Help! HPX500 or XDCAM 330?

[NickJ]

Hi All!

Looking to buy a new camera this week for a project rapidly coming up. Budgeted for either an XD330 or the HPX500. Has anyone out there done a shoot-out with these two? I'm interested in how they compare in terms of picture resolution (sharpness), noise, and overall look at SD and HD resolutions, as we shoot both depending on the project.


I can't find a dealer with both cameras available at the same time for comparison. I couldn't make it to NAB this year so I've yet to even see the HPX500 in person. I'm concerned about the SD chipset offset cheat this camera uses to attain the HD resolutions and total use of DSP to output all the formats.

Thanks!

[Cliff Wallace]

Hi Nick, I work with the 330, but haven't had the chance to work with the HPX500 yet, so I can only offer a limited opinion, but I’ll do my best to give my impressions. The 330 is a good, solidly built camera that produces excellent HD images. It uses ½” CCDs and can shoot at 24P, 25P, 30P, 50i, or 60i at 1080P or 1080i, in 4:2:0 color space. It takes very good pictures under the best conditions, but when pushed you can really see the difference in the smaller chips from 2/3” chip cameras. The main issue that I have had with it is dynamic range. Where I work, we also have the 2/3” SD XDCams and they offer better dynamic range than the 330 does. In my opinion the biggest benefit is the workflow. I love the XDCam workflow. It’s easy and quick to go from shooting to editing, with no archiving needed as long as you save the disk. The codec is a bit more efficient than the DVC Pro HD, but uses an HDV-like GOP structure. However, working with it everyday, I can tell you that it works very well and is not as hard to edit as HDV, which in and of itself is not all that bad.

The HPX500 offers many similar features with regard to 1080, but shoots at 4:2:2 color space on 2/3” chips, although the chips have fewer pixels than the Sony. It also can shoot 720P at 60fps and variable frame rates including 24P and 30P and other increments. Before my current job, I worked at a production house that replaced 16mm film with an early version of the Varicam, so I have a little bit of reference here. If the HPX500 is close to it’s big brother, then it will offer excellent dynamic range and the most filmic looking color. Personally I have always preferred the look of Panasonic cams over Sony, even in SD. The Panny also worked great for green screen/special effects shooting because of the 4:2:2 color space. However, I have yet to come across footage shot with the 330 that cannot be keyed, so it works well here too. The only shortcoming for the 330 is the fact that to get a good key you have to shoot at 24P or 30P as opposed to the HXP500’s 60fps at 720P, which can be a factor if the subject is making quick movements. One challenge with the HPX500 will be dealing with the P2. I have not worked with it so I can only venture a guess about this, but the biggest shortcoming will be the lack of a reliable archiving system aside from downloading everything to a hard drive. You can burn the files to a DVD or BluRay disk, but that will be time consuming.

Given a choice, I would probably chooses the HPX500 because of the extra bells and whistles and my preference of Panasonic’s look over Sony’s. But all in all, they are both ground breaking cameras when you consider the prices. Sorry to go on so long, but I hope that I have helped.

Cliff

[kyle.presley]

I'm concerned about the SD chipset offset cheat this camera uses to attain the HD resolutions and total use of DSP to output all the formats.


Why is this a concern for you? If it's HD, it's HD. It shouldn't matter if the pixels are large and offset or or not. I actually think this method is better because of the amount of dynamic range and sensitivity this setup allows for as opposed to lots of teeny tiny little pixels. I wouldn't call it a cheat, but real ingenuity. You get the best of both worlds. IMO, the 500 is going to be a much better camera, for a host of reasons:

2/3" Chips (Shallower DOF)
Variable frame rates
Better sensitivity
Better dynamic range
4:2:2 Color space
P2 Workflow
PRICE!!!!

[mmm]

I'm currently thinking along similar lines.

I prefer the XDCAM workflow, but I would like the extra sensitivity and compatibility of 2/3" chips.

I'm tending towards an F350, which I can actually get cheaper than an HPX and 4 cards in the UK. I also think that XDCAM is more likely to become prominent here. This may be very different in the states, but compatibility is an important issue.

