Looking to buy a HPX-500

Steve Phillipps · June 21st, 2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Rosen

I realize that nature broadcasters want the "through a window" clarity that they tout, but many dramatic films and personal documentaries suffer (in my opinion) when they are too crisp.. ).

In not the crispness, AFAIK it gets very blocky because the compression has a hard time dealing with grains as opposed to pixels. It came as a big shock to all of us in the wildlife film game I can assure you, not to mention Kodak!
There has been talk that as compression/transmission equipment improves it could be sorted out, in which case you may find S16 coming back.
Steve

Steve Rosen · June 21st, 2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

I in which case you may find S16 coming back.
Steve

Steve: Well, although I still own my Aaton and 5 lenses, one an excellent Cooke zoom that was built specifically for BBC production in the early 80's (I bought my camera used in 1989 from a British cinematographer), I will probably never get another budget for a doc in super16 - but I will never sell it - like my hotrodded 1930 Ford that I drive daily.

The point of my comments was in relation to the HPX500, which I feel is an excellent replacement for my Aaton for documentary work. It takes great pictures, handles well (although it's a little too heavy) and doesn't cost an arm and a leg - so I don't have to lose sleep worrying about using it in less than ideal locations, or sending it through luggage.

There are many things to consider when buying a personal camera, and those I've mentioned in these posts are the factors that are important to me - It's not all about resolution, and shouldn't have to be for everyone.

Noel Evans · June 21st, 2009, 07:50 PM

Been using the 500 for quite some time now. Shot lots of different things with it.

Im a parrot so to repeat - wide shots arent the sharpest out there, and the SD viewfinder can sometimes let you down (I use a BTLH80 where possible).

But really there arent any other minus points that bother me. Being 2/3" gives it a versatility that smaller chip cameras lack, case in point being the wide variety of work I use it for. One of the most recent being a on a series called Road to greatness (Australian content) currently airing on Fox Sports in the US in which I shot live action shots, interviews and dramatic promo shots. I rented a Fujinon HA13x4.5 BERM-M48B wide angle - great lens btw, for the shots and they are amazing. I usually use the standard Fujinon HD CAC lens you buy with the camera and the above wide angle blew it away as far as sharpness goes. SO the lens is a big factor. Ive also used the Fujinon CINE Zoom HAc15x7.3F with it and again awesome, much better than the package lens. Regardless, Id say 85% of the time I am shooting with the package lens and it works well.

Please dont go viewing HD footage on a computer screen and saying WOW this is so much sharper and then not compare to see how it will look in the real world on anything from the new OLEDs to a 4:3 TV. The reality is, out there the difference is minimal, compared to your 2560x1600 LCD computer monitor your sitting 2 feet from. I use a 42" bravia on my edit bay and also have a 50" bravia in the loungeroom and an old Panasonic flatscreen tube TV that I run shots through from time to time and the 500 always looks great. And yes, if I am seated within close proximity I can see more sharpness in something like an EX on the 1080 panels in wide shots. But reality is a great thing, as 1080 panel owners arent the majority and even so people just dont sit that close for the most part. The difference I notice more than the sharpness increase you can get from other cams, is dynamic range. Thats something I can see clearly weather I am close or far, weather I am viewing on an old tube TV or 1080 LCD. TO my eyes it makes the greatest impact when comparing to a minor sharpness increase. Would I prefer to shoot on something else? Hell yeah give me a 3000 or 3700 any day of the week. But there are more reasons than mere sharpness for that. But then again Im out there to earn a living, and it makes no sense for me personally to have so much cash tied to depreciating equipment. When in need, I have a great rental house I use.

Im rambling now and all this is just IMO.

Steve Rosen · June 22nd, 2009, 11:13 AM

Noel: all valid points - I guess one of the reasons that I am such a fan of the 500 (besides the cost benefits you mention and the noticeable dynamic range) is that I tend to shoot more in the mid and long end of the lens. When I shoot wide, it usually an interior at medium to short distances, and the wide (Fujinon) holds up well there.

Also, I try to never close down below 4-5.6... These (CAC) lenses tend to fall apart more at f8 and above. And, as I mentioned, by using a 1/2 SoftFX or 1/4 ProMist, it tends to mask any loss in the lens and makes it look intentional (which, in my case, it usually is).

Christian Magnussen · June 29th, 2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

A lot of BBC wildlife series are Discovery co pros and I know that the 500 would not be acceptable (Planet Earth, Galapagos, Yellowstone, Wild China etc.) except in special circumstances.

Steve

And for those shows any Xdcam gear would also be a no go, even the pdw models would probably not cut it. Although the 720p Varicam did make it into a lot of Planet Earth shots, along with film, hdcam and so on.

As i said before, there will always be compromises, even with high end gear. I still think we thend to lean a bit to much towards the "full hd" consumer nonsense. Of course 1080 chips are fine, but in the end the images count and not the numbers behind. Want 1080 with panasonic's "mojo" rent a hpx3000 or 2700...will leave any xdcam trailing behind in the dust.

