VaricamLT: Panasonic VariCam LT

Status
Not open for further replies.
k0bayashi said:
Its a documentary mate, a high end one - but with minimal crew and one lending itself to the FS7 form factor. right tool for the job of course, but I want to see the FS7 shoot a narrative DRAMA on the level of DR. Foster (BBC) or Anything on Amazon, Netflix then that's something else. Anyway, back to awesome Varicam LT.
Click to expand...
OK, it sounded like you were saying FS7 wasn't up to
shooting anything for national broadcast. And it has the
specs to meet any national broadcasters requirements.
I agree, that it is used mainly where the C300 was used,
I used to see C300s on every reality show, and now many of
them have went to FS7. I think that's where FS7 excels, fast
moving shows that need the higher bitrate than say a C100.

As for the awesome Varicam LT....really if you think
about it the price isn't that bad. Almost what the C300
was and that was a 1080p camera that tons of places
grabbed. 4k, multiple frame rates, dual native ISO,
seems like a decent (not spectacular but decent) price
to me.
 
Tons of places grabbed the C300 at a different time in the world...different technology, prices, etc.
 
alaskacameradude said:
OK, it sounded like you were saying FS7 wasn't up to
shooting anything for national broadcast. And it has the
specs to meet any national broadcasters requirements.
I agree, that it is used mainly where the C300 was used,
I used to see C300s on every reality show, and now many of
them have went to FS7. I think that's where FS7 excels, fast
moving shows that need the higher bitrate than say a C100.

As for the awesome Varicam LT....really if you think
about it the price isn't that bad. Almost what the C300
was and that was a 1080p camera that tons of places
grabbed. 4k, multiple frame rates, dual native ISO,
seems like a decent (not spectacular but decent) price
to me.
Click to expand...

I think 18K is quite cheap for what it is - they could have easily priced $25K body only and still would be a great deal. List price in the UK is £13,000! for about 16-17K GBP you can easily build a nice pacakge and cut into AMIRA territory for about 25% less the cost of a AMIRA kit. The c300 2 is £11K... if I was in the market and had £15-18 grand to spare, which is what a barebones F55 would cost you around here, I'd be hard pressed not to consider the Vari LT. You can run it with the BMD or Gratical and just a couple of P2 cards.
 
It is vari interesting but also still vari expensive to me. It is vari pretty looking though, and by that I mean ergonomic. Maybe in 10 years, when Panasonic comes out with the extremelycam. Or would it be the constacam (with global shutter)?
 
k0bayashi said:
I think you're missing the point. The LT is not meant to be a top-end camera (Top end in my opinion meaning - Varicam 35, Alexa MINI, XT, Dragon and now Weapon, F65 and Film) - it's upper mid-tier - just where the F55 sits, I put it above it, you may put it below it. It's a preference thing really.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not missing the point, and certain features are (or are not) a matter of fact - not "a preference thing".

Such as (just for example):
Global shutter. With all else equal, would anybody have a preference for rolling shutter?
Extended colour gamut.
RAW abilities.

As three examples. Let's just take them one by one.

Global shutter. Anything more need to be said?

Extended colour gamut. For a lot of the market, it may not be relevant. For high budget cinema it increasingly will be, even for TV as UHD specifications become more solid. To truly meet the full spec, a camera will need the extended colour gamut.

RAW. This really was an Achilles heel of the Varicam 35 - and arguably still is. With the LT, it may be a step in the right direction, but I believe it's still only addressing half the issue. Yes, the Odyssey is a fraction of the basic price of the Codex unit - and let's all welcome that - but unlike most other makes of camera in the category, AFAIK the LT will still output uncompressed RAW? True? Which I am reliably told makes it virtually unfeasible for most normal filming. Compressed RAW is bad enough - but uncompressed - for 4K/60p - are you serious?

I emphasise that none of that is trying to make the LT out to be anything other than likely a very capable camera, capable of high quality results. It also represents a big step forward by Panasonic, though I still feel it's more what the Varicam 35 should have been in the first place. Where I disagree with you is just how good - where it sits in the pecking order. I'd put the F55 higher, and no, it's not just a "my preference thing", which is the point of quoting three facts above. But you think different - so what solid facts about the LT lead you to that conclusion?
 
