Panasonic Varicam 35 & Varicam HS

Yep, yep, yep... I see a growing indifference to quality from the consumer end as all of the boats have been lifted by the rising tide. It is hard to justify the big camera purchases. As you mentioned, I would rather buy lenses, top notch preview monitors, lighting and audio as I think this stuff takes you further than that extra ounce of image quality from the camera. I guess I can live with the GH4 but would also prefer an AF-200.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
Also, I'm not sure Panasonic would want to offer that same S35 Varicam sensor for a budget price. They'd have to really cripple it to differentiate it from the more expensive camera. I mean, maybe they could do an F55/F5 C500/C300/C100 kind of thing....
Click to expand...
The latter is exactly what I'm thinking of, exactly what both Canon and Sony have done. And it makes sense, gives economies of scale with the sensor production.

I see the "AF200" then likely around the $8,000 mark - similar to the FS700, and nicely between the C100 and C300? Such would then give Panasonic a good range - GH4 lowest, then this, with Varicam at the top. Pros have got the Varicam, if you're really on a budget and/or want a very small camera, go for the GH4, with such an "AF200" as the Panasonic large format prosumer camera.

As for "how would it be "crippled" " (I prefer, reduced set of functions!) then, well, look at the FS700 and the F5, which are supposed to have the same sensor. One possibility may be to limit to just 1080 internal recording, with 4K available as RAW, and maybe steal a march on the FS700 by making the internal 1080 better than AVC-HD recording? That's before we even start thinking about framerates, and connectivity and ergonomic matters which may not be missed in a $8K camera, but would be considered essential in the Varicam market.
Bassman2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe not if you just look at headline specs - "it does 4K!" and so forth, but dig deeper and there's quite a gap there.

Make use of a 4/3 sensor, designed primarily for still use, and there's a limit to how much you can get out of it for all sorts of non-headline reasons.

Consequently, I think with the GH4 that's at a pretty good price/quality/feature compromise point. Put the same sensor and basic innards in the "AF200" body and there's a limit to how much can be charged for it. More than the GH4, yes, but I certainly don't think FS700 money - simply because that stills sensor will ceiling it's performance. But use a s35, 4096x2160 sensor, and it's a different matter - and now Panasonic have got just such available.......
 
harddrive said:
...As for "how would it be "crippled" " (I prefer, reduced set of functions!) then, well, look at the FS700 and the F5, which are supposed to have the same sensor. One possibility may be to limit to just 1080 internal recording, with 4K available as RAW, and maybe steal a march on the FS700 by making the internal 1080 better than AVC-HD recording? That's before we even start thinking about framerates, and connectivity and ergonomic matters which may not be missed in a $8K camera, but would be considered essential in the Varicam market.

Maybe not if you just look at headline specs - "it does 4K!" and so forth, but dig deeper and there's quite a gap there.

Make use of a 4/3 sensor, designed primarily for still use, and there's a limit to how much you can get out of it for all sorts of non-headline reasons.

Consequently, I think with the GH4 that's at a pretty good price/quality/feature compromise point. Put the same sensor and basic innards in the "AF200" body and there's a limit to how much can be charged for it. More than the GH4, yes, but I certainly don't think FS700 money - simply because that stills sensor will ceiling it's performance. But use a s35, 4096x2160 sensor, and it's a different matter - and now Panasonic have got just such available.......
Click to expand...

The easiest way to "cripple" it would be to limit it to AVC-LongG for HD. Still a better codec than the competitors and the GH4, but hardly competition for the Varicam. Implement somthing similar to the GH4 for 4K as far as recording options. And use an m4/3 sensor. And put the sensor and lense mount on a PX270 body. I would pay $5k-$7k USD for that.
 
Is the 35mm varicam model PL mount only ? Be nice to have the ability to throw on canon or nikon lenses if need be. I wonder how soon after NAB they will ship?
 
ryaninoz said:
Is the 35mm varicam model PL mount only ? Be nice to have the ability to throw on canon or nikon lenses if need be. I wonder how soon after NAB they will ship?
Click to expand...