[NickJ]

Cliff - thanks for your input on the 330 - much appreciated! Checked out the HPX500 today, but couldn't really put it through much testing with the usual dealer showroom "it sure looks good doesn't it!" sales pitch, and lack of product knowledge. I did notice some noise in the blacks, but it's been a while since I checked out a 330, so I can't make a call on whether it has less noise or more. I find it a bit scary that Panasonic does not publish (and will not tell me) the signal to noise ratio for the camera. Why keep it a secret?

First impressions are that the HPX500 looked good in HD, not so good in SD. Wide shots in SD looked fairly soft. I'm not sure what setup mode it was in or what the detail levels were. I'm not a muted color, soft "film look" guy when it comes to material shot for TV. I tend to push for a high level of chroma pop and detail. I like the image to jump off the screen. 1080i and 720p looked more to my liking.

Kyle - As for the use of pixel offset to generate HD resolution, I believe Pentax? uses this technique on some of their high end SLR cameras. Testing found it to be a bit noisier and not quite as crisp as cameras using actual pixels. I consider it a cheat because software is making up the pixel information, rather than an imager reproducing what is actually there!

Ultimately, I'll probably buy the HPX500 because nothing else can match its format flexibility and price...

[smelni]

Pixel shift is technology that computes information instead of reading it for each pixel - it is not interpolated or estimated but rather a clever way to get info without needing to read it directly - This allows larger pixels and therefore less noise.

[Simon Wyndham]

I've used both cameras. My test of the 500 will appear in a magazine in a few weeks or so.

I didn't have the 500 for long, but it depends on what you are after. My best recommendation for buying ANY professional shoulder mount camera is to try and borrow or rent one and use it to see if you like it.

Everyone here knows my preference as far as workflow goes. If we are talking about camera heads specifically both cameras have their advantages and disadvantages. The XDCAM's 1/2" chips actually use a larger area than most 1/2" chips so in reality their performance falls between that of a 1/2" and a 2/3" in terms of sensitivity.

The 500 is better in low light. That is to be expected. It is rated at f10@2000 lux, but I found it to perform better than that. The XDCAM is rated at f9. The 500's gain can be cranked up more with less noticeable noise. The trade off of those CCD's is that the picture is slightly softer than the XD with a good lens.

If you want to adjust the look of your camera the XD wins hands down. The 500 has no colour matrix, and the vast majority of the adjustments are only adjustable from -7 to +7. It is here that the 500 demonstrates its connection to the HVX200. That isn't a negative point. The 500 is a budget camera and in no way can anyone expect it to have everything.

The 500 is very light, but you will need a heavier batter to offset this to stop it becoming front heavy, especially with a wide angle lens. This is compounded by the cameras lack of shoulder pad adjustment.

I don't like the way that you need to put the camera into a seperate playback mode either instead of being able to simply play back the last clip instantly. There is also no last clip delete function so you have to enter this seperate mode to get to the thumbnail display to select and delete it. If I'm shooting off the shoulder and the presenter or actor does total flub it is nice to press two buttons to delete the last clip without having to take the camera off.

I also found the LCD on the 500 to be lacking. There is no way to display the audio levels and timecode on their own without being superimposed on the video image. Sound guys like to glance at that stuff.

On the plus side I liked the image the 500 produced. The Cinelike gammas as always are very well implemented. Although I would like to do more tests to compare them to the Cinegammas on the 330/350 which also have a very good contrast handling ability. Variable framerate works very well, and this might well be a decider if you didn't want to step up to the F350 for that feature.

The 1.5" viewfinders on both cameras are not ideal. Although the 500 has a very good focus assist function that helps alleviate the limitations.

If you've already invested in a P2 workflow the 500 may well be for you as you can use your existing P2 cards. Otherwise I would highly recommend trying to get the opportunity to use the cameras before making a decision.

[Erik Olson]

I'm a big fan of the XDCamHD 350, but the HPX500 wasn't available when the show I was on was shooting. I like the XDCam workflow on many levels - from their proxy viewer that any producer can download (without a SN) to the batching process and self-archiving XDCam discs.

