Pros and cons from daily users / owners of the HPX500

[Kit Hannah]

Hey all,
Looking to hear the pros and cons from "daily" HPX500 OWNERS ONLY please. I was wondering what you like about the camera, what you would improve upon, workflow likes and dislikes, what you think about the image produced, etc. Please be specific and if you have time to take us through your workflow, that would be great. I'm trying to get opinions from people that own and use the camera on a day to day basis. Not to be rude, but if you rented the camera once, your buddy owns one or just saw the Panasonic booth at NAB, please allow the true daily users to post. I'm trying to keep the "speculation" , "from what I have read", and "so and so said" posts out of this thread.

Thanks!

[hunter richards]

Man, Kit...seems like you just cant get enough about the hpx500! My goodness.


I have too many pros to list but....ok

1. flip a switch and you can go from off to recording in about a second
2. fast asa (for Low to No-Light)
3. the color-reproduction
4. P2 workflow
5. Low power draw (I get 3+hrs use from a 90wh battery)
6. Solid and lightweight build
7. 2/3" imagers with b4 mount
8 Variable frame rates and multi-format recording (Multi-National too with PAL/NTSC)
9. The flip out lcd for reference
10. HVX200 like menu layout ( I am just used to it so there wasnt a learning curve)
11. Pretty clean signal (noise-wise)
12. The Focus assit feature when you learn how to use it.
13. Oh yeah and shoulder-mount kills handheld in usability/stamina
14. The price! There has never been a camera this good with this many features in this price range!

Cons:

1.The "small" 4:3 viewfinder, I would like to get a 2" 16:9 viewfinder for better focusing, but its not really necessary (I also would like a color switchable viewfinder)
2. Its not the sharpest camera (Res-Chart wise) but depending on what you shoot..that could be a good thing

Thats all I can think of...Of course I could say I want frame rates up to 1000fps and 2,000 lines on a res-chart, but thats not realist for a camera like this.

[Kit Hannah]

Man, Kit...seems like you just cant get enough about the hpx500! My goodness.

Well, in the past, I have jumped into quite a few things without really researching them too much, so I am trying to make up for that now - this is one of the best ways to find out things. It's not that I can't get enough, I just want to make the right decision because these cameras will be my bread and butter for the next few years until we upgrade and I want to make sure that we're going to be happy with them. I don't want to purchase something and go "oh crap, we should have gone in a different direction". I've been researching these for the last 2 weeks solid and have made up my mind without a doubt, but I am just trying to be prepared for anything and everything. Lots of finikey things on cameras these days that many people overlook prior to buying them, then they're in the "oh crap" situation.

I"m not uptight or overly cautious, I just like knowledge, especially when it comes to things like my livelyhood. I appreciate you guys always coming through and answering my sometimes broad, neverending questions. It has really helped me to prepare.

Thanks everyone!
Kit

[Bachman]

Another con is that P2 cards are relatively expensive compared to other mediums such as XDCam Discs or SD Cards. Hopefully they will drop when Fuji start producing them.

[Mac]

I agree with the comments above except the "lightweight" part.. I played defensive end in high school and college, have always worked with weights, and I think the 500's pretty damned heavy!!! And I can't understand why it's so heavy.. there're no tape drive or motors.. If you take the lens, finder, P2 cards and battery and lay them on a laptop computer, the combination is much lighter.. They must have used old Model T Ford frames for the box the 500's built in..

I also disagree with the P2 cost thing - not because there aren't cheaper things out there, but because the initial cost of the cards, which are extremely reliable (so you can sleep at night), last a long time, and are very robust, works out to be cheaper than tape or film over the card's lifetime. And I like the 16g size.. even though the 32s are here and the 64s are looming, the 16s work well with the four slot HPX design.

One of my favorite features is ability to assign any audio channel to the front gain control on the side of the camera. I do wish the level meter in the finder was bigger and more intuitive though...

[EditingFX]

Pros:
- all the things Hunter said
- the ability to "run n' gun", then connect 500 to a MacBookPro, edit using files still on camera (no transferring), then "push" final edit back to a P2 card in the camera for playback out SDI/analog (I've used this a couple of times, have not evaluated all the gotchas & fail-points, but it's worked for me up to DV50 bitrates). only camera in the world (that I'm aware of) that can do this. I've a job this week utilizing this VERY fast workflow.
- 5 year warranty!
- 24pn LOVE this mode. Native mode saves so much space.... great utilization of an all-digital workflow

Cons:
- yeah, gimmie a color HD VF
- the END of the workflow, ie, archival; we're a small shop, & paying $6k for a data-tape drive (Quantum SDLT-600A) hurts. It's a really good archive solution, probably the best available, but still.... $6k for a data-tape box? ouch. (just a matter of time before we do, though)
- the ability to QUICKLY view the current "UserClipName" WHILE in camera mode, not MCP mode (so you can tell assistant what Take # you're on, rather than using TC)
- ok, now this is a 'con' based on a big 'pro'.... metadata loading/editing. Once you get used to using the clip metadata (in FCP you need Raylight to access, TOTALLY WORTH IT - you MUST BUY Raylight if you buy into P2 & edit on FCP), you want to use it more & more. But it's cumbersome if you need to edit metadata files "in the wild" (need a laptop). It'd be awesome if there was a way to make small revisions to a metadata file in-camera, even if it was using the LCD & direction keys to access a keyboard. (A quick primer: before we shoot we load the SD card with various metadata files we expect to use on the shoot. Each has ProjectName, Location, Shooter, UserClipName & a couple others. When you load the MXF's into FCP via Raylight, the clips can be named using UserClipName. So, when I load my shots, they're already named "Broll Planes Take 1" "OnCam Take 15" "Greenscreen Take 4"... you get the idea. The 500 automatically increments the Take # each time you hit Record. It's way sweet sitting down to edit & having all that done by your workflow, instead of manually.
- How about a "auto-continuity checker"? Push a button & the 500 will tell you if your shot maintained continuity on the script.... (jk!)

