Nothing from Panny?
- Thread starter ripupthehwy
- Start date
You're misunderstanding - have you read the full article, or just what I quoted? It's not the BBC that are talking about "tipping points", rather the author of the article - the BBC and their Natural History Unit are an example of what they consider a "blue chip user", and one adopting 4k.
Yes, the BBC as a whole may be purchasing more HD (non-4k) cameras, but that will be for other (non-NHU) programmes, for current "bread and butter" work.
And that's the point that's now being missed. We're not talking about most programming, it's about the high end prestige programmes, the "blue chip". The people who are likely to have the money and inclination to buy a camera in the class and of the price of a Varicam. But if that type of user is increasingly going to insist on 4k, period, then just who will buy the new Varicam - especially if it won't be available for another year? Yes, many people will buy HD for some time to come - but not at that price.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
For fast action sports 1080p at 120 fps will be a lot sharper than 4K at 30 fps.
Not quite sure I'm with you....? General proposals are to shoot and display 4k at progressive frame rates of 24,25, 30, 50 and 60fps - exactly the same as possible with current 1080p HD. If you want the filmic rendition of motion - set to 24fps, for fast action sports, set to 50/60fps.
I haven't seen any proposals for 1080p/120 to be considered as a format as such? The proposed Varicam is stated as recording full 1080 at 120fps, but there is no intention of ever displaying as such. The press release even says ".....off-speed recording to 120fps in full 1080p ...." - the 120fps mode is intended to be replayed at slower frame rates, to give slow motion. (It's also worth noting that the proposed micro-P2 cards are not likely to be capable of the data rate needed for 120fps AVC-Intra 100 - 400Mbs.)
And higher end 4k cameras are also capable of higher framerate recording, 120fps and above.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
When the 8K format was demonstrated at the 2012 Olympics it was generally agreed that the ultra high resolution magnified the strobing effect which was problematic even at 60 frames per second. 8k cameras at 120 frames per second were invented to combat the strobing problems.
In the future 24 frames per second will be the idle speed for cinematography. Variable frame rate ramping and projection capability will mean native 24 fps, native 30 fps,40 fps, 60 fps and 120 fps. Cinematographers will be able to take advantage of vastly greater temporal resolution with no soap opera effect.
Also one must remember that 24 frames per second was the standard only for 35mm film. 65mm film requires at least 30 frames per second which was required by the Todd AO and the Showscan format.
In the future 24 frames per second will be the idle speed for cinematography. Variable frame rate ramping and projection capability will mean native 24 fps, native 30 fps,40 fps, 60 fps and 120 fps. Cinematographers will be able to take advantage of vastly greater temporal resolution with no soap opera effect.
Also one must remember that 24 frames per second was the standard only for 35mm film. 65mm film requires at least 30 frames per second which was required by the Todd AO and the Showscan format.
I saw the demonstration in London during the Olympics, and yes, it was mentioned that such as 8k may benefit from 120fps. (Though frankly, it looked pretty good even as shown.)
But that's for 8k, and at the very highest level, and it was implied that the higher frame rate technology was a long way off, regardless of expense. I've not heard any discussion of going to 120fps with 1080 resolution - likewise no likelihood whatsoever of 1080p/120 as a standard. And as regards this thread then no expectation of it being implemented with the new Varicam - though 120fps for slo-mo at lower framerate playback is a different matter.
I'm not disagreeing that I'd think higher than 24fps to be a good thing for acquisition for high end programming - but I expect it to go hand in hand with 4k, not be a choice of 4k at 30fps versus 1080 at 60fps.
Kolor-Pikker
Well-known member
Where's my cheap multi-dimensional holographic super fast storage solution? You can measurebate big numbers all day long, but even some of the currently existing and in use formats are already quite heavy where storage requirements are concerned.
240fps 12K doesn't sound enticing if it means I can store only 5 seconds of footage on my hard drive.
