Varicam pricing

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

Forget cheap Micro P2 cards on this one. I'll have to shell out at least $6K for three 256 Gb Express P2 cards to take full advantage of the cam's field mobility. That's roughly getting four 64 Gb series F P2 + a few hundreds more. Sadly, all current P2 series card will not be able to read the express P2 cards due to its slightly larger physical dimension (according to Panasonic's). Argh. So probably another $400 for the single USB3 reader and several grand for multi version. Sadly, they have no plans to update their AG-MSU10. Hate laptop offloads. 240 fps@1080p will make very nice slo mo on fast subjects. Much better than the PX5000's 60p. 2/3" lens selections are far superior to any PL. Good luck finding optical stabilization on PL. Just don't exist.

 

[steve phillipps]

240 fps@1080p will make very nice slo mo on fast subjects. Much better than the PX5000's 60p. 2/3" lens selections are far superior to any PL. Good luck finding optical stabilization on PL. Just don't exist.

Don't think there'd be much disagreement there...but 4k is such a buzzword at the moment, wonder how popular the 2/3" model will be. The likes of the Sony F55 and even right down to the £5,000 FS7 will do around the same frame rate at 1080 - now you would hope that the Varicam 1080/240fps would look a lot better, but unless it looks chalk and cheese better you might think you'd be better off buying the much cheaper camera AND having 4k capability as well?
Steve

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

I can only speculate that it has the same imaging sensor and electronics, so the 35 & HS should be very similar. The only difference hopefully be only the pixel count and not the overall look. Ideally, one should be able to mix between the two w/ out any color grading. So scenics would be on the Varicam 35 and fast action, precision servo tracked focus/zoom shots are on the HS. What would be sweet is to use the Varicam 35 front end with the Sony's PL-B4 adaptor and get 4K glory w/ specialized 2/3" lenses. Looks like Panasonic is not going this direction. They prefer native lens mount over adaptor for their cam bodies. Most shooters may have to get both Varicam bodies (35&HS) to meet all of the shooting scenarios. This will be very costly considering having to carry both type of lenses to the field and the list goes on.

Canon just announced their 50-1000 mm PL for $80K. Still no optical stabilization and the long end is barely half the reach of the 2/3" Fujinon HA25x16.5 w/ the optional TS-P58A. Plus it's slower (T8.9) than the HA25x16.5's f/4. I'm guessing the t-stop value for the HA25 is somewhere 5-5.6. Will be decades before PL lens selection can get up to par w/ today's 2/3". I'm not going to wait 10-15 more years for it.

Don't think there'd be much disagreement there...but 4k is such a buzzword at the moment, wonder how popular the 2/3" model will be. The likes of the Sony F55 and even right down to the £5,000 FS7 will do around the same frame rate at 1080 - now you would hope that the Varicam 1080/240fps would look a lot better, but unless it looks chalk and cheese better you might think you'd be better off buying the much cheaper camera AND having 4k capability as well?
Steve

 

[steve phillipps]

I'm sure there won't be an issue matching the images from the 2 front ends but they are obviously fairly different technically as 1 is 3 chips and a prism and the other is single chip and debayer.
Using b4 lenses on Super 35 chips is convenient but image quality is not the greatest, so it's a compromise for sure.
The Canon 50-1000 is nice, handles very much like the HJ40. I rarely use the image stabiliser on the HJ40 - it's useful for locked off shots but useless if you want follow action. Yes the T stop of the 50-1000 is about 2 stops slower...but you get an extra 2 stops or so from the larger photosites of the Super 35 chip so it's pretty much equal there. It's a really nice lens and just what we've been waiting for!
Steve

 

[harddrive]

Had a play with the Varicams the other day. I asked about resolution and he told me that the chip has a surplus of photosites so that after debayer it gives exactly 4k resolution, not 3.5, not 3.7 but 4k. How, I don't know, but that what he told me when I asked that specific question.

From the Panasonic website - http://www.panasonic.com/business/p...c=PSCNA-_-Vanities-_-varicam-_-varicam-models - it clearly states that the sensor is "•S35MM 4096 X 2160 Advanced MOS Imager"

So with an imager of 4096x2160 photosites there is no way in the world it will deBayer to "exactly 4k resolution, not 3.5, not 3.7 but 4k". The best you can hope for in terms of true luminance resolution is about 75-80% of sensor dimensions - so true resolution of about 3.2k horizontally.

