New Panasonic coming out (replace HPX-170)

[Zach Love]

Originally Posted by Jan Crittenden Livingston

Hi, I am the product manager for the HPX170 and there is no new 170 on the horizon for a long time to come.

Best,

Jan

I'm not too sure I can trust this. I'm going to go w/ the baseless claims by some anonymous salesman. Who's with me?

[Kevin Railsback]

I think I'll go with Jan.

I already have P2 cards, tripod and head that will be more than enough for a 300.

[Noah Kadner]

Yeah in general Panasonic is always upfront and candid about new models- they typically show them off at NAB and then deliver when they're ready. So I would never go off the recommendations of some random salesguy when it's contrary to the norm like this.

Noah

[Zach Love]

Originally Posted by Zach Love

I'm not too sure I can trust this. I'm going to go w/ the baseless claims by some anonymous salesman. Who's with me?

Originally Posted by Kevin Railsback

I think I'll go with Jan.

Originally Posted by Noah Kadner

So I would never go off the recommendations of some random salesguy when it's contrary to the norm like this.

Goodness, I didn't realize my internet sarcasm failed so greatly. I guess it is finally time to sign up for that community college course on how to use ASCII emoticons to convey tone.

[Robert Lane]

The debate about the viability of P2 has been raging since it's inception, as does comparisons between HDV, DVCPRO and now AVCHD.

To wit, the greatest benefit of any P2 camera regardless which model is the 4:2:2 color space compared to 4:2:0 in both HDV and AVCHD. That may not seem like much - until you've hit your head against the proverbial wall of the limiting color gamut/dynamic range of 4:2:0 with easier blown-out highlights and less shadow detail.

If counting pixels on a chip or the cost of the memory cards are your biggest selling points for purchasing an HD cam then you just don't understand what you're missing out on with the 170.

Then, add all the not-so-obvious but superbly beneficial features the 170 has (see Barry's post) not to mention that DVCPRO is both an editing AND delivery codec which takes far less resources in any NLE than even AVCHD... there's just no comparison.

If you're stuck on AVCHD then the Panny chipset and algorithms will win out compared to the competition, but if your'e after ultimate color and image quality the P2 cams are King of the Hill in any compressed codec, period.

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

The debate about the viability of P2 has been raging since it's inception, as does comparisons between HDV, DVCPRO and now AVCHD.

To wit, the greatest benefit of any P2 camera regardless which model is the 4:2:2 color space compared to 4:2:0 in both HDV and AVCHD. That may not seem like much - until you've hit your head against the proverbial wall of the limiting color gamut/dynamic range of 4:2:0 with easier blown-out highlights and less shadow detail.

If counting pixels on a chip or the cost of the memory cards are your biggest selling points for purchasing an HD cam then you just don't understand what you're missing out on with the 170.

Then, add all the not-so-obvious but superbly beneficial features the 170 has (see Barry's post) not to mention that DVCPRO is both an editing AND delivery codec which takes far less resources in any NLE than even AVCHD... there's just no comparison.

If you're stuck on AVCHD then the Panny chipset and algorithms will win out compared to the competition, but if your'e after ultimate color and image quality the P2 cams are King of the Hill in any compressed codec, period.

Well not quite - see Convergent Design's Nanoflash and Flash XDR for even better alternatives. May not be 10bit yet but as many point out the value of 10bit colour is limited in a 100Mb intra codec. Of course it will set you back $US2895, but that is cheaper than many P2 accessories.

Logically Panasonic must already realise they'd be selling a lot more cameras in the sub $10,000 market if they abandoned P2 for CF or SDHC. This is a recent development with the advent of the GY-HM700 and to a lesser extent the Sony EX series (where you can use SDHC via a budget adapter). Is anyone arguing that if Pansonic made the same camera with two SDHC slots at the same pricepoint it wouldn't be easier to sell? I don't think so. All Robert is saying is that Panasonic's compression schemes are better - the flash memory format is immaterial.

P2 is a great system, but very proprietary and a much higher entry price than other flash memory products. Like digibeta and a bunch of other broadcast formats it should suit the higher end of the market who don't mind spending extra up front for a tried and proven system. On the other hand lower budget operators will jump at SDHC and CF for a significantly lower entry point and eventually the codec argument will be a moot point, as everyone will have a good one.

