The Division of Image Quality

[Guest]

You essentially state this in your post in other terms, but to piggy back off that - the consumers have spoken hence the high volume of high IQ cameras flooding the market.

The very high tier pro market is both price insensitive and firmly entrenched in certain products and workflows. That makes it hard to break into, and it makes quality/reliability/trust the #1 metric - not price - so really the only way to "win" them is to offer a substantially better and more compelling product, regardless of price. A same price, or even slightly cheaper camera equivalent to Arri from a newcomer... whats the point? You lose trust/familiarity. And with a price insensitive market, even a camera at 1/3rd the cost thats maybe slightly better - still an uphill battle. This is a hard nut to crack. RED did right during the transition to digital. Good timing.

That leaves a sort of very low volume "tweener" market. This appears to be getting squeezed continually, every single time one brand takes a risk and gives a little more between $5k-$10k price point. I think its going to get squeezed even more in the next few years.

Interestingly enough - I think this market will get squeezed precisely because IQ is plateauing yet companies still need to release new products. Ok, so Panasonic releases an EVA2 with an L-mount and better codes, slow motion, and some other features. Great. It has to offer more than the EVA1 to be worth it. And it's going to be difficult for them to price much higher than the EVA1. So, as soon as the EVA2 drops, three things happen: (A) the EVA1 will drop in value and you'll have a used market full of EVA1, FS7 mk II, etc. at a lower price than today. And the image quality and physical features and I/O will still be pretty much on par with the EVA2. This drops the actual price of entry for most users into this field. (B) The mid tier market will now offer even more at the same (new) price point than it did in 2017 (which was already a lot). (C) Sony etc. all has to outdo the competition, repeating this cycle.

This is obvious, of course. We know this.

This has always happen, except now we are peaking on the diminishing returns curve. What you've got is a low ground that is constantly rising both in IQ and features and 3rd party workarounds (like Xume filters and Atomos recorders), and a high ground that is stagnating in practical purposes (although continually improving, it is mostly only on "vanity metrics" (maybe that term is unfair - lets call it specialty features) - things like super slow FPS and super hi res and way over the top DR) that don't most people unless they are at the very very top end.

And then you've got this middle ground that, save for a few hold out features, is just continually being compressed into the low ground.

ND filters. SDI. XLR. Those are sort of the big three, right?

But then of course we have: Xume Filters, ProRes RAW over HDMI & USB 3.0, XLR modules & MixPre-3 type devices.

Form factor? We are so spoiled for options to rebuild exactly the box you want via Zacuto, SmallRig, and a million others.

Perhaps the best illustration of this squeeze from the "low" end - The S1H. $4000. It matches or beats the EVA1 in pretty much every spec except the listed big three, all with a better UI and IBIS to boot. It also packs better for travel, sometimes an increasing number of OMBs are doing.

So whats left? We already know modular is the future.

It'd be easy to see the future in the way it's always been, but I think it's going to get derailed by a few things we are already seeing:

1. ND filters become outdated. Sensor tech is already moving to individually dimmable pixels that essentially work as on-sensor ND. Other solutions also in works. Don't think of "when ND filters come to DSLRS", think more like "when ND filters become obsoleted by technology".

2. SDI becomes outdated. USB 3.2 latest specs are smoking. Double the run distance I believe, extremely high data. I don't know if it's good enough yet, but give these interconnects a few years and there will be little left for SDI. Sure, SDI has a "pro connector". That's just a connector, though. Picture USB 4.0 with near infinite run distances passing multiple streams of super high bandwidth data in razer thin cables. Now picture some companies wrapping that in a super reinforced shielding with a high grade connector on the end. Walla. SDI is dead. The top tier markets might still use it, as those large entities tend to be slow to adapt, but everyone else will move on.

3. XLR. Always the classic, but we can't be that long away from better pre-amps built into camera bodies, and we already have great XLR modules. I think this is already solved, but we just haven't seen a ton of widespread implementation of great products at the prosumer level. As well, think a few years out. Will XLR cables be replaced with pro-grade USB 4.0 cables and all digital recording? No biggee if not, but it certainly seems possible.

End of the day, I think the low end and mid tier market fully merge, and DSLRs become more akin to RED's "brain" modules. I think accessory modules simply improve to a less jerry-rigged state where everything is power efficient and runs off one central battery the size of the S1 battery if you so wish. And "all-in-one" cameras largely evaporate - where even manufacturers sell those designs as modular.