[hunter richards]

I was being a bit sarcastic Kit, your smart for checking things out first. Oh and about my "lightweight" comment, I was referring to Lightweight in retrospect to other shoulder mount cameras (2-piece beta cams especially!)

[Kit Hannah]

I was being a bit sarcastic Kit, your smart for checking things out first.

I know, was just explaining my position on i though... :-)

They ARE lightweight as Hunter said. Mac, I'm not sure what your experience is with ENG cameras, but they are definitely lighter weight than most other ENG cams, even later model ones that have a tape transport. They still have to build them solid though so they will actually hold up in the long run to the daily abuses. That's most likely always going to be the case. To me, if the cam only weighed a few pounds, it wouldn't feel very robust and solid.

[jcoxshooter]

I agree with hunter's comments. I will say if you are coming from a hvx the viewfinder is greatly appreciated IMO. I have used the dsr-500,d-35, 600 and xdcam and the view finder is equal to those.

Big pro's to me are the 4 p2 slots, 6 pin firewire, 2/3 chips, and the overall feel of the camera for handheld work.

I was impress with build its not too heavy and feels like a solid camera.

[Bachman]

I also disagree with the P2 cost thing - not because there aren't cheaper things out there, but because the initial cost of the cards, which are extremely reliable (so you can sleep at night), last a long time, and are very robust, works out to be cheaper than tape or film over the card's lifetime. And I like the 16g size.. even though the 32s are here and the 64s are looming, the 16s work well with the four slot HPX design.



P2 cards are expensive when you consider we need about 8 of them for a day shoot (16gb) Thats about 10 grand worth at current aussie prices for the 16gb, or 4 32gb at about $6,500. Its sometimes not practical for us to clear cards during a shoot because we are constantly on the move and often in a mining or construction site. Obviously there are some third party solutions to this which we are considering. I guess everyones situation is different though. If your only doing half or hour long shoots then there really is no problem.

Add to this the fact that if we use a 202 as a second camera, then our card requirement doubles.

I am a bit cynical about the whole card pricing, I could be wrong but I suspect Pana sells the camera as a bit of a loss leader. A bit like buying a great $50 printer but finding out the ink costs a fortune.

It was one area that Sony tried to sway us on.

Still love the Camera and the format, just wish they would bring card prices down a tad.

[dolph2000]

you're right but consider that the 4gb were as expenisve as the 32gb now so that has something to do with time. Tapes are steady in price for years, so will it with the P2

[Barry_Green]

It was one area that Sony tried to sway us on.
That's comical; Sony's memory cards cost exactly the same, to the penny (at least here)!

About metadata, if you have a cellphone with an SD slot you can edit the metadata on that. I think someone's made a cell-phone metadata editor that runs on PocketPC or Symbian or something, haven't they?

The bigger P2 cameras, like the 2000 and 3000, have some provision for editing metadata right in-camera. The 500 and 200 don't offer that, it sure would be nice if they did.

Regarding weight, you've just got to try to heft an HPX2000 to understand how incredibly lightweight the HPX500 is. If the 500 has a Model T's frame, the HPX2000 must be filled with solid lead... ;)


Still love the Camera and the format, just wish they would bring card prices down a tad.
Cards have gone from $900/gigabyte down to about $50/gigabyte in just the last two years, and will fall again and again and again.

[PhantomVideo]

About metadata, if you have a cellphone with an SD slot you can edit the metadata on that. I think someone's made a cell-phone metadata editor that runs on PocketPC or Symbian or something, haven't they?


Sorry to jump in on this thread, Barry where can i get this software i just got a HTC and was going to write the software myself but i dont get Pocket PC (Code)

Also

We have an HPX502 and 2 HVX202's, on the HPX502

Pros:
1. 4 On Camera Channels of 16bit Audio (Love this)
2. 4 P2 Slots
3. Lightweight
4. Shoulder Mount
5. Instant Playback of any shot
6. DVCPRO HD so much better than HDV
7. DVCPRO 50 Wicked for SD Green Screen
8. 2/3 Chip for better DOF When shooting interview love shallow DOF
9. Metadata I love this Yes you must plan for it but no logging we just dont do it anymore it rocks all the clips are named as soon as you import them
10. 60Hz and 50Hz Option
12. Noise Far Less than the 202
13. Price :)
14. CAC
15. The Audio meter is better than the 502
16. Scene File Wheel a super quick way to change the frame rate just completed a big shoot of 12 TVCs where we use 25p 27p and 30p it was great to be able to just change it on the fly
17. No sure if all the lenses have this but we got the Fuji 17x7.6 and the ulta quick zoom is awesome for focusing up
18. 6 Pin firewire

Cons:

1. No Speed Ramping
2. No Vari Speeds at 1080
3. No on camera Metadata Changes

Nothing Else i can think of right now, very happy customer

[Noel Evans]

I pretty much am onboard with everything mentioned to a greater or lesser degree. Cost of p2 is like nails on a chalkboard to me, but thats where we are so I live with it.

[Mac]

Another relatively minor plus is that the camera fits a standard tripod adapter plate, so you can use a Sony (which I do) if you have one.

Several of the "cons" mentioned from day one (I bought very early) are the 5600k preset and the poorly supported forward base plate (a problem when adding a Chrosziel mini-rod base plate).. These have been discussed often so I won't elaborate...

