the future of P2

You're talking about two different discussions there. The HPX500's chips are 960x540, but they're also 2/3". You said "comparable in chip size", and the HPX500's chips are the same size as the PMW350.

As far as codecs, go, no the 500 doesn't have AVC-Intra, but the less-expensive HPX370 does have it, and it's a third of the price of the PMW350 and offers a far better codec.

So I was pointing out that there is a solution on the market for both of the things you're asking about, but not one solution for everything you're asking about.
 
The TV stations I work with most have just now switched to Sony :cry:

We are now told to get the new PDW 355 or even the 700 series!:cry:

So much for the future of P2....

One double layer blueray recordable disc is somewhere around 60€ and they want to have the footage as is, they went Sony because of this! They want the "tape" and not a P2 card .

For the next project I am forced to use a digi beta because they want tapes!

And these are the 2 biggest TV stations in Germany!
 
Barry_Green said:
You're talking about two different discussions there. The HPX500's chips are 960x540, but they're also 2/3". You said "comparable in chip size", and the HPX500's chips are the same size as the PMW350.

As far as codecs, go, no the 500 doesn't have AVC-Intra, but the less-expensive HPX370 does have it, and it's a third of the price of the PMW350 and offers a far better codec.

So I was pointing out that there is a solution on the market for both of the things you're asking about, but not one solution for everything you're asking about.
Click to expand...

sorry, I changed my post after you responded and before I read your response.

What I was thinking was an apples to apples comparison. Adding a KiPro to a PMW 350 gives you 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes that . That sort of package would cost between 22K to 24K.
If Panasonic came out with lets say a "570" model with full raster 2/3 chips, decent glass and 4:4:4 recording to P2, they could charge 20K and it would still be a bargain compared to
the Sony configuration. It would even compete on price with a 2/3" Scarlett.
 
Last edited:
nedcam said:
I am being pressured more for the DSLR look, anyone else? I was about to buy more P2 cards and was thinking of moving away from laptop field downloading to a AJ-PCD35 or AG-HPG10 but now I am not feeling as secure in the P2 universe. At first I thought this DSLR movement was just for music vids, indies, spots...but now it's spreading like the flu.

Of course I need to keep the 300 for corp jobs, shoulder work, etc., and rent 2700s & HDX900s for TV shows, but clients are digging the really shallow DoF look. I'd rather not invest in those kind of gangly rigs ($5000-$7000?) and move to a AF100 ASAP. I don't care about compression schemes, etc., just where the market is heading and what clients are asking for. In sum, I'm hoping to skip DSLRs and go to something like the AF100, and not put any more money into P2 cards and hardware. Anyone else in my situation?
Click to expand...

For day to day ENG and corporate work I'm not getting much pressure for DSLR work, but I'm thinking the same way you are. 1/3 inch cameras are being eclipsed pretty quickly by affordable larger sensor-ed alternatives - whether by DSLR's , the rumored Scarlet or by the AF-100. I'm not dubious about P2 as a media, but I think the days of 1/3 inch cameras are winding to a close. I'm going to keep my 300 for sure, but I'll be selling either my 170 or 200 in the near future.

I'm hesitant to invest any more in P2 at this time- not because of P2, but because of the cameras that it is packaged in. I wish the AF-100 was P2 based, I think it will be a mistake on Panasonic's part not to make it so. To me, It's weird to make a camera with it's capabilities and then use SD cards.

I'm very curious to see what the GH2 brings to the table. I'd be more excited by the AF-100 if it was P2.
 
Last edited:
zeke said:
sorry, I changed my post after you responded and before I read your response.

What I was thinking was an apples to apples comparison. Adding a KiPro to a PMW 350 gives you 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes that . That sort of package would cost between 22K to 24K.

If Panasonic came out with lets say a "570" model with full raster 2/3 chips, decent glass and 4:4:4 recording to P2, they could charge 20K and it would still be a bargain compared to the Sony configuration. It would even compete on price with a 2/3" Scarlett.
Click to expand...

