HPX or HVX Hydra

[pdsage10]

Ok, so I have an HVX with an M2 and am looking at the Hydra mod that is in development. I am also looking at the HPX. Which do you think will give me more filmic images? I tend to think that the HVX/m2 combo with 4:4:4 will, but what do you think? Even if I put an M2 infront of the HPX it would still be compressed 4:2:2.
Compressed vs. Uncompressed.
1/3 ccd with M2 vs. 2/3 ccd.

[eclaire]

I'm not qualified to answer your main question -- which will give more filmic images -- since I've never touched a 500 and only briefly tested an HVX200. But one of the great things about the 500 is that it offers and HD-SDI out, which will give you uncompressed 4:2:2 output without any modification to the camera or voiding of your 5-year warranty. That's a major plus for the 500 and a complicating factor in my value comparisons of a used SPX800 and the 500. (I would love to have occasional access to uncompressed output, which is only an (expensive) option on the 800 that may or may not be present on a used camera. And, of course, the 800 is SD only.)

In my very subjective value system, I would not touch a 35mm adapter with a 10 foot pole. I have looked at many clips from many different systems, and they all do so much damage to the resolution and dynamic range of the image that the gains of selective DOF seem very irrelevant. That's just my opinion, obviously, and others' mileage varies.

I find the importance of shallow DOF generally to be somewhat overrated on these forums, and I certainly believe that any 2/3" camera in capable hands will be able to produce sufficiently shallow DOF for aesthetically appealing selective focus in all but the most cramped of shooting situations. Heck, I get good shallow DOF on my Sony DSR300 (1/2" CCDs) if I'm stopped down, significantly better than with my DVX. I can only imagine that 2/3" would offer that much more shallow DOF. One owner of the 500 has already commented that his DOF is plenty shallow enough natively and has no plans to add an adapter.

I'm a huge fan of the images produced by the andromeda; not a fan of what it means for workflow, portability, and hardware requirements. I'll reserve judgment on the value of Hydra for an HVX after I've seen actual footage.

I do feel that investing a rumored $3,500 for the Hydra plus whatever the adapter costs is starting to bring that rig pretty close to the cost of a 500 without lens. But don't forget that you can get 4 16 GB P2 cards with the no-lens 500 package as cheap as $13,400 at some authorized dealers. The cards are easily a $3,500-$4,000 value.

My latest and probably strongest thought is to get the 500 P2 package for $13,400 and add a good used, SD definition lens for under 2K. I will only rarely have use for HD in the next few years but can benefit tomorrow from the outstanding improvements in dynamic range, low light performance, and general image quality that would come from using a 2/3" camera recording with the mild compression of DVCPro 50. If HD is something you would use often or all the time, then mine is not a very sound alternative for you, at least unless you resign yourself to accepting the level of chromatic abberation said to be evident with the use of SD lenses on HD cameras. If that aberration proves more than I can tolerate for my few HD projects, I will just rent HD lenses for those shoots, another advantage of using a camera with interchangeable lenses.

[TimurCivan]

The 500 is better period.

Clarity, noise, dynamic range. EVerything. it has less noise and is more sensitive than almost any high end HD camera. this due to the big light gulping "sd" pixels being pixel shifted in to High def. its quite a machine. Gorgeous 1080P, with all the benefits of the SDX900's noise signatire, and dynamic range.

[eclaire]

The 500 is better period.

Clarity, noise, dynamic range. EVerything. it has less noise and is more sensitive than almost any high end HD camera. this due to the big light gulping "sd" pixels being pixel shifted in to High def. its quite a machine. Gorgeous 1080P, with all the benefits of the SDX900's noise signatire, and dynamic range.

If the question is which is better, I whole heartedly agree. If the question is "most filmic" images or best value, it's a little more complex. To shoot with a minimal HD lens on the 500, you will have to spend 20K. Great value compared to other high end cameras but still beyond the means of many small production outfits.

TimurCivan, am I correct in assuming you own the 500? If so, have you by chance posted any grabs or footage yet?

[smelni]

I have some grabs on my site http://www.slmproduction.com - also have a review

[eclaire]

Smelni, thanks for the link. I actually already read your review and saw your grabs. I'm just greedy and was looking for more.:) I've pretty much reviewed all of the footage posted here, though there's not really much yet in the way of fully set up/light-controlled scenes. I think yours are the only ones so far.

BTW, I poked around your site and noticed you DP'd a feature with John Heard and Vincent Pastore. Very cool! As my signature reveals, I'm a huge Sopranos junkie. Great-looking grabs from that as well.

[Noel Evans]

My 2c - never seen a HVX with a Hydra mod so take that into consideration. I just believe that if used and lensed correctly the HPX with its superior dynamic range would be the winning ticket.

[TimurCivan]

I think the term Filmic should be put to rest. its subjective. at this point theres hard facts that you can work on.

[pdsage10]

I just believe that if used and lensed correctly the HPX with its superior dynamic range would be the winning ticket.

Thats what I was wondering, because the hydra is supposed to have "up to 86dB" dynamic range. What does the HPX have for a dynamic range?

