forum as feature-request venue? at DVinfo.net

Scott Auerbach · June 7th, 2006, 04:54 AM

Are the forum administrators interested in opening a thread specifically for (non-pie-in-the-sky) feature requests for the next version of the HVX and/or firmware upgrades? My own personal fave (at the moment) would be a -3db and -6dB low gain menu option for use in bright light (as opposed to the ND filter) to help lower noise in the picture signal.

Chris Hurd · June 7th, 2006, 05:31 AM

We've got these discussions everywhere else, so go for it!

Peter Jefferson · June 7th, 2006, 07:58 AM

LOL

hey id LURVE to see a hystogram display like u find on a D-SLR... now that would rock..

Also id love to see a WYSIWYG colour display on the EVF.. basically stream the display image AFTER or at the the point of encoding to tape or P2. Apprently its already got this but I beg to differ (with the DVX100b as an example)

transfer of camera settings (not scene files) via infrared.
Think of it this way, imagine white balancing, and setting the right exposure on one camera, then just sending those settings remotely to the second 3rd or 4th unit. No more tweaking CC in post if as whites are nigh on perfect with each other....

Ch3 and Ch4 audio... now this one could be a possibility, considering the cameras themselves send and recieve audio through these (RCA), why not give the option is configuring the RCA audio to ch 3 and 4 (as opposed to internal mic), while 1 and 2 can be allocated to XLR?? This would kick butt for stage shows and events coz this way u can run a feed directly from the mixing console as it was used on the day of the event, all the while ur running additinal feeds into the camera.. right now, even though IMO i find teh DVX Int mics to be great for an all round omnidirectional feed... running a direct feed would be better.. especially when doing dance parties and concerts.. hell i could go on about this but the potential is phenomenal.. imagine 4 channels each way for a directional feed for surround sound projects... hmm...

Focus peak... ive mentioned this before.. and i dont see why somethign liek this cant be implemented.. many ppl complain that its difficult to focus with this unit.. and for event or vox pop type on teh fly street interviews carrying a decent sized monitor just doesnt cut it.. So why not take a leaf out of JVC's book and throw on a focal distance peak meter???
If youve ever used this feature on the HD101, youd know how useful and sometiems (well almost always) critical this feature is... especially with low res EVF's...

umm.. what else..
yeah make it cheaper.. and make miniDV sized DVCPRoHD tapes... and give us a a 2 for 1 offer for P2 cards... and give me a new PC so i can edit this stuff on too while ur at it.. ;)

Jon Fairhurst · June 7th, 2006, 11:50 AM

Implement Intraframe MPEG-4 as a firmware upgrade and get all of the NLE vendors to provide native support for it - yesterday. (If I have to transcode before I can edit, what's the point of the new workflow?)

Implement 720-24p intraframe MPEG-4 recording at 25mbps to DV tape. Make it simultaneous when writing 720-24p to the P2cards. Solves the long form problem and gives us an all-in-one backup.

Scott Auerbach · June 7th, 2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

LOL
... and give us a a 2 for 1 offer for P2 cards...

Okay, I did specify ~~non-pie-in-the-sky~~ feature requests! ;-)

Peter Jefferson · June 7th, 2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Implement Intraframe MPEG-4 as a firmware upgrade and get all of the NLE vendors to provide native support for it - yesterday. (If I have to transcode before I can edit, what's the point of the new workflow?)

Implement 720-24p intraframe MPEG-4 recording at 25mbps to DV tape. Make it simultaneous when writing 720-24p to the P2cards. Solves the long form problem and gives us an all-in-one backup.

That WOULD be great, but with the CPU power required, id say more than likely this would be a hardware solution not SW (ie bolt in an MP4 encoder chip would be more realistic as oposed to firmware update).
IMO i think its a plausible solution for the future of this camera (and future units like it) considerin the "speed" in which P2 is evolving in capacities (ie SLOW) and cost effectiveness.
Hell id be happy to pay an extra grand for this.. in the long run it would save a whole load if headaches..

"Okay, I did specify ~~non-pie-in-the-sky~~ feature requests! ;-)"

Damnit!!

Jon Fairhurst · June 8th, 2006, 01:46 AM

Yeah, it would have to be a firmware upgrade that includes nanobots to reconfigure the hardware. :)

Peter Jefferson · June 8th, 2006, 11:24 AM

Nanobots hey?? hmm... im thinkin Metal gear solid here with a P2 card shoved up Solid Snakes umm.. proverbial P2 slot..

actualy you know what WOULD be feasable.. a cineporter type device, which encodes on the fly.. it doesnt have to be on or in the camera itself..this way SDX900 users can also take advantage of a cineporter like device

realisticaly though, to be totlaly honest with u, i really dont see Pana taking any of these ideas on.. i might be wrong, but i honestly dont see it happening.. the R&D involved in jsut imlementing some of these ideas will surely interfer with the current work on new bits of kit.. its just not feasable.. considering that the camera is still relatively new.

