VaricamLT: Panasonic VariCam LT

[jimagine]

I love what Jeff had to say about the C300 IQ as the main reason to use it and that the DPAF was a great extra.
And his opinion of the BM pocket.
They're about as far part as far as operation and features are concerned but they're my two favorite cameras despite their differences.

 

[DBP]

I love what Jeff had to say about the C300 IQ as the main reason to use it and that the DPAF was a great extra.
And his opinion of the BM pocket.
They're about as far part as far as operation and features are concerned but they're my two favorite cameras despite their differences.

Loved his comments on the fanboy stuff too!

 

[paulcurtis]

The P2 cards though... they're a bit painful priced, for what they are. RED have the same kind of markup on their media though. I really want to love this camera, if the image clicks with me, but the limitations in media and lack of 4K ProRes are problems. The 7Q+ solution is there though. I don't love it, as it affects the compactness of the camera, though it is a nice viewfinder.

The 7Q solution allows for RAW though, or should do? I've not looked in depth but how else could you record RAW off the LT?

That's the interest for me, it seems like a nice match.

cheers
Paul

 

[Sttratos]

To me it does.

Regardless, it is one of the finest demos of any camera I have seen.

I'm sorry but this is not subjective. That looks nothing like film. If you think so you have never seen film.

I agree the Varicam 35 demo is one of the finest demos. But this has nothing to do with looking like film. It does not. If you like that look then ok. But it looks video or digital.
But it's a great demo. Sony could learn from Panasonic there. Only the Alexa demo rivals that in production value.

 

[Sttratos]

I love the green frog. It is 'real' colours. Stunning.

It is really simple to take such an image and 'degrade' it in post to make it look like faded old film or an F35.

S

But the old folks seem to be trying forever in the other thread with pristine laugh 4K FS7 and F55 footage without any success.

OK. You said film is faded. LOL. So you were just joking. I will just leave it then.

But what's up with the double standard?

Although some simple routes to 'F35' would be nice!

First you praise then you...oh yes. Just joking, I get it.

 

[Sttratos]

Interesting chat about the Vari and others with G Boyle. Also interesting comments on AF on the C300/2 (which I alluded to earlier as a 'game changer' for the small crew)

https://vimeo.com/158017639

Nice chat. But to say Arri has a problem is a stretch. I doubt the Alexa has to worry about a Panasonic camera. The industry would never embrace it. They can't even embrace Sony. Arri has the industry cornered because they are Arri.

 

[steve phillipps]

I'm sorry but this is not subjective. That looks nothing like film. If you think so you have never seen film..

It's a really complicated topic because just like sensors there are also different types of film - so to say something "looks like film" or not is pointless unless you specify which film and at what stage in the viewing process you're comparing it to. By this I mean that straight out of the camera no video will look like film as the film is a negative! It then gets telecined, with basic tweaks being applied there, so you could be talking about rushes immediately after telecine. From there they go to edit and are graded - potentially changing the look dramatically! I shot on film for many years so I know what it looks like at all stages, and the look of any particular shot is definitely not a single "look", different cameras, lenses, lighting, stocks, and especially treatment after shooting has a big impact.
Plus of course, we're all viewing this stuff on computer monitors from internet downloads so all views need to taken with a pinch of salt. With all this said, it does seem to make sense to not try to judge a video camera image by how much it might look like film, but rather does it look good, subjectively, to you!
Steve

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

I'm sorry but this is not subjective. That looks nothing like film. If you think so you have never seen film.

I agree the Varicam 35 demo is one of the finest demos. But this has nothing to do with looking like film. It does not. If you like that look then ok. But it looks video or digital.
But it's a great demo. Sony could learn from Panasonic there. Only the Alexa demo rivals that in production value.

You're right all my years of shooting 16mm must have been a dream.

Get bent.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Nice chat. But to say Arri has a problem is a stretch. I doubt the Alexa has to worry about a Panasonic camera. The industry would never embrace it. They can't even embrace Sony. Arri has the industry cornered because they are Arri.

No. The industry isn't "cornered". DP's (including myself) prefer the way the Alexa looks, and that it is well-built and reliable. You just need to look back 6-10 years, when the Panavision Genesis "cornered" the market (because it was the first viable S35 digital camera), followed by the Sony F35, essentially a second generation Genesis. Late to the game, because they remained committed to their film products, Arri brought out the D20 but it was by no means a runaway success. The name alone did not carry enough weight to overcome its drawbacks. The Alexa had the right feature set and looked great, and proved to be the camera that finally converted many of hardline film enthusiasts amongst DP's.

