Hy all!

I was just thinking about with which camera would I replace my HPX171 (that's not my intention at the moment - just thinking about it). If I WAS to replace my HPX I would definitely go for a AVCintra codec but the only cam in a sub 10k range is the 371 and I really don't need an ENG stile cam.
So my question goes: does anybody think a smaller form AVCintra cam is a near future possibility? Or is Panasonic putting all there efforts in the new 4/3 cam... There has to be a new HVX200/HPX171 cam on the way, yes?

Hard to say, but it seems like Panasonic is positioning AVCHD as the palmcorder codec of choice. A pity since DVCPRO HD and AVC-Intra 100 were great differentiators over Sony's XDCAM EX, which Sony uses to protect its higher end cameras(over $20K). Panasonic now offers no advantage codec wise with their new offerings, in fact Canon offers a better codec, JVC a more convenient codec.

The AF100 could have been a giant killer with AVC-Intra instead of AVCCAM. I'm sure AJA and Convergent are happy about it though.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com

Technology changes all the time. Today might be AVC-Intra 100. Tomorrow, who knows. I won't think about what camera to replace my HPX172 as well. When the time comes to get its replacement - I look around and see what the best camera available at that time - and make a decision. Not now. For now, my HPX172 is the best tool for me at the moment.

Yeah, I like my HPX to and there's lot's of people who aren't in the market for selling theirs to. But still, the cam is getting outdated pretty fast by the competition.

@Jeff Do you think that AVCHD is going to be the codec of choice for panasonics sub 10k market? I don't think so... A cam in the price range of 5k with a 24Mbit codec... I don't know, the times of HDV are over. To me a smaller form cam with AVCintra seems plausible plus why would the HPX300 and then 370 be released with AVCintra if they don't have intentions to further pursue this path?

I heard that the chip used to compress AVC-Intra runs too hot to put inside a small casing of the HPX172. Outdated to competition, well .... we aren't buying video cameras by the hour, right :-)? 3 years - 5 years to pay off ... then go and hunt for another one (unless Panny produces a successor to HPX172 that is so compelling - like the upgrade from HVX200 to HPX172).

I heard that the chip used to compress AVC-Intra runs too hot to put inside a small casing of the HPX172.

Really? Than install heat vents:) I don't know...

Based off of what I see coming from Panasonic, I think that they think that the AF-100 will be a sort of heir apparent to the HPX170. Same price range, much more sophisticated lens and DOF choices, similar functionality and a lesser codec/card system. I personally doubt that Panasonic will continue with P2 in hand held cameras and I can't say I blame them after the endless whining about the cost of P2 cards for the past four years. And the whining was coming almost exclusively from owners of cameras like the HPX170/HVX200, not from the HPX2000 owners.

It makes a good differentiation, P2 for people who use shoulder mounted cams, SDHC/SDXC for people who use hand held cameras.

I could be totally off base here but it wouldn't surprise me to see this moving forward. The two newest small cameras, the AG-3DA1 and the AG-AF100 both use AVCHD with SDHC cards. Seems to indicate a direction to me. Could be that the HPX170 will be the last hand held P2 camera?

Dan

Dan,
While I agree with some of your statements I disagree that Panasonic should write off P2 for the smaller cameras from a marketing or operational point of view. It was a big lift to the P2 system that they had the smaller cameras and I could see the market place shifting away from them if they don't support a smaller version.

I actually think that Panasonics marketing and strategy people have boxed their technicians in. The former seem to have specified that the codecs to be used in future products MUST be AVC-Intra or AVC-HD, and the memory MUST be P2 or SDHC. The rationale presumably because all four are Panasonic technology - use them.

It follows that AVC-Intra has to be used with P2, AVC-HD with SDHC. Hence, if you buy in to Panasonic and you want a fully approved broadcast codec, you also have to buy in to P2. Maybe not a problem if your pockets are big, and you can afford a 3000 series camera, but if the memory is going to cost you almost what the camera did......?

And the problem for Panasonic is now compounded by the new Canons. Front end aside, Canon have followed Convergent Designs lead and proved that you don't need P2 or SxS to record a fully endorsed broadcast standard codec. An endorsement that no AVC-HD camera will ever get. The pragmatic thing to do would be for Panasonic to accept Compact Flash as the memory for their handheld cameras, and there would be no trouble recording AVC-Intra 100 to it. They COULD stay with P2 - but put themselves at a market disadvantage in terms of cost.

However good the AF-100 is - and if it will use standard still camera chips it remains to be seen if they can overcome the aliasing problems - it has to be realised that using AVC-HD will limit it's acceptability. And the Canon is giving rise to an expectation that paying that sort of money entitles one to a fully approved codec.

It follows that AVC-Intra has to be used with P2, AVC-HD with SDHC. Hence, if you buy in to Panasonic and you want a fully approved broadcast codec, you also have to buy in to P2.

That sounds logical yes. Don't want it to happen though... And I can imagine lot's of people not wanting ENG form cams and wanting AVCi or some other strong codec. Put the AVCi in a smaller form cam and raise it's price, I don't know...

In about 6 months I'll get the money to buy a new camcorder with 4:2:2 encoding (I do a lot of green-screen). I was planning on the HPX300 with AVC-Intra, even though it was a bit bulky for my uses, and required me to spend significant extra money for the battery/changer and a tripod plate. But then Canon had to throw a monkey wrench into my plans by coming out with the XF300. It has 4:2:2, a more compact form factor, didn't need a tripod plate, and included battery and charger. (Darn you, Canon!)

I like the look of Panasonic video, and would really like to get a Panasonic. But unless Panasonic comes out with an AVC-Intra camcorder having a form factor similar to the XF300, I'll be getting the Canon.

