DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/)
-   -   HPX 2000 owners (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/139887-hpx-2000-owners.html)

Paul Cronin December 18th, 2008 10:07 AM

HPX 2000 owners
Would love to hear feedback from HPX 2000 owners on their experience with the 2000. Also what camera they moved up from? My company shoots with EX1 and Flash XDR which is a great combination. We are looking to upgrade for a few reason and still use the XDR. The 2000 has been highly recommended by a shooter I respect.

Steve Phillipps December 20th, 2008 08:27 AM

I think with the HPX2000 one of the best features is the codec, so using the XDR would be pretty pointless. DVCPro HD is good anyway, but if you put in the AVC Intra board it'd likely be better than the XDR even at max quality. The sensor is only half the pixel count of the EX1 though. I have used the 2000 (well 2100 in the UK) and liked it a lot, especially slomo was great, but do you want to live with a 720 camera over the next few years?

Paul Cronin December 20th, 2008 10:51 AM

Thank you Steve for your comments.

I have never used DVCPro HD but have heard it is a great codec for fast moving objects while shooting. AVC Intra board would make sense in all the Panasonic cameras to me. The smaller sensor size of the 2000 to the EX1 could be an issue. The EX1 has a great picture and with XDR it is wonderful. My research in going to 2/3” is to keep a few of my high-end clients coming back. Also a few jobs have been lost due to my current setup. Yea I know it is hard to tell the difference i picture quality but it is also hard to convince a possible client that it works fine. These type of client pay the difference for the right gear to meet their expectations.

As for 720p over the next few years well, hum probably not. But the next step to get native 1080p with Panasonic is the 3000 correct. I have to check that to see if the 2700 is 1080 native. But both the 3000 and 2700 push the budget too high since the camera is only 1/2 the purchase price.

Again thank you for your input much appreciated.

Steve Phillipps December 20th, 2008 12:30 PM

The 3000 and 3700 are 1080, while the 2000 and 2700 are 720, though they will do 1080 via up-rezzing in camera, but still from 1 million pixel chips. By all accounts the 3000 is stunning. Regarding the 2000 vs 2700 it seems that once you've paid for the AVC board on the 2000 there's not that much price difference and the 2700 has variable frame rates plus 10 bit processing and AVC built in.

Paul Cronin December 20th, 2008 01:38 PM

Thanks Steve 3700 would be a very nice choice but the extra 20K over the 2700 puts it outside my budget at this time. I will keep researching and take another trip soon to AbelCneTech once I start to narrow things down a bit more. Until then shooting with the EX1 and XDR is very nice.

David Heath December 20th, 2008 04:43 PM

I second all the good things being said about the 3000/3700, but if you feel that's too expensive, and still want a 2/3" camera with 1920x1080 sensors and recording mode, then you may like to check out the PDW700 (Sony) and the GFCAM from Ikegami.

Paul Cronin December 21st, 2008 07:49 AM

Thanks David the 3000/3700 are out of my budget but reading about the 3700 wow it would be very nice to own. The PDW-700 is square in my sights and on my short list. Surprised that the 3000 will not do overcrank using 720p as a option. I do shoot a lot of slow motion on the EX and like the 720p 30p/60p mode. Also too bad the 2700 does not shoot 1080 native and have a higher pixel count. Would I notice? Hard to tell.

I have taken a brief looks at the Ikegami cameras but do not know much about them. I did read where a camera operator who shoots for the Red Sox team used one and did not like it at all. But that is one opinion on a very special type of shooting. I will try and learn more.

Peter Richardson December 21st, 2008 03:56 PM

Regarding the 2700 being only 720 native, I have heard from others (and would judge from my personal experience) that the in-camera uprezzing is so good as to render it nearly indistinguishable from the 3700, especially if going to broadcast (non-theatrical). Add to that the variable frame rates and greater light sensitivity of the 2700 vs. 3700 (I believe it's a stop faster) and I think the 2700 is a worthy alternative to the 3700. Not to mention the cost savings.


Steve Phillipps December 21st, 2008 04:10 PM

It obviously depends how you're viewing it but I'd say that's total nonsense, I'm sure on a big HD screen and certainly in cinemas the 3000 would blow it out of the water. It's one of the few cameras that Alan Roberts at the BBC had virtually nothing bad to say about the imaging!

Peter Richardson December 21st, 2008 05:26 PM

Hey Steve,

This was a Panasonic rep making the comment regarding the comparison b/t the 2700 and 3700. I think he was probably making the comparison in a more subjective sense (I have no doubt there are significant differences b/t the two in many ways). I think one advantage of the 2000/2700 that often gets overlooked, however, is the light sensitivity.


Steve Phillipps December 21st, 2008 05:37 PM

True, but of course the extra light sensitivity is only a function of having pixels twice the size (more or less) 'cos there's only half as many of them on the same size chip!

Paul Cronin December 22nd, 2008 08:00 AM

Interesting I know the 2700 is a great camera. But Steve makes a great point in the second post about living with native 720p for the next few years. With this type of investment I want to be happy with the footage for a few years.

Are there any reviews between the 2700 and the PDW-700? I would expect the two to be direct competitors even though the 2700 is more money. Not trying to put Sony vs Panasonic in this thread just trying to learn as much as I can to make a some what educated decision.

Steve Phillipps December 22nd, 2008 09:13 AM

Not sure they are direct competitors really, though I know what you mean. There's quite a difference between disc and P2, and I think one would suit some people and the other for others. Other big difference of course is the chip, and with the 2700 you're always stuck with 720 or an up-rezzed 1080, while the 700 does proper 1080 and a down-rezzed 720 for when you need 50/60P.
Having said that I know at least one person who did look at the images side-by-side and said they preferred the overall look of the Varicam - very much the same situation as the BBC folks when they were looking at cameras for Planet Earth and the like, many producers preferred the image of the original Varicam to the Sony 1080 cameras on a purely subjective, visual basis.
I do think that the AVC-Intra codec would be a big plus, especially for fast moving, complex images though.
It's a tricky one, and they were the 2 cams on my shortlist, but just couldn't bear parting with that sort of money for what still has to seem a bit of a halfway resolution camera (extended definition rather high def as they say). Plus, I do really really like the disc system.

Paul Cronin December 22nd, 2008 10:28 AM

Thank you Steve,

I thought you went through the same process as I am with regard to research. You are bringing a nice clear picture to my research and I appreciate the help.

Did I read that you have a thread about lens going for your 700?

Steve Phillipps December 22nd, 2008 10:31 AM

Hi Paul,
Yes there are a few lens threads actually, I've been sticking different HD and SD lenses on the 700 and looking at 200% crops in FCP.
At first I thought the SD lenses were pretty good, but the more I look the more they do seem a little lacking - BUT we are talking about big crops and careful looking, my guess is that on regular HD screens you'd probably not see much difference. Do a search for posts by me and they'll all come up. I've tried Canon HJ17, 21, 22, 40 etc., and some of the Fujinon too.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:53 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network