I haven't found detailed specs on this new camcorder, but it appears to use a single 2/3" MOS chip. Would it then de-Bayer the output, similar to what I think the RED 1 does ? Maybe someone saw this unit at NAB and can provide more info ?

I assumed it used 3 chips, as all the 2/3" cameras do. However, checking on what limited info is out there, I can't confirm that. There is a lot of reference to a new 2/3" CMOS sensor (singular). Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't have 3, as I've checked descriptions of other 3-chip cameras, and sometimes they mention the chip in the singular sense.
But that would explain the light weight and low power consumption. Interesting choice by Panasonic, if true.

A panasonic rep called me today to see if I had any questions regarding the new releases at NAB. I asked him whether the HPX600 will have a single 2/3" MOS chip or whether it will be a 3-chip camera. None of his information could give a definite answer, so he has a call into the engineering team on this unit. I'll let you all know what he says when he gets back to me. The best guess is that it has a three-chip design, since it is an upgrade of the HPX500.

Further follow-up : the rep called back and said that he had spoken with the engineer here in the US who will be in charge of the HPX600, and that no one in that department has yet seen a unit. The unit that was at the NAB was apparently sealed and no one could get a look inside, so the bottom line at this point is that no one knows for sure if this is a one-chip or a three-chip camera. We'll just have to wait a bit longer for the answer.

Just to keep this thread going on this new offering.
For Journalists (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=672507&modelNo=Content04022012054037684&surfModel=Content04022012054037684)

Love to see some real world tests , being light weight it will be a great for news, n events etc.

TomK

Love to see some real world tests , being light weight it will be a great for news, n events etc.
Don't get too excited. That press release only speaks of "Weighing less than 7 pounds ...". It's normal with such cameras to only talk of the weight of the basic body, and by the time all the neccessary things are added to make a usable camera, expect it to roughly double - more with specialist lenses, headlights, radio mic receivers etc.

By comparison, look at the specs for the Sony PMW350:

3.2 kg (7 lb 1 oz) (body)
6.3 kg (13 lb 14 oz) (with LCD VF, AF lens, Mic, BP-GL95)

So even that is only 7lb 1oz body only, and gets virtually doubled even with the kit lens. Don't expect the package weight of the HPX600 to be noticeably less than comparable other 2/3" cameras. The difference between varying batteries, lenses etc will make far more difference than body weight differences.

The press release talk of "With its ultra-light weight......" needs to be taken with quite a bit of a pinch of salt. The difference in total package weight compared to something like a PMW350 is only likely to be something like 1% - and that's assuming they produce a lightweight package lens for it, like for the Sony K series.

Hi David,

"By comparison, look at the specs for the Sony PMW350:
3.2 kg (7 lb 1 oz) (body)
6.3 kg (13 lb 14 oz) (with LCD VF, AF lens, Mic, BP-GL95)".

These new cams are much lighter as they have less in them, My Now old P2 cam the SPX800 is still delivering great pics be they only 50mb SD, now over7years old.
It weighs in at 9 kg with lens VF Batt drop in mic and led light. I'm getting towards retirement and every kilo makes the jobs harder. I also have a HPX172 for jobs on the run, in good light, like all small cams they suffer in low light IMO.
I've never considered XDCam as some events I do I cannot justify stopping the record to swap out a full disc/s.
Lightweight is the trend as I see more and more smaller camera op's about these days. I like the form factor and features of the HPX600, but I also like the form of the JVC shoulder mount cams.
ie, VideoGuys Australia | JVC GY-HM790E ProHD ENG Studio Camera w/ 14X Lens - GY-HM790E (http://www.videoguys.com.au/Shop/p/22284/jvc-gy-hm790e-prohd-eng-studio-camera-w-14x-lens-gy-hm790e.html)
it comes in at nearly 4kg. nice n light, pics for news and general events would be OK.
Not every job requires "Broadcast" quality, most jobs these days are for web deliver and DVD, so going downmarket in kit is a trend I've noticed, even the extremely cheap DSLR's have made big in roads into the industry.

cheers
TomK.

I've never considered XDCam as some events I do I cannot justify stopping the record to swap out a full disc/s.
There's a difference between XDCAM disc and XDCAM to solid state - the former models tend to be described as PDW-, the latter as PMW-. The PMW350 is a solid state camera, with the XDCAM codec recorded to it, so as with any other solid state camera no need to stop recording when recording long events.