Anybody who says otherwise does not know what they're talking about. And this is true of ANY camera from ANY manufacturer with such a sensor - not just the Varicam.

 

[steve phillipps]

So with an imager of 4096x2160 photosites there is no way in the world it will deBayer to "exactly 4k resolution, not 3.5, not 3.7 but 4k". The best you can hope for in terms of true luminance resolution is about 75-80% of sensor dimensions - so true resolution of about 3.2k horizontally.

Yep, agree with you....but that's what the man said - and I asked specifically based on your pointing it out earlier in this thread. He was very adamant about it, just said there's a surplus of pixels and they debayer to exactly 4k. Hmmmmm.....like you, I'm skeptical!
Steve

 

[harddrive]

So scenics would be on the Varicam 35 and fast action, precision servo tracked focus/zoom shots are on the HS. What would be sweet is to use the Varicam 35 front end with the Sony's PL-B4 adaptor and get 4K glory w/ specialized 2/3" lenses. Looks like Panasonic is not going this direction............. Most shooters may have to get both Varicam bodies (35&HS) to meet all of the shooting scenarios. This will be very costly considering having to carry both type of lenses to the field and the list goes on.

I don't think there's any reason why the PL-B4 adaptors can't be used on the Varicam? It may be true that Panasonic would prefer you not to use this approach - but that's largely down to them wanting to sell more hardware! If you want to go with Panasonic I can't see any real advantage to having the 35 & HS bodies, as opposed to the 35 and an adaptor for when you want to use that sort of lens. Redundancy (if case of a fault) may be one - but it's probably still cheaper to just get two F55's and an adaptor than the two Panasonic front ends plus a recorder! (Which will give you full redundancy - recorder as well - as well as the option of a full second body!)

Undeniably, it's likely that the (expensive) Sony adaptor may be optimised for a Sony camera, but in the case of third party versions, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't work as well with a Varicam as an F55? (Or an Alexa or any other s35 camera of this type).

Canon just announced their 50-1000 mm PL for $80K. Still no optical stabilization and the long end is barely half the reach of the 2/3" Fujinon HA25x16.5 w/ the optional TS-P58A. Plus it's slower (T8.9) than the HA25x16.5's f/4. I'm guessing the t-stop value for the HA25 is somewhere 5-5.6. Will be decades before PL lens selection can get up to par w/ today's 2/3". I'm not going to wait 10-15 more years for it.

And welcome to the world of optics and the laws of physics!

With a lens of this type, it can be most simplistically broken down into three fundamental parts. The basics of such a lens are mostly defined by the front two - which control angle of view and zooming, and focussing - the operational bits if you like. The rear portion is concerned with output - how large is the image formed behind the lens. Hence it's theoretically possible to take the same basic lens (front part) and *SOLELY* by reengineering the rear section produce versions for s35, 2/3", whatever.

And what such as PL-B4 adaptor effectively does is exactly that - acts to alter the properties of the rear section.

It follows that the low light abilities are *SOLELY* determined by the front part of the lens. They are what determine how much light enters the lens and can be used to form the image. The rear section only acts to redistribute - give a small bright image or a large dimmer one.

 

[DLD]

Can they do some sort of pixel shifting to "double count" the same pixels for 'true" 4K?

 

[steve phillipps]

It follows that the low light abilities are *SOLELY* determined by the front part of the lens. They are what determine how much light enters the lens and can be used to form the image. The rear section only acts to redistribute - give a small bright image or a large dimmer one.

Yes and that's where it gets back into the pointless over-complication that confuses people (except for physicists) - all most operators want to know I would guess is "is the T stop slower than an HJ40 that has the same size front end?", answer "yes". Cool, thanks. Because that has real world application - ie that the 2.5 stops or so extra ISO rating of say an F55 vs a 2/3" Varicam is cancelled out by the slower lens, so you end up basically the same.

Steve

 

[steve phillipps]

Can they do some sort of pixel shifting to "double count" the same pixels for 'true" 4K?

Maybe, it definitely doesn't sound right to me, and asked specifically and said that surely to get true 4k you need 6k sensor, so what do you end up with yours? And he said - 4k. Not 3.5, bang on 4k, there are surplus pixels, which are used in the viewfinder too so you can oversample your viewing image in the finder (and see outside the frame is how I took that). Hmmm..... It would be nice to think that there is some magic going on that really does justify the price!
Steve

 

[harddrive]

Can they do some sort of pixel shifting to "double count" the same pixels for 'true" 4K?

