PANASONIC ANNOUNCES AJ-HPX3100 P2 HD CAMCORDER (http://www.panasonic-broadcast.de/de/news/archiv.php?we_objectID=4049)

Thanks Gary, I was wondering if this was going to be something Earth-shattering, but it's pretty mundane, just a marginal upgrade of the 3000.
Something like a 3000 but with 720P option would have been interesting, allowing 60P or 1080 depending on your needs.
Oh well.
Steve

Maybe it has that fantastic new noise filter as fitted to the 371 :)

Must admit I too thought that it was just an updated 3000 but could it be that it will be below $20,000 ?

Let the speculation begin!

........ it's pretty mundane, just a marginal upgrade of the 3000.
Something like a 3000 but with 720P option would have been interesting, allowing 60P or 1080 depending on your needs.
Well, don't let's dismiss it just yet. The press release says :
"The camcorder supports multi-format HD capability as well as SD, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO and DV recording......"
The question being exactly what "multi-format HD capability" means? 720 and 1080 recording? Or just a choice of framerates?

The press release seems to NOT say more than it says. Price? And - "offers a number of improvements over its predecessor - but is it's successor the 3000, or the 2100? Is an upgrade to the 3100 - or a replacement for the 2100, with 2 megapixel chips?

It's like an HPX3000 in an HPX370 body. It's 8.6 lbs lighter than the 3000!
2.2 megapixel 2/3" CCD chips, multiple HD and SD formats, AVC-intra codec, 10-bit/4:2:2 sampling stuffed into the body of a 1/3" CMOS cam? I like it! I hope it's affordable enough to trade in my HPX500.

With Panny's recent record I'd be a little careful until you find out just how they've achieved these miracles - maybe this 3.6kg and 23% power saving come at a cost.
Steve

Looks like 1080 and 480 only, no 720. It touts a S/N ratio of 59db "with DNR on", so it would be interesting to compare this DNR to the HPX370 DNR. If the 3100 is less than $20K, including VF, it would seem to be an interesting camera vs. HPX300/370(albeit for more money, especially is lens is extra), Sony 350 XDCAM EX 2/3" camera, natural replacement for the HPX500 and competitor to the HPX2000/2700. It would certainly give me pause about buying a 3000/3700.

Too bad about no 720P and looks like it has limited off-speed frame rates, most likely no overcranking, same as the 3000/3700.

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

what's DNR?

The 720 - 50p is not nessasary - if it just had 1080- 50P. If they can put it into a small consumer camera then why not in the broadcast line.

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/index.html#p2

Where is the HD format specs to prove that their is no 720p modes?

what's DNR?

Digital Noise Reduction would be my interpretation. They might also call it Dynamic Noise Reduction

One thing that baffles me, how can this camera be 3.9kg lighter than its predecessor? The HPX3000 only weighed 4.8kg, so is this one only 900g?
Steve

HPX3100 weighs 3.9kg, not 3.9kg lighter than 3000/3700. Color or B&W viewfinder is extra, ditto proxy board and wireless metadata, the latter of which is still under development. Power consumption is 23% less than HPX3000. No 720P modes are shown, just 1080, 576 and 480.

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

Yes Jeff, it's obviously a big fat typo on the Panny site!

Steve

Power consumption is 23% less than HPX3000.
Hmm. I think the 3000 is rated at 43watts without LCD screen etc, so this still makes the 3100 about 33 watts. I'm not sure that "23% less than HPX3000" is the same as "23% less power than conventional 2/3 3CCD camcorders". (The wording in the press release.)
No 720P modes are shown, just 1080, 576 and 480.
Which again squares very badly with the press release wording - "The camcorder supports multi-format HD capability as well as SD....." How can 1080 only be described as "multi-format HD capability"?

It remains to be seen what the camera is like - and how much it will cost - but it's a pretty badly written press release.

David,

Agreed, a poorly written press release. However, this is a lower cost 1080P, 2/3" CCD camera with lower weight and power consumption than a Sony F900R and lower power consumption than a PDW-F800. No need to use CMOS for lower cost, power and weight--I like that.