It seemed to be generally assumed (including by me) that disc cameras were intended as an interim step to solid state. It now looks as if they will coexist (at least in the Sony range!) for quite a while - some users (like you) prefer solid state for very valid reasons, but others actually prefer disc systems for alternate reasons - such as no need to download on location.
Lightweight is the trend as I see more and more smaller camera op's about these days.
I don't disagree in principle, but such as the JVC are 1/3" chip, the HPX600 and the PMW350 are 2/3". Point I'm really trying to make is that in operation (fully equipped with lens etc) there's likely to be virtually no noticeable difference between the 350/600. If the HPX600 doesn't come with a lens as light as the PMW350K package it's quite possible that a basic HPX600 PACKAGE may weigh more than a PMW350 - even if the basic body is a couple of ounces less.

Hi David,

Yes your correct re XDCam / Solid state Sony's. Most Networks (in Australia) I deal with are on the Sony XDcams, one is P2 , yes workflow / personal prefs does dictate which suits your best, I have been on P2 since 05 and suits me.
Only issue i've ever had with my old Panasonic SPX800 is the fold out screen door ribbon cable broke after 5years use, I replaced it myself for under "$100 parts cost".
I remember years before when I had one of my Sony DVCam cams failed on the tape drive gears, just 1 month from end of warranty, it took many calls to get it repaired as it was a known fault.
I've been more than happy with Panasonic cams etc since, so I'll look close at any future decisions to up-date. If I can shave 3kg off my current kit , that would be nice.
thanks for the info.

I've been more than happy with Panasonic cams etc since, so I'll look close at any future decisions to up-date. If I can shave 3kg off my current kit , that would be nice.
thanks for the info.
I'm afraid you won't shave 3kg off with the HPX600. A quick search on your current SPX800 gives the comparable weight as 9.26 lbs (4.2 kg).

So a PMW350 will shave 1.0kg off, and an HPX600 maybe slightly more - maybe 1.1kg if you're lucky.

To get 3kg lighter you'll have to move away from 2/3" and shouldermount. maybe to the 1/3" JVC cameras you mentioned.

I have the JVC HM 700 and am looking to upgrade for multi camera live events and hockey. Does anyone know why Panasonic is keep some information from us # of chips SN? Also does anyone have experience with these CMOS chips shooting tight follow for hockey and notice any flash banding when there are photogs taking stills?

I'm afraid you won't shave 3kg off with the HPX600. A quick search on your current SPX800 gives the comparable weight as 9.26 lbs (4.2 kg).
So a PMW350 will shave 1.0kg off, and an HPX600 maybe slightly more - maybe 1.1kg if you're lucky.
To get 3kg lighter you'll have to move away from 2/3" and shouldermount. maybe to the 1/3" JVC cameras you mentioned.

Yes you may be right, the extra weight in my old P2 is the drop in wireless receiver, and the SDI card plus a firewire card, I used the firwire port for some time before P2 cards became available.
Even saving 1 to 1.5 Kg would be nice without sacrificing image quality, Or I may just backslide to the JVC option.

Cheers for the good advice David.
TomK.

before banking on hpx600 someone should conform the number of chips in the body.
at present not sure it is single or three chip camera.

thanks

A little off topic, but it seems the 600 is basically a 3100 with CMOS, and future upgrade that will allow you to shoot long-gop in addition to intra. Besides the obvious CMOS vs CCD thing, the 600 is only $4000 cheaper body only.

Personally, I was hoping for an all-in-one kit like the PMW-350k, but now the 3100 sounds like a better choice. Unlike the Sony 350/500 there just isn't a very big difference between the 600/3100 in price or features.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?
If it's a "CMOS 3100" then one of the first things to ask is whether it has any 720p and/or variable speed capabilities? (Which I don't believe the 3100 does??)

Ideally, I'd like to see full slo-mo up to 60fps at full 1080 resolution - failing that it really should (like the PMW350/500) manage proper slo-mo at 720p.

If it's a "CMOS 3100" then one of the first things to ask is whether it has any 720p and/or variable speed capabilities? (Which I don't believe the 3100 does??)

Ideally, I'd like to see full slo-mo up to 60fps at full 1080 resolution - failing that it really should (like the PMW350/500) manage proper slo-mo at 720p.

That would be really nice... And probably much more future-proof than anything else they could do with the camera. 1080 50/60p footage can be converted to any other progressive or interlaced format without loss. Maybe throw in a 48fps mode just for safe measure (people will certainly go bananas over this "feature" after The Hobbit shows).

And also 128gb P2 cards to compensate for the halved recording times....

Well yes - but what I was really referring to was slo-mo shooting - shoot at 60fps for 24 fps playback. AFAIK that is not possible with the 3100? (As is no 720p mode at all?) Yes, true 1080p/60 as a mode would be fantastic - but bear in mind it would require an acquisition format that at I don't believe is currently defined.