4:4:4 to P2 @ $20k? Dunno about the likelihood of that one? A KiPro is fantastic, but it's another lump that gets me to what most Panasonic cameras accomplish as stock - 10-bit 4:2:2. And all without an extension cord. :cheesy:

Panasonic has a $8k HPX370 AVC-I 10-bit 4:2:2. The CMOS is lamentable, but we use this camera a lot and it can really sing. Especially considering the price. The VariCam 2700 is $19k with a trade-in. Grab an old qualifying camera on eBay and I bet you're still under $25k with P2 cards and minus glass. To me, that's the sweet-spot camera with 10-bit 2/3" CCDs and AVC-I.

And then the VariCam 3700 (4:4:4 via dual link) or HPX3000 with 10-bit 4:2:2 on 2/3" CCDs.

Anyway, it just seems to me that Panasonic is regularly answering the marketplace with better technology for a lower price. I mean, aside from the 3D camera, you are hard-pressed to find long GoP recording in any of their broadcast offerings. Who else can say that?
 
It seems to me if that the 1/3 inch cameras are going the way of the Dodo bird. Today it is all about size, the bigger the chip the better, and damned the codec and anything else. This may come back to haunt us. Manufacturers will provide us what we ask for, for better or worse. The next couple of years will be very interesting.
 
Seems to me that there are 2 issues here: P2 which is a file based recording system capable of certain data rates and what ever camera system is feeding the P2 recording system.

P2 has proven itself to be a robust, high quality recording system and even with a camera like a 370, to have such a solid file based codec as AVC I inside the camera is just a fantastic thing. No outboard recorders, cables or accessories needed.


I think P2 as a file based recording system has quite a bit of life left in it and still has a way to go before it fully matures.
 
Mark Smith said:
Seems to me that there are 2 issues here: P2 which is a file based recording system capable of certain data rates and what ever camera system is feeding the P2 recording system.

P2 has proven itself to be a robust, high quality recording system and even with a camera like a 370, to have such a solid file based codec as AVC I inside the camera is just a fantastic thing. No outboard recorders, cables or accessories needed.


I think P2 as a file based recording system has quite a bit of life left in it and still has a way to go before it fully matures.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, which is why I'm puzzled that Panasonic isn't trying to extend the P2 franchise by making the AF-100 with P2 and AVC-intra. Maybe they will come out with an "AF-100 Extreme" ;-)....
 
Could it be because they see the AF-100 as a way to tap into the market of the GH1/7D/5D/T2i and the camera itself is already going to be far more expensive than those bodies? Adding on a system known for high priced media would be even more of a sticker shock for those people.

Or is the AF-100 going to be directed towards the HMC/HVX users who'd like to move to larger sensor/DOF control?
 
Panasonic has leveraged their consumer division to try to make a large sensor, real videeo camera in a hyper-competitive segment, one that has to compete against DSLR's and now Sony consumer large format cameras. P2 recording would have added $2K to the price--that's nothing at the HPX2700/3700 level, a deal breaker at the lower end, especially when the cost of media is added.

The EX1/EX3 uses a codec that is no better than 24Mbps AVCHD and Sony has sold a lot of them, so it's understandable that Panasonic would do what they are doing. I would love for the next generation of Varicam to be P2 based with a large sensor and it will probably happen, but the price will be 5-10x more expensive. The AF100 is in a product sector that Panasonic has to be in, and price is king.
 
Last edited:
zeke said:
What I was thinking was an apples to apples comparison. Adding a KiPro to a PMW 350 gives you 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes that . That sort of package would cost between 22K to 24K.
If Panasonic came out with lets say a "570" model with full raster 2/3 chips, decent glass and 4:4:4 recording to P2, they could charge 20K and it would still be a bargain compared to
the Sony configuration. It would even compete on price with a 2/3" Scarlett.
Click to expand...
And what cameraman wouldn´t love having a brick attached to his camera. Ofcourse in a studio, fine, out in the field not so fine.

