GS-400 release date in US

Nick Kerpchar · August 12th, 2004, 12:48 PM

Bill,
Here is what I had reference to regarding tape transport noise with the GS400. These quotes come from the thread in this section of the forum called, "GS400 vs. PDX10" :

>>Z. Win: I imagine it will also share a problem inherent in the tape transport mechanism which Panasonic used in the DV953 and I believe in all the GS models: if you are recording and then put the camera in 'pause', the transport disengages with all the attendent noise and delay that would normally be associated with turning the camera off. A real problem if you are trying to shoot in a quiet public situation (such as a concert or lecture), or if you are doing interviews. I suspect that this noise is a trade-off which Panasonic had to accept in return for the unusually quick turn-on times its consumer cameras are capable of.<<

>>G. Bruner: Shifting between pause and record doesn't incur any noise with the DV953. Turning the cam on and off does. The 953 also picks up no noise from the transport.<<

>>C. Martinez: How noise can be a problem when you turn the camera on and off? Noise is a problem when it can be recorded only.

Or do you mean noise in the editing point, when the camera is put on rec again over the end of another take?<<

>>Z. Win: >>>>>Shifting between pause and record doesn't incur any noise with the DV953. Turning the cam on and off does. The 953 also picks up no noise from the transport<<<<<

Correct. But shifting from 'record' to pause with the DV953 causes several seconds of grinding and whining from the transport, just about identical to the noise made when you turn the camera 'off' after recording. I'm not talking about noise picked up by the internal microphone, I'm talking about noise which is audible to other people in the space where you are shooting -- this noise is easily audible from 10-15 feet away in a quiet environment. In a public environment such as a lecture or concert (of quiet music such as folk or chamber music) this is a real problem, as it is if you are interviewing someone and trying to pause the camera during portions of the interview that wander off topic.

I've never experienced such noise with either Sony or Canon cameras, nor is it issue with the AGDVC30 (which makes a slight noise when shifted into pause, but nothing really objectionable). I talked with tech support at Panasonic, and they confirmed that the noise which the camere makes when shifted from record to pause is normal, and typical of the transport used in most (possible all?) of their consumer cameras.<<

>>B. Ostroff: <<<-- Originally posted by Zack Win : I've never experienced such noise with either Sony or Canon cameras -->>>

I can confirm that the Sony's don't have this problem. I have frequently used my VX-2000 and PDX-10 to shoot from the rear of the audience during our opera performances and never had a problem. The noise you describe on the Panasonic would clearly be a BIG problem for this sort of thing...<<

Do I understand correctly that you did not notice any noise such as described in the quotes when using the GS400?

Thanks, Nick

Patricia Kim · August 12th, 2004, 04:42 PM

Someone at camcorderinfo.com just posted that he ordered a gs400 from B&H and should be getting it on Saturday. They had six in stock.

George Kartsivadze · August 12th, 2004, 10:13 PM

post from camcorderinfo.com:

"I am from Sydney.Yesterday I tested before buying 2 GS400 camcorders.
Both in 16:9 cinema mode.First salesmen test direct AV output to 50" Plasma and 32"CRT HD Next salesmen produced DVD based on software supplied and played again on 50"plasma and 32" CRT
Results-In my opinion Gs 400 16:9 is only to be use for MAX 28" TV or computer monitor.
On plasma 50" picture was very bad (no single straight edge) plus artifacts. On CRT 32" picture was just "no good" for same reason..."

Tommy Haupfear · August 12th, 2004, 10:36 PM

George, I don't know how much validity we can put in that comment. Why would GS400 look acceptable on a high resolution computer monitor with an ultra fine dot pitch but look bad on a 50" HD plasma.

The best way to view SD material is on a SD set but even then my GS100 footage looks rather nice in Pro Cinema mode on my 50" LCD HDTV.

Maybe this person was expecting 1/2" 3CCD native 16:9 performance...

