Anyone have any idea how Panasonic does a product launch? When do you think we can expect to see some more information on this camera?

How Panny launches it's products? Hmm...
Usually, they casually announce a product without much press and excitement, several months go by while the product is finalized and finally reaches retailers. When it does become available, no one has any idea that it's already out but apparently everyone's already using it the field.

If you're inquiring as whether to sit on the fence and wait for the 600's release, or go with a different option, I wouldn't hold my breath too much. Even Panasonic's own distributors don't know much about the 600 as they haven't even seen the camera yet.

Right now I currently use the JVC HM 700 but would like a little better low light performance. Definitely going to wait till the 600's come out since I am in no hurry. Plus I am worried about the CMOS and shooting fast sports really tight. I guess time will tell. Just wish I had some more reading I guess.

CMOS rolling shutter isn't as bad as it used to be... I can't get my hpx370 to skew at 720p no matter what, so perhaps the 600 will be better overall, 1080p included.

I am at a certain sport event in London but haven't seen any 600's yet only HPX 3100 and 371!

On the japanese site Broadcast and Professional AV Web Site | Panasonic (http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/index.html) the new brochure is available for download.
First thing I noticed is the use of a single MOS, 2/3" sensor (instead of 3 as usual), and no details about resolution...

So I went over the PDF. Very interesting development indeed, a single CMOS sensor on a 2/3" pro camcorder, now I've seen everything. Panasonic must really have something new up their sleeve if they think it's going to work as well as existing 3-chips... Of course, seeing as high-end film cameras use this setup just fine, it could be that sufficient over-sampling and lack of extra optical elements could make for a picture we've never seen before.

Some interesting points:
* 1080p 1-30fps variable, 720p 1-60fps variable, with upgrade. Smells like a 2-in-1 Varicam to me!
* Love the design/look, very sleek and minimalistic, and the BNCs now point back! The older side-orientation was kind of a pain.
* DRS still doesn't work in 1080/25p, 24p or 30p. Meh. Cine-D looks like what DRS does anyway.
* Don't see mention of Film-Rec
* Built in 2x, 4x digital zoom. That's gotta be it. They're using an 8mp sensor which does 2x down-sampling. 2x mode is probably just 1:1 pixel mapping of the sensor area, while 4x is like is 2x on other cams. In which case this camera can also probably do 4k or at least QHD [/getting ahead of myself].

Looking great so far.

You can learn more about the camera from my article in the current issue of HD Video Pro The AG-HPX600 | HDVideoPro.com (http://www.hdvideopro.com/gear/cameras/the-ag-hpx600.html)

Panasonic couldn't provide me a prototype so no first hand experience but I was able to speak with the product manager and others with Panasonic.

The single sensor was hinted at before but has now been confirmed. It will be interesting to hear more about this 2/3" sensor and how the signal is processed. I would also like to know if the high-res color viewfinder could be used on cameras other than this one.

If true, the idea of a single 2/3" sensor seems strange in the extreme - certainly for a camera of this price, aimed at the news etc market.

It will inevitably have poorer raw sensitivity than a comparable 3 chip design, and that will be of the order of over a stop.

It's now well known from all the single chip large sensor cameras that single chip brings problems with it, not least being that red, blue resolutions must likely be lower than system resolution. That inevitably will give rise to coloured aliasing and artifacting that just isn't present on a camera with 3 1920x1080 chips. We'll have to see exactly what the chip dimensions are......

Single chip makes sense in large format designs for engineering reasons, and makes sense in small consumer cameras for reasons of cost, extreme small size etc. It doesn't make sense in a 2/3" camera of this price. (Let alone the cost of 2/3" lenses.)

Sensitivity will be similar to that of a 3 chip 1/2" camera of comparable technology - yet with the expense of 2/3" glass. Bizarre.

You can learn more about the camera from my article in the current issue of HD Video Pro The AG-HPX600 | HDVideoPro.com (http://www.hdvideopro.com/gear/cameras/the-ag-hpx600.html)

Panasonic couldn't provide me a prototype so no first hand experience but I was able to speak with the product manager and others with Panasonic.

"Thus, customers will be able to record 1080/60p and other frame rates that haven't been easily available in a file-based system."
What? 1080p60 isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the available HPX600 literature, does product management even know what the engineers are doing?

If true, the idea of a single 2/3" sensor seems strange in the extreme - certainly for a camera of this price, aimed at the news etc market.
Agreed. Large sensors have the advantage of inherently better light sensitivity to offset the loss from the bayer array. Perhaps with the right downsampling algorithms and enough pixels it might get around the aliasing problem, like on the F65.

The RED dragon sensor will about the same pixel density as a 2/3" cam, but can supposedly pull of 15 stops DR compared to 10~12 stops for 2/3", and it's just a bayer vs. 3 sensors; technology still has a lot of leg room concerning size vs. physics.

So does this camera shoot 1080p60 or not???

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/ag-hpx600.pdf

The answer appears to be "NO".

And neither will it do slo-mo in 1080 mode, only in 720, so no recording at 60 fps in 1080 mode for 24fps playback.

