HPX500 Teaser
 

I can't reveal any specifics yet (wait for NAB) however, I can tell you that after reading the pre-production ops manual I can easily say this: If you're an HVX200 fan you're going to absolutely love the HPX500.

The menu options and structure is very HVX-like so getting around the menus will be a snap and, the orientation of the menu navigation buttons makes more sense because of their placement on the camera body.

The 500 also adds much-missed audio controls and features commonly found on ENG-type pro-bodies that the 200 just can't offer not to mention a host of lens and setup goodies that all of us HVX-users have been dreaming about. There are also other features specific to the 500 that will make custom image control presets even more dreamy than the HVX is capable of, not just because it's a 2/3" inch camera but because Panny has added a few key features normally only found on bodies costing more than double the price.

Yes, it absolutely shoots VFR; yes, it absolutely has gamma/WB and other image controls that are HVX-like (many were wondering if it would or not); and yes, it really is the HVX's big brother - and then some.

Again, I'm not allowed to spill specific details on any of this, just know that if you've been considering what the next step-up from the HVX would be or, considering whether or not an HVX-type camera would be for you I'd highly suggest waiting for NAB and all the details that will be released.

As mentioned in another thread I'll be shooting some demo footage this week with the 500 but not sure I'll be allowed to share it prior to NAB. If I can, I will - trust me!!

what is the native res of CCD..?

the biggest issue with the HVX is its lack of sharpness.. just curious how this fares considering its also DVCProHD..

What's the secrecy? The cameras brochure is downloadable and Panasonic have already released a lot of specs, including CCD details in press releases.

As I say, I'm not allowed to release detailed specs until Jan gives the green light but suffice it to say you won't have any sharpness complaints about this camera. Once I'm allowed to post sample clips you'll see for yourself.

But Robert, the CCD specs were publically released ages ago as were most of the other specs. It is even well known that the camera will come with four 16gb P2 cards as part of the package.

So Robert - What lens are you going to buy for yours?

Prolly coz Pana knows that we'll be waiting another 2 years for 64gb cards to come out..

LOL more than likely, most of the cost of the camera wil be to these cards themselves..

The neatest thing I see so far is the possibility of an all-optical 35mm solution, because of the Chromatic Aberration Compensation (CAC) function. However, now you're pushing into the price range of RED.

Panasonic, give us an HVX-sized cam with CAC, image flip, better audio controls, and better focus enhancement (FE on an ext. monitor?). Price that under $8k. And don't hold back on the 64GB P2 cards.

The camera has a Chroma Abberation Circuit that allows it to work with CAC lenses. There is a builtin algorithim in the camera for each of these lenses. There are a number from Fujinon and from Canon.

I will say that when we put a prime lens on it, it really popped.

And the secrecy is more about other things and saving the splash for NAB.

Yes I do believe that the Australians released the CCD count, which is a 620,000 PAL SDX900 chip set. To that we add the horizontal and vertical Spatial offset like we do in the HVX and viola, we have this camera. It is a feature rich camera and I think folks will really like it if they are looking for a larger shoulder mount camera.

All the best,


Jan

I just got the unit this afternoon and haven't had time to shoot it yet, so I won't have an idea about lenses until after this week. However, I don't plan on a heavy investment of HD-spec lenses, instead I'll probably use one of the Canon CAC lenses (like the one this came with) and the rest will be invested in the Zacuto lens adapter system instead so I can get my "film-like" DOF from the body.

I wish this one was "mine" - it's going to be like pulling teeth having to return it to Jan.

Oh Jan we're not ones to spoil a party! More like helping to get the party started. ;-)

Peter
(from Downunder)

So roughly half the number of pixels of an A1, and only a handfull more than the HVX, what a buzzkill. Hopefully this cam will have awesome low light capabillity like the HVX should have had but somehow didn't. Venting here, but how does a sony 450 have a million pixels per chip for an SD cam and the Panny has 2/3rds that number for HD? I'm over pixel shift, it's a technology that allows manufacturers to put legacy parts in "Cutting Edge" products.