If Panasonic can bring the HPX3100 price point into the low $20K range with viewfinder, it is impressive--a full raster, 10-bit, 4:2:2, I-Frame, high bit rate, lightweight, low profile, low cost 2/3" CCD camera for potentially half the price of a Sony PDW800. Could be a great green screen camera. Pity about no 720P.

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

Agreed, the more CCD cameras the better!
But $20k with viewfinder? It wouldn't surprise me if it was $30k without judging by Panny's recent record, and then in 3 months they'll be a half price trade in deal!
And lower power and weight - but at a cost? Hopefully they haven't cut some corners that'll come back to bite you in the butt.
Steve

This cam looks interesting to me, looking forward to the full release with cost, specs etc.....
If It's CCD this is a winner.

Cheers

It is CCD. I don't see why you'd be massively more interested in this than in the 3000 - it looks like a pretty small imporvement to me.
Steve

I don't see why you'd be massively more interested in this than in the 3000 - it looks like a pretty small imporvement to me.
I tend to agree - now we know there's no 720 mode, overcrank etc, it doesn't seem much of a change from the 3000 - not that there is anything wrong with the 3000 as such.

It really boils down to cost. I'd love Jeff to be right (".....If Panasonic can bring the HPX3100 price point into the low $20K range with viewfinder, it is impressive......") but I can't help feeling that if it was going to be much cheaper than the 3000, it would have been shouted about in the press release. Maybe they want to save something up for IBC, but that would also raise questions about the pricing of the whole range. What would happen to the 2100 if the 3100 sold for less?

Let's wait and see.

Steve,

The main improvement is primarily price, it would seem. An HPX3000 is $48K list, the 3700 isn't on trade-in sale currently, so that's $60K list. If a 3100 is $20K-30K, that's a difference, although, I think it should be low $20K range, given only two P2 slots, no mention of Film-Rec and what we know an HPX2700 and 3700 have sold for in the past year or so with trade-in program.

If the DNR doesn't soften the image or add other artifacts, 59db would be impressive. Some might find the SD modes useful at times. Lighter weight, lower profile, power consumption is nice.

I really can't imagine anybody buying an HPX3000 at this point, nor an HPX3700 potentially(assuming normal list pricing on both)--a camera that should never have been called a Varicam, IMO. The 2700 still offers some unique features, but I would think the 3100, if priced right, could do decently well.

A Sony PDW-F800, while being more flexible in frame rates, is $42K.

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

Nice to see we agree on something David - it doesn't seem to happen that often! lol

Jeff, yes if that's the case then it would be interesting. We'll have to wait and see. Let's see who's closer to the mark - you with your $20k inc VF or mine $30k without!

Steve

The main improvement is primarily price, it would seem. .... If a 3100 is $20K-30K, .......
Do you have solid information about that, Jeff?

You've got me looking at UK prices. The 2700 and 3000 both seem to be about £25,000 on the street (with v/f, but no lens), the 2100 is about £19,000.
A Sony PDW-F800, while being more flexible in frame rates, is $42K.
The PDW800 is about £30,000 here, but surely the PDW700 is the obvious rival to the 3100? Like the 3100 it doesn't do variable frame rates (though it is 720/1080) but in many other respects it seems very comparable. That seems to be just below £20,000 - though you then have to add in a v/f.

So it would make sense for the 3100 to be priced somewhere between the current street pricing of the 2100 and 3000 - exactly matching the PDW700 - and I find that quite probable. At that point, there probably isn't a lot to choose between them in quality, it probably comes down more to whether you want solid state or disc and I can see pros and cons to each.

To be honest I'm more interested in the next level down, and I'd like to see some competition for Sonys PMW350, even if just to force Sony into putting the 50Mbs XDCAM codec onto it.

David,

Great theory. The 700 is $30,900, right around where Steve thinks the 3100 will be priced, with viewfinders extra in both cases. I have no pricing info from Panasonic, but have some feelers out.
HPX3100 and AF100 pricing announcements will be made at IBC.

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

Well Jeff, if you are right, then that would make the 3100 about 2/3 of the PDW700 cost - so about £14-15,000 on the street in the UK without lens. If you're not interested in the kit lens, that may then become extremely tempting to a lot more people than if it's just a PDW700 rival for cost - it starts to rival the PMW350.

