|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 27th, 2012, 09:50 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago Illinois
Posts: 41
|
considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
I'm considering several different brands of HD cameras right now - I'm investigating the HPX300 now.
--What's the best brand of P2 cards to buy and best price 32GB cards that are reliable? (how many minutes should that give me of 1080i?) --Also for batteries - best long last batteries (hoping for 4 hours a battery) - would need 3 then. --I've never gone tapeless before but with the P2 cards - is the best workflow simply to transfer the cards into my PC each night after filming and then do a immediate backup of the P2 files on my PC onto a bluray data disc? Reuse the cards the next day.. card reader suggestions besides the camera? --I'm also having trouble finding any good night/low light clips online. Youtube has been limited to barely one page when I type in HPX300 night. Any links to good clips would be appreciated. Looking to use this for independent filmmaking. Will be editing premiere pro cs5.5 (PC 64 bit windows 7) with the footage. Thanks. |
January 28th, 2012, 07:14 AM | #2 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I'd look long and hard at the the PMW320 as an alternative in this price range. It's comparable in many ways to the HPX300 but the real advantage is 1/2" chips versus 1/3". That gives it a big advantage in lower light, and better depth of field control as well. (Equivalent to an f stop.) |
||
January 28th, 2012, 09:11 PM | #3 |
Space Hipster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,596
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
I'd go for the new HPX250 over a 300. The 250 has the same chipset as the HPX370, and it's $2,000 cheaper.
I've only seen Panasonic P2 cards. i think Fuji made some, but I'm not sure if they still do. For the price of an HPX300, you can also get the Canon XF300/305. It's a very good camera and uses cheaper CF cards. Unless you want a shoulder mount. |
January 29th, 2012, 03:33 AM | #4 | ||
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 356
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
P2 cards are all reliable! I've never heard from anybody about a P2 card failing or anything. It's not like buying CF cards where you have lot's of different manufacturers and speeds, prices, reliability, etc. P2 cards cost more or less the same from all manufacturers. So just buy Panasonic brand P2 cards. As for buying 32GB cards I newer really saw a point in doing that. 32GB cards cost app. 400€ and 64 cost app. 600€. The first has 12,5€ per GB and the second 9,37 per GB. So it's cheaper buying the 64GB cards. Quote:
As far as I know the only reader avaliable is the Panasonic AJ-PCD2. It goes around for app. 300€. It's ok but what bothers me is that it's USB 2.0! So the transfer speeds aren't that fast as you can imagine. HPX300 isn't the best camera for low-light. PMW320 isn't either. It's better than the HPX but still... I personally would chose the HPX370 over PMW320 because of the internal codec - for everithing else I would chose the PMW320 with out a thought. I know you can attach an external recorder to the PMW but I really don't want to mess with that. And yes premiere CS 5.5 work's just well with P2. I use media browser - don't import footage. |
||
January 29th, 2012, 03:39 AM | #5 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Chicago Illinois
Posts: 41
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Appreciate the advice. Will take a look at the 370 now.
|
January 29th, 2012, 06:47 PM | #6 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
Otherwise you're right - the only undeniable advantage the HPX300 has over the 320 is internal codec - in pretty well every other respect the PMW320 is superior. Personally, I find that less of an issue than the front end differences, you can see those easily in pictures straight off the camera, the codec differences are far more subtle. But a shame the 320 doesn't have the 50Mbs codec like the Canons........ |
|
February 23rd, 2012, 07:33 PM | #7 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Larkspur, CA
Posts: 378
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
I'm not saying this to be a smart ass or anything - but why would you want an ENG camera rather than a AF100 or 5/7d for shooting narrative films? Especially if low light is your main concern?
