Didn't read anything about this in the Panny press release. Anybody know?

Peter

Didn't read anything about this in the Panny press release. Anybody know?

Peter

How much? A lot. (laughs - seriously, I've not seen it mentioned yet) When? Considering previous ENG P2 cam releases I'm sure broadcasters and large production companies (i.e. FOX, Discovery etc.) have already placed orders and will scoop up the first shipping units. That means one-off sales to individuals won't get parsed out through distributors until Dec or first part of next year.

If you want one I'd place an order with one of the "A list" Panny distributors like Omega Broadcast right away and get on the waiting list. Historically, Omega has been one of the very few distributors to get priority placement for allocation fulfillment from Japan; places like B&H follow many months later.

Hopefully Panny will grace us with the real info soon...

Thanks Robert! I'm guessing around the time these are available is about when I'll be ready to buy one :) Do we know if this is the same sensor as the current Varicam? Kind of sounds like it. I can't recall from the press release if it's full raster 1080. Is it just a tapeless Varicam that uses the AVC-Intra codec? That wouldn't be all bad, mind you.

Peter

No, the new P2 Varicams are actually the HPX2000/3000 cams with VFR and AVC-I added. It's *not* the same chipset in the tape-based Varicam at all. Keep in mind the HPX2700 is a native 720p chipset - like the HPX2000; the HPX3700 is native 1080p.

The 2700 seems to be more versatile as it can ramp up to 60p VFR whereas the 3700 can only ramp up to 30p - probably a limitation of the chipset. (?) Barry would know more.

Check out the video from SD about the Varicams - tons of good info:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/9361.html

Pricing is expected to be appx:

$40k for 2700

$60k for 3700

Thanks for all the great info Robert! Better start saving :)

Peter

Great video. The body looks remarkably like the HPX500. I'm guessing it's more rugged, but the shell looks the same. Can't wait to see some footage!

Peter

Great video. The body looks remarkably like the HPX500. I'm guessing it's more rugged, but the shell looks the same.
It's more like the HPX2000.

I don't really get the point behind the 3700. Variable frame rates in 1080, great, but ... only up to 30? Huh? I mean, I think I know why (interlaced chipset, same reason the XDCAM-HD cameras drop to half-resolution when you go faster than 30P) but still... I think I'd get the 2700 over the 3700.

Yeah, the 3700 is perplexing, but I guess it distinguishes itself from the 3000 with its FILMREC capability and other more film oriented features? I guess for someone needing a film package with full raster 1080p it would make sense. I'll be making a reservation for the 2700, though. That is going to be a great camera. Barry, have you seen images from the 2700? Comments?

Thanks!

Peter

Yeah, the 3700 is perplexing, but I guess it distinguishes itself from the 3000 with its FILMREC capability and other more film oriented features?
Peter

I know the HPX3000 has the FILMREC setting -- I assume it would be the same as the 3700's.

I'm with Barry; I don't really see the point of a VFR camera that can't ramp past 30p. If you really needed full-raster 1080p for your features then probably the Viper or other 2k camera would actually be a better choice since there's little visual difference between 720p and 1080p - especially between the 2000 and 3000 cams. Both of those imaging blocks are... stunning, for lack of a better word.

And for those wondering if Sony can compete in this realm, the answer is a flat "no". The soon-to-be-released PDW700 can't even do 24p much less full-raster VFR, not to mention it's still long-GOP XDCAM to boot with now very limiting record times to a 50gb BR (XDCAM) disc compared to count-em, *5* P2 slots on the 2700/3700. That means with the upcoming 64GB cards in either of the new P2 Varicams, and at 1080p DVCPRO-HD (a gig a minute) that means over 320 minutes of non-stop recording.

Yes indeed my fellow shooters/producers, the King has arrived: the HPX2700.

I'm in.

Hmm. That's still $9000 worth of memory ;-) Impressive specs, though...

Hmm. That's still $9000 worth of memory ;-)

Compare that to the cost of any DVCPRO-HD deck not to mention DVCPRO-HD tape and the memory more than pays for itself in one commercial shoot, which is the market the camera was intended for.

In fact, the HPX2700 along with the Letus Ultimate will be our main camera rig for all our upcoming productions, with exception to those requiring film which most TV commercial work still is. However I expect this camera will start to change that "need" for film drastically once we've proven it's output capabilities.

