Panasonic AG-PX270

[Jack Zhang]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

Right now, I think the only handheld cam that supports 1080p50/60 in 10-bit, 4:2:2 is the Sony PXW-Z100 4K cam. It does "standard" HD in 50/60P. We're talking internally recording, of course.

It does 4k60p in XAVC-intra too. Great codec but I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the "consumer grade" headend.

[Zach Love]

"While pixel count is one of the many important factors that determine picture quality, it is not the only one that should be considered. Using a progressive type chip along with a precise implementation of Spatial Offset can optimize the resolution that is possible."

It isn't the only thing to be considered for sure, but there were sever limitations to the top quality a HVX could provide. I shot a couple multicam events using the composite output of the HVX200 & HVX200a, I could see a clear improvement on the HVX200a through a composite cable. Later I did a multicam event with the only change in equipment being the camera & I used two EX1 cameras instead of a HVX200 & HVX200a.

Again, through a composite video cable, the EX1 smoked both the HVX200 & HVX200a in picture quality.

So I'd think (in theory at least) that the spatial offset that can create an image resolution of 1080, should be able to make a very solid 480 image. But even the 480 image out of a HVX was mud compared to another camera in the same price point.

In my opinion, the DVCPro HD codec was much better than the image a HVX could produce. So (to bring this back on topic) I'm very skeptical that you'll see a worthwhile improvement in picture quality by using the AVC-Ultra 200 codec in the PX270.

I'll be very interested to see a head to head comparison of a HPX250 AVC-Intra vs PX270 AVC-Ultra, plus take a uncompressed live signal out & record uncompressed video to a Blackmagic Hyperdeck.

Then lets compare the four different recorded images. If I had to place my bets, I think you might see minimal gains (at best) in the uncompressed or AVC-Ultra, but really the AVC-Intra will perform exceedingly well & most of the picture quality limitations will come from the hardware & not the codec.

So the best selling point I can see for the PX270 is that it would be great for people who have a AVC-Ultra workflow & you don't want to deal with AVC-Intra from a HPX250.

------

tl;dr - I'm skeptical of the value of the PX270 when AVC-Intra probably out performs the chips in the HPX250.

(But, please, if someone can prove ,e wrong, show me some tests / articles.)

[Mark Fry]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

The features I want/need are smooth servo motors (like a true broadcast lens) and light sensitivity of at least f11 at 2000 lux (without gain or detail robbing noise reduction).

But you wouldn't want to stop a lens down to f11 with a 1/3" chip, would you? Surely that's past the point where diffraction effects soften the focus. I've worked with 1/3" HDV cameras for a few years and f8 seems to be the upper limit, f4-f5.6 the sweet-spot.

Zoom controls on "handy cams" are improving all the time. My Canon XH-A1s is very smooth and has the added bonus of being able to dial-in exactly the speed I want, with smooth accelleration and decelleration between speeds.

[Tim Polster]

Hello Mark. The spec f11 @ 2000 lux is a benchmark standard of light sensitivity. A standardaized test is done by emitting 2000 lux of light and seeing where a camera at 0 gain will get correct exposure level. It is not an operational setting. For example, the EX-1 is rated at F10 at 2000 lux where the JCV 200 series was rated at F8 at 2000 lux. So no, you would not want to film at f11, but you would want your camera to be rated at f11 2000 lux (without all the noise reduction...)

As far as the servo motors, I do not know if you have the chance to use a broadcast lens and rear zoom controller very often, but imho they are still far ahead of a lot of handicams, especially the Panasonics. The XF300 is the best 1/3" LANC controller I have used, but it still has room for improvement. Like I said in my post, it is really a decision "if" the camera makers want to make the motors better. They can if they decide to.

[Paul Anderegg]

I think f12@2000 is the "new" benchmark, as just about every broadcast HD camera coming out is up to that spec.

Paul

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Allan Barnwell

We have some thoughts on the new AJ-PX270 as a news item on our site:

Omega - News - Panasonic - Panasonic AJ-PX270 announced

It is stated there that "A couple of years ago the BBC approved some 1/3” chip cameras for use in production. The key seemed to be having a codec that could do 50mb/sec. HBO and the Discovery channel followed around the same time and AVC-INTRA-50 seemed to be an acceptable data rate for video for these networks."

It's important to note that the 50Mbs criteria for full broadcast acceptance ONLY applies to an inter-frame codec - *NOT* an intra frame one such as AVC-INTRA50. The latter is NOT considered fully acceptable to such as the BBC or the EBU for general broadcast acquisition - they require intra-frame codecs to be a minimum of 100Mbs for full acceptance. Hence for Panasonic cameras, AVC-Intra100 is acceptable, AVC-Intra50 is not.

As far as AVC-Ultra goes, then the question it begs in my mind is whether it implies that the new camera will be capable of such as 1080p/50(60)? If the answer is yes, then that would seem to be why the camera has got the "Ultra" designation, not down to lower compression at "standard" HD formats. I agree with Jack, it's likely to be the front end that's the limiting factor here. For 1080p/25, 1080i/25, AVC-Ultra is unlikely to produce any noticeable difference.