In short, no.

Good question though. "Pixel shift" can only refer to 3 chip imagers, and refers to when the OPTICAL positions of the photosites in the blue/red paths are shifted relative to green. So that instead of being optically in the same place, they overlap.

With a three chip system that's obviously easy in principle - you just misalign the green sensor on the prism face by 1/2 photosite width and height from where you'd expect it to be. With a single chip camera that's obviously not possible - the photosites are where they are by virtue of the Bayer nature.

Also note that pixel-shift has disadvantages anyway. Using it in both horizontally and vertically it brings an increase in overall luminance resolution on those axes of about 1.5x overall - but that's sq rt 1.5 on each axis, or about 20% extra per axis. Less good - and less well-known - is that it comes at the expense of resolution of diagonal lines. It effectively robs Peter to pay Paul.

Also, it only refers to LUMINANCE resolution - it does nothing to improve chrominance. It relies on the luminance signal being made up from R,G, and B - so putting R,B in a different place to G effectively improves the number of sampling points from a luminance perspective.

With a single chip, and assuming 4096x2160, you will only get that resolution for a monochrome output! By adding the colour filtration, you are trading absolute resolution for colour - it's as simple as that. If you need full colour 4096x2160, you EITHER have to use 3 chips of 4096x2160 OR have a higher photosite count on a single sensor. (The generally accepted figure is about twice as many - hence why the F65 has a 16Mp sensor, and hence the interest in 6k Bayer.)

Whoever Steve spoke to does indeed seem to acknowledge this, as Steve wrote: "{the man}......just said there's a surplus of pixels and they debayer to exactly 4k. Hmmmmm.....like you, I'm skeptical!" But the official Panasonic link disagrees with that, it clearly states the spec as •S35MM 4096 X 2160 Advanced MOS Imager So either the Panasonic spec sheet is seriously wrong, or the person Steve spoke to is incorrect.

 

[steve phillipps]

So either the Panasonic spec sheet is seriously wrong, or the person Steve spoke to is incorrect.

And I'm sure you share my guess that the spec sheet is almost certainly the correct one!
Steve

 

[harddrive]

And I'm sure you share my guess that the spec sheet is almost certainly the correct one!
Steve

Steve, I'd put a bet on it!!

{I asked}......surely to get true 4k you need 6k sensor, so what do you end up with yours? And he said - 4k. Not 3.5, bang on 4k, there are surplus pixels, which are used in the viewfinder too so you can oversample your viewing image in the finder (and see outside the frame is how I took that).

This gets more and more absurd. I won't ask you to name names, but was the person you spoke to a Panasonic employee, or someone in a shop who sold other products?

Because if there WERE surplus pixels, then they could EITHER be used for oversampling OR for seeing outside the frame!! They couldn't be used for both at the same time! And IF it had a "seeing outside the frame" ability (as Alexa does) that would be HUGE! But there's been absolutely no mention of any such by Panasonic, so......

And I've now found the official Panasonic full spec sheet - ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/provideo/brochures/Panasonic_VariCam_35_Brochure.pdf

Go to the end and it clearly states:
Pickup Device: super35 mm MOS 8.9 million pixels
Picture Elements: Total picture elements : Approx.10.3 million pixels
Effective picture elements: Approx. 8.9 million pixels

So no. No magic. It's a standard 4k sensor, which will give about 3.2k true resolution, and no outside the frame mode. Let's stress there's nothing wrong with that - but it would be nonsense to claim it'll do any better.

 

[steve phillipps]

Panasonic sales rep at a trade show.
Steve

 

[DLD]

(Not sure about the formatting here yet ... so)

1) Panasonic seems to emphasize the workflow more than "pure quality" with the Varicam. In other words, they believe that IQ is on par with comparable cameras in the same price range but the workflow is what sets it apart or, at worst, gives it an edge.

2) The pixel shifting - a new Hasselblad H4D - 200 MS uses the same 50 MPX MDF Sony sensor as the Pentax 645Z but claims - (off the product page) -

Normal single-shot capture for 50Mpix resolution images of live subjects.

Four Shot, 50Mpix Multi-Shot capture for high detail images of still subjects.

Six Shot, 200Mpix Multi-Shot capture for the ultimate in still subject capture.

