Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
:-DExcellent build quality. Glad that they are back in the game.
They probably made this for Barry's 50,000th anniversary post.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
:-DExcellent build quality. Glad that they are back in the game.
They probably made this for Barry's 50,000th anniversary post.
I don't see it costing 65k, but it's highly comparable in many ways with the F55, not the F5. Biggest headline difference is that the F55 and Varicam both offer in-camera compressed coded recording of 4K - the F5 doesn't, it only gives a 4K RAW option with an extra recorder. For comparison, the body-only price of an F55 is currently slightly less than $29,000, and since that gives global shutter.....Khm... how is this camera better then the F5 and why would it be more expensive? I don't get it...let alone why would it cost 65k...
.......exactly what I think. Given that the F55 is already established, I'd tend to say two "notches"combatentropy said:Since the Panasonic is rolling shutter, I think it should be a notch below {the F55}...
I wonder........ I can't help thinking that if you're in the market for that sort of post flexibility, then are you not better off just shooting RAW? I haven't got the figures to hand, but I thought 4K compressed RAW was a very similar data rate to 12 bit 4:4:4 AVC-Ultra/XAVC?GaryT said:The AVC Class 4:4:4 and AVC-ULTRA 4K codecs seem like a big deal. Sony doesn't offer compressed 12-bit recording until you step up to the F65 and that still requires the SR-R4 recorder.
Yes but it offers other stuff. If this is all that is better on the Varicam I don't see how this can compete with the F55. Maybe if you cared about the 2/3 thingy but for those that don't this thing shouldn't be factored in the price.
I don't see it costing 65k, but it's highly comparable in many ways with the F55, not the F5. Biggest headline difference is that the F55 and Varicam both offer in-camera compressed coded recording of 4K - the F5 doesn't, it only gives a 4K RAW option with an extra recorder. For comparison, the body-only price of an F55 is currently slightly less than $29,000, and since that gives global shutter.....
.......exactly what I think. Given that the F55 is already established, I'd tend to say two "notches", maybe even three if the Varicam option for RAW recording isn't as well integrated as on the F5/55. (At least the Varicam does seem to give a RAW output. It remains to be seen how it's going to be implemented.)
I wonder........ I can't help thinking that if you're in the market for that sort of post flexibility, then are you not better off just shooting RAW? I haven't got the figures to hand, but I thought 4K compressed RAW was a very similar data rate to 12 bit 4:4:4 AVC-Ultra/XAVC?
There's some useful information gathered in one place about the F5/55 and data rates etc here - http://www.procam.tv/the-lowdown-f5-f55-f65If the Panasonic can deliver similar quality along with a NLE friendly 4K 4:4:4 codec they could have a winner. While Sony raw is compressed I think it's still 2.5 larger than Panasonic's AVC-ULTRA and the Sony raw still has to be debayered. All of this could translate into cost savings for Varicam 35 customers.
Panasonic have traditionally out specced and under priced their competitors. Remember the hvx200's specs and price compared to the sony hdv at the time. The hpx 500 and 300 series were both significantly cheaper than their competitors. So I think we are looking at a possible price to go head to head with the f5 i.e around 20 k which also puts it in the same ballpark as the epic. It's not in panasonics interest to price it too high, they need to get back into the game and a keen price will ensure that. Price it too high and they will not make much of a dent no matter how good a camera they have.
I think something like that has a high probability - but I doubt this year (all the effort has been put into developing the Varicam) and it's most likely to be s35 - not micro 4/3.I think something like this is what we're hoping to see...(make it happen Panny!)
I think something like that has a high probability - but I doubt this year (all the effort has been put into developing the Varicam) and it's most likely to be s35 - not micro 4/3.
Think about it, to get exactly what you want means the development of a brand new video optimised 4/3 sensor. That's not likely when Panasonic can simply use the s35 Varicam sensor in a body without all the Varicam bells and whistles, and take advantage of economies of scale.
I strongly expect to see the Panasonic line going two ways, the "GH" route, using 4/3 sensors and lenses (as already shown by the GH4), and the "true video" route (as already seen with the 4K Varicam). Any "AF200" is far more likely to be a cheaper version of the latter, not the innards of a GH4 in a more video-centric body.
$8K Varicam! DO IT PANNY DO IT!
I agree with Pulp. If you look at the GH4 and compare it to the specs of the s35 Varicam, it would be pretty hard to cripple a camera to fit in between. There just is not much room. I have no guess as to if Panasonic will bring out an AF-200. Watching videos of the guys at the Euro show talk about the "still" camera was pretty eye opening as to how much Panasonic the company is letting the consumer division run with the ball. They had all of the video lingo and specs that position the GH4 right at the pro video market. All the AF-200 represents is a better form factor and built in audio. If you cripple the AF-200 any little bit the GH4 will be a better choice and you have defeated your purpose. If you make an s35 sensor with equal GH4 specs it will be an option to the Varicam. The GH4 is making life difficult for the AF-200. It is what Canon would have had to deal with if they released the 5DMKIII with great(er) video, the C100 would be a tough sell.