Compare that to the cost of any DVCPRO-HD deck not to mention DVCPRO-HD tape and the memory more than pays for itself in one commercial shoot, which is the market the camera was intended for.


Yep, the 5-slot P2 card reader is probably the cheapest, and most reliable, "deck" you'll ever buy. A big factor in my decision to go with the HPX500 instead of the HDX900 was the cost of tape. If you're working even somewhat regularly, P2 very quickly pays for itself, even including the cost of archiving onto LTO ($40 for 400GB tape).

Peter

I was ready to post just after NAB, but thought I'd settle down a bit.

I love Panny products - it's their marketing that keeps me guessing at times.

I've invested in them in the last year - a couple of 2000's, the HPM110, the 200A, (10) 32's, BT900, couple BT80's, BT1760, Intra cards, etc - I'm sure there's more (still have an SPX800, etc)...

So - the 200/200A & 500 have under/overcrank - but a non-native chipset. The 2000 has a native chipset, but no under/overcrank (my guess was to protect tape-based Varicam sales). Beauty of a cam - like I said, I bought two (and I found it mildly offensive that the under/over wasn't in them).

The 2700 has under/overcrank, Intra, another HDSDI and a two-position filter wheel... Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I think that's the main difference between my 2000 and the 2700.

So - my question is, where's the extra money coming from? Intra card - $3k list. That said - I feel like I may be paying $9-$10K or more (street) for the VFR firmware (and Film-Rec gamma), the HDSDI out & the dual-filter.

Always glad to hear where I'm wrong - just trying to decipher the ultimate pricepoints. Maybe the Varicam logo is made of real gold... :)

I was super-excited the morning of day one, staring wide-eyed at the 2700, hearing $40ishK for it - all along thinking it was a native 1920 chipset. Been a bit confused since then...

Just wondering, thinking out loud, and hoping it comes in at a comparible street price (by which I will get one).

I think all manufacturers are guilty of the "I just don't get it" product/pricing strategy. However when you consider the original, tape-based Varicam was over $70k when it was first introduced (in fact, wasn't it a $100k body upon first release??) the 2700 is a bargain.

For my company I personally decided not to get the 2000 or 3000 and shot the tape-Varicam instead because I knew that "soon" the P2 Varicam would eventually come to market.

Sell your HPX2000's for the 2700 and don't look back.

I hear ya - and I understand... and then also, I don't...

Every way I look at it, a 2000 with an intra card is a firmware upgrade and a star filter away from being a 2700 (in theory).

I probably wouldn't give 1/2 a dang about it if they didn't stick the under/over in on the 500.

No matter what - It'll be a cute rig for sure...

...I probably wouldn't give 1/2 a dang about it if they didn't stick the under/over in on the 500...

Except the 500 won't ever look as good at the 2700; major jump in image quality. Full-raster VFR... yeah, that's the ticket.

exactly...

They can stick it in on cams that you can pick up now for $5-$8K, but you pay $10K for the math on the good guys (or so it would seem).

I'm not sure if I'm complaining, whining, or just being crabby. I gave 'em at least $100K on P2 gear with almost no regrets. A good price to pay to get a lot of product, and images that are great.

So - the 2700. Am I going to buy it? Probably... But ultimately before I write the check, I'd like to know that my extra cash is going towards something more than product protection.

I guess I feel like I'm paying $10K+ for the same car that now has a racing stripe on it (in that it seems like it's something easy/more affordable to add), rather than an added 200 horsepower due to a new injection system.

There was a time that the 2000 wasn't going to have 24/30p - the buyers made noise, and then it did.

Thanks for letting me think out loud...

Thanks for letting me think out loud...

Don't thank me, this forum is Chris's baby - we all owe him!

I think all manufacturers are guilty of the "I just don't get it" product/pricing strategy. However when you consider the original, tape-based Varicam was over $70k when it was first introduced (in fact, wasn't it a $100k body upon first release??) the 2700 is a bargain.

For my company I personally decided not to get the 2000 or 3000 and shot the tape-Varicam instead because I knew that "soon" the P2 Varicam would eventually come to market.

Sell your HPX2000's for the 2700 and don't look back.

Hi Robert,

I'm going through my own internal back-and-forth debate regarding the 2700. I love the fact that it has VFR up to 60fps for slow-motion. But I'm a little wary of spending $40K on a camera that doesn't have a full 1080 imager (the 2700's imager is 720). I have always been a big fan of Varicam footage in the past (and that's a 720 imager too) but so many other cameras these days are delivering 1080 imagers, and I wonder if a higher res imager will future proof the camera more, and also make it more adept for content that might be projected on a big screen (movies, museums, etc).

