VaricamLT: Panasonic VariCam LT

Status
Not open for further replies.
combatentropy said:
Once again a purely personal attack with no concrete details to illustrate your point, just like the responses by Mitch Goss and mcgeedigital. Anyone can call names. Coincidentally this strategy of belittling is also used in brainwashing and abusive relationships. A message of "You're too stupid, so shut up and trust me," is used by many to keep someone else in a bad situation for a long time.
Click to expand...
Well I take offense to that. I am not belittling or absusing anyone. I'm sorry that I am under NDAs to various companies that prevent me from going to details, but honestly there is plenty of information available online and elsewhere that supports my statements should one care to look. I do not have any fight with anyone here, no matter what camera you buy I'm happy to sell you an Odyssey7Q+ to go with it. But rest assured (are you willing to do that?) that I and others do get to see plenty of cameras face to face and also get to dive into the inner workings of the signal processing. And I can confidently state that there are differences between them. If you do not wish to accept that then fine, but I don't think I deserve to be attacked for it.
 
You know, for all the talk about signal processing, and noise, and all that... the first thing going through my head after watching that short film was "huh?". I was too busy thinking about how weird it was to notice the noise.

Just a friendly little reminder as folks start to pick apart the camera and compare it to every other camera on Earth that content is king :)
 
the varicam lt short is a little too cheesy for me.
it looks video-ish probably because of how it is lit where they solely relied on the lowlight capabilities of the camera.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I am not belittling or absusing anyone.
Click to expand...

Your post had some mild Elizabethan ribbing if I recall, way below the degree of others, but still it came off rather condescending, considering you're still saying "You're wrong but I can't tell you why." You won't even give us something general or a made-up example?

there is plenty of information available online
Click to expand...

I have read a fair bit of it over the years and have yet to find something that doesn't fall into one of the categories I listed:

- add or subtract red, blue, or green to a pixel
- raise or lower the brightness of a pixel
- take away noise (or perhaps inadvertently add it)

I mean, I made it intentionally broad. Those three things, especially the first two, cover just about anything, at least anything intentionally done, and again we're talking about cameras that output raw. There are a whole assortment of things I can think of that cannot be reconciled, like highlight clipping from too little dynamic range or aliasing from line skipping. But in talking about the raw or logarithmic output, from a modern large-sensor camera, if two cameras are otherwise equal, you may be wasting your money if the only reason you choose one camera over the other is its "color science," "mojo," or "highlight roll-off."

If the Varicam is better built and faster to work with on set, and you work full time on set, then the extra $10,000 or so may actually be worth it. I'm not saying that the Varicam is definitely not worth it. I'm just saying that if the only thing you like better about it is how its test videos look, I would say you should be able to match it with an FS7 (ducks under flying Cooke lens). And if you decide to buy it anyway, even though combatentropy warns against it, that's fine too. I won't make fun of you. I may, however, ask for some money.
 
Last edited:
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com said:
The big concern is a single Express P2 slot. Don't know if it can span for uninterrupted recording. If I can, it'll pretty much any shooting scenarios.
Click to expand...

By non-ENG type stuff, I meant things like promos and commercials. From my previous life in local TV, I don't think long record times would be an issue for that sort of thing.
 
combatentropy said:
Your post had some mild Elizabethan ribbing if I recall, way below the degree of others, but still it came off rather condescending, considering you're still saying "You're wrong but I can't tell you why." You won't even give us something general or a made-up example?



I have read a fair bit of it over the years and have yet to find something that doesn't fall into one of the categories I listed:

- add or subtract red, blue, or green to a pixel
- raise or lower the brightness of a pixel
- take away noise (or perhaps inadvertently add it)

I mean, I made it intentionally broad. Those three things, especially the first two, cover just about anything, at least anything intentionally done, and again we're talking about cameras that output raw. There are a whole assortment of things I can think of that cannot be reconciled, like highlight clipping from too little dynamic range or aliasing from line skipping. But in talking about the raw or logarithmic output, from a modern large-sensor camera, if two cameras are otherwise equal, you may be wasting your money if the only reason you choose one camera over the other is its "color science," "mojo," or "highlight roll-off."