240fps 12K doesn't sound enticing if it means I can store only 5 seconds of footage on my hard drive.
Except that MicroP2 is capable of 1560Mbps. Unless you meant 400MBps.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
I remember when the 720P Panasonic VARICAM was first introduced and it produced the sharpest images and had variable frame rate ramping so you could have the 24 fps film look yet you could ramp up the frame rate for the fast action shots and this camera was criticized simply because it did not have a 1080p mode.
Now history is repeating itself and we have variable frame rate ramping up to 120 frames per second for the sharpest possible images yet this camera is criticized for lacking a 4K mode even though the temporal resolution is much sharper than 4K.
Now history is repeating itself and we have variable frame rate ramping up to 120 frames per second for the sharpest possible images yet this camera is criticized for lacking a 4K mode even though the temporal resolution is much sharper than 4K.
No - I meant 400Mbitssec, straight from the Panasonic press releases - albeit trying to interpret the small print.
See the pressrelease: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-April&p=1986294589&viewfull=1#post1986294589
In other words, they seem to be guaranteeing performance for sustained write speeds of 200Mbs (class 200 at 30p) but NOT at 400Mbs (class 200 at 60p)
When they talk of "up to 2Gbs" that refers to READ speed off the card - not sustained writing. They talk of "faster transfers", assuming the rest of the equipment is up to it.
At the moment, this is unlikely to be of much importance to nearly all users - I doubt there are many who record greater than 100Mbs at the moment, and the 200Mbs capability will give 2x overcranking. But it's worth bearing in mind that if you get micro-P2 now, it's not likely to be able to handle 1080 120fps overcranking in future, and neither may it be fast enough if and when Panasonic ever do a 4k camera - not for intraframe recording, anyway.
Firstly, temporal resolution and spatial resolution are two separate things - you make it sound as if it has to be a choice of one or the other, and that is not true. Playback rates for both 4k and 1080 currently have 60fps as the highest speed - same temporal resolution.
Secondly, when you say "....you could have the 24 fps film look yet you could ramp up the frame rate for the fast action shots...." you make it sound as if the speed ramping applied on both record and playback? (So vary the overall framerate - and motion rendition - as appropriate to the style of the scene.) Nice idea in principle, but it's not the case, and realistically I doubt it ever will be. The varispeed ramping only applied on record - playback was always at a fixed framerate. Hence varispeed gave slow/fast motion - not variable quality of motion rendition.
Yes, the new varicam should have 120fps for slow motion - but current high end 4k cameras can match that. Obviously the abilities differ camera-camera, but if you take the F55 as an example, then it will do full 4k (including RAW) up to 60fps, and for 2k/1080 it will do slo-mo up to 240fps!! In other words, same spatial resolution as the Varicam, but BETTER temporal resolution! Practically, it means that an F55 could normally shoot full 4k (at 60fps) - but drop to 2k at up to 240fps if slo-mo was needed.
I'll say again that 4k won't be for everybody for a while to come - but I do think it will rapidly become the norm for the highest budget productions. The market for 1080 only cameras will continue for a long time - but not at the high end, and that's where Varicam pricing is likely to place this. And not for sale for another year will only reinforce the problem. I just don't see who will buy it. Too expensive for the one market, but disadvantaged by not being 4k capable for the other market. It falls between stools.
I've recently been sent a link that together with the earlier comments about the Panasonic NAB stand seems to give a picture of mixed messages. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/nab-panasonic-promises-everything-we-437031
OK, don't believe everything you read, but those are direct quotes from a named person - and "president of the company's imaging division, no less.
Well, maybe, but I suspect that means announcements by NAB2014, and product you can buy another year at best after that. Which even more reinforces the thought that a 1080 only Varicam will really seem obsolete before it's even for sale! It raises the interesting possibility of it's replacement being announced before it even goes on sale!!! Unbelievable.
