-
Panasonic AJ-HPC2000 P2 vs Sony XDCAM HD
-
I have a sense that you will not use MPEG2 products in post. If this is correct, why wont you? What are the issues that you have with MPEG2 products or technology for post?
At the very least lets get that info out on the table.
You have made what I would call a back of your hand hit at XDCam with little detail other than referring to it as an MPEG2 format, what are your issues. Broad ad-homonym attacks are fine for making loud statements but why do you feel this way?
Chris
-
Any ideas on why there is still no sign of a 1920x1080p head from Panasonic?
Mike Brennan
-
I never quite understood why anyone concerned with quality would choose variable bitrate over a constant one. Of course if you forced a constant rate then compared to the celing level of the same bitrate calculated variably you’d end up with larger files – but using up more space is a tradeoff for the benefits of less compression (and thus, higher quality). Since cameras like the HVX are already using codecs at up to 100mbps, shooting full, constant bitrates at levels of 35 or less shouldn’t even be an issue.
Their SD XDCAM has an option of recording at a 50mbps datarate – and we only get 35 for an image four times the size? All of these companies are skimping on specs to protect their high end lines – and it’s the consumer that’s getting screwed.
-
I don’t understand how consumers are getting screwed? All the consumer HD cameras make a great picture. In fact a fantastic picture. What more someone wants is beyond me. Television was invented with savings in mind. It’s the reason it was interlaced. It didn’t need to be anymore. The mind saw the information it needed to. It did what it had to do. That statement about getting screwed to me is the equivalent of saying it’s ridiculous for Ford to put a 2.0 liter four cylinder engine in a Dodge Neon when they make a 5.7 liter V-8 Hemi. They really are ripping people off because they don’t want you to have the power in the small car. But the engine in the small car fits the small car perfectly. The reality is the HVX is performs very much like the HDV formats, both have some strengths and weaknesses, but both are limited by the small form electronics. The HVX sounds great on paper but it suffers from some ills that make it very much in the same range as the HDV alternatives. For instance anyone that has shot with the HVX knows you have to crush blacks most of the time because of macroblocking in shadows. When you take the compression concatenation of the camera
-
‘I am excited by this Panasonic offering because of the 2/3″ CCDs and the interchangable lenses (although I am NOT a P2 convert as of yet). And I would rather avoid the MPEG-2 compression (even if it IS at a higher bit rate than standard HDV).’
Just to add another wrinkle to this discussion, consider that XDCAM HD footage can probably be archived and played “as is” on Blu-ray HD DVDs, whereas P2 footage will require computers for storing and playing in native form plus transcoding for delivery to consumers. A minor point perhaps if you prefer intraframe compression for recording and editing, but MPEG2 now offers a complete end-to-end solution we may never see for DVCProHD. Food for thought…
-
I’m not touting the HVX over any of the other cameras in this range; I’m well aware of the macroblock issues the HVX has and I have been very outspoken about this very issue on other forums. This topic however is not discussing the HVX or any of the HDV cameras at all, it is discussing the AJ-HPC2000 and XDCAM HD offerings – both of which you yourself have called “professional” models on other forums and should be looked at as such considering their price points. Please read the topic titles before you post.
The reason the consumer is getting screwed is because both of these new cameras are skimping on features that they’ve already released in other flavors previously, simply to protect their upper lines. The Panasonic camera has no variable framerates and doesn’t even offer 24p – the single biggest claim to fame they have in the last five years. If the $6,000 HVX can do both 24p AND selectable framerates, then their new $30,000 offering darn well ought to as well. To use your analogy, they have now offered a Dodge Neon with a four cylinder engine, and it seems pretty rediculous to announce a brand new Hemi at five times the price with half the features (yet that’s exactly what they’re doing). I don’t think these are really concepts you can argue. Well, we know you like to argue, but they can’t be argued effectively at any rate…
-
“The reason the consumer is getting screwed is because both of these new cameras are skimping on features that they’ve already released in other flavors previously, simply to protect their upper lines.”
I don’t think that is true. Read on…
“The Panasonic camera has no variable framerates and doesn’t even offer 24p – the single biggest claim to fame they have in the last five years.”
I would not use the term “claim to fame” as much as would use the term “gimmick”. I own a varicam. I shoot lots of video with it and rarely if ever is variable frame rate useful or necessary. In fact I had a discussion recently with a large group of cinematographers who agree, it’s cute feature but it doesn’t make or break a camera. But I see the marketing folks at some of these manufactures have made it seem like something one can’t live without. So all over the web I see folks asking if a new camera has variable frame rates as if you can not shoot without them. I look at it as a feature that has little use except special occasions in the professional world I work in. Perhaps your experience is different.
” If the $6,000 HVX can do both 24p AND selectable framerates, then their new $30,000 offering darn well ought to as well.”
