VaricamLT: Questions and Feature Requests for the Varicam LT

Hey Milan. No the camera was not stolen, just tripod, fluid head, and few lights.
Not the most expensive stuff in the world to replace, but would have rather invested the money on anything but the same stuff AGAIN!


Also, regarding feature requests, it would be really nice to have squeeze to fit, actual size, and 2x magnifacation. Right now I think there is only fit to window and actual size.
 
Is it possible in the new firmware for the LT to simplify framerate options? Like the C300 does basically.
- 4K422 1-25fps
- 4K422LT 25-50fps
- 2K4444 1-25fps
- 2K422 25-50fps
- 2K422crop 50-100fps
- 2K422LTcrop 100-200fps

Just a simple list like this to select without you having to go through multiple places to find stuff.

Also probably won't happen but would be so very nice to get 422 not LT codec for 50fps
 
Any chance we might see an L mount for the Varicam LT? A Sony E mount is possible with the native mount, so I assume L mount is a possibility.
 
Last edited:
There's enough room in the depth, but just barely. The real problem would be the inner cavity diameter. L-mount is 51.6mm which is much fatter than on the VariCam. While it is a smaller sensor for coverage, I don't know if that diameter difference would pose a problem for the electrical connections or for causing internal reflections. Might be possible but I'm not sure. There would have to be some electronics to talk to the L-mount lens.
 
BerkeCreative said:
Why is PsF still a thing?....Isn’t true 23.98p part of the SDI spec now?
Click to expand...

1+ for this. Some switchers do not recognize PsF signals. We use DVX200s with a TriCaster (recognizes it) and a BM ATEM (does not). We have to convert the PsF signals coming out of the cameras in order to use them with the ATEM. I really don't understand why PsF is still being used, especially for HD since processing true progressive signals at lower frame rates should not be an issue at this point. On the DVX200, signals 29.97 and under are psF, while 30p and up are progressive. So the higher frame rates are true progressive and the lower frame rates are segmented, why?

Please do away with PsF (if possible).
 
Carlos13 said:
1+ for this. Some switchers do not recognize PsF signals. We use DVX200s with a TriCaster (recognizes it) and a BM ATEM (does not). We have to convert the PsF signals coming out of the cameras in order to use them with the ATEM. I really don't understand why PsF is still being used, especially for HD since processing true progressive signals at lower frame rates should not be an issue at this point. On the DVX200, signals 29.97 and under are psF, while 30p and up are progressive. So the higher frame rates are true progressive and the lower frame rates are segmented, why?

Please do away with PsF (if possible).
Click to expand...

Kind of like why didn't the ATSC/SMPTE and other standard setting bodies take the opportunity with 4K/UHD to do away with fractional frame rates(23.98, 29.97, 59.94) moving forward? They finally killed off interlace, so now let's get (back to) whole frame rates.
 
Run&Gun said:
Kind of like why didn't the ATSC/SMPTE and other standard setting bodies take the opportunity with 4K/UHD to do away with fractional frame rates(23.98, 29.97, 59.94) moving forward?
Click to expand...

I read an article somewhere that made this exact point (can't find it again). It's only a matter of time before fractional frame rates are a thing of the past.

Stephen: any features still on your wish list for the LT?
 
Mitch Gross said:
Fractional frame rates are still around because so many people will watch a 4K production in HD.
Click to expand...

There are still people sitting in their living rooms watching analog 4:3 SD interlaced CRT’s, too. And there are people out there shooting content in 8K progressive scan... At some point, the band-aid should be ripped off and I think they missed a good opportunity to do it. The compatibility problem with legacy equipment could have been taken care of in post or transmission, I’m sure. I think there are a lot of monitors/tv’s on the consumer end that are capable of handling and displaying true 24hz material and have been for a while.
 
Run&Gun said:
They finally killed off interlace, so now let's get (back to) whole frame rates.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the reason for odd frame rates existing is because of television transmission issues whether it is interlace or progressive transmission. In order to make video play back at a fixed rate there needs to be some kind of timing circuit. When television was first beginning, there weren’t any of the high tech digital silcon-based chip solution around that we are familiar with today. So the brilliant engineers back then used the oscillation of AC electricity as the basis for their timing circuit. In the US, electricity cycles at 60 times per second (60hz.) So using half of that gives us the frame rate of 30fps. (In Europe, electricity flows at 50hz. 50/2 = 25fps)

