Panasonic's new AG-CX350 camcorder

Thanks. I have found the two controllers I have, a Libec and a Manfrotto work reasonably well but the stepping in between speeds can use some work. I am assuming it is from the camera side, not the controller.
 
davedv said:
Yes, this is another step backward in usability from previous cameras like the DVX200 and UX180. With earlier cameras you could use the thumb wheel to adjust the gain in 1 dB increments, but with the CX350, gain is not one of the settings that is directly adjustable via the wheel (this is called the Multi Manual function in the user's guide).

It is possible to adjust the gain on the CX350 in 1 dB steps, but you have to go into the [SW MODE] section of the CAMERA menu and change the gain level that is assigned to the L, M, or H settings of the physical gain switch. Which is not really a convenient way to adjust the gain. And often you may just want to make a temporary gain adjustment for what you are currently shooting, but changing the gain via the menu like this means that the physical gain switch will now keep this new gain setting indefinitely (at least until you go back into the menu to change it to something else).
Click to expand...

One way of handling gain in small increments is to set Auto Mode for Auto Iris and AGC only. Set the Auto Iris Level to 0 and control that level using the iris ring. Opening the iris with AGC thus engaged, adds gain as needed to execute the Auto Iris Level, which I am assuming is occurring in the most finite increments the camera is capable of.

Of course, this is limited by the 18dB gain limit imposed by the camera in AGC. Why was that imposed? I am often in environments where more than 18dB gain is needed.

(File under: workaround)

[I could mention that I find the 350 iris ring adjustments to exposure compensation in auto iris mode to be a a practical improvement over cams like the UXs, which require menu access to make adjustments. The combination of auto iris and AGC in auto mode, with adjustments made on the iris ring has a been a good way to handle gain, as long as I don’t need more than 18dB.]
:violent5:
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
I am finding the auto iris tends to overexpose. Filming some outdoor sunny day football games, I flipped on auto iris and had to turn the compensation down to -12 to get a good exposure (through the viewfinder). Just plain gets it wrong a lot. My PX270 never missed very much with auto iris.
Click to expand...

This experience for me goes back to the AC90. I usually have to pull those cams down a half stop in bright sun, maybe 1/3 stop in morning or afternoon sun.
 
Trying to color match CX350 with US90

Trying to color match CX350 with US90

So, I’ve been struggling for a couple of months to create a scene file for the CX350 that will closely match anything in the UX90. I’m sure I’ve put in close to 40 hours to no avail. I use one CX350 and two UX90s on 3-cam switched shoots on a regular basis for sports and for events and municipal meetings. I have been relegated to painting the CX350 to try to match the 90s in each location.

One thing I run into is that the CX350 and UX90 seem to see light differently when it comes to white balance. There is usually about a 100k-150k difference when taking a custom white balance. The first question I have is, is this to be expected? The UX90s balance to the same custom values every time. Is there something wrong with my copy of the CX350?

I’ve observed that Barry’s “Accurate” scene file for the UXs seems to live up to the name. It renders a DSCLabs chart fairly accurately and looks good as an out-of-the-camera color where grading is not going to be used, such as live streaming or live-to-tape recording. Unfortunately I don’t see any comparable scene file for the CX350.

Has anyone had any success in pulling these two camera models together? Barry, would a scene file for the CX350 that would approximate the UX90 Accurate scene file you created be a future possibility?

Thanks for any help.
 
Last edited:
Firmware update 2.01 for the CX350 has been released: https://eww.pass.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/content/download/EN/ep2main/soft/upgcx350_e.htm

This firmware adds P2 recording formats, a 100 Mbps 10-bit HEVC recording option in 4K (presumably to allow for smaller file sizes and longer record times when recording 4K), and 4-channel audio recording. There are also some other improvements and bug fixes as mentioned in the release notes here: https://eww.pass.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/content/download/EN/ep2main/soft/cx350/0201cx350.htm
 
Thanks for the heads up. I installed the update and am happy to find 720p60 options! Checked the remote zoom behavior and it is still the same, kind of clunky. I am going to try to contact Panasonic about this as it is too touchy moving from creep to slow speeds.

