EX3 or HPX500?

Steve Phillipps · June 3rd, 2008, 07:32 AM

Deepest respect Chris, but not sure I understand that one! It does come across there that you're saying that a camera with pixel shift is preferable to one without, so the HPX500 block is preferable to the HPX3000. Presumably you mean better to pixel shift than just stay at 950x540?
Steve

Chris Hurd · June 3rd, 2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

It does come across there that you're saying that a camera with pixel shift is preferable to one without...

I sure hope it comes across that way, because that's exactly what I mean!

It's always better to use some form of pixel offset in a lower-cost three-chip design. It's very rare for a lower-cost three-chip camera *not* to have it -- the most notable exception is JVC's Pro HD line. Sony hasn't stated one way or the other if it's used in the EX line.

JVC's marketing spin is that because their chips are 1280x720, they don't require pixel offset. The truth is that their particular design can't use pixel offset because of the way their DSP works. Otherwise they would have used pixel offset just like every other sub-$15K three-chip design.

The only time pixel offset is controversial is when it isn't there.

Steve Phillipps · June 3rd, 2008, 08:11 AM

Except in things like the HPX3000, which doesn't need it 'cos it's already 1920x1080?

Chris Hurd · June 3rd, 2008, 09:02 AM

The HPX3000 ain't no sub-$15K camera. It lists for $48,000 and that's just the body only.

But I've read nothing from Panasonic stating it doesn't use pixel offset. I wouldn't be surprised if it had, in addition to its 2.2MP native 1920x1080 chips, H-axis pixel shift as well. There's a Panasonic seminar this week at HD Expo in Chicago that covers the HPX3000, so perhaps somebody here can ask Jan or whoever the presenter is for a definitive yes-or-no answer. If they can't say no for sure, then most likely it has H-axis Pixel Shift on top of the native res.

Andrew McMillan · June 3rd, 2008, 09:23 AM

We need to get back on track. Who cares whats magic it uses. All we are here is find out which one makes nicer pictures.

Steve I din't quite understand your post about the varicam and hpx. Where their images similar? Isn't the varicam only 720?

Basically from my understanding the EX's are sharper will the HPX has a nicer look.

I am actualy really intereted in this sence, I am also tring to decide between the two cameras

Steve Phillipps · June 3rd, 2008, 09:44 AM

Well Chris, sub $15k sure, but that's not what it said in your original post!
Andrew, the Varicam is 720 but actually has a higher pixel count than the HPX500, even though the 500 can output 1080. Varicam is one of the defacto standards for high end broadcast (Planet Earth etc.) so I think is a good benchmark. To me the pics from the HPX500 look very pleasant (good colour, highlight handling and gentle gradation), and in 1080 mode look possibly about as sharp as the Varicam, but in 720 mode they do look quite a bit softer to me, so ruling out the use of 720/50 or 60P for slomo (main highlight of the Pana cameras for me).
Steve

Andrew McMillan · June 3rd, 2008, 10:16 AM

Thats weird I allways heard the 500 looked better in 720 because that was closer to the pixel count.

I'm wondering if an HPX 500 would be sharper than an EX with a 35mm adaptor.

Alister Chapman · June 3rd, 2008, 10:41 AM

According to the Sony brochure the EX1 sensors have 1920x1080 effective picture elements. Not exactly sure what that means but implies that they use full raster imagers.

Steve Phillipps · June 3rd, 2008, 11:39 AM

It's not even close Andrew, 1080 is a lot better than 720 on the HPX500. Strangely enough, without any prior knowledge I had the same thoughts as you though!
Steve

Chris Hurd · June 3rd, 2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

...the EX1 sensors have 1920x1080 effective picture elements. Not exactly sure what that means but implies that they use full raster imagers.

Indeed, that was never in doubt.

Alister Chapman · June 3rd, 2008, 11:59 AM

Should of read your post better Chris. I did hear from one of my Sony contacts that the EX1 does not use pixel shift, but i would not take that as gospel.

Tom Roper · June 3rd, 2008, 01:24 PM

"New 1/2" Exmor CMOS Sensors with 1920 x 1080 effective pixels each - no pixel interpolation necessary."

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-bro...roduct-PMWEX1/

****************************************

I hate it when they use terms like that, but the no pixel interpolation wording should mean it's full raster.

(You can give me the HPX30000. I won't complain.)

Andrew McMillan · June 3rd, 2008, 01:30 PM

I am betting that the HPX 500 in 720 varispeed would intercut just fine with 500 1080 footage. right?

Steve Phillipps · June 3rd, 2008, 02:21 PM

No, not from what I've seen, it'd look quite obviously softer.
Steve

John Bosco Jr. · June 3rd, 2008, 10:26 PM

Getting back to the EX3 or HPX500. Considering that they're both about the same price (or seemingly will be about the same price), I would go with the HPX500 primarily because of the larger sensors. Of course, if you have to capture images in tight areas, the EX3 would probably be the best choice. I guess it all depends if you need a shoulder mount or a more compact camera.

