Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it?
by Shane Dillon
on
Jun 17, 2005 at 4:29:47 am
Hi,
I am new to this forum, but from searching the web, this is the only site where Varicam has been spoken of with people that have used it.
I first used Panasonics Varicam almost six years ago when Betatesting it for Quantel. Back then there were several problems I pointed out that still have yet to be addressed.
Now living in Seattle, several small companies have bought into the format and some of the higher end work is coming into the larger facilities.
I work for one of those large facilities, where as well as Panasonic Varicam, we have HDCam, HDCam SR, a DaVinci, Quantel eQ's, Avid Nitris, Final Cut, and a bunch of other stuff.
We have had a few issues with Varicam as of late, and have thought long and hard, and now advise clients NOT to shoot on it. Because of this Panasonic sent a sales rep, their engineer, and sent up a conference call with some of the powers that be in Panasonic.
Anyway, the main problems are:
1. If you actually shoot Variable frame rate, it is impossible to do an offline and get a decent EDL list. Quantel reads the variable framerate flags, but AVID and Final Cut cannot take a SD feed and read the flags. As Panasonics states:- The flags are only on HD-SDI output, so you have to edit in HD. The solution they gave us was to either use the Quantel system (or a Variable Frame Rate Convertor) and then lay back to HDCAM, then use that as your master!!
So now the client has to pay for a dub, and lose a generation in quality.
They said there are no plans to do an SD variable output ( ie. 24 frame then add Pulldown for NTSC, or play frame for frame for PAL).
2. If you are using the AJ 1200 deck, the only way you can do a recording, other than crash record is to use the Firewire option, however this cannot record VITC. Without VITC, no decent color corrector can work with the tapes. The AJ 1700 does not have the Firewire option at all, and never will. Panasonics answer for us was to Dub all the tapes that were recorded using Firewire to get VITC. But have you seen the compression artifacts of one generation, it is shocking!
All in all I was really disappointed by Panasonics response.
I have had alot of experience with the format, but still shudder whenever a client calls and says they have something shot on Varicam.
My advice, stick to HDCAM, you will save money in the end and it will look better. The new CineAlta SR stuff looks amazing.
Leo, I remember you name from the old Henry days. Perhaps you could shed some light on what sort of experiences you have had. So far our clients have been really disappointed with the quality, especially as they have been using HDCAM and film previously. But my real beef is with the Offline to Online problem.
Re: Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it? by Rob Bullard on Jun 17, 2005 at 3:20:21 pm
Wow those are valid concerns. But for the small to mid size producer it is still an amazing system. Recently I shot for a client, captured to firewire and he editied on his lap top. Is that what really concerns you?
Re: Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it? by walter biscardi on Jun 17, 2005 at 3:54:28 pm
If a tape is truly recorded in variable frame rates, the flags must be recognized by Final Cut Pro via Firewire because it will automatically capture at whatever frame rate was used if you have the option to automatically capture only actual frames and ignore duplicate frames. I've done this several times in FCP where I'll just leave it set to 720/60 on Firewire and any 24p shots are automatically captured at 23.98.
As for quality, yes, HDCAM is certainly cleaner and sharper than DVCPro HD, at least as far as i've seen in my experience. Especialy with solid areas like walls and such.
Variable Rate capture via HD SDI... by Leo Ticheli on Jun 17, 2005 at 4:12:45 pm
Have you tried HD SDI capture, Walter? We do not use Firewire capture, only HD SDI, and the flags are recognized by our FCP systems.
I've not seen any VariCam footage that I would consider less clean than HDCAM footage. Both VariCam and CineAlta offer a very extreme range of "sharpness" settings, such as horizontal and vertical detail, so it's difficult to say one is sharper than the other. The preferences of the cinematographers may be the key difference.
Re: Variable Rate capture via HD SDI... by walter biscardi on Jun 17, 2005 at 5:05:45 pm
[Leo Ticheli]"Have you tried HD SDI capture, Walter? We do not use Firewire capture, only HD SDI, and the flags are recognized by our FCP systems."
Why would I do that? I already said that FCP recognizes the variable frame rate with Firewire Capture.