I do recall that when I wrote that article, the specs of the 600 were definitely still in flux and yes, it appears that Steve Cooperman thought the camera would feature 1080 60P. I will follow up with him to see if that is a feature that they are thinking of adding via software/hardware updates. I think that was supposed to be one of the big deals with this camera, that it features an upgradeable architecture. Will report back what I hear from Panasonic.

A while ago I expressed surprise that for a camera of this type, which seems to be primarily aimed at the news etc market they should have gone for a single chip design. Any chance of finding out why they went that route?

I'd also be interested to know what the basic sensor characteristics are. The fact that so little is published seems suspicious. The camera is close in price to the Sony PMW350, it's hard to see how the front end performance is going to be even close when we're talking about a single chip versus a three chipper of the same size.

I would venture to guess that the single CMOS was done to reduce cost.
In the world of TV news, where the 1/3" JVC and P2 cameras are the norm, this camera makes sense. Especially if the TV station is abandoning SD cameras and already has a large supply of 2/3" lenses and A-B mount batteries. Plus, single chip CMOS cameras are becoming the accepted norm, albeit usually with larger sensors.

What the 600 has over the PMW350s is a much better codec, with an upgrade to some type of AVC-Ultra. I would expect the Sony's 3-chip system to make a better image, but it will be hampered by the 8-bit, 4:2:0 codec. And TV news organizations will not slap on an external recorder, so don't go there.
Personally, I would take the stronger codec over the presumed loss of image over the PMW, but YMMV.

I read in another forum where a Panny rep said the 600's image was comparable to an HPX2000. That probably isn't a stretch, as the 2000 uses older 1280x720 CCDs.

If so, the 600 offers an HPX2000's image (no slouch there) in a lighter, smaller package, with AVC-Intra codec and all the professional connections you could want. And a color EVF. And it's cheaper.

I like the 600, maybe because I used to own an HPX500, and this has all the features I wish the 500 had.

I would venture to guess that the single CMOS was done to reduce cost.
I suppose so - but although it means one chip versus three, it means more complex processing and the need to deBayer. I'm not convinced the cost of a three chip 1920x1080 assembly is that big compared to a single, not relatively, in a camera of this cost, especially when you take into account 2/3" lens costs.
Plus, single chip CMOS cameras are becoming the accepted norm, albeit usually with larger sensors.
Yes, the accepted norm for large format sensors, but that's more out of neccessity than desire. For 2/3", three chip is easily feasible, but the bigger the sensor gets the more difficult it becomes to scale 3 chip manufacturing up. And it becomes feasible to overcome the disadvantages of single chip in other ways. Three chip makes far more sense in 2/3" cameras.
I read in another forum where a Panny rep said the 600's image was comparable to an HPX2000. That probably isn't a stretch, as the 2000 uses older 1280x720 CCDs.
Quite likely - and the implication therefore is that it's a single 1920x1080 Bayer sensor. There's a lot of evidence that such will deBayer to give luminance res of close to 80% of the fundamental, and chrominance res of about 50%. (The R and B sub-matrices are effectively 960x540.)

Hence luminance res. of about 1500x850 (so a bit better than an HPX2000), but the chroma res will likely be worse, and it is likely to have chroma aliasing that the HPX2000 doesn't. CMOS should give better sensitivity than CCD - but then you'll lose at least a stop due to 1 v 3 chips. "Comparable to an HPX2000" (overall) therefore is probably a reasonable assessment if it's a 1920x1080 chip.


Trouble is, that is significantly worse than a PMW350.
What the 600 has over the PMW350s is a much better codec, with an upgrade to some type of AVC-Ultra. I would expect the Sony's 3-chip system to make a better image, but it will be hampered by the 8-bit, 4:2:0 codec. And TV news organizations will not slap on an external recorder, so don't go there.
Personally, I would take the stronger codec over the presumed loss of image over the PMW, but YMMV.
It has a better codec, but it won't make up for the difference in front end image quality. At this level, the codec should be pretty well transparent at the first generation, and it's difficult to see any degradation at all due to the XDCAM 35Mbs codec. If the HPX600 does have a 1920x1080 sensor, that will be easily noticeable against the PMW350 - over a stop less sensitivity just for starters.

Significant in a camera which seems targeted at news especially.

In Europe broadcasters tend now to go along with the EBU recommendations for new camera purposes, see EBU TECHNICAL - News - Are your cameras tiered enough for HD? (http://tech.ebu.ch/Jahia/site/tech/cache/offonce/news/are-your-cameras-tiered-enough-for-hd-27jan12) . Two parts - how to do the measurements and how to assess. The latter is R118, and it's well worth looking at that - http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf

Assuming the HPX600 is a single 1920x1080 Bayer, it falls at the very first hurdle:
1.1.1 Resolution

The camera should achieve the full resolution of the recording/production system. This requires sensors in 3-sensor cameras to have pixel-dimensions which are not less than those of the transmission system, or for a single-sensor camera to have significantly more pixels in order to do a satisfactory decode of the colour-patch pattern.
For codec, then AVC-Intra 100 or XDCAM422 50Mbs is definitely preferred - but it does say:
For Journalism/News these standards can be relaxed to allow the use of.

