Nothing from Panny?

[Danielvilliers]

Most people here just talks about extremes to justify their ideas. It seems that there is nothing between Eng and cinema. I think that there is a huge market in between, from the corporate to the wedding video market. A true 1080p resolution camera, with a proper video camera body and a good high bitrate 10 bit codec at $ 4000/5000 would sell like hot cakes. Take a C100 and don't cripple it by giving at least 60p and a 50 to 100 mbit 10 bit internal codec and it would be a huge success because until now all the competitors have some flaws. A balance product would sell by bucket load.

An af200 with true 50/100 mbit codec, 10 bit, m43 sensor size with good DR (12 stop) and 60p at $ 4/5 K. Is that so difficult to do when a $ 700 Lumix G6 is already 90% of that!!! Couple that with the 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 with stabilization and you have a big success on your hand. Wgat Panasonic should do is just fire there video guys and put there Lumix people in place.

 

[GrahamH]

+1

 

[Fahnon]

Most people here just talks about extremes to justify their ideas. It seems that there is nothing between Eng and cinema. I think that there is a huge market in between, from the corporate to the wedding video market. A true 1080p resolution camera, with a proper video camera body and a good high bitrate 10 bit codec at $ 4000/5000 would sell like hot cakes. Take a C100 and don't cripple it by giving at least 60p and a 50 to 100 mbit 10 bit internal codec and it would be a huge success because until now all the competitors have some flaws. A balance product would sell by bucket load.

An af200 with true 50/100 mbit codec, 10 bit, m43 sensor size with good DR (12 stop) and 60p at $ 4/5 K. Is that so difficult to do when a $ 700 Lumix G6 is already 90% of that!!! Couple that with the 12-35mm f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 with stabilization and you have a big success on your hand. Wgat Panasonic should do is just fire there video guys and put there Lumix people in place.

I think the issue is not one of whether or not they can make such a camera, but would they? Sure that camera would sell, but the camera you describe would be superior to a C300 that (I'm betting) has a much higher profit margin for Canon. Would you, if you were Canon or Panasonic or even RED, make that camera? As a filmmaker everything you say makes sense, but not if I were a businessman trying to sell cameras for as much money as people are willing to pay.

I was on a shoot a couple weeks back where I brought in my BMCC as a 3rd camera to back up the C300 and C500 we rented and my lord is the BMCC basic compared to those cameras (I do love it though). I think BMD or GoPro or Digital Bolex want to make that camera, but making cameras is apparently really, really, very, very hard. My point is I don't think the small guys CAN make the camera you describe (yet) and the big guys don't want that camera to exist (yet), so we probably shouldn't hold our breaths.

 

[androbot2084]

That is not the controversy.
When another company offers a 4k camera that maxes out at 30 frames per second this camera receives no criticism.
But if Panasonic were to offer a 1080p camera with revolutionary features such as variable frame rate ramping up to 120 frames per second for the same price then everyone somehow feels cheated. Never mind the fact that the Panasonic produces the sharper fast action picture with no soap opera effect because common wisdom states that if a camera cannot produce a 4K still image then the camera is no good. Video is all about motion but somehow motion fidelity counts for nothing.

Resolution fails to fix a cameras bad motion fidelity. Even if you had an 8k camera all you would get is high resolution motion blur.

The Panasonic Varicam will be the true revolution in film making.

 

[harddrive]

When another company offers a 4k camera that maxes out at 30 frames per second this camera receives no criticism.

Sorry, but what camera are you referring to?

If we're talking about anything in the price bracket that the new Varicam is expected to be in, then yes, I'd certainly criticise if it maxed out at 30fps, 4k or no 4k.

It's also been made quite clear that the new Varicam is NOT intended to record/playback at 120fps. The 120fps recording is to give slo-mo at 60fps playback.

 

[androbot2084]

Doug Trumbull is developing the new revolutionary Digital Showscan format which features variable frame rate playback of up to 120 frames per second at 2K resolution. If the Panasonic Varicam is currently unable to do this a software upgrade needs to be developed to fix the problem.
Once this issue is resolved the Panasonic Varicam could very well be chosen to shoot Doug Trumbulls next movie.
As far as affordability goes a smaller handheld version of the Varicam could be developed.
But this is not the issue. The real issue is to convince film makers that the 2K up to 120 fps Showscan variable frame rate format is actually superior to 4K 30 fps digital projection.
Remember variable frame rate playback means no soap opera effect.