Maybe the most interesting thought is that if they do eventually announce the 4k Varicam he refers to, what size will the sensor be? My money would bet on s35 for such a product, if it's to begin to compete in the high end market. Which begs the question what they'll do for the lower end market, an AF100 replacement. Most cost effective would be to make use of the same fundamental chip - but an s35 "AF200" may not go down very well with all those who have built up a collection of 4/3 lenses.......
Last edited:
That's an odd statement from Panasonic. Why buy an HD product now, when you can get a 4k product next year? If 4K is the future of high end video production, then the new Varicam will be obsolete by NAB 2014, replaced by a 4k model.
Obviously 4K isn't for all high end productions by 2014, but if it will become the norm, then you'd better pay off that Varicam before it loses value, or sits collecting dust.
It'd be interesting to see a 4K HPX250 or AC160. How many pixels will they need to squeeze into a 1/3" chip?
Obviously 4K isn't for all high end productions by 2014, but if it will become the norm, then you'd better pay off that Varicam before it loses value, or sits collecting dust.
It'd be interesting to see a 4K HPX250 or AC160. How many pixels will they need to squeeze into a 1/3" chip?
It may be a mistake to simply regard Panasonic (or any large corporation) as a single simple entity. Or that even a division within a company is truly a single entity. Everybody has their own place, own interests, own agenda. Hence it doesn't surprise me to see a figure at the top making such a statement, especially when you read the introduction to the article: "Keen not to appear a Johnny-come-lately to the Ultra-HD party -- despite having no shipping 4K production products ....."
I suspect his comments are in response to a question along the lines of "surely Panasonic is falling badly behind, not having any 4k product?" What else could he say?
But the agenda of the salespeople is very different. They want to sell product now, period. And it's easier to sell any item that's available now than one which is "sometime in the future". Worse, announce your future plans too early and it encourages an attitude of just waiting, rather than customers parting with money now. Or worse still, going to your rivals.
But yes, you're right. It comes across as conflicting messages from a single manufacturer, and I doubt their marketing department can be very happy.
Incidentally, I don't think it's a case of "....when you can get a 4k product next year...." - the expectation seems to be announced next year, but not available until probably a year after that - if then.
Flippant answer would have to be "at least 4x as many"! But it's not just squeezing photosites onto the chip, it's all the processing etc that goes with it - and what about recording codec? What about the datarate?
All that means it's likely to be more expensive, and for cameras in this class is there really the market there? For the "blue chip" productions, they'll be looking at Red, F5/55, Canon C500. For independent low-budget film makers, they will want large sensor, hence the interest in Black Magic.
Well, there's this, first shown at CES earlier this year.
Last edited:
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
First of all spatial and temporal resolution are related because if you have inadequate temporal resolution you end up with motion blur.
4K does not solve the problem of motion blur. Only higher frame rates can solve this problem.
Now it is true that audiences have rejected the soap opera effect but this does not apply to variable frame rates.
From the beginning the 720p Varicam had variable frame rate projection capability and this feature was not limited to slow motion.
To project variable frame rates in a 60 fps stream 20 fps is repeated 3 times 30 fps is repeated 2 times and 60 fps has no repeat frames.
So the Varicam introduced the most significant advancement in Cinematography yet no one took advantage of variable frame rate projection probably because the Varicam was limited to 720p.
Now if on the fly variable frame rate ramping up to 120 fps was offered in a 1080p camera costing $4000 would not this be more future proof than a 4K camera that maxes out at 30 fps?
4K does not solve the problem of motion blur. Only higher frame rates can solve this problem.
Now it is true that audiences have rejected the soap opera effect but this does not apply to variable frame rates.
From the beginning the 720p Varicam had variable frame rate projection capability and this feature was not limited to slow motion.
To project variable frame rates in a 60 fps stream 20 fps is repeated 3 times 30 fps is repeated 2 times and 60 fps has no repeat frames.
