Pricing and release info for Varicam 2700 and 3700?

[Robert Lane]

I think all manufacturers are guilty of the "I just don't get it" product/pricing strategy. However when you consider the original, tape-based Varicam was over $70k when it was first introduced (in fact, wasn't it a $100k body upon first release??) the 2700 is a bargain.

For my company I personally decided not to get the 2000 or 3000 and shot the tape-Varicam instead because I knew that "soon" the P2 Varicam would eventually come to market.

Sell your HPX2000's for the 2700 and don't look back.

[Shawn Alyasiri]

I hear ya - and I understand... and then also, I don't...

Every way I look at it, a 2000 with an intra card is a firmware upgrade and a star filter away from being a 2700 (in theory).

I probably wouldn't give 1/2 a dang about it if they didn't stick the under/over in on the 500.

No matter what - It'll be a cute rig for sure...

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by Shawn Alyasiri

...I probably wouldn't give 1/2 a dang about it if they didn't stick the under/over in on the 500...

Except the 500 won't ever look as good at the 2700; major jump in image quality. Full-raster VFR... yeah, that's the ticket.

[Shawn Alyasiri]

exactly...

They can stick it in on cams that you can pick up now for $5-$8K, but you pay $10K for the math on the good guys (or so it would seem).

I'm not sure if I'm complaining, whining, or just being crabby. I gave 'em at least $100K on P2 gear with almost no regrets. A good price to pay to get a lot of product, and images that are great.

So - the 2700. Am I going to buy it? Probably... But ultimately before I write the check, I'd like to know that my extra cash is going towards something more than product protection.

I guess I feel like I'm paying $10K+ for the same car that now has a racing stripe on it (in that it seems like it's something easy/more affordable to add), rather than an added 200 horsepower due to a new injection system.

There was a time that the 2000 wasn't going to have 24/30p - the buyers made noise, and then it did.

Thanks for letting me think out loud...

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by Shawn Alyasiri

Thanks for letting me think out loud...

Don't thank me, this forum is Chris's baby - we all owe him!

[Ellis Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

I think all manufacturers are guilty of the "I just don't get it" product/pricing strategy. However when you consider the original, tape-based Varicam was over $70k when it was first introduced (in fact, wasn't it a $100k body upon first release??) the 2700 is a bargain.

For my company I personally decided not to get the 2000 or 3000 and shot the tape-Varicam instead because I knew that "soon" the P2 Varicam would eventually come to market.

Sell your HPX2000's for the 2700 and don't look back.

Hi Robert,

I'm going through my own internal back-and-forth debate regarding the 2700. I love the fact that it has VFR up to 60fps for slow-motion. But I'm a little wary of spending $40K on a camera that doesn't have a full 1080 imager (the 2700's imager is 720). I have always been a big fan of Varicam footage in the past (and that's a 720 imager too) but so many other cameras these days are delivering 1080 imagers, and I wonder if a higher res imager will future proof the camera more, and also make it more adept for content that might be projected on a big screen (movies, museums, etc).

So that's why I look at the HPX3000 in a favorable light. With street discounts, it's about the same price as a 2700. You get a top-tier imager, but lose VFR. On the other hand, you can create a pretty good slow motion effect through certain post-production software (Motion, Shake, After Effects plug ins, etc).

I'm sure you've considered all this, but am just curious about why you're making the decision you are. Maybe I'm giving a 1080 imager too much respect! ;-)

Thanks!

[Robert Lane]

Although the plethora of measure-bators will dispute this, there's actually very little visual difference between 720 and 1080. More pixels doesn't automatically mean a better picture, you're just getting more numerology.
Yes, there is more information no doubt, but all else being equal I'd challenge anyone to discern the difference between two identical clips, one at 720 and the other at 1080 on an HDTV set. The only time that extra amount of pixels would really matter is for a film-out.

If you want dramatically better images than 720 then you should be considering a 2K or better camera (RED, Viper, F23 etc). Only then will you actually be getting something that truly has a marked difference from 720.

In fact, in the next few years that's exactly what's going to happen to the market. It's been proven hundreds of times that content shot on HD will create much higher-quality SD downconversions for widescreen DVD. Now that BR authoring is just around the corner (we hope) that means in order to get super-quality encodes for BR we'd need to start off with resolutions higher than the HDTV spec - and that would be 2K or better.

The general rule has always been, that if you're using a compressed to down-conversion workflow for your final output then you'd need to start-off with more resolution than the final output because you're throwing away so much information during all the steps of compression to final out. That same workflow method will apply to BR, only we'll need the higher-end cameras to pull it off, and that also means film isn't going away any time soon.

[Ellis Kendrick]

Thanks for your perspective, Robert! More food for thought!

[Peter Richardson]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

Although the plethora of measure-bators will dispute this, there's actually very little visual difference between 720 and 1080. More pixels doesn't automatically mean a better picture, you're just getting more numerology.
Yes, there is more information no doubt, but all else being equal I'd challenge anyone to discern the difference between two identical clips, one at 720 and the other at 1080 on an HDTV set. The only time that extra amount of pixels would really matter is for a film-out.

Couldn't agree more Robert. I am pretty much sold on the 2700 and can't wait to get my hands on one -- will be putting an order in just as soon as I can.