As far as micro-P2 goes, then whilst the Panasonic nomenclature is confusing, 1080p/50 should be recordable at 200Mbs. I'm pretty sure micro-P2 is capable of that, though not anything needing 400Mbs.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

Hello Mark. The spec f11 @ 2000 lux is a benchmark standard of light sensitivity. A standardaized test is done by emitting 2000 lux of light and seeing where a camera at 0 gain will get correct exposure level.

There's more to it than that. It's also necessary to specify the signal/noise under the test conditions, and nowadays there is the complication of in-camera electronic noise reduction - comparative tests are really only valid if that can be switched out. (It's also assumed it's under the 0dB gain setting.)

All a figure such as "f11 @ 2000" tells you in isolation is the ISO rating of the camera at 0dB, not it's intrinsic sensitivity.

If you consider two cameras, both at 2000 lux, "A" with a spec of f11, but "B" with a spec of f8, first thoughts may be to say that A must therefore be a stop more sensitive than B?

But what if the S/N figures are included and A has a s/n of 50dB, B is 56dB? That then tells a very different story - the intrinsic sensitivity of each is the same, camera A could be made identical to B by simply putting in 6dB of gain.

[Michael Warren]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

[s]It's MicroP2, which is guaranteed to not support 1080p50/60.

Really? That would make this camera a no-goer for me too. Do you have a reference for that?

[Michael Warren]

This video states that it does support 1080 50p/60p.

AJ-PX270 Ultra Handheld Camera Recorder - YouTube

[Josh Bass]

Heeeeeeeey this looks promising. Any chance that since it takes microP2 it would take regular SD cards with the limitation being not recording in the higher bitrate modes?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Michael Warren

This video states that it does support 1080 50p/60p.

That graphic may just be a generic one for AVC-Ultra. You may be right, and I hope you are, but it would be good to get positive confirmation from a definitive source once and for all before getting hopes up too high. I'm just surprised if it does have 1080p/50(60) the fact is not even mentioned in the initial announcement, or made a lot of in that video. (Whereas features like a front mounted run button are.)

[Michael Warren]

Originally Posted by David Heath

That graphic may just be a generic one for AVC-Ultra.

The way it's presented, I think not. There's no reason to single out one particular part of the AVC-Ultra spec and show it along side a picture of the PX270, unless it does have it, or they are trying to fool people into thinking it does.

The video also mentions that the SDI outputs 50/60p. I find it unlikely that it would do that if it couldn't record it. The technical reasons for excluding 60p are about processing speed, not card write speed.

For me, not having 1080/50p immediately disqualifies it as an option.

If this camera has 50p and an image quality at least as good as the HPX250, and it's not too much more expensive, it might finally be the camera I've been looking for.

It very much looks like the "redesigned" lens is nearly identical to the 250's. I just hope Panasonic have increased the speed of servo focus compensation when zooming fast. That video doesn't look too promising in that regard. Still, there is a while before release for them to fine-tune the firmware.

[Josh Bass]

I was looking really hard at the 250. One thing that eventually ruled it out was all of the complaints about the lens. . .stopping down all the way to 3.2, the issues with it being soft at wider focal lengths, and I even read about sharpness being uneven across the lens--sharper in center, softer at edges. This is all from internet research and not firsthand experience. If they have fixed those issues, that would be fantastic.

[Michael Warren]

Originally Posted by Josh Bass

I was looking really hard at the 250. One thing that eventually ruled it out was all of the complaints about the lens. . .stopping down all the way to 3.2,

The lens on the 270 will do the same thing. There are certain design techniques that simply can't be done with this zoom range and price. One is that the maximum aperture will change with focal length, and the other is that it will not be para-focal. That has to be faked with software controlling the focus on the fly. This is also the reason focus must be fly by wire on all these long zoom range cameras in the price bracket. So I'm not expecting massive changes with the PX270 lens, but I'm hopeful for some improvement.

the issues with it being soft at wider focal lengths, and I even read about sharpness being uneven across the lens--sharper in center, softer at edges.

And yet I haven't seen AC130 and AC160 uses complaining of that, even though it's the same lens. It may be a case of the problem not being all that bad, but 250 users are usually coming down to it from the more high-end cameras, whereas the 130/160 users are generally coming up to it from lesser cameras.

This is all from internet research and not firsthand experience. If they have fixed those issues, that would be fantastic.

I'm in the same boat as you. I don't have access, short of a 1000km plane trip to actually try out any of these cameras. Australian stores don't have such generous return policies as US stores. And since I only do this as a hobby I can put up with my modified consumer camera in the mean time.

[Josh Bass]

I wonder where this 22x lens thing came from? Were people unhappy with the 12-16x found on other camcorders? I would rather have less range that functions consistently throughout the massive range that comes bundled with mediocrity.

Does anyone know at what point that stop down begins on the lens? It's got to be constant aperture up to a point before it starts forcibly closing down. Perhaps one could train oneself to only use the constant part of the zoom range.