So that's why I look at the HPX3000 in a favorable light. With street discounts, it's about the same price as a 2700. You get a top-tier imager, but lose VFR. On the other hand, you can create a pretty good slow motion effect through certain post-production software (Motion, Shake, After Effects plug ins, etc).

I'm sure you've considered all this, but am just curious about why you're making the decision you are. Maybe I'm giving a 1080 imager too much respect! ;-)

Thanks!

Although the plethora of measure-bators will dispute this, there's actually very little visual difference between 720 and 1080. More pixels doesn't automatically mean a better picture, you're just getting more numerology.
Yes, there is more information no doubt, but all else being equal I'd challenge anyone to discern the difference between two identical clips, one at 720 and the other at 1080 on an HDTV set. The only time that extra amount of pixels would really matter is for a film-out.

If you want dramatically better images than 720 then you should be considering a 2K or better camera (RED, Viper, F23 etc). Only then will you actually be getting something that truly has a marked difference from 720.

In fact, in the next few years that's exactly what's going to happen to the market. It's been proven hundreds of times that content shot on HD will create much higher-quality SD downconversions for widescreen DVD. Now that BR authoring is just around the corner (we hope) that means in order to get super-quality encodes for BR we'd need to start off with resolutions higher than the HDTV spec - and that would be 2K or better.

The general rule has always been, that if you're using a compressed to down-conversion workflow for your final output then you'd need to start-off with more resolution than the final output because you're throwing away so much information during all the steps of compression to final out. That same workflow method will apply to BR, only we'll need the higher-end cameras to pull it off, and that also means film isn't going away any time soon.

Thanks for your perspective, Robert! More food for thought!

Although the plethora of measure-bators will dispute this, there's actually very little visual difference between 720 and 1080. More pixels doesn't automatically mean a better picture, you're just getting more numerology.
Yes, there is more information no doubt, but all else being equal I'd challenge anyone to discern the difference between two identical clips, one at 720 and the other at 1080 on an HDTV set. The only time that extra amount of pixels would really matter is for a film-out.


Couldn't agree more Robert. I am pretty much sold on the 2700 and can't wait to get my hands on one -- will be putting an order in just as soon as I can.

My only concern about this 720 vs 1080 business is how it will impact ability to deliver for broadcast clients. Do you foresee, over the next 2-3 years, broadcasters demanding that shows be delivered and originated in 1080, and not 720? My concern here is that even though the images of the 2700 will be in most ways be superior to the likes of the EX3, it still is not a native 1080 imager, and this fact might affect its usefulness in broadcast applications.

I'm wondering if the likes of Discovery, BBC, etc will start to set the bar at 1080 and will leave the 2700 out in the cold. Of course the final master could always be uprezzed to 1080 and I'm guessing no one would be the wiser, but if I have a client that doesn't know this, or doesn't believe it, and takes the 1080 gospel, it would suck to drop $38k on a camera that is going to be obsolete in a year or two because it's not 1080.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Peter

I'm wondering if the likes of Discovery, BBC, etc will start to set the bar at 1080 and will leave the 2700 out in the cold...

I can't imagine a scenario that would cause that to happen. If current cams like the F900's, Varicam and even the newly approved HVX200 make networks like DCN happy how could that change in the future? The only way the bar would be set higher is if the HDTV standards changed - which obviously they won't for god-knows how many decades.

HDTV is what it is so any camera approved by the network gods today would certainly carry over until the next-gen of TV is created.

As I say, my fortune-telling swiss-cheese brain says that the real implication for current broadcast-video cameras is that when BR becomes viable to indie producers we'll be pushing the limits of the HDTV spec when creating our encodes for BR output to get the "hollywood" look of film - which means we'll need the 2k resolution o pull that off. In that sense, the bar has already been raised by RED, Viper and others.