* 35 Mbit/s MPEG-2 based inter-frame codecs at 4:2:0.
So for News/Journalism the PMW350 has a full seal of approval with no external recorder. And a number of large News organisations positively like the 35Mbs as it allows the use of SD cards for a number of reasons. (Not least being that for field edits SD cards fit directly into pretty well all laptops - no separate readers, cables etc.)

DVCAM has been (and still is) hugely popular for newsgathering, and that (for PAL) was 4:2:0. For news that was never seen as a problem, though Digibeta may have been seen as the de facto format for other work. 35Mbs XDCAM is the HD equivalent to DVCAM - best to use better for general production, but great for news, factual etc.

PMW350 - 13.1k€
HPX600 - 12.3k€
(taken from CVP)

That's a 800€ price difference. Not much. As much as I love Panys cameras if I were buying a 2/3 camera at the moment I don't see a reason why I wouldn't buy the 350 over the 600.

What I like about the 350:
- IQ
- hypergamma
- a nice stock lens

I don't like:
- internal codec
- rolling shutter

The hpx600 doesn't have a stock lens nor does it have a flat gamma (film rec, or S-LOGish). To me this to facts mean a lot.
I wonder how much DR it has and how the highlights rollof. And if the IQ isn't on par with the 350 I Really don't see a reason why this camera isn't 2k cheaper... (because then it would cost a tad more then HPX370 I guess:))

Like I said, give me that AVC-Intra codec.

I will have a chance to see the HPX600 at a demo next month. I plan on going, unless I'm on a shoot.
Does anyone have any questions you want answered? I can ask the Panasonic reps.

Just a simple definitive answer to what the sensor resolution actually is.

And ideally, why it's single chip and not three chip.

Just a simple definitive answer to what the sensor resolution actually is.

And ideally, why it's single chip and not three chip.

Definitely, those questions.

But I'll bet it is a 1920x1080 chip. If it were 4K, like the C300, I would imagine they'd be bragging about it.

Definitely, those questions.

But I'll bet it is a 1920x1080 chip. If it were 4K, like the C300, I would imagine they'd be bragging about it.

It may well be a 4k chip but as it is primarily a broadcast camera 1920x1080 is all that is required as it suits the workflow better.

David knows a lot more than me about this but how you derive the final image is down to the maths and making sure that what you end up with does not have problems in the broadcasting chain, so a 4k chip with correct filtering resolving 1920x1080 is what we need for broadcast. I agree a 3x chip is better but it may be that panasonic want to keep this in the CCD domain.

It will be an ideal alternative to the HPX371 with 3x1/3" 2k chips or the more expensive CCD HPX3100, a lot of the news freelancers here are being asked to upgrade to HD from DVcam but the networks are not prepared to pay any extra for it so low cost full broadcast camera's are essential these days.

I personally went down the HPX371 route over three years ago but the P2 card format may not be ideal for news operation but once the adaptors arrive it will be a smoother workflow as you feel better handing an SD card over to a journalist or editor and the news operations can buy hundreds of them for use in the field.

A lot of people are using the sony 320 and 350 even though they are not full broadcast spec and the 500 is a perfect camera for broadcast but our rates have already been squeezed over the past ten years so investing in such expensive kit is no longer viable.

As for chip spec once someone such as Alan Robert's measures it we will have the answers, until then it is all just speculation as usual.

As we now know a lot of full 1920x1080 HD single chip camera's only resolve around 720p so we shall see what panasonic have done this time.

Like David I wish manufacturers like panasonic would just tell us what the spec is but I suppose they have secrets to keep and it's where the marketing bunnies take over.

It may well be a 4k chip but as it is primarily a broadcast camera 1920x1080 is all that is required as it suits the workflow better.

David knows a lot more than me about this but how you derive the final image is down to the maths .........
The point with maths is that if you want to end up with 4, no matter how you well anyone can add up, even Alan Turing couldn't make it from 2 plus 1.

And if you want to end up with 1920x1080 final resolution - you need to start with either 3 1920x1080 chips OR a single chip with a higher photosite count than 1920x1080. Which is exactly what a camera like the Alexa does, albeit with a big chip. In the case of the Alexa it's 2880x1620, which deBayers very nicely down to 1920x1080.
I agree a 3x chip is better but it may be that panasonic want to keep this in the CCD domain.
But what about the HPX371? The HPX250? They are CMOS 3 chip cameras from Panasonic.
It will be an ideal alternative to the HPX371 with 3x1/3" 2k chips or the more expensive CCD HPX3100, a lot of the news freelancers here are being asked to upgrade to HD from DVcam ..........
But from a news organisations point of view, they are not going to have much interest in what make of camera the buy/use/specify. Cost, yes. Workflow, yes. Performance, to an extent. Manufacturer - whoever most suits the previous criteria.