As for my comment on the weight.. I've had plenty of experience with heavy cameras - I shot the behind-the-scenes doc ON LOCATION: EAST OF EDEN for ABC in 1980 with an RCA TK76 tethered to a huge "portable" U-Matic recorder, carrying both for hours at a time, and previous to that I shot mostly with a super16 Eclair NPR - so I know heavy cameras... From a designer's POV, it just seems to me that in this day and age a modern solid state camera body should be lighter - about 4lbs lighter .. that's my opinion.

I've shot over 100 hours now on my current documentary, and am generally very impressed with the camera and the footage (I'm shooting 720/24pn).. The color is excellent and the CINE settings are, in fact, CINE looking.. I've used the HVX as a second camera, and although I do intercut the two, the HPX500 is noticeably superior.

[Sumfun]

I also disagree with the P2 cost thing - not because there aren't cheaper things out there, but because the initial cost of the cards, which are extremely reliable (so you can sleep at night), last a long time, and are very robust, works out to be cheaper than tape or film over the card's lifetime. And I like the 16g size.. even though the 32s are here and the 64s are looming, the 16s work well with the four slot HPX design.



I'm not sure that P2 cards are cheaper than tape in the long run, because you have to take into account the cost of archiving. With tape, once you're done editing, you can just put the tape on the shelf and pretty much clear your hard drives. With P2, you have to spend time and money to store the data on a hard drive or data tape. Some people want to be safe and store multiple copies, so the costs add up quickly.

[Kit Hannah]

I'm not sure that P2 cards are cheaper than tape in the long run, because you have to take into account the cost of archiving. With tape, once you're done editing, you can just put the tape on the shelf and pretty much clear your hard drives. With P2, you have to spend time and money to store the data on a hard drive or data tape. Some people want to be safe and store multiple copies, so the costs add up quickly.

But with the decreasing cost of hard drive storage, it WOULD be cheaper. You can get a 500GB hard drive for around $100 right now. How much will it cost in XDCAM discs for you to archive 500GB worth of info? Even at lets say $20 / disc (single layer 23.3GB), it would still cost $400 to archive that 500GB which is a $300 dollar difference, which will pay for the cost of P2 or SxS after about 60-80 discs. Everyone uses that comparison, but it's not really valid. Many companies will use that many discs in just a couple of months.

Example

200 XDCAM Discs cost you (at $20/disc) $4000.

a 32GB P2 card costs $1600, 5TB hard drive storage maybe costs $1000 - $2000

Solid state memory is much cheaper, plus you have less chance of something going wrong because of no moving parts.

[Barry_Green]

That comparison shows the costs close today, but doesn't account for the fact that a) you won't be buying any more cards, so that's a one-time cost, and b) the hard disks are only going to get cheaper and cheaper. So your comparison shows an advantage in the short term, but the cost advantage long-term would be much greater. As card prices fall, the ratio shifts; P2 started out at about $900/gigabyte and is now down to $50/gigabyte and will keep going down.

That said, recognize there's a very different workflow between these two systems. XDCAM discs are basically a new variant on the same tape-based workflow (shoot to a "permanent" media, require a deck, stick the media on the shelf); P2 is a whole different animal (edit directly from the media, instant turnaround, no "ingest" or "capture" or "copy" time, etc). Each workflow will appeal to different shooters; "hired guns" like the XDCAM disc because they believe they can "hand over the footage" (which is, of course, entirely dependent on whether the company hiring them can play XDCAM discs... but that same scenario has haunted us since the digital age began.)

That said, disc acquisition is, IMO, an "interim" solution and solid state is the future. No other manufacturer ever brought out a blu-ray disc recording system, but every major manufacturer offers solid-state recording. I think only JVC doesn't offer solid state, but everyone else does, from Sony to Panasonic to Canon to Red to Thomson to Ikegami. As capacities increase, and costs fall, and transfer speeds increase, solid state will become the dominant and exclusive recording format, just as it has done for still cameras. Archiving will always be a question, and as Kit pointed out, any media appropriate for archiving computer data will be appropriate for archiving solid-state-acquired video footage.

Some day, maybe, in the future, solid state will advance to the point where it's large enough and cheap enough to archive the original. Maybe possible in the next five years? If solid state continues to drop in price by 50% each year, that'd get us to about $1 per gigabyte in five years' time. And that would be cheaper than today's XDCAM discs.

[Mac]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who had already gotten into the habit of backing up projects on hard drives even when originated on tape.. I was always a little nervous about those little mini-DV size tapes.

True, I have an office full of hard drives, but it is nothing compared to the stacks of 16mm film cans that I still have at a storage facility and at various labs.

I have come to trust P2 cards, so whatever the cost (which, as Barry pointed out, isn't that much more), I think they're pretty amazing...

[dolph2000]

absolutely, P2 rules in every way

[Bachman]

That said, disc acquisition is, IMO, an "interim" solution and solid state is the future.

Absolutely, Bill Gates has even said that HD DVD and Blue Ray will be the "last" time we will see optical disks and that their future will be short lived.

[walnutcrunch]

Also to put solid state pricing in perspective, the new macbook air has an optional 64GB internal solid state hard-drive. Cost? $999USD. Not removable, and surely not as robust.

P2 is right in line with that kind of pricing. High performance solid state memory like P2 is not artificially expensive. It's just expensive in comparison to the cheap cards that get jammed in point and shoot cameras. It's also not in the same league.

[Barry_Green]

And, "expensive" is relative and dependent on time. Nowadays 16GB for $900 seems expensive; tell that to people who paid $2750 for a 4GB card! They'll think 4x as much memory for 1/3 the price is downright cheap. :)

But the other great thing is that Moore's Law is on our side, and capacities should double and prices should halve every year. Which is why we should see 64GB cards this year, and 128GB cards next year, and by the end of next year we might be at $15 per gigabyte. And the year after, $7/gig (which would mean a 4GB card would be $30? In only three years? Maybe...)