Come on, Panny! Get with it before I have to go with Canon!
Ken Hull

In the case of the AF100, going P2 would have added $2K to the price point, supposedly. This is a competitive disadvantage in a highly competitive sector. I agree that Panasonic has boxed themselves in.

Sony is also looking a bit silly with a $19K 2/3" camera that is stuck with XDCAM EX, in light of what Canon has offered codec wise. Things are moving very quickly, RED and the 5D have turned the industry upside down.

As a rental house, I can't remember things ever moving this quickly nor clients accepting the compromises of DSLR's. A few years ago, most of my clients wouldn't have even considered a palmcorder for their projects.

It's telling that AJA and Convergent are making hay out of this codec chaos--the average producer doesn't want to hear about work flow issues(even though the RED and DSLR's are the most difficult in this respect). I long for the time when there was a standard format--those days are truly gone.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

In the case of the AF100, going P2 would have added $2K to the price point, supposedly. This is a competitive disadvantage in a highly competitive sector. I agree that Panasonic has boxed themselves in.
Does that $2k figure apply to the cost of the camera itself? I wouldn't have thought that a P2/AVC-Intra version of the AF100 would cost much more than an AVCCAM/SDHC version - it's more the difference between P2 and SDHC prices that would make the difference?
Sony is also looking a bit silly with a $19K 2/3" camera that is stuck with XDCAM EX, in light of what Canon has offered codec wise.
What can I say? If you're talking about the PMW350 then I've said from the start that it's a great camera - which would have been even better with the 50Mbs codec built in. So I agree with you.

But for the future, life could be far easier for Sony than Panasonic. It would be no big deal - no loss of face - for them to announce some new version at IBC which has the 50Mbs codec, and I certainly hope they do. Conceivably the next revision of the EX 1/3 could be 50Mbs as well? I don't know how difficult it would be technically, but it wouldn't give them many marketing problems. For Panasonic to announce that the AF100 was going to be AVC-Intra and Compact Flash would be far more difficult. Not just technically, but because that WOULD involve an admission that their strategy had been wrong.

Hi Daniel:

I am a big fan of P2 myself, I own eight cards. I wasn't stating that they SHOULD move away from P2 in their hand helds, I was just observing that they ARE moving away from P2 in their hand helds. That is the sad part, at some point in the future, they will move to SDXC or CF or something new and my precious P2 cards that have recorded hundreds of shows will be relics and I will sell them or throw them away.

P2 and I have a lot of good memories since 2006.

Dan

Dan,
While I agree with some of your statements I disagree that Panasonic should write off P2 for the smaller cameras from a marketing or operational point of view. It was a big lift to the P2 system that they had the smaller cameras and I could see the market place shifting away from them if they don't support a smaller version.

David,

I believe the $2K premium for P2 recording meant camera hardware cost, separate from media cost. We know the AVC-Intra board on the HPX2000 was pushing $2K as an option, this goes back a few years, and aimed at high camera clients, so may not be comparable.

Yes, I was speaking of the PMW350--great front end, fatally flawed codec for the price point. I said it in the 350 vs. HPX2700 thread and I believe it even more now. The HPX2700 has been a big success for us--doing more days of rental per month than our HDX900 ever did(and it paid for itself in the first year).

I'm not convinced Sony will cut the throat of the 700 and 800 and F900R anytime soon to modify XDCAM EX. I believe the 350 to be a non-starter in my market, whereas the Panasonic sale on the 3700 and 2700 has brought in a half dozen new cameras into the rental houses in San Francisco. This leads me to believe that P2 is finally getting some traction in the higher end, not just at the HVX200 level, and our HPX170 continues to do well, better than our EX1, although EX3's seem to be popular.

Meanwhile, Panasonic will just say that AVCCAM is as good or better than XDCAM EX, which is good enough for cameras that cost $5-6K or less. Not saying I agree, but that's seems to be their position.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

David Heath

"Canon have followed Convergent Designs lead and proved that you don't need P2 or SxS to record a fully endorsed broadcast standard codec."

Exactly. And thank Heaven's for that. It's finally time to jump into solid state recording.

Dan Brockett

"I am a big fan of P2 myself, I own eight cards."

If i owned 8 P2 cards i'd be a fan too. Otherwise i'd be a very angry man and life's too short for that.

But seriously, It does seem strange that panasonic have not updated the 170, I think it unlikely any newcomer would buy into this system with the current competition available. I also think Dan may be right that Panasonic could be dropping the P2 system for their smaller cameras.

The good news is the new Canon XF300, while relatively expensive in the UK, uses cheap media, and the camera has been given a thumbs up from the BBC, which neither the EX1/3 (without nanoflash) nor the HPX 300 have.

Ken Hull

"I like the look of Panasonic video, and would really like to get a Panasonic. But unless Panasonic comes out with an AVC-Intra camcorder having a form factor similar to the XF300, I'll be getting the Canon."

Then you'll get a camera that can be tweaked/graded to look pretty much identical to the Panasonic, and get a superb manual lens in the package with cheap media too.

Sanjin

If you're intent on sticking with Panasonic then you'll have to wait for the 4/3 camera. And lose the AVCIntra. And your P2 cards. Unless something else comes up in the meantime which is perfectly possible.

But if Dan proves to be right, and Panasonic no longer supports videographers with p2 cameras at this price range, there will be a lot of people who've bought into the P2 workflow at great expense having to sell their now useless cards for peanuts. This was the chief reason many of us avoided P2 in the first place.
In fact it's hard to see how Panasonic could get away with treating their customers like that, so fingers crossed for the Panafolks.
Personally, i can't tell the difference between 170 footage shot to p2 and 150 footage shot to SDHC, so there is no good reason to buy into P2 at that price range anyway.

Good luck.

