HPX500 vs. HVX200 Film-Out

[aravance]

I wanted to get some opinions.

Since the HPX has 2/3" chips compared to the HVX 1/3" chips I know it will probably look better once blown up to film.

My REAL question is...would the quality difference be worth it if I had a choice between renting a HPX500 or using my own HVX200's for free?

(1) What would be the difference in quality on film between a 1080p resolution on a HPX vs. a HVX and (2) would that quality difference be enough to justify the rental cost?

Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.

[hunter richards]

There are a lot of things to think about regarding this issue.

To compare:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FILM LOOK

+HVX200

Everything will be in focus (unless you use a 35mm adapter but then you will sacrifice resolution and you will need a larger lighting budget) The hvx200 also has a nasty ccd smear when shooting overexposed highlights (a verticle line) The hvx200 is also a lot noiser and has a lower resolution than the HPX500.

+HPX500

You can get the 35mm look by using fast ENG or digital cinema lenses (like a ziess t1.6 lens (f1.45) will look like a f2.8ish in 35mm) Also the hpx500 has a bit more dynamic range and no CCD smearing, It is also has a cleaner image.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICATION

The HVX200 is a handheld prosumer camera, it is lightweight and can fit in tight places. It has a slower ASA than the HPX500 (could be from the smaller ccd) that means more lights, and more lights = more money. Most DP's dont want to shoot with a handheld camera, a steadycam operator would probably like a smaller handheld camera. You are stuck with that fixed lens on the HVX200, it has an infinately rotating focus ring. NO SDI either, and only 2 input channels of audio(if you are recording sound in-camera)

The HPX500 is a full-size broadcast quality shoulder style camera. It can use any b4 lens (there are hundreds) you can put an ultra-wide lens on it or super-telephoto. It is comfy on your shoulder and you can shoot all day without your arms getting tired like the hvx200. It has a fast ASA of around 800, That means less lights (or less wattage needed for the same scenes)
It is also impressive looking when set-up (that might make your production or publicity photos have a "wow" factor vs a small handheld camera) There is SDI 10-bit out for capturing to a 10-bit deck or computer, SDI is also compatable with many production monitors.(it sure beats running 3 cables of component!) And there are 4 input channels of audio with the HPX500.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-production

Because of the larger sensors of the HPX500 and perhaps better DSP, Your final images will be a lot cleaner of noise, and overall I bet it would hold up on 35mm print a lot better than the HVX200, especially after color-correction.


__________________________________________________ _____________
BOTTOM LINE
__________________________________________________ ____________

Work with your budget, I would pick the HPX500 because you would get better image results, but image quality is always second to content. If your script is shabby and your talent is shabby. It doesnt matter what your shoot it with.

You need a good story and good crew and believable cast. If you dont have those, spend the extra money on that and shoot it with an hv20. If you have all of that and you can afford a little bit extra, go with the 500.

[Noel Evans]

I agree whole heartedly. Aravance is there anyway to get your hands on an HPX before you make a final decision?

One thing you will notice immediately is the difference in dynamic range and that alone may seal the deal.

Also theres a sticky in this HPX forum of where DVXUSer HPX owners are located. See if theres one local to you and compare rates / personal service.

[aravance]

Thanks for the replies.

FYI, I'm planning on shooting a new short film.

I can definitely see the benefit of using the HPX over the HVX.

I don't know if the Plus 8 Digital here in Houston has any HPX's in stock, but I do know that they were expecting some HDX-3000's. I might be able to shoot on that because they told me they would give me a good rate for being one of the "firsts".

If I do go with the HPX500, I definitely will use digital cinema lenses because I've heard mixed things about the current Canon zoom lenses they come pre-stocked with. I'll probably be making calls this coming week.

I am also entertaining the idea of going RED, because being able to go 4k or 2k is quite enticing...however I know that going RED will also induce numerous headaches as there are still kinks to be worked out. Not to mention the cost. Still, I like to be at the forefront of technology...and being able to capture 2k images and doing 10bit color grading in Color would be nice.

Because the short film will only take a few days of production, I figure it might be worth it to go RED to test it out, but it still just might be a little bit over my budget.

