new camera: Panasonic AG-HPX250

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

The AC160 will have full raster chips while the NX5 has pixel shifted chips. That might be the $500 difference for some.

The NX5U chips are not pixel shifted, the pixels are interpolated from the sensor sites which are roughly twice the area of the interpolated pixels. A simple way of thinking about the Sony system is to imagine the diamond shaped sensor with a square pixel taken from its center and the four corners that are left forming parts of the four adjacent interpolated pixels. This interpolated pixel gets information from four sensors that do in fact cover the same area a true pixel would cover. The DSP rationalizes the data as in all modern cameras.

Ron Evans

[Tim Polster]

Hey Ron,

I was just pointing out that the NX5 only has a ~1 megapixel chipset where the HPX-250 will have a ~2 megapixel chipset. Might be worth more to some (to answer the "why the $500 difference" question).

Sorry I used the Panasonic's term for voodoo resolution. :)

[Ron Evans]

Understood. I too was just trying to separate the difference between sensors and pixels which exist in all modern cameras. Sensors are arranged to gather as much light as possible with lowest noise while providing the DSP with enough information to create pixels. Pixels are created by the DSP. Sometimes there are more pixels than sensors and sometimes there are less pixels than sensors. Sony system is intended to gather maximum light for the chip size. The larger the sensor the more effective the light gathering. The diagonal arrangement creates the geometry for the DSP to create the pixels effectively. The theory is one gets better performance. Unfortunately my XR500 single chip or the CX700 single chip I have has better noise performance from the "R" sensor that I wish Sony had used in my NX5U !!!

Ron Evans

[David Tamés]

All the stylistic issues aside, I appreciate how Panasonic has delivered cameras that produce images that transcend specifications, the Panasonic "look" has won my respect. I also appreciate the features that really make a difference, for example, the built-in waveform that helps me obtain perfect exposure on the fly in uncontrolled situations, better than Zebras or a Histogram by a long shot, it's these things that sold me on the HPX170 so long ago in video time and may sell people on its HPX250 successor.

[Robert M Wright]

I know that at least part of the difference in "look" between the NX5, and the current Panasonic AVCHD HMC150 and HMC40, at default settings, is greater edge enhancement with the Panny models. Crank up sharpness on the images coming out of the NX5, and they start looking a bit more similar.

[Ron Evans]

I have a picture profile for my NX5U with gamma ITU-709, black level -2 and detail +4 seems to give a more pleasing picture similar to the added edge enhancement of the more consumer cameras.

Ron Evans

[Robert M Wright]

Panasonic seems to go out of their way to deliver a pleasing image straight from the camera ("shooting for dailies"), while Sony leans a bit more toward delivering an image better suited for post production.

[Ron Evans]

All my cameras are Sony but I know that it is easy to manipulate the images on all of them to look much the same without destroying them in the process.

Ron Evans

[Dom Stevenson]

Panasonic have consistently produced the nicest "straight out of camera" images IMO. I've never owned one due to the cost of P2, but this thing looks fantastic. Anyone done a price comparison between buying P2 and using a Nanoflash (or similar gizmo) to shoot with? I'm referring to the cheaper E-Series P2 cards since i wouldn't pay for the lifetime guarantee version.

[Gary Nattrass]

Hi Dom I have been in mainstream broadcast for over 30 years and seen and used Sony kit for most of that time, I had sony camera's myself up until two years ago when I invested my own money in the panasonic P2 system with two HPX301 camera's using hire HPX3700 for mainstream broadcast.

The HPX371 (the 301 is virtually the same in PAL land) is now on the BBC list of approved HD camera's and the HPX250/251 will no doubt be added once it is released.

What I like about P2 and all the panasonic camera's is that they produce superb images and they look much more film like than the sony camera's which to me now have a very red colour cast and are more video like, that includes the high end sony cameras too and the panasonic codecs look nicer too and stand up to re-compression far better than the long gop ones.

Linked with that a five year warranty makes the investment a no brainer for me and if I had gone with the EX ser two years ago I would still have to add an external recorder as I would also have to do to the much more expensive 320 or 350 cameras.

OK the 301/371 is 1/3" chip but I have shot news, doco, sport, feature film and many other broadcast material over the past two years and the P2 system and the panasonic camera's have always given me what I wanted, they also go smoothly into my FCP edit system and that can not be said with the sony cameras I have had or tried as I have had no end of problems with loading and re-compression for output.

[Dom Stevenson]

Gary + Dan

Ok, i'm warming to the idea of this being my next camera having been set on the Canon XF range.

A couple of questions regarding recording times, and by all means pass me on to another link if this issue has been done to death.

I like the idea of being able to shoot in AVC100 at times, but at others i can live with lower end codec's.

What is the lowest HD quality this camera shoots at in terms of recording times?

If i decided to askew P2 altogether am i right in thinking i could buy the 160 version and a nanoflash instead?

Not sure about the Nanoflash option - or those diddy SD cards - so P2 makes more sense.

Should i go the P2 route, i would not want to buy more than 2x 32 GB cards, so what is there on the market for capturing this footage in the field? Do the Nexto recorders work for these cards, or is there another affordable device that does it?

Cheers

Dom

Ouch! Just stumbled upon the Nexto that is P2 friendly and its getting on for 2 grand. I'd previously been looking at the 200 quid models thinking they might do the job. Surely there are cheaper options available?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

The NX5U chips are not pixel shifted, the pixels are interpolated from the sensor sites which are roughly twice the area of the interpolated pixels.

Both processes are simply different forms of pixel offset -- one is on a square
grid and there other on a diagonal, otherwise they are very similar. Both are
viable means of increasing resolution directly from the sensor block.

[Sanjin Svajger]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Both processes are simply different forms of pixel offset -- one is on a square
grid and there other on a diagonal, otherwise they are very similar. Both are
viable means of increasing resolution directly from the sensor block.

Chris,

do you know where one could read further into this topic?

thanks

[Chris Hurd]

The topic of pixel offset? You should be able to find white papers covering
the Pansonic version (known as the Pixel Shift process) and the Sony version
(known as the ClearVid process) on their respective company web sites.

Edit: here's a Sony document for ClearVid: http://www.sony.co.uk/res/attachment...7477501978.pdf

Pixel Shift described within this Panasonic document: ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/panasoni...200.CCD-WP.pdf

Both processes derive an increase in sensor resolution by creating more sampling points at the sub-pixel level.

[Sanjin Svajger]

Thanks Chris! That's what I wanted:)