The 500 is designed for those who want the next logical step up from a handheld camera with all the professional 2/3" inch features (especially audio and lens controls) but don't want to break the bank in acquiring it. In order to get a sub-$20k camera compromises had to be made somewhere and pixel-shifting chips is one of the most cost-effective and logical ways to do it.

If you think about it, the 500 is a very unique camera; it is in fact the ONLY 2/3" inch HD cam that will sell for less than $20k. It's closest competitor would be the F350L, but that's 1/2" inch mount, and even though Sony recently lowered the price, it's still a $24k body.

The good news is, if you don't want pixel shifting and instead want native mega-pixel imagers in a 2/3" inch mount you've got the HPX2000; the bad news it's about double the cost of the 500. Mega-pixel HD-spec imagers 'aint cheap, so least Panny is offering two very cost-effective pro-body options that so far, have no direct rival.

Hi,

From your rant, I surmise that you think that a million pixel imager is the way to go and that anything less is a huge trade off and will not make the mark. Well I have to say that pixel count is only a very small part of making an image in a camera, the CCD is an Analog Device. A single chip CMOS with a Bayer filter is not going to give you better resolution or low light handling than a 2/3" CCD. And a small 1/3" million pixel imager will give vastly more artifacts than a 2/3" with fewer. Which is better? Look at the pictures they make should be easy.

I am assuming that with the 450 comment you really mean the Sony XDCAM 350? or am I missing a camera here; it is a 1/2" chip set with a Long GoP recording scheme. I'd be happy to put the HPX500 up against it.

Anyhow I have seen this camera as have others and the pictures it makes will probably sell every one we can make.

Best,

Jan

More Details
 

Here's some more details about actual camera usage; the following had to be approved directly by Jan, so if you have questions about more specific information than what is listed below you'll have to wait for NAB:

Now that I've had actual shoot-time with the 500 I can tell you a bit more about why HVX users will like it and, why I'd recommend it for anyone thinking about either upgrading or, even making the 500 their first HD camera. Again, I can't go into details about specs or any other info that has not already been publicly published including what the "business side" controls are like, but I can relate the overall experience and imagery results. Keep in mind, this was using a pre-production model - a hand-built from Japan - so I'd expect small details to change prior to production.

First is the menu options and structure which is almost identical to the HVX in both respects. Because this is a full-ENG rig there are many more options for both audio and lens options and deeper controls for setting up custom color/color correction and of course the ability to record to all 4 audio channels not just 2 as in the 200.

I was not able to test audio so I can't comment on that however I did notice the on-camera mic that came with the rig (don't know what model#) had good sensitivity and was very natural sounding.

Of course the big thing everybody wants to know is, "How good is the imagery?" Is it better than the HVX200 - significant enough to warrant the upgrade? The quick answer is a resounding, "Yes". I did not have time to really put the unit through it's paces as I had planned to get some true HD-spec glass or primes mounted to the 500, unfortunately all the true HD-spec glass in my area was either already being rented out or was cost-prohibitive for just a test shoot. Suffice it to say, there is more fine detail, much less noise, better overall color and of course the typical DOF characteristics common to 2/3" inch cameras.

Speaking of lenses, the camera came with a new CAC (Chromatic Aberration Correction) lens from Canon. Like the camera, the new Canon is not yet publicly released and I didn't have a spec-sheet for the lens itself but it was a very good performer for it's intended usage. The Canon had great telephoto range including a built-in optical 2x tele-converter common to ENG lenses and the CAC circuity that talks to the 500 to electronically correct for CA. What was apparent however, was that the camera was capable of better imagery than the supplied Canon was capable of delivering, hence my disappointment that I didn't have better glass to mount up. Being an ENG-type body also means there is no auto-focus option however for someone like myself who prefers manual camera controls AF isn't missed, on the contrary having true manual controls for everything is a bonus rather than the "virtual" focus ring of the 200 which is common among the handheld cams.