The race for 10-bit and full raster is..well, not always needed. Some of the better HD programming i see on tv are shot with HDX900, which still is the boring 8-bit dvcpro. Ofcourse the Hdx900 is a few times the price tag of a hpx300/500 or pwm350 for that matter, but one should take a look at the final result....not just the codec on paper. Try and catch Topgear in HD, mostly hdx900 from what i can see in behind the scenes images and still makes full raster hdv turbo(xdcams) xdcams look pretty dull. The hpx300 isn´t left much of a hope either.

But back to P2..
I still think P2 is the best recording medium for ENG/EFP productions as for the main cameras. Robust and available in 10-bit when needed. Ofcourse there will be times when tape will be the best solution, bit primarily i prefer P2 over tape or xdcam.
 
Dino said:
...P2 recording would have added $2K to the price--that's nothing at the HPX2700/3700 level, a deal breaker at the lower end, especially when the cost of media is added.

...I would love for the next generation of Varicam to be P2 based with a large sensor and it will probably happen, but the price will be 5-10x more expensive. The AF100 is in a product sector that Panasonic has to be in, and price is king.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to sound elitist, because I still operate Z7Us a great deal of the time. :lipsrseal But this argument about P2 adding $2k - and that being some disaster for the AF100 is silly. Someone, at some point, began proselytizing that there was some imaginary, magic break-over price-point (of $5995) for the AF100. A price-point that represented some absolute, do or die threshold for what the independent filmmaking market would bear. A dime higher, and everyone would abondon the AF100 for another option. What option? Don't say Scarlet.

It's asinine. Professionals in many segments of video and film production would buy the heck out of the AF100 at $10k if it had P2 and AVC-I. People who want $600 - $1500 camera bodies are going to agonize over a $6k price-point as much as a $10k one. It's already a greater divide than many will admit to.

I advocate that the AF100 could be more than twice this imaginary $5995.99 price tag were it fitted with two P2 slots and 10-bit AVC-I recording at 4:2:2. It would sell like mad.
 
Erik,

I don't disagree with you, although I'd be a little concerned about how a $10K large sensor camera with Intra would impact my HPX2700 investment, selfishly. The reality is that even though you and I and a lot of other professionals would buy the P2 version of the AF100 at $10K, there will be a whole lot more that will pay $6k for the AVCCAM version. The historical precedent for that price point and form factor is the HVX200/200A/HPX170.
 
I concur.

The situation for me is that this could be a truly revolutionary camera - in the way the DVX100 and HVX200 were. Like the HPX370/300, the AF100 will be hamstrung with a rolling shutter - which is really the central factor that separates the HPX300 ($8K) from your VariCam 2700 ($20K +++).

Travel back in time with me and consider that the venerable HVX200 wasn't hamstrung with a compromised codec? Or CMOS? The HVX200 wasn't compromised with a consumer-grade recording media?

Consider it for a while and I think you'll really start to question why these choices are being made. Is it because droves of consumers are rising to the broadcast level or that broadcast is lowering itself to the level of the consumer?

In the end, we all lose a little something.
 
Erik Olson said:
Is it because droves of consumers are rising to the broadcast level or that broadcast is lowering itself to the level of the consumer?
Click to expand...

It's neither. There is nothing about broadcast here, even though its the professional arm of Panasonic that is putting this together.

The AF-100 is, in my opinion, a piss-poor broadcast cam. Can it be used in broadcast? Sure. But it's not meant for that. It's an attempt at doing a prosumer cinema camera. It's a large sensor in a video friendly body, unlike the DSLRs.

Broadcast needs are entirely different.
 
Erik Olson said:
Consider it for a while and I think you'll really start to question why these choices are being made. Is it because droves of consumers are rising to the broadcast level or that broadcast is lowering itself to the level of the consumer?

In the end, we all lose a little something.
Click to expand...