Dom,

I think it's fair to mention that AVC-Intra 100 at 10-bit, 100Mbps should out perform the Canon 8-bit, 50Mbps codec, ditto DVCPRO HD via P2 vs. AVCHD, the former being 100Mbps, 4:2:2, I-frame vs. the latter being 24Mbps, 4:2:0, Long GOP. You might not notice a difference, but it doesn't mean the differences don't exist.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Jeff

Yes, i'm well aware of the differences. My point is i've seen 170 footage next to 150 and haven't been able to tell the difference. There are clips on vimeo proving just that. I also realsise that technically the Panasonic codec's have other advantages over the competition, but since the HPX170 has not yet been updated it doesn't mean much to people like Sasnjin. The question is, what are the people who wish to upgrade their small p2 camera, but can't, supposed to do with all their P2 cards that cost them a fortune to buy?
Or is an upgrade on the way?
If i'd invested the kind of money Panasonic have been charging for media over the years, i'd want to know the cameras were still going to be made to use them. If Dan's speculation proves correct, there will be some angry P2 card customers about. It might be good if one of the Panasonic people came over to DVinfo to assure p2 card owners that they are not going to be left high and dry. I don't think they will, but i can see why some people may be concerned.

I think it's fair to mention that AVC-Intra 100 at 10-bit, 100Mbps should out perform the Canon 8-bit, 50Mbps codec,
Oh that life were that simple......

One point that was made to me recently is that 10 bit *recording* doesn't have much point IF THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE SOURCE IS MORE THAN THE BITDEPTH OF THE CODEC. Apologies for capitals, but it's a highly significant fact. And one which, I confess, hadn't occurred to me until I was very recently corrected.

In practical terms, what it means is that 10 bit recording is very valid for the high end cameras - the two least significant bits may be faithfully recording real information. Move down the scale, and any camera with less than 2/3" chips (and quite a few with 2/3"!) will have a worse signal-noise ratio. High enough noise to swamp the differences between an 8 and a 10 bit codec. So AVC-Intra 100 may be very worthwhile due to it's 10 bit nature in a camera like the 3700, but not show any practical difference between it and an equivalent 8 bit in a far more noisy camera like the HPX300. In the latter case, all 10 bit is doing is wasting 20% of the 100Mbs - all else equal, the HPX300 would be more sensible if it was an 8 bit codec and 80Mbs, same compression quality, but gain an extra 25% of recording time per card.

So, compare 50Mbs XDCAM-HD with AVC-Intra 100 for all cameras except the very top end, and you are really comparing 50Mbs with 80Mbs in compression quality terms. Obviously there's far more than the simple numbers may suggest - long-GOP nature will benefit the 50Mbs codec, the AVC-Intra nature it's rival.

Whatever the bit depth of the codec used for recording, there may be benefits in editing in a 10 bit timeline IF a lot of post manipulation is to be done - if the editing is fairly straightforward it may make more sense to edit native.

I confess I was surprised at the time of the EBU codec trials why they gave the 8 v 10 bit issue relatively little significance - "The 8-bit bit-depth is sufficient for mainstream programmes, but 10-bit bit-depth is preferred for high-end acquisition." - but when you take the noise performance of most cameras into account it becomes obvious. Why increase your bitrate by 25% for no benefit? Spend $50,000 on a camera and yes, 10 bit is sensible. On a sub $10,000 camera it's pointless.

Well, pointless in a technical sense, but may be a good marketing line ...... :-)

Just this winter P2 as a uniform recording media was almost a life saver. Traveling around Norway quite a bit, me bringing my Hpx500 and the rest of the crew with hvx200/hpx170, it´s very convenient to just swap card when you´re in the field and suddenly one camera needs more rec time than others. Great for flexebility. Yes it cost´s money, but all pro broadcast gear cost money. It should have paid for itself in say max 3 years time anyway, if not you should look into you´re business model.

I won´t go into the "what p2 has that other memory cards don´t" debate...again, but the robustness is a key future of P2.

As David wrote, smaller cameras don´t always benefit from higher end codecs, theres more to quality than numbers in the codec. Just take a look at Top Gear in HD, at least from some of the images behind the scenes from the longer films, shot on HDX900. That´s a boring 2/3" tape based monster with the stonaged codec called dvcprohd, 8-bit. Still some of the best HD programming out there...

But maybe Panasonic should bring out the avc-ultra they mentioned some time back....that would be interesting.

One point that was made to me recently is that 10 bit *recording* doesn't have much point IF THE NOISE LEVEL OF THE SOURCE IS MORE THAN THE BITDEPTH OF THE CODEC.

In practical terms, what it means is that 10 bit recording is very valid for the high end cameras - the two least significant bits may be faithfully recording real information. Move down the scale, and any camera with less than 2/3" chips (and quite a few with 2/3"!) will have a worse signal-noise ratio. High enough noise to swamp the differences between an 8 and a 10 bit codec. So AVC-Intra 100 may be very worthwhile due to it's 10 bit nature in a camera like the 3700, but not show any practical difference between it and an equivalent 8 bit in a far more noisy camera like the HPX300.

edit

Whatever the bit depth of the codec used for recording, there may be benefits in editing in a 10 bit timeline IF a lot of post manipulation is to be done - if the editing is fairly straightforward it may make more sense to edit native.


David,

I agree that noise is a great way to waste codec compression horsepower. Panasonic has addressed noise with the HPX370, presumably. I shoot -3db with my HPX2700 as much as possible. Interestingly, because of the lower noise floor of AVC-Intra vs. DVCPRO HD, you gain an additional stop of latitude when using that codec given the same camera. My editor was amazed the first time he graded and color corrected test footage I shot in both DVCPRO HD and AVC-Intra with my 2700 of the same scenes. He was able to push the latter much further before he had banding or noise artifacts.

