HPX 171 best recording workflow
 

Hi all! I was wondering: what is the best recording setup whit the HPX 171 to fully utilize the cameras 4:2:2 codec? . I've briefly read something about the HPX sub-sampling to 960 x 720 when shooting in 720p and that it's better to shoot 1080p and then down-convert to 720p in post... Is this true?
I don't fully understand pixel shifting so excuse my ignorance in this matter.

All cameras recording on DVCPRO HD will sub-sample 720p to 720X960, 1080p or i is sub-sampled to 1080X1280, a 3/4 horizontal sub-sample using anamorphic(rectangular) pixels.

This has nothing to do with pixel shifting done with the HVX200/200A/HPX170/500. If you are talking about recording more samples to gain luminance and chrominance information, then, yes, shooting in 1080 could be beneficial. The cameras above have native 540X960 CCD's, they are shifted to produce a 1080X1920 sample, then downconverted to 720p if that is the wanted recording resolution, then the DVCPRO HD codec will sub-sample from there.

Most of my clients shoot in 720/24P or 30P Native modes in order to get 2.5 minutes per Gb of recording time vs. the 1 minute per Gb of recording time in 1080.

If you're doing green screen work, or whatever kind of live action, best thing to do is test the camera in both resolution modes and compare the work flow and quality of your final delivery.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

So, let me see if I got this right. The HPX 171 shoots no mater what format selected in 1920 x 1080p and the down-converts to the selected format in camera (I actually knew this but forgot) which is lets say 1280 x 720p. Then in the process of recording the material to a firestore or a P2 card the DVCPRO HD codec (if selected) sub-samples the recorded image which is now at 1280 x 720p to 960 x 720p. Am I getting this right? But wouldn't this mean that the image would be cropped or squeezed?

It is squeezed. The DVCPRO HD codec has always been an abbreviated raster codec, 960x720 for 720 and 1440x1080 for 1080. This goes all of the way back to the original Varicam.

Dan

Okey... But what does all this mean in terms of actual quality loss?

It's not really correct to say it "shoots" in 1920x1080. It processes the three 960x540 chip outputs in a 1920x1080 matrix, then resizes each frame to what is to be recorded. Together with the way the green chip is physically offset from the red and blue, processing in this way means it achieves a luminance resolution of about 1200x650, though chrominance resolution can't be better than the 960x540 of the chips.

The reason for the 1920x1080 matrix is really to make the processing easy on the maths, it won't achieve anything like that resolution.

Quality loss? What quality loss? Have you used the camera? My suggestion would be to wean yourself of all of these relatively meaningless numbers, measurements and specs and go shoot something with the 170 and or the EX1 and whatever other cameras you are considering. The proof is on the screen, specs are incredibly overrated. One of the unfortunate side effects of hanging around user boards too much is the tendency to "measurebate" and obsess over specs that really are close to meaningless for the majority of users. IMHO, specs are really not very important, how the picture looks to you when you light and shoot well with it is by far more important than full raster versus abbreviated raster. color space and other such meaningless trivia.

I have the 170, it looks amazing and I have made some great pictures with it, some exhibited last year at the IMAX Theater in Copenhagen on a 65' screen through a 4k data projector. Nobody in the audience knew that the footage was shot on an abbreviated raster camera, the images looks great. I have shot lots of broadcast stuff with the EX1, it too can look amazing. When you are talking cameras in this level, all are capable of very high quality pictures if you are up to the task of composing, lighting and pointing the camera at them.

Good luck,

Dan

Yes Dan, I have the camera at home, for the third week now. I've tested it in many ways - even shoot a music video with it. I can't say that 100% happy with the material (don't like the soft-ish look). I do understand the point your making about getting obsessed with specs and stuff on the boards - but still, I do want to buy the best camera that's gonna suit my needs. And that's the reason I'm asking this.
I'm also interested in this matter no matter if I would be buying a camera or not...

Then, can you please define your requirements first? We know nothing about that aspect.

No requirements. No nothing! If I wanted to open a topic about me buying a camera I would have done so and there I would have stated my "requirements" (I've actually done this in the general HD forum). Here, I'm just inquiring about this specific question. And that's all.

