Now that NAB is over

[Ron Little]

Did anyone see anything in the VG30 price range that they would have over the VG30?

[John Vincent]

Same as before NAB - the GH3 (which is arguably better in some ways).

One of the slower NABs in a while - esp when compared to last year. Wouldn't expect much from Sony after all they brought out in the last year. Ditto that Canon (not to mention the high end adoption of the C300 and the lower end buys of the Mark III).

Nikon still seems relatively disinterested in the video market, while JVC seems committed to small sensor cams.

That leaves Panny as being the one really huge disappointment. They seemingly have given up on the market the helped create, the indie film maker (at least with "true" video cameras).

VG20/30 still amazing values in this 8 bit, 4:2:0 dominated marketplace.

[Ron Little]

Thanks John. Now I can get my cam and get to work.

[John Vincent]

That's the stuff! Here's my humble opinion - ALL current 8 bit cameras will be collecting dust in 2 to 3 years. I'm not necessarily thinking that everything will go to 4 (or higher) K rez, but a higher bit rate/better colour space is all but guaranteed to happen. And yeah, 2 & 4 K resolutions may very well catch on in a way that 3D didn't.

If my predictions are true, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to invest a ton of money into a high end 1K 8bit camera, unless you have a client directly making it worth your while, or you're shooting a major TV show or feature film. That's not many shooters and it sure isn't me.

Also not for me is massive color correction (or to be more specific, addition) when doing post because you shot RAW or a very flat profile. While I respect the heck out of short/Doc DPs like Phil Bloom, adding on a entire layer of post work isn't my cup of tea. Get it in camera, then minor tweaks in post.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

If my predictions are true, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to invest a ton of money into a high end 1K 8bit camera, unless you have a client directly making it worth your while, or you're shooting a major TV show or feature film.

What's 1K?

4K is 4096 or 3840, depending on whether it really is 4K or QuadHD. 2K is 2048. HD is 1920.

You count the horizontal pixels, not the vertical.

As well, many of us argue for greater colour space and not bit depth: given my choice of 4:2:0 at 10 bit or 4:2:2 at 8 bit, I'll take 4:2:2 every time.

[John Vincent]

Whatever variety of "standard" HD you're talking about, they're all be rendered obsolete by 10/12 bit cameras that will also have higher resolutions (at least, that's what I predict - not a great leap, I know, but there you have it). Even now most "HD" cameras resolve at far less then true 1080 (or in your example, 1920). So yeah, on some cameras you're actually closer to 1K then to 2... but OK, let's call it 2K to keep it simple.

And there are even fewer 8 bit camera that record internal 4:2:2 colour space... and most of those are small sensor cameras. The Panny AF100/GH2/3, Sony VG20/30, EA50, FS100/700, Canon Mark III, Nikon DSLRs - none of them record internal 4:2:2. Heck, you still can't even record 4:2:2 with an external recorder with the Mark III yet.

But I basically agree with you Shaun, I'd take the better colour space over higher bit depth too - but that doesn't seem to be happening. For whatever reason, to get that better colour space you have to either buy a Canon C300 or higher end model or go with a higher rez camera.

At least with the VG20/30 you can get a clean signal out and still record to the internal card (which you can't do with the new Nikons).

[Shaun Roemich]

John, if you didn't understand my point around nomenclature, 4k refers to horizontal pixel count, not vertical.

4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you have approximately twice as many pixels in each of the horizontal and vertical axes, resulting in ~4x the number of pixels on screen compared to 1920 x 1080 (or "1.9k")

2k has only 128 pixels more in the horizontal than 1920x1080 HD video.

To paraphrase a presenter on the Canon stage at NAB on Wednesday:
"When do I choose to work in an HD timeline and when do I finish in 2k? If I'm producing for TV screens, I always 1:1 pixel map for 1920 horizontal pixels. If I'm producing for digital cinema projection, I finish in 2k"

Of course, cinema resolutions have "-scope" considerations that change the aspect ratio whereas HD is 16:9.

Clear as mud?

[John Vincent]

Shaun - I got it (at least I think I do...)

In any case, other then BMC I certainly wasn't wowed by anything a NAB and still consider the VG series to be an incredible value. The only other sub $10,000 camera I really consider buying new would be the FS100.

But the reality is that I'm happy with the baked VG look. There's just enough control over the image to give you some flexibility, and with sharp lenses it produces some terrific images. I have no desire to shoot flat or RAW so that's def a factor in my thinking.

Owned several Canon DSLRs and IMO the VG series just stomps on them (although I have not extensively used the Mark III enough to make a judgment on it). The Black Magic S35 cam looks very interesting, but I always wait for a few brave souls like Phil Bloom to give their opinions before dropping cash.