For me, once I see a competitor's camera that improves on the performance and features of the Alexa family of cameras, I would be perfectly fine switching over. From my preliminary tests between Amira and Varicam, I'm still preferring the Arri. Mostly I'm preparing for the day when I get a Netflix or Amazon show and will be forced to choose amongst the other cameras.

 

[Sttratos]

You're right all my years of shooting 16mm must have been a dream.

Get bent.

You shot 16mm and you think that looks like film? What in the demo reminds you of film?

 

[Sttratos]

No. The industry isn't "cornered". DP's (including myself) prefer the way the Alexa looks, and that it is well-built and reliable.

Hmm this is basically what I meant. So not sure what your rant is about, if it was a rant. Hard to tell sometimes. Unless you are saying that the Arri name and rep has no influence in people choosing the Alexa, which I strongly believe it does.

 

[alohype]

I love what Jeff had to say about the C300 IQ as the main reason to use it and that the DPAF was a great extra.

If high frame rates were not necessity nowadays C300II truly would be a perfect small crew camera.

 

[DLD]

Plus of course, we're all viewing this stuff on computer monitors from internet downloads so all views need to taken with a pinch of salt.
Steve

4K Blu-ray discs and players are out (players have been out for about a month already). That's the new standard. The Blu-Ray film. In HEVC.

... Mostly I'm preparing for the day when I get a Netflix or Amazon show and will be forced to choose amongst the other cameras.

Geoff strongly implied that pretty much everyone in the US is switching to a "native" 4K camera. Is that the word on street?

PS. Dan Chung made a sly remark on "whether anyone will ever need 4K or not" but, clearly, you can't advertise the fact that you're shooting in 4K if you're not shooting in 4K.

 

[slidemaster]

Nice chat. But to say Arri has a problem is a stretch. I doubt the Alexa has to worry about a Panasonic camera. The industry would never embrace it. They can't even embrace Sony. Arri has the industry cornered because they are Arri.

I believe he meant for broadcast, not for Cinema.

 

[alohype]

I believe he meant for broadcast, not for Cinema.

Well... Just have a look at Netflix. They do not allow Arri because of lack of 'true' 4K. And how big the Netflix is?
I'm with Geoff on this, maybe they don't have problems today (at least they can't feel them in their pocket) but tomorrow (next year?) that wave will come and they'll have them.

 

[combatentropy]

It's a really complicated topic because just like sensors there are also different types of film . . . and at what stage in the viewing process . . . different cameras, lenses, lighting, stocks, and especially treatment after shooting has a big impact.
Plus of course, we're all viewing this stuff on computer monitors from internet downloads so all views need to taken with a pinch of salt. With all this said, it does seem to make sense to not try to judge a video camera image by how much it might look like film, but rather does it look good, subjectively, to you!

Another film-look discussion. Oh man, to weigh in or not weigh in? Okay, I'm jumping in!

Contrast. That is the number-one distinction I see nowadays between real film and the videocameras that have emulated it in every other way.

It used to be there were many differences between film and videocameras (and yes, I'm calling them videocameras). The differences used to be: frame rate, resolution, dynamic range, and depth of field. The videocameras have matched film in all those ways. But still they look different. They look different because of contrast. However, the good news is, this can easily be fixed in post.

When I say contrast, I don't mean merely raising or lowering the contrast slider. That raises or lowers the contrast of the whole image. Film is trickier. No, it's genius. Film is: (1) low contrast in the shadows, (2) high contrast in the mids, and (3) low contrast in the highlights. If you were to graph it, it would look sort of like the letter S. Sort of. I mean, the laziest S you ever saw. But anyway, certain people thought it close enough and labeled it the S curve. You've all heard of it. That's what it means: (1) low contrast in the shadows, (2) high contrast in the mids, and (3) low contrast in the highlights.



Why do I say the S curve is genius? Because it best fits the dynamic range of a real-world scene into the dynamic range of a viewing device. You can't have a 12-stop TV screen. It would have to be bright as day. Can you imagine the sunburn you'd get? No one really wants that. For viewing you want a comfortable dynamic range of about 5 or 6 stops. Question: How do you fit 12 stops of the real world into 6 stops of a comfortable screen? Well, you could just cut off the top or bottom (clipped highlights or crushed shadows). Or you could decrease the contrast, so that detail is preserved both in the shadows and highlights, but it looks a milky fog (think unprocessed log footage). Or you could be clever, and that's what film is. Film retains realistic contrast in the mids, where the subject is, the faces, the car, the whatever. But it cheats in the shadows and in the highlights, so there's still some detail there, more than if you had hard-clipped them in a linear-contrast picture. S curve.