--- I'm buying a camera EX or HPX. This inquiry is related to me doing this. Currently I'm in the process of figuring out if the HPX is going to meet with the HD standards (comming in a year) here in our little land (Slovenia). I know what the standards are, so no need for me to bother you with that. I just need to figure out how this camera works and then I'll be the judge. --> This topic doesn't belong here, but now you know. ---

I see. The best way for you to judge will be to actually use the camera to produce footage that you can judge yourself. I have a HPX172 here - PAL version. Excellent stuff.

All these codecs and numbers mean nothing - you just have to see the quality of the footage to compare. AND more important, the camera handling as well. It is useless to make a superior camera if it does NOT handle well.

Hi Sanjin:

Your comment that the HPX171 footage looks "soft-ish" means you will probably favor the EX1 IMHO. I have never heard that description applied to EX1 footage. On the contrary, the footage from the Sonys is razor sharp, even too sharp for my taste, but a lot of people in this business like that hyper clean sharp look.

FWIW, your perception of sharpness on the 171 probably has nothing to do with the abbreviated raster specs of the DVCPRO HD codec. It probably has everything to do with the fact that the HPX171 uses pixel shifting from lower resolution imagers and features a fixed lens. If you look at footage from the HPX2700, 3700 or even the original Varicam, it would probably not strike you as soft-ish.

The DVCPRO HD codec looks great as a camera codec, it is not so great as an editing codec though. I think what you are seeing is simply that the imaging system on the 171 is not what you are looking for.

Dan

Yes, EX1 or HPX300 would be sharper than a 170, plus a superior codec for the 300 vs. EX1, due to AVC-Intra 100. It has better ergonomics than palmcorders, albeit larger. The EX1 has 1/2" CMOS sensors, so very good in low light, DOF a bit shallower, but codec is low bit rate, Long GOP, 4:2:0. AVC-Intra is the only camera under $35K that offers internal 10-bit recording.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Yes, that soft-ish look is from the low res chips - but I just heard about the sub-sampling and wondered what's it all about :)

The HPX300 - I don't know, I've never used it - but I don't like the fact it has fulres 1/3 chips - but also haven't seen any footage from it, so I'm not to judge. If I would buy an EX3 cam, I would definitely buy the NanoFlash with it. And that would add up to approximately the same amount as the HPX300 goes for. Hence I don't care about the form factor (short films, commercials, music videos) I would definitely go for the EX3.

Yes, nanoFlash with EX1 is a good combo, however, it's still 8-bit, external recording, non-write protectable media. The EX1 is very good in low light, around ASA 640, depending on resolution(720/24PN is fastest)/frame rate/shutter vs. ASA of 320 for the 300, but I think you should at least check out the 300. No 8-bit codec can handle the amount of color correction and grading that a 10-bit codec can. I prefer Panasonic fleshtones over those of the EX1, YMMV.

Also, AVC-Intra has lower noise than DVCPRO HD and this helps get more latitude from the camera. DVCPRO HD looks very good with an HDX900 or HPX2700, even though it's sub-sampled, but AVC-Intra 100 is a big step forward, offering full sample Native progressive recording and better tonality than 8-bit codecs.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Why isn't DVCproHD a good editing codec? It's an Iframe codec...

I was wondering about that as well. DVCPRO HD requires little processing power, there's not much rendering time. Definitely easier to edit with than XDCAM EX or AVC-Intra and doesn't need the newest computers.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

8-bit. Why would anyone edit and add motion graphics in an 8-bit codec when they could use a great 10-bit codec like Pro Res HQ? 8-bit shows its limitations with gradients and high con situations. The quality of the picture is fine but who wants to see banding?

DVCPRO HD is fine for lower end editing or if you don't have motion graphics. It is super efficient, looks good and takes up little space. But add in some motion graphics with gradients or shots of blue sky or high contrast edges and its 8-bit origins become obvious.

The Sony XDCAM EX codec is much worse for editing though so you will just end up transcoding it to Pro Res or something like it anyway if you care about quality. The last time I shot AVCINTRA 100 with the 300 was before FCP 7.0 with the native AVCINTRA support was around so it was transcoded to Pro Res for editing. Looked great. I have been told that the native AVCINTRA 100 support in FCP ends up looking about the same as Pro Res HQ.