[Brad Neal]

...and by the end of next year we might be at $15 per gigabyte. And the year after, $7/gig (which would mean a 4GB card would be $30? In only three years? Maybe...)

That would be sue-weeet!:thumbsup:

[Sumfun]

But with the decreasing cost of hard drive storage, it WOULD be cheaper. You can get a 500GB hard drive for around $100 right now. How much will it cost in XDCAM discs for you to archive 500GB worth of info? Even at lets say $20 / disc (single layer 23.3GB), it would still cost $400 to archive that 500GB which is a $300 dollar difference, which will pay for the cost of P2 or SxS after about 60-80 discs. Everyone uses that comparison, but it's not really valid. Many companies will use that many discs in just a couple of months.

Example

200 XDCAM Discs cost you (at $20/disc) $4000.

a 32GB P2 card costs $1600, 5TB hard drive storage maybe costs $1000 - $2000

Solid state memory is much cheaper, plus you have less chance of something going wrong because of no moving parts.

If you want to compare XDCAM storage to the HPX, you should compare the number of hours of video, not the number of GBs. Since the HDV codec is about 3 times more efficient than DVCProHD (35Mbps vs 100Mbps), you would need 3x more storage for the HPX, making the price difference a lot smaller between XDCAM discs and HDDs. Also, most operations would need to buy several P2 cards, not just the one in your comparison. Now add in the labor costs for backing up your data to HDDs, and it will be a long time before you reach price parity.

But I do own a P2 camera, and I agree that there are many advantages to using solid state memory. I guess my point from the original post is that there is a hidden cost to using P2 (or SxS) cards, and that is the cost of archiving. Many people don't consider this when they make a purchase. I was one of them. Now I have many TBs of hard drives sitting on the shelf.

[Bachman]

But the other great thing is that Moore's Law is on our side, and capacities should double and prices should halve every year.)

Interesting topic - Moore's Law would also indicate that data storage demands will rise exponentially as well. It's not cost per GB that counts, it's cost per hour of footage. Whether it be 720, 1080, 2k, 4k , compressed/uncompressed, 50fps or 300fps (yes Casio has a 300fps stills camera on the way) or who knows what in 3 years time. In the pro market there will always be a premium to pay for new technology and I doubt these technologies will last as long as they used to. Im not just talking about P2 here, but I dont expect our HPX502 to last as long in the market as say a Digibeta or a DSR570. XDCAM disk certainly looks like a dead duck already because there is no way they can get any more than 50GB out of those disks. At least the 502 is expandable, currently we can get 128GB and more to come.

And if anybody thought that going tapeless was cheaper than tape, well it's not quite that simple. On big jobs Im spending about $800+ on Hard Drives - thats way more than I ever did on tape. It's just another cost we have to pass on to the client. On the plus side we dont have buy expensive decks, which is fine so long as you dont already have a couple of Digi's lying around and you dont have tell your accountant to write them off. Also we dont have to spend days ingesting footage.

From our perspective though, considering we started a new company 12 months ago and held off buying gear, the 502 couldnt have come at a better time.

[Kit Hannah]

And if anybody thought that going tapeless was cheaper than tape, well it's not quite that simple. On big jobs Im spending about $800+ on Hard Drives - thats way more than I ever did on tape. It's just another cost we have to pass on to the client. On the plus side we dont have buy expensive decks, which is fine so long as you dont already have a couple of Digi's lying around and you dont have tell your accountant to write them off. Also we dont have to spend days ingesting footage.


And see, if you really want to get picky, and everyone wants to factor in all of the added benefits, WHAT DOES YOUR TIME COST? If you have 2 cameras going with 5 hours of footage, P2 will be available to edit directly after, tape won't. And with XDCAM discs, you need to factor in either #1, cost of an XDCAM disc reader, or #2, cost for the time lost with the camera and the extra wear on the camera to ingest the discs.

It seems to me that the overall workflow of the P2 is much more efficient, thus saving money because of saving time. A lot of times, people forget to factor in time to the cost of things. I hear all these arguments for saying "XDCAM discs are cheaper", but pound for pound, if we were doing the same exact number of projects in the same conditions, one person with P2 and another with XDCAM discs, the P2 will win hands down in the long run due to time, which has been an argument all along with P2. Nobody ever said it was going to be cheaper at first, but everything else equal, P2 will save money in the long run.

[Stephen Mick]

Yeah, what Kit said. :D

The hours I've saved not having to log and digitize tapes is more time I can spend on this forum, not working.

--SM

[Andrew McMillan]

(but I dont expect our HPX502 to last as long in the market as say a Digibeta or a DSR570)

So true, it makes me realy sad sense dont even have an hpx or a dsr 500, just two lowly dsr 300s (the ones with out the fire wire!)

[Kit Hannah]

(but I dont expect our HPX502 to last as long in the market as say a Digibeta or a DSR570)

So true, it makes me realy sad sense dont even have an hpx or a dsr 500, just two lowly dsr 300s (the ones with out the fire wire!)


??? You dug up a 6 month old thread to post that? C'mon Andrew.....

[Mac]

I'm not seeing anything for the kind of work I do (documentaries) that beats the 500 for price and image... I will keep mine for a long time (I just GAVE my 10 year old DSR300 to the guy that maintains my computer)....

In the quest for image, marketing hype often gets in the way of objective observation... I like the picture I'm getting...

But, as I asked earlier in this post, why is this camera so damn heavy?

