Panasonic's new AG-CX350 camcorder

david_p said:
out of the handful of reviews and footage of the CX 350 on the web...nobody has really addressed how the AF is.
would really appreciate some info on this.
Click to expand...

These folks do an hour+ long review, more of impressions than stats which is fine. They were not too pleased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MCq3tiF_c

See comments after video to find times of specific topics. 44:15 has sequence tracking a person walking towards the camera. Their AF discussion starts at 42:39. They liked MF assist (45:00).
 
Last edited:
bfjewett said:
These folks do an hour+ long review, more of impressions than stats which is fine. They were not too pleased.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-MCq3tiF_c

See comments after video to find times of specific topics. 44:15 has sequence tracking a person walking towards the camera. Their AF discussion starts at 42:39. They liked MF assist (45:00).
Click to expand...

bfjewett, you probably missed it but this video was covered a couple of weeks ago in post #221.
 
Last edited:
Chris Aguilar's footage was some of the best looking footage on the reel. He shot boats on the water, from a boat, handheld, at about 30 to 40 feet away, zoomed in to a mid- or even head shot, and it was stable and watchable. Impressive as hell.

CX350 won the Best Of Show award from TV Technology.

As far as my presentation above, I have asked them to replace that first presentation with one of the later ones because at my pace of 3,000 words per minute I think I gave the impression that 4k/60p/4:2:2 is possible, which it isn't, in 60p it's 4k/10-bit/4:2:0. I did say that for HEVC but I'm not sure that it's properly conveyed. It's capable of 4k/10-bit/4:2:2 at 30 fps, but when going to 60p it's 4k/10-bit/4:2:0.
 
Barry_Green said:
Chris Aguilar's footage was some of the best looking footage on the reel. He shot boats on the water, from a boat, handheld, at about 30 to 40 feet away, zoomed in to a mid- or even head shot, and it was stable and watchable. Impressive as hell.

CX350 won the Best Of Show award from TV Technology.

As far as my presentation above, I have asked them to replace that first presentation with one of the later ones because at my pace of 3,000 words per minute I think I gave the impression that 4k/60p/4:2:2 is possible, which it isn't, in 60p it's 4k/10-bit/4:2:0. I did say that for HEVC but I'm not sure that it's properly conveyed. It's capable of 4k/10-bit/4:2:2 at 30 fps, but when going to 60p it's 4k/10-bit/4:2:0.
Click to expand...


Barry, in your intro you mention P2 recording formats for the CX350 will be available later this year. I am about to order a CX350. Would I be better off ordering micro P2 cards today rather than V60/V90 SDXC cards? Will I be able to record CX350's current recording formats to micro P2 cards?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
They haven't announced details, beyond saying that the AVC LongG format will come in June and the AVC-Intra formats in December.

AVC LongG maxxes out at 50 megabits, so it's possible that it will be able to be recorded to SDXC cards; if I remember correctly you could record it to SDXC cards on the PX270 using the MicroP2 adapter.

I wouldn't say CX350 users need to worry about MicroP2 cards, I'd just get some good V60 cards today.
 
Nice to hear the AVC50G and Intra will come to this cam. This is apparently the death blow to P2 in everything but the true ENG cams.

In a side note, I find it interesting that there is so much interest in a new handycam which seemed to be a dying form factor in lieu of such cams as the Canon 100 series or other economy "cinema cams". That form factor crowded the handycam format out of the market for several years. And who would buy a XF-700 at nearly double the price? Does it offer any features that would make it a better choice?

Grant
 
Barry_Green said:
As far as my presentation above, I have asked them to replace that first presentation with one of the later ones because at my pace of 3,000 words per minute I think I gave the impression that 4k/60p/4:2:2 is possible, which it isn't, in 60p it's 4k/10-bit/4:2:0. I did say that for HEVC but I'm not sure that it's properly conveyed. It's capable of 4k/10-bit/4:2:2 at 30 fps, but when going to 60p it's 4k/10-bit/4:2:0.
Click to expand...

Barry, what's the big deal with 4K/60p/4:2:2 vs 4k/60p/4:2:0? If needing 60p in 4:2:2, isn't a great alternative shooting in 1920x1080 422ALL-I 200M and uprezzing to 4K with the ultra sharp 15 million pixel sensor? Also, is the CX350 Netflix approved yet?

Glad you also created a CX350 Guide. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
They haven't announced details, beyond saying that the AVC LongG format will come in June and the AVC-Intra formats in December.

AVC LongG maxxes out at 50 megabits, so it's possible that it will be able to be recorded to SDXC cards; if I remember correctly you could record it to SDXC cards on the PX270 using the MicroP2 adapter.

I wouldn't say CX350 users need to worry about MicroP2 cards, I'd just get some good V60 cards today.
Click to expand...