Regarding shooting in 8-bit and editing on a 10-bit time line, my opinion is that if you only capture 256 shades of gray, you'll never get 1024 shades of gray later. 10-bit is 4X better in tonality, but this assumes 10-bit capture. There's a reason why HDCAM SR is used for acquisition besides 4:4:4 color space, and those technical benefits apply to AVC-Intra 100 as well.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Christian magnussen

"Just this winter P2 as a uniform recording media was almost a life saver. Traveling around Norway quite a bit, me bringing my Hpx500 and the rest of the crew with hvx200/hpx170, it´s very convenient to just swap card when you´re in the field and suddenly one camera needs more rec time than others. Great for flexebility. Yes it cost´s money, but all pro broadcast gear cost money."

But you could say that about any "uniform recording media". Including SDHC/CF etc at a fraction of the price of P2. And in BBCland, neither the HVX200 or the HPX 170 are considered Broadcast quality, or indeed the HPX300. Even the larger chip EX1/3 don't make the grade without the nanoflash. Which leaves the new Canon which shoots to robust and affordable CF cards and has a thumbs up from the BBC.

Meanwhile the new Panasonic 4/3 camera, viewed by many HPX/HVX owners as the next step in the company's progression of small cameras is not even a P2 camera. The camera may well be superb, but those who've dug deep to pay for P2 cards and the accompanying codec may well feel let down.

After all, Panasonic salespeople have been promoting P2 as a system that would be a sound investment long into the future. I've heard this marketing spiel several times myself when toying with the idea of buying the HVX, and later the HPX.

I have to say as someone who almost bought into the Panasonic P2 system, i'm very happy to have taken the Canon route instead.

Dom,

I'm trying to figure out why a 1/3" palmcorder with 50Mbps MPEG2 codec is accepted by the BBC, but not a 1/3" ENG camera with 100Mbps AVC-Intra codec? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Regarding CF cards, I'm concerned by their lack of a write protect switch. A 32Gb CF card at $390 isn't that much less money than a 32Gb P2 card at $579. If $189 per memory card price difference stops you from buying your camera of choice, especially since the P2 card offers scalability of different codecs, works in cameras from $4K to $60K, is proven in mission critical field applications world wide since 2004, and has a huge family of accessories, we have different priorities in acquisition equipment. The throughput of the CF card is 90Mbps vs. 1.2Gbps for the P2 card, which means that P2 cards can be used with upcoming AVC-Ultra codecs that should offer 4:4:4 and 3D acquisition.

I think the Canon XF300 is overpriced, personally. Panasonic represents proven pro gear at all production levels, Canon is known for HDV palmcorders.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Panasonic has addressed noise with the HPX370, presumably.
A lot would depend how they did it. If with inherently lower noise chips and first stage, then it would be unquestionably good, though it seems the noise level is such that the improvement would have to be large to make a difference to the point about 8 v 10 bit.

If they achieved the noise improvement via software noise reduction techniques it's a different story. The algorithms are as likely to be "correcting" the smallest subtleties, so although these subtle bits are detail are no longer swamped by noise, they wouldn't be there at all any more!
Interestingly, because of the lower noise floor of AVC-Intra vs. DVCPRO HD, you gain an additional stop of latitude when using that codec given the same camera. My editor was amazed the first time he graded and color corrected test footage I shot in both DVCPRO HD and AVC-Intra with my 2700 of the same scenes.
But what was making the difference? Was it 8 bit v 10 bit - or other aspects in which AVC-Intra 100 is better than DVCProHD? Maybe he would have also noticed an improvement with XDCAM-HD 422 50Mbs versus DVCProHD? And we are talking about a relatively expensive camera here - maybe it's just reinforcing the point that 10 bit has more point the higher up the price ladder you go? This thread is predominantly referring to cheaper cameras, full 1080 chips better than DVCProHD replacement for the HVX171.
Regarding shooting in 8-bit and editing on a 10-bit time line, my opinion is that if you only capture 256 shades of gray, you'll never get 1024 shades of gray later. 10-bit is 4X better in tonality, but this assumes 10-bit capture.
I disagree. A 10 bit post timeline may help in avoiding rounding errors, which may build up down a chain. So if in the 8 bit world we're dealing with level "171" and it has to be halved, then will the result be 85 or 86. Translate the 171 to a "10 bit world" and it becomes 684. Halve that and it's an unambiguous 342 - 4 times 85.5.

I looked again at the EBU codec trials and they have even more to say about the relative unimportance of 10 bit - even in the post world - than I previously remembered,
Furthermore, the expert viewing tests have revealed that:
�� A 10-bit bit-depth in production is only significant for post-production with graphics and after
transmission encoding and decoding at the consumer end, if the content (e.g. graphics or
animation) has been generated using advanced colour grading, etc.
�� For normal moving pictures, an 8-bit bit-depth in production will not significantly degrade the HD
picture quality at the consumer’s premises.
Full reference at http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/trev_2008-Q3_HD-Prod-Codecs.pdf

There's a reason why HDCAM SR is used for acquisition besides 4:4:4 color space, and those technical benefits apply to AVC-Intra 100 as well.
Yes Jeff, but HDCAM SR is only used with the highest end camera heads - front ends that are capable of putting out a quality that merits 4:4:4, 10 bit etc. Nobody in their right mind would think of putting HDCAM-SR recording into a sub-$10,000 camera. It would be overkill - quite apart from meaning the camera could no longer be sub $10,000 anyway!