And from what I've heard so far, then although yes, the HPX600 may be preferable to an HPX371, it's unlikely to be preferable to a PMW350. For the 350: same cost, better workflow possibilities, almost certainly better performance.
I personally went down the HPX371 route over three years ago but the P2 card format may not be ideal for news operation but once the adaptors arrive it will be a smoother workflow as you feel better handing an SD card over to a journalist or editor and the news operations can buy hundreds of them for use in the field.
From what I hear, that's already the case with organisations who have already made an upgrade. To the extent that I recently heard from a freelancer with a PMW500 who had 35Mbs specified by a large broadcaster specifically to make use of the SD card workflow.

And sorry, but when the P2-SD card adaptors come, I believe they will be limited to AVC-Intra 50 - not 100.
A lot of people are using the sony 320 and 350 even though they are not full broadcast spec and the 500 is a perfect camera for broadcast but our rates have already been squeezed over the past ten years so investing in such expensive kit is no longer viable.
Gary, the 320 and 350 DO fully meet the EBU broadcast spec for "Journalism/News" according to EBU R118. They clearly fall in to Tier 2J. Whether or not the HPX600 will is a matter to be seen, but it's nowhere near as clear cut because of criteria 1.1.1 (Resolution) and 1.1.4 (Spatial aliasing) - assuming it is a single 1920x1080 Bayer chip. It certainly won't be rated any higher than Tier 2J, or the PMW350.

As you say, it's DVCAM that many news organisations are upgrading from. Nobody would claim that was as good as Digibeta in many respects - but it had certain qualities that made it preferable to Digibeta for "Journalism/News" use. Easy integration with laptop NLEs over Firewire was vastly more significant than it being 4:2:0. And XDCAM 35Mbs is seen as a natural successor to DVCAM in the HD world.

Like David I wish manufacturers like panasonic would just tell us what the spec is but I suppose they have secrets to keep and it's where the marketing bunnies take over.
There are a lot of things I don't expect manufacturers to make public, and yes, they will all have their proprietory tricks.

But basics like sensor resolution? Firstly, it's silly to try to keep it secret - point the camera at the right chart and the fundamentals are revealed straight away. It's something a rival manufacturer could work out in minutes with the right chart and knowhow.

Secondly, isn't it something that potential customers have a right to know? Go into a restaurant and the chef may not tell you all the subtleties of his recipes, but you'd expect to know whether you're being given chicken, lamb or beef before you order, wouldn't you?

I'm afraid a policy of keeping information like that quiet just makes me suspicious, makes me suspect that they are only too well aware it leaves something to be desired.

Totally agree with you David and after the so called new sensor of the HPX371 which seemed to turn out to be no more than a filter that didn't work, I personally as a long term panasonic user tend to err on the cautious side when the latest thing comes out.

We shall see but my HPX301/371 still does most of my business and is totally acceptable for 90% of my broadcast and corporate work, if I need a C300 or a shallow DOF camera I will just rent one in as its cheaper in the long term.

There are far too many models coming out to keep up with the manufacturers these days and for me it is still always down to what is useable and acceptable for the job in hand rather than the latest mega pixel camera.

P.S just read all of your other comments and when I said re 3x chips being CCD I meant it regarding the 2/3" cameras in the range not the 371 or 250.

We shall see but my HPX301/371 still does most of my business and is totally acceptable for 90% of my broadcast and corporate work, .......

There are far too many models coming out to keep up with the manufacturers these days and for me it is still always down to what is useable and acceptable for the job in hand rather than the latest mega pixel camera.
I agree that if what you've got ain't broke, don't try and mend it. But you yourself said "a lot of the news freelancers here are being asked to upgrade to HD from DVcam but ......" and it's people like that who don't have the luxury of keeping with the camera they have. They have to upgrade, and the question is to what.

If the market is "journalism/news" the overwhelming choice recently seems to have been the PMW350. The HPX600 seemed to offer a similar cost alternative, but the more I he,ar the more the PMW350 still seems the better bet overall.

I agree that if what you've got ain't broke, don't try and mend it. But you yourself said "a lot of the news freelancers here are being asked to upgrade to HD from DVcam but ......" and it's people like that who don't have the luxury of keeping with the camera they have. They have to upgrade, and the question is to what.

If the market is "journalism/news" the overwhelming choice recently seems to have been the PMW350. The HPX600 seemed to offer a similar cost alternative, but the more I he,ar the more the PMW350 still seems the better bet overall.

Not so fast, Dave.
The choice of cameras for TV news here are JVC HM700s, Panny HPX370s and 170s, plus some Sony EX1s and PMW320s. There's one thing they all have in common: they all come in under $12,000. TV news budgets are tight.

If you really want to watch your budget (and I do), the PMW350 is the most expensive option of all of these. The HPX600 is right up there with the 350 in price. We'll have to see how they compare.

I don't know what you're hearing, but I haven't heard squat about the 600, not one review. Understandable, as it hasn't been released yet. I hope to rectify that when I see one next month. If you know of a review, please supply the link, I'd love to hear about it.

Don't get me wrong, the 350 is a great camera. My buddy has one and he loves it. The video quality is excellent. But I won't crown it King of TV News just yet.