I think imminent tech improvements will pave the way for that very easily, because we are right on the cusp to the largest hurdles there dissapearing (they already are). Namely:

* I/O connectors (Think USB 3.2 or 4.0)
* Battery (not so much better battery tech, that's down the road, but more power efficient CPUs and MicroLED screens, etc.)
* Storage (smaller yet higher density SSDs combined with more efficient codecs like ProRes RAW/H.265)
* Sensor tech or otherwise obsoleting traditional ND filters

Large size bodies made sense before - they've been necessary to fit all the parts. Dissipate all the heat. But that's decreasingly the case. So they'll still exist - where they need to - at the very high end.

So, nothing. Nothing will be barred. I think the market will transform. It already has. Follow the natural trajectory.

This is precisely the direction I hope people start thinking. OF course, hoping image quality continues to improve, as there is still some ways before digital image quality is truly there.

But there are plenty of other places that need improving and going forward into the future that need developing. The whole image quality tier thing is pointless and should no longer be the deciding factor in a video camera, especially as sensor tech slows down.

These sensors in a box and mirrorless hacks, and weird feature ommissions have reached fever pitch.

 

[NorBro]

Very infrequently. As stated before...

I apologize but I am not going to agree with most of the obvious points I would argue with.

I don't have too many rounds in me these days of going back-and-forth with anyone on here about anything, so you're free to end it after this.

First of all, there are no YouTubers who make a million a year, statistically speaking. There are a couple, but the overwhelmingly vast majority are making pennies. I should know, I've got over 40,000 subscribers, over 100 published videos, and over 8 million views, so not a tiny channel, probably much bigger than the vast majority of YouTubers, and my channel brings in maybe $100/month.

But one thing I did want to point out - and truly no offense, especially because it's better than anything I could even attempt - is that your YouTube channel is extremely small.

There are five thousand (5000) channels with over 1 million subscribers. The 5000th person on the list is estimated to make anywhere from $100K - $2 million. Now even if it's $100K for the year, that channel only has 2.2M subscribers, which is still very small in that world of massive channels.

https://socialblade.com/youtube/top/5000/mostsubscribed

 

[Guest]

That's unknowable. It can only be estimated by the corporate strategists and then proved or disproved by the consumers. It is a rare product that hits a home run a la GH-4, C300 and FS-7. And that's in a rigged market, where all the participants agree to a designated slice.

Video requires a lot more processing, both at the sensor and in the body. Consequently, the performance/price gaps are far wider, in the geometric rather than algebraic leaps. Now, Red is a good example of a well funded independent company that found its niche in the high end market. Black Magic Design is another one. In fact, BMD is a far better proof than Red because, beginning with the Cinema Camera which delivered far superior specs vs. the Japanese manufacturers for its price and continuing with the Pocket that shot Raw 1080P and on and on.

Now, why wouldn't the Japanese match the BMD specs? Surely, they had far superior R&D departments and quality control. But they let BMD get their foot in the door because rules of the game apply only to the Japanese.

And then there was Samsung NX1, which had better specs five years ago than Canon and Nikon do to this day.

Chaebol vs. Keiretsu. Take your pick.

Yes, all of the above. Quality, ergonomics and workflow. That requires a heavier investment but, as we understand from the economics of the medium/high budget production, cameras are a minute portion of the budget and the top creative people often are given a complete control over their tools.

These gaps exist due to the pricing power of the Japanese manufacturers. Simply put, they're half-competing and half-partnering with each other and that leaves predetermined price gaps. Which is why there have been so many attempts to break into the market by the independents, from Aaton to Iconoscope to Axiom to Digital Bolex to AJA. Had the Japanese covered every possible niche, there'd be no room for anyone else as Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax, JVC would have several virtually identical items competing against one another the way Toyota Corolla competes against Honda Civic, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra/Versa, Kia Forte, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra, Chevy Cruze, Fiat Abarth, VW Golf, et cetera, et cetera.