I'm trying to figure out why a 1/3" palmcorder with 50Mbps MPEG2 codec is accepted by the BBC, but not a 1/3" ENG camera with 100Mbps AVC-Intra codec? Doesn't seem to make sense.
I can only assume that whilst both should be suitable from a codec point of view, the quality of the optics and camera front end must be considered different. The HPX300 does seem to have a problem with such as noise, may be that's one reason why it has failed to get acceptance?
Regarding CF cards, I'm concerned by their lack of a write protect switch.
This is the only real, genuine negative I can think of regarding CF cards. But CF has been the workhorse of professional still photographers long before the video world even thought of solid state - it doesn't seem to have been a big issue in practice. And does every cameraman or editor always click over the switch when they should anyway? It is a negative, but I feel well outweighed by the positives.
A 32Gb CF card at $390 isn't that much less money than a 32Gb P2 card at $579.
That's only half the story. If we compare XDCAM 422 with CF v AVC-Intra 100, the CF card will hold twice as many minutes as the P2 card.
The throughput of the CF card is 90Mbps vs. 1.2Gbps for the P2 card
Sorry Jeff, you've got the figures wrong. I think you're making the old bits versus bytes mistake. Look at the Sandisk website and you'll see that for their CF range the quoted speeds range from 30MBs to 90MBs. 90 MegaBYTES, not 90MegaBITS.

So the equivalent figures are 240Mbs to 720Mbs. Since AVC-Ultra is due to be about 200Mbs, most of the range should be able to handle it. And even their cheapest cards should be able to handle AVC-Intra 100.

Jeff

Not sure why the beeb favours the Canon over the competition, but this thread and its links should give you some idea:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xf-series-hd-camcorders/481494-bbc-approved-canon-xf300-xf305-indie-companies.html

Along with the 50mps 4;2;2 I think the glass is of exceptional quality for this sized camera.

CF cards are not as expensive as you seem to suggest, and from what i'm reading, the camera works fine with the cheaper cards. If you do go for the UDMA range, you can still pick up something like this 32 GB card for 88 quid:
Transcend 32 GB 400x CompactFlash Memory Card: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo

Given David's point that they last twice as long too, P2 still looks very expensive in comparison.

But that's not the point i wanted to make. I'm trying to stay on topic and thinking of Sanjin who started this thread wondering if/when a new AVCinta P2 camcorder would arrive. Dan Brockett thinks they may well drop P2 altogether from the smaller cameras. If that turns out to be true, there will be many angry people about. And rightly so. The fact that the up and coming 4/3 camera will not be a p2 camera suggests to me that quite a few P2 card owners are already going to be left high and dry having been told that they were buying into a system that was going to support them long into the future.

Having said all that, we don't yet know that there will not be another small p2 card camera. Let's wait and see.

And i agree that the Canon is overpriced. In the UK it's over 9000 US. However it is the only camera of its kind that the BBC is giving a thumbs up, which for some people will make it a bargain.

This is an interesting topic indeed. It does make sense to move the P2 sistem to a higher price range cam market yes, but isn't the P2 sistem quite popular in the lower price market and wouldn't Panasonic lose lots of money if they were to cancle it...? Not to mention the angry mob that would form if such a ting would happen. Panasonic would defenetly loose lots of customers.

As for the xf300 and 305 price; I think it's overpriced to. Just wondering; how much skew is there? I for one am realy reluctant of buying a cmos cam...

David, that's an interesting topic (10bit-8bit noise). Is there a site or something where I could read further into this?

Good discussion.

Yes, sorry, my throughput figures are wrong. However, P2 has the most throughput available, 1.2Gbps is awesome. A 32b P2 E series card can be transferred via a PCD35 reader into a PCIe slot in a tower in only 5 minutes! These same P2 cards will work very well with AVC-Ultra, which as David said is 200Gbps, as well as 12-bit.

Besides the lack of write protection, CF and SD cards are small and fragile compared to P2 cards. I have been on shoots where those little cards were lost or misplaced temporarily--luckily these were used with the B-cameras. UDMA is the type of card to stick with, especially when doing 60P. If one needs more record capacity with a P2 card the options are Native modes, which AVC-Intra is inherently and available in DVCPRO HD for 720/24 and 30PN, and there's AVC-Intra 50, which is still 10-bit, I-Frame, but not full raster or 4:2:2.

Let's also remember that MPEG2 isn't as efficient compression wise as AVC based codecs.

Regarding upgrading an HPX170, if a full raster chip set is wanted, that means only one thing--CMOS. Yes, AVC-Intra could be added, but the 170 is noisy compared to the newest CMOS cameras(and I believe that Sony with the 350 and newer EX cameras, and possibly the Panasonic 370, are using noise reduction), so staying CCD with its noise and sub-sampled resolution could mean Intra is not as useful at this level. It may be with the 370, however.

I fervently believe that shooting 10-bit to begin with is superior to 8-bit capture and just editing on a 10-bit time line from 8-bit footage won't provide the same tonality. Many of the same benefits of shooting with HDCAM SR are available at a fraction of the cost with AVC-Intra 100, that's a breakthrough.

When the last episode of "House" was shot with Canon 5D's, even though they edited on a 10-bit time line(they normally shoot 35mm and transfer to HDCAM SR), they had 8-bit banding issues and had to hide the artifacts by adding noise.

I'm quite sure that the improvements my editor is seeing when using Intra vs. DVCPRO HD in terms of grading and color correction are due to the 10-bit depth. Obviously Intra also pays dividends in resolution and low noise as well, and due to AVC codec efficiency, I see less of the compression artifacts common to DVCPRO HD.

I have no doubt as to the benefits of a 10-bit codec over 8-bit, what remains to be seen is how effective this is with low cost cameras that are noisier than 2/3" high end cameras, which is David's point.

Back to the OP topic, the 170 would have to go to CMOS and Intra for an upgrade. With the upgrade would come CMOS artifacts potentially and we don't know if Intra is practical in a palmcorder size from a heat and power consumption standpoint. The 170 is only 21 months old--not exactly a relic!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

The 170 is only 21 months old--not exactly a relic!
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

That's correct but the hardware in it is old (some of it, most importantly the chips).