My only concern about this 720 vs 1080 business is how it will impact ability to deliver for broadcast clients. Do you foresee, over the next 2-3 years, broadcasters demanding that shows be delivered and originated in 1080, and not 720? My concern here is that even though the images of the 2700 will be in most ways be superior to the likes of the EX3, it still is not a native 1080 imager, and this fact might affect its usefulness in broadcast applications.

I'm wondering if the likes of Discovery, BBC, etc will start to set the bar at 1080 and will leave the 2700 out in the cold. Of course the final master could always be uprezzed to 1080 and I'm guessing no one would be the wiser, but if I have a client that doesn't know this, or doesn't believe it, and takes the 1080 gospel, it would suck to drop $38k on a camera that is going to be obsolete in a year or two because it's not 1080.

Anyway, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Peter

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by Peter Richardson

I'm wondering if the likes of Discovery, BBC, etc will start to set the bar at 1080 and will leave the 2700 out in the cold...

I can't imagine a scenario that would cause that to happen. If current cams like the F900's, Varicam and even the newly approved HVX200 make networks like DCN happy how could that change in the future? The only way the bar would be set higher is if the HDTV standards changed - which obviously they won't for god-knows how many decades.

HDTV is what it is so any camera approved by the network gods today would certainly carry over until the next-gen of TV is created.

As I say, my fortune-telling swiss-cheese brain says that the real implication for current broadcast-video cameras is that when BR becomes viable to indie producers we'll be pushing the limits of the HDTV spec when creating our encodes for BR output to get the "hollywood" look of film - which means we'll need the 2k resolution o pull that off. In that sense, the bar has already been raised by RED, Viper and others.

But for HDTV, I believe any current or soon to be released, 2/3" inch DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM (and in certain cases XDCAM) cameras will please the networks

[Steve Phillipps]

BBC has already hinted that they want 1080, in fact it says in this document http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/p...ery_v01_08.pdf that current and future programmes are to be acquired in 1080i or 1080P, no mention of 720 (though this is not really true as I'm involved in current and pre-production programmes that are 720). It does show an intent though.
Although like I said in another thread, does that mean that they've had a second look at "Planet Earth" and decided it's a bit crap and should have been done in 1080? Don't think so!
Steve

[Dan Brockett]

I am shooting four shows for Paramount right now and they require 1080 origination. Yes, the HVX-200 can shoot 1080 but they are requesting that we shoot on a native 1080 camcorder, in our case since they are low budgeted shows, the EX-1. I have no problem with it and am enjoying the EX-1 for greenscreen interviews, b-roll and tabletop but it is weird that the company is going to sell off all of the HVXs.

Time marches on. I do see 720 kind of going away in the next few years, everyone has become brainwashed to 1080.

Something to think about when considering spending big bucks on a 2700, which I am sure will be a kick ass camera.

Dan

[Peter Richardson]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

I am shooting four shows for Paramount right now and they require 1080 origination. Yes, the HVX-200 can shoot 1080 but they are requesting that we shoot on a native 1080 camcorder, in our case since they are low budgeted shows, the EX-1. I have no problem with it and am enjoying the EX-1 for greenscreen interviews, b-roll and tabletop but it is weird that the company is going to sell off all of the HVXs.

Time marches on. I do see 720 kind of going away in the next few years, everyone has become brainwashed to 1080.

Something to think about when considering spending big bucks on a 2700, which I am sure will be a kick ass camera.

Dan

This is my exact concern Dan. I couldn't agree more with Robert that the difference between 720 and 1080 is negligible, and we all know that in most ways the image of the 2700 will be superior to the EX1. The problem is that it is often the uninformed/unenlightened "measurebators" who are the clients, and all they know is that their boss or the guy at Circuit City told them 1080 is better than 720. The "problem" is that everyone knows the difference between these two standards because so many people have purchased flat panel TV's, etc. I just had a job where one of the actors, a ten year old kid, starts asking whether we're shooting 720 or 1080.

So...I think this will be an issue for this camera, especially over the next 2-3 years. I have no doubt that the images will be stunning, however, and the fact that it is 10-bit has a far greater impact on the image quality than whether it is 720 or 1080. Now if only we can get our clients to understand this.

Peter

[Ellis Kendrick]

This is my concern as well--that for reasons that are reasonable or not, the industry will simply come to demand a native 1080 imager. And I think it will happen, at least in some corners. So I continue to struggle with the idea of buying a 720 imager with variable frame rates, OR a full-blown 1080 camera without the VFR. I think I'm still leaning a bit towards the 1080 option for my purposes, but that's just today. Tomorrow, who knows!

By the way, Robert, you mentioned that the Hvx200 is now approved by Discovery. Is this beyond the 15% of total run time that Discovery has allowed for a while?

[Dan Brockett]

Originally Posted by Ellis Kendrick

This is my concern as well--that for reasons that are reasonable or not, the industry will simply come to demand a native 1080 imager. And I think it will happen, at least in some corners. So I continue to struggle with the idea of buying a 720 imager with variable frame rates, OR a full-blown 1080 camera without the VFR. I think I'm still leaning a bit towards the 1080 option for my purposes, but that's just today. Tomorrow, who knows!

By the way, Robert, you mentioned that the Hvx200 is now approved by Discovery. Is this beyond the 15% of total run time that Discovery has allowed for a while?

Ellis:

There is a thread from Barry Green over on DVX User that outlines all of this. It will be a new Discovery show about the Iditarod and will be shot 100% on multiple HVX-200s.

Dan