I'm sure we will revisit this after IBC...... :)

So is the 3100.. a much cheaper version of the 3700.. but with a simpler menu.. eg only one DRS setting,only one film-rec setting..less scene files etc.. only the 2 slots..(who would ever want to shoot 5 X 64GB in a day) I guess only 1 HD-SDI out?

If the front is the same.. and for those who seldom shoot 720p.. it would seem a good buy instead of the 3700.. unless you are doing drama work..

HDX900 viewfinder and mic should also work I believe.. does on the 3700..

No Robyn, it's a cheaper version of the HPX3000. The 3700 does variable frame rates from 1-30fps, while the 3000 and 3100 will only do 24, 25 and 30P.
And the 3700 does NOT do 720 either. This is where David's comparison of the PDW700 and the HPX3100 gets skewed in favour of the PDW700 as it will do both 1080 and 720. There was some question as to how well the 700 would do 720P but the answer is very well, I shot a fair bit and it looks really nice with no obvious issues. Shame you can't mix 720 and 1080 on the same disc and that it's Long GOP so can't be conformed for slomo without first transcoding to an I frame codec (taking time and losing some quality).
Steve

In fact it's always been a bit questionable exactly where the 3700 fits in - it doesn't do slow motion (if you want that you need the 2700). So that leaves you with all the frame rate standards (24, 25 and 30P) which the HPX3000 does too, and the only thing extra you then get is the ability to shoot at things like 16fps and 27fps, 11fps etc. - who the hell needs that?!
Steve

I've heard $29,800 for the HPX3100, about $4,000 for the viewfinder.

29,800? Steve wins!

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

29,800? Steve wins!



My guess, is, if the price is accurate - and my source sells Panasonic gear - I expect the actual street price to be a bit lower. Conjecture only...maybe $27,000?

In fact it's always been a bit questionable exactly where the 3700 fits in - it doesn't do slow motion (if you want that you need the 2700). So that leaves you with all the frame rate standards (24, 25 and 30P) which the HPX3000 does too, and the only thing extra you then get is the ability to shoot at things like 16fps and 27fps, 11fps etc. - who the hell needs that?!
Steve

haha yes good point.. Iam sure my situation is the same as many HDX900 owners.. tape for good or for bad is on the way out.. still work for it.. used it today .. but sooner or later I need a tapeless camera.. really only two choices that will start making money straight away.. 800. XDCAM or P2.. for the market Iam in.
I dont want to deal with down loading cards but have had more requests for P2 than XDCAM (pretty much zero,although I thought it would take over the world).
I think for my market its going 1080p native... and I dont know why but Iam getting requests for P2 and not XDCAM.. that leaves 3700 or 3000.. both quite big and eat batteries.. 3100 looks a good product.. slo mo will have to be done in post.. time lapse.. maybe 3100 has this function HDX900 does or Stills camera.. or nanoflash..
I dunno but 3100 seems a good deal?

I've heard $29,800 for the HPX3100, about $4,000 for the viewfinder.
So by the time you add the cost of P2 cards, and allowing for fluctuation in street prices, that does mean that to all intents and purposes, the 3100 and the PDW700 will be effectively the same price.

Which is "best"? Personally, I think that's a silly question. The PDW700 gives superb results as far as quality is concerned, I expect the 3100 to be the same. If you need 720p, the PDW700 is the obvious winner (as Steve points out.), Disc based recording may be seen as a good thing - or a bad thing. It depends what you're doing. It still gives file based workflows and forms it's own backup - but at the expense of power consumption, size and weight. There are differences between the cameras - but I wouldn't like to say either is the "best" - not if the cost is the same.

But is this the only 2/3" camera to come from Panasonic this IBC? There seems to be a gaping hole in their product range below the 3100, nothing around the £10-15,000 mark in the UK (complete with basic lens and viewfinder), nothing to directly compete with Sonys PMW350. I'm not trying to say the PMW350 is as good as a 3100 or the PDW700, but it's vastly cheaper, and still pretty good. Surely Panasonic can't be just abandoning this bit of the market?