Besides the lack of write protection, CF and SD cards are small and fragile compared to P2 cards.
The consensus amongst still photographers over quite a few years is that CF cards are anything but fragile. I've personally heard from one press photographer who left a CF card in his trousers when he put them in to wash - the card was fine when he dried it out, and so even was the data! Compared to SD cards, yes, SD cards are fiddly - which brings me right back to the start of what I posted - The Panasonic engineers have presumably been told to use P2 OR SDHC. For a sub-$10,000 camera such as the new Canon I'd argue CF was the best compromise with current technology.

This discussion must surely only be relevant to the next few years anyway? SDXC cards have been announced and it can't be that long before they are fast enough to record a 100Mbs video stream. Come that day and it will be perfectly possible to record AVC-Intra 100 to an SD card.... as long as it's SDXC. Do you really expect to see P2 cards in cheaper handheld cameras come that? It's what happens in the next few years that will be interesting to see. On a similar point......
.......isn't the P2 sistem quite popular in the lower price market and wouldn't Panasonic lose lots of money if they were to cancle it...? Not to mention the angry mob that would form if such a ting would happen. Panasonic would defenetly loose lots of customers.
To any manufacturer, it's future customers who are most important - not past ones. You've already got the money from the latter! OK, not quite as simple as that, as you may want old customers to buy the latest and greatest in a few years time, you want to keep them loyal. BUT, if the choice is between ditching an old system because a competitor has gained a market advantage with his system, or keep going with an existing model purely for the sake of past custom, what do you think is going to happen?

In this case, I expect the number of uncommitted potential new customers massively outweighs the number of old customers who may be upgrading soon. Sorry.
Let's also remember that MPEG2 isn't as efficient compression wise as AVC based codecs.
Ooooh - that needs to have an "all else equal" added to it! And you also need to add that the price to be paid for that efficiency is increased complexity - which can manifest as more computer power needed, more power needed, higher cost for a real time encoder.... need I go on?

And for the two rival codecs, then onto their common base Sony, JVC, and Canon have decided to go with long-GOP to increase the base efficiency - Panasonic have decided to use AVC tools. There is no right or wrong, just different ways of approaching the problem, each system has it's pluses and minuses, that's exactly why the EBU gave them both an "approval" - and left it at that.
I have no doubt as to the benefits of a 10-bit codec over 8-bit, what remains to be seen is how effective this is with low cost cameras that are noisier than 2/3" high end cameras, which is David's point.
Well, the EBU didn't seem very convinced about the benefits of 10 bit over 8 bit, except at the very high end. That's good enough for me. Enough said?

I should clarify that my speculation is exactly that, speculation, I have no knowledge if Panasonic will or will not introduce a successor to the HPX170/HVX200A or if they feel that AF-100 IS that successor. It would be nice if they kept making a P2 palmcorder with AVCINTRA, I would probably buy one, but I may buy an AF-100 as well.

Some things I have discovered over the past few years as codecs have improved that changed my thinking somewhat...

1. P2 is a great format. If it turns out that Panasonic never does introduce another P2 palmcorder, I will still be very happy with the performance, security and savings that my P2 cards have given me over the past 5 years. I don't know why several of you think that P2 users will all of a sudden rebel and be mad at Panasonic? That is our business, gear changes constantly. Did all of the owners of tape-based cameras become furious when the same companies introduced all of the flavors of SS media on the market now? I don't think so. I still don't get all of the furor from the greater market about how P2 is a rip off. Those who think that just don't know what they are talking about. P2 is better than any SSM out there, is more accepted and worked with by more broadcasters worldwide than any other media. Doesn't that sort of say it all?

2. There is still this camera on the market called the HPX370. If you are crazy about P2, on a low budget and want AVCINTRA, buy it. It is an amazing value for the money, only a few bucks more than an EX1R. If you want a shoulder mounted camera. Which some of us do and some us don't. For the past couple of years, I have been flying a lot so personally for me, at this time, I would not prefer a shoulder mounted camera but that changes by the month.

3. I don't feel that 4:2:0 and CMOS imagers rolling shutter artifacts are that big of a deal for the vast majority of projects and people shooting. People obsess over specs far too much. It is getting to be boring and pointless to decide that you MUST have this feature and that feature, there is no perfect camera for everyone. So much great work is being shot with such substandard video cameras like DSLRs. It doesn't kill you to work with gear that is a compromise most of the time. I think too many people in our business are spoiled and want a single camera that does everything perfectly. I wish more of these people had experience shooting with 16mm film, tube cameras with separate 3/4" recorders, etc. Even the cheapest consumer Canon Vixias are capable of absolutely high-end beautiful looking HD images. Do people really give a crap about AVCHD vs. MPEG 2 vs AVCINTRA vs. XDCAM EX vs DVCPRO HD vs H.264 vs. RED 4k or is this mostly just idle chit chat by gear geeks?

For the few who 4:2:2 and CMOS rolling shutter are issues for, they should be buying more expensive 4:2:2 CCD cameras, the writing is on the wall. I have shot plenty of quality green screen footage with the EX1 and have seen some astoundingly good green screen shot with the 5D MKII. Is 4:2:2 better? Definitely, but how many of us shoot a LOT of green screen? For me, it is a couple of times a year usually. I used to think that 4:2:0 and CMOS were a deal breaker for me, but the market is changing. Client requirements are different but most of them involve much lower budgets so if you can swing a high-end CCD 4:2:2 camera, go for it. But for many of us who can't, we can still accomplish high-end work with cheap cameras like the 5D MKII, the 170 and the EX1. It's the skills kids. If you have a clue about how to light and do a good job, that is leagues more important that whether or not your camera is 4:2:0 or 4:2:2.

I do agree that SD cards are inherently less reliable than CF or P2 cards, I have experienced that. I have a Nikon D80 and shoot with a friends Vixia that use SD cards. My 5D MKII uses CF cards and my HPX170 uses P2 cards. All work but the SD cards are definitely the flimsiest and least reliable.

