In August I am shooting an Independant feature and I am considering the hpx500. The P2 workflow would be a lot less expensive than going HDCAM. I want to combine the Hpx500 with Fujinon's Super Cine primes and zooms. These Lenses are vary expensive but with a cheaper camera we could afford them. I would deffinitly shoot in 1080 24pA for this project. Does anyone have any thoughts on this camera and lens choice for a theatrical realase?

Scott: Any suggestions or opinions offered by anyone here (about film-out with the HPX500) are going to be based on experience with the 200 and/or reading specs and are going to be purely conjecture...

I've bought one but haven't even seen it yet... I've been contracted to shoot a feature length film and I want the option of film-out, so I chose this camera. But my film is a documentary, and to be honest, will probably never see celluloid no matter how successful it is (getting struck by lightening is higher on the probability list than a theatrical release)...

Right now it's all a crap shoot...

Although I can't post it on the forum, I can tell you that based on the demo footage I shot for Panny for the P2HD Roadshow this year the 500 will absolutely *pop* with good glass.

I shot the demo with the Canon CAC lens with the built-in 2x extender (the most expensive kit lens) and compared to similar Fuji glass I'd say it's a notch above the other kit lenses; I was especially impressed with it's macro capabilities. Once back-focus was set it had minimal to almost no breathing when zoomed and otherwise performed very well considering it's price-point and intended usage. Based on my experiences with similarly priced Fuji lenses - and if I wanted one of the kit lenses - I would purchase that Canon, hands down.

But, as I mentioned in my "HPX500 Teaser" thread, it was obvious that it was the lens that was holding back the true potential of the 500's image quality, not the chips.

In short, if you use primes, HD-spec zooms or even the Pro-35 adapter and quality 35mm glass you're going to be flat-out amazed at what the 500 can do, far beyond what the 200 is capable of. Just keep in mind using the best glass on the planet won't mean squat if you don't use good lighting and composition skills to backup what the equipment can deliver.

Thanks Steve and Robert for your insight. One other question is on my mind concerning slowmo with this camera. As I stated before; I would shoot 1080 24pA (60i). Now if I wanted to overcrank to 60p I could not do so in 1080i. I am wondering if it would be a bad decision to shoot only the a few slomo sequences in 720p, then upres the footage to 1080 for the tranfer to 35mm.

Robert - Boy are you making me nervous - as mentioned elsewhere, because of a time frame/delivery issue, I had to change my order from a Canon (although the one w/o the 2x, because I need it lighter) to a Fujinon.

I really hate have to spend cash sight unseen...

Robert, thanks for the info. what do you mean by "HD-spec zooms" I am looking at buying a used Fuji HA 22x7.8 Berm for my upcoming HD work and wanted to know how a lens like this would perform on the 500. Since this cam has CAC and the lens that pany is selling with the packages are CAC how will a non-CAC lens work? I would assume great but wanted to get some words from someone with experience working with the camera.

Thanks again for all your input....

In short, if you use primes, HD-spec zooms or even the Pro-35 adapter and quality 35mm glass you're going to be flat-out amazed at what the 500 can do, far beyond what the 200 is capable of. Just keep in mind using the best glass on the planet won't mean squat if you don't use good lighting and composition skills to backup what the equipment can deliver.

I saw "Facing the Giants" in a theater, the film was shot using the Pro-35 on a Varicam and the whole show seemed a little soft to me. If you're definitely going to get a film out, I'd try to keep the amount of contraptions in front of the camera to a bare minimum, especially with this camera.

Robert, thanks for the info. what do you mean by "HD-spec zooms"...

The *kit* lenses that are offered with the 500 are not the ultra-high quality glass that you find in true HD-spec lenses, especially zooms. That's why they use the CAC circuitry to offset the chromatic abberation that they cause due to the lower-grade glass used.

A direct analogy would be when considering the difference between "APO" type lenses for 35mm cameras (Canon's "L" series or the ED and ED-IF series for Nikon) and non-APO glass. Normally lenses that have large apertures of 2.8 or brighter have low-dispersion elements, special color correcting coatings and special corrective lenses that limit or prevent chromatic abberations, vingetting and other maladies that generally occur in lesser glass.