But for HDTV, I believe any current or soon to be released, 2/3" inch DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM (and in certain cases XDCAM) cameras will please the networks

BBC has already hinted that they want 1080, in fact it says in this document http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/hd_delivery_v01_08.pdf that current and future programmes are to be acquired in 1080i or 1080P, no mention of 720 (though this is not really true as I'm involved in current and pre-production programmes that are 720). It does show an intent though.
Although like I said in another thread, does that mean that they've had a second look at "Planet Earth" and decided it's a bit crap and should have been done in 1080? Don't think so!
Steve

I am shooting four shows for Paramount right now and they require 1080 origination. Yes, the HVX-200 can shoot 1080 but they are requesting that we shoot on a native 1080 camcorder, in our case since they are low budgeted shows, the EX-1. I have no problem with it and am enjoying the EX-1 for greenscreen interviews, b-roll and tabletop but it is weird that the company is going to sell off all of the HVXs.

Time marches on. I do see 720 kind of going away in the next few years, everyone has become brainwashed to 1080.

Something to think about when considering spending big bucks on a 2700, which I am sure will be a kick ass camera.

Dan

I am shooting four shows for Paramount right now and they require 1080 origination. Yes, the HVX-200 can shoot 1080 but they are requesting that we shoot on a native 1080 camcorder, in our case since they are low budgeted shows, the EX-1. I have no problem with it and am enjoying the EX-1 for greenscreen interviews, b-roll and tabletop but it is weird that the company is going to sell off all of the HVXs.

Time marches on. I do see 720 kind of going away in the next few years, everyone has become brainwashed to 1080.

Something to think about when considering spending big bucks on a 2700, which I am sure will be a kick ass camera.

Dan

This is my exact concern Dan. I couldn't agree more with Robert that the difference between 720 and 1080 is negligible, and we all know that in most ways the image of the 2700 will be superior to the EX1. The problem is that it is often the uninformed/unenlightened "measurebators" who are the clients, and all they know is that their boss or the guy at Circuit City told them 1080 is better than 720. The "problem" is that everyone knows the difference between these two standards because so many people have purchased flat panel TV's, etc. I just had a job where one of the actors, a ten year old kid, starts asking whether we're shooting 720 or 1080.

So...I think this will be an issue for this camera, especially over the next 2-3 years. I have no doubt that the images will be stunning, however, and the fact that it is 10-bit has a far greater impact on the image quality than whether it is 720 or 1080. Now if only we can get our clients to understand this.

Peter

This is my concern as well--that for reasons that are reasonable or not, the industry will simply come to demand a native 1080 imager. And I think it will happen, at least in some corners. So I continue to struggle with the idea of buying a 720 imager with variable frame rates, OR a full-blown 1080 camera without the VFR. I think I'm still leaning a bit towards the 1080 option for my purposes, but that's just today. Tomorrow, who knows!

By the way, Robert, you mentioned that the Hvx200 is now approved by Discovery. Is this beyond the 15% of total run time that Discovery has allowed for a while?

This is my concern as well--that for reasons that are reasonable or not, the industry will simply come to demand a native 1080 imager. And I think it will happen, at least in some corners. So I continue to struggle with the idea of buying a 720 imager with variable frame rates, OR a full-blown 1080 camera without the VFR. I think I'm still leaning a bit towards the 1080 option for my purposes, but that's just today. Tomorrow, who knows!

By the way, Robert, you mentioned that the Hvx200 is now approved by Discovery. Is this beyond the 15% of total run time that Discovery has allowed for a while?

Ellis:

There is a thread from Barry Green over on DVX User that outlines all of this. It will be a new Discovery show about the Iditarod and will be shot 100% on multiple HVX-200s.

Dan

I hate to say it, but all the concerns and reasons you guys are pondering is exactly the logic that spawned RED so... if you wanted to future-proof your productions regardless what the market trends are then go RED. Because otherwise you guys will go BLUE in the face with all the worry and breath-holding! (^_*)

And for the record, I'll put my money where my mouth is: when the 2700 is released I'll be more than happy to put it up against the EX1/3 in any configuration and prove my point about 720 vs. 1080. No way a 1/2" inch camera with a fixed lens (or even Sony's proprietary removable lens mount) is going to get the best of a Panny 720p imaging block on a 2/3" inch mount. Especially since those imagers are next-gen compared to the current Varicam.

'Nuf said.

I hate to say it, but all the concerns and reasons you guys are pondering is exactly the logic that spawned RED so... if you wanted to future-proof your productions regardless what the market trends are then go RED. Because otherwise you guys will go BLUE in the face with all the worry and breath-holding! (^_*)

And for the record, I'll put my money where my mouth is: when the 2700 is released I'll be more than happy to put it up against the EX1/3 in any configuration and prove my point about 720 vs. 1080. No way a 1/2" inch camera with a fixed lens (or even Sony's proprietary removable lens mount) is going to get the best of a Panny 720p imaging block on a 2/3" inch mount. Especially since those imagers are next-gen compared to the current Varicam.