[Kholi]

Since Hydra bypasses DVCproHD compression, shouldn't we see a "less" noisier image from the HVX when using?

I think the concerns with Hydra and lenses makes no difference. Seeing as how RED users are stocking up on SLR lenses for their camera, I can't see this being any different with Hydra.

The problem with HYDRA though is that it doesn't freaking exist. We haven't gotten a solid price, just a ballpark. A solid release-date, just a "shooting for", and no sort of test imagery or anything at all. As someone who really wants to invest in Hydra to extend the life-time usage of my HVX, this kinda irks me. Trying to wait patiently.

The idea of getting 2k Resolution out of Hydra (rumored, not exactly promised) + Sound output through the Gigabit feed is killer. In the new world of IT workflow, adding another cable and a computer on set really doesn't seem to be much to ask for. Considering if you were shooting 2k, the budget behind it would be large enough to justify the addition of this new job.

That said, Smelni's tests on the 500 are dope. Makes me wish that the HVX started out with a 2/3 CCD and all the other goodies.

Until we see Hydra footage and a price at least... HPX500 wins.

[pdsage10]

I think the term Filmic should be put to rest. its subjective.
I was using the term "filmic" generaly to represent non-video like latitude, color spacing and resolution. Not in the sense that most other people have been using it (ex. depth of field).

[Justin Kuhn]

The HPX is clearly the better choice. There's so much more camera there for you to love.

[Barry_Green]

Hydra doesn't exist yet, so a fair comparison can't be made between the two. If you need something now, the HPX500 is here and available. Then again, you already have an HVX, so...

The promise of the Hydra is that it'll be a small-cost upgrade to what you've already got. An additional $3500 gets you 2k resolution at variable frame rates, 14 bits and uncompressed.

But there are lots of HPX500 features you wouldn't be getting, like interchangeable lenses and four XLR connectors and HD-SDI and four P2 slots and timecode in/out and the shallower DOF that comes from using a 2/3" system.

As for video performance, there's simply no way to know the answer to that until we see footage from the Hydra. The Andromeda added a couple of stops of dynamic range to the DVX; if the Hydra does the same for the HVX that'll put it in the same ballpark as the HPX500. HPX500 would shoot 1080 and 720, with variable frame rates only in 720; Hydra adds variable frame rates to 1080, as well as 2K. HPX500 footage is 8-bit, Hydra could be 14-bit. But how much visible difference does that make? We won't know until we see footage.

So your question can't be authoritatively answered yet. But what we can say is: you're looking at two very different products, each with distinct advantages. Very different markets that they're aimed at. And, keep in mind that it's not unreasonable to think that Juan might modify the HPX500 for Hydra as well!

[Noel Evans]

This is all very good. But hydra is 100% tethered right? One of the original reasons I didnt buy into p2 was the small card sizes. Even if I can afford someone to offload I dont want to pay someone to do it. Now were at 16gb and the skies are starting to open up. IT workflow was the story sold and I heard - it makes the process like using film? So what this is 2007, were looking for new ways to make things easier, to a/ cut costs and b/ simplify the process. Not replace one technical process with another wheres the advantage?

Which brings me back to - for narrative/documentary etc wheres tethering going to make the process of capturing great images easier. Its not. This is why red will do well in the long run. They have incorporated processes to simplify not complicate. This is why a HPX is good now we have larger p2 cards and 4 slots to put them in.

Tethering is fine in a studio environment. But the reality is we want to take all this out of the studio and cut our costs more.

Thankfully people (the clients) are becoming more educated and starting to realise just because someone has a big hammer doesnt mean they can actually wield it. Oh did I tell you guys I just bought an f1 car so now Im going to join the f1 circuit because now I have one I am as good as Schumacher.

Just my lil opinion.

Sorry btw - realise I got a little sidetracked there. But one thing led to another and.....

[Nik Manning]

I think the Hydra would be best for someone who shoots greenscreen mostly and on occasion needs a camera they can shoot in the field with. I think the hydra would be perfect for that. Camera and mod is 10k. HPX500 you are looking at 20k. So if general filmmaking is your goal I would go for the HPX500. Or wait a little and snatch that new sony EX also under 10k.

I just think once you start spending more than 10k for a camera you better have some serious jobs lined up as that is way over a prosumers head.

[Kholi]

Hydra doesn't exist yet, so a fair comparison can't be made between the two. If you need something now, the HPX500 is here and available. Then again, you already have an HVX, so...

The promise of the Hydra is that it'll be a small-cost upgrade to what you've already got. An additional $3500 gets you 2k resolution at variable frame rates, 14 bits and uncompressed.

But there are lots of HPX500 features you wouldn't be getting, like interchangeable lenses and four XLR connectors and HD-SDI and four P2 slots and timecode in/out and the shallower DOF that comes from using a 2/3" system.