With the 3100 you get 10 bit vs 8 bit recording too.

It's a good question though, and one I was going to throw out there - if they were exactly the same price which one would you choose? It'd be a tough one, but for anyone needing slomo the PDW700 with 720/60P would surely win.

Robyn, I'm sure the 3100 will have timelapse capability and pre-roll, they all seem to now.

Steve

But is this the only 2/3" camera to come from Panasonic this IBC? There seems to be a gaping hole in their product range below the 3100, nothing around the £10-15,000 mark in the UK (complete with basic lens and viewfinder), nothing to directly compete with Sonys PMW350. I'm not trying to say the PMW350 is as good as a 3100 or the PDW700, but it's vastly cheaper, and still pretty good. Surely Panasonic can't be just abandoning this bit of the market?

Well, there's the HPX500. It's also not as good as the 3100 and the PDW700, but for the price, it's a fine camera. I suppose Panny might update it one day.
And if you hurry, the great deal offered on the HPX2700 can't be beat. $19,995 plus trade in? Darn good deal.

I think I might agree with David before he even posts a response - the HPX500 has less than a third of the resolution of the PDW700 or PMW350. A lot of people argue that even 720 resolution is borderline for HD, but the HPX500 is nowhere near even that. Viewfinder is awful too. Other than that it is as you say a really nice "proper" camera, timelapse, pre-record, variable frame rates etc., it's just way behind the times as a serious consideration IMHO.
Steve

With the 3100 you get 10 bit vs 8 bit recording too.

It's a good question though, and one I was going to throw out there - if they were exactly the same price which one would you choose? It'd be a tough one, but for anyone needing slomo the PDW700 with 720/60P would surely win.

Robyn, I'm sure the 3100 will have timelapse capability and pre-roll, they all seem to now.

Steve

I would pick the 3100, but then I have P2 cards and I don't care for the disc format.
Can slo-mo only be done in the 720 setting? All the cameras Ive used had to do slo-mo in 720.

Edit - or am I thinking of time lapse?

I think I might agree with David before he even posts a response - the HPX500 has less than a third of the resolution of the PDW700 or PMW350. A lot of people argue that even 720 resolution is borderline for HD, but the HPX500 is nowhere near even that. Viewfinder is awful too. Other than that it is as you say a really nice "proper" camera, timelapse, pre-record, variable frame rates etc., it's just way behind the times as a serious consideration IMHO.
Steve

You make a good point, Steve, especially about the viewfinder. I have considered upgrading from my 500. I posted in another forum how I lost a job to an HPX370 because it has the AVC-intra 100 codec. A 2/3" camera losing out to a 1/3" camera - bummer.

I know it pixel-shifts, or whatever the technology is, so it doesn't have true HD CCDs. But the 500 has been cleared for full acquisition for Discovery HD Silver, so it's not all that bad of an image.

One more point:

Couldn't you add a Nano Flash drive to the PDW350 and get 4:2:2 color and at least a 50mbps data rate? Don't Nanos use CF cards? That would be quite a potent package.

Slo-mo derived from 1080/30P is not pretty. 720/60P is the proper approach. As far as the gaping hole in the Panasonic line, the HPX2700, the true Varicam, is a low $20K camera--yes, it's 720P native, but the HDX900 has been delivering 1080P recordings since 2006 with many happy clients, and the 2700 is better in every way with a full sample, 10-bit codec.

The reality may very well be that a 2/3" native 1080X1920 CCD camera isn't feasible at the PDW-350 price point. Sony saved money by going CMOS and a low bit-rate, Long GOP, 4:2:0 codec. The HPX3100 is a very different animal, albeit with most likely a higher price. I was probably being too optimistic thinking a low $20K price was feasible for the 3100.

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

Can slo-mo only be done in the 720 setting? All the cameras Ive used had to do slo-mo in 720.

Edit - or am I thinking of time lapse?

No I think you were right, it is slomo you're thinking of. It's not that it can only be done in 720 it's just that there are very few sensibly-priced cameras that will do more than 30fps in 1080 (Sony SRW9000 with option boards being one example). For proper slomo you need at least 60fps really and it's only in 720 that most cameras these days can do it. This is why there is a market for the HPX2700 - people in wildlife and other areas can't live without slomo, even if it means sacrificing resolution.

