Talk:List of Panasonic camcorders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit War and Irrelevant Material[edit]

There appears to be some sort of edit war going on between Mikus and some annonymous user.

There is an allegation of vandalism from Mikus who then rewrote a section to say practically exactly the same thing but removing a properly cited contribution from the anonymous user. If there is any vandalism then AFAICT it is in the action of Mikus in removing that material, but then I do not have any role of arbiter here.

Incidentally, I own a (European) HDC-TM300 and I can state that it does support the 25p progressive mode in an interlaced container. Having just performed a search of the cited PDF owner's manual, I was surprised to discover that it indeed completely fails to mention this progressive mode anywhere in its pages. That is: it does mention the 'Digital Cinema' mode, but there is no information on how it is any different from the common or garden mode beyond its use of x.v.colour. In fact it actually categorically states "... that the picture will be recorded as 50i irrespective of the digital cinema mode setting". The camcorder specification lists 1080/50i as its sole operating mode. The HDC-SD300 is exactly the same. The US versions may vary but somehow I doubt it as these things are invariably cut and paste. Thus IMHO anyone wanting to find out about the features of the 300 series, is likely to be interested in this discrepancy.

There is also a chunk of irrelevant material under the HDC 700 series of camcorders. Mikus once again accuses the anonymous user who removed it of vandalism. Removal of irrelevant material is not vandalism, but Wikipedia policy and to be encouraged. Indeed, I myself originally removed it in view of its lack of relevance. As further evidence, none of the other camcorders go into that sort of detail.