We've done tests here comparing HD-SDI and Firewire Capture and find the footage to be indentical in capture, even up against an AVID DS/HD system. So we save all the storage space and capture Firewire.
Why you should use HD SDI... by Leo Ticheli on Jun 17, 2005 at 7:06:22 pm
Hi Walter,
While it's true that the native DVCPro HD codec looks good, it's a very bad idea to use it if you are doing any effects or layers!
Every time you color correct or add a layer of any kind you are, in effect, decompressing and recompressing each time; the result is noise and reduced picture quality. This may explain the problems you reported seeing.
In sum, if you want the best quality, load in HD SDI not Firewire. You'll stay uncompressed for all your color grading and effects. The Firewire method is acceptable only for cuts-only shows. I believe this has been discussed in detail here previously.
Re: Why you should use HD SDI... by walter biscardi on Jun 18, 2005 at 9:58:02 am
[Leo Ticheli]"While it's true that the native DVCPro HD codec looks good, it's a very bad idea to use it if you are doing any effects or layers!"
I'm talking about raw, captured footage Leo. There's no denying that the Varicam adds noise to the image, especially large solid areas like a wall. Look at the pure feed from the camera via SDI before you roll tape, then look at the tape playback. There will be some compression artifacts in large solid areas. The only way to get around this is to simply roll the camera directly to a D5 or to an uncompressed system like my Kona 2 system.
Re: Why you should use HD SDI... by Leo Ticheli on Jun 18, 2005 at 12:13:01 pm
Of course the HD signal is compressed in both HDCAM and DVCPro HD.
I'm talking about the way you're editing and doing effects. If you capture via Firewire with the DVCPro HD codec rather than HD SDI, you will make the compression much worse every time you add an effect, layer, or color correction. The quality difference can be profound.
It's your choice; continue to use Firewire to save some storage space or use HD SDI and keep the video uncompressed in the system.
Re: Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it? by shane dillon on Jun 17, 2005 at 4:21:48 pm
We have Final Cut here too. However if you are dealing with 24 or 60, then it is fine. I am talking about the true variable framerate, ie anything from 4fps to 60fps. Final Cut actually renders new clips when they are odd framerates, and these new clips don't hold the correct timecode and reel names, so an EDL from that is pretty much useless. You have to finish the job on FCP really.
As Panasonic told us, there really is no solution when using variable framerates when offlining in SD. All editing would have to be done in HD, or you have to do a dub, then use those as masters.
Re: Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it? by Leo Ticheli on Jun 17, 2005 at 4:27:43 pm
Yes, you've got it exactly right, Shane, you need to lay off your variable frame-rate material to a separate master if you wish to off-line.
I'm sure that off-line is important for many, such as a director's cut on a laptop, for example. I just believe that making a variable frame-rate master is a small price to pay for having an HD camera that's a direct replacement for a film camera.
Re: Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it? by shane dillon on Jun 17, 2005 at 9:22:05 pm
Hi All,
Thanks for all the responses, and so quick too. What a great forum, I just wish I had found it earlier.
We get a range of material shot on Varicam, from all over the globe. To be fair it really isn't that compareable to film in terms of quality. The compression artifacts can clearly be seen in our daVinci suite on the original camera source tapes.
For the cost of the equipment, I guess it is good for what you are paying. But to compare the quality to HDCAM, especially the SR Cinealta, there is no comparison, but then again it is five times the price!
The variable framerate is a nice feature, but the Tornado camera has that feature, and has a much higher resolution, but again is priced alot more. Sony are also developing a variable frame rate for the CineAlta camera.
Interms of Offline disappearing, I am not too sure. I don't have any clients that are willing to pay $800 per hour to choose shots and make an EDL.
Making dubs for variable framerate stuff is a crazy solution. What if you have 80 tapes, like I did on a recent project?
In all I think the system is fine for 'low-end' HD, but for major stuff, it doesn't work.
Believe me we have tried.
And Rob, I remember all the hassles had with a movie (Forget About it) in Arizona, it was an absolute nightmare. For a movie you need to offline, and there was no way to do it short of making dubs.
All I want is for Panasonic to add a SD output that can handle variable framerate, so offlines are achieveable. And as for serious color correct, to add a correct VITC record, like any other VTR.