It should be pointed out however, that while the 500 uses 2/3" inch lenses and does have better DOF characteristics than the 200 or other 1/3" inch handhelds, it still cannot produce the ultra-shallow "film-like" DOF that most indie producers want without the use of either the P+S Pro-35 adapter or, the upcoming Zacuto Lens Adapter system (which interestingly enough is designed to work with BOTH the handheld cams and the 2/3" inch bodies). At some point when I have my own personal unit I'll be testing things such as custom color and DOF with the 2/3" inch primes but that won't be until late summer.

The camera came with an SD 2" viewfinder similar to what the SDX900 uses and the camera has a "focus assist" button which aids in critical focusing if you're not used to using an SD finder. I found that after about 10 minutes of seeing things in that SD finder that the "focus assist" wasn't required and had it turned off most of the time. Like all ENG finders the one on the 500 has a "peaking/sharpness" control combined with brightness and contrast settings properly adjusted allows for fast and easy snap-focusing.

I've never used any camera that had such near-perfect Auto White Balance; there were several times when I did NOT use a white-card/warm-card and simply let the camera AWB on the actual scene - and it nailed it! That's a first since most of the time getting a good AWB *usually* needs to be done with either a card or, a known reference point, but the 500 was able to find a natural white point on it's own.

The cam shipped with an AB Hytron 120 and on average had about 3 1/2 hours of runtime; the weight of that brick made for a nicely balanced shoulder mount. The quick-release tripod plate was rock-solid and never wiggled once.

In all, the 500 was a dream to use and performed better than I expected. In fact, considering the true capabilities of this new camera I'm absolutely amazed that Panny can bring it to market at such an affordable price-point. Based on it's feature-set alone, I'd have expected the 500 to be at least a $25k body and the HPX2000 to be a $40k body, so to think this will land *somewhere* between $12-15k is a steal, from my perspective.

Most HVX shooters have not ever used a full-on pro ENG rig and as such might feel a bit overwhelmed by stepping up to the HPX500 and all it's manual controls and added pro-level features however, since the menus and other camera operations are very HVX-like the learning curve will be very short and HVX users will find their comfort zone very quickly. Shooters who are used to fully manual operations of pro ENG bodies will be right at home with the 500 and be amazed by it's performance and user-friendly setups.

In short, this camera is a must-have if you're serious about any type of HD work based on a system that you can grow into and not be constantly hitting the wall with a handheld's built-in limitations.

And with respect to cost, here's a perspective to keep in mind: I spent about $25k on my HVX rig with pro-like capabilities (external monitor, Zacuto system, matte-box etc, batts, manual lens controls, etc). That same amount of money would get me a nicely configured HPX500 with far more capabilities, better manual controls and, no external monitor required for critical focus. Now that's a system I can live with for years to come.

The 500 sounds like a good camera. Regarding the CCD specs, this is what the trade off is. Panasonic have gone for performance in one area, while Sony have gone for performance in another. At this price point there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Though I am curious as to why there is reference to HVX200 owners wanting this camera. I'm sure they do, but an HVX200 owner is an unlikely 500 owner for the same reason a PD150 owner used to be an unlikely DSR570 owner, and like a DVX100 owner was an unlikely SDX900 owner. They are very different markets.

A person who uses an HVX200 is unlikely to be the sort to be able to afford the 2/3" HD lens, much sturdier tripod and battery sets that a camera like the 500 will require. If they can afford all that then it is likely that they will already be a user of 2/3" cameras in the first place.

For me, comparing the 500 to the HVX200 is not useful. I know the pictures are going to look better; better CCD block, later-generation electronics, 14-bit AD, better and bigger glass, SDX-proven quality, etc, etc. What I want to see is the camera up against a SDX900 for SD comparison and HDX900/HPX2000 for HD comparison.

At least side-by-siding against those three cameras will give you a benchmark to work to. Whatever happens, at it's price-point and the with the apparent inclusion of 4 x 16gb cards in the deal, it's really going to shake the industry up. For me I'm still leaning towards the tape-based HDX900 or the Grass Valley Infinity (if it ever comes).