The same distinction between low-grade and high-grade glass is true for video lenses although it's not always as obvious since they don't use the same monikers like APO, ED etc. and are more specific to the model and series type. A general rule of thumb, is that if the video lens costs less than $10k then it's not high-grade glass. There may be some lenses that fall outside that generality but I don't know of any, personally.

In theory, the CAC technology is suposed to make a $10,000 lens, which is still not CHEAP, look and perform like a $35,000 lens. The premise is based on if your know the specific shortcomings of a given lens than we can electronicly compensate for them. How this proves out is yet to be seen, but the technology looks promising.

Who cares how we achieve the best image, particularly if you can do it for less money and less weight then typical high-end HD glass.

My fear, totally unsubstantiated by any fact, is that CAC may turn out to be like "sharpening" in Photoshop.. something everyone thought was great at first, then when they went back later and looked at their pix, discovered needed some tweaking - and some sublety - we shall see...

Oh, and before anyone jumps in and says CAC and Sharpening aren't the same thing at all.. I know they're different.. the point is that often techno-fixes in picture, or audio for that matter, are easily overdone at first in the blush of enthusiasm, and it takes backing off on the fix before it's right...

Since (I'm assuming) CAC isn't user dialable, we have to hope that Panasonic gets it right out of the box on this new 500...

And about lenses... I've owned lots of good to excellent lenses for 16mm and super16mm cameras.. I still own a Cooke 10.4-52mm that is one of the nicest zooms I've ever owned.. crystal sharp and very little breathing and holds t1.8 through the zoom range.. NOTE that it is a 5:1 zoom.. Why? It's easier to make a very good zoom lens if you keep the range shorter.. It's smaller and lighter too... and I paid about $6500 for it new (admittedly) 25 years ago...

I wish there was a comparable lens for video (actually there may be, the new RED - haven't heard about it's performance yet though)...

Oh, Robert, forgot to mention - based on your recommendation here I changed my order back to the Canon lens (although the one without the 2x - i't lighter and focuses a foot closer).. Means I have to push my start date back a month, but I do prefer Canon lenses..

Steve,

Although you've already said you know the difference I'm taking the opportunity to further explain it for others who don't - Chromatic Aberration Correction isn't like sharpening in PS; it's electronically removing the blue/cyan/magenta fringing that occurs in almost all digital imagers especially around edges, backlit subjects, highly reflective objects such as chrome-plated metals and points of light but is worsened by low-end glass that is not "apochromatic" (APO).

You do have the option in the camera menu to choose whether or not to use CAC and to have the camera match itself to the lens. The Canon lens specifically has it's own menus on the hand-grip controller for further CAC control. I have not had time to determine if the CAC properties can be fine-tuned but the system is designed to "self-align" similar to what ABB does when activated.

When comparing same-scene images with CAC circuitry on and off there is significant and noticeable reduction in color fringing and in some cases almost completely removes it without any other changes to image appearance or quality. It is not affecting saturation, hue or overall chroma in any way and you wouldnt even notice the difference unless you were specifically looking at small edge details - which you would if you were doing a film-out.

You'll be very happy with the 2x Canon, especially it's macro capabilities which I used quite a bit during my demo shoot.

Steve,

Point well taken regarding the over processing of digital media; my understanding is this technology should treat specific known aberrations for specific lens and it is not an overall "image enhancement” algorithm. Like everything else the first ones out of the box will not be perfect but it does look promising.

Since we are on the same subject I didn't want to start another thread.I am working on a feature for film out and I want to buy the camera.
My options are either HPX500 or Varicam.
My question is would it be wise to buy HPX instead of Varicam and rent the lenses?Or Varicam would be better?
I mainly work on features and I will probably won't buy another camera for a while.
Thanks.
Good day

[QUOTE=Robert Lane;682653] Once back-focus was set it had minimal to almost no breathing when zoomed and otherwise performed very well considering it's price-point and intended usage. Based on my experiences with similarly priced Fuji lenses - and if I wanted one of the kit lenses - I would purchase that Canon, hands down.