To me it is almost there, but not quite. But it has been this way for almost six years.
Actually, it is that great... by Leo Ticheli on Jun 17, 2005 at 3:59:38 pm
Golly, Shane,
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Specifically:
1. Variable Frame Rate: It's prudent to lay off your variable frame rate material. By the way, this is absolutely no different than what's done in a film to tape transfer where we frequently lay off the footage at various playback rates. Any quality loss is imperceptible. If you don't use the proper work flow, the fault is yours, not the system's.
2.The 1200 deck is not an editing deck. If you want to master to DVCPro HD, buy a 1700 or a 150 or lay off to D5. I really don't understand your reasoning; your facility obviously has the resources to buy the correct equipment. I'd like to have a Porsche Cayman at Mazda Miata prices, but I don't think anyone is offering that deal and, if they did, they wouldn't be long in business.
3. You prefer the look of material shot with HDCAM. Fine. That's why they have so many flavors at the ice cream store. I believe you're mistaken, but you're certainly entitled to your beliefs. Both VariCam and CineAlta are capable of making pretty pictures but only the VariCam is a direct replacement for film because of the variable frame rate capability. Perhaps that's not important to you, but I under and over crank frequently. Many, myself included, think the VariCam does a better job with color. By the way, I hear VariCam is outselling CineAlta ten to one. With the camera body being only one part of the considerable cost of an HD system, I think there's a lot more going on than price alone.
4. Since you are still using Quantel, I can only assume that you have some sort of masochistic death-wish. Bless your heart, as they say around these parts. For commercials and most jobs shorter than features, I believe off-line is dying if not already dead, just as it should be. Storage is cheap, cheap, cheap and today's editing and effects systems are fast. Why confound things with off-line at all? I haven't done a conform in years. Good riddance.
I'm sure the HDCAM SR is a good system; does it not require an off-board deck to record? Perhaps dandy in the green screen studio, but not very practical in the field.
I've been using VariCam since it was first released and my clients have been delighted with it. If you do "shudder whenever a client calls and says they have something shot on Varicam," send them to me, I'll be happy to help them!
Good to hear from you, Shane, and welcome to the VariCam forum. Perhaps you will have more positive experiences with VariCam in the future.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by Rob Bullard on Jun 17, 2005 at 6:25:36 pm
When are people going to realize that the word Avid always comes up when it comes to problems using DVCPROHD. I was just involved in a feature project where the editor was using an Avid express machine so all the Varicam footage was downconverted to DV for that system. Stupid. All the "issues" have to do with Avid. Automatic Duck anyone?
Re: Actually, it is that great... by Noah Kadner on Jun 17, 2005 at 7:41:18 pm
Perhaps it is inconceivable to the powers that be that in the case of Avid vs. FCP for Varicam- the less expensive/less "pro" NLE solution is actually far more technically capable of getting the job done.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by Chris Bell on Jun 17, 2005 at 9:44:10 pm
I live in Seattle and I am one of "those people" who have made the investment ($100.000) in a Varicam. I really don't see what the problem is. All you need to do is frame rate convert in FCP using a 1200a via firewire, then record out to the 1200a. You can downconvert the "converted" footage to SD for an Avid cut and use the same timecode when you online.
I seriously hope you are not telling people to avoid Varicam. It's a great format and has been very popular with in Seattle and more cameras are being added to local rental facilities. The format is here to stay and it would be great if everyone could find the path of least resistance so we can all continue to make a living.
Christopher Bell
Cinematographer / Panasonic Varicam HD Owner-Operator
Re: Actually, it is that great... by shane dillon on Jun 17, 2005 at 9:25:34 pm
The problem is, the flags for variable frames are only on the HD output and not the SD. The firewire does output the flags, but you suffer interms of quality, and you then don't have a Timecode reference to get a proper list.
We have Automatic Duck here, and it doesn't help with the simple Offline to Online problem.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by Rob Bullard on Jun 17, 2005 at 11:13:11 pm
Yes, Shane that project was a nighmare for a number of reasons. If you recall the eQ was not exactly a stable platform at that time. However I seem to recall that the eQ had no troulble with DVCPROHD as a format. Am I correct that you are saying the the way the camera records timecode prevents the Avid from making a correct EDL?
