Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

I can't say I agree with you on that one. My HPX171 aliases much more when set to 720p. I'm actually quite annoyed by this. And it's also the reason why I shoot 720 only when there is a desperate need for tape time...

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

Downconversion is highly likely to cause aliasing - it's a question of how much. Starting with an image with less fine detail is better in principle, that's not to say there won't be any at all. And the 250 will give far more fine detail in the 1080 picture (to most people that's a big advantage for it!), so if the 171 has given problems in the past, it doesn't bode well for the HPX250 in 720 mode. I doubt it will be any better than the XF305.

One thing I did neglect is that whilst the 960x540 chips should give luminance detail up to about 1175x660, DVCProHD only records a 960x720 raster - so the horizontal downconversion is to 960 - not 1280. Hence more likelihood of horizontal aliasing from the downconvert than vertical.

I'm also wondering more about how much the complaints reported about 720p aliasing in the XF305, and Alan Roberts good assessment of the EX1, are down to settings. It does seem Alan may have brought the detail down from factory default - maybe the XF305 users had it set to a higher level? So less a camera issue, more one of bad setup?

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

The HPX 250 is now fully BBC approved for HD production in house and by indie production companies!

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

Is there a report from Alan Roberts?

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

Have asked Alan if he has had a look at it yet but if the BBC have approved it he probably has.

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

HD Magazine - HD Mag - Panasonic's 'Third Inch Sensor' HPX250 Gets BBCApproval

I also got notification today from panasonic europe.

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

P.S

Alan has informed me that he hasn't tested the camera and it was approved by the BBC on the basis that the regarding sensors and recording codecs are identical to two other cameras that he has already tested and I assume these to be the HPX371 and 301 .

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

Interesting. Surely they will do a test of the camera? They can't just give it an Okey based on the specs... Because that's what this seems like to me.

This "BBC APPROVED" seems like more of a commercial stunt to me lately...

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

NO it is nothing to do with a commercial stunt at all, the camera has the same sensor and the same on board codecs and most of the spec as the HPX371 so the BBC have decided that it will be acceptable based on that data and it is nothing to do with anything commercial or being a stunt at all. I formed the same conclusions when the 250 was released and it is now my B-camera for multi cam shoots.

Take it as you wish but if you do your own research like I have done you will see beyond the commercial hype and bullshit of a lot of the twaddle written on forums like this and see what kit is really acceptable and what kit is camera bashing from people who A: have never seen it B: work for manufacturer s,c or red or C: don't even work in pro video and make test video's for a living in the hope that p, c, s or red will give them some exclusive access.

It's approved as is the 371 as is the 1/3" camera's from canon but the codec is the key to all of those and not just sensor size or lens servo from test cameras!

If you are not happy with that then buy something else or do your own tests and if you want a large sensor camera with a broadcast acceptable codec then mr C has just released one and if you wait you may be a happy bunny albeit at a cost far more than a 250 or 371!

P.S Have you bothered to do any tests yourself? I suspect not so please don't bash our public organisations that have nothing to do with commercial manufacturers that pay people like Alan and take the time to do it all for us all for free due to public access! I asked Alan a direct question re the 250 and he gave me as usual a very honest and rapid response that as always has nothing to do with commercial stunts but is totally based on fact and logical reason.

I think we have all been very lucky to get independent reports on all the cameras the BBC test and they are all based on fact and not any commercial aspects, the BBC have also approved cameras such as the AF101, the F3 and other sony camera's but they also need external recorders to attain full broadcast codec spec so at the end of the day we as users should cherish that and make our decision based on out own needs not totally on any singular report. Certainly I have and chose the HPX301/371 nearly three years ago and have not regretted going down the P2 route after several years with sony cameras and have now added the 250 based on my own experience over that time regardless of a further BBC report!

Do the slovenian national broadcaster do their own tests? LIke all the others inc the commercial broadcasters here in the UK I suspect not, so if the BBC says a camera is approved I think we should think ourselves very lucky that they get Alan to do these tests for us and allow us to make our own conclusions that can be commercial but certainly I see the BBC as a valuable independent resource for such tests that have little to do with manufacturers or commercial gain.

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

Garry I must have put myself wrong. I certainly didn't won't to say all the things you accused me of saying.

I wanted to say that the manufacturers are using this "BBC approved" for commercial reasons. Particularly I had Canon in mind and their XF300 cameras. Not to bash on the cameras, I had it on a shot last time and I really like it.

And I certainly understand why they would give the 250 a green light before even putting it through the paces.
But it's still a small form camera with quirks that small form cameras usually have. And that's why it surprises me that they just gave it a go. Yes, I get it: they gave it's picture a go based on the codec and on the familiarity with the 370. But still, they didn't test it! What if it also has ghosting on the pap2 setting (is it pap2?)? Or how many resolution does it have? Or how is the CA? Or how does it perform under...? I'm certain they won't be buying any before doing some test. And if this institution becomes a legitable benchmark for judging camera performance (which it already is basically) it's going to become something that the companies are going to exploit and put pressure on for their cameras to get approved also. I'm just thinking here - not accusing anybody of anything.

As for mr.Roberts, I appreciate he's work! And I'm not bashing you public organisation, I'm bashing (if any) on the people that use this BBC approved for commercial reasons. And even these people have the right to do so. There's just all this talk on the forums and people here in Slo. that aren't any experts just some lazy/"smart as hell" people that I have to deal on a daily basis that are saying: "but the xf300 is BBC approved, you know...!" -> this is what's bothering me:)

And no I haven't used or even held the 250. Wish I could, but no reseller has one here as of yet:(

Here in Slo. and Cro. material from my HPX171 is perfectly acceptable for broadcast:)

Re: new Pannie HPX250 info
 

OK I take your points but the BBC ( and Alan) work very hard with the manufacturers and contact that we do not have privy to takes place, the manufacturers are also given a chance to reply to any reports and also agree with the BBC that they can be put into the public domain.

Camera's are mainly tested for technical standards and functionality is down to the camera dept and individual choice so you pays your money and makes your choices based on that not a BBC engineering report that approves it for broadcast chain use.

Companies are allowed to use the BBC approved list as are everyone who wishes to, I certainly do and it gives my clients confidence in my work but I appreciate that valuable bench mark and certainly don't use it as a marketing stunt! Canon and others may use it to sell product but that is up to them but you don't see arri or red needing to do it. If I were buying a small camera now I would chose the canon but I bought into the P2 system three years ago and now will stick with it as I can still chose 2/3" and 1/3" chip small and large cameras that all use the same codec and card storage.

As for the 250 it will have the same characteristics as the 371 and the BBC would have confirmed this with panasonic but it is approved so that is where we are, I don't think Alan does extensive operational tests and as said that is up to us to do after cameras are approved for use in the broadcast chain. There are others in the BBC who look at cameras from this perspective and only recently there was an open day up in glasgow for people to see what they thought about several cameras on the BBC approved list.

Specifically it will probably have the PAP2 problem but it may be better as that was fixed in firmware on the 371 with PAP1 and the CA is also addressed in the software on these cameras but I doubt if it will be worse than the 371 but it may also be better due to the fixed lens design, the BBC may or may not have confirmed this with panasonic.

A XYZ full HD camera may be acceptable for broadcast anywhere in the world but unless a broadcaster has tested it thru the full chain it may not meet the technical requirements of the BBC or any other broadcaster.

In some regions HDV is acceptable for HD but in others and for the BBC it is not so it is down to choice at the end of the day but you may have long wait before every camera and manufacturer is selling you exactly what you want to buy!