That said, the 350 is what it is. The 1/2 imager is fair, the matched lenses somewhat limited. In post, the 4:2:0 HD format really limits your choices and flexibility.

We're testing the HPX500 for a new series as we speak. From a price-to-performance standpoint, the 500 is the clear winner. Also, don't overestimate Sony's commitment to the XDCam (disc-based) format. At best, it represents a short stopover on their way to solid-state recording.

e

[Simon Wyndham]

At best, it represents a short stopover on their way to solid-state recording.

XDCAM SD was released in the latter half of 2003. The cameras are still being supported, and will be supported until at least 2010. The new 2/3" 422 XDCAM camera will be released next year and will have a similar lifespan, thus making it at least 2015 before a replacement comes along. In the video world that's hardly a short stop over!

Don't be fooled by their use of Express cards in the EX. Sony are very clear in their strategy and have no current plans for solid state to replace discs in their full size devices. You really can trust me on this one!


the matched lenses somewhat limited.

Depends what range you mean. The Fuji lenses are exceptional in both their XS and HS ranges. The low budget Canons are not too good (KH20 etc).

The lenses are however an issue even as far as the 500 goes. Lets face it, if you can afford a top end lens you'd be buying the 2100 or 3000 instead because image quality would be paramount to you. In the low end the KH series of half inch lenses have the same ranges as the budget KJ series for the 500. And given the hideous breathing, soft edges, and play in the controls I've seen on the recent Canons I can't recommend them at all.

In terms of comparative performance the 500 and 350/330 both have their ups and downs. If you want top image quality you have to pay for it. You know what they say about the grass being greener on the other side... You can chase this stuff forever. My overall feeling with the 500 was that it was a nice camera, but in no way could I find anything on it to recommend one over the other apart from whichever workflow you preferred.

[Erik Olson]

Good points, and I know you're also an XDCam enthusiast. Time will tell if Sony is as committed to the format as they currently project themselves to be on the marketing side.

We shouldn't make assumptions about P2 either. Moore tells us that time and time again. At any rate, the constant and ongoing battle over formats is the primary reason we seldom purchase our own cameras.

e

[Simon Wyndham]

Time will tell if Sony is as committed to the format as they currently project themselves to be on the marketing side.

I heard the same statements from people 4 years ago :)

[Erik Olson]

Well, then you must be a RED reservation holder too.

e

[Simon Wyndham]

;) My finger was hovering over that order button for a while. But I decided that I need a camera before 2009. So I'm trading in my 510 for a 350.

[Kemper]

Has anyone shot Standard Def with the HPX....how does it look? I had heard it was poor.

[Simon Wyndham]

Looked fine to me.

[Joe Walker]

Can any of you comment on resolution loss when shooting in variable frame rates on the XDCAM 350? I've heard both bad and good, wanted to hear some more......well.........bad or good.

[Brad Neal]

I just went through the exact same process.

I read several reviews on both cameras (which were all over the map, and rarely agreed from one to the next), traveled up to my local Roscor to play around with both cameras, then downloaded and read both manuals...

I was back and forth for a couple of weeks and finally settled on the 500.

I am supposed to get them tomorrow, so I'll let you know if made the right decision once I get a couple of jobs under my belt.

-Brad




Hi All!

Looking to buy a new camera this week for a project rapidly coming up. Budgeted for either an XD330 or the HPX500. Has anyone out there done a shoot-out with these two? I'm interested in how they compare in terms of picture resolution (sharpness), noise, and overall look at SD and HD resolutions, as we shoot both depending on the project.


I can't find a dealer with both cameras available at the same time for comparison. I couldn't make it to NAB this year so I've yet to even see the HPX500 in person. I'm concerned about the SD chipset offset cheat this camera uses to attain the HD resolutions and total use of DSP to output all the formats.

Thanks!

[G.A. Kokes]

Has anyone shot Standard Def with the HPX....how does it look? I had heard it was poor.

Was that with a standard def lens? The sensor will show less resolution if you are not using a HD lens.

Cheers,
G