Varicam pricing
- Thread starter steve phillipps
- Start date
I'll be the first to agree that dclouds images aren't quite the test I'd hoped for, but in terms of being "flawed" the only issue is that the iris is set a bit too low on the ISO5000 results. That will not affect the relative noise levels in the blacks between the ISO levels, and you could draw conclusions about such even if the camera was capped!
You claimed earlier that "Yet, this is exactly what Panasonic has achieved - two native ISO's. It's a big deal." with only "+1db of noise" between them.
But that's not what is being seen. We're seeing the base noise level increase substantially more than 1dB with upping the ISO - just as may be expected with any comparable camera. So no big deal at all. Up the ISO, and the noise comes up as well if everything else stays the same.
Noel, you've been loaned the camera by Panasonic and put a lot of effort into making lengthy tests. You've claimed "native Dual ISO" as one of it's main plus points. It's not just me you are presumably hoping to convince, so if you do think dclouds images are "flawed" then surely it is in yours and Panasonics interests to do such a test (up the ISO to 5000, close the aperture 3 stops, leave all else the same) to your satisfaction?
steve phillipps
Veteran
I know a few people that have used Varicam and not been convinced - certainly doesn't seem to have made much impact over here - and it can't just be cost as Amiras are everywhere!
Steve
Steve
I agree. I think Panasonic should get more out there. I don't work for Panasonic, so I don't have a vested interest here - but like you I would love if they could get some things together for us. I've asked.
I think everyone on this forum knows how much I've enjoyed working with C300's over the past 3 years and am very much looking forward to taking the MKII for a spin, however - its not aimed at the same environment, different workflows etc etc - theres a lot more to a camera than the spec sheet.
As far as im concerned, at 5000 ISO, the varicam delivered good sharp images for me even in 120fps.
i do think at 5000 iso its atleat 14 stops
panasonic needs to get their act together and push this cam in marketing. Especially with well established cameras slowly eating away their lunch
i do think at 5000 iso its atleat 14 stops
panasonic needs to get their act together and push this cam in marketing. Especially with well established cameras slowly eating away their lunch
If the spec sheet delivers the visual equivalent of a higher end equipment - and we've seen the performance of digital video improve from next to nothing in the late'90's to a 65mm film quality of today - then it's inevitable for some higher priced models to be squeezed out. I'd bring up the audio example again. In the era immediately preceding the electronic, a hybrid pro guitar like a Gibson L5 from that era was beautiful from every aspect - from sound it produced to craftsmanship that produced it. Then a cheap Fender Telecaster comes out along with cheap Fender guitar amp and, within a decade, jazz is out and rock is in and four guys playing some cheesy English* audio products conquer the world. (* they used the US made guitars too)
Of course, no one can guarantee anything but I think you'll see C300 MK II, and its current and future competition in the same price-performance niche, squeeze out a lot of the $60,000 ARRI, Panasonic, Sony and Red models.
steve phillipps
Veteran
I think if anything they've been pushing the "hype" marketing too much, without getting solid information out. It may work at a more consumer level, but for the market it's aimed at I believe such is counter-productive. As just one example, what Steve posted earlier in this thread - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ricing&p=1986488764&viewfull=1#post1986488764
Anyone seriously interested in a camera in the Varicam class is pretty certain to well know that a 4K Bayer chip won't - can't - deBayer to give full 4K resolution. It's nonsense. There is nothing wrong with a 4096x2160 chip per se - but claiming this camera is doing the impossible is wrong, and arguably counter-productive. It just gives rise to what I believe the police etc call the "and what else ....?" feeling, where if they start to find inconsistencies in an statement - even if seemingly inconsequential in themselves - it gives them cause to ask "and what else" may be false about it.
And that's partly why I find this business of the dual ISO odd to put it mildly. I've learnt over the years that if something seems too good to be true, it normally is, and this seems to fall into this category. I'd just like to get to the bottom of it. If the performance really is as stated it just begs so many questions, and not least is why even bother with any ISO800 mode if the ISO5000 mode is just as clean?
And to Steve's point about HFR at 4K, it's not quite that simple though, is it? At the very least I believe it's only achievable with the Codex RAW back, and it's my understanding that the 120fps 4K mode is only to RAW recording. And since RAW and the Varicam means uncompressed only, then at 120fps we are now talking about truly phenomenal data rates..... So it may indeed do the 120fps, but apart from the Codex cost it means a massive workflow hit.
But really, all cameras have their plus and minus points and it's the same here. I'll say yet again that whilst I think this Varicam is being overhyped in some ways - and deficiencies such as no RAW compression swept under the carpet - it's still good in many ways. But - and coming back to the thread title - the real problem for it is the price. And that's why I think it's not selling too well, it's simply way overpriced. There is just too much competition with overall comparable specs on the market at a much cheaper price, simple as that, and the announcement of the C300 Mk2 can only exacerbate that.
steve phillipps
Veteran
I'd always assumed it would do 120fps internally AVC Ultra - otherwise it really would be an over-priced piece of kit!!! This site http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/varicam/35/workflow.html has a table listing it as doing 120fps in AVC-Intra 4kLT - whatever that is!
Steve
Eh, I don't recall a single slow motion clip in "Godfather".
Canon lists C300 MK II as having 1,800 lines, making it it ... eh, 3,200 x 1,800?
Something in the 80 Mbps range?