Update: The RAW capability is indeed DCI 4K 60p. Odyssey7Q+ will record the full 4096x2160 frame.

There's Global Shutter and then theres such a fast Rolling Shutter that for most practical use it is nearly the same thing. Don't dismiss a camera without seeing just how the shutter renders. You may be surprised.

The VariCam LT does in fact utilize an extended color gamut. It encompasses and extends beyond REC2020.

We have not yet announced the nature of our RAW recording format for this camera. Only that it will be RAW. Stay tuned for more details.
 
This is everything I have wanted a camera to be, within reason (obviously there is always something more that could be added, given price point increases). Extremely thrilled about the product itself.

It sits right on that line between being within reach, and yet still out of reach on pricing. That is not a criticism on its price, its a wonderful product. I wish it was priced closer to an FS7 (even though it's on the next level). $18K + Storage = $20k-ish... plus BYO 3rd party Monitor and BYO Canon glass... ahhh. So close yet so far away, at least for me. Dang it. I want it.

As it is, this camera is killer. If it was at $12K price point it would be a game ender for the mid-market in the best way possible. Still, it's a game changer for the sub $20K market (and likely even higher than that). This thing rocks.

Either way, time to start saving if I want to come play... slash cross the fingers that NAB will bring a $7k-$8k offering from Panny that can knock it out of the park as far as this bad boy does, with a feature set appropriate for the price range.

Would also be thrilled to see a GH5 Pro.

This is one of the most exciting Panny announcements in quite a while. Looking forward to seeing what else they have up their sleeves. Wish I had a bigger bank account!
 
harddrive said:
No, I'm not missing the point, and certain features are (or are not) a matter of fact - not "a preference thing".

Such as (just for example):
Global shutter. With all else equal, would anybody have a preference for rolling shutter?
Extended colour gamut.
RAW abilities.

As three examples. Let's just take them one by one.

Global shutter. Anything more need to be said?

Extended colour gamut. For a lot of the market, it may not be relevant. For high budget cinema it increasingly will be, even for TV as UHD specifications become more solid. To truly meet the full spec, a camera will need the extended colour gamut.

RAW. This really was an Achilles heel of the Varicam 35 - and arguably still is. With the LT, it may be a step in the right direction, but I believe it's still only addressing half the issue. Yes, the Odyssey is a fraction of the basic price of the Codex unit - and let's all welcome that - but unlike most other makes of camera in the category, AFAIK the LT will still output uncompressed RAW? True? Which I am reliably told makes it virtually unfeasible for most normal filming. Compressed RAW is bad enough - but uncompressed - for 4K/60p - are you serious?

I emphasise that none of that is trying to make the LT out to be anything other than likely a very capable camera, capable of high quality results. It also represents a big step forward by Panasonic, though I still feel it's more what the Varicam 35 should have been in the first place. Where I disagree with you is just how good - where it sits in the pecking order. I'd put the F55 higher, and no, it's not just a "my preference thing", which is the point of quoting three facts above. But you think different - so what solid facts about the LT lead you to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

So with your spec sheet logic they both leave the Alexa in the dust......which obviously isn't the case. From what I have seen the image coming from the Varicam looks a lot nicer to me than the f55, and image to me is the most important - but of course it is also the most subjective criteria. Sony seem to always head the spec sheet but the image 'mojo' I have only really seen with their f35 and f65. I think the Varicam has a bit of that mojo....
 
ade4all said:
So with your spec sheet logic they both leave the Alexa in the dust......which obviously isn't the case. From what I have seen the image coming from the Varicam looks a lot nicer to me than the f55, and image to me is the most important - but of course it is also the most subjective criteria.
Click to expand...
Well, not only is it subjective anyway, but nowadays the "look" of any camera in a class is far more down to setup, grading etc etc anyway. Gone are the days when there really was a manufacturer "look" baked into a camera - let alone when Sony meant interlaced, Panasonic meant progressive. True, the "out of the factory looks" may differ, but it's quite possible to make one camera "look" like another manufacturers. (Believe me, I've done it, and very entertaining the reaction was too! :) )

I've seen one make of camera described as producing a "more pleasing" image than another - but it turned out that it was largely due to how the white balancing was set up. Sometimes "mojo" nowadays is a few degrees of an engineers screwdriver.......