The article is a list of Panasonic camcorders, whith a thumbnail sketch as to how each varies from previous models. Any user reading the article is likely to be interested in those differences, but not details about the inner workings of the camcorders - that they can get elsewhere. Whilst I cannot see anything inaccurate about what Mikus wrote, details about the specific construct of the codecs just do not belong in such a brief description. A note that the format of the resultant AVCHD video is proprietary in nature probably does belong, but that is definately as far as it goes. I seem to recall that the article actually said more or less this at the time the 700 series camcorders were added and I have put this back. The specifics about the differences could well belong in an article dealing with the detailed workings of the format (as indeed was suggested) and a link would probably not be out of place. I B Wright (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, where exactly a reader would find information on 1080-line 60p/50p? In AVCHD article?
Exactly where it should be. As was suggested, a link could be added to guide the reader who was sufficiently interested to explore further. 86.181.52.243 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained already, this is not an AVCHD-legal mode, hence it is unique to this particular camcorder.
Which it did say before you put the irrelevant paragraph back.86.181.52.243 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it did. This is what you added: "The progressive mode is a proprietary variation of the AVCHD format, using the same AVC video and AC-3 audio codecs." I am not arguing with that.
I'm not surprised you're not arguing. But then I didn't add that material - you did.86.176.155.85 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you clearly was wrong about was this: "Because it is proprietary, none of the established linear editing packages will handle it, which is probably just as well as it would require far more processing power than any current PC possesses." The first part of this statement is simply false, and the second part is original research, which you try to accuse me in. Doctor, heal yourself.
Lifted derectly from a technical review on the subject. 1080i requires a huge amount of processing power (nothing less than a quad core can do the job) unless you use a shonky editor that can only cut on GOP boundaries - that's easy. 1080p requires vastly more processing power to even be able to make a decent fist of editing the material. I gather Intel's latest processors are able to facilitate editing a decent 1080p production in under a week. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"none of the established linear editing packages will handle it" is an illogical statement, you cannot know about ALL editing packages to make such a claim, while I know of at least one package that does work with these files. This is called proof by contradiction. Case closed. In regards to processing power needed to display 50p/60p: if you knew a bit more about how interlaced video is displayed on computer, you would realise (see, "s" instead of "z") that interlaced video must always be deinterlaced, and to display all 50/60 fields it has to be deinterlaced into 50/60 frames. Hence -- I am theorising here, but with good reason
So not even Original Research anymore - just pure guess work. I do know how interlaced video works. Deinterlacing is a relatively easy function to perform. There ae several algorithms in use, some of which work better than others. Not everyone watches their video on a PC. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- it takes more effort to display 50i/60i because of added deinterlacing step, than to display 50p/60p, where you just take a frame and show it. Also -- again, proof by contradition -- my "current PC", which I bought two years ago, handles 60p with ease. Do you want a screenshot of a Media Player Classic, that shows zero dropped frames? Mikus (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has dropped frames got to do with the issue? A decent true video display will show interlaced as interlaced (even flat panel displays). That the cheaper brands choose to address the panels as progressive and do a conversion is a marketing choice. With LCD panels, there is little difference anyway because the response time is so poor. But high end LED displays display true interlaced video if so required to do. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As such, it belongs to this section. If you care to check the page history, I am the author of HMC150, HMC40, SD1 and SD100 entries and I edited other ones.
Bully for you. But you do not own the article in spite of you claim to do so. This is firmly against Wikipedia policy. 86.181.52.243 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used most of the cameras in question personally, though I did provided the references in case someone wants "proof".
Ah! So you are confessing to using original research. Most definitely not allowed. I don't believe you anyway. 86.181.52.243 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on individual cameras started as separate wiki articles and were later merged. I was against the merger, but now when it have happened, I don't intend on watering down the content of the sections just because it is a "list", not a full-blown article. If this list does not spell the details that are missing in official specs, what is the whole point of this list? One can go to Panasonic's site instead. Please, put the info back. Mikus (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"that the picture will be recorded as 50i irrespective of the digital cinema mode setting" -- which is correct. The container is always interlaced, despite of the shooting mode. 25p can be stored perfectly fine in 50i by means of PsF. Europeans are lucky in this regard, the Americans have to remove the dreaded pulldown to get proper 24p back. Mikus (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was not the point at issue and you know it. The point was that the material in the container was 25p but the documentation did not reveal this fact. I still maintain that 24p is apointless format having seen it. Having regularly watched movie sourced material in 3:2 pulldown, there is nothing that 24p adds. There is a large contingent that has become anally retentive over progressive modes to the extent that even DVD player manufacturers provide progressive output even though it is totally pointless. The DVD is interlaced and the display does the conversion anyway (unless you are still in the dark ages of a CRT).
Material in 3:2 pulldown does not convert to rest of the world standards well, but 24p is far worse in this regard. Fortunately, it is rarely a problem as the original film can be used to provide a good non American standard video stream. 86.181.52.243 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86.181.52.243, could you clarify what exactly do you maintain? That 24p is a pointless format? Or that there is no difference between native 24p and 24p recorded in 60i stream? Or that native 24p is "far worse" than 2-3 pulldown? Seriously, I am not going to educate you on 24p, this is not the place. Whether you want it or not, most feature movies are shot at this frame rate. Try this article for a start: http://www.filmmaking-careers.com/film-production.html and this one too: http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/the-dvd-benchmark/177-dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-scan-dvd.html
Not in this part of the world they are not. All the region 1 or region A movies that I have imported are in 480i/60 or 1080i/60 3:2 pulldown. There is nothing wrong with them that 24p is likely to improve. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing relevant to the topic is that the "7xx" series, just like the "3xx" before it, does not record 25p/24p natively. That is the only bit of information that belongs to the article. A reader will make his own choice about applicability of this "film rate". Mikus (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Irrelevant Paragraph.[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus to delete irelevent paragraph.

The paragraph under the 700 series camcorders that goes into detail about the codecs used is considered itrrelevant to the purpose and nature of the article having been consitently reinserted by a persistent vandal (who then using the standard repost of such then falsely accuses others to the point of abuse). It is also been inserted by someone who apparently is a self appointed owner of the article in that they seem to be unilaterally deciding what goes in the article and what doesn't despite at least two opinions to the contrary. This is totally against the ethos of wikipedia where such content is by consensus.