Yes, you can add a Nanoflash to the 350, and I think it's an area where Sony are winning, ie that Panny have the better codec but a lesser chip in a lot of lines - with the Sony you can add a Nanoflash to even up the codec stakes, but Panny can't ever even up the chip side of things as you're stuck with the one that's in the camera.

Steve

I know it pixel-shifts, or whatever the technology is, so it doesn't have true HD CCDs. But the 500 has been cleared for full acquisition for Discovery HD Silver, so it's not all that bad of an image.
I think it's a case of time moving on. It may indeed have been "not that bad of an image" when first released and up against the competition of it's day - but it's now up against a raft of new cameras as competition. It's also now more likely to be shown on full 1920x1080 plasma screens, rather than the lower resolution ones which were the norm when it was first released.

That's really the point I was making - wouldn't we have expected to see it's replacement by now? The 3100 looks good, but are we not going to see any other 2/3" camera from Panasonic this IBC?
As far as the gaping hole in the Panasonic line, the HPX2700, the true Varicam, is a low $20K camera.......
Are you sure that price isn't a typo? I've just checked, and the UK street price for a 2700 is about £25,000 (with v/f, but no memory or lens!) quite a bit more than for a PDW700. I've never seen a package of it with a bundled lens for anywhere remotely close to the £10-15,000 range I mentioned.
The reality may very well be that a 2/3" native 1080X1920 CCD camera isn't feasible at the PDW-350 price point.
I'm sure you're correct. But that then means do I pay well over £20,000 (with no lens), or about £13,500 (with lens) and not worry about CMOS. If you're doing mid-range drama, the extra may be worth it - so get a 3100 or PDW700 - but for a lot of other work it just isn't.
Sony saved money by going CMOS and a low bit-rate, Long GOP, 4:2:0 codec.
Well, yes, and a lot of money! I wouldn't try and pretend that a PMW350 is as good as a 3100 (or a PDW700) in absolute quality terms - but it's vastly cheaper, and far more than good enough for most purposes.

Glen - you are absolutely correct about the nanoFlash, and I believe a lot of people do just that. But I don't really like extra bits hanging off the camera - not when there seems to be no technical reason not to have 50Mbs XDCAM 422 coding in camera. Hence the wish of a great many people for a PMW350 with the fully approved codec, even if it costs a bit more.

David,

The HPX2700 P2 Varicam has a special $19,950 trade-in price through September 30 in the US. It has been on offer off and on since October of 2009. It is an amazing camera for the money. My clients do a whole lot of green screen and most don't want a 4:2:0 codec, so that leaves out the 350 unless using an external recorder. Getting away from an external recorder is the reason I got out of my HDX900/Firestore setup(yes, a nanoFlash is a better solution than FireStore) and went for the 2700. I've got 6.7 hours of internal record time at 720/24PN with a 10-bit, 4:2:2, I-Frame codec, using 32Gb P2 cards(2x that with 64Gb cards).

Many of my clients looking for a 2/3" camera won't take the XDCAM EX codec seriously, especially for compositing work. Of course there are some who demand a native 1080 camera, at which point I sub-rent an HPX3700. The 3100 would fit some of my client's needs admirably at a lower day rate than a 3700, theoretically.

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

The HPX2700 P2 Varicam has a special $19,950 trade-in price through September 30 in the US. It has been on offer off and on since October of 2009.
Well, I'm not sure what conclusions can be reached from special offer prices as a basis for comparison, and I assume that only applies in the US anyway?
My clients do a whole lot of green screen and most don't want a 4:2:0 codec, so that leaves out the 350 unless using an external recorder. .... Many of my clients looking for a 2/3" camera won't take the XDCAM EX codec seriously,
I find it extremely odd that they don't want a 4:2:0 codec - but are happy with 1 megapixel chips upsampled to 1080! Good green screen depends on good resolution in the luminance signal as much as chrominance performance. (And good lighting etc being even more important than either.) Yes, the ideal is 1920x1080 chips and 4:2:2 recording - but if I had to sacrifice one or the other, I'd keep the chip resolution and accept 4:2:0.