Last edited:
steve phillipps
Veteran
Slo-mo is fine for action films, which are largely beyond the scope of middle of the range cameras. And, for wild life, one can find suitable equipment also. (and, btw, I love wild life .... for about 10 minutes at a time)
The C300 MK II market - which is, accidentally, the same as both iterations of Varicam - is going to be reality, cable, major streaming and network scripted TV + low-to-medium budget theatrical independents. A $5,000,000/episode series like "House of Cards" will go to a 6K camera like Red Dragon or F55 (or its replacement) but could easily use either of Varicam, FS7 or C300 MK II. Major features will gravitate toward a 6K or soon-to-be 8K cameras and both Varicam and C300 MK II will be SOL there.
C300 MK II's future will obviously depend on the manufacturer delivering on its stated specs. Should it be so, it will seize a huge portion of the pro market, regardless of any future 6K releases. Simply put, it's an affordable, feature laden, high quality 4K camera which is where the pro market will remain for the next 3-4 years. The Varicam may be all of the above, except the affordable. That will make it a pretty hard sell.
Interesting - I found this ( http://www.redsharknews.com/product...-35-gets-a-dramatic-boost-via-firmware-update ) via a bit of googling. I was originally told by a dealer that the 120fps was only available in RAW via Codex. It seems that was true when he said it, but this mode is new via a firmware update.
The question now is what exactly "AVC-Intra 4kLT" is! It seems to be more heavily compressed, and as yet unsupported by NLEs etc - and I couldn't even find it on Panasonics official AVC-Ultra page!
The normal quoted rule of thumb for a Bayer sensor is that it will give luminance resolution of up to 80% of the basic sensor dimension. Other sources say 75% is a better figure, the 80% being where it's tailed away to nothing - but let's not split hairs.DLD said:
For a 3840x2160 sensor, 80% of 2160 is 1728, so I'd expect no more than 1728lpph as max. (3072 horizontally for UHD). Conservatively, about 3000x1700 is probably more realistic, but at least Canon are more realistic with what they list. This is the case for any such Bayer sensor, and no manufacturer will ever get full 3840x2160 luminance resolution from such.
steve phillipps
Veteran
I thought the new higher bit rate update of AVC Intra was going to be AVC Ultra??? I'm lost....as, unfortunately, is Panny I think
Having both iso800 and 5000 is veryuseful. I would attest iso5000 is really good.
Avc ultra is the entire family
from avc long-g to avc intra 4444
i shot on avc intra 422 10bit 4k and avc intra 4k lt
4k LT is like prores lt, same flavor less bitrate. Only reason youd pick this is, its the only codec that supports 120fps INTERNALLY on the varicam. It just got recently supported by resolve maybe a week ago.
i know you need to be skeptical before you could believe its claims but why be sooo negative?
The only disadvantage they have is the really steep price
Last edited:
steve phillipps
Veteran
What's the bit rate on that? If it's less than about 1000 mb/s that would be pretty compressed at 120fps no?
Steve
Steve
It's far more complicated than that, and Panasonic have changed the nomenclature meaning at least twice. Barry clarified many aspects a while back and you may like to read what was put then - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...camera&p=1986296922&viewfull=1#post1986296922 - and the following posts.I thought the new higher bit rate update of AVC Intra was going to be AVC Ultra??? I'm lost....as, unfortunately, is Panny I think
Originally, you're quite right I believe - AVC-Ultra was originally the name for what they now refer to as AVC-Intra Class 200. Now it refers to their whole family of AVC based codecs, including much LOWER bitrate versions such as proxy. But as you can see from the other thread it gets even more confusing as "AVC-Intra 100" is only 100Mbs for 1080/25 or 30 framerate signals. Go to 1080p/50(60) and AVC-Intra Class 100 will be 200Mbs....... I'm not criticising the underlying technology in any way, but who dreamed up the current nomenclature? But read what Barry has to say in the other thread for the whole story.....it makes sense - eventually!
Firstly, I completely agree with your second sentence. I've said from the start that I see the Varicam as pretty good in it's own right - but just not deserving of some of the overhyped remarks that have been made about it. I maintain that OVERALL it's roughly comparable to an F5, with both advantages and disadvantages compared to that. That's no problem, it shouldn't be seen as negative - it's just saying the glass contains 50% rather than it's half empty. I'm saying the Varicam and F5 are both pretty good, but neither as good as (say) an Alexa or an F65.dcloud said:
But accept that and the argument follows that it should be a comparable price to the F5. It's not. It's a lot more expensive. It's close to twice the price at the moment at a main UK dealer, and considerably more expensive than the F55. All I'm saying is it doesn't therefore currently offer at all good value for money. And the coming of the C300 Mk2 just underlines that.
I make it about 160Mbs? The number of seconds must be 1340/24, which would give a file size of 160*1340/24 Mb, and divide by 8 to get MB - so would give about 1,117MB - pretty close to 1.13 GB.dcloud said:1340 frames @ 24p is 1.13 GB
i cant do the math
May not be as simple as that though as your 1.13GB must include audio and I'm not sure if quoted video bitrates normally do? But yes, it's pretty heavily compressed, even allowing for the efficiencies inherent if it's long-GOP encoded.
(For 4K at normal I-frame AVC type codecs, you can get the bitrate by roughly multiplying the frame rate by 10 to get the bitrate in Mbs. Hence for normal I-frame 4K I'd expect 10x120=1,200Mbs. So it's of the order of an eighth of that. Long-GOP coding will make up for quite a lot of that, but even so.......)
Last edited: