I've been wading through much of the HVX200 info/threads here, plus the Jarred's and Barry's nice reports and other stuff around the web and from my view, the conclusion is clear. This is design grand slam, a wunderkind, possibly the most revolutionary moving image camera since Pathe 9.5 or 16mm or even Super 8mm.

Of course, they have to actually manufacture a camera that executes this design, but given the DVX100 series and Varicam track record, that's a reasonable safe bet.

PART 1

First, P2 = solid state memory record for motion picture storage. I don't really think people appreciate how big a deal this is. Of course the cost is high to start, but that will change.

People are too hung up on hard disk drive recording. I've been around camera and disk drives for many years. The reason moving parts disk drives are nothing but a niche solution (barring a forthcoming revolution there) is simple. The record head and medium must be in motion to each other.

Need hard example? Take an iPod or laptop or portable hard drive including a firestore. Get a solid stream of data, even just DV stream, writing steadily to the disk. While it's writing, shake, rattle, drop, leave in 100F degree sun, 0F cold, drop it a few times.

Now examine your date (assuming you did not kill your drive). Hard Disc recording is not the future of motion picture camera storage. I'm typing this on a Thinkpad t41p with shock protection. How does that work? It pauses the drive. Great for protecting a laptop drive, bad for writing a stream of data as the drive will pause as long as the shock continues, so a "record buffer" would not guarantee successful stream recording.

Unless someone design a drive that can reliably write data as solid state, solid state is the revolution.


PART 2

The HVX200 promises a 1080 line full progressive image affordable to the non-professional. This what the 35mm still camera did for photography. DV is no where near the resolution or color fidelity of 35mm film.

HDV involves some really painful compromises in resolution (due to compression of moving images) and provide poor quality color space and audio. HDV-Pro may help a little, but it still looks to me like a consumer format only.

As long as HVX200 does not cheat to much to provide 1080p images, will we all suddenly have the same image resolution that Hollywood has (sure, real 35mm negative has more, but by the time it ends up in your average cineplex or DVD, only 1% of the world (namely us camera geeks) can tell a difference or any.

The only real "advantage" is short DOF but I think that's more aesthetic trend than "advantage".

NON-ISSUES

(1) Interchangeable lenses. This is just Canon (and now JVC) marketing gimmick. As a former XL1 owner of XL1 and all lenses, I quickly realized this was nothing like the real world of my Canon SLR and EF lenses. The simple fact is that no spectrum of lenses exist. The HD100U looks even more ungainly than the XL2 system given the staggering price of the wide angle lens.

Panasonic simply realizes that fact. It would be wonderful if there were 50-100 1/3" lenses around, but I don't think it will ever happen. The 13X range of this lens cover 95% of the lens needs. Only nature shooters needing extreme telephoto really benefit by Canon's XL system

(2) P2 Cost

What price is reliable field recording? That sums it all for me. If i miss a shot, I miss a shot. There is no way to make reliable moving disk mechanisms and solid state seems to alway be way ahead of moving recording mediums. Cost will always be somewhat higher, but then again, the difference between getting a shot and losing it is everything.

But it is much cheaper than DVCProHD or HDCAM tape decks (and you really need two of those to edit). That's the real revolution. P2 needs to be compared against HD decks, not miniDV decks and storage (like the current firestore etc.)

(3) XL3, ZR2 et al.

This camera is bigger deal than the DVX series. Panasonic has spent years working on DVC-Pro/HD, P2, 24p, Variable frame rates and it all pays off here. I don't expect Sony or Canon or anyone else to be able to compete here for some time unless they license Panny's tech. Despite the speed tech is moving today, it still takes years to develop new platforms. Panny has done that and the HVX200 is their (and our) reward.

BONUSES

(1) Slow-Motion. Even in pro HD, this is still the holy grail. To think of having access to this before many other pros get it, that rocks

(2) 4 tracks uncompressed audio. What a wonderful addition for narrative and doc shoots.

(3) A ton of user driven design changes (the 4:3 LCD moving status off the image being my favorite)

BOTTOM LINE

This is the camera I've been waiting for. Sure, I still find my current DVX100a an excellent tool for SD video, but it's not the holy grail.

If Panasonic does execute this design, I think it marks a whole new chapter in motion image recording.

Well-said Stephen. I couldn't agree with you more.

And I think HD is closer than many think. There are a lot of cable and satellite HD channels starving for programming. I have glorious HD delivery via Time Warner cable for the SAME PRICE of regular SD cable. A lot of great HD shows, but also a lot of repetition.

And I just bought a Mitsubishi 42-in HDTV for only $600!!! OK, OK, it was a one-of-a-kind open box model. But prior to this the cheapest I had ever seen one was $1,200. As soon as these HDTVs get below $1,000, sales will take off. The computer manufacturers learned this years ago.

So bring it on! I can't wait. :-)

The slow mo has been around on the Varicam for a long time.

This will be a nice camera. But it is only that. A camera. Its not the holy grail. We will see if the video world changes greatly as a result of it when it is released. And that won't be until the end of the year.