As for the picture quality I truly think it is in the eye of the beholder. Recently I went through testing comparing the Varicam against the F900 for a large budget pilot. The Director and Producer chose the look of the Varicam over the F900. The Director actually said about the Varicam "Oh, I can see things outside the widows." In the end the Executive producer had an editorial deal with Sony Pictures and we were forced to change out the entire 2 camera package a day before shooting. My point is that post efficiency is king in the production equation. You are recommending your clients to not use a format because it doesn't fit your efficiency paradign. What are you going to do when your clients bring in green screen HDV material? I'm betting you will find a way and bill them for the results.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by shane dillon on Jun 17, 2005 at 11:37:13 pm
Hi Rob,
The eQ has never had a problem with Varicam, as it was the first system to support it. I was the person that done the betatesting. The problem in Arizona was that the Avid could not read the flags for variable framerate, as it only records via SDi, and the 1200 deck cannot do an insert edit at all. The only deck that can do an insert edit is the 1700 (or the old 150) but it doesn't have a firewire output.
If you look at all the movies being done in HD, how come none of the major studio use the format? I mean ILM (StarWars), Warners, Troublemaker(Sincity and Spy Kids)etc. all tried all the cameras, and all chose the F900 and F950's. I really couldn't name a major studio that shoots in Panasonic Varicam.
Of course, we take on any jobs here. That's why we have all the VTR's and formats. It is just that when ever we do Varicam jobs (that have used the variable framerate function) there are compromises that have to be made.
We HDV here too (including cameras) and that really is HD compressed to within an inch of its life!
Re: Actually, it is that great... by walter biscardi on Jun 17, 2005 at 11:57:20 pm
[shane dillon]"If you look at all the movies being done in HD, how come none of the major studio use the format? I mean ILM (StarWars), Warners, Troublemaker(Sincity and Spy Kids)etc. all tried all the cameras, and all chose the F900 and F950's. I really couldn't name a major studio that shoots in Panasonic Varicam."
I think the Varicam is really a "film for TV" type of format which gives you the look and feel of film for a much lower price point than shooting HDCAM. From all that I read, it's the video world that is really going to the Varicam, not the film world.
Of course, we did shoot our indie film with the Varicam and 6 Canon Prime lenses and it did look gorgeous.
No, I'm not trying to have the last word by Rob Bullard on Jun 18, 2005 at 1:16:54 am
The reason why Hollywood uses the Sony system is because Sony had the power to create the 1920X1280 24fps standard and then saturate the market with product. If Sony invented a 1080p/60fps system Hollywood would be using it. Wow a Sony Varicam!
In the recent testing that I did for a 15 million $ feature we shot 8 different formats (including HDV and Super 16) and the Varicam was chosen by the director. We did nothing to the camera other than set it to film rec and output to Arrilaser. They are shooting it on 35mm.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by gary adcock on Jun 18, 2005 at 3:48:01 am
[shane dillon]" The problem in Arizona was that the Avid could not read the flags for variable framerate, as it only records via SDi, "
Actually Shane that is an issue with Avid all together, as the Avid systems only see 23.98, 24, 29.97, 30p, and 59.94 frame rates from the Varicam (I believe that 60p is not supported) due to Avid not wanting the hassle of creating a FRC like Apple has done for FCP.
On a second note: Boards like the Kona 2 can function as an FRC when capturing via SDI. I have successfully captured frame rates as low as 4 fps direct to my K2 system with master TC embedded in the file -- which cannot be done when using software FRC from Apple - it strips out all TC reference when it converts the frame rates.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by Shane Dillon on Jun 18, 2005 at 5:21:05 am
Wow the Kona 2 card sounds like it could solve a few problems.
So how does it work?
The Panasonic VTRs and the Frame Rate Convertor only spit out flagged frames in HD, so does the Kona 2 card downconvert these and spit out SD with the right framerate?
Looking at the AJA website it doesn't say it does, but if it works I may have to buy one.
Re: Actually, it is'nt that great... by Shane Dillon on Jun 19, 2005 at 4:36:44 am
Did Panasonic actually make one with an SDi output?
