All that pixel counting can tell you is *the best possible case*. It can predict a max performance above which it's theoretically impossible for the camera performance to be. But put a poor lens on, and it can be worse - it's another case of only being as strong as the weakest link. (In practice, what gets measured tends to agree quite closely with predictions, though resolution tends to fade gently away - don't expect any camera to resolve 540 lines perfectly, but output mushy grey when presented with 541!)

A-D convertors are a separate issue, they influence other matters than resolution. Noise, gamma etc yes - but not resolution.
No, I think you're confusing the vertical with the horizontal.

The HPX has 540 pixels vertically, 540 each of red, green and blue. That limits it's chroma resolution to no more than 540 - which the codec can easily preserve.

For luminance you have to take the pixel shifting into account. The overall benefit is generally accepted to be an improvement factor of about 1.5x overall. Here, the benefit is shared between hor and vert, so expect about sq rt 1.5x on each axis (about 1.2x). This is where the (approx) prediction for 1200x650 luminance resolution comes from. All I'll say is it agrees quite well with measurements.
I think the answer has to be "no". It gets highly complex, but I can think of two main reasons.

Firstly, to get up to around 1920x1080 output resolution, then you'd need to divide those figures by 1.2 to get to approx the number of photosites needed on the chips. So somewhere around 1600x900. But you then have to process a 1600x900 matrix to get a 1920x1080 output. It may be possible, but far more difficult than processing 960x540 in a 1920x1080 signal processor. So the question becomes whether it's worth it?

Secondly, there's the subject of aliasing. Normally, there is a filter to stop detail finer than the basic resolution of the chip from getting through - because that's what causes aliasing. For pixel shift to work, you have to allow higher frequencies through, and the nett result is the inevitability of coloured aliases. It may not be the end of the world, but why bother?

The only benefit to pixel shifted 1600x900 chips in the situation you describe is that the individual photosites are larger than is the case with 1920x1080 for the same overall chip size, so you may expect better sensitivity, or lower noise. In practice, the additional processing means you wouldn't get all that may be expected anyway. It's just easier to use 1920x1080 - and the real beauty of what Sony have done with the EX is to increase the OVERALL sensor size to 1/2". So bigger individual photosites AND 1920x1080 compared to 1/3" designs.

But nothing stands still, and it'll be interesting to see what Canon come up with. The codec news is encouraging - full broadcast approved XDCAM 422 50Mbs. The big question is what the front end will be. If it's 1/3" chips, my own feeling will be "so near and yet so far", but who knows? The new Canon may be the EX beater.

David, you and Sanjin are two peas from the same pod; you're both overly concerned and focused on theory, scientific data and numbers more than real-world results. If shopping for a camera is all about the science rather than end-of-day results then there'll never be any camera at any price that will satisfy your need for technical perfection.

In point of fact, the reason I chose and continue to use Panasonic cameras isn't because of some brand-blinding loyalty or commissions (of which there are none, thank you) it's because I have spent my time and money physically testing *all* the various systems offered on the market. I've had them all in-hand with production face-time, not staring down numbers on a sheet of paper or listening to opinions from others who've never actually held the camera. And the reason I settled on and continue to use Panny cams is because they produce the best-looking imagery, have the easiest and most logical workflow and provide a set of features that fit *my company's* needs.

Truly, if Sony, JVC, Canon or even RED had produced a system that *on-the-whole* was a better system all around then I'd be using it. In fact, when RED was first announced I fully expected that I'd drop using the Panny's in favor of the RED system but after real-world use it turns out it's not well suited to *my companys* work at all.

Are the 170/500 or any other P2 camera perfect? Well gee, is anything produced by humans? Of course not, but when you step away from the infinitesimally finite and narrow-focused view of tech specs and actually work with these various systems and put them through their paces it simply turns out that P2 - and the Panny system as a whole - stand out clearly above the competitors in all the mission-critical areas required for successful commercial production. Period.

