I am purely guessing here, but I think the biggest cost in the Varicam comes from the block that does the framerate conversion. That what I have read a lot about here. The 9K HVX200 now does the almost the exact frame rates as the Varicam big brother.
The SDX 900 uses the same chip size as the Varicam and ALSO shoots 1080 so where is the dynamic range arguement when it is capturing to a LARGER frame size than the Varicam.
I seriously doubt that Panasonic put cheaper chips into a new product. If you look at the HDX-900 specs you will see that it has a 14bit output (something Varicam just added)
Sorry. I think that the Varicam is great if you own one, But it looks like between these past two product releases the Varicam is not the wisest purchase at this time, Unless you actually believe it is about 50,000$ more superior picture quality to the HDX-900.
Re: HDX900 by john sharaf on Apr 28, 2006 at 2:17:38 pm
David,
With the current $7000 rebate on Varicams, the real street price differance between the two will be closer to $20K! Besides, the HVX900 is not available yet and one could not help but wonder when it rteally will be considering Panasonic's record with HVX200 delivery.
The main differences between the two cameras are:
Varicam is true variable speed camera; 4-60 fps, like a film camera.
Varicam has superior HD grade prism block, I believe the HVX900 has the SDX900 leftovers.
Varicam has 200-500% dynamic range control, HVX200 has 3 Cine Gamma presets.
Varicam takes "L" version tapes, HVX900 takes the medium size limited to 30 minutes. Varicam has 18 micron heads, HVX900 has 9 micron heads, so tapes cannot be read on older 130 and 150 decks.
HVX900 cannot be controlled by the current EC3 CCU.
In summary, the HVX900 is a great concept and realization, especially at the price point, but it does not replace the Varicam. In truth though it will definately affect future Varicam sales, because despite protestations to the contrary, most capital investments for video gear are economicly driven, and the with current state of obscelesence it makes great sence to buy the cheapest possible solution.
[john sharaf]"Besides, the HVX900 is not available yet and one could not help but wonder when it rteally will be considering Panasonic's record with HVX200 delivery."
Not sure what you mean by this but, we said we would deliver the HVX200 in the 4th quarter of 2005 and we did. The target on the HDX900 will be in third quarter of 2006, but at this time it is looking like July.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Re: HDX900 by Daniel E on Apr 28, 2006 at 3:50:12 pm
Hey Jan,
Just a little curious why the HDX 900 doesn't have a couple of P2 slots on it as well. It also would have been dynamite if it could actually work as an NTSC camera in DVCPRO50. I also understand there is another camera coming out early next year which sounds similar but is only P2. I am not sure the model name. Somehow there doesn't seem to be a big brother to the HVX-200 in the Panasonic Line which has similar capabilities to the smaller camera but has the 2/3 inch sensors on it. Also in someones earlier post they said the cassette size was different from the Varicam while in my experience it seemed to be the same length.
Daniel Epstein
Gold Teleproductions, Inc
New York, NY
www.goldtele.com
Re: HDX900 by Jeff Merritt on Apr 28, 2006 at 5:02:49 pm
Hello All,
As the Product Manager for the new AJ-HDX900, I want to clear up some confusions. But first I'd like to ask your endulgence to let us all unwind a bit from NAB for a couple of days. The HDX900 was only announced the Sunday before the show opened and very shortly we will have a lot of information on our web site about the new camercorder.
But to answer a couple of quick questions, the HDX900 is built on the same frame as the extremely popular AJ-SDX900 and uses the Medium size DVCPRO cassettes. This yields 33-minutes of record time due to its abiltiy to record in 9-micron track width on tape as opposed to the VariCam which records 33-minutes on Large DVCPRO cassettes in 18-micron track width. The newer DVCPRO HD decks are compatible with either the VariCam or HDX900 tapes as well as all DV tapes.