Peter

Hi Peter

These cameras are at the minimum $10,000 more just for the camera head. These should be better than a $14,000 camera. Since Robert only had the camera for a little while and he couldn't waltz into any dealer and just compare it to any camera, although I am sure he would have like to, he could really only compare it to the camera he knew the HVX. The reason he couldn't btw was that he was under orders not to.

So those comparisons will happen but in due time. There are only 3 prototypes in the world right now and one is starting to limp a little.

Thanks for the write-up Robert.

Hope that helps,

Jan

While the HPX500 will have a great deal of ENG-type shooters very curious and interested - and it should - comparing the 500 to the 200 is most logical because of the board it's been posted in and, because many 200 users have been pondering what the next logical step-up from the 200 would be. The 500 was in fact designed and priced to attract both current and potential HVX200 users as well as the seasoned ENG shooters, so this camera will have a great deal of cross-over that most ENG cams don't enjoy.

I've shot with the SDX quite a bit and while all my testing was done in 720p I did try SD just for kicks for a while; on my Sony broadcast monitor it looked very near if not exactly like SDX output; it looked so good in fact that I've already decided to shoot a DVD-only project later this year on the HPX500 in 16:9-DV50 mode speficially to match other SDX900 footage already shot. That should be a good benchmark for an SDX comparison.

Keep in mind the detailed comparo you're wanting can't be done until the camera is formally released to the public and someone like myself can actually *own* one and take the time to do the very side-by-side, same-scene tests you're referring to, just as the boys from the "Texas Shootout" did with the handhelds last year. However, unlike the previous two years I personally won't be spending any time doing those tests myself as I'll be busy shooting new projects with the 500.

And ultimately Peter, if the free-flowing information on forums such as this don't fit your needs, then you should do what myself and others have done and use the resources available to you in the form of your local dealers, manufacturer sales reps and rental houses and spend the time doing the research and testing yourself, rather than post a complaint that what's been given as a free resource isn't what you wanted to see.

Hi Jan and Robert,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to sound too smarty-pants. There's a thread on the Freelancer's Forum which is heavily Panasonic-centric and the talk is about comparing the HDX900 to the Varicam. My argument is that for the majority of uses, 99% of people couldn't tell the difference between those two cameras. In fact, the HDX900 might even be better than the Varicam in regards to it's newer electronics, 14bit head, etc.

My suspicion here with the HPX500 is that is WON'T look appreciably worse than these higher-end cameras and subjectively will compare very favourably with the 2000/900/27; especially when ending up as a DVD on a client's desk.

The HVX200 is further removed from the 500 than those other cameras (price put aside), but I understand and appreciate why many HVX200 owners will want to step up to the new 500. Based on Robert's and other other impressions of the camera I read, it will be a sensational seller at that price-point. With a KATA glove on the camera and a great piece of glass on the front and a Sachtler tripod, it will look the part and will most clients will not even CARE what's under the hood. Not in most of the corporate, indie and non-high end market. Scary stuff but exciting.

Peter

I think you are right about that, but I do think that the 500 will seem as the most logical choice for those wanting to make a financial jump to a 2/3" camera. Personally, I'm considering it now that the need for a deck has been eliminated by the use of P2.

But I have to consider how the money will be best spent -
one 500 + lens OR 3 HVX200's

Will the image be worth the trade off of having three HVX200's that you can do multicam shoot's with? And will the 500 be worth giving up the extremely WONDERFUL portability factor of the HVX200. I had an XL2 before the HVX and I can tell you that in my own personal opinion, the HVX is sooooo much easier to handle and carry around, and that makes a big difference in the amount of shooting that can be done. I would also imagine that like the tripod and battery that you mentioned above, other accessories and gear would be more expensive as well. Such as mounting the 500 on a car or using it with a crane or jib.