The world won't just stop until this camera is released. Please just keep making cool stuff with your current cameras. If, when the HVX is released, it is affordable for you and P2 cards are a viable cost, then buy it. Until then the world keeps on revolving.

I must say, I agree with you both...

Yes, as Simon says, (no pun intended) we can keep creating the same great content we have been on our current cameras. And that won't change.

But what is about to change is absolutely incredible. MiniDV changed video production, but it did so by giving us 4:1:1 color space and 25mbs data stream that were technically inferior to professional broadcast equipment at the time. HDV is trying to do it again. With Panasonic's new camera, we're still in that prosumer price range, and thus imager size and lenses fall into a certain quality range, but the camera records to established professional grade codecs, for both SD and HD. Yes, I know for the ultra high end HD, there's a lot less compression on HDCAM and HDCAM SR, but it's not like the Varicam with it's DVCPRO HD is some slouch's camera that is the joke of professional HD. It's widely popular because of the features it offers.

So for the first time a camera manufacturer is saying to us, "Look, we could give you some lower format rife with even more compromises in image quality than our 'professsional format' already has, but we know that we can give you our 'professional format' in this smaller camera at this price point. So we will." Well kudos for us. And kudos for Panasonic, who is going to make a killing on this camera.

So yeah, other cameras and formats aren't dead. But we know now that we don't have to settle for a lesser format...

There is one issue that has just come up in my mind regarding programme delivery. Nope, I'm not going to go on about how HDDVD isn't here yet. Instead I'm going to talk about broadcast.

Havinf DVCpro50 and HD means that broadcasters will no longer have the ability to restrict the little guys submission of footage to the same degree anymore. We won't generally have to try and fool engineers by copying our master to Digibeta for example.

However there's a little spanner in the works. P2 eliminates the cost of a deck. But ONLY for the person performing the editing. However one would still need a DVDproHD deck to deliver a final master copy on. The P2 cards would be too small (and valuable) to hand over to a broadcaster.

Well here's the rub...

I don't think that acquisition and editing will be the only ones going tapeless... Who's to say that we won't be delivering files on some kind of optical disk. The equipment is certainly there... and maybe it won't be optical disks, who knows. In the interim, when sending something to broadcast, I suppose one could always rent a deck... unless of course you're sending something weekly, but then, if you're doing some kind of regular broadcast spot, you can presumably afford the deck...

But I think in the long run, as everything goes truly digital, so will broadcast...

The camera is a god send for filmmakers

Nuff said.

The real revolution has already occurred, and that has been putting out-of-the-box technologies into the hands of the sole practitioner. One person capable of generating images, editing, motion graphics, sound, outputting to a marketable format. It's a miracle. Like the desktop publishing revolution which geared up in the 1980s--we now take for granted that we can sit at home generating our own high-end publications, if we wish. But when I was working in publishing in the 80s, it was all about the vertical camera, the linotype typesetter, the light table, etc. This took many years to play out, and many, many expensive technologies became roadkill along the way, and now we don't have a dominant player, but instead have many new pathways to achieve similar effects.

We are living in a multi-format age, but somehow we still inhabit a mind-set where there is a clear "winner." By the virtues of my own little production studio, with FCP, a GL2, and an Apple superdrive to output, the major battle has already been won. The revolution is not located in the format itself but in the choices it affords the end user and in the choices which that end user decides to make. It will be fascinating to see where all of this lands ten years from now, when the revolution matures.

Just some thoughts....

I agree that this camera looks incredible. This is "professional" technology being brought down to "prosumers". Which of course signals that "professional" technology is about to take another big step forward, otherwise Panasonic wouldn't just hand this over to a much lower price bracket, thus embarrassing, at least in part, the people that invested in their much more expensive camera's.

I think the comparison to 16mm is pretty apt. Which contradicts some of the other things that have been said. The difference between HD video and 35mm is still pretty noticeable, and can be identified by a lot more than just "those in the know". Take "Collateral" for example, which looks pretty great, but still a little "off" (I don't mean this in a bad way), even if the average person couldn't figure out what was different about it. Which is in many ways like 16mm, which is an inferior format, with less detail, but which the average person might mistake for an "off" 35mm if they saw it projected in a nice print. What I am meaning to say is that I think it is counter-productive to blur lines between mediums and formats, and to say that they are "pretty much" comparable, because that's exactly what companies like Panasonic and the like want us to feel and think about their camera's (just as DVD manufacturers want us to think that watching a DVD at home is the same as watching the film projected in the theater), and it isn't responsible in terms of considering formats and camera's and mediums to blur those lines as a consumer and say that something is the "holy grail". This camera isn't going to give us the resolution that Hollywood has. It will give us great resolution, probably wonderful pictures, and I agree that this is a big step forward. But Hollywood will have 35mm film, and better HD camera's with higher resolutions soon enough. But we will be a bit closer And then this will happen again with another camera, and we will be even closer, until hopefully there is nowhere left to go, and the gap (at least in picture quality and resolution) will disappear. This camera, however, is not going to do that alone.

I agree that it is part of the revolution (which has been going on for decades, or arguably, since film's invention) but it is not "THE" revolution.

