Panasonic 4K at NAB?

People will realize pretty soon that more pixels doesn't necessarily mean a better image. The pixels on a 4k sensor are pretty damn small so the low-light performance suffers...
Just look at DSLRs: the pixel count hasn't improved much in the last years even though they could cram alot of pixels on those sensors, but there is simply no need to...
 
From the above links, I think that it's factual to say that Panasonic is going to drop a huge bomb on the camera industry with the new AVC-Ultra Codec at NAB.

In these links, I don't see any hard evidence that there is a new AF-100 replacement coming, but it seems like a pretty educated guess, that the AF-100's success will lead to an even more exciting AF-100 successor soon.

I will guess, that the higher end codecs will be reserved for the higher cost cameras to start out.

1) A new Cinema Style Varicam with 4:4:4 AVC Ultra 4K + High Frame Rates +4/3 interchangeable lenses + P2

2) A mid-ranged HDX900 / SDX 900 type of successor with the AVC-Ultra 4:4:4 Codec at normal NTSC and PAL frame rates.

3) Some kind of new and improved Sub-$8,000 breakthrough camera for us DVX100, HVX200, AF100 people with 4:2:2 and P2 cards, timecode and other improvements.

Again, the above 3 items are just a guess, and my personal opinion. I have no real evidence to back it up. I'm just looking at how Panasonic has done things in the past and am not unrealistically thinking that they put all of their new codec technology and P2 technology into a new AF-100 for $6,000 and just say "forget it" to their higher end camera line. That would seem like an odd financial move, unless of course they wanted to just give RED, Sony and Canon a headache with a ridiculously low priced 4K P2 AF200 for $6,000. I'd buy 2 of them tomorrow.
 
other than that based on the things thats been hinted heres my theory
-4k. most likely not on prosumer level. they're either 'entering' the 4k land or the 'digital cinema war'
-panasonic did mention before they talked to companies first on the avcultra specs to standardize it rather than going ahead with it first and let the software companies adapt. so they are 4k ready most probably
-much bigger p2 capacity (for class 200 avcintra or the rumored 4k) or maybe more
-prosumer gets avc-long G or with avcintra100. main reason pany went intra before was technology couldnt handle long-gop and intra edits faster. now it can.

overall, i want them to announce a fs700 with (p2 or sdcard) and avc-LongG.
 
As a Web/App designer who has side a business that involves videos, I keep an eye on various tech.... I'll say this:

Within the next year, 4K computer monitors will be springing up everywhere (starting with the next imac). 4K or quad HD will be the buzz word and the video guys know it. It used to be TVs that dictated consumer video specs.... It is now, more and more, the computer device (of course, there will be a bunch of 4KTVs on the way too).

4K will be mainstream.
 
Last edited:
In the pricepoint most want, I think you can have the choice of overly compressed 4k or excellent 2k. From my point of view, I want better 2k than a 4k "HDV" variant just to have something to offer. 4k is for cinema projection only imho. True (high end) 1080p looks just great on televisions and very nice on theater screens. So why is 4k so important? Haven't we learned by now that it is about the quality of the sensor not the amount of pixels?

For example: People like the features of the AF-100 but it still seems to drop in value. Obviously the image quality is not what people want as much. So would the upgrade choice be a 'better' AF-100 or a 4k Af-100?

It is fine to have 4k cameras for certain uses but I do not see the need to make the whole line of cameras 4k just because computer monitors are 4k. Half the time Vimeo stutters on playbacj of their 720p files for me. I don't see 4k on that horizon for a while.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
In the pricepoint most want, I think you can have the choice of overly compressed 4k or excellent 2k. From my point of view, I want better 2k than a 4k "HDV" variant just to have something to offer. 4k is for cinema projection only imho. True (high end) 1080p looks just great on televisions and very nice on theater screens. So why is 4k so important? Haven't we learned by now that it is about the quality of the sensor not the amount of pixels?
Click to expand...

TIME TO STOP THE MADNESS!

"Excellent 2K"... to me... is 4:4:4. Which requires like at least 6 megapixels anyway.

These "4K" sensors you're complaining about aren't producing pixel-for-pixel sharp 4K. They're 8 megapixel sensors with Bayer filters producing blurry, approx-4:2:2 4K... and really nice 2K.

You think you're talking about two different sensors but actually they're really similar.

Question: how many megapixels did the sensors for the Genesis, Viper, etc have? F900? F23?

All of the TOP 1080p/2K cameras have ALWAYS had around 6-12 megapixels total, and similar sensor area (whether 3 x 2/3" chips or 1 x s35 chip).