But isn't AVC-Intra only avail recording on MicroP2 in December?
 
boo said:
Barry, what's the big deal with 4K/60p/4:2:2 vs 4k/60p/4:2:0?
Click to expand...
Ah, the eternal 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 question...

Well, here's the deal: 4:2:2 provides twice the color resolution of 4:2:0, and it was pretty much mandatory at all major broadcasters when shooting FHD 1080, or 720. It was especially important for interlaced video, as interlaced 4:2:0 was quite awful. But with the shift to UHD, the broadcasters are more than happy to specify UHD 4:2:0. Why is it okay in UHD and not AS okay in 1080? Two major reasons. First, UHD doesn't have interlaced video! It's all progressive all the time, and the biggest single benefit to 4:2:2 was when working with interlaced displays. And second, we're now approaching the limits of human visual perception. In 1080, at 1920 x 1080, it was already arguable that at any reasonable viewing distance, a 1080 display was showing as much detail as the human eye could perceive. With UHD/4K, we're beyond that, so we're seeing larger and larger screens, but when you consider that even at 4:2:0 a UHD display is showing color resolution at 1920x1080, there's just really no reason to spend more bits encoding more color data that no human will be able to perceive.

Now, there is still definitely an advantage to 4:2:2 when it comes to post production, keying, and compositing. But, generally, (as in a really broad generalization), you generally see that work more typically in film and dramatic production, and not so much in sports and news. And in film-style shooting, at 24p, the cameras are offering 4:2:2 options. The 4:2:0 is limited to 60p, which is more typically used for news, sports, and live production. And in news, sports, and live production, while there can be some manipulation of the signal for graphics and overlays and whatnot, the live transmission of the signal is done at 10-bit 4:2:2, so that's still totally hunky-dory. It's just the recorded 60p that has 4:2:0.

And, UHD 60p 4:2:0 has been accepted and endorsed by every major broadcast organization (EBU, ATSC 3.0, BBC, ITU etc) as far as I know.

So to go 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 in UHD, it's not nearly as big a deal as it was in 1080/720. What is a big deal is 10-bit. The average consumer, and most professionals, will never be able to see the difference between UHD 4:2:0 and UHD 4:2:2, but the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit is much more important for image quality. People can see the difference between 8-bit and 10-bit even in standard dynamic range video, and they can really see the difference when viewing HDR.

Finally, there's the profiles that HEVC is encoded at. HEVC is a big step up in quality, providing about 40% better compression than h.264 in general use, and HEVC recording and transmission are included in the latest advanced television specifications. The Main10 profile, which is the highest quality mode offered under Tier 1, doesn't even provide for 4:2:2 at all, it only specifies 10-bit 4:2:0, and that's what the EVA1 and CX350 provide, and that's what the latest Intel chips have built-in decoding for, so if you have a very recent Intel processor the HEVC provides better encoding and much better decoding with hardware acceleration, all at the best profile Main10 supports.

So -- long-winded answer is saying that the standards changed when UHD was adopted, and 4:2:0 is widely considered "good enough" for UHD.



If needing 60p in 4:2:2, isn't a great alternative shooting in 1920x1080 422ALL-I 200M and uprezzing to 4K with the ultra sharp 15 million pixel sensor?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't recommend that route. Uprezzing 1080 won't provide the native pixel resolution, especially after it's been quantized and subsampled down to 960x1080 color (which is what 1080p 4:2:2 delivers). The native 4K at 4:2:0 provides 1920x1080 color, so you've got twice as many color samples in UHD 4:2:0 than you would have in 1080p 4:2:2.

Also, is the CX350 Netflix approved yet?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of, and I don't know if they approve handycams. The CX350 does have the exact same codec (400mbps 4:2:2 ALL-I) that the EVA1 has, so we know the codec is acceptable to them, but I don't know whether they would consider the HLG gamma as a log gamma, because it's a hybrid log (lower tones are a conventional gamma, upper tones are logarithmic). Or if they would consider Film Rec as a log gamma. Reason I say so is because one of their requirements is either 16-bit linear or 10-bit log encoding, and the CX350 doesn't have V-Log, but it does have Film-Rec and it does have HLG.

In looking through their approved camera list, I don't see any integrated-lens "handycam" handheld cameras there.
 
Last edited:
boo said:
But isn't AVC-Intra only avail recording on MicroP2 in December?
Click to expand...

We don't know the details, I don't know for sure whether AVC-Intra will be MicroP2-only or if it will be allowed on V30 or V60 cards. In all honesty I don't expect it to be that big of a deal since the CX350 already has the ALL-I 100mbps 4:2:2 1080p recording format, so the inclusion of AVC-Intra is probably for more interoperational compatibility within an existing P2/MXF workflow. I doubt there will be any quality difference between the AVC-Intra and the existing ALL-I codec, and if there is any difference I don't expect it to be substantial.
 
I wonder how fast the RTMP streams are and if the NDI-signal can be streamed or put on a virtual local network. Also if the camera can be controlled over the Internet or if it needs a virtual LAN. Like using an AW-RP50 remote camera controller over the Internet.