Not so fast, Dave.
The choice of cameras for TV news here are JVC HM700s, Panny HPX370s and 170s, plus some Sony EX1s and PMW320s. There's one thing they all have in common: they all come in under $12,000. TV news budgets are tight.
Yes, sorry, Gary went on to talk about "low cost full broadcast camera's are essential these days" and together with the comment about DVCam replacements I was assuming he was thinking primarily of a direct DSR500 replacement. (Certainly in the UK, DSR500s have been heavily used for such as news etc)

As such, the PMW350 has been seen as the direct replacement for the DSR500 for upgrade to HD, and to enable file based working. Like the DSR500, it and the HPX600 are 2/3" and similar in price - hence the comparison.
I don't know what you're hearing, but I haven't heard squat about the 600, not one review. Understandable, as it hasn't been released yet.
I agree - very little has been said, hence my earlier question - if it's single sensor, why, and what fundamentally is that sensor? Understandable? I'm not so sure. It was NAB where it was first announced AFAIK, and according to CVP they list it as already in stock ( Panasonic AG-HPX600 (AGHPX600) Lightweight 2/3 Shoulder Mount P2HD Camera Recorder with AG-CVF10E Viewfinder Bundle (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/panasonic_ag-hpx600ejb) ) . So where are any reviews?

The daft thing in all of this is that the solution to DVcam upgrade is probably the PMW350 as you say but it will be the plethora of cinematic camera's that forces the change rather than the need for a useable ENG camera.

Probably no reviews as the Philip Bloom's of this world are far too busy pixel counting and making test vimeo video's on the latest cinematic camera releases to keep the marketing peeps happy!

I can see the crazy flip to all of this when some muppet in the news dept says that all the journalist needs is his own DSLR and off they go and can shoot their own news stories in cinematic search for focus mode!

Forget the practicalities of it all as it is what a lot of people are using so it must be OK???

The new catch phrase for TV news is MMJs, or "multi-media journalists." In other words, the reporter shoots and edits their own stories. Quality of the images be damned, the stations just want to save some coin. Because of small HD cameras and laptop editing, this is now possible. As an 11-yr veteran of TV news, I find this pretty sad.

It makes me wonder if there is even room for cameras like the HPX600 and PMW350 in TV news operations. I can see the 600 being used in reality programming, assuming the sensor passes muster. Once again, that AVC-Intra codec comes into play.

But at the price point of about $15 grand (sans lens), you're looking at the Canon C300 as a competitor. Which do you choose then?

Spot on there Glen and I did one day at my local news outlet a couple of years ago, the journo was SO excited as she had juts completed her ONE DAY camera training course and was off with her Z7 in the big wide world the very next week.

I agree and that was sort of my point that I would rather invest £15k in a C300 than an ENG camera these days or even better just hire kit in as it is too much to invest and have sitting around if there is no work!

One footnote is that some of the print journalists around here have been taking industrial action as they feel that doing camera and their journo job is too much for no extra money! My heart bleeds for them! ;0)

It makes me wonder if there is even room for cameras like the HPX600 and PMW350 in TV news operations.
My own suspicion is co-existence for quite a while, a mixture of MMJs and more traditional cameras and cameramen. One point arguing in favour of shouldermount cameras is that they are FAR more suitable when you want to add accessories - radio mic receivers, on camera lights, radiocam transmitters etc
I can see the 600 being used in reality programming, assuming the sensor passes muster. Once again, that AVC-Intra codec comes into play.
I wonder - I can see smaller cameras (and the Canon XF305 seems to be the current favourite in the UK) being even more likely to be used in reality programming than news, for the reasons above.

Yes, I agree that large format cameras will take increasing market share, and for the right and wrong reasons.

I've just been reading about the high committment of orders given by two of the main UK dealers to the F55 and (especially) the F5. What seems significant is that for the first time outside of Alexa/F65 money large format hasn't meant sacrificing ergonomics.

Apart from ergonomics/connectivity, the real stumbling block in the past to using large format cameras for news/reality type programme is the lack of long range servo zoom ranges. There is no reason why you can't have such at reasonable price/size - as long as it's quite small max aperture.

That may seem to make it useless at first - but if the basic camera sensitivity is high enough, it puts it back to parity with such as a 2/3" camera for low light ability.

Glen, as far as codec is concerned, I can only agree that the HPX600 codec is more broadcast acceptable than that in the PMW350 - but there is far more to a camera than codec alone. And don't forget the PMW350/320 are about 2 years (?) old now. With the 600 coming along, I find it quite plausible that a PMW "355" and "325" may not be far away with the 50Mbs XDCAM422 codec - just as the PMW200 has taken
over from the EX1.

At that point, Panasonic and the HPX600 get soundly trumped.

Well, the PMW-500 already exists and it's an SxS, 50mbps, 4:2:2 XDCAM. Of course, it has CCDs and is considerably more expensive. Will Sony make a (probably) cheaper PMW-355? I wouldn't doubt it.
Funny, if it also came with one 2/3" CMOS.