 

[harddrive]

Doug Trumbull is developing the new revolutionary Digital Showscan format which features variable frame rate playback of up to 120 frames per second at 2K resolution. If the Panasonic Varicam is currently unable to do this a software upgrade needs to be developed to fix the problem.

Which you've referred to before. And which I previously linked to source material here - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-Panny&p=1986310874&viewfull=1#post1986310874 .

And where the quote is "What I am exploring now is the highest possible current frame rate of 120, do it in 3D with dual cameras and dual projectors in 2K resolution—upgrading to 4K as the technology comes on line—......."

Neither he nor anyone else thinks 1080p/120 is the way of the future. 4k 120fps maybe, and use 1080 to experiment with HFR at the moment.

The real issue is to convince film makers that the 2K up to 120 fps Showscan variable frame rate format is actually superior to 4K 30 fps digital projection.

But who is arguing for 4k at 30fps? Please? You earlier said that "When another company offers a 4k camera that maxes out at 30 frames per second this camera receives no criticism." and I asked what camera in the high end bracket you're referring to. Could you answer that very simple point directly, please?

You seem to be trying to link 4k and 30fps together by default - that it HAS to be a choice between high frame rate 1080 or 4k at 30fps.

Which is nonsense. Take something like the F55 and it is well capable of 4k at 60fps.

But please, tell us what this camera is that you feel "maxes out at 30 frames per second {but} receives no criticism."?

 

[androbot2084]

When Panasonic introduces a 4K Varicam that can do 120 fps someone will instantly declare the Varicam obsolete in favor of an 8K camera that does 60 fps. Thus it will never end. Somewhere along the line resolution will have to be sacrificed in order to improve picture quality and there is no way around it.

That was the philosophy of the original 720p Varicam which sacrafices 1080 resolution for variable frame rates up to 60 fps for a sharper cinematic picture with no soap opera effect. Unfortunately what should have been a very powerful tool that could have revolutionized the movie industry became an object of scorn because it did not conform to the 1080 format even though 1080 gave us bad interlacing artifacts or low frame rates.

The camera I am referring to is none other than Black Magic which does 4k and retails for $4000. This camera claims to have obsoleted the 1080p format but it can only do 30 fps. Well cinema is 24 fps isn't it ? Wrong. Film cinema is 24 fps. Digital cinema is a whole different ball game. The only thing holding back higher frame rates is the soap opera effect. However with digital cinema you can have a different frame rate for every pixel if you so desire. Your movie runs at 24 fps but you can have individual objects running at 120 fps.

The sad truth is that 4K cinema projection is limited to 30 fps. Yet the 4k cinemas have declared the 2k projectors obsolete even though a dual 2k projector can do 3D at 120 fps.

 

[harddrive]

The sad truth is that 4K cinema projection is limited to 30 fps.

Nonsense. It may be true that some current 4k projectors are limited to 30fps in 4k mode. That is completely different to saying that 4k cinema projection is limited to 30 fps, period. With cameras such as the F55 perfectly capable of 4k at 50/60fps, expect all the next generation of 4k projection to be capable of the higher frame rates.

The camera I am referring to is none other than Black Magic which does 4k and retails for $4000. This camera claims to have obsoleted the 1080p format but it can only do 30 fps. Well cinema is 24 fps isn't it ? Wrong. Film cinema is 24 fps. Digital cinema is a whole different ball game.

So. It appears that you are referencing the proposed new Varicam to a 4k camera costing $4,000. Do you seriously think that is a fair comparison!?! Or do you think this Varicam is also likely to go for about $4,000?

You get what you pay for. And for many people a 30fps limitation is perfectly acceptable given the trade off of the price tag.

Is the F55 not likely to be a far better comparison price wise? A bit more "apples v apples"? In which case, as I'm sure you're well aware, your mantra of "4k is limited to 30fps" goes out the window. The F55 is perfectly capable of 4k at 60fps, same with other cameras at this price point

The only thing holding back higher frame rates is the soap opera effect.

No. It's a matter of experience and conditioning, but as cameras get more sophisticated "the soap opera effect" is being seen to be far more down to lighting, dynamic range handling, "true" detail versus detail enhancement and a host of similar features. Framerate is far more a question of what people are used to. I do agree with you that a move to higher frame rates is a good thing in principle, but *IF* the other aspects of line up etc are got right, it won't automatically mean "soap opera".

However with digital cinema you can have a different frame rate for every pixel if you so desire. Your movie runs at 24 fps but you can have individual objects running at 120 fps.