In my opinion, cell phones will destroy - if they hadn't already destroyed - the consumer market. The pro market is different because it's a low volume/high quality niche. Samsung dipped its toes in the water and then completely exited the photo-video market. Sony will stay because it makes sensors and pretty much every product that contains them. Canon and Nikon have a great legacy behind them and are trying to diversify but they're diversifying into fully competitive markets like medical, surveillance, printing and auto. Panasonic can take it or leave it. Fuji's sticking with the high end photo. Ricoh/Pentax and Olympus are probably on their last legs.

When I first started shooting, all the cameras I was using were ENG style, so I got spoiled by my first experiences with video being on well thought out machines. Ever since then, camcorders and dslrs and now these new s35 pro cameras are all just seemingly grabbing features from the air.

Camera companies and customers alike are still hanging on the next image improvements, while we have half baked shells wrapping the sensor up in a specs checklist.

I was making pasta, and didn't boil the noodles long enough, the center was hard. Not al dente, but just before that. That is how camera ergonomics feel these days. Not a big deal unless you want to use a camera everyday.

 

[Barry_Green]

I apologize but I am not going to agree with most of the obvious points I would argue with.

I don't have too many rounds in me these days of going back-and-forth with anyone on here about anything, so you're free to end it after this.



But one thing I did want to point out - and truly no offense, especially because it's better than anything I could even attempt - is that your YouTube channel is extremely small.

There are five thousand (5000) channels with over 1 million subscribers. The 5000th person on the list is estimated to make anywhere from $100K - $2 million. Now even if it's $100K for the year, that channel only has 2.2M subscribers, which is still very small in that world of massive channels.

https://socialblade.com/youtube/top/5000/mostsubscribed

No argument there. I'm just pointing out that making real money in the youtube industry is about on par with making money in the conventional film & tv industry. There are probably 5,000 really talented writers out there who make a living on TV shows, cable shows, and in the film industry. And then there's the millions and millions of youtubers out there (and struggling writers) who aren't making enough to even notice. There are 11 million youtube accounts out there with subscribers, and you pointed out a list that holds the top 0.05% of them. Not even the 1%, we're talking about the one half of one tenth of one percent. And even then, if you're in the top one half of one tenth of 1%, you're making perhaps as low as $100K.

So my point stands: the odds of making any substantial money on youtube are infinitesimally small. I mean, let's put it like this: there are almost as many billionaires in the world (2,208) as there are people with 2 million subscribers on YouTube.

History doesn't in fact repeat itself, but it does rhyme. The world is changing, but it keeps changing into something that pretty much resembles what it's always been, once the dust settles.

 

[Guest]

......My point was that "image quality is the most important thing over all" is simply not true for a lot of people, and used the working video/film professional who has a budget and a cast and a crew as my example. Those folks need good image quality, yes, and pretty much every prosumer camera and above delivers suitable quality. So the differentiating factor, for them, is: workability, workflow, reliability, etc.

Nobody that I know of would voluntarily choose to work with a consumer camera instead of a properly-engineered professional camcorder, when their career is on the line. Sure they may experiment, for the novelty of it, but when the paycheck is on the line, those who can afford properly-engineered pro gear, use it.



So let's crystallize the point: I'm saying that as long as the image quality is good enough, paid professionals in a paid working environment on a set with paid cast and paid crew will always, almost exclusively, choose to use a properly-engineered, properly-integrated professional camera over a consumer alternative, even if that consumer alternative were shown to offer an edge in image quality. There are exceptions, of course, sometimes Soderbergh wants to shoot a film on an iPhone, or sometimes someone wants to shoot an episode of "House" on a Canon 5D. But those are such incredibly rare exceptions that it proves how long-standing and inviolable the rule is.


Finally, back to the original point -- "image quality" does not make you a professional, nor does it make you a filmmaker. And after having accomplished that, I pretty much swore off using those products again, because while the novelty was briefly fun, the reality is that something like an EVA1 or FS7 is simply an infinitely better, more integrated, reliable, and preferable way to shoot. And after we did those films, these newer generation of pro cameras became widely available, so that's what we moved to.

If that makes me "foolish", I'll happily accept that.

See, I feel similarly. I worked in the broadcast and professional world for a bit, and then went Indie, much to the chagrin of my pocket book. The experiences I gathered in the field predominantly pointed towards systems, ergonomics, and reliability. As any professional shooter can get a good image from just about any camera these days.

 

[Amulet Man]

For me, the difference between a professional camera and a prosumee camera should be ergonomics and industry standard connections.