To be honest, i think the HVX is before its time. I dont think people are actaully ready for it.. not teh mass market anyway.. the mass market i refer to is the current DVX and tape based user base.. Like i said once before, not everyone has the luxury of shooting and stoppign every 8 minutes to dump a card..
No from what i can see and the reactoins i get, irrespective of the codec, the format in use (p2) is the most difficult thing.. Colour space and resolution aside, people see a good image and that sells them.. if theyre project specific needs, then theyre directed accordingly, but considering the price of a P2 card is about the same as an Firestore fs4 unit.. and the FS4 (despite its failings) can be used on different cameras, then the budgetary toss up is just too uneven for some companies to consider.

I mean i love the camera, i love the concept of tapeless ssytems and zero dropouts, but in the end video producers, especially event producers, are a stubborn bunch. To most people its easy to adapt, and those that have access to forums like this, its usually not an issue, but many of the guys out there are intimidated by the recording format and the codec. theyre intimidated by the increased costs in NLE upgrades and HW upgrades, theyre intimidated by the fact that HDD fail (at this time the only plausible long term archive solution is HDD and even these are never perfect) i jsut really dont see this camera taking off the way it should be..
Not that the camera sucks, or that its resolution is apparently 960x540 or what have u, its about the comfort level of the user, its not about form factot, its about what needs to change within ones working life to be able to accomodate the requirements of the format. And thats what scares people off.. theyre comfortable. theyre efficient and they know what they can and cant do. with new workflows, it jsut might be too much for some to handle

IMO, this camera is TOO advanced for todays market.. I also believe that the current storage solutions are not mature enough to warrant mission critical work on a day by day basis. Some might disagree with me, but in the end, most people feel safer knowing that if a HDD crashes, they can always recapture that tape... with the price of HDD's one would say why the concern? Just get another drive... Well many event shooters dont have the luxury or budget or time to manage all this.. not yet.. not until an optical media is available at least.. then again, there are more costs.. if they have all their footage on HDD, and it fails, theyre gone...
In additin to all the above, the general public dont knwo the difference between DVCProHD and HDV.. they jsut see High Definition..
A tape based HDV producer may not need to charge all that much extra to deliver HD material.. Lets face it, HDV ISNT all that difficult to work with, and i believe that THAT is one reason why its ben taken on board so well (as well as clever marketting of a really dirty codec... compared to DVCProHD, HDV IS dirty.. it might be sharper, but that dont mena shit when you colours and DR look like poo)

however, for DVCPRoHD, there is not only the mobile temporal storage (P2) theres also the archival requirements, editing grunt requirements, etc etc teh cost is marginally higher. Sure its a better format u and i know that, but if an uneducated client sees teh two, the end result and final decision will come down to how much theyre willing to pay.. now Joe down teh road can charge 1000 less than me coz hes using a Z1. It wont have the image i can get from a HVX, but the client doesnt care.. they dont know any better..even if we try to educate them, to them, the compromise is minimal.

In the end, i feel that the only way this camera can compete with the others (for event, wedding, and longform projects), is to dumb it down to a HDV workflow level. Find something which exisitng tape users can familiarise themselves with and work from there.

I might be on a total tangent here, but lets face it, what people dont understand, theyre frightened of. Most people only consider HD to be jsut that.. HD.. they dont see the work BEHIND it.. and i feel with todays current market and stupid consumer mentalities regarding price and the format, that this camera will really struggle to move.

Eventualy, you will see many tape based HDV producers charging equal to what they charge for DV.. this will happen and it will really pick at this camera's success the way one picks at a scab on their knee.. put it this way, for me to consider taking this camera for wedding work, i would need to charge no less than 1500 to 2000 above what i charge for DV.. (this is to cover mobile storage, NLE upgrades to be able to stream 100mbps, P2 cards, etc etc) Doing the same job with a Z1, i charge about 1000 more.. simply due to time, system resources required for the format (ie not many), and means of archiving (tape).

Like i said, this camera is too advanced for todays market (in a general sense) and until people know and understand the differences, then and only then will the general public pay for those differences..

Jon Fairhurst · June 8th, 2006, 05:44 PM

Peter,

Great point about the HVX potentially being ahead of its time. It certainly has its following, but will it scare off more people in the real world than it attracts? (in the near-term, anyway...)

You also wrote...
> "realisticaly though, to be totlaly honest with u, i really dont see Pana taking any of these ideas on.. i might be wrong, but i honestly dont see it happening.. the R&D involved in jsut imlementing some of these ideas will surely interfer with the current work on new bits of kit.. its just not feasable.. considering that the camera is still relatively new."