[PhantomVideo]

the DSR570 i oped wasn't that much lighter than the HPX500 remeber the DSR300 is only a tad bigger than the 250 and with B3 lenses

[Jan_Crittenden]

P2 cards are expensive when you consider we need about 8 of them for a day shoot (16gb) Thats about 10 grand worth at current aussie prices for the 16gb, or 4 32gb at about $6,500. Its sometimes not practical for us to clear cards during a shoot because we are constantly on the move and often in a mining or construction site. Obviously there are some third party solutions to this which we are considering. I guess everyones situation is different though. If your only doing half or hour long shoots then there really is no problem.


Actually I have seen guys shoot a 10 segment TV series on 8 4GB cards. And over the lifetime of the cards, they go down in price every time you use them. Its analogous to buying the tape budget for the camera at the beginning and not alog its lifetime. Then you will realize by the time you have hit the 1000th reuse you are down do $1.65 per card. Yes intitally they are expensive, but they are good for 100,000 read-write cycles.



I am a bit cynical about the whole card pricing, I could be wrong but I suspect Pana sells the camera as a bit of a loss leader. A bit like buying a great $50 printer but finding out the ink costs a fortune.

Here you would be totally way off base. The cards are very expensive to manufacture.


It was one area that Sony tried to sway us on.

They have the same issue on the SxS although I know why the P2 costs so much, I don't see the same build quality in the SxS though.



Still love the Camera and the format, just wish they would bring card prices down a tad.

They are working on it.

Best,

Jan

[Mac]

Okay, the guy that started this post got a 500, I know because I bought the PortaBrace bag from him, which he didn't need - and it's an excellent bag, by-the-way, although not a carry-on... Thank you Kit.

I've shot a bunch with the 500 in the year since I bought it, I don't have any idea how many hours, but a lot, like hundreds.. I just completed a very footage-intensive feature length documentary (BOYHOOD SHADOWS), produced a dozen 10-15 minute docs and a slew of regional commercials for colleges and hospitals... I've also shot with the 200 during that same period (I bought it a few months after the 500 as a back-up).

P2 cards... I can not understand the issue people have with the cost.. yeah, at first (before I was using Panasonic) they weren't too appealing... but now, with the 16 and 32 and soon to be 64 cards, they are nearly essential... I have five 16s, and I've used every one at least 50 times with no problems whatsoever. I paid for them once and now I own them!

The camera... I got mine with the Fujinon lens and I am extremely pleased with the look I'm getting with 720/24pn - And the quality of the audio is superb. I don't do scopes or rez chart tests or post clips... I just shoot films - 24/7.

Let me put this in perspective - I have a masters in film from UCLA (many years ago) specializing in cinematography originally, then I changed to documentary when I photographed a doc about Caesar Chavez. I've shot hundreds of films - in actual FILM, mostly super16 (I owned one of the first super16 cameras on the west coast, an Eclair NPR) and I still own and occasionally use an Aaton super16 camera. I have nearly a hundred film festival awards, including 11 CINE Golden Eagles, so I'm not a "newby" by any stretch.

Comparing the HPX500 to a Panaflex Platinum? Well, it won't - But comparing it to super16, especially for documentaries, it is vastly superior... I hated video for over 20 years, but now, finally, I feel that I have a tool that is more than comparable and satisfies my needs - especially for the cost...

I still think it's too heavy though.

[jcoxshooter]

Mac,

Just went to your site. AWESOME AWESOME work.

[Mac]

Mac,

Just went to your site. AWESOME AWESOME work.

Thanks, I appreciate the compliment...

[LuckyStudio 13]

Mac,

Can we have a link to your work ?? :) cmon share it out !!

[jcoxshooter]

google BOYHOOD SHADOWS

[Bayne]

My most favorite is the dynamic range that the 2/3" chips have.

[Andrew McMillan]

you gave a dsr 300 away :0 to a computer guy! * I hate you* Just kidding, no but really if anyone has one they'd interested in letting go for a good prive I'd be intersested.

I have two dsr 300's and they need a freaind for our studio, because they don't play that nice with my pd 170.

[Mac]

DSR300 is an excellent camera, the "last of a breed"... I stopped using it when I bought a 100A and couldn't go back to interlaced video... (I shot ACCIDENTAL HERO with the 300). I "gave" it away, but the guy I gave it to is an Apple certified Mac expert and keeps me running, so I sleep at night.

Several years ago I bought an XL H1 and shot MY NAME IS BELLE with that camera (1080i), had no problems with HDV, and really like the Canon too.. they're all tools.

The HPX500 has all of the advantages of those cameras plus way more.. I do miss the ability to dial in white balance (XL H1) and the lighter weight (DSR300), but the picture, the very film-like 24p (better than other cameras I've seen for some reason, maybe I just prefer 720) and the P2 cards make up for those things.

Technology changes so quickly these days that I am reluctant to spend the big bucks on high-end video... I have a $60,000 Aaton already that I hardly get to use. So, for me, the HPX500 is a perfect compromise between "affordable pro-sumer" and the other extreme... Red is interesting, but not a documentary camera in any of it's current designs.

Our site is macandava.com

It's an intentionally simple website, designed by Jerry Takigawa, an artist who doesn't like to overload space.

[mcgeedigital]

you gave a dsr 300 away :0 to a computer guy! * I hate you* Just kidding, no but really if anyone has one they'd interested in letting go for a good prive I'd be intersested.

I have two dsr 300's and they need a freaind for our studio, because they don't play that nice with my pd 170.

I have a DRS-500WSL I've sell you for a good price. No Lens, but lenses for that are easy to come by.

[alexdias]

Okay, the guy that started this post got a 500, I know because I bought the PortaBrace bag from him, which he didn't need - and it's an excellent bag, by-the-way, although not a carry-on... Thank you Kit.