I'm eager to see what canon brings to the tables to. EX1 and EX3 have had and have the throne for the last 2 years now. It would be about time for the competition to pick up their pace.

Hi Robert! I myself don't rely only on subjective viewing. There's a distinct way of how I operate and function in general. For me, it's important to understand the "mechanics" and the basics of matter. It's from that knowledge that I build up my understanding. Relying just on subjective viewing in my opinion is negligent and not professional. That's just like a video editor not knowing what a jump cut or continuous editing is and in his work relying only on his felling or "gut", or not understanding the basics of narrative form, etc. That's wrong. And I know a lot of those kind. These are generally the people who refuse to read books and to study and are usually the most unprofessional people to work with.

For good understanding of matter one needs knowledge and experience. Not just subjective knowledge shaped from experience. Your probably coming from: that the likes of me and david "can't see the forest anymore because of the trees". This sometimes happens, but generally it's all about being clever.

Sorry if my articulation isn't at it's best - I'm rely tired...

Robert, you can rest assured that it's end-of-day results that are my prime interest. But you seem to make it sound that "theory, scientific data and numbers" and "real-world results" are totally unconnected. I'll be the first to admit that the theory doesn't - can't - tell the whole story, but it can give you a very good idea. As long as you understand it properly. Most importantly, theory can often accurately predict when a claim can't be true - but only when the numbers are accurate. Either get the science right - or ignore it.

And what I see (from more than one manufacturer) is cherry picking of statistics. Make a big deal of the numbers that suit them, downplay the ones that don't. In Panasonics case "4:2:2 v 4:2:0" is maybe the best example. If all else is equal, the statement is true enough - but in what we've been talking about, all else is far from equal - hence the comparison becomes meaningless.
Well, that's pretty tendencious stuff. You make it sound so cut and dried - but I certainly know many many people and organisations who feel they have gone into the whole subject thoroughly and decided that the Panny system does not stand head and shoulders above the rest. P2 worked well for a few people from day one - many many others felt the "download and format" workflow (especially in the field) was just too prone to human error. (And either stayed with tape or went to disc.)

There's no doubt that the viability of solid state is rapidly improving (and I'd expect it to become dominant before long) - but now P2 has it's competitors from others who have let the technology mature before bringing product to market.

Yes. It's a bit like driving a car. You don't need any real knowledge of mechanics or how engines work to get a licence, and you could be a reasonably good driver without such knowledge.

But in my experience the BEST drivers have at the very least a rough idea of what's going on under the bonnet. It gives an empathy with the car which can only help, quite apart from being able to perform routine maintenance. It can also help them judge whether an issue is important ("stop NOW!"), or something which needs looking at - but can wait until they get home.

It can also help make a more informed decision when it comes to buying a new one. Otherwise you buy it on the basis of "oohh, what a nice colour", or (worse) some half truth a salesman tells you.

I am not a technical guy. I just like to shoot. I use the HPX170 regularly and have shot on occasion with the EX-1. I have got to say that I like the EX1's higher resolution but prefer the HPX170s so called organic look. The HPX 170s image just seems to have more color depth and richness. Now this is purely a subjective opinion so take it for what it is worth. For my needs, which is SD DVD production, the HPX is more than adequate.
I know David has stated in numerous posts going way back he does not have a high opinion of the HPX170 chipset nor the DVCPRO HD codec. His reasoning make sense to me when you put it in the context of what camera best suites your end product. For me the EX1 would not produce a superior product for the end format that I am producing.

It may be more accurate to say that I feel both could be better..... I'm not actually saying either is "bad" - just that they could be better. (Certainly in resolution terms.) In the 300 Panasonic have moved on from both so it seems they might feel the same. I think you'll find I haven't given the codec of the EX a full endorsement either - I think it's fairly good, but could also be better - XDCAM 422 50Mbs.