At the moment, I'm just going to be waiting to see what happens when it's released and see what footage comparisons between the 200 and 500 look like. With all that said, it's great to live in a time with so many good options.

Oh, certainly if they have made a decision to move up to a new level of work then yes, it would seem like a logical choice because they can use the same P2 cards, plus have the extra 4 that the 500 comes with.

Yes, smaller cameras can make shooting easier in some cases. Although in run and gun situations I actually find 2/3" cameras to be better because they cope with the varying conditions better. Quite often although the weight of the big cameras can be a pain, I would only use a smaller camera these days if I absolutely had to or the 2/3" one wouldn't be practical. But it all depends on the type of shooting you do, and your own personal style.

Absolutely, definitely. The thing that needs to be realised is that unless you already own a 2/3" camera, purchasing a new one of these babies is much more than just purchasing a camera body. To get the best out of them you can't really go with cheap and cheerful equipment as much. Tripods and lenses especially. Insuring it is paramount too. This obviously goes for any equipment, but the insurance hike might be quite steep.

I'm not saying any of this to put people off. Far from it. If your shooting can benefit from a larger camera and you can afford it, then go for it. Just remember that there is more to consider than just the camera body though.

Will the Firestore FS-100 work with the HPX500? I'm excited about the camera and am looking for long record-time solutions until the 32GB cards get here.

In theory it should since it's shooting the same codec/formats the HVX does however it's possible a firmware upgrade may be required for proper communication. Wait for NAB and more details when the camera is formally released.

HPX500 & 4 x 16 GB cards... and Viewfinder...?
 

So if I am reading this right, the 500 comes with a viewfinder, 4 x 16gb Cards... all for $14k USD? So just add lens and off to the races...

This sounds too good to be true...............!

No, that's the approximate body-only pricing. Wait 'til NAB and exact pricing for everything will be made public. The word is, Jan might be putting camera body/cards/viewfinder/lens together into a package offering, again exact details and pricing to be announced at NAB.

Pricing
 

Here is a link to packages

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp...0&displayTab=O

Jan told me over on the DVX forum that the base model ships with a 1.5" viewfinder as standard, not just a body-only.

Peter

The package pricing is already available on the Panny website. The $14k is for body and viewfinder. There are different lens configurations as well. But as usual, the prices are MSRP so contact your dealer for "street prices".

So there you go; the information that was originally going to be released at NAB Jan decided to release early! No more guessing.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont....x=0&image.y=0

I understand there might be a small margin for error on pricing until its actually released, but $20,000-$25000ish for body, viewfinder, 4 x 16GB P2 cards and a choice of different 2/3" lenses in these packages??... Almost too good to be true...

Yes that is great. I will have to ask Jan about expected ship dates.

Well, the B&H pricing seems to be good, with Cam, Lens, 4x16 cards and tripod plate... I wonder how long before we get it in Canada! Seems to me like this will be a much sought after rig.

Cheers
Paul

In Japan, this is going to be called 555. This is great, now people entering more serious video production with HVX200 can be prepared for the next step up. How much are the lenses for this cam? What kind of battery does it use?
Now I’m more set to come back to HVX200 (with little cheaper price on P2 cards and maybe finding better/cheaper battery operated portable hard disk drive) combining with other 24 frame capable cams like HV20.
Hm, maybe I shoot with HV20 and XH A1 regularly and use HVX200 for special effects only then buy HPX555 when I can afford it.

I want to ask people who are using DVCPRO HD for broadcast and cinemas about the reputation of its quality. Would it serve well enough to do a feature film? LumiereMedia made good looking film with HVR-Z1U and would it be comparable to something like that?

Edit: I saw the B&H configuration to figure out the price. Great.

Hi Kaku, nice to see you active here again.

As I'm fond of reminding people who ask qualitative questions specific to hardware, it's not the camera that's soley responsible for the quality of the imagery that comes out of it rather a combination of proper composition, lighting and good technical know-how of the actual camera being used. The fact that Lumiere was able to create good-looking imagery using the Z1 is irrelevant from the perspective that anyone who understands the proper methodology of shooting can use literally any camera they choose and get acceptable results. It's the age-old scenario: Put professional hardware in the hands of an amateur and you'll get amateur-ish results; put an amateur camera in the hands of an experienced professional and you'll get professional results. It's not the camera, it's the shooter.