Yes, there is more to a camera than its codec. But I don't discount the importance of a good, broadcast-quality codec on an HD cam. Look at the XF305 and HPX370. Both have a 1/3" sensor package that has to be considered below that of the 2/3" PMW-350, yet which ones were accepted by the BBC for full production acquisition (not just news)? It was the minimum 50mbps threshold that allowed the cameras that honor. If they had a lower codec, I doubt they would have passed.
And who can argue that the F3 wouldn't be a better camera if it had a minimum 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec? That, above all, is the biggest wish list I hear about those cameras. That, and its ergos.

I know I harp on good codecs, but that's one of the reasons I chose the XF305 over the EX1R when it came time for me to decide on a camera purchase. I would have preferred the 1/2" CMOS set-up, but the better codec won me over.
Ironically enough, I ended up selling the Canon for an FS100 with its AVCHD codec. Go figure.

Now, back to the HPX600 - would I choose it over the comparably priced C300? Good question! Right now, I lean toward the C300, as I enjoy working with large sensors, and CF cards are a lot cheaper than P2 cards.
But I would also lean toward the 600 over the PMW-350. Again, the codec. But we'll see how that single CMOS works.

Yes, there is more to a camera than its codec. But I don't discount the importance of a good, broadcast-quality codec on an HD cam. Look at the XF305 and HPX370. Both have a 1/3" sensor package that has to be considered below that of the 2/3" PMW-350, yet which ones were accepted by the BBC for full production acquisition (not just news)? It was the minimum 50mbps threshold that allowed the cameras that honor. If they had a lower codec, I doubt they would have passed.
I don't believe the BBC ever bought any HPX370's? Last I heard, their last big recent camera investments were in PMW500s for shouldermount use (with some PMW350s) and XF305s for handhelds.

But yes, it's the codec issue that has led to a lot of XF305 sales over EX1s, and I suspect that is true for the BBC purchases as well. Well, now with the PMW200 it finally becomes possible to have 1/2" chips and the full 50Mbs codec. Personally, I'd put front end performance over absolute codec performance if it had to be one or the other, but it shouldn't be an either /or choice.

And I fully agree with you about the F3 as well. At least Sony do now seem to be listening (at last) and seem have learnt a lot for the F5/55 - far better ergonomics and built-in basic 50Mbs in those.

Just to add a small but important detail: The PMW350K comes complete with a surprisingly good lens and EVF, potentially saving thousands of pounds over other cameras.

Just to add a small but important detail: The PMW350K comes complete with a surprisingly good lens and EVF, potentially saving thousands of pounds over other cameras.

Yes, it does. The HPX600, with a good lens and EVF, should come in at about the same price. Roughly $19-20,000 or so.

Actuially, with a good HD lens, we're looking at about $21,500 for the 600.
$17,000 with an SD lens.

In UK prices, the 350L (body plus EVF) is £9.995, the 350K is £10,495 (body, EVF, plus the lens Mike refers to)

The body plus EVF price for the HPX600 is £9,850. (All prices ex VAT.)

So very little difference in current body plus viewfinder prices - but no kit lens option for the HPX600. I don't think you'll get an HPX600 with any sort of 2/3" lens for anything approaching as little as £10,495. And media will also be more expensive on a per hour basis for the HPX600.

If Sony are really smart they will bring out a PMW 450 (like a dsr 450) with a full 50mbs broadcast codec using SD cards and a decent lens for sub £10k and the problems for a lot of people in broadcast news will be solved!

Well, my little input may be of use coming from my being a maintenance engineer for the Station i work at. We chose P2 back in 2005 and bought a mix of some 32 SPX800 and 900 cameras. This formed our commitment to a P2 workflow for News, set on DV only purely to keep clip file sizes low due to storage availability. The cameras are starting to show their age and the fear is that parts support will soon be an issue. With that in mind we looked at the Hpx3100 and bought 2 where upon i immediately came into problems with them working in Standard Def and a shoot always looking way too soft that no amount of tweaking in the head could resolve. (I even posted here for help and and advice). Lucky we reassigned the 3100s to our Current Affairs group whose Sony SX cameras really did need retiring. They now shoot in full AVC-Intra-100 and have their own HD Adrenaline plus Avid edit suite and enough storage. Their HD work goes to air directly albeit it via K2 transcoding.

Enter the Hpx600 (as a possible replacement to the Spx units, the 1st time i met it 3 weeks ago brandnew purchased by one of our Stringers. The message was to teak it to match the Station's News Look i.e. to the SD SPX800/900s...

Oh dear my biggest problem... there is NOTHING i could adjust! No Paint, no individual tweakable amounts RGB Gamma, for Knee point, Matrix, Skin Detail.... only 3 choices of preset options. The ND only filter wheel will need a rethink on white-balancing by any user familiar with using a clear and 5600K surely. There was only so much i dared do on a camera someone just bought to earn a living from so i backed off going any deeper.

Today Panasonic left me with the demonstrator Hpx600 though and the fun started. No they told me, there is no engineering menu to do any deeper tweaking. The single chip sensor? No, we'll get some more info on it later.