[QUOTE=Joel Guy]This camera, however, is not going to do that alone.QUOTE]

what??!! but this is the "holy grail" camera, this makes the best movies. you dont need good storylines or great lighting anymore cos the HVX is so great it dont need any of the other things which make good viewing....

another guy on an internet forum also told me that now the HVX is coming out, he'll never need to upgrade his camera anymore, that he'll be "set for life" cos it records HD 24p... apparently Sony/Panasonic/JVC/Canon have all mades agreements that once HD 24p camera are released they'll quit making any new technologies, cameras or video formats as they're tired of making heaps of money through making cameras outdated & obsolete... :)

Well said James.
doug

I understand the points about the other revolutions (desktop production etc.) and that you can do good work with your current cams etc. Good points, but the title of this thread is "HVX200 & P2, it is THE revolution".

That's my point - P2 or this cam alone is not a revolution, just evolution. But add them together:

HVX200 + P2 = The Revolution

The sum of allows reliable, affordable projection of a true, quality 1080p image to the prosumer guy. That's a big ass revolution.

While I appreciate your excitement about a truly innovative new camera concept, there are some sweeping and not on the money statements here.

Just for one, the idea that longer lenses than what the DVX provides are only used by nature shooters is just not so.

For virtually any shoot that is not totally based on scripts, sets and /or scouted prepped locations, a long lens - specifically the revolutiionary (while we're using the term) 20X Flourite programmable IS Canon glass is incalcuably valuable.

In other words every thing that people shoot professionally that's not on a set (which is the vast majority of what all cameras are usd for) can benefit enormously from as much reach as a lens can provide.

Anyone who does documetary work for instance is faced on most locations with a myriad of unplanned challenges and great oppurtunities that only longer focal lengths can handle. I just finished such a film that I could never have gotten so many of the "wow" shots and scenes that looked like multi camera setups with out it.

Likewise sweeping and narrow in it's view is the comment on DOF. Depth of field is hardly an "aesthetic trend" unless you consider most of the film making to date a trend.

That said, it looks like a great breakthrough in it's mock-up stage and if it's as good as promised, I'll add one to the toll box when it's released.

>>Just for one, the idea that longer lenses than what the DVX provides are >>only used by nature shooters is just not so.

>>For virtually any shoot that is not totally based on scripts, sets and /or >>scouted prepped locations, a long lens - specifically the revolutiionary (while we're using the term) 20X Flourite programmable IS Canon glass is >>incalcuably valuable.

That's not exactly what I said/meant. I was referring to the lens choices on the XL series. The 20X Flourite lens reach on the XL2 is available on GL series, well before, so it's use on the XL2 is not even evolutionary, much less revolutionary. Other cams can use an telephoto adapter. The 13X reach of the HVX200 is pretty good in my book.

I was referring to the EF adaptor for super telephoto. Because you lose certain functions with the EF adaptor, I don't see it a flexible, general purpose tool.

20X is a useful lens, but it's not wide and most cinematographers I talk to, including myself :), prefer wide over telephoto if given the choice. The Canon 3X is okay, but I consider the Leica on the DVX100 series is superior glass in every way (quality, range, sharpness, color rendition, focus and zoom controls).

>Likewise sweeping and narrow in it's view is the comment on DOF. Depth of >field is hardly an "aesthetic trend" unless you consider most of the film >making to date a trend.

I respectfully disagree and have posted here about this in the past. Short DOF is used by 1/3" video shooters to mimic the look of 35mm. By using long telephoto with short DOF, the limitations of DV SD are disguised somewhat. Wide shot with lots of detail just fall apart on DV, especially on larger screens.

With 1080p, 4.2.2 or 4.4.4 color space, short DOF is not an obsesssion (that's why HDCAM shooter don't spend hours discussing it either, even though HDCAM cams also, to a lesser extent, have the same issue with DOF that DV shooters do. Wide shots with detail look much, much, much better.

Also, if you've ever shot anamorphic lenses on 35mm or 65mm, your obsession is trying to get more DOF, not less.

That said, it looks like a great breakthrough in it's mock-up stage and if it's as good as promised, I'll add one to the toll box when it's released.[/QUOTE]

Stephen,
I meant no offense to anyone by "amening" James' statement. I was simply agreeing with the sarcastic humor; not making light of your initial post. As a technology teacher and amatuer videographer I couldn't agree more with you and share your excitement about this camera and P2 technology. I think the advances made in prosumer video cameras and editing software (within the past couple of years) has been incredible. Less than 6 months ago I purchased the FCPHD production suite and should I decide to go HDV I'll need to upgrade to FCP5. Oh well.............
doug

<<That's not exactly what I said/meant.>>

Well it is what you said: ""Only nature shooters needing extreme telephoto really benefit by Canon's XL system"

And so I made my point as to why I and many other producers find the Canon XL lens system of great value and much greater than a fixed lens system. So do most/all professional film makers for all the same reasons. A good camera with a fixed lens is good. A good camera with lens options is better...again for obvious reasons. If you're talking price point then that's another discussion, but from a strict quality issue, more creative options are always better.