Kurth Bousman · August 13th, 2004, 12:25 PM

Tommy , correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the 16:9 & the 4:3 have the same artifacting since the image is just being pulled off of different geometries of the ccd and not being digitally manipulated to achieve 16:9 like the older anamorphic mode. In other words why would or could this happen in 16:9 and not in 4:3 ? One thing I'm alittle unclear about is how the camera digitally squeezes the image to the dv codec ? Could this cause artifacting ?If this is the case it's a pdx10 for sure for me because I'm interested in projection not 32" tv ! I think we'll be getting some reliable input from shooters soon . ! Kurth

Patricia Kim · August 13th, 2004, 12:39 PM

Interesting, because there is someone else who posted recently at camcorderinfo that his footage from his p953 shown both off tape and from a dvd looked awful on a brand new 50" hdtv. Wonder if these two posters are using the same brand of tv and what it is. Or it could be the individual "artifact sensitivity" issue noted in another thread - the one where someone thought the footage posted by Kaku Ito didn't seem of very high quality.

Tommy Haupfear · August 13th, 2004, 03:23 PM

Kurth, were not 100% sure the GS400 is true 16:9 with zero loss in resolution due to vertical zoom but we do know its very close. Even then the anamorphic "digital" process is applied to make it fit the DV25 NTSC specs of 720x480.

I'm not familiar with the person's comments at camcorderinfo.com but I would think that the problem would exist for both 4:3 and 16:9. Then again I only have experience with the GS100 and we really need to get some more user feedback and/or raw footage to juxtapose.

Guy Bruner · August 14th, 2004, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Interesting, because there is someone else who posted recently at camcorderinfo that his footage from his p953 shown both off tape and from a dvd looked awful on a brand new 50" hdtv.

That individual was basing his assessment on video captured from USB and converted to MPEG2. In fact, the salesperson in the store where he bought the GS400 did the same thing showing him the cam! LOL!

Tommy Haupfear · August 14th, 2004, 07:39 AM

Quote:

That individual was basing his assessment on video captured from USB and converted to MPEG2.

Guy, thanks for the clarification, thats too funny!

Joe Carney · August 15th, 2004, 10:29 AM

Tommy, if you search around, you will find there is no such thing as true 16:9 for either PAL or NTSC standard definition video. it's all anamorphicwhen stored to tape. But....in just about all current computer based NLEs the computer converts it to true 16:9 for editing purposes and renders back to anamorphic for tape or DVD.

True 16:9 exists only in the new HD/digital formats or if you use Windows Media or Quicktime for playback (or some other computer based codec).

Tommy Haupfear · August 15th, 2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Tommy, if you search around, you will find there is no such thing as true 16:9 for either PAL or NTSC standard definition video.

Joe, I'm fully aware of the anamorphic process and limitations of NTSC and the DV25 codec but thats not what I'm referring to when I mention true 16:9.

What I mean by true 16:9 is that a 853x480 picture is pulled from an oversized CCD with no vertical zooming as described and illustrated in the two links below.

Link 1

Link 2

Allan Rejoso · August 15th, 2004, 06:28 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That individual was basing his assessment on video captured from USB and converted to MPEG2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just checked that post. Although I haven't actually tried it, the GS400 has high speed USB2.0 that can be used to transfer DV (quality) from tape or directly from cam to PC through USB instead of IEEE port. To do so, USB function must be set to Motion DV (other function setting is Webcam) through menu operation and the PC must have high speed USB2.0 too.

Assuming that person followed the correct procedure for DV capture through USB, then perhaps the problem was the conversion to MPEG2, or the plasma TV used was a crap or not optimized, or he's just too sensitive to artifacts which become more pronounced as the monitor becomes bigger.

Jesse Bekas · August 18th, 2004, 09:09 AM

It could also be attributed to the fact that some HDTV's poorly upres SD footage, and make it look worse than it really is.