I work for a sports broadcast company, and would be nice to remove extra hardware like TCP-streamers and to be able setting WB, exposure and pp-settings from a PCR/MCR with proper reference screens...
We generally send the picture over TCP or a safer UDP version with 1 sec delay, for adding graphics and commentators offsite.
 
Last edited:
nutmegger said:
bfjewett, you probably missed it but this video was covered a couple of weeks ago in post #221.
Click to expand...

Quite right, my mistake not to have caught that. In any case I should have amended it to say "not pleased with AF but otherwise quite impressed with the camera" at least for what I have seen.
 
ggrantly said:
I find it interesting that there is so much interest in a new handycam which seemed to be a dying form factor in lieu of such cams as the Canon 100 series or other economy "cinema cams". That form factor crowded the handycam format out of the market for several years.

Grant
Click to expand...
I'm not at all convinced the handycam form factor is dying. There are plenty of camcorders with fixed lenses out there. They don't have the cachet - or often, the cost, or presumably the profit margin - of cinema cams, and if the lens is "good enough" for 90% of the use cases of the owner - why not? Camcorders (often) bring NDs and XLR audio (that don't feel like an afterthought as seems true for mirrorless CSCs) and at least minimal audio controls without diving down into menus. I'd much prefer the interchangeable lens option, but for some cameras that means a step up in price for perhaps not enough use cases. In the meantime, it is wonderful to have choices. There are things I wish the CX-350 had - I'm still on the fence on it vs. GH5s vs. something else - but it seems to be a particularly powerful camera for those in need of flexibility and minimal time to be up and shooting.
 
High1ander said:
I wonder how fast the RTMP streams are and if the NDI-signal can be streamed or put on a virtual local network. Also if the camera can be controlled over the Internet or if it needs a virtual LAN. Like using an AW-RP50 remote camera controller over the Internet.

I work for a sports broadcast company, and would be nice to remove extra hardware like TCP-streamers and to be able setting WB, exposure and pp-settings from a PCR/MCR with proper reference screens...
We generally send the picture over TCP or a safer UDP version with 1 sec delay, for adding graphics and commentators offsite.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the new JVC GY-HC500SPC https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1438295-REG/jvc_gy_hc500spc_connected_cam_4k.html and the JVC GY-HC550 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1438287-REG/jvc_gy_hc550_connected_cam_4k_broadcast.html camcorders?
 
Your preaching to the choir. For me, the handycam form factor is where I live with a PX270 + DSLR raw. Of course for a long time lower end users wanted an improved AF100 and Panny delivered it mostly withe the EVA1 along with a price tag.

bfjewett said:
I'm not at all convinced the handycam form factor is dying. There are plenty of camcorders with fixed lenses out there. They don't have the cachet - or often, the cost, or presumably the profit margin - of cinema cams, and if the lens is "good enough" for 90% of the use cases of the owner - why not? Camcorders (often) bring NDs and XLR audio (that don't feel like an afterthought as seems true for mirrorless CSCs) and at least minimal audio controls without diving down into menus. I'd much prefer the interchangeable lens option, but for some cameras that means a step up in price for perhaps not enough use cases. In the meantime, it is wonderful to have choices. There are things I wish the CX-350 had - I'm still on the fence on it vs. GH5s vs. something else - but it seems to be a particularly powerful camera for those in need of flexibility and minimal time to be up and shooting.
Click to expand...
 
ggrantly said:
Your preaching to the choir. For me, the handycam form factor is where I live with a PX270 + DSLR raw. Of course for a long time lower end users wanted an improved AF100 and Panny delivered it mostly withe the EVA1 along with a price tag.
Click to expand...

I guess I must note that both the AF100 and the EVA1 are interchangeable lens cameras.
 
Of course Mitch, I didn't mean to confuse the issue.

The AF100 was an inexpensive cinema cam that IMHO, squeezed more than a few folks away from buying a HPX-250 (at the time). It seems like a great idea, build handycam with interchangeable lenses for an economy price. I never owned one, but there are still people waxing eloquence in the AF100 section. Through the life of the AF100, there were multiple threads requesting a better codec than AVCHD and a better sensor for a little more money, Think AF200 with the now ubiquitous 1" sensor, I-frame codec and 422 color. The EVA1 happened and of course it seems like a really great cam (I'd love to have one) except it is about double the price of the AF100 and rigged out, about double the price of a 270. But the dream for me was to leverage my DSLR glass on a reasonably priced cam.

I migrated from a 170 to the 270 and have been really happy with upgrade. For small corporate work, the 270 delivers about everything I could want. It may not be as cinematic as the EVA1 or the Canon offerings with interchangeable lenses, but it really hasn't been a problem for me.


Mitch Gross said:
I guess I must note that both the AF100 and the EVA1 are interchangeable lens cameras.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top