Don't forget that Sony and Panasonic recently signed an agreement regarding intra-frame MPEG-4 AVC. The companies will definitely be spending some R&D on the new format. The standard is done. We just need the real-time encoders. (Standard MPEG-4 AVC decoders will decode intra-frame MPEG-4 without modification.)

But it's doubtful that it will be added to the HVX-200. Maybe the HVX-300...

While they're at it, an upgrade to a real 720x1280 3-CCD sensor would be nice too. Use the pixel shifting technology to get 1080 lines.

All while lowering the price, of course.

Can I help it if I enjoy it up here on my own little pie in the sky?

June 7th, 2006, 04:54 AM	#1
Scott Auerbach Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Atlanta Posts: 291	forum as feature-request venue? Are the forum administrators interested in opening a thread specifically for (non-pie-in-the-sky) feature requests for the next version of the HVX and/or firmware upgrades? My own personal fave (at the moment) would be a -3db and -6dB low gain menu option for use in bright light (as opposed to the ND filter) to help lower noise in the picture signal. __________________ DP/Editor, Sputnik Pictures \| Atlanta HD video and RED digital cinema production

June 7th, 2006, 05:31 AM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	We've got these discussions everywhere else, so go for it! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 7th, 2006, 11:50 AM	#4
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Implement Intraframe MPEG-4 as a firmware upgrade and get all of the NLE vendors to provide native support for it - yesterday. (If I have to transcode before I can edit, what's the point of the new workflow?) Implement 720-24p intraframe MPEG-4 recording at 25mbps to DV tape. Make it simultaneous when writing 720-24p to the P2cards. Solves the long form problem and gives us an all-in-one backup. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

June 8th, 2006, 01:46 AM	#7
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Yeah, it would have to be a firmware upgrade that includes nanobots to reconfigure the hardware. :) __________________ Jon Fairhurst

June 8th, 2006, 05:44 PM	#9
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Peter, Great point about the HVX potentially being ahead of its time. It certainly has its following, but will it scare off more people in the real world than it attracts? (in the near-term, anyway...) You also wrote... > "realisticaly though, to be totlaly honest with u, i really dont see Pana taking any of these ideas on.. i might be wrong, but i honestly dont see it happening.. the R&D involved in jsut imlementing some of these ideas will surely interfer with the current work on new bits of kit.. its just not feasable.. considering that the camera is still relatively new." Don't forget that Sony and Panasonic recently signed an agreement regarding intra-frame MPEG-4 AVC. The companies will definitely be spending some R&D on the new format. The standard is done. We just need the real-time encoders. (Standard MPEG-4 AVC decoders will decode intra-frame MPEG-4 without modification.) But it's doubtful that it will be added to the HVX-200. Maybe the HVX-300... While they're at it, an upgrade to a real 720x1280 3-CCD sensor would be nice too. Use the pixel shifting technology to get 1080 lines. All while lowering the price, of course. Can I help it if I enjoy it up here on my own little pie in the sky? __________________ Jon Fairhurst

June 7th, 2006, 07:58 AM	#3
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	LOL hey id LURVE to see a hystogram display like u find on a D-SLR... now that would rock.. Also id love to see a WYSIWYG colour display on the EVF.. basically stream the display image AFTER or at the the point of encoding to tape or P2. Apprently its already got this but I beg to differ (with the DVX100b as an example) transfer of camera settings (not scene files) via infrared. Think of it this way, imagine white balancing, and setting the right exposure on one camera, then just sending those settings remotely to the second 3rd or 4th unit. No more tweaking CC in post if as whites are nigh on perfect with each other.... Ch3 and Ch4 audio... now this one could be a possibility, considering the cameras themselves send and recieve audio through these (RCA), why not give the option is configuring the RCA audio to ch 3 and 4 (as opposed to internal mic), while 1 and 2 can be allocated to XLR?? This would kick butt for stage shows and events coz this way u can run a feed directly from the mixing console as it was used on the day of the event, all the while ur running additinal feeds into the camera.. right now, even though IMO i find teh DVX Int mics to be great for an all round omnidirectional feed... running a direct feed would be better.. especially when doing dance parties and concerts.. hell i could go on about this but the potential is phenomenal.. imagine 4 channels each way for a directional feed for surround sound projects... hmm... Focus peak... ive mentioned this before.. and i dont see why somethign liek this cant be implemented.. many ppl complain that its difficult to focus with this unit.. and for event or vox pop type on teh fly street interviews carrying a decent sized monitor just doesnt cut it.. So why not take a leaf out of JVC's book and throw on a focal distance peak meter??? If youve ever used this feature on the HD101, youd know how useful and sometiems (well almost always) critical this feature is... especially with low res EVF's... umm.. what else.. yeah make it cheaper.. and make miniDV sized DVCPRoHD tapes... and give us a a 2 for 1 offer for P2 cards... and give me a new PC so i can edit this stuff on too while ur at it.. ;)

