Varicam pricing
- Thread starter steve phillipps
- Start date
Run&Gun
Veteran
Right now, at least, it looks like the price drop is confined to the Australian market. I sent my sales rep(here in the US) a screen shot of the pricing from this thread and they didn't know anything about. Their response was something to the effect that they were in the middle of putting together a Vari package for a client at that moment and had been given the "blessing" to do a special price, but it was still no where near that low.
Ill respond to this thread shortly as Im about to go out. But yes, that pricing relates to Aus market.
There are two cables coming, short and long so the recording unit can be split off. And it's my hunch they aren't finished with the brand. The original varicam shot a number of feature films, and the new 4k Varicam 35 is aimed at recapturing this. The other Varicam, which is a 2/3" chip b4 mount camera or the Varicam HS, is def. aimed at sports, TV, doco and ENG.
Yet, this is exactly what Panasonic has achieved - two native ISO's. It's a big deal.
To clarify - I meant there is +1db of noise
On TV / MC / TVC / Feature - the whole process can work right down to proxy. That's nothing new, although the onset capability with reduced cabling, easier process etc streamlines the process. Im not sure how the RAW compression would have a huge effect given the market it's intended for and that would be utilising it.
There are two Varicams. Varicam the brand didn't really do itself a lot of favours by sticking to 2/3 b4. When the first varicam was released, thats what was around. The past is in the past, however, by what you say there's that general opinion. The second Varicam is a 2/3' b4 called the HS (I mentioned above). Power consumption is lower.
I'll finish this post with this, most people here are pretty much bringing up the perceptions that panasonic know they need to overcome - if they can. I hope they do better in this area as it's a great camera and system.
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com
Well-known member
It appears to me that the Varicam engineers do not like to compromise the optical performance of the Varicams and opt to have two head modules. This way PL & B4 lenses get the best performance without light lost or other impairments. The biggest problem for PL native shooters is the lack of super telephoto lens and optical stabilizer. It's maxed out at 1000 mm. There are many situations where 1000 mm will not have enough reach. I'm sensing shooters want to have greater flexibilities in lens selection for their coverage needs. B4 lens will not go away anytime soon.
Personally I prefer the Sony F55 route where I can get both 4K resolution and comprehensive B4 lens selection via the adaptor. But at cost of light sensitivity and other small optical impairments. Not sure if I want to use a B4 to PL adaptor on the Varicam 35. It defeats the purpose of pristine resolution.
>>>There are two Varicams. Varicam the brand didn't really do itself a lot of favours by sticking to 2/3 b4. When the first varicam was released, thats what was around. The past is in the past, however, by what you say there's that general opinion. The second Varicam is a 2/3' b4 called the HS (I mentioned above). Power consumption is lower. <<
Personally I prefer the Sony F55 route where I can get both 4K resolution and comprehensive B4 lens selection via the adaptor. But at cost of light sensitivity and other small optical impairments. Not sure if I want to use a B4 to PL adaptor on the Varicam 35. It defeats the purpose of pristine resolution.
>>>There are two Varicams. Varicam the brand didn't really do itself a lot of favours by sticking to 2/3 b4. When the first varicam was released, thats what was around. The past is in the past, however, by what you say there's that general opinion. The second Varicam is a 2/3' b4 called the HS (I mentioned above). Power consumption is lower. <<
Noel, it's still coming across as if you think by "two native ISO's" you're interpreting it as two ISO values, with all else equal between them except for a 1dB noise penalty in the ISO5000 mode. It's almost never the case that anyone gets something for nothing - and that's nearly always true in camera design. And so it is here. It may well be true it has two switchable ISO values, it may well be true that the higher has a noise threshold only 1dB higher, but you need to ask - as with offers of "guaranteed 20% pa return, no risk" - where's the catch?
From everything I hear, it's that the high mode sacrifices dynamic range. That shouldn't be taken too negatively - the high mode may still come in useful, but just don't think you're getting something for nothing. And since post may simulate closely the results on other appropriate cameras in the suitable mode, it becomes much less of a big deal.
I've had a bit more of the principle explained to me and could try to explain it a bit more technically - but why don't you just do a very simple test if you have the camera?