According to Barry Green's excellent article on the 500 on another site, the Canon cac 2x lens exhibited a lot of breathing typical of the new "economy priced" hd lenses.
Lens "breathing" is the image size shifting that occurs when changing focus; looks a little like you're zooming when you're not. Most noticable on extreme focus changes on a static shot. More expensive lenses tend to better correct this optical phenomenon.
Experienced operators will try to hide/minimize lens breathing by panning/zooming the camera during the shot.
You can test your own lenses breathing characteristics by racking focus from near to far at various focal lengths w/o zooming .
The cac series of lenses are so new that I can't find any specs for them, like weight, filter sizes, matte box fittings , etc.

I don't find breathing a major problem for ENG/EFP work because you don't tend to pull focus much during the shot. It is obviously more critical for digital cinema work though.

Chris: I was able to get weight, minimum focus distance and angle of view by going to B&H (although I ordered my camera from Able's), picking the HPX500 package I want, going to the ITEM COMES WITH tab and clicking on the lens supplied - this works with the Canon lenses at least... In my case, the 16x w/o 2x is 3.2 lbs and focuses (w/o resorting to Macro) to 2 ft, both of which are good for my style of shooting...

As for breathing - I hate it, and I do do things like pan or move when I follow focus, even when shooting documentaries.. nothing says crumby zoom lens like a significant change in image size during a focus change.. That is why I wish there was a short zoom available, they're less likely to show breathing... But, hey, these lenses are way cheap, and if they work otherwise, I'll live with it...

Since we are on the same subject I didn't want to start another thread.I am working on a feature for film out and I want to buy the camera.
My options are either HPX500 or Varicam.
My question is would it be wise to buy HPX instead of Varicam and rent the lenses?Or Varicam would be better?
I mainly work on features and I will probably won't buy another camera for a while.
Thanks.
Good day

Jimi,

The two main differences are that the Varicam is a tape-based workflow which will cost you more time in capture operations and more in media costs; the Varicam is a native HD chipset and will render cleaner and slightly sharper images. There are a host of other less critical differences but those are the ones that could be a deal-breaker either way depending on what your needs are.

I couldn't recommend one above the other for you because I know nothing of your production needs, shooting style, budget or size of your production crew. I will say however, that ever since we became a P2-only production company that there would never be a reason for us to consider the Varicam as proven by our 1.5 years shooting the HVX200.

You'll have to weigh-out the differences between the two and decide which is best for your needs, but just understand they are two very different platforms with albeit very similar capabilities.

Jimi,
... the Varicam is a native HD chipset and will render cleaner and slightly sharper images...

It'll be interesting to see a direct comparison.

I would guess that there will be very little in it as the Varicam is limited to the 960x720 of DVCPROHD 720p. I would guess that the HPX500 could match that and possibly even resolve slightly more in 1080p. Purely speculation though.

The HPX500 will hopefully be less noisy too, with larger pixels and newer technology.

Steve,
Thanks for link to B&H site for the lens info. Hope it's accurate as they also list a headcleaning tape as an accessory !!!
Like a lot of video lenses, HD or SD, notice that the max. lens aperture doesn't hold all the way thru the zoom range. IOW, lens must be stopped down at least a stop (or more) for an evenly exposed zoom shot from full wide angel to full tele. Another compromise, but the price is right.
Some of my savvy clients will request better glass (and pay for it) while others will opt for even SD glass because it is "good enough"(and cheaper). Depends on the job or needs of client.
I've never shot video for a film out, just film , but I would favor the best HD glass possible for the project.

Yeah, I noticed that head cleaner too.. maybe they mean our heads.. But, no, the info comes from Canon - The thing that does concern me is that the weight for both the w/2x and the w/o2x are the same, and that can't be right...

I'm with you about lenses, but the great thing is that as time passes, affordable lenses will be more available...

Thank you Robert,
I see what you mean.If they look close to each other on big screen I would go with 500 for the reasons you wrote.
I just hope it will.
Best regards.
Jimi