Joe Carney · August 18th, 2004, 05:56 PM

tommy, my mx500 uses more of the chip and then is converted to anomorphic. From the initial tests of both...

The mx500 used more chip height and width and then squeezed it back down to PAL based anamorphic.

The dv953 used greater width, but less vertical (height) and uprezed it to NTSC anamorphic. I don't know why Panasonic did it that way either.

those early tests are why I ended up buying the MX500.

So, is the same thing happening again for the GS400?

Tommy Haupfear · August 18th, 2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

So, is the same thing happening again for the GS400?

The Japanese Pana website is claiming that the GS400 has no vertical zooming and the benefit of a widened angle of view (similar to the Sony DSR-PDX10).

August 12th, 2004, 10:13 PM	#18
George Kartsivadze Tourist Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: New York USA Posts: 2	Can it be true??? post from camcorderinfo.com: "I am from Sydney.Yesterday I tested before buying 2 GS400 camcorders. Both in 16:9 cinema mode.First salesmen test direct AV output to 50" Plasma and 32"CRT HD Next salesmen produced DVD based on software supplied and played again on 50"plasma and 32" CRT Results-In my opinion Gs 400 16:9 is only to be use for MAX 28" TV or computer monitor. On plasma 50" picture was very bad (no single straight edge) plus artifacts. On CRT 32" picture was just "no good" for same reason..."

August 12th, 2004, 12:48 PM	#16
Nick Kerpchar Major Player Join Date: May 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 211	Bill, Here is what I had reference to regarding tape transport noise with the GS400. These quotes come from the thread in this section of the forum called, "GS400 vs. PDX10" : >>Z. Win: I imagine it will also share a problem inherent in the tape transport mechanism which Panasonic used in the DV953 and I believe in all the GS models: if you are recording and then put the camera in 'pause', the transport disengages with all the attendent noise and delay that would normally be associated with turning the camera off. A real problem if you are trying to shoot in a quiet public situation (such as a concert or lecture), or if you are doing interviews. I suspect that this noise is a trade-off which Panasonic had to accept in return for the unusually quick turn-on times its consumer cameras are capable of.<< >>G. Bruner: Shifting between pause and record doesn't incur any noise with the DV953. Turning the cam on and off does. The 953 also picks up no noise from the transport.<< >>C. Martinez: How noise can be a problem when you turn the camera on and off? Noise is a problem when it can be recorded only. Or do you mean noise in the editing point, when the camera is put on rec again over the end of another take?<< >>Z. Win: >>>>>Shifting between pause and record doesn't incur any noise with the DV953. Turning the cam on and off does. The 953 also picks up no noise from the transport<<<<< Correct. But shifting from 'record' to pause with the DV953 causes several seconds of grinding and whining from the transport, just about identical to the noise made when you turn the camera 'off' after recording. I'm not talking about noise picked up by the internal microphone, I'm talking about noise which is audible to other people in the space where you are shooting -- this noise is easily audible from 10-15 feet away in a quiet environment. In a public environment such as a lecture or concert (of quiet music such as folk or chamber music) this is a real problem, as it is if you are interviewing someone and trying to pause the camera during portions of the interview that wander off topic. I've never experienced such noise with either Sony or Canon cameras, nor is it issue with the AGDVC30 (which makes a slight noise when shifted into pause, but nothing really objectionable). I talked with tech support at Panasonic, and they confirmed that the noise which the camere makes when shifted from record to pause is normal, and typical of the transport used in most (possible all?) of their consumer cameras.<< >>B. Ostroff: <<<-- Originally posted by Zack Win : I've never experienced such noise with either Sony or Canon cameras -->>> I can confirm that the Sony's don't have this problem. I have frequently used my VX-2000 and PDX-10 to shoot from the rear of the audience during our opera performances and never had a problem. The noise you describe on the Panasonic would clearly be a BIG problem for this sort of thing...<< Do I understand correctly that you did not notice any noise such as described in the quotes when using the GS400? Thanks, Nick

August 12th, 2004, 04:42 PM	#17
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	Someone at camcorderinfo.com just posted that he ordered a gs400 from B&H and should be getting it on Saturday. They had six in stock.

