Panasonic 2010 NAB Predictions???

Andrew McCarrick said:
I don't know of any 2/3" 3CMOS cameras from Sony and the only one I can find from Grass Valley is the LDK 3000 and that's nearly $73,000.00. All the other cameras that use CMOS sensors that are relatively cheap all use single sensors not arrays.
Click to expand...
Sony PMW350 has 3 cmos sensors and is 2/3". Cmos has become more accepted, but just the other day I heard of a motion picture here in Norway being shot on HPX3700 as none of the cmos based "film"cameras were suitable for high action hand held, too much jello. So CCD still has something going for it...
 
Bandido said:
Panasonic has a good camera on the HPX300 they just have to improve the sensor and make the viewfinder detachable.
Click to expand...
Doing so, it wouldn't be an HPX300 anymore. The HPX300 is designed around the price tag. Putting in bigger chips would drive up the price, and making the viewfinder detachable would cause the price to skyrocket.
 
Barry_Green said:
Doing so, it wouldn't be an HPX300 anymore. The HPX300 is designed around the price tag. Putting in bigger chips would drive up the price, and making the viewfinder detachable would cause the price to skyrocket.
Click to expand...
And IF the VF were detachable....what's really the point with the Pana VF options in the range of 3500-8000$ :laugh:. Want bigger chips, detachable vf and 1080 native? Well there's always the Hpx3000...
 
That's pretty much what I mean. By making the viewfinder *not* detachable, they were able to leverage off all the existing hardware in the camera body, instead of having to build it into the viewfinder. A separate LCOS HD viewfinder costs as much as an entire HPX300. But by doing it the way they did, they dropped the price to the point where the viewfinder is included free and the whole camera retails for under $8,000.
 
Hidef1080 said:
I'd be down with a 150-something with more resolution and dual SD slots or with SD / Compact Flash combo slots.
HD – SDI would be nice.
Much better LCD screen would be nice [not even touch screen just better than now].


I think it will happen but just not this year.
Click to expand...
I would have been sold on the 150 if it had higher resolution chips.
 
I don’t think they could justify doing an improvement upgrade (picture quality wise) on the 150’s (NTSC/PAL) :( , without doing one on the 170’s or 200’s!
Doing so might make people not bother with the other 2 cameras at all, considering it’s cheaper. Panasonic wouldn’t want that to happen!

Also, if they changed them and put CMOS chips in (GOD FORBID!), I don’t think they would call them 15x, 17x or 20x anymore. There would be to much confusion.

I haven't got a 152 yet and I can live without it now for a little longer to see if anything does happen at NAB.
It's impossible for me to get the footage I want to see (shot on a 152) so that I can make up my mind if it would be suitable or not. :undecided .

This forum needs a “bang head against a brick wall” in the Smilies :laugh:
 
Barry_Green said:
Doing so, it wouldn't be an HPX300 anymore. The HPX300 is designed around the price tag. Putting in bigger chips would drive up the price, and making the viewfinder detachable would cause the price to skyrocket.
Click to expand...


When I say bigger sensor I mean using the single CMOS sensor from the GH1 which retails for only $1,499.95. I know it is not going to be a HPX300 anymore, because that change just by itself represents a new breed of cameras (a new line); Digital SLR or micro four-third in a ENG form factor.
By leveraging the technology on the HPX300 and the Gh1 they will be able to offer a camera that excels in low light conditions, a shallow depth-of-field and one of the best codecs (AVC-Intra) out there. All this at the same price range as the HPX300.
 
Bandido said:
When I say bigger sensor I mean using the single CMOS sensor from the GH1 which retails for only $1,499.95. I know it is not going to be a HPX300 anymore, because that change just by itself represents a new breed of cameras (a new line); Digital SLR or micro four-third in a ENG form factor.
By leveraging the technology on the HPX300 and the Gh1 they will be able to offer a camera that excels in low light conditions, a shallow depth-of-field and one of the best codecs (AVC-Intra) out there. All this at the same price range as the HPX300.
Click to expand...
But them you need more expensive glass...and glass is probably the most expensive part of the 300 today.
 
It is too simplistic to think that you can just plop any sensor you want into an existing product without basically re-engineering the entire optical path, lens, sensor block, filters, etc. There is so much more to it. Also, the competition like the EX1R/EX3, JVC GYM-? and the Canons all use three imagers. Would Panasonic'a customers accept a camera that costs more and only has one sensor, even though it gives shallow DOF capability and better low light capability? The processing circuitry would have to be completelty re-engineered from the ground up as well.

I think armcahir quarterbacking this is fun but in the real world, this just isn't how it works, it is a BIG deal to come out with a products like this that frankly, would have a much smaller audience than the products they are shipping now. Basically, only filmmakers are the ones who are really concerned with huge imagers. People who shoot news, events, weddings, etc. would soon find that the super shallow DOF would become a liability rather than a asset for much of their work. I know I do with my 5D MKII. While shallow DOF is fun to play with, in tracking moving subjects, it becomes a major handicap. For interviews or careful filmmaking with a crew where you can block and rehearse moves with an AC pulling focus, it's great but shooting frantic action by yourself, it becomes a total PITA.