I really hope that Panasonic does come out with a new P2 palmcorder that shoots AVCINTRA. But based upon the buzz around the AF100 and the 3DA1, it doesn't look as if that is happening anytime soon. But you never know, Panasonic has surprised us before.

Dan

Dan

"I don't know why several of you think that P2 users will all of a sudden rebel and be mad at Panasonic? That is our business, gear changes constantly. "

Then perhaps you'd like to explain why for 5 years Panasonic reps have been justifying the extortionate price of these things on the grounds that the customer is buying into a rock solid long term commitment?

"If you have a clue about how to light and do a good job, that is leagues more important that whether or not your camera is 4:2:0 or 4:2:2."

Agreed. So perhaps you could explain why the Panasonic P2 Fanboys have been insisting that 4:2:2 is vastly superior, when for most people most of the time, it's not that important.

"Do people really give a crap about AVCHD vs. MPEG 2 vs AVCINTRA vs. XDCAM EX vs DVCPRO HD vs H.264 vs. RED 4k?"

Broadly speaking no. However in my experience the main offenders of peddling this kind of format one-upmanship have been Panasonic dealers shifting over-priced P2 cards.

"I will still be very happy with the performance, security and savings that my P2 cards have given me over the past 5 years."

And those who bought them this/last year?

Sorry Dan. Not convinced, and i can't help thinking Panasonic are moving the goal posts to suit themselves. But as you point out, we're speculating, and there could be an AVCintra palmcorder on it's way.

That's correct but the hardware in it is old (some of it, most importantly the chips).

The chips are new as of the HVX200A, circa June 2008, but yes, the basic architecture is from the HVX200.
Reality is that if you want full raster, you're into CMOS. The only full raster CCD camera Panasonic offers is the HPX3700 and it's limited to 30 fps.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

The consensus amongst still photographers over quite a few years is that CF cards are anything but fragile. For a sub-$10,000 camera such as the new Canon I'd argue CF was the best compromise with current technology.

I was speaking of the small size as well, but a P2 card is very robust and I'd argue that the HPX370 for under $10K is the best compromise for those that value 10-bit, I-Frame, high bit rate format with a true ENG zoom lens and ENG body. Three different codecs, slot for a wireless mic. receiver, waveform, color viewfinder and lcd display, genlock, ext. TC.


Ooooh - that needs to have an "all else equal" added to it! And you also need to add that the price to be paid for that efficiency is increased complexity - which can manifest as more computer power needed, more power needed, higher cost for a real time encoder.... need I go on?

And for the two rival codecs, then onto their common base Sony, JVC, and Canon have decided to go with long-GOP to increase the base efficiency - Panasonic have decided to use AVC tools. There is no right or wrong, just different ways of approaching the problem, each system has it's pluses and minuses, that's exactly why the EBU gave them both an "approval" - and left it at that.

Well, the EBU didn't seem very convinced about the benefits of 10 bit over 8 bit, except at the very high end. That's good enough for me. Enough said?

MPEG2 is old technology, half as efficient assuming the same frame structure, bit depth, color space.
Long GOP is not considered high-end, computers get more and more powerful for less money every year.

In LA, 8-bit codecs aren't taken seriously in production, P2 wasn't even considered until the advent of AVC-Intra 100 by many. Point is that 10-bit can potentially offer real advantages at a lower price point, why go 8-bit, Long GOP when there's a better alternative? Until I hear otherwise, the HPX370 is fully capable of taking advantage of AVC-Intra 100. An HPX2000 or 2700 don't have prices that are considered
"very high end" and I know what 10-bit offers over DVCPRO HD.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Dan

"I don't know why several of you think that P2 users will all of a sudden rebel and be mad at Panasonic? That is our business, gear changes constantly. "

Then perhaps you'd like to explain why for 5 years Panasonic reps have been justifying the extortionate price of these things on the grounds that the customer is buying into a rock solid long term commitment?

"If you have a clue about how to light and do a good job, that is leagues more important that whether or not your camera is 4:2:0 or 4:2:2."

Agreed. So perhaps you could explain why the Panasonic P2 Fanboys have been insisting that 4:2:2 is vastly superior, when for most people most of the time, it's not that important.

"Do people really give a crap about AVCHD vs. MPEG 2 vs AVCINTRA vs. XDCAM EX vs DVCPRO HD vs H.264 vs. RED 4k?"

Broadly speaking no. However in my experience the main offenders of peddling this kind of format one-upmanship have been Panasonic dealers shifting over-priced P2 cards.

"I will still be very happy with the performance, security and savings that my P2 cards have given me over the past 5 years."

And those who bought them this/last year?

Sorry Dan. Not convinced, and i can't help thinking Panasonic are moving the goal posts to suit themselves. But as you point out, we're speculating, and there could be an AVCintra palmcorder on it's way.

Dom,

It's clear you have a P2 axe to grind. If Canon HDV palmcorders do what you need them to do great! We know why Panasonic has claimed P2 as the only memory media ever needed--sales, but to be fair, it's already had a decent run and they have fleshed the work flow out with all kinds of tools and options, well beyond any other manufacturer.

Regarding 4:2:2, if you're a broadcaster, that's been pretty important. I also think 10-bit is valuable, it certainly seemed to be in the days of Digital Betacam, the best SD format available, better than DVCPRO 50, IMO.

One upping formats is what manufacturers do, always have done. Sony has thrown more formats at the wall than I could ever count and each time there were new tape decks to buy. Because Panasonic came out with the first broadcast quality solid state memory to take hold over five years ago doesn't mean they're trying to rip you off.

This whole concern about the cost of P2 cards isn't part of my reality, I have to pay off any new camera in a year, more so now than ever. If Panasonic is turning their backs on low-end P2 users-and as you've said, we don't know-it's due to market pressure realities and to be honest, people like you always complaining about the cost of P2 cards.