I've shot a bunch with the 500 in the year since I bought it, I don't have any idea how many hours, but a lot, like hundreds.. I just completed a very footage-intensive feature length documentary (BOYHOOD SHADOWS), produced a dozen 10-15 minute docs and a slew of regional commercials for colleges and hospitals... I've also shot with the 200 during that same period (I bought it a few months after the 500 as a back-up).

P2 cards... I can not understand the issue people have with the cost.. yeah, at first (before I was using Panasonic) they weren't too appealing... but now, with the 16 and 32 and soon to be 64 cards, they are nearly essential... I have five 16s, and I've used every one at least 50 times with no problems whatsoever. I paid for them once and now I own them!

The camera... I got mine with the Fujinon lens and I am extremely pleased with the look I'm getting with 720/24pn - And the quality of the audio is superb. I don't do scopes or rez chart tests or post clips... I just shoot films - 24/7.

Let me put this in perspective - I have a masters in film from UCLA (many years ago) specializing in cinematography originally, then I changed to documentary when I photographed a doc about Caesar Chavez. I've shot hundreds of films - in actual FILM, mostly super16 (I owned one of the first super16 cameras on the west coast, an Eclair NPR) and I still own and occasionally use an Aaton super16 camera. I have nearly a hundred film festival awards, including 11 CINE Golden Eagles, so I'm not a "newby" by any stretch.

Comparing the HPX500 to a Panaflex Platinum? Well, it won't - But comparing it to super16, especially for documentaries, it is vastly superior... I hated video for over 20 years, but now, finally, I feel that I have a tool that is more than comparable and satisfies my needs - especially for the cost...

I still think it's too heavy though.

Hi Mac,

Congratulation on your superb work. I'm a doc filmmaker myself working out of the SF Bay Area and your footage is very inspirational.
I've just shot a feature length doc with the 200 and as I prepare for my next project, which will include traveling to 3 continents, I've been testing the HPX500. My only issue for far with the camera is finding a cost effective HD wide lens.
What have you been using on the wide range?
Thanks,

Alex.

[Andrew McMillan]

Man that white balance dial feature sounds amazing. It's so simple. Instead of carring around a bunch of different coloured cards.

[Bayne]

Hi Mac,

Congratulation on your superb work. I'm a doc filmmaker myself working out of the SF Bay Area and your footage is very inspirational.
I've just shot a feature length doc with the 200 and as I prepare for my next project, which will include traveling to 3 continents, I've been testing the HPX500. My only issue for far with the camera is finding a cost effective HD wide lens.
What have you been using on the wide range?
Thanks,

Alex.

Alex,

I got the KJ13x6BKRS if that is wide enough. Bought it from Samy's DV and Edit here in LA. Im about to shoot my first feature length doc here on the 9th of July. Any pointers from either of you?

[Andrew McMillan]

how about hunter's magic canon j8x6.

[Noel Evans]

Man that white balance dial feature sounds amazing. It's so simple. Instead of carring around a bunch of different coloured cards.

It is very useful. Though when you dial the white balance out of the the standard manual balance its still a process of dialing for the look you want unless you know that all your lights are 5k and off you go, or you just wanted to dial in 5600k for a midday exterior. The HPX has Ach and Bch adjustment which doesnt tell you what your setting is , but in conjunction with a BC monitor it can help you sweeten.

[alexdias]

Bayne: The 13x6 is not wide enough for doc work. Most of the time I find myself in really small places with 2 people or more and this lens will not cover the action properly.

Andrew: I did not test the Canon 8x6, which btw is quite wide, but I tested an old wide SD Fujinon (i forget the precise model) and although it performed well on wide on the long end it was clearly not sharp enough.

My comparison was made in relation to the low cost Fuji standard lens, usually part of the HPX "package".
I'm not gear obsessed and like Mac said before, I shoot films not charts so my evaluations are biased and personal.

[Andrew McMillan]

Well you need sharpness for wide shots, but not so much when you zoom in. Especialy scince half or more of the screen is out of focus due to DOF. Talent won't mind it being soft on the CU's either. :)

I personally wouldn't spend more than 4k on a lens for the HPX. By then I would be thinking about another camera.

I've always been skeptical of the lens game ever scince those $500 nikons owned those $20,000 Ziess super speeds. :0

[Mac]

Alex: In my case I prefer cropping things - I tend to shoot very tight, often with the mid to full telephoto range, so the Fujinon (I got the one w/o the 2x because it's lighter) works fine for me...

The great thing about 3/4" cameras is that even using the mid-range you can have enough selective focus that it draws the viewer's eye to the subject - true, I miss focus sometimes, but I live with it, same as with 16mm.

I also hand-hold most of the time, sometimes 6-8 hours a day (thus the weight concern - I'm old) - The 500 is a nice camera - once it's up on your shoulder - everything is well placed - audio control, focus assist, scene files, etc, so you don't have to take your eye away from the finder.

True, the Canon's WB dial is good for someone with enough experience to have a sense of what they want the color temperature to be... But you could take a white balance, note the number, then switch to manual and make it warmer or cooler.

With the XL H1 I could dial WB walking from an exterior to an interior w/o having to pull out a white card - I seldom have time for that luxury - I dislike telling my subject to hang on a second while I adjust the camera , kinda intrusive.

So, with the 500 I use presets and miss whites sometimes too... But the nice thing about DVCPRO HD is that it handles correction in post very well.

The HPX500 could certainly be improved - better finder of course (I wish Panasonic offered a better, affordable, not heavier finder as an option), dial in WB and a good diet program to take off about six pounds.

[Andrew McMillan]

Does anybody know if the offer pakages with the 2 inch finder instead of the 1.5?

Crazey how much difference a half of an inch makes.