Stop thinking in terms of specs and K and think in terms of sensor and you'll see that a 4K camera is just a good 2K camera, read out properly. The extra resolution advantage is just a bonus. And a great marketing tool to convince people to buy them... which makes them cheaper for us.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bassman2003 said:
In the pricepoint most want, I think you can have the choice of overly compressed 4k or excellent 2k. From my point of view, I want better 2k than a 4k "HDV" variant just to have something to offer. 4k is for cinema projection only imho. True (high end) 1080p looks just great on televisions and very nice on theater screens. So why is 4k so important? Haven't we learned by now that it is about the quality of the sensor not the amount of pixels?
Click to expand...

Just to add to this - a lot of the people I know have trouble streaming 1080p footage, and need 720. Vast majority of broadcast is 720p, the rest is 1080i. Some video-on-demand can support 1080p, but the market share of those services is considerably smaller than broadcast or cable. 4K may be the future, but it's going to have years of maturing to do before it becomes a viable standard as acquisition/delivery medium. I'll take dynamic range, low-light capability and color accuracy in a manageable professional codec long before I spring for anything 4K. But I don't generally shoot for theatrical distribution, either - of course, I would venture to guess that most folks here don't either. It's an incredibly small sample pool of high-end productions that will ever see real theatrical distribution - and even then, there is no definitive assurance that 4K would benefit the audience either way (just look at how many movies acquire, finish, and deliver at 2K now)

Oh, and I'll just leave this here (from cnet, a year ago):
"In the last couple of years, HDTVs with 1080p native resolution have taken over the market at nearly every price and size point. But as we've been saying all along, once you get to high-definition, the difference between resolutions becomes much more difficult to appreciate. We've done numerous side-by-side tests between two same-size HDTVs, one with 1080p resolution and another with lower resolution, and every time it's been almost impossible to see the difference with regular program material, especially when that material is moving. The difference becomes even more difficult to see at smaller screen sizes or farther seating distances--say, more than 1.5 times the diagonal measurement of the screen. For example, to see the benefits of stationary 1080p content on a 50-inch screen, you'll generally need to sit about 6.5 feet or closer. Few viewers want to sit that close, especially when low-quality content seen at that distance (remember the "garbage" maxim?) looks so bad. The main visible benefit of 1080p native resolution comes when the display is asked to show computer sources. With a PC set to output 1080p resolution and a 1080p display that can accept it, computer desktops and text generally look superb, and quite a bit better than when displayed on a TV with lower native resolution. But for movies, games, and other standard video material, the benefits of 1080p are negligible unless you're sitting quite close. That doesn't matter much anymore though. 1080p native resolution is so common among HDTVs, and has so little impact, that you shouldn't even consider it as a factor in your purchasing decision. As we mentioned at the top, factors like contrast and color are more important to image quality, and unfortunately, you can't depend on a specification sheet for an accurate representation of those factors."
 
Yeah, 4K for cinema purposes, for film makers...makes sense, 4k for consumers...marketing hype that will come around but it'll take a long while. Just look at TV, HD has not even become the standard for ALL channels yet....you get some HD channels and some SD...some HD isn't even real HD. I have no doubt it'll be pushed, I think the only ones who will be interested are those with a ton of money who will get it and pay too much just to say they have it, never mind they won't be able to watch a single channel or movie for that matter in 4K.

Oh and CP, totally agree...I have a 720P Panasonic...from where I watch and the 42" size means that it looks glorious....1080 wouldn't matter, nevermind 4K
 
I'm with kittykatro, Bassman2003, and cowpunk52. I'd much rather improve 2K before moving to 4K.

Global shutter, about 16 f-stops of dynamic range, $10-25 per hour of media, first.

My best guess is that 4K improves perceived image quality somewhere between zero and 10%, in exchange for using four times the storage space and having pixels one quarter the size of 2K.
 
4K resolution is pretty awesome when you are compositing, or altering details in the background of a video or interview. You can get close-ups out of wider footage, and have more flexibility within the frame to move around in post and manipulate footage. When I edit a RED project for a few weeks, and the go back to chopping up my HVX200 footage, the reality of how much image information your camera grabbed in the field, really hits home. Not to mention, color correction, grading and manipulation on a 4K RAW file has so much information to work with compared to 720p DVC Pro 50 HD. My HVX200 has paid itself off at least 5 times over. I will love it always, but I understand how I can produce a better finished project with a higher resolution workflow.