June 8th, 2006, 11:24 AM	#8
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	Nanobots hey?? hmm... im thinkin Metal gear solid here with a P2 card shoved up Solid Snakes umm.. proverbial P2 slot.. actualy you know what WOULD be feasable.. a cineporter type device, which encodes on the fly.. it doesnt have to be on or in the camera itself..this way SDX900 users can also take advantage of a cineporter like device realisticaly though, to be totlaly honest with u, i really dont see Pana taking any of these ideas on.. i might be wrong, but i honestly dont see it happening.. the R&D involved in jsut imlementing some of these ideas will surely interfer with the current work on new bits of kit.. its just not feasable.. considering that the camera is still relatively new. To be honest, i think the HVX is before its time. I dont think people are actaully ready for it.. not teh mass market anyway.. the mass market i refer to is the current DVX and tape based user base.. Like i said once before, not everyone has the luxury of shooting and stoppign every 8 minutes to dump a card.. No from what i can see and the reactoins i get, irrespective of the codec, the format in use (p2) is the most difficult thing.. Colour space and resolution aside, people see a good image and that sells them.. if theyre project specific needs, then theyre directed accordingly, but considering the price of a P2 card is about the same as an Firestore fs4 unit.. and the FS4 (despite its failings) can be used on different cameras, then the budgetary toss up is just too uneven for some companies to consider. I mean i love the camera, i love the concept of tapeless ssytems and zero dropouts, but in the end video producers, especially event producers, are a stubborn bunch. To most people its easy to adapt, and those that have access to forums like this, its usually not an issue, but many of the guys out there are intimidated by the recording format and the codec. theyre intimidated by the increased costs in NLE upgrades and HW upgrades, theyre intimidated by the fact that HDD fail (at this time the only plausible long term archive solution is HDD and even these are never perfect) i jsut really dont see this camera taking off the way it should be.. Not that the camera sucks, or that its resolution is apparently 960x540 or what have u, its about the comfort level of the user, its not about form factot, its about what needs to change within ones working life to be able to accomodate the requirements of the format. And thats what scares people off.. theyre comfortable. theyre efficient and they know what they can and cant do. with new workflows, it jsut might be too much for some to handle IMO, this camera is TOO advanced for todays market.. I also believe that the current storage solutions are not mature enough to warrant mission critical work on a day by day basis. Some might disagree with me, but in the end, most people feel safer knowing that if a HDD crashes, they can always recapture that tape... with the price of HDD's one would say why the concern? Just get another drive... Well many event shooters dont have the luxury or budget or time to manage all this.. not yet.. not until an optical media is available at least.. then again, there are more costs.. if they have all their footage on HDD, and it fails, theyre gone... In additin to all the above, the general public dont knwo the difference between DVCProHD and HDV.. they jsut see High Definition.. A tape based HDV producer may not need to charge all that much extra to deliver HD material.. Lets face it, HDV ISNT all that difficult to work with, and i believe that THAT is one reason why its ben taken on board so well (as well as clever marketting of a really dirty codec... compared to DVCProHD, HDV IS dirty.. it might be sharper, but that dont mena shit when you colours and DR look like poo) however, for DVCPRoHD, there is not only the mobile temporal storage (P2) theres also the archival requirements, editing grunt requirements, etc etc teh cost is marginally higher. Sure its a better format u and i know that, but if an uneducated client sees teh two, the end result and final decision will come down to how much theyre willing to pay.. now Joe down teh road can charge 1000 less than me coz hes using a Z1. It wont have the image i can get from a HVX, but the client doesnt care.. they dont know any better..even if we try to educate them, to them, the compromise is minimal. In the end, i feel that the only way this camera can compete with the others (for event, wedding, and longform projects), is to dumb it down to a HDV workflow level. Find something which exisitng tape users can familiarise themselves with and work from there. I might be on a total tangent here, but lets face it, what people dont understand, theyre frightened of. Most people only consider HD to be jsut that.. HD.. they dont see the work BEHIND it.. and i feel with todays current market and stupid consumer mentalities regarding price and the format, that this camera will really struggle to move. Eventualy, you will see many tape based HDV producers charging equal to what they charge for DV.. this will happen and it will really pick at this camera's success the way one picks at a scab on their knee.. put it this way, for me to consider taking this camera for wedding work, i would need to charge no less than 1500 to 2000 above what i charge for DV.. (this is to cover mobile storage, NLE upgrades to be able to stream 100mbps, P2 cards, etc etc) Doing the same job with a Z1, i charge about 1000 more.. simply due to time, system resources required for the format (ie not many), and means of archiving (tape). Like i said, this camera is too advanced for todays market (in a general sense) and until people know and understand the differences, then and only then will the general public pay for those differences..