[alexdias]

Thank you Mac.
It's nice to hear from someone who works so similar to me.
Maybe one of these days we can get together for a coffee, I'm not too far from you.
Cheers,

Alex.

[Bayne]

Bayne: The 13x6 is not wide enough for doc work. Most of the time I find myself in really small places with 2 people or more and this lens will not cover the action properly.

Andrew: I did not test the Canon 8x6, which btw is quite wide, but I tested an old wide SD Fujinon (i forget the precise model) and although it performed well on wide on the long end it was clearly not sharp enough.



Doesnt a 13x6 and an 8x6 have the same FOV as each other? 6mm?

[alexdias]

Doesnt a 13x6 and an 8x6 have the same FOV as each other? 6mm?

Yes. You are totally right, both have the same range at the wide end.
My fault.

[Icarus2005]

there are no real correct answers to your question because its all relative to what you are comparing to, and in todays video world it has become mind boggling the amount of choices and the way the market is changing faster than we can afford to upgrade.

that said, here are some of my likes and dislikes from a professional viewpoint, but bear in mind that most of my shoots are pro level and as such my comparisons are more to pro cameras whereas teh HPX500 isn't really a pro cameras and more of a inbetween prosumer and pro. I'm not listing everything but just higlighting the most significant

Pro:
1. Low cost for 2/3" chip with B4 mount
2. Ease of workflo
3. ease of menu
4. shoulder mount lightwieght makes ENG easier (cameras like RED make you want to throw them against the wall)
5. CAC correction helps those who can't afford professional lenses get a better look.
6. XLR sound options.
7. Quick release plate.
8. When the larger cards comes out you'll be able to shoot all day without changing cards. (althought it cost you almost as much as the camera for the cards)
9. In the old days you hand of tapes and almost never see the footage or have to fight to get it for your reel. Now often you take the footage home with you still on card after downloading. Makes it easier to build your reel.
10. firewire ports. (something my Varicam doesn't have)
11. Variable frame rates instantly viewable (this is a huge help for amateur directors)

Cons:
1. Not much demand for it from my professional clients
2. Poor rez in comparison to other high end cameras.
3. Poor viewfinder compared to my high end cameras (the least they could do is design it so I could use my varicam viewfinder on it, but no they have to make me suffer for no good reason)
4. Grainy in the darks
5. no color wheel like on pro cameras, which makes run and gun a little more difficult.
6. Hi cost of cards
7. Sometimes having to wait at the end fo a shoot to download footage to a clients harddrive before you can go home. ( a lot easier to just hand off tapes)
8. 8 bit instead of 10 bit.
9. Goofy histogram focus assit that isn't used by any person I know on a professional level. If you're doing ENG it gets in the way and if you're not doing ENG than you're using a pro onboard monitor like my LH-80.

Overall a very good camera for the money but NOT a professional camera that will get you a lot of professional work. I'm hoping this will change after the Olympics since its the official camera. But the reality is people rarely want the cheapest option in a professional world, they either want the best or something in the middle. And the HPX500 is at the bottom of the Panasonic pro line.

for someone wanting to make a micro-budget feature its great.

[sunporchmedia]

I just finished up a multi-month, multi-episode TV doc series. Shot reams and reams of footage. We shot with the Canon kit lens with the doubler (can't recall the model offhand.)

Don't care for the LCD or the viewfinder, too small for critical focus. The focus assist histogram is worse than useless. For critical focus, a monitor was required, period.

Other than that I was extremely pleased. Rugged, dependable. Plenty of runtime on 4 x 16gb cards, for shooting interviews and b-roll all day. My b-camera op (HVX200) was stuck with 8gb cards, after awhile I took pity and started giving him one of the 16's.

Loved the low light capabilities...it significantly freed me up lighting-wise. VIdeo noise levels were not objectionable for my purposes.

I shot a bunch of stuff with default scene file 5 settings. I had a homebrew scenefile for high-contrast outdoor situations, and I used the DSC warming card (the newer, very slight warm version.) I ditched my LIghttools Warmcards, they were much too inconsistent and too strong.

I used the Kata case that can be broken down for carry-on stowage. I flew all over the country (and to Germany) for months on end.

That's it off the top of my head. As a practical tool for a documentarian, I couldn't be happier.

[robstowell]

Hi- interesting to hear. I'm still worried about the focus: can't carry a monitor everywhere. I guess I need to drive an hpx for a day, and see how bad the viewfinder/histogram comba are for what I'm doing (on-the-shoulder, a lot of wide/mid on the lens, but zooming in to grab quick close-ups, all natural lighting).
What sort of a monitor do people use? Is there a small monitor with a battery and a shoe that can be used easily?

[jcoxshooter]

Hi- interesting to hear. I'm still worried about the focus: can't carry a monitor everywhere. I guess I need to drive an hpx for a day, and see how bad the viewfinder/histogram comba are for what I'm doing (on-the-shoulder, a lot of wide/mid on the lens, but zooming in to grab quick close-ups, all natural lighting).
What sort of a monitor do people use? Is there a small monitor with a battery and a shoe that can be used easily?

Taking it out for a test drive is very smart. Just for youf info I use it daily and do a lot of run and gun with it with out a monitor and have had great success. That said I could stand to have a better on but would not say it is un usable by means. I have found it easier to focus in 30p and 60i over 24p just my 2cents.

[Mark Kokkoros]

I use the viewfinder histogram always and love it. Takes about 30 minutes to get used to it but when you do the results are tack sharp. May seem strange at first but it's extremely sensitive and never fails me.

If you consider, low-light sensitivity, color reproduction, clarity, format flexibility, variable frame rates, and recording standards (NTSC & PAL) the HPX500 is an amazing camera and a great value. I shoot a lot and love it more every day.

