Panasonic announces aj-hpx3100 p2 hd camcorder

g3nov3s3 said:
Then why aren't the 3000 and 3700 more used in film production? There are tons of movies shot on Sony F900 cameras, but not to many on Panasonic.
Click to expand...

Good question, I think that world has always just been a Sony one, I don't think it's anything to do with technical ability. The 3000 actually has the edge I'd say in terms on in-camera codec, although this doesn't matter much as for those projects they'd likely be shooting SR anyway I'd guess. The 3000 will also do 444 dual link SDI so it's very capable and more than a match for the F900.

Steve
 
ripupthehwy said:
Am I missing something here? No one is asking the OBVIOUS question here:

What does 2/3 '' type mean? That it's like a 2/3'' CCD camera..but not really a 2/3'' camera?

I don't think the size of the CCD is really 2/3'' or they wouldn't put "type" on the brochure and info.
Click to expand...

"2.2 megapixel, 2/3", type CCD image sensor". Unlike the "3.9kg lighter than the previous model", there is a comma between "2/3" and "type CCD". But one could now ask if type CCD is a real CCD :)
 
videomagician said:
I do location sound for a LOT of free-lance crews that come through Arkansas (working with a PBS Crew from Boston this week) and the camera of choice is still the HDX900. When I mention I have an HPX300, they all say they won't go P2 because of the nanoFlash and how it is keeping their 900s from becoming obsolete. They also mention $80 CF cards versus $$$ P2 cards.

It will be interesting to see the pricing on this new camera and how well it sells.

David
Click to expand...


Makes sense. They made quite an investment in their 900s. I'd want to milk it for as long as I could as well. But it's true - a 900 with a Nanoflash should do whatever you need. The 900 is a great camera.

Unless a client specifically uses P2, it's not easy to push this format, but hand them an HD tape or a cheap CF card, that's another matter. I get occasional work with a local crewing/ rental company, and I push my HPX500, but they say there just isn't much demand for P2 cameras. They buy the latest cameras in demand for rental, but they haven't added a P2 camera since the original HVX200.
 
hfarberg said:
That's a 1.78:1 aspect ratio chip?
Click to expand...

Yes. 10% larger (21% in area) than a typical 2/3".

There are also 4:3 2/3" chips that are usually 8.8x6.6 and 8.8x4.95 in a 16:9 crop. 10% smaller than a true 16:9 2/3" and 20% smaller than the Kodak 2/3".

So a 2/3" chip could practically be 21% or even 44% larger in area compared to another.
 
g3nov3s3 said:
Then why aren't the 3000 and 3700 more used in film production? There are tons of movies shot on Sony F900 cameras, but not to many on Panasonic.
Click to expand...

The 3000 and 3700 are full raster, full sample, 4:2:2, 10-bit, I-Frame cameras. F900 is subsampled for horizontal resolution(1440), 8-bit, 3:1:1 with an inefficient bit rate. Panasonic's AVC-Intra is full sample, 10-bit, square pixels vs. rectangular for HDCAM. AVC-Intra is a true progressive, native codec with no need to limit itself due to legacy tape formats. HDCAM has limited horizontal resolution, color space and bit depth in comparison.

If you want 10-bit, full sample recording from Sony, you have to step up to HDCAM SR, at 3X or more dollars. A series on Fox called "Dollhouse" was shot with 3700's and 2700's last year and looked very good, IMO. Many commercials are shot with 3700's and are known to be very good green screen cameras, especially when using the 4:4:4 dual link output.
 
Dino said:
Many commercials are shot with 3700's and are known to be very good green screen cameras, especially when using the 4:4:4 dual link output.
Click to expand...

Much better than the F35 from what I've seen and spoken to people about. I personally hate the F35. Noisy as hell.
 
Joe Calabrese said:
Much better than the F35 from what I've seen and spoken to people about. I personally hate the F35. Noisy as hell.
Click to expand...

F35 can encode all its sensor noise and nothing in the camera is designed to hide noise. Many cinematographers enjoy the texture it preserves down to the shadows and prefer it over cameras 8x cheaper and far "cleaner". Others are shocked because they do not see the connection between its ability to encode noise and it's texture capabilities. Anyone that finds F35 noisy wouldn't like film of equivalent sensitivity for the same reason.

EDIT: Check out the noise difference in this comparison. 35mb PMW350 vs 100mb nanoflash:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/?page_id=358
 
combatentropy said:
Is it just me, or does the videocamera industry move slower than it should?
Click to expand...
I think it's that our patience levels have been extinguished. We move faster than anyone else can keep up. The YouTube generation has no more patience.

Back when the US Government was established, it was set up as a representative government because communications took MONTHS. Some dude would ride a horse home, learn what his constituents want, and then ride that horse back to Washington. Months.

Today's kids don't even bother with e-mail because it's too slow. They text instead.

I don't think the videocamera industry moves any slower than any other -- I just think that (especially in the last few years) we've become far, far, far more demanding. Look at the Noktor lens -- it went from being announced, to being called "vaporware" -- within four days! Solomon announced it on like the 18th of the month, and said it would be available for sale 12 days later. But someone couldn't even wait that 12 days, and called it vaporware four days after announcement.

People point to Red as an example of a fast company. Red says they were established in 1999. So in 11 years, they've produced exactly one camera. Point being, stuff takes time.

A baby takes nine months. You can't get a baby in one month by throwing nine women at the problem.

:D
 
Barry_Green said:
Today's kids don't even bother with e-mail because it's too slow. They text instead.
Click to expand...

E-mail too slow?

ludicrousspeed.png



Otis Grapsas said:
An one baby per month average is not bad.
Click to expand...

See now we are getting into the economies of scale...




- Mikko
 
I've heard the price will be about $29,800, plus $4,000 for the viewfinder. This comes from a friend in the wholesale side of things. YMMV.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
That's very affordable for its class. The 3000 is about $40K.
Click to expand...

Right now, you can get a 2700 (with a trade-in) for about $20,000. Isn't this a better deal, or does the full 1920x1080 chips make the 3100 a better camera, in spite of only 1080? I believe the 3100 is aimed more towards the broadcast news side of things.
 
vanvideo said:
Right now, you can get a 2700 (with a trade-in) for about $20,000. Isn't this a better deal, or does the full 1920x1080 chips make the 3100 a better camera, in spite of only 1080? I believe the 3100 is aimed more towards the broadcast news side of things.
Click to expand...

Many people will pay extra for 2x the pixels and full 1080p.

What do you mean by "only 1080"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top