Failing the above, at least let's see the possibility of true 1080 resolution normal shooting, and 60/24 slo-mo 720 - as cameras such as the Sony PMW500 do.

Well yes - but what I was really referring to was slo-mo shooting - shoot at 60fps for 24 fps playback.
It's not really a camera function, any footage shot at 60p can by slowed down to 2.5x on a 24p timeline, normal 1080p50/60 shooting also means slo-mo capability, it'll just play back at normal speed in-camera.

AFAIK that is not possible with the 3100? (As is no 720p mode at all?) Yes, true 1080p/60 as a mode would be fantastic - but bear in mind it would require an acquisition format that at I don't believe is currently defined.
That is strange, some people say CCD's don't have a scan rate fast enough to render 60p, and yet some high-end Sony cams have 60p. In fact, the Sony HDC3300, although a special case, has up to 90p at 1080 resolution.

And I'm not sure about acquisition format either, but with something as new and not clearly defined as AVC-U, there is no reason to think it can't be done given the inclusion of formats with a much higher bandwidth usage.

It's not really a camera function, any footage shot at 60p can by slowed down to 2.5x on a 24p timeline, normal 1080p50/60 shooting also means slo-mo capability, it'll just play back at normal speed in-camera.
No, not the same. With something like Sony S&Q what results is identical to a file shot at 24fps in the normal codec. If it's 35Mbs at 24p, then the RECORDED bitrate goes up in proportion to the frame rate (so 70Mbs at 48fps, etc) - the REPLAY bitrate will always be the standard 35Mbs. 1080p/50(60) is likely to have a higher compression rate per frame than comparable 1080p/25 - the higher frame rate serves to smooth out the flaws in normal playback, but it won't be the same after slow-down.

The other point is that S&Q is not simply tied to 60fps/2.5x slo-mo. You may wish just a slight slowing down, and it's quite possible to shoot at (say) 40fps but still end up with the standard 24fps file for replay.
And I'm not sure about acquisition format either, but with something as new and not clearly defined as AVC-U, there is no reason to think it can't be done given the inclusion of formats with a much higher bandwidth usage.
Oh yes, I'm sure it can be done, but point is it would mean the definition of a new codec, or at least a sub-set. The varispeed function (shoot at one frame rate, end up with a 24fps playback file) doesn't need anything new defined.

On a new camera, I'd like to see both, and I'd like to see the varispeed work at full 1080 resolution.

1080p/50(60) is likely to have a higher compression rate per frame than comparable 1080p/25 - the higher frame rate serves to smooth out the flaws in normal playback, but it won't be the same after slow-down.

In an I-frame codec every single frame gets the same amount of compression, regardless of frame rate or content. The 100mbps rating of AVC-I is only applicable to 1080 30p/60i & 720 60p, any frame rate that is slower will increase recording times because less frames are being recorded, and so at a lower effective bit rate.

24p actually has an 80mbps bit rate, and if we had an AVC-I 100 cam that shot 1080 60p, it's effective bit rate would be 200mbps. At 100mbps the codec is simply set to give each frame roughly 500kb worth of data.

.......... if we had an AVC-I 100 cam that shot 1080 60p, it's effective bit rate would be 200mbps. At 100mbps the codec is simply set to give each frame roughly 500kb worth of data.
Yes, all that's true as far as it goes, but I doubt if any such 50/60p codec would implement like that - I suspect a manufacturer would not like the idea of doubling the bitrate to give the format. Because the frames are changing much faster, individual flaws within a frame become less noticeable - hence it's more permissible to have a higher compression per frame than at lower frame rates.

Likewise, interframe compression makes even more sense (at least for acquisition) the higher the framerate - a codec can take advantage of the correspondingly smaller differences frame to frame. It's likely that the time interval between I-frames will remain the same - hence doubling the frame rate will mean doubling the number of difference frames between I-frames.

This is why for AVC-HD 28Mbs peak for 1080p/50 is seen as roughly comparable quality to 24Mbs for 25p. Doubling the frame rate shouldn't mean doubling the bitrate.

Yes, all that's true as far as it goes, but I doubt if any such 50/60p codec would implement like that - I suspect a manufacturer would not like the idea of doubling the bitrate to give the format.
Perhaps not, but AVC-U is currently known to allow up to 200mbps bit rates, which could be used as an excuse for adding that capability.