Is it a RED? No, but the Red is an entirely different beast. Think big production, big post-production pipeline, and big support crew, etc. It's an fabulous camera for what it's designed for, as is the HPX500.

[Noel Evans]

Overall a very good camera for the money but NOT a professional camera that will get you a lot of professional work.

Interesting its not working out for you. Havent had an issue. I offer three options, HPX, Sony XDCAM 350 and Red. HPX is doing very well, mind you though Im just restarting up back here in Aus, so it has been slower than usual whilst im in this vortex.

[Buck Forester]

This HPX500 sounds like a great camera. I admittedly haven't payed much attention to it because it's a shoulder mount camera (smaller/lighter is good for what I'm doing), but I noticed it has 2/3" CCD chips. Excuse my ignorance with this question (I was reading through this thread and didn't see anything mentioned) but does this HPX500 shoot 'native' 1920x1080, or is it adjusted (or whatever they do with the HVX200) to uprez it to 1920x1080? Gracias!

[Kit Hannah]

This HPX500 sounds like a great camera. I admittedly haven't payed much attention to it because it's a shoulder mount camera (smaller/lighter is good for what I'm doing), but I noticed it has 2/3" CCD chips. Excuse my ignorance with this question (I was reading through this thread and didn't see anything mentioned) but does this HPX500 shoot 'native' 1920x1080, or is it adjusted (or whatever they do with the HVX200) to uprez it to 1920x1080? Gracias!

Pixel Shifted from 960 x 540 to 1920 x 1080. Similar to the 200, but with a higher pixel count.

[Buck Forester]

Gracias, Kit! Man, I just looked this up at B&H and it's only $9,999! Sounds pretty sweet for a sub-$10 grand camera!

[Kit Hannah]

Plus there is a $2000 rebate. But keep in mind you need batteries, P2 Cards, a lens, some sort of microphone / audio, etc. Reaistically, you could probably be into a nice setup for around $14k-$15k depending on what gear you currently have.

[Barry_Green]

Pixel Shifted from 960 x 540 to 1920 x 1080. Similar to the 200, but with a higher pixel count.
It does use the spatial offset technique, but not from 960x540. The only spec we've been given is that it uses 620,000-pixel imagers.

[Kit Hannah]

It does use the spatial offset technique, but not from 960x540. The only spec we've been given is that it uses 620,000-pixel imagers.

Well, that's been said multiple times, even from you if i recall correctly, but I'm not perfect and could be wrong. I didn't pull the number out of thin air, but I would imagine that it is close to that. I know when creating files for DVCPRO HD, it's usually that, but again...

[Barry_Green]

The HVX is 960x540. The HPX500 is 620,000 pixels, which doesn't equate to 960x540.

[Kit Hannah]

The HVX is 960x540. The HPX500 is 620,000 pixels, which doesn't equate to 960x540.

okie dokie. So what does it equate to then? It can't still be 960 x 540 and have higher resolution imagers?

Isn't the HPX 3000 1920 x 1280 but does 2.2 Million? Cause 1920 x 1280 is 2,457,600

And isn't the HPX 2000 1440 x 1280 but does 1.1m? Cause that is 1,555,200

I'm no expert and don't profess to be, but the math doesn't seem to fit any of them. Is there a reason for this? Because if it is less, it would seem that the 500 would be right on target.....

[griffin86]

okie dokie. So what does it equate to then? It can't still be 960 x 540 and have higher resolution imagers?

Isn't the HPX 3000 1920 x 1280 but does 2.2 Million? Cause 1920 x 1280 is 2,457,600

And isn't the HPX 2000 1440 x 1280 but does 1.1m? Cause that is 1,555,200

I'm no expert and don't profess to be, but the math doesn't seem to fit any of them. Is there a reason for this? Because if it is less, it would seem that the 500 would be right on target.....

Just a correction on the math, its a bit closer to the posted figures that they rounded off to:

HPX3000 : 1920x1080=2,073,600
HPX2000 : 1280x720=921,600 or 1366x768=1,049,088 (but this pixel arrangement is commonly found on 768p plasma displays)

HPX500 : 960x640=614,400

The math still isn't an exact match for any of the common pixel arrangements but i suppose they round up for marketing purposes or maybe they use slightly different imager configs altogether. My guess is that the HPX 500 is more like 960x640 or 960x646=620,160 which seems about right to me.

At the end of the day though I think what's more important over the actual sensor resolution is latitude and color depth/saturation and so on. The HPX series tho does a wonderful job with the system they use to sample the imager, as they claim to capture the sensor data at a raw 1080/60p and move from there. The only place the HPX500 falls short is on high frequency detail in wide shots IMO, and that is mainly in comparison to the bigger sisters and other higher end cams. With that said its a "horses for courses" thing like they say overseas. I hope this helps a bit.

just two cents

And I'm in no way affiliated with panasonic or any stores nor am I an engineer for imaging technology. Anyone please feel free also to contribute any additional info on this if you have it:-)

[Kit Hannah]

Oops, put 1280 instead of 1080. Guess that's what happens when you post after drinking... :-)

Note to self..... post comments before consuming alcoholic beverages.....

[Ducatimark]

Kit -

I never thought of Fresno as a party town on Monday afternoon. Maybe I need to move out West!

Mark

[Kit Hannah]

Kit -

I never thought of Fresno as a party town on Monday afternoon. Maybe I need to move out West!

Mark

If you live in a place like Fresno where there's hardly ever anything going on and boring as hell, it's ALWAYS a good time for alcohol:Drogar-Evil(DBG)::thumbup::Drogar-Dum(DBG)::zombie_smiley:

Plus I'm also the Executive Director for a professional hockey team.... goes with the territory.