Shoot a high DR scene at Iso 800, (ideally a DR chart), then switch to the other mode and stop down nearly 3 stops. From your interpretation, the results should be virtually identical, at least in DR terms - but is that what you find.....? Go on, try it, and do post the results.....
But what market do you think it is intended for? I've already given the example of the BBC NHU who seem to favour (at the moment) compressed RAW 4K off the F55, but same is true of most drama that may want to use such a camera. And surely higher end wildlife and similar documentaries are a prime market that any camera with the name "Varicam" is most likely to be targeted at? Using the name to appeal to past users of earlier model?
There's nothing wrong with the Varicam workflow as far as it goes, and it would be wrong to say there was. (Unless you want RAW!
) But it's not unique, and where I do take issue is any attempt to make out it's head and shoulders above that of any competition - it's not. Several people I know are required to shoot RAW with 50Mbs XDCAM 422 proxies as standard workflow. To make out that the Varicam ability to shoot two formats at the same time "with reduced cabling" makes it unique, simply isn't true.As for "not sure how the RAW compression would have a huge effect", then let's put some numbers to it. At 24fps, XAVC/AVC-Ultra will be around 240Mbs - Sony compressed RAW around 1Gbs. (Which is challenging enough - and it becomes even more so as the frame rate goes up.) But go uncompressed and it goes up by a factor of about 3, yes, around 3Gbs, depending on bit depth. The effect on size of memory needed, memory speed, download times etc etc is huge.
At 4K, it's compression that makes RAW feasible at all. (Which is why Sony, Red Arri use it.) The lack of RAW compression on the Varicam can only be seen as a huge, huge negative point against it.
Well, at some point you have to choose your compromises if weight/cost/size mean anything at all. (And they do.) No, the B4-PL adaptor may not be perfect - but what are the alternatives? A 4K 2/3" camera doesn't really exist at the moment, and there are technical reasons why they may never really come for true high end pro use.
So if you do need to use long reach zooms it's true that means B4 in practice - but with a 2/3" or s35 head? It remains that the Varicam HS head is 1080 only (as other native 2/3" camera heads) - the s35 camera heads we're talking about are 4k. I suspect very, very strongly that the total performance of such a lens on 4k s35 via adaptor will always be superior to using it on any such 2/3" head. The resolution may not be "pristine" but is still likely to be better than limiting to 1080 on the 2/3" head?
So once you get into the 4k market at all, then what is the point of the Varicam HS head? Get a Varicam s35 - or any similar s35 camera - and most of the time it may get used with primes and short range zooms (in 4K) - then if a B4 lens with adaptor needs to be used, the results will still be better than on a 2/3" (1080 only) head.
lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com
Well-known member
So this leaves the 240 fps found on the Varicam HS 2/3" to be the only real reason to get two separate heads. That's costly just for 240 fps. I do not like up rez 1080p->4K sequence. $50K+ is a considerable investment for a cam body that will be obsolete in less than 5 years. I don't mind paying that on good PL-lenses that will have at least 20+ years of depreciated value.
This is deja vu again. Like 720p in 2007, I may get the much cheaper Blackmagic URSA B4 to reduce the "4K bandwagon itch" and let time do its deprecation to 4K. By then 8K will be out at today's 4K prices. Lucky I waited out for 720p to pass by. Not sure if 4K has the same fate as 720p in 2007. So far not so many over the air TV broadcasters (not satellite) are upgrading their entire infrastructure to 4K. So why should I?
This is deja vu again. Like 720p in 2007, I may get the much cheaper Blackmagic URSA B4 to reduce the "4K bandwagon itch" and let time do its deprecation to 4K. By then 8K will be out at today's 4K prices. Lucky I waited out for 720p to pass by. Not sure if 4K has the same fate as 720p in 2007. So far not so many over the air TV broadcasters (not satellite) are upgrading their entire infrastructure to 4K. So why should I?
But what's a normal decrease in the dynamic range at ISO 5000 anyway?
Let's say your sensor has 13 stops at 100. The same sensor probably won't crack 6 stops at 5000. If so, you may as well get a relatively noise free image there.
As to codecs, it does have AVC Ultra 444, which should pass for a faux compressed Raw ... except there are no 3rd party editing suits that are compatible with it.