I said "far more down to setup, grading etc", and OK there will be some hardware factors - but far less than in the past. This is obviously aside from usability, workflow, ergonomics, lens choices and mounts and other factors which cannot be changed via such as menus. Which is why I chose the previous three examples I did. They're not subjective. Please realise I am certainly not rubbishing the Varicam LT - just challenging k0bayashi's assertion that the Varicam 35 is "definitely superior to the F55".
 
harddrive said:
Well, not only is it subjective anyway, but nowadays the "look" of any camera in a class is far more down to setup, grading etc etc anyway.
Click to expand...

Can't fully agree with that. We still talk about so and so's color science and people like to use cameras from the same manufacturers in multi-camera shoots for that very reason. Can you adjust the images from different manufacturer's cameras in post? Sure you can, but it can be a real pain in the ass.
 
harddrive said:
... Global shutter. Anything more need to be said?
Click to expand...

Althouth I am fully aware of the benefits of a Global Shutter - it is not the so important if you have a fast enough readout. Look at the Alexa , no global shutter, still faster readout and less skew than any other digital cinema camera out there and that's a 6 year old sensor. The Alexa sensor and now the new electronics around it in the MINI make it even better.
 
Every time someone here complains about the color science or lauds a camera's mojo, I'm baffled. Color correction takes some getting used to, but it's something that should only take a few weeks of reading and practice before you're in the ballpark of the color science and mojo, whatever that means, of what you want. Matching cameras of different pedigrees and vintages is several times harder but still should be possible.

Then again many of the videos I see are not well graded, across the board, regardless of budget. For what it's worth, the look I recommend is the film look minus most of the grain and all of the scratches.
 
Last edited:
No sorry I'm with stoneinapond on this - I hear it all the time, mainly from Sony owners - that they can make it look like any other camera - particularly regarding skin tones - but then I see thread upon thread in the Sony section with people trying to get a decent image, and this includes the f55.
It is completely subjective but there are subtleties in the colour science of each camera and manufacturer - and some make a getting a great image a lot easier than others. Nothing wrong with that, it would be boring if all cameras looked the same - but they all do have an inherent look, for better or worse
 
harddrive said:
RAW. This really was an Achilles heel of the Varicam 35 - and arguably still is. With the LT, it may be a step in the right direction, but I believe it's still only addressing half the issue. Yes, the Odyssey is a fraction of the basic price of the Codex unit - and let's all welcome that - but unlike most other makes of camera in the category, AFAIK the LT will still output uncompressed RAW? True? Which I am reliably told makes it virtually unfeasible for most normal filming. Compressed RAW is bad enough - but uncompressed - for 4K/60p - are you serious?

I emphasise that none of that is trying to make the LT out to be anything other than likely a very capable camera, capable of high quality results. It also represents a big step forward by Panasonic, though I still feel it's more what the Varicam 35 should have been in the first place. Where I disagree with you is just how good - where it sits in the pecking order. I'd put the F55 higher, and no, it's not just a "my preference thing", which is the point of quoting three facts above. But you think different - so what solid facts about the LT lead you to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

I can't agree with the above. Of course the Codex Raw recorder is cost prohibitive to own for owner operators, its a rental house item - you're meant to hire then, not buy outright. Plus the Varicam 35 RAW is absolutely stunning.
 
harddrive said:
No, I'm not missing the point, and certain features are (or are not) a matter of fact - not "a preference thing".

Such as (just for example):
Global shutter. With all else equal, would anybody have a preference for rolling shutter?
Extended colour gamut.
RAW abilities.
Click to expand...

Asides form the Global Shutter, which even Alexas and Dragons don't have, there isn't really any area where the F55 has a huge advantage. That being said, it's not at a huge disadvantage in any area either. Most F55 owners have no reason to upgrade if they're getting the job done with their F55s.