The biggest plus is the weight though. It is incredibly light and amongst some of the camera-crew they will want that especially when comparing the Hpx3100. Battery 'consumption' is another BIG thing. The 3100 is thirsty to say the least.

I need to run a few proper tests in the next couple of days, other commitments aside. Interestingly, none of the crew have wanted to take it out on a job. That coloured viewfinder is just wrong they say. Of course, I've already had the sides off of the Hpx600 and there sure is a heap of air where normally there'd be something! It hints at being a handheld spread out into shoulder mount chassis.

Is the Hpx600 a News replacement? Cost is the biggest question and recently a whole production show was done on a 5D with no funds left to buy a proper shoulder mount rig so with a few alloy rods, bits of wood and gaffer tape, the cameraman made something...

Personally, until i run some Test Charts infront of it and find out just what it can do i'm not sure. RCA audio outs isn't good, (unbalanced). That ND filter won't be liked. We'll see....

Of course i've taken some point & hope photos (available light).

HPX600 Photos by petematev8 | Photobucket (http://s710.beta.photobucket.com/user/petematev8/library/HPX600)

Interesting, Pete!
Thanks for the pics. There does seem to be a lot of room in the camera, although I've never opened up any of mine for comparison. No adjusting the image is an odd thing. I can't wait to hear about your testing conclusions.
I wonder why the crews wouldn't take it out - a color viewfinder? They better get used to it. Most all cameras have that now. I sure wish I had one back in my TV news days. Also, many cameras have ND filters that are not 5600K. That's not a big issue to me.
As an ex TV news photog, I can appreciate the light weight and low battery consumption. When I first started in the business, we used 3/4" tape. My entire rig - camera (tubes), recorder deck, battery belt, spare batteries, etc - weighed 45 lbs! I cannot imagine working under those conditions again.

Compared to a 3100 - yeah, I'm not surprised the 600 isn't as versatile. I'm seeing how the 600 is aimed more toward photojournalism than high end productions like the 3100.

But still a mystery on the single sensor. Hmmm.

Well, I hope to see one shortly. I will shoot some video with it, although I will be stuck in a single room.

Wow, that is indeed a very clean interior, then again Panasonic is claiming this camera to be future-proof, the the idea is to have room for upgrade boards and such...

The settings sound about as limited as what I'm stuck with for the 370. Actually, it sounds to me like the 600 really is just a 2/3" 370, which was basically hand-held tech in a shoulder-mount.

At 13,300 for the body, vs. 20,000 for the 3100, I'm guessing the savings will be significant for some people who don't need the advanced features.

With that in mind we looked at the Hpx3100 and bought 2 where upon i immediately came into problems with them working in Standard Def and a shoot always looking way too soft that no amount of tweaking in the head could resolve.

Yeah, that's a known problem with HD cameras, you should never use the internal SD functionality, maybe a high quality outboard HD -> SD processor would do it. If you need optimal SD quality, get an SD cam, shooting native resolution is always best.

Shooting HD though, I haven't seen any camcorders look as nice as an HPX3xxx series, it's about as close as you can get to the look of a large-sensor film camera.

Well, I went to a demo of the HPX600. My first impressions are: really nice camera. Light for its size. Picture looked sharp with good color rendition.

As far as the single sensor; the salesman didn't know a lot about it as far as specs. I can't tell you if it's like a Canon C300 sensor, or if it's a native 1920x1080 - before the Bayer filter. Honestly, I don't really understand how Bayer filters affect sensors (besides adding color). I suspect the reason for a single sensor (and hinted at by the salesman) was to keep the price low. I wonder - are we seeing the last of the 2/3" shoulder mount cameras?

The camera acts like a wifi source, and you can send the video to a smart phone or a tablet. That's a pretty neat feature.

Understand that this is more of a TV news and reality program camera. It's not a digital cinema camera, and it's not a Varicam. We didn't get into adjusting the image, but it's not as flexible as a Varicam.

That's all for now. Ask me any questions you have.

As far as the single sensor; the salesman didn't know a lot about it as far as specs. I can't tell you if it's like a Canon C300 sensor, or if it's a native 1920x1080 - before the Bayer filter.
I really find this pretty incredible, that such a fundamental specification is not freely available. Especially considering the level of (irrelevant) technical detail that they do go in to in the spec.
[eg "AVC-Intra100/DVCPRO HD:
Y: 74.1758 MHz, PB/PR: 37.0879 MHz (59.94 Hz)
Y: 74.2500 MHz, PB/PR: 37.1250 MHz (50 Hz)

DVCPRO 50: Y: 13.5 MHz, P PB/PR: 6.75 MHz
DVCPRO: Y: 13.5 MHz, PB/PR: 3.375 MHz"] :-)
The general conclusion seems to be that as nothing is published, expect the worst! It would be wrong to say that a single 1920x1080 Bayer would give "bad" performance - but it will be substantially worse than 3 2/3" chips.
Honestly, I don't really understand how Bayer filters affect sensors (besides adding color). I suspect the reason for a single sensor (and hinted at by the salesman) was to keep the price low. I wonder - are we seeing the last of the 2/3" shoulder mount cameras?
For given sensor dimensions and size, the performance differences of a 3 chip design and single chip with Bayer mask are very well understood and very predictable. Firstly, with a Bayer mask, light gets absorbed in the filter - with a beam splitter all the light passing through the lens gets used. The difference is at least a stop, probably a bit more, so it follows that this camera must be at least a stop less sensitive than you'd expect from a 3 chip design using the same basic chip.