As a rental facility, rock solid reliability, flexibility, worldwide acceptance, scalability of codecs and the ability to use the same media with my $5K cameras as my $40K cameras are much more important than a couple of hundred dollar price premium on a memory card.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Dom:

I have to agree with Jeff, you obviously have issues with P2 and that's fine. I bought all seven of my P2 cards with my own funds and each card paid for itself in one or sometimes two jobs. For working pros, the cost of P2 cards have never been exorbitant. If the costs were exorbitant, P2 would have bombed and as we all know, P2 is the most successful professional SS memory format on the market by far. I am an avowed capitalist and the market has spoken, P2 was and is a success. If all of the things that the P2 naysayers say about P2 are true, then P2 would have tanked like MII or Beta SX or HD DVD or Philips DAC or any of the other formats that have flopped during my professional career. Like the old saying goes, "you can't argue with success".

4:2:2 is superior if you are doing keying or compositing. But most people, most of the time are not. That was my point, how often do you shoot green screen or do heavy multiple layer compositing? For most users of low end to mid-line cameras, the answer is not very often. Occasionally I read about DPs who do regularly shoot a green screen based show, they should own or use a 4:2:2 camera but for most others, if you just do an occasional green screen shoot, perhaps a 4:2:0 camera will suffice? Same with color correction. My 4:2:2 material from my HPX170 holds up to color correction better than the 4:2:0 material from my 5D MKII. But I think a LOT of users don't color correct or do very deep color correction with their material. Some do, but a lot of people don't.

I don't understand your correlation between people's obsession with codecs vs. evil Panasonic dealers selling P2 cards? What does one have to do with the other?

People who bought P2 cards this year or last year obviously did because it is an excellent SSM. Nobody is coming to their offices and houses and making it so their P2 cards no longer function. It just might be that if their next Panasonic camera costs less than about $7,500.00, they MIGHT have to switch to SDHC. So what? If I keep my HPX170 after I buy an AF-100, those P2 cards still work. And if I sell my 170 to finance the AF-100, I will sell the P2 cards in addition to the 170. So what's the problem? Last time I checked, used P2 cards still enjoy a pretty thriving market and there are still many, many thousands of P2 users worldwide that will be interested in buying my used P2 cards. I just don't see the logic of this supposed insurrection that so many are saying is coming with disgruntled P2 card users. Isn't going to happen.

It's the pro video market, the only constant is change. Formats, codecs, trends, media, computers... P2 is great but with every card that I have bought, I have known that it was only a matter for a few years until the cards would not be the state of the art or the most modern. They all paid for themselves years ago so what do I care? Every time I charge a client now for P2 card rentals, that is pure profit. Plus I haven't had to by camera stock for four years now, love it. So what is the issue with that?

Dan

Jeff and Dan

Ok guys. I'm baling out of this discussion. You've both made very good points that i broadly agree with. However i feel i've raised important issues regarding P2 that do apply to some owners if not yourselves. For the record i love the images these cameras capture, but until we hear news of the new AVCintra P2 palmcorder Sanjin is hoping for, this discussion is based on speculation. If such a camera does not materialise ill happily re-join the debate, but in the meantime i accept my posts on the subject could be construed as borderline trolling. No offense intended. Let's wait and see what Panasonic come up with.

No offense take Dom, it is just discussion. And you are right, all we are doing is speculating. I have no idea what Panasonic is going to do other than introduce the AF-100 and the 3DA1. Time will tell.

Dan

No worries Dom, P2 is just a memory media when it comes down to it. The look of the cameras is much more important to me as a DP--and I've seen some beautiful imagery from Canon HDV cameras. Tomorrow I've got five cameras out on rental, two Panasonic and three Sony. The only thing that really matters to me at the end of the day is which ones my client's want to rent!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

But you could say that about any "uniform recording media". Including SDHC/CF etc at a fraction of the price of P2. And in BBCland, neither the HVX200 or the HPX 170 are considered Broadcast quality, or indeed the HPX300. Even the larger chip EX1/3 don't make the grade without the nanoflash. Which leaves the new Canon which shoots to robust and affordable CF cards and has a thumbs up from the BBC.

Yes, but at the moment not one manufacturer offer SD/CF cards in both handheld 1/3" and 2/3", nanoflashes and other addon recorders wasn´t an option in the conditions and budget we had to operate within.

"Broadcast grade" is a variable definition, for us and NRK 1/3" was fine, there was no budget to go beyond one 2/3" camera. A lot of popular HD programming have been shot on 1/3" HD cameras, it all comes down to what kind of project and budget you have to operate within. Also there are sometimes a safety aspect regarding camera size.


Meanwhile the new Panasonic 4/3 camera, viewed by many HPX/HVX owners as the next step in the company's progression of small cameras is not even a P2 camera. The camera may well be superb, but those who've dug deep to pay for P2 cards and the accompanying codec may well feel let down.

I feel the AF100 is kind of a dumbed down camera to meet a specific market price...thus dropping avc-i. Also the AF100 is meant for a different market than the hvx/hpx170, or a market that uses 35mm adapters or dSlrs today.

After all, Panasonic salespeople have been promoting P2 as a system that would be a sound investment long into the future. I've heard this marketing spiel several times myself when toying with the idea of buying the HVX, and later the HPX.

I have to say as someone who almost bought into the Panasonic P2 system, i'm very happy to have taken the Canon route instead.
I see that the move from expensive memory cells to cheaper ones(and faster) have made some people doubt, but would really P2 go down as well with broadcasters as it has if Pana was larking about?

Regarding Canon, never really liked their cameras down to the build quality....I have a tendency to use pro gear quite hard and the earlier SD/HDV models where a bit to plastic for my taste(and use). Of course comparing small budget camcorders with larger 2/3" camcorders is a bit unfair, but what my poor little Sony Z1 have gone trough would probably have killed of one or two similar canons in the past.