<< The 20X Flourite lens reach on the XL2 is available on GL series, well before, so it's use on the XL2 is not even evolutionary>>

I'll keep my revolutionary assesments and you can keep yours <g>. And for the record the GL lens is not the 20X XL2 flourite. And again, a flourite lens under 2k with 850mm reach, image stabilization, progammable focus and zoom as well as the variable zoom options is pretty revolutionary if you've lived in the multi lens world that I have.

<<. The 13X reach of the HVX200 is pretty good in my book.>>

I would never dispute that. But the idea of interchangeable lenses being a "marketing gimmick" is just totally far fetched from a professional stand point.



20X is a useful lens, but it's not wide and most cinematographers I talk to, including myself :), prefer wide over telephoto if given the choice.>>

Which is why I and most cinematograhers :) prefer an interchangeable system for serious work.


<<The Canon 3X is okay, but I consider the Leica on the DVX100 series is superior
glass in every way (quality, range, sharpness, color rendition, focus and zoom controls).>>

I've worked with both from different shooters and multi cams and never seen that advantage, so it's awfully subjective.


<<I respectfully disagree and have posted here about this in the past.>>

No direspect takem, but having worked and working in film and using a box of pimes on my P&S set up, I kust don't agree with your opinion, but I appreciate your thoughts on it.

<<Short DOF is used by 1/3" video shooters to mimic the look of 35mm.>>

Too sweeping. Short DOF is a technique in analog and digital photography (I use both) and a technique in analog and digital film making ( I use both). I'm not mimicing anything, I'm going for a certain look based on the creative needs of my project. Having those options is better than not having them and you're never going to convince someone who wants the full range of creative options that they're trends or mimes, just because new inexpensive cameras don't offer them.

Good discussion Stephen.

I'd say it's evolutionary--it's the natural next step for DVCProHD and even the DVX100A.

heath

Wow, great discussion here guys.

I couldn't help but point out the Freudian typo here Jim,

"I'll add one to the toll box when it's released."

Given the cost of all the new toys coming out, "toll box" may be more fitting than "tool box" actually.

:)
That gave me a good laugh.

Almost as good as a paper I once wrote in college for a psych class, where I apparently had a repeated typo throughout the paper which spellcheck didn't catch. I referred to "Freud" as "Fraud" more than once.
:)
The professor had a good laugh over that one.

I have to agree with Jim on the fact that an interchangeable lens system isn't a gimmick, I think it really gives people freedom. You can pick the lens that's best for each shot. I know maybe Canon didn't bring out a whole bunch of lenses specifically for the XL series, but they at least showed you could have an interchangeable lens system on a dv cam.
I think that deserves respect, at the least.

Nobody thinks this camera is going to write their script for them, or guarantee other high production values, so saying the camera isn't revolutionary because of it is a little silly.

The revolutionary factor of the cam is that it shoots on a professional format and includes professional features (variable frame rates, etc...). Up until now, equipment in this price range was shooting compromised formats, and were purposefully crippled so as not to "cannibalize" higher end models.

Finally, someone else who understands what I've been trying to say about it...

You still need skill and talent to make this camera worth anything, but it's nowhere near the compromise that a DV or HDV camera is in terms of format and features (minus of course the non-interchangeable lenses).

<<Wow, great discussion here guys.

I couldn't help but point out the Freudian typo here Jim,

"I'll add one to the toll box when it's released."

Given the cost of all the new toys coming out, "toll box" may be more fitting than "tool box" actually.
>>



Yeah <g>. I never proof my posts which is pretty bad for a writer, but when I do take the time to post instead of usually just reading, I'm always firing something off between studios and meetings. I just looked back at that post and it looks like a remedial 6th grader typed it.

At least I didn't call it a "troll" box.

>>Canon XL lens system of great value and much greater than a fixed lens system. So do most/all professional film makers for all the same reasons.

Not all, I sold my XL1, standard lens, 14x manual and 3X lens after 3 years of use. The standard lens was not a joy to focus and zoom, the 14x was good on focus, but no motor zoom or OIS, the 3X no manual control, limited focal range and sloppy focus, esp on wide without production monitor.

I agree with your arguments completely in principle about value of interchangeable lense verses fix. Completely. But only in principal. The Canon XL "system" is just not really a interchangable lens "system". And I don't agree with the design engineers on how they split up the features.

I found all the lens choices (including the new 20X) to be nothing but 4 compromise rather than 4 great choices. So that's why I finally decided it was more gimmick and theory than practice. Just look at the EF lens line compared - or even the new digital line from Canon. That's an interchangeable lens system, Canon's XL is just really 3 options.

I've never missed anything but a little telephoto on my DVX100a - focusing is much faster and more accurate, wide is wonderful and no need to change lenses when going from telephoto to wide.

>>I'll keep my revolutionary assesments and you can keep yours <g>. And for >>the record the GL lens is not the 20X XL2 flourite.

Well, it's 20X and it's Flourite, so is it very, very similar glass.

>I've worked with both from different shooters and multi cams and never >seen that advantage, so it's awfully subjective.