August 12th, 2004, 10:36 PM	#19
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	George, I don't know how much validity we can put in that comment. Why would GS400 look acceptable on a high resolution computer monitor with an ultra fine dot pitch but look bad on a 50" HD plasma. The best way to view SD material is on a SD set but even then my GS100 footage looks rather nice in Pro Cinema mode on my 50" LCD HDTV. Maybe this person was expecting 1/2" 3CCD native 16:9 performance...

August 13th, 2004, 12:25 PM	#20
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Tommy , correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the 16:9 & the 4:3 have the same artifacting since the image is just being pulled off of different geometries of the ccd and not being digitally manipulated to achieve 16:9 like the older anamorphic mode. In other words why would or could this happen in 16:9 and not in 4:3 ? One thing I'm alittle unclear about is how the camera digitally squeezes the image to the dv codec ? Could this cause artifacting ?If this is the case it's a pdx10 for sure for me because I'm interested in projection not 32" tv ! I think we'll be getting some reliable input from shooters soon . ! Kurth

August 13th, 2004, 12:39 PM	#21
Patricia Kim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Honolulu, Hawaii Posts: 453	Interesting, because there is someone else who posted recently at camcorderinfo that his footage from his p953 shown both off tape and from a dvd looked awful on a brand new 50" hdtv. Wonder if these two posters are using the same brand of tv and what it is. Or it could be the individual "artifact sensitivity" issue noted in another thread - the one where someone thought the footage posted by Kaku Ito didn't seem of very high quality.

August 13th, 2004, 03:23 PM	#22
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Kurth, were not 100% sure the GS400 is true 16:9 with zero loss in resolution due to vertical zoom but we do know its very close. Even then the anamorphic "digital" process is applied to make it fit the DV25 NTSC specs of 720x480. I'm not familiar with the person's comments at camcorderinfo.com but I would think that the problem would exist for both 4:3 and 16:9. Then again I only have experience with the GS100 and we really need to get some more user feedback and/or raw footage to juxtapose.

August 15th, 2004, 10:29 AM	#25
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	Tommy, if you search around, you will find there is no such thing as true 16:9 for either PAL or NTSC standard definition video. it's all anamorphicwhen stored to tape. But....in just about all current computer based NLEs the computer converts it to true 16:9 for editing purposes and renders back to anamorphic for tape or DVD. True 16:9 exists only in the new HD/digital formats or if you use Windows Media or Quicktime for playback (or some other computer based codec).

August 15th, 2004, 06:28 PM	#27
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That individual was basing his assessment on video captured from USB and converted to MPEG2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just checked that post. Although I haven't actually tried it, the GS400 has high speed USB2.0 that can be used to transfer DV (quality) from tape or directly from cam to PC through USB instead of IEEE port. To do so, USB function must be set to Motion DV (other function setting is Webcam) through menu operation and the PC must have high speed USB2.0 too. Assuming that person followed the correct procedure for DV capture through USB, then perhaps the problem was the conversion to MPEG2, or the plasma TV used was a crap or not optimized, or he's just too sensitive to artifacts which become more pronounced as the monitor becomes bigger.

August 18th, 2004, 09:09 AM	#28
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	It could also be attributed to the fact that some HDTV's poorly upres SD footage, and make it look worse than it really is.

August 18th, 2004, 05:56 PM	#29
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	tommy, my mx500 uses more of the chip and then is converted to anomorphic. From the initial tests of both... The mx500 used more chip height and width and then squeezed it back down to PAL based anamorphic. The dv953 used greater width, but less vertical (height) and uprezed it to NTSC anamorphic. I don't know why Panasonic did it that way either. those early tests are why I ended up buying the MX500. So, is the same thing happening again for the GS400?