<<A little off topic, but it seems the 600 is basically a 3100 with CMOS, and future upgrade that will allow you to shoot long-gop in addition to intra. Besides the obvious CMOS vs CCD thing, the 600 is only $4000 cheaper body only.>>>

There's quite a quality jump between HPX-600 and HPX3100. The 3100 has all of the fine color matrix and corrections w/ Film Rec gamma. It looks like real high end broadcast when a decent $28-35K real HD lens is placed on it. HPX600 seems to be just like the HPX500 but w/ updated chips. Colors are just not as pristine somehow w/ the HPX-600.

Panasonic is very careful of keeping the camera's costs and performance in reality check. For example: Most people think that buying the HPX-370 will replace all of their HPX2000, HPX3000 series. They were in for a big surprise. It performed dismally when lighting is not ideal. In real life, lighting is never ideal. So that one example where the more $$ is spent on the camera, the better the quality.

Panasonic is very careful of keeping the camera's costs and performance in reality check. .......... So that one example where the more $$ is spent on the camera, the better the quality.
But as said on the other thread about the HPX600, the cost of the HPX600 is very close to that of the PMW350, probably more expensive when you take memory costs into consideration, and with full reality check the PMW350 sets the bar for such a 2/3" camera.

Yet the PMW350 is (as expected) 2/3" 3 chip - the HPX600 is only single chip, with the quality compromises that makes inevitable. Use a single 1920x1080 chip and that will inevitably decrease the colour resolution and bring the colour aliases well in-band (below 1000lpph) - that's why you're seeing "Colors are just not as pristine somehow."

That explains why it's so muddy looking on the HPX-600. With the exact same lens, I swapped to the HPX-3100 and 3700. Considerable difference in quality. You can instantly see the 3000 series cameras are taking full advantage of high end 2/3" lens w/ colors are popping out on every areas on the frame. And there's no CAC turned on yet. Can't really compare the two as they're different classes of cameras (Single MOS vs/ expensive 3-CCDs). The HPX-600 is definitely tailored to a different market than the 3000 series.

I recall many years ago exact same issue with the HPX-500 and HDX-900. With the exact same 2/3" lens, somehow the HDX-900 footage looked much richer with all of the nuances vs. a flat look on the HPX500. And unfortunately either HPX-500, HPX-600 have 12 pole, 14-bit color matrix adjustment. Just simple presets with limited parameters found on the HPX250, 370.

>> Yet the PMW350 is (as expected) 2/3" 3 chip - the HPX600 is only single chip, with the quality compromises that makes inevitable. Use a single 1920x1080 chip and that will inevitably decrease the colour resolution and bring the colour aliases well in-band (below 1000lpph) - that's why you're seeing "Colors are just not as pristine somehow."<<

FOR SALE: PANASONIC HPX600 / Fujinon XA17X7.6 BERM...

I have one AGHPX600 with color viewfinder and Fujinon XA17X7.6 BERM M6D lens that I purchased new in May, 2014 and now need to sell ASAP. I'd be interested in selling the body or lens separately as well. If you are, or know anyone who might be interested please let me know...it will be a great deal since there is under 150 hours on the camera.
Todd Simon
THS-Visuals
775-588-6976
todds@thsvisuals.com

Just had the unpleasant experience of owning an HPX600 with XA17x7.6BERM lens for a couple of days. It is without a doubt the worst camera i have ever owned. The video sharpness was on par with my old SPX800, soft, muddy, absolutely no resolution. 1080p in AVC100 looked just as bad as 720p in AVC50, both looked SD. And forget about using SD lenses on it, the single chip sensor will not work with them, you will get unimaginable left side blurring due to CA. Also, the HPX600 is NOT an f12@2000 camera, it is an f9@2000 camera, and to get that f12 you must switch to low light mode which adds a base 6db of gain under the 0db setting. Factor in it being 59db s/n at f9, and you are looking at the equivalent of 9db of gain noise on an actual f12 Sony PMW350. And not to be left out, the HPX600 has absolutely no detail or matrix menu adjustments. Your vectorscope image and colors look like an octopus having a seizure.....nothing you can do about it, you are stuck with colors that are simply wrong. And crank all three of the detail adjustments up and down, well, they have no effect on the image. Engage 4x digital extender and focus magnifier, and no change in edges will be seen. Highlight colors are also severely washed out, meaning something such as red or blue police LED's in news will not only be the wrong color hue, but not have any saturation at all.

All in all, the worst camera I have ever owned or operated, and my station issues me a JVC HM790. The only good thing is you can shoot everything at night on 0db in low light mode. Then again, I could do that on my SPX800 with full matrix adjustments and a $1000 22x SD lens. Not much has been made clear on this model in the several years it has been out, but I wanted to warn anyone who might be unlucky enough to want one to think twice.

Paul