1080p digital video camera for under 6k

[erdega79]

This is a new camera from Panasonic . It records up to 1080p/30 and will be released in November/December '05 . It looks very promising as far as specs go. Only troublesome point is that it records on p2 cards which are very expensive (around 1700$ per card) and until now are only available up to 8GB, though it could expand.



http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/HVX200/

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...odel=AG-HVX200

http://panasonic.biz/sav/p2/

EDIT:Couple of more things. Even though the price is down to consumer levels, it seems it's still meant for professionals, news tv people more specifically simply because of the media cost and all the hassle involved with dealing with such a limited recording time. However I did see that p2 cards will increase significantly in size, up to 128GB, and hopefully prices will come down too. The bitrates used are from 25-100mbps which means highest quality 1080p takes 1GB per minute. These P2 cards are quiet interesting medium, they are still in early stages but they are very durable and very versatile without any moving parts and they have great potential as a portable medium . Anyway here is the brochure for both the camera and p2 cards with lots more info


https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro...brochure_p.pdf

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni..._AG-HVX200.pdf

[Gorkab]

Nothing to say but WOW :shock:

[erdega79]

yes, it's wow :shock:
But I do wonder how they store this video.I think they are pacing it with the introduction of blu ray disc so that people can shoot and then store 1080p video but even a double layer blu ray disk could only store 50 minutes of video

[thunderhawk]

Originally Posted by erdega79

but even a double layer blu ray disk could only store 50 minutes of video

Unless you use better compression :lol:

[erdega79]

Originally Posted by thunderhawk

Unless you use better compression :lol:

Yes, but compression is evil . I mean this will be used by professionals mostly and they want uncompressed original files to work with.

[thunderhawk]

I understand you

However, I'm a big pro guy for the H.264 High Profile codec and the WMV HD VC-1 codec

Really, just look at the results, why bother for things you won't see?

[erdega79]

ok, but you can convert original files into any other format using software like avid pro. I also think it's fair to say that you can see the difference depending on the quality of the display :P

[Rob]

When will we see camaras that can record at 1920 by 1080p @ 50+60hz?

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by erdega79

ok, but you can convert original files into any other format using software like avid pro. I also think it's fair to say that you can see the difference depending on the quality of the display :P

Always better than Compressed stuff but if we go this way, the better format would always be a film camera... :?

[erdega79]

Originally Posted by Rob

When will we see camaras that can record at 1920 by 1080p @ 50+60hz?

my fair guess is that when it becomes official atsc format.

[erdega79]

Originally Posted by Gorkab

Always better than Compressed stuff but if we go this way, the better format would always be a film camera... :?

yes, film camera is still the bar to be measured against in terms of quality . But digital video and photo cameras are still in infancy and by comparison they are more versatile, lighter and cheaper in the long run than film/analog that we've used for so long .

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by erdega79

yes, film camera is still the bar to be measured against in terms of quality . But digital video and photo cameras are still in infancy and by comparison they are more versatile, lighter and cheaper in the long run than film/analog that we've used for so long .

Yep, it's growing faster because of the price also...

[Rob]

Originally Posted by erdega79

my fair guess is that when it becomes official atsc format.

I suppose part of the problem will be storing a 1080p 50/60hz picture.

[erdega79]

of course, it's double the bandwidth and storage of 24/30.However that shouldn't be problem for long , it's mainly that there is no approved standard and no inputs and outputs that support that standard

[erdega79]

Originally Posted by Rob

I suppose part of the problem will be storing a 1080p 50/60hz picture.

Yes, it takes a lot of storage. There is an excellent article here about hd editing http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/hdedit/

I wanted to add that it's not really a problem for the pros who shoot in much higher resoluion and picture quality and have big budgets and specialised equipment.

[gigashadowwolf]

Originally Posted by erdega79

Yes, but compression is evil . I mean this will be used by professionals mostly and they want uncompressed original files to work with.

I happen to be a professional director/editor and I have to say even professionals rarely work in uncompressed. I am doing it for the first time now actually for standard def and a 60 minute clip is 14 Gb. The most common compression for professional use is DV (what the camera's typically record on). Digital projection in theaters is usually 2k or 4k but is compressed. They have been doing this since before blu-ray by using several discs which is still much much cheaper than several film prints like before.

To answer the questions about Analog film VS. Digital Video Film is still by far the preferred medium by most professionals. 35 mm surpasses even the best digital cameras currently not to mention 75mm (IMAX). Also an analog camera is good nearly indefinitely. Once you buy the camera the majority of improvements that improve quality are done either to the film itself or the lenses. The Camera doesn't need to be re bought.

As far as availably of video cameras that shoot better than 1080p, professionally the Genesis (Apocalypto, Superman Returns), Arriflex D-20 and Viper cameras are the most popular but are also very, very expensive. Last year the Red One came out, it records at 4 k (4096×2304) and available for $17,000 dollars. However that does not include lenses, hard drives, batteries, mounts, eyepiece, LCD display, cables, etc. so it comes out to about $25,000 for the minimum workable camera. The data is 220 Mbits/second thats about 2 giga-bytes a minute. Two new Red cameras come out next year one that captures 5k and one that captures 3k (much cheaper).

[Chevypower]

Wow, nice thread mine. 3 yrs old, that's gotta be a record. I have to express time and time again, film is not analog! It is optical. Betacam SP is an analog format (electronic, but not digital). I haven't seen DV used much in professional use, but I have seen DVCAM, which I guess is the same compression but different tape speed, and of course DigiBeta. I am happy with the XDCAM EX quality and workflow. I think it really is the best thing out there for the money, and it's so efficient.

[Bobby Henderson]

of course, it's double the bandwidth and storage of 24/30.However that shouldn't be problem for long , it's mainly that there is no approved standard and no inputs and outputs that support that standard

Broadcast HD material, whether it is sent over the air, by satellite or cable, is already very lossy compressed. And that's just 1080i/60 and 720p/60 material.

Doing 1080p/60 will at least double the existing level of data compression. At some point the increasing severity of compression softens/blurs out image detail and completely defeats the purpose of HD.

The 720p movies Apple offers for download have really severe levels of compression. Many critics have complained the extreme level of data compression blurs out so much detail that the resulting image looks hardly any better at all than a regular 480p DVD. With all the blocking, color banding and other issues going on the results can even look worse.

I think the best anyone can hope for in broadcast standards anytime soon is for 1080i/60 to be replaced with 1080p/30 (and possibly 1080p/24 for movies). But there's no easy way to do that. Just about all television stations and networks have hardware set up only for 60Hz operation. Lots of existing HDTV sets are only capable of 60Hz operation as well. Some fancy, backward compatible workarounds would have to be developed to allow that 60Hz only equipment to still see the picture while passing on a 30fps or 24fps progressive image to HDTV monitors with better capabilities.

FWIW, I don't think there's much in the way at all of material that would fit 1080p/60 specification. Movies are 24fps, not 60. Lots of sports programs are broadcast at 60fps, but shot only in 720p resolution. 1080p/60 operation in broadcast just isn't every necessary now.

[The_Snowman]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

Wow, nice thread mine. 3 yrs old, that's gotta be a record. I have to express time and time again, film is not analog! It is optical.

And to think that, since then, you can nearly change the title from under 6k to under $600

[Deciazulado]

Now for 6K you get the 1080 x 1920p Sony EX1 with variable speeds, time lapse and goodies