Make no mistake, the AJ-HDX900 is NOT VariCam Light. It is an entirely new model intended for a different market and thus does not have such capability as to work in the VariCam's FILM REC mode, although it does have the highly successful CineGama found in most of the Panasonic Digital Cameras. The two cameras share the identical 2/3" imagers however the DSP processors are different and the VariCam is still regarded by many to have a superior picture quality and picture control when compared to other cameras on the market near its price point. This is not meant to say the pictures are less quality in the HDX900, but the overall capabilitis to control the pictures are different.
So please stand by for more information, and perhaps Creative Cow will need to set up a new site just for the HDX900. By the way, deliveries are scheduled for the end of July and we took a bunch of orders already at NAB for this new camera.
Thanks,
Jeff Merritt
Product Line Business Manager
High Definition Products
Panasonic Broadcast
323-436-3676
Re: HDX900 by 1stcamera on Apr 29, 2006 at 10:22:30 pm
Hey Jeff...I know your decompressing from NAB but I'm having to fast track to HD for a show I do for HGTV. I was all set to go with two Sony HDW730's because HGTV wants 1080i delivery like all folk (Sans ABC/FOX) but since I work a lot for ABC as well, it'd be nice to go both ways. The announcement about the HDX900 was most fatuitous. In fact it's a butt saver is what it is.
I need to make the switch in mid season which is in about a two months and in the interim I thought about leasing a couple of HDX400's to get me up to speed (alhtough I hate having to buy a camera for a rental house which is what you do on a long term rental).
I need two cameras for our show so my hope is to get two HDX's if they pass muster.
But I would really like to test shoot the HDX900 to make sure HGTV quality control has no problems with it. They accept Varicam so I can't see a problem but I still gotta submit.
Anybody I can call for help for both the testing and fast tracking two package orders?
Thanks!
Allen S. Facemire-DP/Director
SaltRun Productions,inc.
Atlanta/Norcross, GA
www.saltrunproductions.com
770.448.3181 cell 404.374.7131 allen@saltrunproductions.com
Creativity Just Flows Here...
Re: HDX900 by jayfarrington on May 3, 2006 at 5:10:25 am
Jeff,
Thanks for the update and information so far on the HDX900. Other questions if you can answer them:
Will there really be a new paintbox for this camera? Or will it work with the EC3?
Are we talking true, unique and individual 1080 lines of resolution? Or are the chips optimized for 720P (same as the VariCam) and then upresed in camera to 1080? Similar to spitting out 1080 from 720P footage from the 1200a deck?
Thanks in advance,
-Jay
Jay Farrington
Video/Sound Engineer
San Francisco Bay Area
Re: HDX900 by john sharaf on May 3, 2006 at 3:16:19 pm
Jay,
I can tell you from my own research at the show that yes, there is no paintbox compatibility; the EC3 has lead in it so a whole new, unique paintbox (and connector on the camera) was designed for the HVX900. It will not work on the Varicam nor will the EC3 work on the HVX. Of course you've probably noticed that the tape size is different between the two models as well. Both of these things will create problems in the field when the two cameras are inevitably used concurrently in DVPRO100 HD productions.
As regards the 1080, I believe you've hit that on the head; because it's the same 1 million pixel chipset as on the Varicam, it must be a transcode (like the 1200A deck does as well) that creates the 1080 on the tape. To my mind this is not a particular deal breaker, at least for televsion use, but for filmout, I can tell you based on my own observations of the 1080 transcode through the 1200A vs. Cine Alta picture (on my 1920x1080 eCinema display)that the "true" 1080 is slightly sharper.
Re: HDX900 by Jeff Merritt on May 4, 2006 at 1:54:19 am
Hi John and all,
The EC3, having lead in the solder, had nothing to do at all with develping a new control box for the AJ-HDX900. In fact the new box for the AJ-HDX900 was designed entirely because many users wanted more control. The AJ-RC900 is designed with many more "one button-one function" controls than the EC3 and the inter-connect cable and the connectors have been beefed-up for real world production, and the control offers more of a "paint" feel to it.