'Nuf said.

Robert, I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that the 2700's images will be vastly superior to the EX1, or that if your sole concern is future-proofing, the Red is the best and most affordable option on the market. I think the major concern expressed here is whether to go with the 2700, or whether it would be smarter to go with a COMPARABLE camera (3700, 3000, etc) instead. For broadcast purposes, it seems the bar is going to be set no higher than 1080 for a long time, but from the anecdotes expressed on this thread, it seems the bar is moving quicker than anyone would hope beyond 720, even though, as we've discussed, this isn't necessarily justified.

I guess in a way we're all trying to predict the future: how soon will 720 no longer be acceptable to a majority of clients and broadcast outlets? I emphasize clients, as I think the majority of us on this board are enlightened enough to know the 2700's images will blow the socks off most 1080 cameras and its images will be beyond "acceptable" for our own projects. At the same time, I think we're all yearning for a camera that offers both native 1080, and variable frame rates up to and beyond 60fps. And for that we'd have to turn to the Red or F23, which are very much Digital Cinema cameras and not broadcast cameras.

Maybe for these unenlightened clients we can just deliver uprezzed 720 on the 2700 and tell them it's native 1080. They'll never know the difference :)

Peter

Often times the clients are just driven by marketing and rarely understand the nuts and bolts of all of this new technology. We have a client who is requiring us to deliver 1080 24P HDCAM SR masters. Problem is that 30-40% of the material in the show is NTSC archival footage. NTSC is obviously 29.97 interlaced.

We have yet to find a method that takes interlaced footage to progressive without adding the artifacts of motion judder. We have a Symphony and access to the Terranex and Snell & Wilcox boxes and they all still exhibit judder with almost any kind of motion. Ha anyone figured out a way to convert interlaced to progressive without objectionable motion artifacts?

The logical step is to take all of the nice 1080 24P material that we are shooting and put it into a 1080i master delivery along with all of the upconverted NTSC. But this client's marketing department wants to have a 1080 24p master, for which there is no logical reason, it will look much worse in this case and will probably not pass QC.

Oy!

Dan

All my PAL - NTSC conversions I use Shake, using the FileIn convert options to take progressive/interlace to/from any framerate.

Pretty damn good I'd say, despite the long render times. (or probably because of them)

Ellis:

There is a thread from Barry Green over on DVX User that outlines all of this. It will be a new Discovery show about the Iditarod and will be shot 100% on multiple HVX-200s.

Dan

Ah, thanks Dan. So that's what Robert was referring to, I guess. I had actually known about the Original Productions show since NAB, but am still not sure if the show is merely a special case where Discovery temporarily waived its restriction on HVX footage (to 15% of run-time), or if it really has approved the HVX for wider use in all shows.

I read Barry's thread, and still couldn't find an answer. Still, I'll definitely look forward to watching that show when it airs and seeing how the look holds up to Original's other shows shot on XDCAM HD (ala Ice Road Truckers and AxMen).

Still, I'll definitely look forward to watching that show when it airs and seeing how the look holds up to Original's other shows shot on XDCAM HD (ala Ice Road Truckers and AxMen).

AxMen is XDCam HD? Wow, that is surprising. Almost looks like SD to me.

My concern here is that even though the images of the 2700 will be in most ways be superior to the likes of the EX3, it still is not a native 1080 imager, and this fact might affect its usefulness in broadcast applications.

I'm wondering if the likes of Discovery, BBC, etc will start to set the bar at 1080 and will leave the 2700 out in the cold.
My assumption had been that although the imagers in the 2700 were each 1280x720, it was employing pixel shifting techniques to bring the luminance resolution beyond that of the 720p system?

Hence, an effective (luminance) resolution of the order of 1600x900. (Assuming both H & V is used.) May not be up to what 1920x1080 imagers may manage, but a front end performance that may make it very worthwhile operating it in 1080 mode rather than 720, and wrong to just dismiss it as "a 720 camera".

As regards the general "can you tell the difference between 1080 and 720" debate, then a lot depends what it's being viewed on. As "true HD" screens become increasingly the norm, the difference is increasingly becoming visible. Also worth distinguishing between the various flavours - a 1080i/25 v 720p/50 comparison is NOT the same as comparing 1080p/25 and 720p/25.

