Panasonic 4K DVX200 Announced

[Rich Adrion]

Some wedding footage

After wedding Raisa & Traian powered by AutoK9 - YouTube

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Joachim Claus

I think I have read the following to your questions:

1. It is real video-sensor with same technology as the GH4-sensor.
2. It has a different format than the GH4-sensor. DVX200 sensor is 17.8mm x 10mm (16 : 9 format), GH4-sensor is 17.3mm x 13 (4:3 format).
3. The DVX200-sensor has 17.2 Megapixel (total) with 16.05 Megapixel effective.
I do not know an answer to your last question.

Joachim

17.2 million pixels in a 16x9?

So they are doing roughly a 2:1 over sample and scaledown?

Hmmm...could this be the first time Panasonic over samples like this? We know Sony does this very well but hasn't Panny has typically done mostly 1:1 readout out until this point for 4k?

If this is a video only camcorder, I wonder why they felt they needed to have the pixel count this high.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

17.2 million pixels in a 16x9?

So they are doing roughly a 2:1 over sample and scaledown?

Hmmm...could this be the first time Panasonic over samples like this? We know Sony does this very well but hasn't Panny has typically done mostly 1:1 readout out until this point for 4k?

If this is a video only camcorder, I wonder why they felt they needed to have the pixel count this high.

Just like Sony they can zoom like "Clear Image zoom" and have pixels free for image stabilization. At least that is two reasons.

[Rich Adrion]

Decent color grade of footage

Panasonic AG-DVX200 on Vimeo

[Rich Adrion]

An action scene shot with the DVX200

Scene Shot on a pre release Panasonic DVX200 on Vimeo

[Rich Adrion]

Panasonic DVX200 4K - #DVX4Ktour on Vimeo

[Joachim Claus]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

17.2 million pixels in a 16x9?

If this is a video only camcorder, I wonder why they felt they needed to have the pixel count this high.

The tentative spec from Juli says 17.2 Mio pixel with 16.05 Mio effective. In a video from Panasonic's Michael Bergeron at Las Vegas NAB he mentioned the size of the sensor is the same as the one in AF100 series, which is 17.8 x 10 mm. This gives a pixel size of 3.2 x 3.2 micrometer.

In other Panasonic documents I found various crop factors for the different record modes.
Full HD: crop factor 2.1875, which gives minimum F of 28mm (transformed to 35mm film).
4K/24: crop factor 2.305, which gives minimum F of 29.5mm.
UHD/30: crop factor 2.39, which gives minimum F 30.6mm.
UHD/60: crop factor 2.929, which gives minimum F 37.2mm.

With these values I have calculated the actually used sensor size for each record mode, based on a pixel size of 3.2 micrometer:
Full HD: used sensor size 16.45x9.25mm, 5140x2890 pixel.
4K/24: used sensor size 15.62x8.23mm, 4881x2572 pixel.
UHD/30: used sensor size 15.05x8.47mm, 4705x2647 pixel.
UHD/60: used sensor size 12.29x6.91mm, 3840x2160 pixel.

These values are calculated based on various information available from Panasonic. They may not be exactly right, however deviations will be marginal. It is only a few weeks now, until we will have clarification, when first DVX200 will be delivered.

Joachim

[Jack Zhang]

So that's how they achieve 60p... That's very primitive to have a high pixel density then implementing crop factor using a 1:1 pixel readout in 60p mode, defeats the purpose of a MFT sensor.

I'll skip then. The FS7 reads the full sensor in 60p and if this has such a bad crop factor in 60p (which is what I'm using it for) this is too bleeding edge.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

So that's how they achieve 60p... That's very primitive to have a high pixel density then implementing crop factor using a 1:1 pixel readout in 60p mode, defeats the purpose of a MFT sensor.

Well.... you get (nearly) the full sensor area in most modes - it's just QFHD 60p with the severe cropping and loss of wide angle ability.

Technically, I think it's wrong to call it "primitive" - it's a step up from previous large sensor designs around the price point (quite a big step up). At least it seems to be fully deBayering what it's reading before rescaling to output resolution. Fundamentally, it shows the limit of read speed off the sensor. Read at 60 frames a second and it can't read the whole sensor each frame - so has to crop significantly.

But at least it's likely to still deBayer/scale properly, so in this mode I wouldn't expect the quality to change appreciably - the performance hit is limited to losing the wide angle for QFHD 60p.

[Jack Zhang]

Losing the wide angle matters to me trying to avoid using extra lens attachments when 1080p can get 28mm equivalent without any modifications.

If the difference in crop factor is too great, I'm not a fan.

[Roshdi Alkadri]

I shot two features that were theatrically projected, first one with the DVX100 and the second with the HVX200A. Always loved the "panny mojo", the short fall of internal 10bit on the DVX200 takes away from the potential of this camera. It does state that the specs are preliminary on their PDF's, hopefully the final product is different from what's currently being represented online. Nothing really extraordinary so far.

With the the current and upcoming camera offerings, the DVX200 needs to kick it up a few notches.

[Rich Adrion]

Panasonic DVX 200 Internal Codec Tests on Vimeo

[Jack Zhang]

For that video, make sure you are signed into Vimeo to download the original file to truly evaluate it. The web version is only 720p.

Through some video compression, I'm seeing a TON of dark noise and fixed pattern dark noise for that matter (unless that was H264 playing tricks). This will not be a good low-light camera, I remember historically the HVX200 being quite noisy as well so 1st gen cameras tend to suffer this effect. Any Odyssey captured footage that can delve into this dark noise matter further?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Roshdi Alkadri

hopefully the final product is different from what's currently being represented online.

It won't be different.

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

For that video, make sure you are signed into Vimeo to download the original file to truly evaluate it. The web version is only 720p.

Through some video compression, I'm seeing a TON of dark noise and fixed pattern dark noise for that matter (unless that was H264 playing tricks). This will not be a good low-light camera

You're absolutely correct. The section starting at 1:33 on the steel girders looks terrible! Even the leaves on the trees at 1:59 look noisy and soft. At 2:33, in diffused bright daylight, the traffic light pole is very noisy.
I'd hate to see what this camera would do when shooting a theater or wedding event or ENG in low light.