So whatever form of high-end shooting you require, from ultimate resolution 6 Shot Multi-Shot to hand-held on location shooting, the H4D-200MS has got you covered. And then some.
Cutting Edge Technology, Cleverly Applied

With the H4D-200MS, Hasselblad is once again raising the bar when it comes to high-resolution image capture. The H4D-200MS builds on the technology and success of the H4D-50MS, which uses our proprietary multi-shot capture technology, and applies a clever technical solution to bring 200 megapixel resolution to your still-life and studio photography. - See more at: http://products.hasselbladbron.com/...PX-MS-DIGITAL-CAMERA-KIT#sthash.152E6E0m.dpuf

With the above, I am not sure if "pixel shifting" is the proper terminology but here it is.

 

[harddrive]

1) Panasonic seems to emphasize the workflow more than "pure quality" with the Varicam. In other words, they believe that IQ is on par with comparable cameras in the same price range but the workflow is what sets it apart or, at worst, gives it an edge.

Which is the opposite to what the Panasonic rep told Steve! Steve's posts tell a story of being promised full 4k resolution - which is better than anyone would expect from the sensor as specified in Panasonics own spec sheet. What he was told also infers viewfinding outside the image area - as with Alexa - but again seems impossible given the sensor specs. (And not mentioned in any Panasonic literature.) I'd go as far as to say IQ should be a par with comparable cameras specs wise (such as Sonys F5) - but in the Varicam price range the comparisons are more like the F65 - and there is no way the Varicam spec equals that.

As far as workflow, then how do they think it's superior? The early Panasonic interviews made great play of AVC-Ultra having file size advantages over RAW - but seemed totally ignorant of all the Sony XAVC coded modes. As regards RAW, then as far as I can see the Varicam is at a disadvantage to the competition as far as workflow is concerned - without a compression system the RAW files are huge compared to what Red or a Sony camera would generate?

2) The pixel shifting - a new Hasselblad H4D - 200 MS uses the same 50 MPX MDF Sony sensor as the Pentax 645Z but claims -
Normal single-shot capture for 50Mpix resolution images of live subjects.

Four Shot, 50Mpix Multi-Shot capture for high detail images of still subjects.

Six Shot, 200Mpix Multi-Shot capture for the ultimate in still subject capture.

Ah, but see the words I've emphasised?

They give the clue to why the technology you refer to couldn't be relevant here. It's true that is a sense it does use a (sort of) "pixel-shifting" technology to improve resolution, but as highlighted above it's only for STILL images - no movement. As the first line makes clear, if you've got live (ie moving) images, it will just do a 50 Mp capture from it's 50Mp sensor.

The other modes only work for STILL images. So no use whatsoever for a video camera!

As your link goes on to explain:

The H4D-200MS camera uses a 50Mpix sensor mounted onto our patented symmetrical multi-shot frame, which can accurately position the sensor with accuracy, using piezo-electrical actuators. The camera then captures 6 shots, by moving the sensor 1 and ½ pixel at the time, to create a 200Mpix capture. -

With the above, I am not sure if "pixel shifting" is the proper terminology but here it is.

So it's basically trading temporal resolution to get better spatial. An interesting (and valid) approach for a stills camera when photographing non-moving objects - but no use for a true video camera.

 

[DLD]

Which is the opposite to what the Panasonic rep told Steve! Steve's posts tell a story of being promised full 4k resolution - which is better than anyone would expect from the sensor as specified in Panasonics own spec sheet. What he was told also infers viewfinding outside the image area - as with Alexa - but again seems impossible given the sensor specs. (And not mentioned in any Panasonic literature.) I'd go as far as to say IQ should be a par with comparable cameras specs wise (such as Sonys F5) - but in the Varicam price range the comparisons are more like the F65 - and there is no way the Varicam spec equals that.

As far as workflow, then how do they think it's superior? The early Panasonic interviews made great play of AVC-Ultra having file size advantages over RAW - but seemed totally ignorant of all the Sony XAVC coded modes. As regards RAW, then as far as I can see the Varicam is at a disadvantage to the competition as far as workflow is concerned - without a compression system the RAW files are huge compared to what Red or a Sony camera would generate?

Ah, but see the words I've emphasised?

They give the clue to why the technology you refer to couldn't be relevant here. It's true that is a sense it does use a (sort of) "pixel-shifting" technology to improve resolution, but as highlighted above it's only for STILL images - no movement. As the first line makes clear, if you've got live (ie moving) images, it will just do a 50 Mp capture from it's 50Mp sensor.