With three chip there will be a red, a green and a blue photosite for every one of the 1920x1080 pixels - one in each chip. With single chip Bayer, each pixel will only have a red, green OR blue value - the other two colours at that site have to be "guessed" by interpolation (deBayering). It's also well known that good deBayering will give about 75% of the luminance resolution that you'd expect if three such chips would used.

As a crude rule of thumb, for resolution purposes, a single chip Bayer of (say) 2 megapixels will give resolution performance equivalent to three chips each of about 1 megapixel. (Assuming full deBayering.)

And no, I don't think we are seeing the end of 2/3" shoulder mount cameras, nor 3 chip. Though after seeing the F5 and F55 recently, expect such to take away some of the old 2/3" market. The F5/55 manage to be both large sensor and shouldermount.
Understand that this is more of a TV news and reality program camera. It's not a digital cinema camera, and it's not a Varicam. We didn't get into adjusting the image, but it's not as flexible as a Varicam.
But come back again to the PMW350 - also intended primarily for news and reality! Virtually the same price as the HPX600 - but with an uncompromised three chip design. Very similar weight, better power consumption. If it's really to save cost, single chip is a silly way to do it.

An alternative would be to go to a three chip 1/2" design, still with 1920x1080 chips. In that case, you'll also get a sensitivity drop of a stop, but no loss of resolution. And look how much a PMW320 costs....... :-) If cost of the camera is important, there are better compromises than going from 3 to 1 chips in a camera of this nature.

It's also worth comparing the HPX600 with Panasonics own HPX371. The single chip aspect will mean the HPX600 is only going to be less than a stop more sensitive than the 371 - not the 2 stops that 3 chip would have meant. And the 371 will be much sharper than the 600, and not be as prone to chroma aliasing

You sure are hung up on those PMW 320/350s, David! Great cameras, to be sure. But I still want a broadcast-spec codec.
That's why the PMW 200 sure looks tempting: 50mbps, 4:2:2 codec, three 1/2" CMOS chips, all the pro connections you could want - nice!

I want to see the HPX600 run through a resolution test. I'm curious to see the results. Panasonic has been rather coy about that sensor.

You sure are hung up on those PMW 320/350s, David! Great cameras, to be sure. But I still want a broadcast-spec codec.
Ahhh, it's because they are such the obvious comparison, especially the 350. Virtually exactly the same price, 2/3", and CMOS with solid state recording, even very similar weight, power consumption etc. And it's largely due to the 350 being that price and three chip that I don't think cost is a valid reason for why the HPX600 is only single chip.
I want to see the HPX600 run through a resolution test. I'm curious to see the results. Panasonic has been rather coy about that sensor.
Yes, I agree I'd love to see the HPX600 on a chart out of curiosity, but nobody I know with the facilities seems interested enough to even be bothered properly testing it. (And make of that what you will!)

Realistically, there are only three fundamental options - 1920x1080, 3840x2160, or somewhere around the 3.5 megapixel mark (as the F3). The first two have the advantage of simpler processing (especially 3840x2160), the latter two have the ability to give full 1920x1080 output. There are good reasons to believe it's not using the latter method, and the fact that Panasonic are not trumpeting that it is quadHD (read in the same way as the C300) leads me strongly to believe it's a single 1920x1080. That also ties in with the quote from the Panasonic rep earlier about performance similar to a HPX2700.

(And even if it was 3840x2160, then whilst the resolution would be full 1080, it would still be down a stop in sensitivity compared to a three chip design.)

LIke I said all sony has to do is plop a full broadcast codec onto a 350, call it a 450 and bingo you have cornered the news market! they could even do a (320) aka 420 as a lower cost option.

I still wound not buy one though or a 600 as I have been using an HPX301 for nearly four years in SD and HD for news and doco coverage with no complaints.

I don't deny I'd like to see the 50Mbs codec in the 320/350 - as long as it's AS WELL as the 35Mbs. But for news etc, it doesn't seem to matter too much - it seems that many such organisations are actively PREFERRING 35Mbs to 50 for such as news.

The advantages of being able to use SD cards, and the faster transfer of smaller file sizes are seen as more significant than the absolute quality.

And remember that according to the EBU guidelines, 35Mbs XDCAM IS a fully approved broadcast codec - with the "journalism" caveat.

I have to agree David 35mbs is ample for news operations, most of the sat uplinks we use are only 18mbs Mpeg4 anyway and I know several people who already use the 320/350 for news.

I recall when Dvcam first came out and it was deemed non broadcast and DV had to be transferred to digi beta for mainstream use, times change and the codec on most HD camera's is far superior to Dvcam anyway.