EX-1/3 or Panasonic AG-HPX171E?

[Joe Lawry]

There are a lot of people who have jumped on the Full HD bandwagon. I was told once that i have an HDV camera because it only shoots 1440x1080. Needless to say i've never bought from that broadcast store again.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Joe Lawry

I was told once that i have an HDV camera because it only shoots 1440x1080. Needless to say i've never bought from that broadcast store again.

A fairly silly comment as HDCAM also subsamples to 1440x1080........

But in the context of this debate it's worth noting that the 171 is counted with HDV cameras by major broadcasters in the context of what is allowed for unrestricted acquisition - 171/200 material is subject to the same limited quotas as any HDV camera. One of their requirements is generally "only 1/2" chips and above".

Worth bearing in mind - two cameras, similar costs of ownership, but one far more acceptable to broadcast organisations than the other. That's especially true when you mate the EX1/3 with an XDR for even less compressed recording. And with the alternative option of cheap SDHC recording now.

On the subject of resolution I'm reminded of "it's no disgrace to be poor.... but no great honour either". I could say "it's no disgrace to subsample...... but .....". Displays are rapidly going 1920x1080 native, at least for 40" and above, all new codecs (XDCAM-HD, AVC-HD etc) are going the same way. A few years ago some research came to the conclusion that 720p would be "good enough" for the vast majority of home viewing - but it was based on the assumption that home screens would be viewed at around 2.7metres, and be mostly in the range 35-40" or smaller - the norm is now 42-46" for new purchases.

[Joe Lawry]

My point was the 'Full HD' bandwagon was driving by and they were trying to get me to jump aboard. These guys are major sony fanboys, and i can guarantee that they had been told that anything less than full raster 1080 was HDV..

Interesting point Heath, about which camera is far more acceptable to broadcast organisations.. I know a lot of people who would say that the DVCPROHD codec of the HPX would make it more accepted.

You cant really compare the 2 with an XDR on the back.. because its an optional $4,000 dollar accessory.

By the time you've bought an Ex3 and an XDR you might as well have bought an HPX500..

[Steven Thomas]

It's true the HPX500 is an amazing camera. The new HPX200A is an improvement in picture quality and noise over the older HVX200.

The problem is DVCPRO-HD is now an older codec. Yes, we all know many pros use this codec and the Varicam was a success.

I remember when the EX1 was first compared to the HVX200. There was a day and night difference in every aspect, noise, exposure, and especially resolution.
With the NanoFlash at $3.5K, this is a small investment that would offer dramatic codec improvement under fast detailed motion and improved keying.

This is reasonable considering the price of SxS and P2 memory cards.

[Chris Hurd]

I've withdrawn a few posts from public view which centered around someone's misleading, errant comment that somehow stated ""Despite the 'HD' tag, DVCPRO HD is not true high-definition." That is of course complete nonsense. DVCPRO HD is indeed a high-definition video format (sadly, the word "true" is bandied about these days as a marketing term and unfortunately it has very little if any relevance in terms of actual truth).

Some other web site was referenced as the source of that statement; however as far as we're concerned it bears absolutely no authority whatsoever here. As a reminder to our readers: I am very, very particular about the accuracy of information that is passed around on DV Info Net, so please do not bring what you find elsewhere on the web into this place, because chances are high that it's probably wrong -- such as that bogus claim about the DVCPRO HD format.