Imo,this is already nearly the case. The C200 has as good an image as the C700–or 99% of it, at least, but it lacks the ergonomics, timecode, monitoring options, and standard codec. It doesn't have the Alexa's highlight detail, but it has more than an F55, Monstro, F65, etc. etc.

On the other hand, no one on a larger set would touch it except as a B cam due to ergonomic and monitoring limitations, and the difficulty of working with raw lite. But as regards image, it's as close to the Alexa as anything else that's not an Alexa.

BMPCC4k and EVA1 also impress.

 

[Guest]

The Arri Mini is one of those cameras that gets used quite a bit in situations, maybe it shouldn't, and that is because of image quality. Yet, it is a franken rig when all is said and done.

The Varicam LT we just talked about in another thread, and Mitch and I pointed out it has image quality that puts it among the best, but there is the curious nature of the panel that hangs off the side, and the lack of audio controls on the body.

Reds have been a great option for image quality, but have been rather frankenriggy for the most part. Have seen some cool developments, but also some weird choices.

DSLR was bad, and mirrorless is worse! But they can be nice to hold. similar to the convenience of cellphones and handycams, these can be enjoyable to hand hold.

Black magic and Zcam do some nice things, but ultimately are only forgiven because of the price to image quality ratio, not for reliability or ergonomics. (the bmp 4k may prove otherwise)

The Fs7, C300, and EVA1 cameras look like they are doing more than they are. I like where they are headed, but ultimately they suffer from being neither hand hold-able nor shoulder comfortable. They tend to require rigging. Rigging means more points and gaps to get stabbed on or snagged on. ENG bodies were unified, and suffered less from this.

Am I sounding too picky yet?


Looking forward to many more developments ahead, and tired of waiting for another incremental image quality boost just to stay relevant.

Auto Focus
AI
data rate options
reliable connectors
the future of in/outs, if that is needed
Better than 16stops dynamic range in the high end markets
global shutter
better ergonomics
....and many more

We are just now on the edge of generic cameras having 10bit data rates and 11+ stops DR. This may change the way buyers look at cameras, and hopefully we'll see improvements in usability across the board. And then perhaps the high end digital image quality will actually surpass film.

But for the time being, I'll stick with what I have and shoot with whatever they ask me to.

 

[Guest]

Imo,this is already nearly the case. The C200 has as good an image as the C700–or 99% of it, at least, but it lacks the ergonomics, timecode, monitoring options, and standard codec. It doesn't have the Alexa's highlight detail, but it has more than an F55, Monstro, F65, etc. etc.

On the other hand, no one on a larger set would touch it except as a B cam due to ergonomic and monitoring limitations, and the difficulty of working with raw lite. But as regards image, it's as close to the Alexa as anything else that's not an Alexa.

BMPCC4k and EVA1 also impress.

THat is a good point

I can only point out the odd choice to exclude a robust middle of the road bit rate for the C200. I really can knock it too hard though.

The EVA1 is something I should look more closely at. It rides that line well. Might just have been late to the party, and for a camcorder body, that is not an easy place to be. Camcorders ask the user to pretend. Never going to hand hold it like a handycam or dslr, and it doesn't balance on the shoulder with accessories. Not the end of the world. I am still open to the idea of an c200/Fs7/EVA1. But I never liked the HVX200, PD150 and the like for similar reasons. Obviously not an issue for those that shoot primarily from a tripod and only short bursts of handheld.

 

[DLD]

So they say, but haven't multiple cheap cameras proven that it isn't a cost factor except at the extremes? Much in the same way that medium format 5000MP cameras would be understandably expensive.

Solid 720, 1080, 2K and 4K video have been possible at an affordable price for some time.

There really is no big difference between pro and consumer in video quality anymore, except at the extremes.

The consumer level cameras used to have horrible aliasing problems at 1080 but had not enough desire to offer a high quality consumer/prosumer version of, let's say, C100 - with a 2.2-6.6 MPX sensor and a real 2K. Instead, they were hybrid cameras with either a crop or a bin, which hindered the performance. Now, when they can make a 6K full sensor readout and 4K for $750, these seem like the nearly forgotten problems.