Glen Vandermolen · June 29th, 2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

I don't get commissions myself, I just shoot the pictures, but I assume that there will be discussions at commissioning stage re equipment to be used, and I get the feeling that for high end projects they'd say no to the 500. A lot of BBC wildlife series are Discovery co pros and I know that the 500 would not be acceptable (Planet Earth, Galapagos, Yellowstone, Wild China etc.) except in special circumstances.

Steve

High end Discovery HD projects are Gold standard. That's reserved for the best HD cameras. As was already stated, the HPX500 is cleared for the middle-tier rating, Silver - just like the EX line. No one here ever said the 500 was a top of the line HD camera. For its price, Silver rating is great.

Steve Phillipps · June 30th, 2009, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Magnussen

rent a hpx3000 or 2700...will leave any xdcam trailing behind in the dust.

Not entirely true, do you want to quantify it? The 2700 for instance is definitely less sharp and has less resolution than the PDW700/800.
Steve

Jan Crittenden Livingston · June 30th, 2009, 07:43 PM

Steve, show the res charts to prove this. And when you do this please post all of the settings in the cameras. This just isn't true. If you saw a sample that was less resolution, it is likely that they had turned the detail down.

And BTW, the codec on the 2700 totally rocks at 4:2:2 10 bit, I frame only. A little unlike the long GOP experience on the 700.

Best,

Jan

June 30th, 2009, 07:43 PM	#38
Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Broadcast Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Secaucus, NJ 07094 Posts: 271	Steve, show the res charts to prove this. And when you do this please post all of the settings in the cameras. This just isn't true. If you saw a sample that was less resolution, it is likely that they had turned the detail down. And BTW, the codec on the 2700 totally rocks at 4:2:2 10 bit, I frame only. A little unlike the long GOP experience on the 700. Best, Jan __________________ Jan Crittenden Livingston Panasonic Solutions Company, Product Manager for 3D and Handheld Cameras

June 21st, 2009, 07:50 PM	#33
Noel Evans Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 157	Been using the 500 for quite some time now. Shot lots of different things with it. Im a parrot so to repeat - wide shots arent the sharpest out there, and the SD viewfinder can sometimes let you down (I use a BTLH80 where possible). But really there arent any other minus points that bother me. Being 2/3" gives it a versatility that smaller chip cameras lack, case in point being the wide variety of work I use it for. One of the most recent being a on a series called Road to greatness (Australian content) currently airing on Fox Sports in the US in which I shot live action shots, interviews and dramatic promo shots. I rented a Fujinon HA13x4.5 BERM-M48B wide angle - great lens btw, for the shots and they are amazing. I usually use the standard Fujinon HD CAC lens you buy with the camera and the above wide angle blew it away as far as sharpness goes. SO the lens is a big factor. Ive also used the Fujinon CINE Zoom HAc15x7.3F with it and again awesome, much better than the package lens. Regardless, Id say 85% of the time I am shooting with the package lens and it works well. Please dont go viewing HD footage on a computer screen and saying WOW this is so much sharper and then not compare to see how it will look in the real world on anything from the new OLEDs to a 4:3 TV. The reality is, out there the difference is minimal, compared to your 2560x1600 LCD computer monitor your sitting 2 feet from. I use a 42" bravia on my edit bay and also have a 50" bravia in the loungeroom and an old Panasonic flatscreen tube TV that I run shots through from time to time and the 500 always looks great. And yes, if I am seated within close proximity I can see more sharpness in something like an EX on the 1080 panels in wide shots. But reality is a great thing, as 1080 panel owners arent the majority and even so people just dont sit that close for the most part. The difference I notice more than the sharpness increase you can get from other cams, is dynamic range. Thats something I can see clearly weather I am close or far, weather I am viewing on an old tube TV or 1080 LCD. TO my eyes it makes the greatest impact when comparing to a minor sharpness increase. Would I prefer to shoot on something else? Hell yeah give me a 3000 or 3700 any day of the week. But there are more reasons than mere sharpness for that. But then again Im out there to earn a living, and it makes no sense for me personally to have so much cash tied to depreciating equipment. When in need, I have a great rental house I use. Im rambling now and all this is just IMO.

June 22nd, 2009, 11:13 AM	#34
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Noel: all valid points - I guess one of the reasons that I am such a fan of the 500 (besides the cost benefits you mention and the noticeable dynamic range) is that I tend to shoot more in the mid and long end of the lens. When I shoot wide, it usually an interior at medium to short distances, and the wide (Fujinon) holds up well there. Also, I try to never close down below 4-5.6... These (CAC) lenses tend to fall apart more at f8 and above. And, as I mentioned, by using a 1/2 SoftFX or 1/4 ProMist, it tends to mask any loss in the lens and makes it look intentional (which, in my case, it usually is).