Dan

Dan,

Yes, totally agree. That's why acquisition in 10-bit is preferable to me. If you record on 8-bit and transcode to ProRes, you never get back the lost information of a 10-bit acquisition codec, which has 4X the shades of gray.

Staying 10-bit all the way is the best way to avoid banding and noise artifacts. Obviously, if you acquire with an 8-bit codec, it's great to transcode to a 10-bit codec like ProRes, but the best solution is starting with 10-bit recordings.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Definitely Jeff.

I really like the AVCINTRA 100 recording of the 300, it is definitely a step up from the 170 or the EX1. In camera, usually the only thing that bugs me about 8 bit is when I shoot horizons or really contrasty lighting and see the banding on the gradient. With "normal" video lighting, I rarely see this.

As far as editing, 10 bit is definitely the way to go, but I usually on transcode the 170 footage to Pro Res when the show contains a significant amount of graphics because the time and space requirements go way up.

I hope that Panasonic introduces a big brother to the 300 in the form of a 2/3" CMOS with better imaging scan capability for fewer rolling shutter artifacts. Panasonic needs a valid competitor to the new Sony 350 in the same price range.

Dan

I don't know. I would probably be happier with 1/2 fulress chips cam from panasonic with avc i 100. The 2/3 chips cam would be more pricier...:)

Yes, 2/3" full raster sensors demand a big price premium, even if CMOS. Look at EX3 vs. 350 price points. I think it's unlikely that Panasonic will offer a 1/2" camera. I do expect a large sensor, full raster palmcorder from Panasonic at NAB, could be 2/3" or larger. Unfortunately, it's likely to be AVCCAM, 24 Mbps, 4:2:0 vs. P2 with DVCPRO HD or AVC-Intra.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

You won't see a 1/2" imager camera from Panasonic. Ever. Or so I have heard.

Dan

Okey, all this aside. I still don't understand what is an abbreviated codec and how does it affect image quality? :)

Abbreviated codec is the same as sub-sampled, which means horizontal resolution is not full raster. As an example, 1080X1920 is normal full sample, HDCAM, XDCAM HD sub-samples 1920 horizontal resolution to 1440, DVCPRO HD to 1280. They use rectangular pixels to get full raster.

HDCAM SR, D5, XDCAm EX, 422, ProRes HQ, AVC-Intra 100, are all full sample horizontal resolution, among others.

In regards to 720P, the most common codec for 720P has been DVCPRO HD, which does a 3/4 sub-sample. Normal 720P should be 720X1280, but horizontal is sub-sampled to 960. With the advent of AVC-Intra 100 and some of the newest Sony codecs offer full sample 720X1280, making 720P higher resolution than what we used to see out of the original Varicams, or HDX900's, etc.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Okey. So the camera actually doesn't record in 1280x720p an 1920x1080p it records in 960 x 720p and ?? But if I up-convert 960x720 to 1280x720 how much would the picture differ in terms of sharpness compared to other cameras with 1/3 chips which don't subsample in the same price market? I know this is pretty much an open question (not specifying which camera, different sensors, different technologies, etc.) but generally comparing...

DVCPRO HD sub-samples 1080X1920 to 1080X1280, 720X1280 to 720X960. The only 1/3" camera that has full raster native 1080X1920 sensors is the HPX300. The rest do pixel shifting or join two chips together per channel, like the JVC HD-100, 110, 200, etc. I could be wrong--I don't really follow HDV cameras.

There are two technical issues at work here:

1. Is the sensor native 720X1280 or 1080X1920 or pixel shifted or not full raster?
2. Is the codec full sample or sub-sampled?

Clearly, full raster sensors and full sample codecs will resolve the most detail due to their higher real resolution. If it's the sharpest camera that you're after, that would seem to be the HPX300 or EX1/EX1R/EX3. Having said that, I've seen Canon and JVC cameras that look sharp, although often it's due to the detail circuit more than native resolution.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Sharpness can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different audiences, as Jeff alludes to.

Dan

That's right Dan. As you know, some people think the super enhanced, 60i or 60p sports/news look is proper HD. Some of us prefer a more natural, organic image, typically at 24 fps, low detail or off, shallow DOF, film like gamma curve, where the absolute sharpest image is not sought after if artificially enhanced.