Projecting on a 4K monitor is only 1 of many reasons to shoot and edit 4K source files. There are so many other advantages to consider in post production.
 
bruceallen said:
Stop thinking in terms of specs and K and think in terms of sensor and you'll see that a 4K camera is just a good 2K camera, read out properly. The extra resolution advantage is just a bonus. And a great marketing tool to convince people to buy them... which makes them cheaper for us.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

I see your point that the road to great 2k is by using 4k in the sensors. But I disagree that 4k cameras will make cameras cheaper. Why would they give away something that is percieved to be better? What I do not want as a consumer is for the industry to jump to 4k everything now when we have not reached the best level for affordable pro 2k cameras. Like 1080p is mastered and dated. Heck, a lot of stuff is still delivered on DVD! Let 4k be like 3D. A few models but the entire lineup remains unaffected.

If the $16,000 C300 which uses a 4k type of sensor setup to produce great 2k, what will an $8,000 4k camera be like? Will the $8,000 4k camera have a better 2k image than an FS-100? How about low light? IF 4k is just a "mode" and the rest of the camera is an improvement compared to existing 2k cameras then great. But will that be the reality in the marketplace?
 
mik303 said:
4K resolution is pretty awesome when you are compositing, or altering details in the background of a video or interview. You can get close-ups out of wider footage, and have more flexibility within the frame to move around in post and manipulate footage. When I edit a RED project for a few weeks, and the go back to chopping up my HVX200 footage, the reality of how much image information your camera grabbed in the field, really hits home. Not to mention, color correction, grading and manipulation on a 4K RAW file has so much information to work with compared to 720p DVC Pro 50 HD. My HVX200 has paid itself off at least 5 times over. I will love it always, but I understand how I can produce a better finished project with a higher resolution workflow.

Projecting on a 4K monitor is only 1 of many reasons to shoot and edit 4K source files. There are so many other advantages to consider in post production.
Click to expand...


You're comparing raw 4K to 4:2:0 720p DVCPro 50? Don't you think the raw part muddies the comparison, so that the advantages you cite in color correction, etc., could be because of raw, not 4K?

If you're wanting something better than DVCPro 50, then you are merely agreeing with everyone, 2K or 4K.
 
I just want more dynamic-range. If 16 stops of dynamic-range was packaged with a global-shutter that did true 720P for under $8K, I'd take it in a heart-beat over any 4K camera with less dynamic-range. Hell, I'd take it if it only shot SD! :tongue:

I think all these sub-$10K 4K cameras are destined for 2K final-prints. "4K" may appear to be a marketing tool to some, but those in the know are well aware that oversampling is a good thing.

Though I'm excited for all the new-tech that will be shown at NAB, the "sadistic tech-geek" within me is itching to see the fate of the C300, and how Canon will market it in the face of all the new competition.
 
mik303 said:
4K resolution is pretty awesome when you are compositing, or altering details in the background of a video or interview. You can get close-ups out of wider footage, and have more flexibility within the frame to move around in post and manipulate footage. When I edit a RED project for a few weeks, and the go back to chopping up my HVX200 footage, the reality of how much image information your camera grabbed in the field, really hits home. Not to mention, color correction, grading and manipulation on a 4K RAW file has so much information to work with compared to 720p DVC Pro 50 HD. My HVX200 has paid itself off at least 5 times over. I will love it always, but I understand how I can produce a better finished project with a higher resolution workflow.

Projecting on a 4K monitor is only 1 of many reasons to shoot and edit 4K source files. There are so many other advantages to consider in post production.
Click to expand...

No doubt 4k has advantages for information if the compression is low enough and storage and bit rate are not an issue. But 4k and RAW are two different things. I think it will all get here at some time, I just don't think now is the time for major adoption in the under $10,000 range.
 
Bassman2003 said:
In the pricepoint most want, I think you can have the choice of overly compressed 4k or excellent 2k. From my point of view, I want better 2k than a 4k "HDV" variant just to have something to offer. 4k is for cinema projection only imho. True (high end) 1080p looks just great on televisions and very nice on theater screens. So why is 4k so important? Haven't we learned by now that it is about the quality of the sensor not the amount of pixels?

For example: People like the features of the AF-100 but it still seems to drop in value. Obviously the image quality is not what people want as much. So would the upgrade choice be a 'better' AF-100 or a 4k Af-100?

It is fine to have 4k cameras for certain uses but I do not see the need to make the whole line of cameras 4k just because computer monitors are 4k. Half the time Vimeo stutters on playbacj of their 720p files for me. I don't see 4k on that horizon for a while.
Click to expand...

+1, look at the latest test from Timur, give me everyday that quality 2k F3 DR, colour, low light to any half baked 4k. This test is not even against a half baked 4k raw camera. I don't say that 4k is not good. It has its advantage mainly in vFX etc, but better DR and low light are much more important to the perceived quality. There is a big big diminishing return from 2k to 4k. Until things like 13 stop of DR is not standard moving to 4k to get 10 stop of DR is useless.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top