[quote author=JanLivingston link=topic=600.msg4239#msg4239 date=1334756810]
[quote author=mike_tee_vee link=topic=600.msg4182#msg4182 date=1334689675]
It's a bloody shame that the AG-AF line is dead. Panasonic have no clue on how to develop an eco-system, and their divisions clearly do not communicate with each other.
[/quote]
Let me say right here and now that the AF100 is not dead and will continue to thrive. Where this sort of information that it is dead comes from is beyond my imagination, especially if you are at NAB. We very clearly have an AF100 area there. We also are showing a mock up of a 4K camera and we have a very strong story on the next generation of codecs with AVC Ultra which can provide for onboard recording of that 4:4:4 signal. As far as developing an eco-system within the Panasonic line, I will point you to the fact that that is indeed what we do do. May I point you to the P2 lineup, in DVCPRO up to HD and how about AVC-Intra, and in the less expensive arena, our AVCCAM. All of these work with virtually every non-linear edit system out there. The AVC-Ultra will be the next ubiquitous codec to work across all platforms.
I would appreciate a little more professionalism from the reporting staff here and ask that you check your rumors with the product manager in the division of Panasonic that delivers the product. I am the product manager for the AF100 and I can assure everyone that it is definitely here to stay.
Best regards,
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Panasonic
[/quote]
I'm a little late to the party here, I don't really pay that much attention to this site because of what I (and others) perceive as some fairly erratic "content".
I'm glad that Jan got down in the gutter a little to respond to this "story" which has supposedly originated from perhaps one of the most laughingly inaccurate sources known on the planet (it is very easy to measure 43rumors track record). The real icing on the cake is that the individual behind EOSHD then responds that he is only "reporting" what he "heard" from someone he "trusts". I for one, feel that this is inexcusable behaviour. I don't know when people began thinking it was ok to just publish any unsubstantiated rubbish under the guise of doing readers a service, but spreading disinformation, particularly about commercial products, and then gaining monetarily from the traffic that posts like this generate is . . .well . . . reptilian?