The latter, definitely. Broadcast started lowering itself with the advent of cable networks and palmcorders. Now it's HDSLR's and Flip HD and even cell phone cameras and Skype.

The web has also lowered quality standards. HD delivery in the home has not raised the bar as I had hoped because too many people(especially 20 somethings) watch video on a laptop or iPhone predominantly. Yes, we've lost something, no question.

Panasonic's differentiator over Sony is a studio quality 10-bit codec in cameras under $20K, Sony won't even provide 4:2:2 under $20K, much less 10-bit. So, Panasonic is in effect playing Sony's game, yet they are behind the development curb with CMOS and now they've joined the low bit rate, Long GOP, 4:2:0 dumb down.

I don't like it, but think about how many people on this forum complained about P2 media costs. Even SxS cards have a cheap work around, so Panasonic is looking at the writing on the wall. I'm not sure I like their direction, but I've got a KiPro for my AF100!
 
Dino said:
Erik,

I don't disagree with you, although I'd be a little concerned about how a $10K large sensor camera with Intra would impact my HPX2700 investment, selfishly. The reality is that even though you and I and a lot of other professionals would buy the P2 version of the AF100 at $10K, there will be a whole lot more that will pay $6k for the AVCCAM version. The historical precedent for that price point and form factor is the HVX200/200A/HPX170.
Click to expand...

Panasonic won't be able to protect the 2700's price point forever. As for your previous comment about an Indy price point, consider that the AF-100 may end up being outgunned in it's own supposed bargain basement price point by the likes of Red, Canon and a potential host of others. Along with Eric, I suspect the supposed price point for Indy film maker's is arbitrary and could easily be met by a souped up GH2. Also, I see many Indy types willing to pony up for a Scarlet or next higher Red. In the mean time, the need that working pro's will have for a larger sensor-ed , high quality codec camera at a middle price point will be sitting vacant. This is the market segment that has invested in P2 and is likely to continue given sufficient reason to do so. At the very least these same users( myself included) would like to be given further reason to invest in the P2 system.

As for the additional purported 2K additional cost of including P2- I'm dubious. Even if 2K is correct, how much in P2 sales and support items would Panasonic miss out on by not going P2 ? You gotta wonder. I do.

TIme will tell. ;-)
 
hotchkiss said:
As for your previous comment about an Indy price point, consider that the AF-100 may end up being outgunned in it's own supposed bargain basement price point by the likes of Red, Canon and a potential host of others.

edit

As for the additional purported 2K additional cost of including P2- I'm dubious. Even if 2K is correct, how much in P2 sales and support items would Panasonic miss out on by not going P2 ? You gotta wonder. I do.

TIme will tell. ;-)
Click to expand...

I never said $6K was THE indy price point, only that there was historical precedent from Panasonic to place pro-palmcorders at that price. That is, not coincidentally, about what an EX1 sells for. What other camera manufacturers do price and feature wise in the future is purely speculation.

The $2K additional P2 pricing premium story came from Jan Crittendon, as far as I know. Interesting that she no longer is the national product rep. for any P2 cameras, only AVCHD models.

No question that if Canon gets its act together in the video camera division by mating a large sensor with their new 50Mbps 4:2:2 codec, Panasonic could be in trouble, but given Canon's pricing of their newest 1/3" camera with new codec, I'm not convinced they will be competitive price wise for awhile. As for Scarlett, it could be the giant killer, but first it will have to actually deliver for any price.
 
Dino said:
The $2K additional P2 pricing premium story came from Jan Crittendon, as far as I know. Interesting that she no longer is the national product rep. for any P2 cameras, only AVCHD models.
Click to expand...
Not true. She's the manager for the HPX170, HVX200A, and I think maybe the HPG20. The dividing line between her and Steve Cooperman is that she has the AVCCAM and handheld cameras, he has the P2 shoulder-mounts.
 
Barry,

Jan is in my Linkedin network and I was going by her title there; "Product Manager, 3D and AVCCAM". If she's still involved with P2 cameras, that's good to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top