As a general rule - and all things being equal - DVCPRO-HD is superior to HDV from several aspects, from it's color space, "i"-frame type codec and far greater acceptance/integration with post houses.

Depending on your final output and again, all things being equal, you may or may not notice a huge difference in "quality" between the Z1 and HVX200 if your final output is DVD for example. However if you're going to do a film-out or transfer to film then there will be a significant difference because the 4:2:2 color space in DVCPRO will have more information and better color overall not to mention less compression artifacts.

If you're comparing the Z1U to the HPX500/555 however then there will be a large, unmistakeable difference because you're comparing a 1/3" inch hand-held to a 2/3" inch camera that can handle both cinema primes and the Pro-35 adapter - both of which will go a long way into creating the "Holy Grail" of the film-look. Not to mention the added definition and better color the 500/555 is capable of compared to the 200.

There will be a great deal of sample footage being displayed at NAB from both the HPX500 and 2000 cameras some of which *might* in the future make it onto Panasonic's Global site where the HPX500 has it's own feature page.

The short version to your question, is that if you want to create the best possible film-like look for broadcast or feature/indie films and want to keep your budget reasonable the HPX500 is the best tool for the job.

the HPX500 could be the camera i'm looking for...

i'm not a fan of the HVX200 for my uses for a few reasons...

-only a fixed 13x lens (I shoot lots of surfing) and the 2x tele lenses available vignettes way too much

-only 2 x P2 slots

-cant shoot both PAL & NTSC formats on the same camera (a big concern for me as i shoot worldwide) and i hate that panasonic made no upgrade available given their rivals sony & canon have done so...

-poor viewfinder and barely noticeable peaking

i'll admit, i've bagged the HVX200 a lot but the HPX500 may change my mind, given its real camera handling, quality b&w viewfinder, 2/3" chip & long lenses available, NTSC & PAL format options and 5 x P2 slots.... and with the very reasonable priced complete packages of about $25,000ish (incl camera, viewfinder, batteries, tripod, plate, 4 x P2, HD lens) its all looks great...

question... can P2 cards shot on a HPX500 be played back on a HVX200?

Robert,

Thanks for your info, I think I have little misunderstanding on the quality of DVCHD PRO with my only experience on HVX200. Seeing HPX500's footage will change my opinion, I'm sure.

Won't be able to afford HPX555 right away, but it's great to think that next step up from HVX200 is not very very far in price (at least not the price range of HDcams) and the format stays the same.

I think I gave up on HDV with action shots, I tried every brand and they are mostly okay, but I'd have compression artifacts problems here and there. For slo-mo shots, HVX200's overcrank makes most sense, so I'd combine HV20 and HVX200 together for awhile until I can afford HPX555.

Not to forget to mention that using HDV cams with glidecam helped lessen the compression artifacts problems but I wasn't built strong enough to operate it all the time.

I look back the clips I shot with HVX200 and I prefer them with its motions over HDV although the resolution look very nice on HDV.

But I will stick to HVX200 for capturing moments, and capturing the environment and conituity, I would use HV20 or XH A1 (if I can afford it).

Yes, the benefit of the P2 system is that any P2 card can be shot/used/played on any P2 device. The only caveat is that the playback device has to support the same format as the camera it was shot in. For example, you would not be able to playback HD content on the SPX800 since it does not support the HD formats.

Since all the formats the 200 shoots are available on the 500 then footage can easily be shared between cameras.

Jan's P2 overview presentation and much of the online documentation samples outlines this limitation with the HDV format and shows example of motion artifact differences between HDV and DVCPRO-HD. Your experience with this issue brings home the same point.

what about 50i/25p shot with a HPX500, can a NTSC HVX200 play that back?