Is the new 100Mbps HEVC 4k format 4:2:2?
 
Can someone upload some footage from AG-CX350 in Google Drive or similar straight from the cards? I'm looking for some sample clips 4K with codec ALL-I, 422LongG and HEVC LongG 10 bit. Thanks!
 
I have recently had my first CX350 arrive and the second is on the way - upgrading from HMC152. So far so good.

I have two Libec ZC-3DV remotes, these can switch between P (used on HMCs) and LANC (what the CX350 uses). One works fine on the CX350 and the other only does S/S and not zoom. Both work ok on the older cameras. So it seems the controllers function ok and the P/LANC switch is working too. Any ideas?
 
You probably have different generations of Libec controllers. This is the problem with reverse engineering things — there’s just no way we can make sure everything will work. New devices will work fine.
 
I don't know Mitch. I have two of the most expensive LANC controllers, one from Libec and one from Manfrotto and the zoom action is not up to professional standards imho. The jump from creep to slow to mild fast is too close and jumpy. Now if the best two controllers do not work with a pro camera, then are we supposed to use the cheap ones? I believe there is more work to be done inside the camera. BTW, this has stopped me from replacing PX270s as they are performing better. I e-mailed Steve Cooperman about this and never heard back. I just can't fuly adopt the cameras without proper rear zoom behavior.
 
Last edited:
That performance has nothing to do with what I posted. He said he has two seemingly identical controllers but one of them didn’t operate certain functions.

As to your point, I know it is something that’s being worked on. I have no idea how or what is coming.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I don't know Mitch. I have two of the most expensive LANC controllers, one from Libec and one from Manfrotto and the zoom action is not up to professional standards imho. The jump from creep to slow to mild fast is too close and jumpy. Now if the best to controllers do not work with a pro camera, then are we supposed to use the cheap ones? I believe there is more work to be done inside the camera. BTW, this has stopped me from replacing PX270s as they are performing better. I e-mailed Steve Cooperman about this and never heard back. I just can't fuly adopt the cameras without proper rear zoom behavior.
Click to expand...

At NAB NY 2019 I spoke with Takuya Ozawa from Panasonic Japan regarding some issues I was experiencing with the CX350. After the NAB NY Expo I emailed Takuya a list of the issues I was having and suggestions for firmware updates. Today I received an email from Takuya informing me Panasonic Japan is looking into the issues I reported, including the Varizoom remote controller problems. I'm glad Panasonic Japan will listen to someone like me, a sole operator, and not ignore my issues with the CX350.
 
Last edited:
Bassman2003 said:
I don't know Mitch. I have two of the most expensive LANC controllers, one from Libec and one from Manfrotto and the zoom action is not up to professional standards imho. The jump from creep to slow to mild fast is too close and jumpy. Now if the best to controllers do not work with a pro camera, then are we supposed to use the cheap ones? I believe there is more work to be done inside the camera. BTW, this has stopped me from replacing PX270s as they are performing better. I e-mailed Steve Cooperman about this and never heard back. I just can't fuly adopt the cameras without proper rear zoom behavior.
Click to expand...
One thing you might want to check regarding the zoom speed progression is using the CX ROP app (on iOS or Android). When I looked into this earlier, the same 8 zoom speed levels that were being used in response to LANC commands were also used in the zoom speed control section of the app. Although the app uses a different XML-based protocol to talk to the camera, it also has 8 zoom speed settings just like LANC does. The app has a slider for zoom control, but if you carefully slide along the range you'll notice that there are actually 8 distinct zoom in and 8 zoom out positions, corresponding to the different zoom speeds.

Anyway, this might help determine whether the zoom speed progression is a camera issue vs. a remote issue.

Note that you can use the app without the USB wi-fi adapter if you can connect the camera to a wired network and can connect your phone or tablet to that same local network (over either a wired or wi-fi connection).
 
I think Panasonic has always been good about making things right over time. They will probably get there but I still can't believe they trashed their existing protocols for this new semi-LANC protocol which does not perform as well. It is like they forgot all of the years of production leading up to this camera regarding rear zoom controls. They are VERY important to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top