VaricamLT: Panasonic VariCam LT

Status
Not open for further replies.
DLD said:
That said, with the exception of a few cameras - some can point at DVX200 and AJA Cion; others at BMD's URSA - aren't pretty much all cameras approaching the end of the display technology and/or human eye's ability to discern any further subtleties? In other words, let's take a 60" 4K HDR set as a current reference. There are obviously larger sets and laser powered projectors and so on but those represent a minuscule portion of the consumer market. And, purely off specs, let's look at cameras that can deliver this 4K HDR image. With the latest releases, these cameras can start as low as $1,000 (A6300, body only). If so, wouldn't that mean that anything priced higher than that is essentially purely workflow related and relevant to the shooter but not the final consumer of the product?
Click to expand...
The same was said about several standard def. cameras when HD was being introduced. Time and technology march onward. There are improvements that are visible, perhaps subconsciously. The goal should be to have all contrast, color, dynamic range, resolution, and so on extend well past what humans can ever perceive so that it no longer becomes a question if it is "good enough."
 
combatentropy said:
This is all true, but in the end this either yields more saturated colors, less saturated colors, or a different color: all the purview of color correction, from what I've seen.


This, I'm sure, is all true too, but basically all falls under noise doesn't it? See my third bullet point.


Again, my point is not that you can take two cameras and match them so that even an electrical engineer can't tell the difference. My point is that you can reasonably match two cameras. Actualy, my original point was that if a camera doesn't output the look you like, you should be able to get it there through changing the Color Curves. They can add or remove contrast and change the relationship of the colors to each other, in each of the lows, mids, and highs.


If you still disagree, I'm not sure I want to take up any more real estate in this thread. Maybe some day, when I can articulate my ideas better, I may start a new thread or blog about it (but really, they are nothing new and can be found in threads throughout this forum, plus with examples).
Click to expand...
It is about accuracy and subtlety of color, and in a certain point one doesn't simply "color correct" it, one has to make up information that was not recorded. When that happens or when the image is otherwise pushed too far, various issues become apparent and the image quality beings to collapse. It's not like there is infinite information stored in the image and all one must do in color correction is clear away what is not wanted. There are always inaccuracies and lapses. Color correction is not a magic panacea.

There are all sorts of noise and all sorts of degradation to the signal. You can't lump them all under a single word and simply equate them. An image is far more complex than you make it out to be.

You can push & pull two different cameras and get them to somewhat match one another, but "reasonably match" is of course a judgement. And you will often have to degrade both images to get them close enough together. In the end you often have to go to a lowest common denominator look, which may not be ideal.
 
Mitch Gross said:
The same was said about several standard def. cameras when HD was being introduced. Time and technology march onward. There are improvements that are visible, perhaps subconsciously. The goal should be to have all contrast, color, dynamic range, resolution, and so on extend well past what humans can ever perceive so that it no longer becomes a question if it is "good enough."
Click to expand...
That's correct insofar as the technology goes but I see two end points here.

1) The end of the display technology (off the latest demonstrations, the screens are so bight, they make people squint at a bright object)

2) The human eye and brain can only decipher that much info. The jump from SD to HD was huge. The jump from HD to 4K was not as huge but still substantial. Jump from 4K to 8K, on the other hand, may take decades.

To me, this has an audio ring to it (pardon the pun). After CD's came out in the early 1980's, the subsequent development had more to do with the "work flow", AKA the convenience of use, rather than pure audio quality. There are some marginal improvements at the edges but many audiophiles even choose to go back to analog with vinyl and reel-to-reel. And high end pro cameras are on their way to the Les Paul and the Stratocaster type of a deployment - every camera operator/DP will have a dozen of the favorite ones stored in a closet and hold onto them until they have holes in them.
 
DLD said:
To me, this has an audio ring to it (pardon the pun). After CD's came out in the early 1980's, the subsequent development had more to do with the "work flow", AKA the convenience of use, rather than pure audio quality. There are some marginal improvements at the edges but many audiophiles even choose to go back to analog with vinyl and reel-to-reel.
Click to expand...

Again, have to disagree here. Many of the early CD sounded bad, mostly because of the then current AD/DA conversion, both in initial capture and playback. There were a few companies that started to push the envelope in digital conversion (Telarc springs to mind), with the rest of the industry finally catching up. I'm not talking about the abomination that is the current flat line pop output. Since those, the state of digital converters is miles beyond what was available back when, resulting in much greater audio quality where the music demands it.
 
Mitch Gross said:
The same was said about several standard def. cameras when HD was being introduced. Time and technology march onward. There are improvements that are visible, perhaps subconsciously. The goal should be to have all contrast, color, dynamic range, resolution, and so on extend well past what humans can ever perceive so that it no longer becomes a question if it is "good enough."
Click to expand...