In films that were shot at our 48 Hour Film Festival last year, there was a huge difference between the sharpness and color of XL1s and DVX100a footage. I attribute some of that to the lens (XL1s were using 16x standard lens) some to progressive scanning. Perhaps it's all due to progressive, but my eye says otherwise.


>>Too sweeping. Short DOF is a technique in analog and digital photography (I use both) and a technique in analog and digital film making ( I use both). I'm not mimicing anything, I'm going for a certain look based on the creative needs of my project. Having those options is better than not having them and you're never going to convince someone who wants the full range of creative options that they're trends or mimes, just because new inexpensive cameras don't offer them.

Again, I agree in principle, but the DOF range differences between the XL2 and HVX200 are not signifigant to affect a purchase decision. I still see plenty of DV projects with excessive short DOF (as well as plenty of that crappy fake short DOF, focus blur stuff even on film and HD commercials). It is a visual trend.

I have a whole soapbox rant about how easy it is to zoom in a single object for a "cool shot" vs. carefully composing a wide shot with multiple points of interest, but that is very area 51 :)

Bottom line, I had three gripes with my DVX100a:

1 - No native 16:9 (after one shoot with the anamorphic, despite Barry Green's excellent book, it went on eBay).

2 - No 16:9 in LCD

3- 10x too short at long end

This camera solves my only gripes plus gives me HD with the HDV which has not impressed me at all. And then give me 1080p 24fps. I still can't quite get over it.

If you look at all the many tiny changes as well vs. the DVX100a series, Panasonic seems to be the manufacturer listening most to boards like this.

That I respect and I hope continues. It wouldn't hurt to see other manufacturers doing the same.

I can simplify my long rant this way:

P2 + HVX200 = Revolution

One without the other is not the huge deal that both of them are together (if not for the simply fact that P2 drops $20K from cam's price and probably 5-10 lbs from the weight since no need for DVCPro-HD deck.

thanks for that Doug :) i hope everyone else understood my sarcasm..

maybe going off topic here a bit... but isn't it funny that if you start a thread regarding camera specs, or camera A vs camera b, or which camera specs are better showdown you'll get 50 replies... but when i started a thread in the "techniques for independant filmmakers" section on this board about the short documentary film i'm planning on making & asking any advice on how to do it, storyline, tips etc I got no response at all!..... wouldn't it be nice if we focussed on those things as much as camera specs? now that would be REVOLUTIONARY!

Absolutely.

The problem is that I see a lot of people, as per the Sony, somehow looking upon the new cameras as being some kind of saviour that will enable them to hit the big time and be taken seriously by big movie moguls.

I for one would love to see the other forums pick up much more. The film look forum rarely seems to have anything new posted for example. Its almost as if people think that SD has frozen and theres no point in even planning any new projects until the new camera arrives.

It would be nice if conversation shifted mainly over to production techniques. That way no matter whether we are shooting with a Panny GS400 or a SDX900, or an HVX200, we would all be working towards getting awesome results regardless. Resolution is just resolution. It doesn't mean the techniques of lighting, editing, acting, composition etc go away.

Lastly I'm going to be very hard on some. On many forums people really do seem to think that the HVX will be their holy grail. That they will be able to make a film taken seriously by people. That they will be able to get a film out. Approx 0.000001% of these people will ever do a film out of their production. If they, or anybody here, is serious about filmmaking and thinks the HVX will be the saviour, I just want to say one thing.

If you want to make a movie for filmout now, you can hire a Varicam for a very reasonable price. Your lighting and crew will cost the same whatever camera you use depending on how you do it (volunteers, industry vets, whatever). Your filmout will cost the same too (even though it would be the distribution company, not you, that pays for this). But I can tell you now that hiring that Varicam would probably work out cheaper than buying a new HVX for the production. If your film is successful you could buy a hundred HVXs!

If you want to shoot high def and release a film you can do it now. There's nothing to stop people other than talent or lack of it.

So I think James that you should keep repeating the mantra. This camera is many months off. Lets have some proper discussion on the real issues of moviemaking on the other forum subjects,

thanks for that Doug :) i hope everyone else understood my sarcasm..

maybe going off topic here a bit... but isn't it funny that if you start a thread regarding camera specs, or camera A vs camera b, or which camera specs are better showdown you'll get 50 replies... but when i started a thread in the "techniques for independant filmmakers" section on this board about the short documentary film i'm planning on making & asking any advice on how to do it, storyline, tips etc I got no response at all!..... wouldn't it be nice if we focussed on those things as much as camera specs? now that would be REVOLUTIONARY!

I think we do focus on those aspects....away from here.

When I come to the board I usually do so to read about equipment. I learn how to shoot from working and school, or through research. I'll only delve into discussions on technique here if somebody asks a specific question, such as "How do I light _____ scene?", or when I need to know how to do something specific.

For most members generalized discussions on shooting techniques aren't interesting. With those broad topics/questions such as "How do I make an independent film?" (not singling you out, they pop up all the time). There's way too much info to post, so most people just pass them by. This doesn't mean we're not concerned with similar things, just that the medium iof a message board might not support that kind of vast discussion.

well said Simon...

whats so difficult about giving advice in general on short doco films? hasn't anyone on here made one before? surely there must be someone who's made this type of film who can give any general advice in point form or similar...

and if my question is boring about advice on a short film, don't you find this P2 section even more boring? virtually every post is the same thing about whether the cam can record to HD etc.....

