It's native 1920x1080. That's the CMOS advantage - cheaper than the 960x540 HPX500. But there's no free lunch!
Steve

Why not Tim? What do you see as the problem with 1/3" chips?

I posted a question regarding the pixels in 1/3" vs 2/3" chips, as it occured to me that unlike film a pixel is not enlarged when it is shown on a 50" screen, a pixel is a pixel, and its information is just transposed onto the screen. So the size of the pixel and therefore the size of the chip has no effect on quality.

There are plenty of other factors of course, but many of them are only relevant to certain types of work. You might talk about shallow depth of field, good for drama, but if you're using long lenses or doing run and gun doc/news you need some dof to help get things in focus. Besides, open up to f2 and you've got pretty slim dof even on 1/3".

Light gathering is better on the bigger chips, true. But even 1/3" chips are pretty sensitive, so unless you're doing a lot of night work you're more likely to worry about not having enough NDs rather than enough sensitivity.

Lack of lens options? Well, not really. You only really need 1 lens for most things, a standard zoom or a wide zoom, and they're are several of each for 1/3". Long lenses? Get a 2/3" or Nikon adapter.

I've never been able to quite understand the prejudice against 1/3" cams. And unlike a lot of folks on the forums who tend to want to defend their own kit, that's not my intention here, all the gear I use is 2/3".

Steve

Well, maybe it is a stigma with me. My opinions come from different areas.

When the 1/3" chip cameras first made a splash, they were considered less than pro because they were (viewed as) limited compared to the pro cameras. Pros used larger chips which were supposed to get better images. I think that has changed as the new 1/3" cameras get amazing imagery. But I still see them a limited? It is like an assumption that the good technology is saved for the larger chip cameras in the line.

When I use a 1/3" chip camera, I am turned off by having so much in focus. I don't mean wanting 35mm DOF, I mean when you go towards the wide end of the lens everything is in focus and to me that suggests a consumer leaning video image. I agree, for long telephoto work this would evaporate, but for everthing else, I just enjoy the look of a focus area. In the still or lighting world they call it modeling. You can achieve this with lighting techniques, but I see this between 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" imagers. It is a sense of depth in the scene and to me, the 1/3" imagers have a flatter dimensional look.

Optically, it seems 1/3" chip cameras have a sticky situation. Their smaller chips demand much more precise opticts but their pricepoint is limiting. There is also diffraction which creeps up to f4-f5.6 on this chip size which is working against you. A lot of 1/3" chip cameras come in little packages which is good and bad to me. They are portable, but a large camera handles so much better. The 300/370 have this covered.

I am a fan of 1/2" chips for folks in my position. I shoot a lot of different things and I find 1/2" imagers is the right mix of DOF for multiple shooting situations. I used to own three DVC-200s. They were perfect for my uses. 1/2" chips, adult lenses and cost around $5,000. These cameras had a much better image and flexibility than the 1/3" chippers at that time, so that is where a lot of my assumptions/assertions got started.

Maybe I am a bit angry that 1/2" chips have been largly left out of the HD party and the number of 1/3" cameras is quite large and growing. I use all three chip sizes btw.

Given the price of the EX-1, for $10,000 I would expect the HPX-370 to be 1/2" imagers when most of the market is around $3,500 - $5,000 for 1/3" chips.

So, why do you use all 2/3" chip cameras?

Good to hear your thoughts Tim.

Still I'm not sure some of it makes sense though. In terms of everything seeming in focus on wide shots, well it does on 2/3" chips too. According to a DoF calculator I just checked, if you focus a 7mm lens at 10 feet even at f4 you have focus from 1.2ft to infinity on 2/3" chip! So I can't see how a 1/3" chip would make any difference really.

In terms of diffraction, you are right of course, but bearing in mind the argument about wanting to restrict DoF you want to stay wider than f5.6 anyway surely? And as long as you have NDs on the camera, and maybe even some in your matte box if needed then f1.8-f5.6 should work for any situation.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just cautioning against people making these assumptions, as when you look into them they may not be quite as you think.

As for why I use 2/3" - that's what I'm given and what I'm told to use. I tend to be on medium to high end TV productions so they have the money to spend on gear and I think if you can afford it (and carry it!) then 2/3" is the way to go, why not. But I just think it'd be a mistake to write off 1/3" without really looking into it.

Steve

Here are some frame grabs of a test I did years ago with a DVX100 1/3", DSR-450WS 2/3" and DSR-450WS with a Pro35 adapter, 85mm Zeiss Super Speed, all at the same aperture of f2.8 and framing matched with cameras in the same position.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I guess I mis-spoke regarding the towards the wide end of the lens comment. Sure, DOF increases with wider fields of view. What I was thinking was a lot of the zoom range has most everything in focus.

When I look at Jeff's example, the 1/3" chip image does not hold my attention from a "look" point of view, and that is at f2.8 at smaller aperatures the walls would start to be in focus. If one were to shoot an entire pool related video, would you rather watch the 1st image or one of the other two? Just my opinion that the 2nd and 3rd image have a more porfessionally shot look. This does not mean people who use 1/3" chip cameras are not professionals, I use a 1/3" camera too. Please don't anybody go there. Now the 1/3" chip could function nicely in a role as a deep DOF style shot, but that would part of a group of cameras.

But if you had to present something to be judged with one camera, what would you put your name on if you had the choice?

Yes Jeff, sometimes it makes a difference!
Steve

You could always put a Letus or similar on your 1/3" camera though of course.
Steve

I'm not after the 35mm DOF for my work, so far, but 2/3" offer a few things the 1/3" or 1/2" don't:
Dynamic range, especially when shooting outdoors in difficult light. Done a few shoots where we have "flat" light, snow and black mountains in between or very strong sunlight in the same environment. I used a Hpx500 together with 4 cameras that are 1/3"; Hpx171/Hvx200 on a recent freeride skiing contest. A 2/3" offer some sort of slack , you're not screwed with the exposure a tad of...which is nice.

Low light ability, usually the 1/3" is left trailing behind in the dark or has to add enough gain to make it ugly.

2/3" DOF if sort of useful for "everything", not to much to cope with on fast paced action and but enough for sitdowns or nice scenery which make the editors happy.

But ofcourse you pay for the 2/3", either with compromises as the Hpx500...or the much higher price point for a Hpx2100 or higher.

Now that it's been officially announced, please direct
any posts regarding the AG-HPX300 to this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...camcorder.html

Thanks in advance,