But, once again, the manufacturer decide what you might like but not like enough to squeeze their profit margins. That's why why there was no follow-up to an MFT AF-100 with a higher pixel count but in essentially the same body. They could have easily done it. They chose not to. It would have likely sold well but GH-4 sold even better.

You essentially state this in your post in other terms, but to piggy back off that - the consumers have spoken hence the high volume of high IQ cameras flooding the market.

Just to make myself clearer. Let's say, one company decides to make a $5,000 camera with IBIS and an LED NDF but only has a 10-bit Log. The other decides to make a $5,000 camera with 6K compressed Raw. Both companies do a lot of marketing research and then choose a particular version to satisfy the consumers but, until the units hit the retail shelves, no one really knows how each model will perform.

The manufacturers just try to maximize their short-term returns for the time being because that's how the executives are compensated. Après nous, le déluge.

PS. Mind you, had the OEM's wanted the shape and the form that the DVXUser seems to prefer, it'd have been out there long ago. Audio preamps? Pfft. Cost pennies to implement. Classic camera form? Ditto.

 

[Guest]

Imo,this is already nearly the case. The C200 has as good an image as the C700–or 99% of it, at least, but it lacks the ergonomics, timecode, monitoring options, and standard codec. It doesn't have the Alexa's highlight detail, but it has more than an F55, Monstro, F65, etc. etc.

On the other hand, no one on a larger set would touch it except as a B cam due to ergonomic and monitoring limitations, and the difficulty of working with raw lite. But as regards image, it's as close to the Alexa as anything else that's not an Alexa.

BMPCC4k and EVA1 also impress.

There is an obvious tier separation in the Canon Cx00 line. Even if they all have similar recipe, the bit rates and image quality related features are staggered. But the C200 was expensive even for a prosumer camera. The C100, C200, and then the pro bodies are all pretty obviously separated by image quality aspects on top of the ergonomic and pro features. I don't see the point in that. The C200 does look like the beginning of possibly bucking that trend. hopefully so.

 

[Guest]

there was no follow-up to an MFT AF-100 with a higher pixel count but in essentially the same body. They could have easily done it. They chose not to. It would have likely sold well but GH-4 sold even better.

- quick side note, I think Panasonic went the right direction, but I know there were many disappointed AF100 fans. I am not a fan of camcorders, and I like the direction Panasonic went in theory.

But the AF100 was a compelling feature set. Especially for the price.

 

[Guest]

Just to make myself clearer. Let's say, one company decides to make a $5,000 camera with IBIS and an LED NDF but only has a 10-bit Log. The other decides to make a $5,000 camera with 6K compressed Raw. Both companies do a lot of marketing research and then choose a particular version to satisfy the consumers but, until the units hit the retail shelves, no one really knows how each model will perform.

The manufacturers just try to maximize their short-term returns for the time being because that's how the executives are compensated. Après nous, le déluge.

PS. Mind you, had the OEM's wanted the shape and the form that the DVXUser seems to prefer, it'd have been out there long ago. Audio preamps? Pfft. Cost pennies to implement. Classic camera form? Ditto.

This is understandable, but it is strange that customer desires and profit margins are in such conflict.

For whatever reason, camera designs look more like they are taken from mood boards than inspired by classic and proven designs. But if you buy now, you'll get the best image quality this price bracket has ever seen!

 

[DLD]

This is understandable, but it is strange that customer desires and profit margins are in such conflict.

For whatever reason, camera designs look more like they are taken from mood boards than inspired by classic and proven designs. But if you buy now, you'll get the best image quality this price bracket has ever seen!

Part of this could also be the results of the corporate structure where the "consumer" division is stuck with the DSLR form by orders from above, while the pro division is similarly stuck on the classic (digital) camera. In many respects, pros could also use a small or modular type camera and this is becoming more popular with Alexa Mini, the Z's and the modular Venice. And these camera-in-a-box models produce its own line of accessory companies, from EVF's to the external monitors/recorders to the complete Frankenrigging (clearly, in honor of Al Franken). The amusing thing here for me is that, in general, Barry's correct about the DSLR's quickly going out of vogue. On the other hand, when one looks at S1 with a Full Frame 4K 10-bit, IBIS and AF for $2,500, one has to think about a custom built because you can't get this even in Mini LF, which runs close to $100K for a ready-to-shoot package.

And that doesn't even include the 6K S1H.