If the Varicam is better built and faster to work with on set, and you work full time on set, then the extra $10,000 or so may actually be worth it. I'm not saying that the Varicam is definitely not worth it. I'm just saying that if the only thing you like better about it is how its test videos look, I would say you should be able to match it with an FS7 (ducks under flying Cooke lens). And if you decide to buy it anyway, even though combatentropy warns against it, that's fine too. I won't make fun of you. I may, however, ask for some money.
Click to expand...

Elizabethan ribbing? I guess if you can't take the heat then don't fly MIG Alley.

Some basic differences in some RAW sensor signals:

- CFA
How good are the color dyes in the color filter array? There's more to RGB then red, green and blue. What is the exact shade and density and how accurate is that color consistency to the nanometer wavelength, and how consistent across the sensor array and between sensor batches? One camera company a few years back introduced a digital cinema camera with an industrial-level CFA to save money. The resultant color accuracy was evident. There's even the question of how precisely the CFA is aligned with the sensor grid, which is NEVER an absolute 100% perfect alignment. This means there's some "color slop" that contaminates adjacent photo sites, and the numbers have to be fudged a bit to compensate.

- Sensor driver arrays
A camera sensor doesn't just gather a signal and then magically send that signal out in a RAW data feed. There is a circuit board filled with nothing but a driver system that is tasked with extracting that information. There's a huge list of functions and purposes to this board, which is generally slapped right up against the back of the sensor. One of the biggest jobs is heat dissipation, which is perhaps the greatest enemy to a sensor. Another is as an RF and electrostatic noise buffer to protect from interference from all of the other electrical signals corrupting the readings of the sensor. There is ALWAYS stray interference signals that must be processed and interpreted on this board before the RAW signal is output. I know of one camera that went through a driver board redesign -- the sensor was not changed at all -- and the result was more than a stop gain in dynamic range. The camera maker released this as a new camera model, based on this single improvement, and this improvement was found directly in the RAW data.

I could give a lot more examples and additional data, but I'm already treading on proprietary information. There is a lot out there that is written by people on the outside looking in who talk in theory but have little practical knowledge of camera design and execution. So what I'm telling you here is that in practice there is a great deal of difference to how each manufacturer addresses the various problems and decisions that come up throughout the process of making a camera, even on the RAW data level.
 
Mitch Gross said:
... So what I'm telling you here is that in practice there is a great deal of difference to how each manufacturer addresses the various problems and decisions that come up throughout the process of making a camera, even on the RAW data level.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Mitch Gross said:
Elizabethan ribbing? I guess if you can't take the heat then don't fly MIG Alley.
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant that with a wink but I guess it didn't carry over.

- CFA
How good are the color dyes in the color filter array? There's more to RGB then red, green and blue. What is the exact shade and density and how accurate is that color consistency to the nanometer wavelength, and how consistent across the sensor array and between sensor batches? One camera company a few years back introduced a digital cinema camera with an industrial-level CFA to save money. The resultant color accuracy was evident. There's even the question of how precisely the CFA is aligned with the sensor grid, which is NEVER an absolute 100% perfect alignment. This means there's some "color slop" that contaminates adjacent photo sites, and the numbers have to be fudged a bit to compensate.
Click to expand...

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.

- Sensor driver arrays
A camera sensor doesn't just gather a signal and then magically send that signal out in a RAW data feed. There is a circuit board filled with nothing but a driver system that is tasked with extracting that information. There's a huge list of functions and purposes to this board, which is generally slapped right up against the back of the sensor. One of the biggest jobs is heat dissipation, which is perhaps the greatest enemy to a sensor. Another is as an RF and electrostatic noise buffer to protect from interference from all of the other electrical signals corrupting the readings of the sensor. There is ALWAYS stray interference signals that must be processed and interpreted on this board before the RAW signal is output. I know of one camera that went through a driver board redesign -- the sensor was not changed at all -- and the result was more than a stop gain in dynamic range. The camera maker released this as a new camera model, based on this single improvement, and this improvement was found directly in the RAW data.