There was a cameraman on another forum who preferred the JVC 700 to the HPX300 because its detail settings were higher out of the box, even though the native pixel count of the JVC is lower. You and I know he could have made the 300 look at least as sharp had he spent five minutes changing the detail settings. Instead he bought the 700 with a sub-par codec, a terrible lens that had no CAC circuit to help it and native sensors that are not full raster.

Getting back to the HPX170, ours is rented constantly, clients love its look. We have an EX1 as well, but it doesn't work as much for some reason.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Really? Huh, interesting...

Anyway, why does this codec sub-sample? I don't see the benefits - except a lower bit rate, if you're in a situation where that would be beneficial...

Sub-sampling is used to allow lower bit rates, and/or higher color space, and/or I-Frame structure. It is a way to reduce bandwidth. This is not necessary with newer codecs that are more advanced and efficient, such as h.264 based codecs. Remember that HDCAM is a late '90's codec, DVCPRO HD is an early '00's codec. HDCAM is also 3:1:1 color space, another way of lowering bit rate and allowing for less compression, just as so many very low bit rate codecs have 4:2:0 color space, or Long GOP frame structure--this allows for less compression at a given bit rate. One need only look at HDCAM SR to see what a huge bit rate is needed for 4:4:4, 10-bit, full sample, I-Frame HD codecs.

All of the above is why my favorite in-board, affordable codec is AVC-Intra 100. They are all compromises, all compressed, all sub-sampled in some way--just a matter choosing your poison!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Sanjin,

The advice from Dan and Jeff to move away from the deep techno-junkie stuff is spot-on. At the end of the day it's all about how good any image looks both in-camera and in post. You can spend literally days driving yourself nuts trying to decipher all the technical differences between camera systems but it's absolutely nonsense, trust me. It's not the perspective to think about when buying *any* camera, period.

My company was one of the first to fully adopt the P2 system when it was introduced in 2005 and we started with only the HVX200. Through my own testing I came up with camera settings that made the footage from the 200 really pop and many thought it came from 1/2" inch camera, not a 1/3" inch with SD chips being pixel-shifted. In fact several DVinfo users like Kevin Railsback have taken those settings as a jump-off point and made them even more perfect and are getting output from cameras like the HPX170 that would blow you away - and the EX cameras.

The bigger point to consider - which has nothing to do with counting pixels or codec sub-sampling - is that of color. None of the EX cameras shoot a color space superior to DVCPRO's 4:2:2, it's all 4:2:0 just like HDV. And as I always try to remind people, once the camera has thrown away color information there's no way to somehow magically regain it - once it's gone, it's gone, period. And color my friend, is far more important than overall resolution.

Think of it this way: AJA created the KiPro, a stand-alone tapeless recorder that takes HD-SDI from any source and homogenizes it into ProRes 422. It was designed in response primarily to the HDV and EX series cameras that shoot both the inferior color space but a long-GOP format, both of which have huge consequences in post that most seem to constantlly gloss over - until they have to deal with it directly. If 4:2:0 long-GOP wasn't such a problem there's no way AJA would have spent millions in development and deployment of such a device.

All P2 cameras already shoot 4:2:2 "i-frame" formats so there's no need for a device like the KiPro - or the Convergent design device you're considering.

Lastly, I'm as brand-agostic as they come. Every product on the market is nothing but a tool and I spend hundreds of hours each year testing various products to see how they stand up to real-world use and my own scrutiny. If the EX series or any other HDV-based camera actually produced better-looking and easier-to-handle footage than the HPX170 or HPX500 I'd be using them. But in point of fact, they don't. The only cameras that do? The HPX2000, 2700 and above.

Get the HPX170, learn how to properly set it up (you can find my baseline settings for the HVX200 on my site and use that as a jumping off point) and you won't be disappointed.

Yes Robert, you are right. All this thinking and calculating, it's driving me crazy.
But what happens when I want to broadcast the material from this cam over a HD TV station, who output full res...? And plus, this cam without it's 4:2:2 subsampling would have a to low chroma res for it to be useful with HD. So in my opinion Panasonic made good - they made a camera with small chips, saved money and added dvcpro hd codec with 4:2:2 subsampling (imagine it had 4:2:0 mpeg 2 - how usable would the material be). And the 4:2:2 subsampling is all that "everybody" see's and buys the camera - not realizing that the EX with it's full res chips and 4:2:0 subsampling delivers the same or a better chroma res.
So, my point being: don't rely just on your subjective view, read some specs before buying (but don't go all crazy) and get the camera that best suits your needs.