While I still think this camera is a revolution in, well cameras, and the holy grail of motion cameras, a camera is only a tool.

While some people may spend all their time on camera boards obsessing about technical minutue, a lot of people here, including myself, are making films or working on projects most of the time and use whatever tool works for us.

I currently have two of my short films on the film festival circuit, "The Golden Girl and the Sea of Tranquility", shot with a $199 VHS-C consumer camera. It premieres tomorrow at RiverRun (www.riverrunfilm.com) and "Lunatic", a frame by frame restoration from VHS of a Super-8 film I shot years ago.

I also just completed two HD stop-motion pieces that I created using the still camera function off an Optura 40. How's that for the first 1080p 24fps HD project made with a $700 miniDV cam. I've entered those in a couple of fests.

And I'm in post in my current project "Outside In" that mixes DVX100a anamorphic,1080p graphic footage and my own 35mm motordrive motion footage where I create 24 fps 35mm footage using a Canon SLR and Twixtor from RevisionFX.

And there are many other working filmmakers and videographers here using all sorts of stuff. But while online forums are great way to discuss technical, procedural and other issues, I don't think they are they best way to interact creatively with others.

That's face to face - here in Greensboro we created www.triadindie.com for just that reason. Group101 films, film Salons, and similar do the same thing. Get people out there, creating, interacting, sharing, learning. You're not going to get that on BBS.

"wouldn't it be nice if we focussed on those things as much as camera specs? now that would be REVOLUTIONARY!"

No basic disagreement with your point, James. But to be fair, it IS the week of NAB. Can't blame the boyz and gurlz if they're excited about new toyz!

My first post on this great website :-)

Great thread, guys..

However, i'm confused now.
Reading for few hours on this discussions board (found after some quick search on Google), to basically found some information about Canon XL2, now i'm just not sure WHICH camera i'll buy this year. If i understand well (english to being my primary language) it seems that Panasonic HVX200 is the absolute camera for 2005 regarding value v.s. overall quality.

Well, since every tool's possibilies is limited by his user, i must ask:

" For what particular use (ex: "movie-like" filmaking) HVX200 would be a MUST-HAVE ? "

Let's say i want higher image quality possible, best lighting/contrast control, best "film-like" look and that i'm planning to transfer on 35mm. Should i go with XL2 or wait for the HVX200 ?

I'm a newbie. I'm more involved in photography, so when i compare lens/camera i like to SEE the difference, which is simplier with photography than video footage i guess...

Thanks for listening and sorry to disturb your high-tech conversation ;-)

Jon

" For what particular use (ex: "movie-like" filmaking) HVX200 would be a MUST-HAVE ? "
Well, if you want to shoot 1080/24p, the HVX will be the only camera that can do that, so that might be one category.

Let's say i want higher image quality possible, best lighting/contrast control, best "film-like" look and that i'm planning to transfer on 35mm. Should i go with XL2 or wait for the HVX200 ?
That remains to be seen. Just from the specifications, if you're planning on a 35mm transfer, the HVX theoretically *should* be far superior, since it can shoot 1080/24p. However, I'd say that anyone who was planning to transfer to 35mm should be shooting on 35mm in the first place, since the cost to blow up the footage at the end will be about as much as you would have spent on 35mm stock in the first place.

However, shooting HD may change that formula some... it used to be that not only would a DV blowup cost about the same as shooting on 35mm, but also the end product wouldn't look nearly as good. With the opportunity to shoot 1080/24p, the quality difference may not be so great. When the HVX comes out, it may be time to revisit that formula.

I'm a newbie. I'm more involved in photography, so when i compare lens/camera i like to SEE the difference, which is simplier with photography than video footage i guess...
Then it's way, way, way too early to start looking for these comparisons. We won't see any HVX footage for a few months, and the camera itself won't exist for sale until October, at the earliest, and maybe not until December.

Many of the veterans here would also ask you to consider, if you are a newbie as you say, why do you feel you need to jump in at the very top of the game, with the top-of-the-line-affordable-high-definition camera? You may be better served getting something a little less overwhelming, and learning the craft, before putting down the big bucks to buy a $5,000 or $6,000 camera. Your choice, of course...

Patience has never been my strong suit, but I must be getting more of it with age. After ultimately being underwhelmed by the XL2 for budget broadcast production, I initially viewed/hoped/prayed Sony's FX1 would ignite "the revolution." While I think the Sony is a boss piece of engineering, the more I explored the HDV format, the more bitter the taste in my mouth became. And after Barry Green and Jarred Land's comparision of DVX/XL2/FX1, I threw in the towel and blew my aquisition budget on a down payment on an Infiniti G35 coupe.

Now, thanks to Panasonic, I've got six months or so to start socking away cash again (or at least pay down the credit cards) not only to pick up the HDX200, but to build an entire production suite around the P2 format. If money saved is money earned, P2 pays for itself right out of the box as I delete mutiple tape decks from my Excel spreadsheet.