Right now it looks like it's a fixed PL mount : ( (disappointing for someone like me who has a full set of Canon Cine primes) and the press release says Fall 2014, so probably not before September or October at the earliest.
 
A sub $10k model would likely have a different lens mount and be non-modular, which would be a distinguishing factor. Codec differences and maybe a few other things.

Would be nice to see Panny buck the "crippled version" trend and and just price everyone out. If they can make something that similar to the varicam sub $10k they should just do it, go for economy of scale and completely own the market.

Someone is going to do it soon enough, may as well be the first.
 
px270 is 5700$ at b&h. This is a camera with big ass lens. Shoots 50mbps 10bit 422 avc longG on SDHC
Imo
panny can come out with a large sensor camera with PX270 spec (minus the p2 slot. Just microP2) at $5k.

i can actually imagine a gh4 sensor on it but it needs to have 12-13 stops DR, LOG and 120fps HD, 30fps 4k.

this definitely doesnt go against the varicam which does 120 4k
 
I think it's a mistake to not have a universal mount like the f55 has. PL mount is great for most of what this camera would be used for but having the option to change mounts would widen the appeal of the varicam into f5/55 territory. Being able to put on a 600 mm canon for example would be fantastic.
 
ryaninoz said:
I think it's a mistake to not have a universal mount like the f55 has. PL mount is great for most of what this camera would be used for but having the option to change mounts would widen the appeal of the varicam into f5/55 territory. Being able to put on a 600 mm canon for example would be fantastic.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Steve
 
The other concern that I have reading the specs is that the Varicam HS will only do 240fps in the AVC Intra 100 codec - now that's a LOT of compression!
Steve
 
steve phillipps said:
The other concern that I have reading the specs is that the Varicam HS will only do 240fps in the AVC Intra 100 codec - now that's a LOT of compression!
Steve
Click to expand...
I think you're making the same mistake I did a few months ago. Panasonics nomenclature about codecs, bitrates, etc is ridiculous and seems designed to confuse. Barry cleared it up in some posts a while ago - I don't know if he has the reference?

Basically, as far as I remember, then they now refer to AVC-Intra Class 100 - which is close to 100Mbs, for current broadcast HD formats. (Such as 1080p/30.) Up the bitrate, and the compression per frame stays the same - so for 1080p/60, encoded with AVC-Intra Class 100, expect the bitrate to be around the 200Mbs mark. I'd therefore expect 1080p at 240fps to have a bitrate of around 800Mbs.

I think the basic tech is sound and makes sense - but Panasonics nomenclature is just absurd.
 
So my (I thought obvious) assumption that AVC Intra 100 meant 100 mb/s is incorrect? OK, yes, that is weird! What does the "100" stand for then?
Steve
 
Try this whole thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?309220-Will-the-HPX600-be-able-to-do-1080-60P

The nomenclature system being used is frankly ridiculous and confusing. And not helped by Panasonic apparently having changed what "AVC-Ultra" actually stands for, between first coining the term and now. (Without giving a concise definition.) As I said in the other thread "Well, it seems that AVC-Intra class 100 is an Ultra codec when used for 1080p/60, but not when used for 1080p/30....... :) (Sigh.)"
 
Right. Yep, I'm with you 100% - it's a whole load of confusing nonsense. And for you to be given a hard time in that other thread for not getting it stupid! was outrageous.
Steve
 
steve phillipps said:
So my (I thought obvious) assumption that AVC Intra 100 meant 100 mb/s is incorrect? OK, yes, that is weird! What does the "100" stand for then?
Steve
Click to expand...
It stands for 100 mb/s in normal HD. So, 720/60p or 1080/60i, it delivers a data rate of 100 mb/s. But, if you use the exact same compression system for 1080/60p, then it would take 200 megabits/sec, because the compression stays the same. Also, if you're recording 1080/24p, it takes only 80 megabits/sec.