The mantra is always, "buy what fits your needs" however your logic about subsampling is actually backwards. It's been proven time and again - starting way back with Adam Wilt and his testing of the various DV codecs - that in fact 4:2:2 is superior to 4:2:0. Logically it has to be, what do you think happens to that "zero" in the EX codec? It doesn't magically reappear later somewhere, it's gone! Adding more pixels doesn't make up for a loss of chroma, it just makes that loss *sharper*. Think about it.

And with respect to the 200 or 170 not being able to pull off broadcast-quality finals that's also a myth; several national ad campaigns have been shot on the HVX200 and the HPX170. Did you see the Doritos Superbowl ad from 2007?

HVX200 shoots Doritos' Super Bowl ad - Online Video

Do you think Frito-Lay would have used a camera on a $2.5M spot that couldn't have pulled off commercial-grade?

If you're stuck on the higher pixel-count of the EX series then Sony's glossy marketing campaign has won you over. But if you were to actually compare the output between the 170 and the EX's you'd most likely be surprised - especially when you know how to setup the camera.

My gaffer recently worked on two weeks of Ford national spots using HPX170's!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

The HPX chips have 960 x 540 pixels. The EX1-3 have 1920 x 1080 pixels. HPX uses pixel shift which increases luma res but doesn't increase chroma res. This is what I'm referring to.

So, what brings a better chroma res:

4:2:0 from 1920 x 1080 or
4:2:2 from 960 x 540
?

This is how I understand the whole matter anyway... And I'm not saying the HPX 171 doesn't deliver good pictures. I like the look it gives but am wondering that it isn't gonna hold up for HDTV 1080.

Robert - how you can say that and then come out with :
and
leaves me wondering. Let's all either ignore technical details totally - and there's a lot to be said for all of us doing just that - or give the full picture. Don't just quote the cherry-picked stats that Panasonic promote.

Having said that, it's not right to not justify why I don't feel you're giving an accurate picture with the details you quote. It's all been said before, but for Sanjin's benefit, here goes.

You make great play on the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2. You don't mention the numbers are only ratios - not absolute values. Hence, if system A has twice the overall number of pixels of system B, then if it has 4:2:0 sampling, it will have exactly the same number of chrominance pixels as system B, if that has 4:2:2 sampling.

I've used the analogy before, but think of my offering you a quarter of the money in my left pocket, or half that in my right pocket. Which would you prefer? If I had $20 in my left, $10 in my right, you'd get $5 in each case. So the gut reaction of "half must be better than a quarter!!!" needn't be right - so why be taken in with blind statements such as "4:2:0 must be better than 4:2:2!" Quoting colour space figures whilst ignoring the wider picture is meaningless.

And colour sampling only applies to recording formats anyway. The comparison doesn't say anything about the camera front ends. And these are the stats Panasonic is less keen to have quoted about most of their range - especially the HVX200 and the HPX500. They are only capable of producing vertical colour detail of 540 lines max - even though the recording system would be capable of recording 1080 lines. (At least in 1080p mode.) Pour a litre into a 2 litre pot and you only have 1 litre still.

Robert, you say:
then you go on to say:
Do you not think the last 5 years may have given you a certain bias?
Firstly, the EX series cameras are not HDV - the HDV spec specifically lays down 25Mbs. Secondly, I've given details in another thread of very formal tests done by the British Society of Cinematographers in which (and alongside many others, including 35mm film, and digital cinema cameras) the difference between the HVX200 and the EX3 was chalk and cheese - in favour of the EX3. Thirdly, if you really are brand agnostic, why only list Panasonic cameras as models that you think give superior footage to the HPX170 or HPX500?
Why don't you remind people about what happens in the horizontal direction, Robert? About how DVCProHD is only capable of recording a horizontal luminance resolution of 1280, whilst the EX codec does 1920? So how DVCProHD with it's 4:2:2 then only manages 640 chroma samples against the 960 of the EX codec? Or do you think throwing away horizontal colour somehow doesn't matter, as long as it's preserved in the vertical direction?

