who really want the most information to start with. Most of us don't need that though TBH.
Click to expand...

But is it a question about viewer demand? I mean, I am more than happy to shoot on whatever, but it may not be up to me - unless I treat it as a hobby. What if distributors start demanding that you give them 4K content? If you want to have your stuff distributed professionally, your opinion means less than nothing - you have to bend to the demands of content distributors, so you'll shoot on what they tell you to shoot on... whether for TV or cinema.
 
OldCorpse said:
What if distributors start demanding that you give them 4K content?
Click to expand...

Then that's when you invest in 4K gear. Doing it before will simply continue to depress the market, because we'll have a ton of people jumping on the bandwagon who are pimping out 4K at no extra charge because there's currently no demand for it.
 
OldCorpse said:
But is it a question about viewer demand? I mean, I am more than happy to shoot on whatever, but it may not be up to me - unless I treat it as a hobby. What if distributors start demanding that you give them 4K content? If you want to have your stuff distributed professionally, your opinion means less than nothing - you have to bend to the demands of content distributors, so you'll shoot on what they tell you to shoot on... whether for TV or cinema.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that may be something to think about at some point, BUT to Gary's point....what cameras are 4K? Let's have a look at current listings.....
The following are boring ole HD:
Sony NX5, PMW100, PMW160, PMW200, PMW320, PMW350, PDW530, PDW320, HDW790, F800 DVW970 F900R, SRW9000, EX3, F3, Z7U, FS100, F5,(without recorder) PMW320, Panasonic AC130, AC160, HPX170, HPX250, 370, 500, 600, 2000, 2700, 3100, 3700, AF100, GH3 Canon XA10, XA20, XF100, XF300, C100, C300, 5DMK3 JVC HM600, HM650, HM710, HM750, HM790 BLACK MAGIC BMCC, Primarily HD (2.5k in raw) BM Pocket Cam ARRI Alexa Primarily HD (3.5K in raw)

The 4K cameras are Canon's 1DC, C500, Sony's F55, F5 and FS700 (with recorders and firmware upgrades) Red's line up, Black Magic BMPC (not released yet) and the Alexa can be uprezzed...not true 4K though.

No need to worry for quite some time ;)

Just as a side note: In my personal music production I went from 4 track tape (like 8mm) to 8 track tape (like 16mm) to 16 track 2" inch tape (like entry level 35mm) (all delivered as cassette tape then CD) to going backwards a bit to 8 track digital to 16 track digital with 16 bit to forward again with 24 track with 24 bit...delivered as CD and now- MP3?!? Lol...my mastering deck is old yet it is capable of Super CD (much better quality than the delivered format)
I have zero need to upgrade the back end at this point in that field- ZERO. The front end components can be better -pre-amps, mics, etc, but I am set for years and years on the final output. In many ways, visuals are going this direction - the front end can be great and can always get better, but more and more visual content is being viewed with huge data compression (just like what happened in music)...the back end doesn't need to be greater than what can actually be seen/heard.
 
Last edited:
Alright, this really pisses me off, but I keep seeing news about cheaper and cheaper 4K TV sets now down to $1500 for a Chinese knock off, and to my surprise, even the people on the RED forums often jump for joy when such news hits! Why? The same people who care about maximizing every pixel of image quality from their footage are happy to watch on a garbage piece of sh!t that costs the same as a premium Panasonic plasma? Well, whoop-de-douche, have fun with your blurry washed out image!

I don't know about you guys, but I'm waiting until 4K is inexpensively viewable on a technological substrate that actually matters, like OLED, LED pixels or what have you by then.
 
I'll not have the slightest interest in delivering 4k until it is common place in broadcast (which may be never).
If clients begin to demand it they can find another shooter . . . I honestly don't care.
I have little doubt in my ability to round up enough folks willing to "suffer" through HD projects in order to keep the lights on.

Hey, I'm happy for anyone going that way but my gut tells me it's either going to take a long time, or simply lay an egg (much the same as 3D).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top