Well, I suppose it's conceivable that a file could exist with such characteristics - but how do you suggest it could realistically be arrived at? Even with a scripted film, how do you think it would be possible to tell the camera what framerate the individual parts of the frame should be? With them moving, changing shape etc all the time? Apart from anything else, apart from the sheer practicalities of the sensor readout, the parts of the sensor read more quickly will have an effective different shutter speed than the parts read more slowly, how would you cope with the exposure variations?

But this is all really a digression to the main point of the thread - "Nothing from Panny?" I've since heard from people who were at NAB, and their feelings mirror what was said in a much earlier post: "The whole vibe on the floor was that Panasonic was a disappointment."

That wasn't just that the new Varicam won't be available for another year, and even then won't be 4k capable. Wasn't just the high price of the 5000. Wasn't just the single chip nature of the HPX600. Wasn't just the complete absence of what Danielvilliers was longing for earlier ("An af200 with true 50/100 mbit codec, 10 bit, m43 sensor size with good DR (12 stop) and 60p at $ 4/5 K.") It was all of these, a feeling that in every sector of the market, that whilst there may not be anything actually wrong with the Panasonic product, that a better product was available from a different manufacturer cheaper.

One person went to NAB fairly certain they'd be placing an order for a number of Sony F5s - but nagging doubts made them feel they'd better check out the competition before doing anything irrevocable. From what I heard, the trip was a success - the order for the F5s went in - doubt free!

 

[androbot2084]

So Panasonic introduces a Quad HD camera that is 4 times higher resolution than 720p at 60 frames per second and people say there is nothing from Panasonic?
1280 x 720 x 60 = 55 million pixels per second
1920 x 1080 x 120 = 248 million pixels per second.

How can Sony's 4k camera be called ultra high definition when the frame rate is no better than regular high definition? Remember video is all about motion and ultra high definition is all about liquid motion. Any lopsided approach to improve video quality will actually make the video quality worse because motion blur is more noticeable at higher resolutions.

Audiences have rejected higher frame rates because of the soap opera effect. Yet action sequences are unwatchable because the picture falls apart. The Panasonic Varicam saves the day with its variable frame rate ramping which means higher frame rates without the soap opera effect but somehow this counts for nothing?

 

[harddrive]

So Panasonic introduces a Quad HD camera that is 4 times higher resolution than 720p at 60 frames per second and people say there is nothing from Panasonic?
1280 x 720 x 60 = 55 million pixels per second
1920 x 1080 x 120 = 248 million pixels per second.

androbot2084 - I'm now genuinely uncertain whether you are simply trolling, or just haven't grasped certain facts, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one last time. Most particularly, the newly announced Varicam *IS*NOT*A*120FPS*CAMERA* as such. Got it? The 120fps facility is intended for slo-mo - not for shooting 1080p/120. As far as the thread title, I suspect it's thinking more towards the non-announcement of any much awaited update to the AF100. The new Varicam may not be "nothing", but it's far less than it needs to be at this price point nowadays, and not available for another year anyway. Yes, 1080p/60 is better than 720/60p - but it's not up to 4k/60p, which is the new bar for top end production.

How can Sony's 4k camera be called ultra high definition when the frame rate is no better than regular high definition? Remember video is all about motion and ultra high definition is all about liquid motion.

Analyse most video productions, and you'll find there are lots of static elements in most scenes - that's the whole basis behind why inter-frame compression is so successful! Which is why ultra high definition is first and foremost about spatial resolution - though yes, 4k demands a framerate of more like 60p to do it justice. You also seem to be ignoring that the Sony F55 will not only do 4k/60p, but also 1080 at 180fps or even 240fps 2K RAW with the optional AXS-R5 outboard recorder. Don't believe me? Try looking at http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/3...recamerascamcorders/pmw-f55/features#features (5th paragraph down). Yes, as well as the 4k options, if 1080 spatial is good enough for you, it gives twice the framerate of the forthcoming Varicam! (And it's available now! )

The Panasonic Varicam saves the day with its variable frame rate ramping which means higher frame rates without the soap opera effect but somehow this counts for nothing?

You seem to be misunderstanding the concept of the Varicam, seem to be thinking that it will record at variable framerates, and then replay at the same (variable) rates. That's not the way it works. Playback framerate is fixed - therefore varying the record framerate means slow or fast motion, *NOT* a variation of motion rendition.

Or do you know that only too well - and are just trolling?