So the Varicam introduced the most significant advancement in Cinematography yet no one took advantage of variable frame rate projection probably because the Varicam was limited to 720p.
Now if on the fly variable frame rate ramping up to 120 fps was offered in a 1080p camera costing $4000 would not this be more future proof than a 4K camera that maxes out at 30 fps?
Yes, but for what you describe the *playback* frame rate was always 60fps. (Had to be, was dictated by tape formats.) And whilst what you describe was indeed the case, it's not the same as recording and replaying one scene at 24fps (say) and the next scene at 60fps. You have to ALWAYS replay at 60fps and achieve the motion rendition effect with duplicated frames.
And to an extent, some aspects of what you describe are still common. The UK adopted 1080i/25 as the default broadcast standard - but much programming here is 1080p/25 - transmitted 1080psf/25. I'm not sure of the current situation, but it was specified that for a 25p programme (film-look) any rolling captions had to be added as normal interlace to avoid judder. So motion rendition of 25fps for most of the programme, going to 50 fields per sec for rolling captions. Likewise some programmes may be a mixture of 1080psf/25 and true 1080i/25 - to the transmitter, psf/25 and i/25 are the same thing.
But who's talking about a 4k camera maxing out at 30fps? The F55 for one is perfectly capable of 60fps at 4k, and I, for one, hope 4k at 60p becomes the new norm.
But really, all this is academic. The proposed new Varicam isn't intended for record/playback at 120fps - it's 120fps capability is limited to providing 2x slo-mo on a 1080p/60 recording. It won't make a 1080p/120 recording as such. Even if it was the case, even if what you describe was implemented in a camera, then what is it going to be viewed on? It's incompatible with existing equipment, and I strongly doubt we'll ever see a 1080p/120 standard.
Don't underestimate the problems that legacy can generate. The whole issue of dropframe timecode, and 59.94Hz dates back to long gone issues with early issues with monochrome receivers when the NTSC colour system was first developed. The problem disappeared decades ago - but legacy dictates that framerates still have to be based on 59.94Hz. I shudder to think of the possible issues that may arise when any truly fully variable framerate system programming was to be shown on a legacy system, and much as you may want to, that's an issue that can't be ignored.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
Doug Trumbulls newest movie will be projected at 120 frames per second at 2K resolution. Yet the naysayers are calling the Panasonic 120 fps Varicam obsolete. Doug Trumbulls movie will go down in history as the sharpest highest resolution movie ever produced yet the naysayers insist that Doug's movie is not ultra high definition because it does not resolve 4K.
"Sharpest highest resolution movie ever produced"? Yet in 2k? Overall that is simply not true, it can not be higher resolution than anything shot 4k. You previously said yourself: "....if you have inadequate temporal resolution you end up with motion blur...." and I don't disagree with that as far as it goes. But motion blur will only occur with motion, yes? What about relatively static scenes? Surely they must be sharper in 4k than 2k, regardless of framerate?
I looked up the Doug Turnbull reference ( http://www.moviescopemag.com/features/douglas-trumbull-on-high-frame-rate-filmmaking-part-1/ ) and as regards the 120fps filming he says:
- my emphasis in bold. Which puts a very different slant on it. He's experimenting with 120fps - but only too keen to link it with 4k when the technology has evolved enough. He's not saying "forget about 4k, it'll be OK if you just go to 120fps" rather "I'm trialling 120fps now, and look forward to combining that technology with 4k".
But the main message that he seems to be trying to get across now is "let's move up from 24fps, at least to 48fps, better still 60fps - at least for subjects that demand it".
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
And when Panasonic develops a a 4K Varicam capable of 120 fps the naysayers will wonder why Panasonic does not embrace the 8K format that only does 60 fps.
So very true Androbot, 4K, 8K, personally i really dont care, the Camera is just a tool to take an image. Its the person operating it that matters, the public at the end of the day really don't care what you use so long as your finished product has a good story and is filmed properly 