While much can and has occured on the way to the altar with "the next big thing," I feel rather comfortable waiting on the HDX release, knowing that Panasonic's recent history from Varicam to SDX to DVX has been nothing short of home runs for HD, ED and SD. The fact that they are going to give us all those formats in a single package...well that's a revolution in and of itself.

The problem I see in 2006 is that I may not be the only kid on the block with one of these babies, and I may not be able to make the margins I need to keep up the car payments unless I go back to blended scotch. Fortunately at this point, there are many who apparently don't view the world of tapeless recording and edit as I do, citing the "high" cost and "short" recording time delivered by SD memory at today's level of technology. Too each his own and more power to them.

Personally, I can't wait for this camera. It's everything everybody has been asking for and then some. You can see this very clearly by the virtual absence of questions (unlike HDV) because Panasonic chose to use tried and true formats and codecs already well-established in the NLE world. The planets have aligned and the world has changed. Thank you Panasonic for creating products that your customer base wants rather than attempting to
create a custormer base for a product your company wants.

QUOTE--And after Barry Green and Jarred Land's comparision of DVX/XL2/FX1, I threw in the towel and blew my aquisition budget on a down payment on an Infiniti G35 coupe.--QUOTE


*falls off the chair*

Hahhaa! :-)


*climb back*

Got a similar situation with an RX-8... ;-)

Toys, toys, toys

Sorry for being off topic...

How's that RX8 drive? I had an RX7 for a while and felt it was a highly underrated car... man that thing could haul...

Boys, boys! Take the auto talk to the TOTEM Poll, please. Thanks,

Sorry for being off topic...

How's that RX8 drive? I had an RX7 for a while and felt it was a highly underrated car... man that thing could haul...


I test drove the RX8 and it finished a close second in my decision. Be careful in Chicago however. You really need an SUV in that town as the potholes will regularly crush aluminum rims and rip low profile tires clean off. Too bad the Mayor decieded to spend a billion (yes, a BILLION) dollars on a new downtown park instead of making the streets safe for cars that cost more than the house I grew up in.

Again, let's talk about the HVX200, NOT a car.

heath

You'd think with what people are paying for gas, P2 cards would be a bargain. I wish I could reuse my gas 100,000 times :)

Before they wondered wildly off topic, I think it's an important point, especially for those of us thinking about the business angle, that the HVX200 is much more about up front costs than ongoing costs. Once you have you record setup, that becomes a zero budget item.

However, for those that just are used to keeping miniDV tapes as archive master and backup for a project, they will need to rethink their backup archive setup. Fortunately, drives and optical disk are getting cheaper by the minute.

Hello all! This is my first post here, but I've been visiting the forum for a while.

I've read this thread because I, like others, am intersted in the new Panasonic camera. While I think it's specs are pretty impressive, the most important factor to me is not the camera, but rather the buzz. I'm currently working for a small advertising company, but also do freelance work. The cable system that is our parent company launched HDTV a while ago and is entertaining the idea of ad insertion on their HD channels. It's not an immediate action item, since they only have a select handful of HD channels available, but down the road when their HD customer base increases they will be looking to us to provide the advertising solution. I intend to recommend the Panasonic HVX200 as an upgrade to our existing Sony PD170 due primarily to the limits of HDV technology and Sony's penchant for making cameras with excessive horizontal aliasing effects. The issue I'm more concerned with is this: Would my freelance work benefit from the purchase of an HVX200?

I have to wonder about that because I'm purchasing a new camera this year and have many pre-purchase concerns. The main concern is: Will i LOSE business because I'm not working in HD? The client probably wouldn't see the difference between true 1080p HD and 480p SD upconverted to 780p, but the gimmick IS the selling point. Before, shooting in HD meant a higher price point for clients, but with the introduction of more and more budget-priced HDV and now DVCproHD, it's easy to see that HD production will be a competitive factor in the market I'm currently working in. With that said, it only makes sense to buy anything that records in HD format, or does it?

I guess for most of the people on here, upgrading to HD monitors, an NLE capable of editing HD/HDV format video and HD DVD burners must be a drop in the bucket, I on the other hand have to budget things a little more carefully. My fear is that if purchased, footage shot with the HVX200 would be so taxing on my NLE that it would turn what was a super-fast editing system into an obsolete piece of poop. I've read articles echoing this sentiment and broad statements about today's current NLE systems not being up to speed for HD editing. If this is true, then post-purchase of the HVX200, I may be limited to SD-only recording until I can get a system capable of editing HD at speeds I'm accustomed to.

Having said that, the best feature of the HVX200 in my mind is the fact that it will also record SD DV25 and DV50. My only concern is whether or not this recording will be to the P2 cards or to an additional DV tape system. I'm sure the storage of a P2 card in SD record mode will equal out to roughly the same space as a DV tape, but if the cost of the P2 cards are excesively high, then that really limits the amount of constant use I can get out of the camera before I have to dump footage. For the company I work for, it's a no-brainer because we never use a full tape on a shoot, but we don't shoot anything other than 30-60 sec commercials either.