[TingSern Wong]

I think all these arguments about cost of P2 cards is becoming moot. Previously, before the E-P2 cards made its appearance, cost per GB was a legit concern. I don't think it is a concern anymore since the E-P2 cards came into the scene. I have one 8GB, and 3 16GB P2 prior to the E-P2 cards. I just got 2 64GB E-P2 cards for a cheaper price than 2 16GB older P2 cards I paid previously.

[Jeff Regan]

Originally Posted by David Heath

What I was trying to get over is that camera costs (and value for money) should be calculated thinking of the total system cost (camera plus memory), not just the straightforward camera body cost. That's all. Hence, two/three hours of P2 recording only adds a small fraction to the cost of a high end P2 camera like a 3000, but virtually doubles the basic cost of the 171.

David, two 32Gb P2 E cards will record for two hours and forty minutes at a cost of $1200 at 720/24PN, two 64Gb P2 E cards will record for two hours for $1960 at 1080/24P. This does not "virtually double" the cost of an HPX170 at around $5000 USD before any Panasonic rebate program. Obviously, A series P2 cards would have a higher cost, but other than a news organization, I can't think of too many users who would benefit from A series cards.

A Sony 32Gb SxS card costs around $850 USD, so they aren't exactly cheap, although it yields 140 minutes of record time due to the low bit rate, 4:2:0 color space and Long GOP frame structure of XDCAM EX.

I put an HPX170 into our rental inventory a year ago and it has been very successful, and worked well as a B-camera for our HDX900. We also have an EX1 and it provides amazing images for the money as does an HPX300. Now that we have an HPX2700 P2 Varicam, I would love to see an HPX170 form factor/similar price point camera that offered AVC-Intra capability--be it CCD or CMOS.

The camera rental business is very simple these days--make back the investment in a year and sell by the 2nd year(if there is any resale value left)!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Jeff Regan

David, two 32Gb P2 E cards will record for two hours and forty minutes at a cost of $1200 at 720/24PN, two 64Gb P2 E cards will record for two hours for $1960 at 1080/24P. This does not "virtually double" the cost of an HPX170 at around $5000 USD ..........

I must point out that comment you quoted from me was made around two months ago, prices are changing all the time, and I'm not even sure if E-series cards were common at the time. Additionally, 24p is not a Region50 standard, and the comments were referring to 720p/50 and 1080i/25 modes - so 100Mbs bitrate.

I've just checked the figures again on one of the main UK sites, and currently they are selling the HPX171 for £3,440, and 64GB E-series for £640 (all prices excl tax). Hence, for 2 hours of 720p/50 recording, £1280, for 3 hours, £1920. So I'll accept that "virtually double" may now be an out of date figure - it may now be more accurate to say "adds around 50% for 2-3hours of recording time".

But the point remains that 2-3 hours recording media adds a substantial amount to a 171, far less percentage wise to a 151 and similarly to such as a high end P2 camera such as a 3000. (The same site lists that at about £26,000 without lens, so say about 5-10% extra for the 2-3 hours of P2 cards. )

But leaving all that aside, it's the chips and codec that now seem so dated with the 171. The 960x540 chips just can't compete with the 1920x1080 of most of the newer models, and the sub-sampling of DVCPro-HD can't compete with AVC-Intra or any other full raster codec.

So here I fully agree with you, Jeff: "Now that we have an HPX2700 P2 Varicam, I would love to see an HPX170 form factor/similar price point camera that offered AVC-Intra capability......". I'd only add, "and 1920x1080 chips".

[Jeff Regan]

David,

1080X1920 chips aren't the end all, be all for me. I bought the HPX2700 over the HPX3700 because many clients like 720P and the ability to do 60P. The 2700 does 1-60 fps in one frame increments, the 3700 has no 720 capability or frame rates over 30 fps, is not as light sensitive and has higher power consumption.

AVC-Intra does provide more detail even in 720P, as you know. To me, the 2700 is the true successor to the original Varicam series. There is more to the look of a camera than pixel count.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video