As for RAW, the F55 recorder costs $5,350 USD. A 7Q+ with media costs much less than that, though if you don't want it as a monitor I can see how it could be considered an inferior solution. I can see using a 7Q would be a great solution for many, compared to using over priced and lacking in storage P2express cards. Color gamut shouldn't be a problem.
 
harddrive said:
...Please realise I am certainly not rubbishing the Varicam LT - just challenging k0bayashi's assertion that the Varicam 35 is "definitely superior to the F55".
Click to expand...

In my opinion it is. There;s no hard rules etched in stone that puts cameras in order of succession, I prefer the Varicam 35 and its colour science, plus the RAW and also the ergonomic approach with a side control panel plus a million other reasons. The LT is what I aspire to own in a year or so, as the Vari 35 is not really feasible to own from an Owner/Op perspective. The LT on the other hand is.

Here;s why I would by a Varicam LT over an F55:

1. Cheaper - body only £13K list UK, - F55 - £18K list body no EVF
2. Better Sensor - Dual ISO, more pleasing highlight rolloff, overall more organic feel. Less noise. a lot less.
3. EF mount native - perfect for CN-E primes.
4. Easy swap to PL - with 6 screws, unlike the FZ to PL on the F55, which I never liked. The new Metabones EF adaptor though for the F55 is really nice.
5. Excellent colour science and cheaper way to get Raw out of the camera - unlike the F55, which requires the AXS-R5 + its own media.
6. The F55 is old. really old now.


If you own an F55, great for you, not sure why are you even wasting your breath on a Varicam thread where you should be out there charging a £1000 a day and retiring at 40?
 
k0bayashi said:
I can't agree with the above. Of course the Codex Raw recorder is cost prohibitive to own for owner operators, its a rental house item - you're meant to hire then, not buy outright. Plus the Varicam 35 RAW is absolutely stunning.
Click to expand...
"Stunning" as the Varicam 35 RAW may well be, it's uncompressed. And if we are thinking about 4K/60p, that means massive files. Massive, massive files, and a huge datarate which consequently means very high speed memory as well. It's not just the Codex Raw recorder that puts the cost up - it's the whole workflow, the datarate, the storage.

The compressed RAW of other cameras are bad enough. The Varicam 35 is ridiculous.

Do the sums. Each frame is 4096x2180 pixels (approx. 9,000,000). Thirty frames per second, and 12 bits per pixel means about 3,066Mbs (!). Move up to 60fps and it would be about 6,132Mbs (except the Codex recorder will only do 10 bit RAW above 30fps). It would therefore equate to about 0.75GB/s for 4K/60p 12 bit, yes? Errr, wow. It means a single 256GB drive will last for all of about 5-6 minutes.

Go to the version of RAW the F55 uses, and for a given size of drive the time doubles. But the bitdepth goes to 16 bit from the 10 bit of the Codex at 60p. It's a huge difference.

Yes, that's the Varicam 35, so the question is what the LT will deliver? (With or without the Odyssey.) How manageable will the file sizes be - and at what bitdepth?
k0bayashi said:
I prefer the Varicam 35 and its colour science, plus the RAW ..........
Click to expand...
But..... WHY do you prefer the Varicam 35 RAW over F55 RAW? A far more expensive recorder, far bigger file sizes, and .... only 10 bit v 16 bit at 60p?

And colour science? The whole point about RAW is that the camera doesn't contribute to the colour science! That's the whole point of RAW! You're recording the direct values from the photosites - bypassing all the "secret sauce" that might be claimed to give any mojo to a camera. All that's left is the sensor filtration and the silicon characteristics. Silicon is silicon, and the Bayer spectral filtration characteristics need to be pretty defined.

The moment you move to RAW, "mojo" moves from hardware to software.

As far as global/rolling shutter goes, then yes, a fast readout will lessen rolling shutter artifacting - an Alexa will not look the same as a mobile phone video! But I believe the higher end Alexas go for a mechanical shutter, (like the F65) to give an effective global shutter? Rolling shutter may be far from the end of the world (if a fairly fast readout), but I can't believe anybody doesn't agree global is better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top