Delivery is scheduled about the end of July at a Suggest List Price of $4500.00 along with the AJ-HDX900 which delivers at the same time at a Suggested List Price of $26,500.00. For those who missed this camcorder at NAB, we will show it again at HD Expo in Chicago on May 18th. Please see www.hdexpo.net. for details.
Thanks,
Jeff Merritt
Product Line Business Manager
High Definition Products
Panasonic Broadcast
323-436-3676
Re: HDX900 by john sharaf on May 4, 2006 at 2:14:13 am
Jeff and all,
As far as the lead in the controller, I'm merely repeating the explaination I received from Steve Mahrer of Panasonic, who I consider the most well informed and knowledgable of Panasonics people. Perhaps because he works in NJ and you are in LA you don't know what the other is promulgating as the gospel.
As far as people asking for more control, I rather doubt that if they knew the cost would be more than double they'd want the extra buttons and size involved. In the multicam environment, one needs a controller for each camera, so the costs add up quickly, and the concept of a more expensive controller for a less expensive camera just does not compute. It would be another matter if the controller were more like the Ike MCP or Sony RCP panels and accomodates banks of cameras from one controller.
As regards the EC3 CCU, to the contrary, most knowledgable users agree that it is an extremely useful and complete controller for EFP work, especially considering it's street price (less than half of what the new controller will go for). By comparision to the Sony RM-B150 it is much more useful, especially as regards accessing all menu functions and it is much cheaper and even more friendly than the otherwise very sexy Sony RM-B750, mostly in both cases because the Sony menu nomenclature can only be seen on the Y channel, not the HD-SDI which is more commonly used for monitoring.
My main problem with the new controller is that it is not compatible with the old cameras nor the new camera compatible with the old controller; Sony and Ike have been very smart and considerate to protect their users' investments in controllers by making them compatible to their complete line of cameras, to me this is a very gracious courtesy to their clientel that is forced more and more to deal with built-in obscelesence because of the rapid progress of technology.
Re: HDX900 by john sharaf on May 4, 2006 at 10:53:29 pm
Bobby,
If you care about picture quality or features like dynamic range and variable speeds go with the origional Varicam; if you need a camera right now, you have no choice, but if cost is your concern the HVX900 is attractive, it's really a matter of when it will deliver.
The future value of both cameras remains in doubt, especially if Sony agrees to add 720 to the 2/3" HD XDCAM; if they do, it will become the new Betacam, as all three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) will be using the same camera, which is very attractive for freelancers. If you'll be using the camera for yourself or in a closed loop production scheme, then the DVCPRO100 format could live on. There are those to whom tape-less is next to Godliness, I guess you're not of that persuasion.
Re: HDX900 by 1stcamera on May 13, 2006 at 1:00:14 pm
In response to the question as to when the networks will start using the Sony HD XDCAMs, it is my understanding that CBS O&O's have signed on with the 350 model and that NBC has either done the same or are seriously considering it.
And to my further understanding, CBS networks has also made an order.
ABC being a 720p HD environment is really looking closely at the camera and I have heard that their engineering folks are talking with Sony about coming up with a 720p version of the XDCAM for them. If that's the case...can a switchable multiformat version be far behind?
In any case I think it would be several more years before that would happen.
In the meantime I'm going with the Panasonic HDX900 for it's multiformat functionality!
Re: HDX900 by jordan82 on Jun 9, 2006 at 11:20:31 pm
Dear Mr. Merritt,
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond to our posts! Can you please address the question of whether or not the 1080 resolution in the AJ-HDX900 is "true" or whether there is in fact an upconversion process taking place?
Also, I have been trying to find out if the AJ-HDX900 can record to the FireStore drive as well as to DVCPROHD tape (in camera) simultaneously using the 1080 formats?