It may help to think back to more conventional cameras and the issues surrounding nominal zero gain - 0dB. It's no accident that when negative gain was available it was limited to -6dB, or only -3dB on cheaper cameras. At first sight, it may be thought that the only implications of negative gain would be to (beneficially) give a better noise figure, and (adversely) need more light. Unfortunately, not so. Using negative gain may improve the noise performance - but in that case at the expense of highlight handling. It's the principle of never getting something for nothing!
It also introduces the idea of an OPTIMUM setting for gain, ISO, call it what you will for a given camera, sensor in defined modes. And THAT is what is really meant by "native ISO". Yes, the sensor can be used at higher - *or lower* - ISOs but in either case the performance can't be expected to be as good as at this optimal ISO rating.
For a small sensor camera (with small photosites) that figure may be ISO100, when your figures are valid - and which may show why small sensor cameras don't give good results in low light. (ISO5000 would equate to about 36dB of gain.) But for an s35 sensor I'd expect something like ISO640-800 to be the more likely native figure, so ISO5000 to be only 3 - not 6 - stops intrinsically different.
Fair point, but it may depend on whether you see such as fitting in a sweet point, or falling between the stools of "normal" XAVC/AVC-Ultra and true RAW. I tend to think more the latter - if you're going to accept going up to that sort of bitrate/filesize, may as well go all the way and get true flexibility from RAW. But that's only feasible with compressed versions......
I really don't want to be too negative about the Varicam, but unfortunately it seems the way of forums that things have to be painted in black/white terms, nothing in between. The Varicam may be pretty good - but that's no reason to overhype. From everything I've seen and heard, the closest contender is Sony's F5 - and that comment should be taken as a compliment. But it follows that it would be expected to sell for about the same price - and even with this price drop in Australia it STILL doesn't. That's the fundamental problem.
And.... if this price drop is limited to Australia, and is only temporary, what's it going to do to perceptions in the rest of the world if those countries try to maintain current pricing? Surely it will devalue it's worth?
Thanks for the correction. I was eyeballing the GH4/BMD type cameras (which aren't 13 stops either) with a lower native ISO.
As to pricing, I've counted four "confirmed" 4K/6K pro cameras that are to be introduced at the NAB. This is where Varicam might indeed "fall in between stools" -- high priced for one purpose and inferiorly specc'ed for another.
On its behalf, once that codec thing is sorted out, the camera produces a very pleasing image and is officially qualified as a "4K" product (whereas Alexa/Amira do not). IMO, many DP's and producers will choose it for these reasons ... unless there's a similarly performing camera for half the price.
http://panasonicprovideo.tumblr.com/post/108242733327/happy-new-year
heres something about the dual ISO
heres something about the dual ISO
Which backs up what I've been saying. Look at the response graphs and the length of the line effectively represents dynamic range at the sensor. The ISO800 case represents "native ISO" with max dynamic range - the longest line it's possible to have. In the ISO5000 graph, the usable DR is represented by the red portion of the line - it's a remapping of the dotted black line in that graph, the solid black section of the line becomes effectively lost.
Result - increased ISO at the expense of reduced dynamic range. (In practice I wouldn't expect it to be as severe as the graph implies, the dotted line should be much longer than the solid.)
Practically, there must be more to it than that - the graph only really indicates the situation in normal gaining up. The second analogue circuit may help in mapping the A-D better for this case, but something must be happening comparable to changing the slope of the line. It's all perfectly valid - but not the big "killer" deal which Panasonic are promoting it as.
But please, don't anybody just take my word for it. If you have access to the camera, shoot a high contrast scene (ideally a DR chart) at ISO800, then switch to the ISO5000 mode and shoot the same scene with the iris down 3 stops.
I agree with all of that - but don't the F5/F55 (maybe even the FS7 at a large pinch) qualify as "similarly performing cameras", and all of which may be similarly qualified as "4K"? And all cheaper, even with the Aus price reduction?
And yes, the Varicam can produce a very pleasing image - but so can the F5/55. IMO the final result depends far more on skill of the grader, skill of the cameraman, lighting and subject matter than any of these cameras itself. I'll repeat what I said before - the Varicam is pretty good - but still way overpriced for what it is.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Hrddrive -Have you ever shot with 5/55/fs7?
They are full of holes.. little holes not on the spec sheet, no sound in HFR, dodgy cashe record , soft above 60p etc et etc.
the vari fixes most of them at a price but then 10% better always cost twice as much.