I could give a lot more examples and additional data, but I'm already treading on proprietary information. There is a lot out there that is written by people on the outside looking in who talk in theory but have little practical knowledge of camera design and execution. So what I'm telling you here is that in practice there is a great deal of difference to how each manufacturer addresses the various problems and decisions that come up throughout the process of making a camera, even on the RAW data level.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
Sttratos said:
It doesn't matter if PB and CNN use a FS7 for a docu show which needs portability. This the only reason really. They use DSLRs too for Christ's sake. Obviously image quality and industry standards are not the main focus. Even though I have a FS7 and think it's great for the money it gets pretty tiresome that every time a high end camera is announced FS7 users have to come on and say overpriced, FS7 basically as good or any variation of that. It's not. Varicams are high end cameras. The FS7 is not on the same level. Yes, 20% more image quality can be worth 10, 20, $30k more for people who don't count beans. Specially when the rest besides image quality is so much better. It's just a fact of the industry these cameras are made for. The high end. For people who can't understand that there are cameras like the FS7. But the Varicam image is for sure better than the FS7. How I wish my FS7 was giving me Varicam footage. Nope! Wish it was that easy. Well sorry. I have no more time to write. Have to spend the time with Resolve to make my FS7 footage look really good, kinda.
Click to expand...

I have no dog in this fight as I own neither an FS7 or a Varicam. But there was a claim
made that the FS7 'wasn't good enough' for a national TV broadcast....which was why
I brought up The Wonder List which is using that exact camera. Yes they
use DSLRs too, as gimbal cams and so on, but the FS7 is the A cam. The FS7
easily meets all broadcast specs, including those of the BBC. You can
certainly claim it is 'inferior' to the Varicam (although how you can compare it
to an unreleased Varicam with any degree of accuracy, I am not sure) but that
is kind of not the point. My point was the FS7 meets 'national broadcast' specs.
Not that a national broadcaster wouldn't bend these specs anyways if they wanted
the footage, but the oft cited 'BBC specs' are easily met by the FS7 so it is
at least 'minimally acceptable.'
 
I own an Fs7 and have shot broadcast on it.. is it good enough? Maybe - I guess the picture is good enough

Really it falls over on certain productions (like the one I did which was multicam and CNzoom)..

-no TC jam without adding a silly and heavy box
-odd luts/wfm and badly placed VFinder that is crappy plastic
-no lutted proxies
-no lut to director monitor
-no rgb tools
-takes a week to go from 4k to HFR
-takes a month to engage crop mode
-takes a year to go from 150 FPS, to 1FPS
-180FPs not in Pal mode
-HFR HD is a bit of a thin codec
-cannot shoot instant backup to 2 cards
-CN17 zoom requires more cr_ap (Dtap splitter plate) to power it
-CN17 zoom must be supported on rods due to flimsy e-mount
-once you add the rear box, splitter plate yak yak it gets heavy and fragile
-only 2 usable audio channels
-huge menu dig and cable faff to swap from top mic to soundie tail
-one cans output
-annoying alert 'switching slots soon' obscures the image
-no red rolling dot on Display Off mode (switching slots alert still there in DO mode)
-menu and switches behind your ear
-monitor signals are over the image not around it.. shoot that boom
-file name duplication if you pull the battery without full power down
-some of these things are cured with a Gratical or DP502
-no power light
-no focus bash to third party EVF
it can however shoot across cards for long takes

Some of these things are small, but on a pressured set really add pain. As an operator the minimum skill not to be fired is to be rolling and not shoot the boom.. the FS7 does not have a safe way of doing this!

Most of these issues are not there on the full Vari.. some of the issues are not there on the Vari LT

Some, like the navigation of the menu are basically unknown but probably better on the LT

Really the FS7 is not your friend on set.. if the vari is your friend then the extra price almost feels worth it!

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Really the FS7 is not your friend on set.. if the vari is your friend then the extra price almost feels worth it!

S
Click to expand...