I don't know what's up with the softer image in 720p as some have indicated on this thread. I did not notice it when I demo the unit. Of course, it has been awhile, and I didn't have any side-by-side comparisons. Maybe someone can send some screen shots of 1080i and 720p from the HPX500, so we can see the difference.

June 3rd, 2008, 09:02 AM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	The HPX3000 ain't no sub-$15K camera. It lists for $48,000 and that's just the body only. But I've read nothing from Panasonic stating it doesn't use pixel offset. I wouldn't be surprised if it had, in addition to its 2.2MP native 1920x1080 chips, H-axis pixel shift as well. There's a Panasonic seminar this week at HD Expo in Chicago that covers the HPX3000, so perhaps somebody here can ask Jan or whoever the presenter is for a definitive yes-or-no answer. If they can't say no for sure, then most likely it has H-axis Pixel Shift on top of the native res. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

June 3rd, 2008, 10:41 AM	#23
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	According to the Sony brochure the EX1 sensors have 1920x1080 effective picture elements. Not exactly sure what that means but implies that they use full raster imagers. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

June 3rd, 2008, 11:59 AM	#26
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Should of read your post better Chris. I did hear from one of my Sony contacts that the EX1 does not use pixel shift, but i would not take that as gospel. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

June 3rd, 2008, 07:32 AM	#16
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Deepest respect Chris, but not sure I understand that one! It does come across there that you're saying that a camera with pixel shift is preferable to one without, so the HPX500 block is preferable to the HPX3000. Presumably you mean better to pixel shift than just stay at 950x540? Steve

June 3rd, 2008, 08:11 AM	#18
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Except in things like the HPX3000, which doesn't need it 'cos it's already 1920x1080?

June 3rd, 2008, 09:23 AM	#20
Andrew McMillan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colombia Posts: 153	We need to get back on track. Who cares whats magic it uses. All we are here is find out which one makes nicer pictures. Steve I din't quite understand your post about the varicam and hpx. Where their images similar? Isn't the varicam only 720? Basically from my understanding the EX's are sharper will the HPX has a nicer look. I am actualy really intereted in this sence, I am also tring to decide between the two cameras

June 3rd, 2008, 09:44 AM	#21
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Well Chris, sub $15k sure, but that's not what it said in your original post! Andrew, the Varicam is 720 but actually has a higher pixel count than the HPX500, even though the 500 can output 1080. Varicam is one of the defacto standards for high end broadcast (Planet Earth etc.) so I think is a good benchmark. To me the pics from the HPX500 look very pleasant (good colour, highlight handling and gentle gradation), and in 1080 mode look possibly about as sharp as the Varicam, but in 720 mode they do look quite a bit softer to me, so ruling out the use of 720/50 or 60P for slomo (main highlight of the Pana cameras for me). Steve

June 3rd, 2008, 10:16 AM	#22
Andrew McMillan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colombia Posts: 153	Thats weird I allways heard the 500 looked better in 720 because that was closer to the pixel count. I'm wondering if an HPX 500 would be sharper than an EX with a 35mm adaptor.

June 3rd, 2008, 11:39 AM	#24
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	It's not even close Andrew, 1080 is a lot better than 720 on the HPX500. Strangely enough, without any prior knowledge I had the same thoughts as you though! Steve

June 3rd, 2008, 01:24 PM	#27
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	"New 1/2" Exmor CMOS Sensors with 1920 x 1080 effective pixels each - no pixel interpolation necessary." http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-bro...roduct-PMWEX1/ **************************************** I hate it when they use terms like that, but the no pixel interpolation wording should mean it's full raster. (You can give me the HPX30000. I won't complain.)

June 3rd, 2008, 01:30 PM	#28
Andrew McMillan Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Colombia Posts: 153	I am betting that the HPX 500 in 720 varispeed would intercut just fine with 500 1080 footage. right?

June 3rd, 2008, 02:21 PM	#29
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	No, not from what I've seen, it'd look quite obviously softer. Steve

June 3rd, 2008, 10:26 PM	#30
John Bosco Jr. Major Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Pinellas Park Posts: 232	Getting back to the EX3 or HPX500. Considering that they're both about the same price (or seemingly will be about the same price), I would go with the HPX500 primarily because of the larger sensors. Of course, if you have to capture images in tight areas, the EX3 would probably be the best choice. I guess it all depends if you need a shoulder mount or a more compact camera. I don't know what's up with the softer image in 720p as some have indicated on this thread. I did not notice it when I demo the unit. Of course, it has been awhile, and I didn't have any side-by-side comparisons. Maybe someone can send some screen shots of 1080i and 720p from the HPX500, so we can see the difference.