The video I see looks like video not film because the grader didn't go far enough. The mids are still too low contrast.

A second reason may be because of oversharpening. Videocameras still seem to do that sometimes. You've got to find that in the menu and turn it all the way off.

A third reason that I forgot to mention is white highlights. Film usually doesn't have white highlights. They still retain some color. When you're shooting video, if your highlights turn white, there's no getting them back. They're clipped. (Film, by the way, has the same problem but on the opposite end of the spectrum. A good cinematographer will be scared of underexposing too far and losing stuff forever in the shadows. It's the opposite problem, as if the film was a negative in some way. Hmmm.) Anyway, the only way you're going to keep color in your highlights is to use Revlon's new hair dye --- wait, wrong subject. The only way to keep color in the highlights is to expose lower than you're used to and raise the shadows and mids in post. That means, while shooting, the picture will look too dark --- unless you can load a suitable LUT, which you might have to custom make.

So, it's simple: Contrast. And sharpening. Or lack thereof, I mean. And highlights. It's simple

 

[mitch@provideo]

I wanted to make sure that anyone who has an interest in VariCam LT knew about these Panasonic Finance options. Let me know if you have any questions at all.

12 months, 0% interest, 90 days payment deferred
With this program you will make 12 equal monthly payments but your first payment isn't due for over 90 days. This is a great option to give yourself some time to put the camera to work before making that first payment.

24 months, 0% interest
24 equal monthly payments interest free.

36 months, 3.9% interest
Spread your payments out over 36 months to make that bill a little lower. 3.9% interest is still very competitive rate, even if its not as low as 0%.

Some quick examples:
The body only, $16,500, over 24 months at 0% interest would be $687.50 per month.
The body only, $16,500, over 12 months (90 days payment free), at 0% interest would be $1,375 per month.
The body only, $16,500, over 36 months at 3.9% interest would be about $487 per month

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope it was helpful. I'll have the application on my website soon. Until then If you want to apply I can email you a .pdf of the application. Let me know if i can help in any way.

Eric Petrie in Portland Oregon
epetrie@provideoandtape.com
503-598-9142
Finance the Sony Fs5 for $171 a month, $0 down
Finance the Canon C300mkII for $459 a month, $0 down

 

[filmguy123]

combatentropy, you are a boss. Thank you for this. Learned something new and piqued further interest on the topic from me!

Could someone explain to me the difference between the Sony A7s ability to show at crazy high ISO and still have a clean image VS Panasonics dual ISO setup? Which has better lowlight and why? What are the fundamental differences in the approach from a technical level, and how does that translate into a practical working scenario?

Thank you!

 

[Noel Evans]

Got the LT in my hands as we speak. Weather permitting shooting on it all weekend, Monday edit session, Tuesday with Colourist for grade and DCP, Thursday I will be in Sydney with the result.

Im not sure what I can add here right now. We already know what the sensor looks like, we know why they've produced a smaller / cheaper version. FWIW Im getting one soon as I have every faith in the system and sensor. Didn't think I would buy another camera TBH, but I'd love to shoot on this as an option as much as possible.

Review coming next week. I want to state it clearly that, yes I will be doing a short user experience presentation at the LT roadshows, however Pana pays me nothing when I talk about it.

I will be at the following in Aus. Grug and others come along and introduce yourselves, would love to say hello in person. The Thursday event is at ACS HQ, so it's limited on numbers and members get priority.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Hmm this is basically what I meant. So not sure what your rant is about, if it was a rant. Hard to tell sometimes. Unless you are saying that the Arri name and rep has no influence in people choosing the Alexa, which I strongly believe it does.

I have no proclivity for ranting on message boards. I just saw your string of threads that contained a string of absolutes: "that looks nothing like film"... "Arri has the industry cornered". I personally believe that absolutes are best reserved for indisputable facts, and that opinions require careful and distinct wording.

I would never suggest that the Arri name has NO influence in a DP's choice (oh hey, another absolute); it is a brand that is familiar to every cinematographer. My contention is that when large sensor cameras began to replace 35mm film, many DP's explored their options rather than stubbornly retaining their allegiance to a single manufacturer, and many found the Alexa to their liking for what it could do.

I'm have no intention of passing judgement on the Varicam based on the Panasonic badge, I'm forming my opinion by consulting with those who have used it and by testing the camera, evaluating the footage and weighing it against Alexa footage (my personal baseline).