Dan
 
Bandido said:
By leveraging the technology on the HPX300 and the Gh1 they will be able to offer a camera that excels in low light conditions, a shallow depth-of-field and one of the best codecs (AVC-Intra) out there. All this at the same price range as the HPX300.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes, and NO. Nowhere near the same price range. Have you priced broadcast 2/3" lenses? Can you begin to imagine just how horrifically expensive a proper ENG zoom lens for a 4/3 sensor would be?

A 1/3" broadcast-style lens like the one that comes with the HPX300 goes for maybe $800.

A 2/3" sensor is 4x as big as a 1/3" sensor. A 2/3" broadcast-style lens, of equivalent quality as the 1/3" one, goes for maybe $7,000. Just for the lens.

A 4/3 sensor is 4x as big as a 2/3" sensor! So if the cost increase from 1/3" to 2/3" for the lens is a factor of 9x, then should we extrapolate forward and assume that the cost differential for a broadcast-quality 4/3 lens would be 9x more, so $63,000? Probably.

Just for the glass.

So could they make a 4/3 camera out of an HPX300 and sell it for the same price? Maybe, but what lens would you put on it? Would you seriously want a big old ENG form factor shoulder-mount camera with a Nikon lens in front of it?

To me that would make no sense whatsoever. If they're going to make a big-sensor camera, I extremely doubt it would have any relationship to the HPX300 in any way. I've been lobbying for them to make a larger-sensor version of the HPX170. Put the 4/3 chip in the HPX170, put the micro 4/3 lens mount on front, and put on the stock lens from the GH1. I think that's a completely practical idea to expect, I think it would be almost serviceable, the only real engineering problems are that a) the lens extends when you zoom, which I think video shooters are going to have a problem with, and b) no power zoom. So they'd probably have to re-engineer the lens to have a power zoom option.
 
Sometimes I think people miss the fact that a Hpx300 and all the other budget 1080p all are made possible by cheaper electronics. Precision mechanical parts such as lenses still cost a lot to manufacture. A 2/3" wide angle runs for about 30 grand...a wide 35mm film lens, lets just say it's not actually cheap.

My "hope" is for some kind of model to bridge the gap between Hpx300 and Hpx3000...as this is the next step for native 1080p. And maybe for some higher end 1080p model that's capable of over/under cranking...1080p50 would be nice.
 
Barry_Green said:
I've been lobbying for them to make a larger-sensor version of the HPX170. Put the 4/3 chip in the HPX170, put the micro 4/3 lens mount on front, and put on the stock lens from the GH1.
Click to expand...

Let me lobby with you :)

The Four Thirds chip is as small as a thumbnail, so it would fit.

The 14-140mm lens (SLR angle: 28-240mm) weighs one pound and stretches to 8 inches. Someone will say, "It's so small because it is limited to f-4 or f-5.6. Our prosumer lenses open to f-1.4 or f-2. Wouldn't the depth of field be the same?" Actually, at least according to an online depth-of-field calculator, at f-5.6 its focus would still be twice as shallow as a 1/3" camcorder even at f-1.4 (angle of view for angle of view).
 
The difference in DOF between a 1/3" camera and a 4/3 camera is four stops. So, yes, at f/5.6 a GH1 is delivering the shallow DOF performance of a 1/3" camera opened up to 1.4.
 
By the way, for Panasonic NAB predictions (original purpose of this thread) -- Panasonic's pre-NAB press releases are now up on their site. Short answer is: 3-D, 3-D, 3-D. New 3-D camera, new 3-D monitor, new 3-D mixer...
 
Panasonic would also have to re-engineer the chip to be more suitable for video and that alone would be very expansive.

For ENG work, having a DOF too shallow, may not necessarily be a good idea and that's why having 3 chips is more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Really kind of s strange way of selling the new 3D camera, I can't recall another large Japanese camera manufacturer building to order, even on cameras costing many times this one. Wonder if they will eventually just produce enough of these to put into the retail channels? It does say that the list price is $21k, but since you are buying directly from Panasonic, I suppose the fiscal advantages gained in shopping at various retailers will not be realized. Unless nobody orders them, then Panasonic may have to lower the costs, just to sell them.

In a way, I can understand the 3D strategy for Panasonic but in another way, this camera seems too low end to be considered for features and broadcast, it seems to be very prosumer looking and spec-wise, I see only people who are doing corporate or events getting really excited about this. Most broadcasters, today, wouldn't accept entire productions being shot on a camera this low end but perhaps that will change because of the ease of use that this camera will provide.

Dan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top