What I do object to is the use of totally inaccurate technical arguments to "scientifically prove" that black is white.

Overall, yes, I do prefer the look of the EX to the HPX170 for reasons stated before. But I'll accept your opinions as to why you may prefer the opposite. (Though I wonder how much it may be down to line up. The first thing I'd recommend anyone to do with an EX is reduce the detail level - have you tried that?)

David,

I agree re: detail level. Besides reducing overall detail level, I like to raise the black and white detail limit to thin out the edges and overshoot. This is useful on every Sony camera I've owned, SD or HD, assuming it has the controls. Ditto level dependency(crispening, coring) to quiet the blacks.

I don't like the flesh tones in Cinema matrix setting on the EX1 without having to tweak matrix channels and multi-matrix. I like the High Sat matrix setting better for a quick out of the box look. Not having a separate memory card to store picture profiles is a pain--too often I get our EX1 back from rental and all data has been reset. Kind of expensive to keep an 8Gb SxS card dedicated to picture profiles.

The Panasonic out of the box matrix settings seem to produce more favorable flesh tones, IMO. However, Panasonic's matrix settings on 2/3" cameras do not conform to REC 709, they are actually biased towards Asian flesh tones and green deficient, so a Chroma Du Monde chart and HD vectorscope are needed for proper color points in secondaries and even green and cyan primaries.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm eager to see what canon brings to the tables to. EX1 and EX3 have had and have the throne for the last 2 years now. It would be about time for the competition to pick up their pace
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm also eager to see what the next-gen Canon can do. Personally, though, I've shot short films with the XH-a1, the HVX, and an EX1 and there's just something about the HVX picture that looks great.

granted, the EX1 is a far more crisp picture, but after seeing all three on a movie theater screen, at the moment i still prefer the look of the HVX.


The "next big under $10k camera" will likely be Scarlet, if RED ever actually puts it out.

the advent of HDSLR i think has slowed the game down in the indie-cam faceoff. Red's DSMC system will set both DSLR and Traditional shooting worlds on fire (shooting RAW is exciting)

But it ain't out yet. So who knows.

Heres my wish list for NAB this weekend:

-An HPX170 upgrade with full raster 1080.
-EX1/3 upgrade with real 4:2:2
-A canon that combines the sensor size of the 5D with the form factor of a traditional camcorder.
-Scarlet


Those are all dream machines to me. Sadly, so far it doesn't look like ANY of those will be at this years NAB.

Just to wrap this thread up - in the end I ended up buying the hpx 171. And I have two more questions regarding this topic (more or less): is there such a thing as a hpx171 guide book? I would also need some advice on scene file settings - is there such a place or a document or something?

Hi Sanjin:

Congratulations on your new purchase. You will definitely want to obtain the Barry Green book. Over here, it is usually included for free with the 170 on promotions but over in Europe, I think you can buy it from Amazon. This book contains everything you need to know about your 171.

Dan

Thanks Dan, will look into it!

Another question: I will be doing a video shortly and it's mostly gonna be shoot in low light. Anny suggestions about settings? I'm still not thoroughly acquainted with the camera...

Thanks!

Sanjin,

How low is low? No video camera operates in near total darkness. You can try upping the GAIN - a small switch on the left side of the camera and see if it is better.

The HPX171 at 3dB of gain is still cleaner than the HVX201 at 0dB of gain. At about 6dB of gain on the 171 makes the noise about equivalent to the HVX201 at 0dB. The HPX171 is rated nominally at ISO 500, which isn't bad. But like all small sensor video cameras, the more light, the better the image.

B-Press is the lowest noise out of all of the gammas. I have comparison pictures in the bottom 1/3 of this article Panasonic's HPX170

Dan

Night club low or probably a bit lighter. I'm still gonna have lights but the scene will have to represent night. I'll probably darken the scene further in post....

@Dan

Nice article. I'll gladly reed through it.