The motion is: Should the detail about codecs for the 700 series camcorders be deleted as irrelevant detail to the differences between camcorder models? 86.181.52.243 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE The article is about feature differences not about specific details about the camcorder operation. 86.181.52.243 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DISAGREE If one wants simply a list of model names he can visit Panasonic's website. What is the point of wikipedia article if it simply cites one source? Wikipedia is an aggregator of information from different sources, allowing readers to get broad and relatively full info on a subject in one place. Panasonic does not go into details on how 50p/60p works, these details are spelled out on different forums, and I linked one of these. If needed I can link more. 50p/60p is not part of AVCHD and cannot be discussed in AVCHD article, it is a proprietary mode of this particular camcorder. When (or should I say if) AVCHD is amended to include 1080-line 50p/60p modes, this information will belong to AVCHD article, but now at this moment. Mikus (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, the AVCHD article does already have this information. The above is total bullshit because you did put it there (I just checked) - and not long before you wrote the above. (Thanks, Mr Wright for pointing that out). Mr Wright is also correct in that you are clearly just trying to win an edit war with your constant disruptive edits. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGLY AGREE Someone looking at this article is most likely to be interested in the differences from the previous model and can he play the video back on his telly. The precise format of the codec is irrelevant to that question. The differences in the format can most certainly go in the AVCHD article as a variation from the standard (and if a company with the clout of Panasonic have introduced it, it is likely to become part of the standard). There has been nothing to stop information like this being inserted into articles before so why now. Or is Mikus, as I suspect, just trying to win an edit war?
Panasonic themselves claim that the camera conforms to AVCHD/H.264 - I understand that the differences don't relate to the actual data stream itself, but I haven't used 50p video (my chosen editor package (a market leader) doesn't support it anyway - yet). I personally don't believe that consumer type camcorders using the AVCHD format codec can do justice to 50p (or 60p) anyway. After all, they don't do full justice to the interlaced formats. I B Wright (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1080-line 50p/60p is NOT AVCHD. Mikus (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research? Take it up with Panasonic. I'm sure they know more about the subject than you and would be a valid cite unlike yourself. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, yep, by Panasonic and Sony: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200607/06-0713E/index.html This page is referenced in AVCHD article, and the article itself contains the same information. Did you care to read it? No 1080p50 or 1080p60. It is not part of the standard. Granted, the linked page says "Specifications for the “AVCHD” format Version 1.0". But so far neither Panasonic nor Sony officially released any newer version of AVCHD. If you have other information, feel free to refer to it, I will be the first to acknowledge that I were wrong. Mikus (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis funny that the precise 'irrelevant' wording from this article appears word for word in the AVCHD article despite your claims above. And what's more you put it there. There is no need for repetition in Wikipedia. The vote looks like the irrelevant material is going to be deleted by consensus (I'll give it a wee while longer - it's only been a week). As has been said above the material can be referenced. I B Wright (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After typing the above, I had a look at Mikus's talk page just to get an idea of his editing history. If he had adopted that behaviour against me, he would certainly have been blocked from editing by now. I B Wright (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not clean up my talk page like others do. Mikus (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE I was looking for information on the features of the HDC-HS700, a camera I am thinking of buying. All I wanted to know was its differences. Like most people, I will play the video back on the camera, so I don't give monkey's about the technical details of how it is stored - just as long as it plays back.

I had a lot of difficullty finding the differences. A redirect from the camcorder models to the appropriate part of this artcle would be useful. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do redirects or I would make a start. 212.183.140.7 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To do a redirect: Do a search for "HDC-SD1" (one of the camcorders that does have a redirect).
Click on the highlighted part of "Redirect from Panasonic HDC-SD1" from the disambiguation page (not the "List of Panasonic camcorders).
You should be taken to that part of the article that deals with the HDC-SD1. Now go to the top of the article and click on the highlighted part of "Redirectd from Panasonic HDC-SD1". You should now be at the redirect page. Selecting the 'edit this page' tab shows you how the redirect is set up. There are a good many to do. I B Wright (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus (3 votes to 1) material is deemed irrelevant and has been deleted. A link has been provided to the identical information in the AVCHD article (supplied by none other than Mikus in spite of his above claim that it doesn't belong there). 86.176.155.85 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Timeline[edit]

I think a timeline of when these products were released along with what market segment they're approximately for (so you can see which product replaces which) would be useful to this article. Essentially like this Template:Canon_DSLR_cameras. I would make a start myself but I don't know how and I'm not sure of the information anyway (thus why I was hoping for a timeline like this in the first place). --88.105.192.220 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer HD Camcorders[edit]

This article is grossly incomplete. It lists the Panasonic range of (what they call) 'expert HD camcorders', basically all the camcorders that feature 3 sensors. But Panasonic also market a range of simpler single sensor HD camcorders, none of which get so much as a mention. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Panasonic camcorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Panasonic_camcorders&oldid=1199847987"