But as Steve said - at least you have the option of an external recorder with a 350, you don't have any option of external chips with a 2700.

David,

I have DP clients and editors who won't shoot green screen with XDCAM EX. I have an EX1, but they won't go for it when compositing. I recently had a DP tell me he'd rather do green screen with a Canon 7D than with XDCAM EX. He's more technical than many DP's, writes a lot on the internet and for magazines.

Nobody has ever complained about green screen with a 2700 using AVC-Intra 100. A 720P full raster recording at 10-bit, 4:2:2, I-Frame, with lots of latitude works just fine for the waist up head shots on green screen shot commonly.

As far as the 2700 trade-in price, I can only speak to the market I'm in, which is the US. There are now several 3700's/ 2700's in the SF Bay Area in large part due to the trade-in deal on offer for over a year, off and on. There are no Sony 350's, 1/2" or 2/3", no 700's, and one 800 in our rental market.

I just got back from shooting some amazing Native American tribal dances, shooting daytime exteriors and night time fire lit exteriors. The 2700 in Film-Rec 600%, AVC-Intra 100 at 720P, provided some very natural images, even at 9db gain in the latter case. The ability to do 48 frame overcranking in camera really added a nice aesthetic for some scenes. The camera held the fire as far as color and there was some highlight detail retained as well, while still providing good shadow detail and mid-tones, even before grading. I'm sure an Arri Alexa could have done better, but I am pretty impressed with what was captured by the P2 Varicam.

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

No 720/50/ 60 option in this camera

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/AJ-HPX3100_pre.pdf

Looks like a low cost 3ccd Full HD camera. It is referred as "2/3 Type 3CCd ".
Not sure what they mean by " type". May be pixel shifting or something like.
A 2/3 Type 3CCD in a HPX 370 Body. I expect a price target of less than 20K.


Rajiv

No 720/50/ 60 option in this camera

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/AJ-HPX3100_pre.pdf

Looks like a low cost 3ccd Full HD camera. It is referred as "2/3 Type 3CCd ".
Not sure what they mean by " type". May be pixel shifting or something like.
A 2/3 Type 3CCD in a HPX 370 Body. I expect a price target of less than 20K.


Rajiv

Just 1080 flavors of HD.

I believe they're full raster 1920x1080 chips. By "type," I think they were referring to these chips being CCDs, not CMOS. It wasn't the best translated brochure.
So, a full raster 1920x1080, 2.2 megapixel 2/3" 3CCD camera with AVC-intra 100 and 4:2:2 color, all in a lighter 370 body. Sounds really good to me.

I don't consider a camera on the plus side of $30,000 being "low cost." I wish it were below 20K.

I'm assuming it'll the exact same chip and processing as the HPX3000. Seems like they've put it in a smaller body and made some mechanical tweaks to keep power consumption down, and to give an excuse for putting it at a lower price - the 2700, 3700 and 3000 all seemed way over-priced, it's been commented on a lot, and was evidenced by them suddenly halving the price with their trade-in offer.
Steve

Just 1080 flavors of HD.

I believe they're full raster 1920x1080 chips. By "type," I think they were referring to these chips being CCDs, not CMOS. It wasn't the best translated brochure.
So, a full raster 1920x1080, 2.2 megapixel 2/3" 3CCD camera with AVC-intra 100 and 4:2:2 color, all in a lighter 370 body. Sounds really good to me.

I don't consider a camera on the plus side of $30,000 being "low cost." I wish it were below 20K.

I agree the 3700 seems a bit pricey.. although the most exp camera I have bought was my first a Sony 400AP.. which was the same price as an average house in the UK at the time.. with the VAT..!!!
So on the surface.. same chips as 3700,full raster,no pixel shifting trickery.. light,small,lower power consumption .. tech approved for all the high end broadcaster,s .. HDX900 owners can use their viewfinders and camera mic,s.. $25-30,000.. whats not to love? sounds a winner to me..

Looks like I was right after all, the HPX3100 is finally shipping and the price point is supposedly $19,950!

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