As for video performance, there's simply no way to know the answer to that until we see footage from the Hydra. The Andromeda added a couple of stops of dynamic range to the DVX; if the Hydra does the same for the HVX that'll put it in the same ballpark as the HPX500. HPX500 would shoot 1080 and 720, with variable frame rates only in 720; Hydra adds variable frame rates to 1080, as well as 2K. HPX500 footage is 8-bit, Hydra could be 14-bit. But how much visible difference does that make? We won't know until we see footage.

So your question can't be authoritatively answered yet. But what we can say is: you're looking at two very different products, each with distinct advantages. Very different markets that they're aimed at. And, keep in mind that it's not unreasonable to think that Juan might modify the HPX500 for Hydra as well!

Exactly. Agreed one-hundred percent.

Hydra DEFINITELY has merit.

As far as being tethered: for certain work, it's definitely not going to be plausible. I can't see anyone truly running-and-gunning with Hydra unless you've got some way to record blindly to a laptop in your backpack. It's not at all impossible, it's just powering everything that you need to shoot for extended periods of time.

So, Documentary work? Maybe not.

Narrative Filmmaking, Commercial, Music Videos (don't even need more than 1080 here though) could all benefit from Hydra's theory. One thing that's hard to do with digital is distinguish your work with certain looks. It's because of the limitations of codecs, etc.

With Hydra and the LUT based system, you'll be able to really craft looks for your work that you might not be able to do so cleanly with raw HVX or even HPX, as it's still hitting DVCproHD as it's format. As well, as Manning mentioned, Greenscreen work is already killer with Andromeda, Hydra's going to be just as good and perhaps even better.

One thing that Manning didn't mention, yet Barry did, was the ability to change lenses. HPX does this inherently. HOWEVER, the lenses are expensive as heck. You're either renting for projects or purchasing, and while one could be enough for some people, chances are you'll want or even NEED more at some point. The price of the HPX just got higher.

HVX's alternative to a fixed lens is an adapter + Nikon lenses. Or even getting a PL mount and paying the same price for pro lenses as you would the HPX's lenses. You're still coming out at a lower price point, still getting the extras (1080p60p, 2k, Uncompressed recording Options, And the original HVX package), and still have the ability to conquer multiple genre's, styles, etc.

With that said, like any system or addition, there's more than just the price of admission: you gotta buy the parachute if you wanna skydive. Hydra's costs are going to be more than just getting the mod. You're talking extra storage banks, a laptop or decent computer to not only ingest but to edit on, cabling, another position to pay for on set if you can't manage to do it all yourself (which a lot of Andro users do.) Hydra itself, realistically-- if the price for admission hits 3500.00 (ouch)-- will cost around 8k - 10k to play.

If you're the owner of an M2 or Adapter, your HVX tally + Hydra reads (guesstimating, not factually):

HVX - 5000
P2 Media - 1200
M2 Adapter COMPLETE setup (mattebox, lenses, mounts, rails, monitoring, Follow Focus) - 4000
Grade A Comptuer + Laptop + Storage - 3000
Misc Asseccories like cases, cabling, etc - 500

13,700 -- That's almost a Red Camera but with more accessories.

Still a good deal to me, though.

I tried to shut Hydra out... but now I'm back moaning in despair as another day goes by without a single still image, update, etc.

How much more do you need beyond 2K?

[Barry_Green]

Yes Hydra would mean being tethered, but:

1) the cable can be 300 feet long, and
2) in most shooting situations you're tethered to at least a monitor, and an audio mixer/boom person, so one more cable isn't much of a big deal.

We shot an entire feature film to DV Rack; interiors and exteriors, location shots etc., didn't really matter and we found the benefits far outweighed the limitation of being cabled. But the cable was a little bit of a pain in that it was only 30 feet long (and technically should have been limited to 14.5 feet to comply with IEEE1394 standards). With 300 feet it would have been heavenly.

I'm not saying every shoot can be tethered, but I am saying that if you're doing any type of shooting that would involve having a monitor, and a sound person, then this additional cable is no big deal at all. And if you're doing the type of shooting where you aren't monitoring or having an audio professional, then I don't know that the additional image quality of Hydra would be high on the priority list anyway, right? If the shooting style precludes even having a monitor, then how much would be added by shooting in that style in variable-frame-rate 2K? The only real difference between 2K and 1080 is going to be in the focus, and without a monitor you're sacrificing guaranteed focus, so...

[Kholi]

On a side note: Can laptops operate if the laptop is closed but an external monitor is connected? Cause I've been trying to concoct a "blindman's" setup for Hydra that might be very very useful for people who can't plug in at all times.

And THANK YOU for correcting me on the cable length. I forgot about all that. 300ft is pretty amazing. You could literally sit in an SUV and use an extra battery to power all hardware. Totally remote.

It's a very hard thing to weigh, HPX vs. HVX-Hydra. It'll come down to what you trust, really.

[Kenn Christenson]

Or you could lug around a car battery and an inverter, although I believe there are better setups. I used to lug around a car battery to power my old Arriflex. 'Course I was only shooting FX shots - not runnin' & gunnin'.

[Kholi]

Wonder how long a heavy duty vehicle battery would power a PC and maybe some Flourescent/Cool Lights for out in the wild.