They are full of holes.. little holes not on the spec sheet, no sound in HFR, dodgy cashe record , soft above 60p etc et etc.
the vari fixes most of them at a price but then 10% better always cost twice as much.
ill try to test it on a shoot. not on a DR chart though. one in 800 then one with 5000 with ND filter.
im guessing it wont be huge enough of a difference.
some of the geeky techno babble here is making my poor little brain bleed, but the jist seems to be that basing comparisons mainly on spec, the Varicam is no better than the f5.....so where does that leave the Alexa, Amira when they cant even muster 4k? Below the FS7? Ease of use and image quality would to me be higher in importance than nerdy spec sheet comparisons. The Varicam image to me looks more sophisticated than all the Sony's mentioned, and it seems the workflow and ergonomics are also more straightforward. Does this not count for anything?
I'm not bashing on Sony I own one of their cameras, but they often dazzle in specs and struggle in image quality, ergonomics, user interface menus etc. These are all important but not always quantifiable qualities which make up the true value of a camera.
I'm not bashing on Sony I own one of their cameras, but they often dazzle in specs and struggle in image quality, ergonomics, user interface menus etc. These are all important but not always quantifiable qualities which make up the true value of a camera.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Absolutely. Im not too up on what the F5/55 do now but I know the FS7 doesnt..
-do flat 4k + lutted proxies
-record audio in HFR
-have a nice menu!
-have properly functioning cache record
-have properly functioning Lut options
I believe the varicam does all of this
All of these can make a real difference to some shoots/workflows and would easily justify a rental price 50% higher on a production paying for fully crew talent and rented glass etc, where that 50% would translate into 5% increase in daily total budget.
The camera daily price just becomes marginal as soon as you have a full paid crew/talent/locations.. I'd pay $100 a day extra just to get lutted proxies!
S
I'm not for one moment saying that those are "perfect" cameras with no flaws at all (and as far as the FS7 goes I did say "maybe even the FS7 at a large pinch") but at such an early time can we really be sure that the Varicam won't be discovered to have comparable flaws, if it ever starts to be used by many users? I'd still mantain that the lack of any compressed RAW ability to it's workflows alone is a big "hole" in the Varicams abilities for many people. Don't forget that the F55 seems to be by now to be the current de facto choice for live 4k broadcasting - and that largely relies on it's compressed RAW abilities, using that as the link to the scanner.
OK, some factors will be of massive importance to some users, irrelevant to others, and trying to accurately score "how good" cameras are for comparison would (IMO) be a meaningless exercise. But making no judgement at all isn't very helpful either, so I'm quite happy with saying that in broad brush terms the Varicam is *roughly* comparable with the F5. It may be better in some ways, worse in others. At the end of the day, it's up to the potential buyer to decide.
Well, I'm sorry about your brain, but as far as "geeky techno babble" it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, isn't it?ade4all said:
A big claim was made for the Varicam - I don't dispute what's said, but it comes with an (important) unsaid caveat. Point that out without any evidence or explanation and be accused of not backing up assertions, point it out with (unfortunately necessary) technicalities and be accused of "geeky techno babble" - oh well.
About the Alexa, Amira then *in terms of resolution alone* then yes, I suppose they must be considered inferior to the FS7. But resolution isn't the only spec that counts, is it? So overall it becomes much more complicated.
I think when DLD first brought the subject up, then it had more to do with a client wanting to ensure their product was truly "4k compliant". Like it or not, cameras like the Alexa or Amira wouldn't allow the production to genuinely put "4k" on the tin - a camera with a 3840x2160 chip would. Compare if you like with an organic restaurant offered non-organic (but very high quality) steak. Even if it's taste, texture etc were all first rate, the very fact of the non-organic origins would have to rule it out if the restaurant wanted to stay within the law. If it wants to (legally) promote itself as an organic restaurant, it has to sell organic produce - end of story. Same if you want to claim "shot in 4k" for your production.
As for "nerdy spec sheets", then at one level I agree. But with cameras of this type phrases such as "F55 image" and "Varicam image" become increasingly meaningless - image quality becomes far more determined by grading skill. If A looks better than B is it because camera A is better than camera B, or because A has had a better grader work on it.......?