To say nothing of cameras like the HVX200 not being able to resolve enough colour information to do a 1080 4:2:2 system justice - if the camera doesn't make enough color information originally, there's no way to somehow magically regain it - once it's not been produced, it's not been produced, period.

The chips on the 200, 171 and 500 are 960x540. Chips on standard PAL cameras are 720x576. That's 518,400 versus 414,720, or only about 25% more!!! Just compare that to a camera with 1920x1080 chips - 2,073,600 in total, or no less than **400%** more!
Just what evidence do you have for that statement? Because it goes against almost every single bit of relevant physical theory I've ever read. All the scientific evidence indicates that the human eye is far more sensitive to luminance detail than colour detail. Your statement is contrary to the basic principles behind every single broadcast colour TV system so far engineered. In NTSC the chrominance bandwidth is far less than luminance, and PAL takes it a stage further by averaging chroma line by line in the vertical direction. Reason? Overall resolution is far more important than chrominance resolution.

You have to define the systems you're working with, most especially the system luminance resolution. 4:2:2 then means half horiz, equal vert. 4:2:0 means half in each direction. You then have to take into account what the chips are capable of generating. (The result is only as strong as the weakest link.)

So, assuming we are talking about an EX and an HPX171.

For the EX, expect a chroma res of 960x540. (Limited in each case by the subsampling.)

For the 171, expect a chroma res of 640x540. (Limited horizontally by the subsampling, vertically by the chip resolution.)

In practice, you have to consider lens resolutions and a lot of other things, and progressive/interlace will have a big effect.

Don't get too bothered about chroma resolution anyway. Either of them should be fine in practice, and both are less than ideal for such as chroma key. (Though a nanoFlash largely sorts that for an EX.) Luminance resolution will have a far higher order effect - and it doesn't just mean sharper pictures, it means you can turn the detail correction down and get less edgy pictures which still look sharp.

Sanjin:

I just shot a PBS doc with the HPX170. In the States, the PBS Red Book specifications are widely regarded as the most technically stringent and difficult to pass of any broadcaster. I shot 1080 60i because most the archival material in the show had been telecined from film masters to 1080 60i. The footage from the HPX170 passed with flying colors, no pun intended. The footage looks superb when broadcast, the clients were happy and the show is running on PBS affiliates all over the country during their pledge drives. The director called me last week, saying that he has another PBS project that he wants me to DP, he loved the look that we obtained on the last project and wants to do more.

I also had a producer call me the other day. We worked together last year to shoot green screen interviews for a very popular FOX animated series. This producer, then went on to work at a different production company late last year and worked with other DPs to shoot green screen interviews. She called me this week and said that FOX wants her to work with me again, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF HOW BEAUTIFUL, FLAWLESS AND CLEAN the green screen footage I shot for them was (shot also with my HPX170). Let me re-iterate, a television network awarded her work for three series that I will be shooting specifically because of the look I was able to obtain with my HPX170! The comment that the FOX client made to her was that some of the other green screen she had shot with a different DP, using a much higher end camera "looked like a used car commercial".

I think I have made my point. We can talk numbers and specs all day, or we can talk about tangible results that I have experienced and the money that the camera has made me. This camera has already paid for itself three times in the past 18 months and it continues to pay me dividends, no mean feat in this time of such a horrible economy. My point is not that the HPX170 is a better camera than the EX1/EX3, it is not. FWIW, I have also shot green screen with the EX1 and it too keyed fine. I just wanted to clarify, in practical terms, that many of your concerns about the DVCPRO HD codec, 960x540 chipsets and chroma luminance are, at best, a very minor thing unless you get paid for measuring and debating specs. As for me, my 170 continues to make me money (along with a few skills I have ;-)

Dan

Yes I know but don't quite understand "lens resolution"... What about the A/D converter, that's an important part of the chain to. And wouldn't the vertical res of the HPX be 960/2 = 480 ?


I think that the other person, who used a "much higher end camera" a) didn't know what he or she was doing or b) had the wrong camera for the job maybe or c) just did something wrong in post.

Anyway, congrats for the FOX gig! Here in our little country everything is a bit unstable (due to recession) and getting such a solid gig is very nice.

I just have a one last question. Would it be better for a camera to use pixel shift even if it doesn't need it to achieve the desired resolution? Example: EX1,3 using pixel shift to get 1920 x 1080.