Sanjin:

Just a bit of advice. I just DP'd a shoot that was a dramatic scene that took place in a hospital room at night.

Good looking night = well lit primary subject with skin tones exposed to at least 70 IRE, high-key style with a lot of contrast.
Lousy looking night = looking in the monitor and trying to record the scene with actual really low levels of light as you would see in a dark room at night (which is what typically inexperienced directors and camera people tend to do)

Underexposing any small sensor camera will result in mud. Muddy, murky and noisy images. You have the right idea. Shoot tests to verify your instincts but I like to expose at least the primary subject in the scene correctly, bring the overall ambient light level to brighter than you think looks good as "night", then take it into post and just drop the blacks, play with the gamma until it looks like night.

I can't convince these directors to trust my eye and experience and the editors eye and experience that this works. They just shoot it as "what you see is what you get". Then when they are in post or output for a screening that will be projected, they complain that the "image isn't bright enough", then they boost the levels, then it looks like crap. And I just have to tell them, "I told you so".

Night, in cinema, rarely equals truly dark. You need to see your subject, regardless. The only way to see your subject is to light them. Then you can decide how dark you want to make it in post. At least then, you have a clean signal and choices.

Good luck,

Dan

Usually, yes, that's the way it ends. :)

I do agree with you on this topic.
What do you think are the common mistakes usually done when shooting like this? What is a dead give away that the scene wasn't shoot in low light (or at least not as low as portrayed) For example; I often see to bright highlights.
Must be hard to shoot like this with let's say a dslr which don't have zebra...

Well, light is light. In a "dark" room, light still behaves the same way that it does in a normally lit room, just at overall lower levels. You still have blacks, mids and highlights, you can still have hard light or soft light in a "dark' room. I guess for me, it all about testing and tweaking until it looks right. It does take experience, an eye and testing to get it right. Most people these days are too lazy and have too short attention spans to do film making the right way, which, to me, means testing and evolving the look that you want.

We, as filmmakers, used to do scratch tests, exposure tests, hair and makeup tests, wardrobe tests. These are often still done at the studio level, but are rarely done in the low/no budget world. Coincidentally, for the project I referred to above, we did do a lighting and wardrobe test. The director wanted a nurse character who is supposed to look surreal, to be dresses in all white, naturally. It took some education on my part to teach him about what a tea rinse is, and luckily, through shooting the wardrobe tests, he understood that all white is a bad thing for video. He ended up staying with the white uniform but had the wardrobe department fabricate her a much darker blue cloak that the actor wore over her uniform. The typical low budget team would have just showed up and tried to shoot it as is, with probably bad results. Yes, you could try to flag the heck out of the set but we had way too small of a set to have much room for flagging and we were shooting with two cameras to boot.

My advice would be to shoot tests and work with the director and editor and come up with a look and solution that everyone will be happy with. Not saying you have to shoot day for night and really light the heck out of the set, you don't. But you do need a certain ambient level and you should expose at least the face of your primary subject correctly in order to minimize the risk of the picture falling apart in post.

Are you the editor? If so, what software are you using? If you are using FCP and or Color, you would be amazed at how much you can push the DVCPRO HD codec, it has a lot more latitude that DV, HDV, AVCHD or H.264. A correctly exposed image is key though. The 170 and 200s look really murky when underexposed.

Dan

I see that there is more for me to learn on this matter. But for this shoot I will take your advice and shot at a lower ambient level. Maybe find some literature online for a quick education :)

Anyway, yes, I am the editor, the DP, and the director. I edit in MC 4 but never do CC in it - for that I use AE. I've shoot some low light scenes yesterday and did some quick grading and there really is a higher limit with a 100 Mbit codec than let's say a 25 or a 35 Mbit codec (what I've used mostly). But is it just me or is the HPX picture grainier than let's a Z1 or a FX1. I've also got HPX and 7D material side by side from a shoot and it's night and day comparing graininess...