On a real set, as a 1st AC, the FS7 can be a real pain in the ass. I've done a couple shows with it, and there's just some details that make it hard to work with. The original handle (which my operator likes because it also has a record button on it) has these little metal hoops on it, presumably for attaching a strap to the camera, that always dig into your hand when you hold the camera with you left hand. The camera's also more geared towards single operator use, so all the controls aren't accessible to me (and there's no complimentary control assistants panel). The menus are pretty bad, annoying to use, and slow you down quite a bit on set. The overall build feels weak, and the base shape of the camera isn't useful for hand held at all, since you have all the weight sliding forward. It's definitely the successor of the C300, great image quality in a quirky not totally professional body. At least the EVF makes the attempt to be useful, especially in hand held situations, unlike the C300's vestigial EVF.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I have no dog in this fight as I own neither an FS7 or a Varicam. But there was a claim
made that the FS7 'wasn't good enough' for a national TV broadcast....which was why
I brought up The Wonder List which is using that exact camera.
Click to expand...

I was always referring to NARRATIVE DRAMA - Tier 1. Netlix/Amazon/BBC level, not documentary broadcast work.

Not to be an asshole about it, but I am fully aware of many high end docu series shot on F55's, Alexa with large budgets, at the end of the day it's down to the DP, Director and Producer the amount of money they have. I am not trying to take away anything from hard working and super talented DP's who make pretty pictures and tell amazing stories with FS7s any day all day, many of whom are on this forum.

I am simply referring to the reality on a multi-million dollar/pound projects where the camera department accounts for less than 5% of the budget.

From a purely spec point of view, the FS7 does meet the minimum (and I stress the word MINIMUM) 10bit 4K/60 Tier 1 UHD requirements, but in the grand scheme of things, as I've said a million time before - for high end narrative work, anything other than a VARI/ARRI/Dragon or F65/F55 isn't gonna cut the mustard on a multi-cam shoot with experienced crews.

Most high-end work in the UK in the last 6 months is either Alexa XTs, MINIs /AMIRA or Dragons in the UK.
 
morgan_moore said:
I own an Fs7 and have shot broadcast on it.. is it good enough? Maybe - I guess the picture is good enough

Really it falls over on certain productions (like the one I did which was multicam and CNzoom)...
Click to expand...

Wise words from a super talented DP and a FS7 owner, whose work I really dig. The FS7 certainly has found a lot of love in the UK especially, I see them everywhere - all rental houses have them. But for some types of work they can be very challenging to work with - the menu Dig for almost everything is a major PITA.

Good luck with your feature, mate!
 
k0bayashi said:
Most high-end work in the UK in the last 6 months is either Alexa XTs, MINIs /AMIRA or Dragons in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wonder if the Varicam 35 will ever penetrate the cinema market (it's proven more popular in TV so far) since it's so ingrained that shows shoot on the Alexa because it's the gold standard, or with RED because it's a bit cheaper and has resolution. That being said, it's basically what Arri should have come out with already: a legit S35 4k cinema camera to shoot ProRes on. Even RED's new body does 4k ProRes now. Panasonic invested a lot in making their cameras work well with a variety of workflows, which was one of the biggest drivers of the Alexa's success. The camera seems like it should scale up to bigger productions really easily.
 
This a has turned into a bit of an 'FS7 off' - to me the Vari will or wont shine on paper spec.. or probably even delivered video.. but if it is designed to be used under pressure then the minor details will make it stand or fall.

It may sound wild but the HF jack position was to me a major reason not to buy the F5 (and they had not enabled 4k!)- and the raw media could not record SR444 - Sony shot them selves in the foot with an intern design errors and market segments with that camera

Detail details details is what makes these cameras shine if you are an operator, as a producer Im guessing it is vibe and price and reputaion in post for simplicity.

Id like to see an operator (and post) testimonial from Panny - not a drama short.

Id also like to know if it slides on the shoulder pad like the Amera does. It needs to be way further back to balance a cine zoom.

Also does the handle have a focus bash?

S
 
Last edited:
I note the proxy is 2 chan audio. (ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/provideo/varicamlt/varicam-lt_brochure.pdf)

I would see using the camera as 1-2 soundie in (the 5pin XLR), 3-4 top mic ambient ideally to both chans at different levels like the FS7.

Dont know if the chans can be re-routed

But losing that audio in the proxies could be a problem for post workflow.

--

Cache record?
Crop mode in HD (with assign button?)
Remote control of Canon glass?
Decent wifi app?
GPS and jam free TOD?
Usb out charges my phone/gopro?
Input to mix motorola into my cans?
S
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top