I own the HPX370 because I shoot events which are always low light. For me ergonomics are number 1, low light is number 2. I also like the reliability of P2. If low light is number 1 then a 5d with a 50 prime is very hard to beat. |
February 24th, 2012, 03:55 AM | #8 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 81
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
The PMW320 is just an EX3 in an ENG body like the 370 is to the 250... and there isn't too big of a difference between an EX3 ad a 370 with the noise filter on in terms of sensitivity. DVXuser.com - Articles
Also, yes, the codec is a subtle difference if you don't do anything with it, but in my own comparisons of 5D vs. 370 footage, the 5D clips started to show compression blocks and the noise picked up as if I had shot the clip with a stop more sensitivity as soon as I started to grade and change colors around. The 370 probably doesn't look too hot out of the gate, but the codec is so tough it won't show artifacts or aggravate the noise even if you technicolor your clips to mars. 4:2:2 is a big consideration for green screen, and you only get that with the Panasonic cams or the XF300. An HPX250 is probably a better deal right now as you're saving money and getting a smaller package. |
February 24th, 2012, 04:22 AM | #9 | |||||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 81
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
The PMW320 is just an EX3 in an ENG body like the 370 is to the 250... and there isn't too big of a difference between an EX3 ad a 370 with the noise filter on in terms of sensitivity. DVXuser.com - Articles
Also, yes, the codec is a subtle difference if you don't do anything with it, but in my own comparisons of 5D vs. 370 footage, the 5D clips started to show compression blocks and the noise picked up as if I had shot the clip with a stop more sensitivity as soon as I started to grade and change colors around. The 370 probably doesn't look too hot out of the gate, but the codec is so tough it won't show artifacts or aggravate the noise even if you technicolor your clips to mars. 4:2:2 is a big consideration for green screen, and you only get that with the Panasonic cams or the XF300. An HPX250 is probably a better deal right now as you're saving money and getting a smaller package. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
February 24th, 2012, 05:08 AM | #10 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
Unfortunately, it wasn't so. The act of "fixing the shortcomings" of the HPX300 brought problems of their own, and most notably the "noise-ghost" issue. After a lot of silence, Panasonic finally acknowledged the issue and brought out a "fix" - which returned the 370 to effectively a 300 in terms of noise. So now we're back to the original (acknowledged) shortcomings....... . Quote:
And if greenscreen is your concern, it's on exactly that area that I was shown a demonstration of the shortcomings of the 371. (By someone who went on to buy a PMW320) The "noise-ghost" issue manifests in trails of noise behind moving objects. Normally, it's not that evident, though once you've spotted it you can't ignore it. (Think of lying in bed and hearing a babies cries very, very faintly in the middle of the night......) But on a greenscreen test the visibility was magnified many times, the increased noise levels on the "ghosts" showing up far worse after the key. And that happens regardless of the codec. It would have been considered unusable (for keying) even if uncompressed. One other interesting quote from the article linked to is "Because that's what their marketing says – it says that their 1/3” chips "rival the image quality and sensitivity of 1/2" imagers." Bold claim. Is it true?" I remember that marketing claim, it was the headline claim - and I also remember looking at the HPX370 site subsequently and finding the claim was no longer there. (see Panasonic AG-HPX370 Professional High Definition Video Camera - Camcorder ) My conclusions are that 1/3" sensors cannot rival 1/2" sensors, and I think Panasonic are (privately) now only too aware of that - hence the quiet withdrawal of their previous marketing claim. Quote:
|
|||
February 24th, 2012, 07:27 AM | #11 |
Trustee
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Deep South, U.S.
Posts: 1,526
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
I buy all my P2 cards used at about 50-60% off the new price.
__________________
Mark videos: http://vimeo.com/channels/3523 Stock: http://www.pond5.com/artist/mark29 |
February 25th, 2012, 08:18 AM | #12 | ||||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 81
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 25th, 2012, 03:52 PM | #13 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
In the very first line of the article you linked to, even Barry Green describes the 300 as "a brilliant but flawed camera". Quote:
As regards the amount of difference, I have to disagree with your maths. In area terms, the ratio of differences follows the squares of the diameters, so 1/9,1/4,4/9. If we take the area for 1/3" as 100%, that makes it 225% for 1/2" and 400% for 2/3". 1/2" is 125% bigger than 1/3" in terms of area - not 70%. In area terms 1/2" is closer to 2/3" than 1/3" ! That translates to over a stop for raw sensitivity, and corresponding gains in depth of field control and diffraction limiting. (Neither of the latter two even being mentioned by Panasonic in 1/3" v 1/2" comparisons.) No, not as good as 2/3", but a pretty big difference all the same. This is before we even start to think about advantages like alternative lens availabilities. Quote:
Their current price for a HPX371 is £7,295, so as P2 is more expensive per minute or recording, by the time you've paid for memory, the 371 and the PMW320 are pretty much neck and neck. No, I don't think the 371 is "crippled" by any means - but I do think overall the PMW320 represents much better value for about the same money. If it had the XDCAM 422 codec, it'd be a one horse race. |
|||
February 26th, 2012, 05:26 AM | #14 | ||
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 81
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Quote:
1/3" is 6mm √2 = 8.48 1/2" is 8mm √2 =11.31 2/3" is 11mm Just to compare with photography, which I'm very familiar with, an APS-C sensor has almost exactly half the area of a full-frame sensor, which results in a stop of difference. There is less than a stop of difference between each size going up with the sensors listed above. It's often very difficult to tell the difference between captures made by an APS-C and FF cameras, but starts becoming noticeable when the linear size doubles, such as going from 4/3rds to full-frame. Quote:
|
||
February 26th, 2012, 02:44 PM | #15 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 34
|
Re: considering HPX300 but ? on P2 and batteries/low light
Hate to kind of thread crap here, but this thread perked my interest as I am also looking into some of the same cameras for a few of the same uses. On the Panny side I was looking at the 250, 300 and 370. Sony side EX3. And Canon xf305. Camera budget is around $7500 or around there. So most likely looking used. My uses are mainly for green screen studio events and live interviews via SDI out. (both sd and hd transmission) No low light situations that I know of. Any thoughts as to which one would be best for these two situations? I prefer the ergonomics of the Panny 300 and 370 or any shoulder cam. But am open to change with the right camera.
Hopefully Jeff, some of their input to my questions will also help you with your decisions. If I should have made a new thread, I apologize and will delete this post. It would have mirrored this one though. Thanks. Last edited by Mike Bagley; February 26th, 2012 at 04:12 PM. |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|