For many genres, it's the latter two that are increasingly important. Hence a general move towards 1080.

Really interesting thread.

I must say that I too was drop-jawed when I saw the the 3700 puts the brakes on at 30 frames. I assume that there is some quality limitation that prevents 60?

-Brad

AxMen is XDCam HD? Wow, that is surprising. Almost looks like SD to me.

Thanks for the tip.

I watched this show last night after reading this comment.

A lot of the scenes looked like 1/3" chip cameras, kind of soft (comparably) and flat color.

It seemed every once and a while a more detailed image with better contrast would appear.

But I noticed a similar thing with "Mythbusters" regarding how these cameras handle highlights. I don't care for the look as it seems a bit harsh to my eyes. Like the sensors are being stretched beyond comfort levels.

Thanks for the tip.

I watched this show last night after reading this comment.

A lot of the scenes looked like 1/3" chip cameras, kind of soft (comparably) and flat color.

It seemed every once and a while a more detailed image with better contrast would appear.

But I noticed a similar thing with "Mythbusters" regarding how these cameras handle highlights. I don't care for the look as it seems a bit harsh to my eyes. Like the sensors are being stretched beyond comfort levels.

Yea, I'v noticed that the visual quality in Mythbusters and AxMen can range a wide gamut. Sometimes Mythbusters uses 2-3 cameras to capture the hosts (one camera for the wide angle showing both hosts, one camera for each hosts' close-up) and the wide shot often looks SD. I've wondered if they're simply using a non-HD camera for those, because they simply don't have enough HD cameras to cover the angles.

AxMen clearly uses cheaper cameras for crash cams, but even when you're looking at an XDCAM shot, the picture can look pretty uninspired. At the same time, I'm not sure how much of that is due to the cameras versus DirecTV's compression....

At the same time, I'm not sure how much of that is due to the cameras versus DirecTV's compression....

True, but there are other shows that imho, look stunning going through the same compression.

Starting with the indomitable DVX100 Panny has successfully proven that they can deliver high-quality output from their imaging blocks with less overall pixels than competitive cameras. As I've said ever since digi-still cameras were released, more pixels does not automatically equate to better looking output.

Case in point: 5 years ago I did many a still-shoot with an Olympus E-1 body; it only had 5Mp compared to my 1Ds at 11Mp but the E-1's output was far more natural in it's color rendition and organic "feel" than the Canon. Interestingly enough, Panny designed and produced the imaging chips for Olympus.

At the end of the day what matters is how good - or bad - the image looks, period, no matter what it was shot on.

If a client makes techno-specific demands like *only* using a 1080p imaging system then there isn't much you can do except be thankful for the work. However my guess is that just as with the DVX100, HVX200 and soon the HPX2700 once professional shooters who know how to use the gear properly show-off it's capabilities the *must-have* requests for 1080p-only cams will subside. If the little 200 can wow the DCN gods just imagine what the 2700 will do once it's actually been in-service a bit.

As I've said ever since digi-still cameras were released, more pixels does not automatically equate to better looking output.
Well, that's true, but can't you have your cake and eat it in this case? Keep the intangibles, AND have higher resolution?

I've already said that the pixel shift aspect was being ignored, so I think it's wrong to consider the 2700 a "720p camera". It's output recorded as 1080p should look significantly sharper than recorded as 720p - albeit limited to 1080p/30.

Individual cameras aside, I said before that "a 1080i/25 v 720p/50 comparison is NOT the same as comparing 1080p/25 and 720p/25" but I've been reminded that there's even more to it than that. 1080 HD codecs have traditionally subsampled (1440 for HDCAM, HDV and 1280 for DVCProHD) so have had very little horizontal advantage (none for DVCProHD) over a full raster 720 recording. Compare 720p with 1080i and the p/i factor is likely to mean not a lot to choose vertically either. No wonder people have said there's not much to choose between the two.

But what's changing now is that modern 1080 codecs are not subsampling - XDCAM HD 422, AVC-Intra, JPEG2000 (even AVC-HD as found on consumer cameras!!) all record full raster 1920x1080. Combine that with full-HD displays rapidly becoming the norm in homes, and 1080p, not 1080i, and the potential to see the improvement over a 720 recording becomes much greater than when "1080" meant interlace and a subsampled codec. Hence the broadcasters increasing desire for 1080 acquisition.