I know I've touched base on a lot of issues, but that is kind of where my head is at right now. I think the Panasonic HVX200 is an awesome camera, but at the price range it's currently listed at, it will be kind of difficult for me to justify purchasing it if all I can shoot is SD content until my backline equipment is up to HD spec.

The answer to your question about losing business if you don't shoot HD is a resounding no. And do not allow anybody to tell you otherwise. The only way you will lose business is if someone asks you to shoot in HD and you tell them you can't.

Look, buy your new camera, and then if someone asks you to shoot in HD just rent a camera. If you start to get more HD requests than SD ones then you can think about an HVX200. I'll bet that by the time you gte requests for HD all the time the HDX will be in it's first revised model by then.

I just spent almost 20k all told on new SD equipment. "Mad!" you all say. No, not quite. Even if I was to wait for this new P2 camera it wouldn't do what I needed for my bread and butter work. P2 just hasn't enough storage for working in unpredictable conditions. Its fantastic for planned fictional stuff, but no good for the educational and community sector. Not to mention that my clients mostly do not even know what HD is yet. They've only just started asking me for DVD!

My 20k investment did however include a lot of equipment that will last me a lifetime and will never become obsolete however. I could have bought an FX1 or a Z1 instead. They work with tape. I don't want tape. I place my ease of workflow above most other things. Here in PAL land we aren't quite as resolution deficient as NTSC anyway, and 16:9 is quite normal for everyday TV.

The only people who can tell you what camera to buy are your clients.

Simon,
Even if I was to wait for this new P2 camera it wouldn't do what I needed for my bread and butter work. P2 just hasn't enough storage for working in unpredictable conditions. Its fantastic for planned fictional stuff, but no good for the educational and community sector.
I'm not sure why you say this. The HVX200 comes with a miniDV tape drive and is fully capable of acquiring and recording to tape very high quality SD footage.

IOW, it can pretty much do anything a SD camera can do, only better. <g>

Best Regards,
Pete

Urr, I already have a great SD camera. I certainly wouldn't replace it with an HDX200 for SD work.

I already have a great SD camera. I certainly wouldn't replace it with an HDX200 for SD work.

But for those folks who *are* looking to upgrade their SD gear, even if they're not ready for HD just yet, this camcorder will be well worth considering, and that's the whole point here.

Yeah, for people who can't afford 2/3" inch shoulder mount ENG cams that shoot DVCPRO 50, Digibeta, or D9, we now have a camera that gives us that quality and we own it. Sure, the lens and CCD's are a limiting factor, but... we have the higher end acquisition to some degree. Long before the whole Hi-Def craze, I knew I needed to replace my aging XL1 this year, and now it looks like for a little more than what I was looking at spending I can have HD and a better SD.

Kudos to patience!

"Look, buy your new camera, and then if someone asks you to shoot in HD just rent a camera. If you start to get more HD requests than SD ones then you can think about an HVX200."

I agree completely.
I have not bought a camera since my GL1 back in ...jeez when was that?

Meanwhile, I've been making a living shooting and editing.
I rent and borrow everytime I have a shoot.
My GL1 sits in the closet now.

I haven't bought a camera in all this time because I didn't see one that fit the majority of my needs. I've done a fair amount of HD shooting, and the rest has been pretty evenly split between 4:1:1 and 4:2:2 SD formats.

That said, for that very reason the HVX200 is exactly the camera I've been waiting for. But, if it's not for you...don't fret.

Don't let anyone tell you that you have to own an HD camera until you see that demand from your clients. In fact, don't even let anyone tell you that you have to own your own gear to make a living.

I do better than most of the people I know who spent the bulk of their income on gear. Meanwhile they are still paying off loans.

I'm not saying not to invest in yourself....just don't feel pressured to move into a piece a gear or a format that you feel may not be the right choice for you.

And after Barry Green and Jarred Land's comparision of DVX/XL2/FX1,

is this an online comparison? Sorry to hijack the thread, but if I've been looking for a good comprehensive comparison of these three cameras. Can someone post the link if it is available?

Thanks,

Kelly

Hi Kelly, you thread hijacker, you.

That comparison is located at http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

Hope this helps,

"If money saved is money earned, P2 pays for itself right out of the box as I delete mutiple tape decks from my Excel spreadsheet."

Unless I'm missing something, the new Panasonic camera isn't likely to eliminate the use of DVCProHD tape decks, unless you're planning to replace them with a big stack of hard drives. Think about it for a moment: you're certainly not going to archive your video on P2 memory cards costing over $200 per *MINUTE* of HD storage capacity, so what are your other alternatives? Basically, you can either copy your HVX200 footage to tapes or to hard drives. But most people don't seem to trust hard drives for storing their master footage, so now we're back to good old DVCProHD tape as our archiving media. So wait, what was the point of developing a camera which can't record directly to tape (in HD mode) in the first place? Okay, it's a little more rugged, but it's not going to save most people any money compared to more expensive cameras with less expensive media options. Once people realize what this means in practical terms, I wonder if there won't be a significant cooling of interest in the HVX200.

Kevin, you can archive your footage straight to DLT rather than DVCPro tape.

Aaron