We contacted Panasonic a while ago and the FRC is no longer manufactured anyway. But as far as the Panasonic sales engineer on the west coast knows, the only ouput is HD from a FRC. If he is wrong I would like to know, as this could be a solution for us.
Re: Actually, it is'nt that great... by Michael Bach on Jun 20, 2005 at 2:35:39 am
Yes it is that great:)
We do a fair bit of commercial production using Varicam so....
Our FRC has HDDSI, SD SDI, SD Composite and SD Component outputs. Typically we transfer from the 1700 deck to FRC and then either to Digi Beta or HDCamSR depending on what the client requires. If the post path is to be HD we digitise the SR's SD output into avid then conform in HD on eQ or Flame. If the job doesn't need offlining we go straight to eQ from the 1700. It would be nice if Avid could take the 1700's SDI out and decipher the frame rates to save the FRC pass but I am about to try FCP for this purpose.
Don't knock eQ too much...the new vers of Software a way more stable than before and the tool set is ever increasing. Its also very fast!!
As far as look is concerned I like the colourimetry of the varicam and the sharpness of the HDCam (F900H) but we have used both together and it is very possible to grade them to look very similar. The data rates to tape are pretty similar so Sony has traded colour bandwidth for resolution, whereas Panasonic have gone for more colour info, less pixels:)
I am sure that the post processes will improve for varicam and I don't see a variable rate camera from Sony on the near horizon so I guess we just have to get it to work!!
Re: Actually, it is'nt that great... by shane dillon on Jun 20, 2005 at 5:53:10 pm
Hey,
Is that the Michael Bach from New Zealand? If so HI!
Thanks for the info about the FRC, I think you know more than the Panasonic boys over here. Though it does still sound crazy that you sometimes end up using Sony HD SR dubs as your masters for offline to online.
I love the eQ, and think it is the best tool for HD longform by far. I still think, with longform and films anyway, that there will still be an offline process. For commercials I think the process will disappear maybe.
Final Cut is a great tool, but no way does it have the toolset of Flame or eQ, hense there is the need for big projects to use those systems.
I still think Panasonic need a VTR that can be used for offline purposes even when Variable framerates are used. I mean come on, isn't the whole FRC box (which isn't made anymore by the way) a bit of a cop out?
By the way Michael, did you see the farce of the US Grand Prix this weekend?
Re: Actually, it is'nt that great... by Steve Mahrer on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:32:59 pm
Hi Shane:
I'm not sure where you got the erroneous information, but the AJ-FRC27 (Frame Rate Converter) is still very much alive as a product. As standard is has HD-SDI OPs and a monitoring NTSC/PAL composite OP. If required you can also add the optional SD SDI downconverter option for high quality SD outputs. This option is called the AJ-YA27. Judging by soem of the postings, this is what many of the sers have chosen to install.
Re: Actually, it is'nt that great... by Shane Dillon on Jun 21, 2005 at 1:55:43 pm
Hi,
I got the information from:
Michael Gee (Panasonic US) and Brad Fisher (sales rep. for Panasonic working for Professional Video and Tape, Inc in Oregon). They also go a guy from Panasonic in LA involved but I can't remember his name.
Re: Actually, it is that great... by tony salgado on Jun 19, 2005 at 3:36:01 pm
Using an external recorder for field work can be more practical at times than a camcorder especially in multicam work and where a VC and video village are involved. Unless your using fibre having to use a large video and audio harness is something I dread.
FYI Michael Mann is shooting the upcoming Miami Vice with a Viper and SRW-1 portable HDCAM SR decks and fibre.
For the time being the present solution for dual stream recording will be a two piece solution not a camcorder (unless someone wants to use the Venom system from Thomson).
Re: Panasonic Varicam:- It's not that great is it? by Rodrigo Lizana on Jun 19, 2005 at 2:04:06 am
You need the right to tools for the job. Using FCP is an alternate way to work with the offspeed material.
For that kind of work we use, on location, one tape for 24p and a different one for offspeed material. Then we process it on our Panasonic Frame Rate Converter. From there you can go SDI to a NLE, HD-SDI to tape again or to a HD NLE via HD-SDI. Never have a single problem.
As for quality, is quite curious what you