PS. Panasonic has been chosen to lead in the video portion of the hybrids while Canon and Nikon concentrated on the stills. The GH series has been extremely popular in the affordable video segment. Well, now that S1 is out, with S1H to follow soon, the "affordable" has gotten pretty darn good. To the point of being as good as $100,000 cameras from a practical point of view. And so one has to wonder about the future of these 100,000 cameras. It may be as bleak as that of the point-and-shoots.

 

[Guest]

Part of this could also be the results of the corporate structure where the "consumer" division is stuck with the DSLR form by orders from above, while the pro division is similarly stuck on the classic (digital) camera. In many respects, pros could also use a small or modular type camera and this is becoming more popular with Alexa Mini, the Z's and the modular Venice. And these camera-in-a-box models produce its own line of accessory companies, from EVF's to the external monitors/recorders to the complete Frankenrigging (clearly, in honor of Al Franken). The amusing thing here for me is that, in general, Barry's correct about the DSLR's quickly going out of vogue. On the other hand, when one looks at S1 with a Full Frame 4K 10-bit, IBIS and AF for $2,500, one has to think about a custom built because you can't get this even in Mini LF, which runs close to $100K for a ready-to-shoot package.

And that doesn't even include the 6K S1H.

PS. Panasonic has been chosen to lead in the video portion of the hybrids while Canon and Nikon concentrated on the stills. The GH series has been extremely popular in the affordable video segment. Well, now that S1 is out, with S1H to follow soon, the "affordable" has gotten pretty darn good. To the point of being as good as $100,000 cameras from a practical point of view. And so one has to wonder about the future of these 100,000 cameras. It may be as bleak as that of the point-and-shoots.

The economies of scale are pretty amazing in electronics.

Which is another reason it would appear that the lower end is possibly going to surpass the high end. Essentially that the high end may soon just be refined versions of the low end, rather than custom made from the ground up.

:costumed-smiley-047

 

[filmguy123]

Which is another reason it would appear that the lower end is possibly going to surpass the high end.

Its already happening - which is sort of cool, and sort of frustrating.

EVA1 menu system is very weak compared to the S1 menu system. On one hand, love that I can get that in the S1. On the other hand, frustrating that the EVA1 ui is so poor. The S1 feels like its built on modern tech, the S1 feels like they carried over the menu system from HVX/AF100 days... slow, unwieldly. Still using abbreviations for everything. Etc.

It is too bad these operate as such distinct divisions, as Mitch has said, they are like different companies.

 

[Paul F]

... It is too bad these operate as such distinct divisions, as Mitch has said, they are like different companies.

Apparently, not for long. The Imaging VP said they were going to combine camera divisions. Be careful what you ask for. You may end up with the worst of both, not the best. There tends to be acts of lunacy when divisions merge. Some are forced out. Some are stuck at the new division. The end result is always less than what was before.


edit - there's a big advantage to having separate divisions. They compete within the company and that makes each division's products better. As a monolith, the competition ends. Instead of two visions of how to do things, it gets reduced to one. That's not good for them and it's not good for us.

 

[filmguy123]

Wow your post was a roller coaster. Got excited, now I’m just worried lol.

I’m hoping they put the lumix guys in charge - I imagine they might. They’ve done a great job of listening and S1H really shows that.

I’ve always felt EVA1 was so close but not quite (still like mine though). Later they added 10-bit 4K 60, of course, and I maintain had they launched with that and a high quality stock LCD it would have been the near perfect little camera and probably sold better. Lacking 10bit 4K 60p and a decent screen meant you lost the size/weight advantage right out the gate.

 

[Guest]

Apparently, not for long. The Imaging VP said they were going to combine camera divisions. Be careful what you ask for. You may end up with the worst of both, not the best. There tends to be acts of lunacy when divisions merge. Some are forced out. Some are stuck at the new division. The end result is always less than what was before.

This can be true.

I’d be more worried, if the video division wasn’t already making weird choices.

 

[DLD]

But - let's say, it's S1H inside the AF-100 body for $8,000. 6K compressed Raw, 4K 90P, all the bells, whistles, knobs, buttons and switches. And ISO 12,800, with CFexpress, IBIS, WiFi, AF and AI.

Would there still be a need for Alexa65 with a handful of $40,000 primes?

 

[Paul F]

You still need the $40,000 primes.