Peter, I'm not sure that you're correct in saying that no-one thinks the EX1 image will look better than the 2700, I'm sure quite a few people think it might, and they may be right. It does look good I must admit (I'm a Varicam fan in a lot of ways)! And it is full 1920x1080, so the 720 Varicam has a lot of work to do to get up there. Likely the DSP etc. will be better, but even so, you might be surprised.
As for the 3700 topping out at 30P, presumably it'd just take so much data transimission to go higher than that that the codec would be impposibly stretched, we're talking full 1920x1080 4:2:2 I believe, and that's a hell of a lot of data even at 30 fps let alone 60. It does still mean though that there are still compromises to be made if you're looking to buy the 'perfect' all round camera.
Steve

Peter, I'm not sure that you're correct in saying that no-one thinks the EX1 image will look better than the 2700, I'm sure quite a few people think it might, and they may be right. It does look good I must admit (I'm a Varicam fan in a lot of ways)! And it is full 1920x1080, so the 720 Varicam has a lot of work to do to get up there. Likely the DSP etc. will be better, but even so, you might be surprised.


Couldn't agree more Steve -- hence my concern at plunking down ~$38k for the 2700. I'm sure when we get it out in the wild it will look awesome, but awesome enough? Well, I don't want to open up that can of worms as it's already been addressed in another thread I started. I guess it will all be answered in some very in-depth testing that is sure to occur between the EX3 and 2700. The one great thing about the 2700 is the intra-frame codec and CCD's -- rock solid. CMOS always gives some surprises, for sure.

I can't wait to see the images of the 2700. On that note, who here has actually seen them? It would be great to hear some subjective evaluations.

Peter

The presence of the SDI port on the EX-1/3 goes a long way to muddy-up the waters in the image quality debate.

Without the SDI, I don't think these less expensive cameras would have a chance to really be compared to the more expensive models.

The presence of the SDI port on the EX-1/3 goes a long way to muddy-up the waters in the image quality debate.

Without the SDI, I don't think these less expensive cameras would have a chance to really be compared to the more expensive models.

Maybe I'm crazy, but it just seems to me that an SDI port will appeal to a very small minority of camera users. Really, how many people are going to be able to hook the camera up to a hard disk, or one of those Panasonic P2 recorders that does AVC-Intra, etc. For most shooting scenarios, I just can't see the SDI port being that useful. I'd rather have a great codec built into the camera (ala AVC-Intra).

Also, the SDI port can't help the fact that an EX-1 or 3 have 1/2" chips, and that you can't improve the glass (at least on the EX-1).

Or am I missing something?

No, you are right, but what is fueling this debate is one can get full raster uncompressed footage out of a $6,500 camera.

This has never been available at this pricepoint.

The other cameras have a great recording codec, but cost 4 to 6 times as much.

The portable SDI solutions in development seem like an affordable way to get a lot of information out of the camera.

To me it all comes down to money and what your type of work pays.

Good enough has many different levels.

No point in investing $50,000 in a camera rig if your clients don't have the desire or means to pay for the quality.

I am basing this upon my situation of buying equipment out of my pocket, for my business and not working for an entity that will purchase the equipment.

Ellis, the Flash XDR is going to be a very portable, very useable way to get the SDI out onto CF cards - and I think CF cards have a lot going for them, mainly that they are consumer media so a) they're relatively cheap, and b) they'll tend to advance pretty quick in terms of storage space/write speed etc. as it's such a mass market.
And as for lenses, I think the debate here really must be about the EX3 not the EX1, as I don't think there really can be a comparison between any fixed lens and interchangeable lens camera. And don't be fooled about ideas of top-end glass being used on Varicams and the like - a lot of the HD lenses are pretty medicore, even the bloody expensive ones (CA being a definite issue), and so while you might see a benefit if you're putting Zeiss Digi primes etc. on your Varicam, very few people actually do (in TV world at least), most end up using Canon HJs etc., often with 2x extenders, often at less than ideal apertures, and the results often looks pretty dodgy. When HD first hit the scenes there was all sorts of talk about how you must only use primes, and if you did have to use a zoom it should be the very best quality, certainly the idea of a 2x extender would have been laughed at, you also shouldn't try to pull your own focus as you'd never get it good enough.
Steve

As demonstrated by a lot of threads in the HD aquisition area, I think we can all agree that it is messy right now!

It has never been so difficult to decide on a camera purchase, unless one has a large budget.