The other modes only work for STILL images. So no use whatsoever for a video camera!

As your link goes on to explain:

So it's basically trading temporal resolution to get better spatial. An interesting (and valid) approach for a stills camera when photographing non-moving objects - but no use for a true video camera.

Yes, it makes sense ... (I don't have a degree in physics to instantly grasp everything ... but after a beer or two ... hey)

1) Off their NAB's and IBC, the work flow - in compression codec, in-camera LUT's, multiple simultaneous card recordings, high frame capability - was their emphasis. With the camera priced similarly to F-65, Varicam was not going to win either the resolution nor the color reproduction outright ... maybe that rep was working for a competitor? (I kid, I kid)

2) As to faux pixel-shifting or in-camera DSP, I found this nVidia presentation a couple of days ago. It's addressing similar concerns ... I think (which doesn't mean this technology is included in this Varicam, obviously )

http://vimeo.com/109777932

 

[steve phillipps]

I was going to say the same thing, its competitor in that price range is F65 and Epic Dragon - both of which have far higher sensor resolution - AND as high frame rates (in fact Dragon has higher at 4k) - so it does beg the question of where the Varicam wins? I knew from the start it was going to be expensive and said so, laughing at a lot of peoples' suggestions that it would be priced somewhere between F5 and F55...but for it to be a winner on a large scale with owner ops it would certainly have needed to be that sort of low price at this spec. No global shutter either don't forget. I've used and loved Varicams for years.....but this is a questionable offering - though having said all that the demo reel does look pretty stunning!
Steve

 

[harddrive]

1) Off their NAB's and IBC, the work flow - in compression codec, in-camera LUT's, multiple simultaneous card recordings, high frame capability - was their emphasis. With the camera priced similarly to F-65, Varicam was not going to win either the resolution nor the color reproduction outright ...

I've no doubt that it may show a workflow that is capable of satisfying some very high demands - I'm not for one moment saying it's other than a very capable camera. But I can't see a single factor that isn't in the workflow of cameras like the F55, the F5 (now the XAVC coding can be officially enabled) and - even the FS7! I'm not saying it's got a poor workflow - far from it - but you earlier said "Panasonic {...}believe {...}the workflow is what sets it apart or, at worst, gives it an edge"

Maybe I'm missing something, and if so I hope I'll be corrected - but I simply cannot see anything in the Varicam workflow that is substantially better than what it's competitors offer? And in RAW mode it seems to be at a significant disadvantage? Maybe this is a problem of announcing product so far ahead of release date? When you announce it, it may be ahead of the pack - by the time it ships, it's already looking a bit dated.

2) As to faux pixel-shifting or in-camera DSP, I found this nVidia presentation a couple of days ago. It's addressing similar concerns ... I think

Again, yes - there is no debate that sophisticated processing can yield better results than the simplest. But ultimately even the best processing cannot resurrect something that simply is not there. It might GUESS at what it should be - and the better the processing, the better the guess may be. But that's not quite the same thing. You can also get processing that works very well on a certain type of picture, but far worse in another situation. Compared to a 3 chip solution, if you use a single Bayer chip of the same dimensions, you're throwing information away - you can never get it back 100%, only make educated guesses at what it was. (Alright, let's be scientific - you interpolate! )

You can compare it to recording mono for audio. It's possible to process to get a pseudo-stereo result, and the better the processing, the better the end result is likely to be. But it can never be the same as capturing in stereo in the first place.

 

[DLD]

I don't disagree with any of the above. All I was saying that, if I were listening to a retail pitch from a Panasonic sales reps - or reps selling/renting their gear - I'd be far more likely to hear the work flow related sentences first before getting the spiel about the image and that's because a customer in the Varicam price range would know not only specs of every camera out there, he'd know every fault and every possible tweak as well (Or, s/he may just be a great negotiator ... that happens also).

As to FS-7, this is the time when the big boys will begin the squeeze the smaller boys out. I suspect that Panasonic, being one of the big boys, will leave itself a nice avenue of retreat from this $55K price point. It's actually easier to do so with a more modular unit. Sony adjusted downward some of the companion pieces to FS-700, including the camera itself, while keeping the others (R5) at their old levels. This is why I think Panasonic will make something in the $5K range but will be apprehensive about a 4K alternative in the $25K vicinity.

Then again, with Sony pondering 8K and ARRI, Sony and Red already having 6K cams out, it'd make a lot of sense for Panasonic to move into this 6K-8K area also.