So the frame rate of television was actually exactly 30 frames per second at one point in time. However that all changed when color television was introduced. When a signal for color information was added to the television transmission there was a big problem. The color carrier signal was phasing with with the sound carrier signal because they were very close to one another in the spectrum. This caused major transmission quality issues with the color TV signal. The quick fix the engineers came up with was to reduce the frame rate by .03fps which moved the two signals out of phase. In Europe and 50Hz countries the problem doesn't exist because Walter Bruch who invented the PAL color television system at Telefunken in the early 1960s was aware of the phase error issues that plagued the NTSC signal. Developing PAL he develop the phase alternating line, PAL method of superimposing color on the existing black and white signal . This made sure none of the phase error issues that plagued NTSC were not carried across to the 50Hz world. So for OTA transmission in 60Hz countries we are still stuck with fractional frame rates until the the transmission methods are changed. If this were to happen it would mean that every existing TV out there in the 60Hz world would not be able to decode the transmission signal. We have been stuck with fractional frame rates ever since. The only people to benefit would be the manufacturers and sellers of new TV's if a new transmission standard came about. Can't see it happening any time soon!

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
I completely understand why we had fractional frame rates and the technical limitations of the time that necessitated them, but those don’t exist anymore. It just seems like at this point in time, they cause more of a headache than actually solve a problem(that doesn’t exist anymore).
 
Run&Gun said:
I completely understand why we had fractional frame rates and the technical limitations of the time that necessitated them, but those don’t exist anymore. It just seems like at this point in time, they cause more of a headache than actually solve a problem(that doesn’t exist anymore).
Click to expand...

One problem that still exists is that many people don't throw away production equipment (such as monitors or external recorders) that still work perfectly well, and will accept Interlaced or Psf signals, but not completely Progressive signals. So there is a transition period during which the engineers need to figure out ways to make things work. Psf was essentially a way to be able to display progressive signals from a camera on monitors that would only work with interlaced. It essentially allowed companies to upgrade their cameras while still using their older monitors.

I believe that in the EVA1 output menus, for instance, when shooting in UHD 30p you can select whether you want your 1080 SDI output to be PsF or Progressive -- however the only selection when outputting 3840p through SDI is Progressive.
 
Run&Gun said:
There are still people sitting in their living rooms watching analog 4:3 SD interlaced CRT’s, too. And there are people out there shooting content in 8K progressive scan... At some point, the band-aid should be ripped off and I think they missed a good opportunity to do it. The compatibility problem with legacy equipment could have been taken care of in post or transmission, I’m sure. I think there are a lot of monitors/tv’s on the consumer end that are capable of handling and displaying true 24hz material and have been for a while.
Click to expand...

You can take your case to the FCC. Until then broadcasters need to be compliant and we need to sell them the products they need.
 
Mitch Gross said:
You can take your case to the FCC. Until then broadcasters need to be compliant and we need to sell them the products they need.
Click to expand...

OnSet said:
I believe that in the EVA1 output menus, for instance, when shooting in UHD 30p you can select whether you want your 1080 SDI output to be PsF or Progressive -- however the only selection when outputting 3840p through SDI is Progressive.
Click to expand...

Would it be possible to add this option to the LT as a compromise? Dealing with .psf outputs in a relatively modern broadcasting environment (for a high school at least) is a huge pain (as OP mentioned in his first post).

Have any of the other suggestions been considered?
 
Agreed...I regularly intake 23.98 (viewfinder output) for external monitoring and have to convert the 23.98psf to 23.98p externally to make it compatible with the rest of my workflow. On my current show, we need to be as low latency as possible and this has forced us to monitor 59.94i, which opens up other problems. It seems to me that the 59.94i covers legacy monitoring while a true progressive (23.98p, 30p) option would work with the vast majority of users that are using modern workflows. Other cameras do this...
 
OnSet said:
however the only selection when outputting 3840p through SDI is Progressive.
Click to expand...
Why do you need interlaced on a UHD signal? What's next? A 7.5 IRE setup?

I think it is a blessing that UHD does not allow sending interlaced signals.

The problem with the broadcasting industry is that they refuse to innovate.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Why do you need interlaced on a UHD signal? What's next? A 7.5 IRE setup?

I think it is a blessing that UHD does not allow sending interlaced signals.

The problem with the broadcasting industry is that they refuse to innovate.
Click to expand...

I wasn't complaining -- only indicating the way the menus are structured.
I personally think it does make sense to provide the options for 1080 P or PsF (which I occasionally need to set/change to make a specific monitor or VF work) And yes, you are right that they are not needed for UHD.
 
Not yet. We did make the request and explain the workflow reasoning. The pathway structure in the camera was not originally set up for this so the engineers will need to determine if it is possible to incorporate these signals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top