It's true. Hardly anyone has seen a real 10-bit screen outside of a movie theatre, that's hundreds of millions of colours nobody's seen digitally projected before. One of these days OLED will become common place. HDR will be easier to shoot and implement, it's already being done with previously released films because it's much less finicky than 3D ever was. There's a lot of dimensions opening up for video, ignoring the third one of course, when it's comes to colour and contrast. We're seeing now that even though 4K has evolved at breakneck pace, bit depth and codecs are still only catching up.
 
stoneinapond said:
Again, have to disagree here. Many of the early CD sounded bad, mostly because of the then current AD/DA conversion, both in initial capture and playback. There were a few companies that started to push the envelope in digital conversion (Telarc springs to mind), with the rest of the industry finally catching up. I'm not talking about the abomination that is the current flat line pop output. Since those, the state of digital converters is miles beyond what was available back when, resulting in much greater audio quality where the music demands it.
Click to expand...
Not to belabor the point - wait ... has someone used the same line today in a different post? - but the improvement in converters and sampling rate and so on only led to the low bit rate MP3 players. They're far more convenient to use than records or compact cassettes or CD's but the sound quality that the majority of listeners enjoys is vastly inferior to the CD's from 1986. In other words, most, if not all, technologies come to a plateau after which the improvements are marginal and the consumer isn't willing to pay for anything more.

PS. Another example I thought of was air travel. It started on a wide scale in the 1920's, when a typical passenger transport sat 8-12 people on short regional routes. As the engine power went up, the size of transports and the number of passengers it could accommodate went up with it. The 1930's saw DC2, then DC-3, carry up to 30 folks at about 200 MPH, which allowed one day coast-to-coast travel in the US. Then the engines got bigger again, the planes took a similar step and, post-WWII, a transport could carry 80-100 people at ~ 350 MPH. Then the jets, that were first flown in the late 1930's, became dominant. Since then, air travel hasn't really changed - even accounting for a few supersonic projects - and it's been sixty years and counting.
 
I have some friends who are audiophiles and they detest CDs and .mp3s. They like Vinyl, reel to reel and high metal tapes.
I listened to a song dub my friend made onto an old tape 25 years ago and I heard things I had never heard in the song before. Then we listened to the CD release and it was not as good as that very old tape.
So, he and his friends bemoan digital audio. I tried to explain that it's not the fact that it is digital, but the archaic CD digital format and low bit mp3 that are the shortcoming. Hollywood masters audio in digital as we know. I remember seeing world famous Mike Post talking about how much the music world has changed.

Anyway. I really like this thread. It's great to hear some peope chiming in talking about the cameras that are used in big productions. Guys like me seldom have anything better than an FS700 type camera.
Thanks!
 
sean007davis said:
only one question. when do they start taking orders
Click to expand...

You might try Hot Rod Cameras for the preorder. They've got a close relationship with Panasonic, & provide exceptional support.

Your signature states your working your "way up to a Panasonic Varicam 35". Was at HRC last week & they mentioned they had two Varicam 35s available at half price. Think they were demos or such.
 
No one can take orders at this time....that will be flushed out in the next week or two when they officially decide who they are going to sign up as dealers.....and yes, the current Panasonic dealers here in LA (like Hot Rod, Abel, and us) are likely being considered.....

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
UK price for body only is £13K + VAT, lower than expected. The Varicam LT takes a standard 3G_SDI for a viewfinder so third party works.

PL mount is extra £950 + VAT
Hand grip is £900+VAt
Shoulder pad is £1,000 + VAT
Viewfinder is £ 4300+ VAT

P2 Express card 256GB - £1000+VAT
 
Will a product like the Atomos Shogun allow bypassing the purchase of a P2 Express card? And still support 4K and VFR modes?

Or is the P2 card necessary?
 
filmguy123 said:
Will a product like the Atomos Shogun allow bypassing the purchase of a P2 Express card? And still support 4K and VFR modes?

Or is the P2 card necessary?
Click to expand...

the O7Q+ will in the future, the Shogun maybe, but no HFR.

I don't know if the P2 card is required, but makes no sense not to buy one. Can;t rely on an external recorder all the time. Gotta have backup.
 
media price dropped by about $845.00
Expressp2 cards were $1995 less than a week ago. when you look at the recording times with comparable media its actually rather reasonably prices
 
filmguy123 said:
the reduced media & body cost just made this camera immensely more appealing
Click to expand...

Yes it did! If the reviews from the early adopters are good, I will be adding the Varicam LT to my arsenal. I'm also curious to hear how well the EF mount communicates with various Canon lenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top