It’s sort of a naive statement as I see it. I think even the manufactures sometimes are confused in the way they present their products. For this camera as someone pointed out the literature can’t seem to decide if this camera is for filmmaking or for broadcast, but when you look at the facts it’s a broadcast camera anyway you slice it. P2 in many folks mind now means no budget filmmaking, but remember it was for broadcast before the HVX and they are still trying to sell it for broadcast in addition to having added it to the consumer/prosumer HVX. 24p and variable frame rates are useless for the purpose of an ENG camera so it makes perfect sense that this camera does not have them as features. This camera seems identical to two other broadcast versions they made a few years back, albeit SD. So this is simply an HD version of an ENG broadcast camera. I think some folks don’t realize that 90% of all professional video cameras are for broadcast and independent video use and the “film” use and need for these cameras is miniscule so these features that you think should be included are not because they are not selling points for those industries and the larger percentage of use for the cameras.
“To use your analogy, they have now offered a Dodge Neon with a four cylinder engine, and it seems pretty rediculous to announce a brand new Hemi at five times the price with half the features (yet that’s exactly what they’re doing). ”
Actually I think they are simply offering a car designed as a family van that you want to use as a sports car.
-
I tried to make these points in this post a week ago but was reprimanded…
I think after consideration the 24p look is for film out and for talking heads. My experience so far, and I’m hedging all this with an open ended question, is that 24p for video is more hype than real magnificent benefit. I just see so much jutter in the movement that I am completely fixated on the effect not the content. I’d like to be introduced to some well done 24p for video that people think are great examples of why this is a look that someone should integrate into one
-
[Walter Graff] “I would not use the term “claim to fame” as much as would use the term “gimmick”. I own a varicam. I shoot lots of video with it and rarely if ever is variable frame rate useful or necessary.”
True 24 frames-per-second progressive footage on a DV tape is their claim to fame, not the variable framerate function. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I wouldn’t be so hard on the AJ-HPC2000 if at least offered 24p. It doesn’t even do that.
[Walter Graff] “For this camera as someone pointed out the literature can’t seem to decide if this camera is for filmmaking or for broadcast, but when you look at the facts it’s a broadcast camera anyway you slice it.”
Well of course it is, with no 24p option. But why not give customers the power to choose? It would be so easy to implement both worlds in one camera it’s not even funny. The HVX already does it! Unfortunately, that camera suffers from a very small CCD block that limits the usability of its picture. Yet, in a crazed effort to protect their upper end, the 2/3″ options (or even worse, 1/2″ in the case of the Sony) are intentionally limited and lacking of features. That’s where Panasonic is getting it wrong, that’s where Sony is getting it wrong, and that’s the only reason people like Jannard’s RED idea are even popping up these days – because we keep getting the run around from the “big” companies.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Panasonic isn’t physically able to deliver a 2/3″ CCD camera, today, that shoots to P2 and offers 1080i/720p, 24p, and variable framerates. You know it and I know it. And the AJ-HPC2000 should be that camera. My guess is their “Varicam II” is already very well in the works, and by offering the HPC2000 at a sub-30K pricepoint, they can then turn around and offer the “Varicam II” (which does everything we really need it to) at a substantially higher cost. As we all know, however (again, considering all this stuff is already packed into the HVX), it’s nothing more than the software that allows the camera to shoot in 24p, multiple framerates, give you that cinegamma look, etc. By leaving that functionality out, they can warrant charging more money for a similar product that doesn’t cost them any more to make. There are no longer excuses of “the camera costs $20,000 more because the DVCPRO HD deck has so many more moving parts and it’s just so expensive to make!” Look at the differences between the two XDCAM HD models available – one costs thousands more and essentially the only difference is that the “variable framerate” function in the software is enabled in one of the cameras. The 350 doesn’t cost any more for Sony to manufacture; they’re just taking advantage of the fact that they can jack up the price on one model by “crippling” the other.
The real problem, however, is not that they’re being greedy with their pricing structures (which they are), but rather they aren’t even offering the models we really want – high priced or not. Where is Sony’s 2/3″ XDCAM HD model? Where is Panny’s 24p model? Both companies have already made those technologies available in tape-based cameras, yet all of a sudden their tapeless solutions are taking huge steps backward. If Panasonic really wants people to buy into the P2 concept and Sony wants people to buy into “Professional Disc,” they had better start making some P2 and XDCAM cameras that don’t skimp on features – especially at these kinds of prices.
-
I absouletly agree. and I don’t think its too late to communicate this info to Panasonic. They have 9 months to flip the switch and allow the HPC2000 to offer these functions. And you can bet that there will be more than a few posts on chat boards like this trying to hack the HPC2000 if it isn’t released with these functions. Then again… maybe we’re wrong and there really is something physical about the function and there isn’t a simple software/firmware answer to this holdout.
Chris Baldwin
Shoulder High Productions
Media of the World; For the World!
https://www.shoulderhigh.com
newsletters@shoulderhigh.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up