AVC-Intra is an intraframe codec that delivers a constant amount of compression per frame, approximately 3.3333 megabits per frame.
 
steve phillipps said:
And a quote from Barry in this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-PX270-shipping-in-March&highlight=intra+100
"The main reason that AVC-Ultra is mandatory for the PX270 is because the PX270 can record 1080/60p. AVC-Intra doesn't support 1080/60p, it only goes up to 1080/60i." What's the story there?
Steve
Click to expand...
It is, as harddrive has alluded to, more insanity in naming nomenclature.

AVC-Ultra is not a codec, it's a "family of codecs". That "family" includes AVC-Intra Class 50, AVC-Intra Class 100, AVC-Intra Class 200, and AVC-Intra Class 444, as well as AVC-LongG 25 and 50, and AVC-Proxy (or something like that).

Prior to the introduction of AVC-Ultra, we had AVC-Intra which was known as the recording codec (either AVCI-50 or AVCI-100). And AVC-Intra, when it was known only as AVC-Intra, was an HD recording format. And as an HD recording format, it was limited to recording only HD, and HD maxxes out at 720/60p and 1080/60i. There is no provision for 1080/60p in the definition of "HD". 1080/60p is part of what could be referred to "beyond HD" -- along with 2K and 4K.

So, to deal with this new "beyond HD" world, they've come up with AVC-Ultra, a confusing name and confusing "family of codecs" that handles anything from standard-def on up to 4K 12-bit 4:4:4. And AVC-Ultra uses AVC-Intra and AVC-LongG. And when employed as part of the AVC-Ultra family, they've extended AVC-Intra to be able to handle "beyond HD" formats, such as 1080/60p.
 
harddrive said:
The nomenclature system being used is frankly ridiculous and confusing.
Click to expand...
Unquestionably.

And not helped by Panasonic apparently having changed what "AVC-Ultra" actually stands for, between first coining the term and now. (Without giving a concise definition.)
Click to expand...
What's even more comical is that Panasonic has headlined their NAB booth for three years in a row with AVC-Ultra (IIRC), and still it remains confusing in the consumer's mind. That's not a good sign.

As I said in the other thread "Well, it seems that AVC-Intra class 100 is an Ultra codec when used for 1080p/60, but not when used for 1080p/30....... :) (Sigh.)"
Click to expand...
The codec is identical whether used for 1080/60p or 1080/30p. What changes is that the recording format is extended to understand the concept of 1080/60p, which was not part of high definition video as defined by the ATSC. In Panasonic's thinking, you need a new name to identify that this is "beyond HD".
 
It's actually a pain for Panasonic as much as anything as if the buyers are not clear what they're actually selling they'll be less likely to buy.
If it was clear that for example, "buy Panasonic PX...whatever - it'll do the same as an F55 and it's £1,000 cheaper" "buy the Varicam....whatever - it's like an Amira but 2/3" chips instead of 35mm" then the buyer would be able to make a simple, informed choice.
As it stands it's just a mess - as it was when the HPX600 came out - so it'll do 1080/60P - cool......well, yes and no - if you do this and if it gets that but it ships with this but that is on the roadmap, and this codec is part of a family and it's 100 but it's not.....wtf?
To be fair it's not just Panny - it's the same with for example the Sony PMW300 - it was always slated to be getting XAVC - which emans it can do 1080/60P.......but now it transpires that it can't! The codec can handle it but the camera can't. Be warned because the cynic in me is on the way...but they were pretty ambiguous / quiet about the answer to that question...probably got a fair few sales to people who hoped / assumed that they would be getting a 1080/60P camera. Now they're left with a bunch of unhappy customers but loads of cash - and they always seem to be happy with that. Say what you like about RED but you have to admit that they've always been a pretty upfront, honest company. None of this shipping a camera with an atrociously-designed VF cable and then rather than apologising, coming out with this "even better than the original" nonsense of a replacement and charging £400 for it!
Finished!
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top