Unless any of you RED owners out there want to hook me up with a nice deal. Pretty please?

[Dennis Wood]

We've worked a lot with the HVX200/Brevis35 adapter, and now are testing with an HPX500. The increase in light sensitivity, range (maybe 1 stop?) and clean, clean image are immediately evident.

The shallowness of DOF using the 17x fujinon lens, at f1.8 and zoomed in about 50% is quite impressive. I'd say that renting the HPX500 for film-out would be well worth the expense.

[Isaac_Brody]

I shot with the HPX500 on my last film. The extra latitude and higher ASA will save you a ton of time in the lighting department. It felt like I was shooting with a DVX, that's how sensitive it is compared to the HVX200. And it was really easy to get shallow DOF for close-ups with the Fujinon lens. And 1080P from the 500 looks much better than HVX 1080P.

[Kholi]

Thanks for the replies.

FYI, I'm planning on shooting a new short film.

I can definitely see the benefit of using the HPX over the HVX.

I don't know if the Plus 8 Digital here in Houston has any HPX's in stock, but I do know that they were expecting some HDX-3000's. I might be able to shoot on that because they told me they would give me a good rate for being one of the "firsts".

If I do go with the HPX500, I definitely will use digital cinema lenses because I've heard mixed things about the current Canon zoom lenses they come pre-stocked with. I'll probably be making calls this coming week.

I am also entertaining the idea of going RED, because being able to go 4k or 2k is quite enticing...however I know that going RED will also induce numerous headaches as there are still kinks to be worked out. Not to mention the cost. Still, I like to be at the forefront of technology...and being able to capture 2k images and doing 10bit color grading in Color would be nice.

Because the short film will only take a few days of production, I figure it might be worth it to go RED to test it out, but it still just might be a little bit over my budget.

Unless any of you RED owners out there want to hook me up with a nice deal. Pretty please?

I dunno, man. If RED and an HPX + Letus Relay 35mm Setup were tagged at the same price to rent, I'd still have a hard time decidin' on which one to shoot. I don't think I would go without a Pro35 at the very least.

Oh, and the HVX200 blows up incredibly well when paired with a 35mm Adapter. At least if you know what you're doing. I've seen my own work projected at the Kodak Theater here in LA and it looks freakin' fantastic. I would have no qualms about shooting an entire feature on an HVX + LetusEx setup. I can definitely see HPX + Letus bein' more than enough.

[aravance]

Thanks all for the responses and the opinions.

I'd really like to see the results of the HVX + 35mm adapter blown up to film. I own the Redrock Micro, but have mixed feelings about it. The only advantage of using HVX's would be that I would have access to several of them for the film, allowing multiple-camera setups. But when considering the limitations using the 35mm adapters can bring (i.e. lighting)...it seems that going another route would be best. We have some night scenes and I feel that shooting these with the HVX plus the adapter would just be horrendous. Plus, some movies only use one camera (a la The Prestige)...so that's probably the inspiration I'll look towards.

I talked with Plus 8 today and it's looking more likely that I'll get to use the Panasonic HPX-3000. I feel that this is a good compromise: somewhere inbetween the HPX500 and the RED One (although more on the side of the 500). I'm excited about using the AVC-Intra 100 codec and recording/color correcting in 10-bit. I just download the AVC-Intra Decoder for Final Cut Studio 2 so I can import the footage directly off the p2 cards into Final Cut. I guess FCS just re-incodes it using the ProRes 4:2:2 codec?

I haven't really heard much about the HPX-3000, as there isn't a forum for it on here. But if anyone has any thoughts/opinions to share I'm all ears. I know that the camera has a standard B4 mount, but for some reason I thought there was also an option for a PL mount? At least the site seems to indicate some interchange-ability:

"It also features a built-in reverse scan that allows unique setups such as mounting the camera upside down or usage of an ultra prime lens or an anamorphic lens adapter to create a 2.35:1 aspect image."

The brochure says something about using an Angenieux HD lens adapter?

I'll have to look into it further.

[BTT]

Hi Aravance,

The HPX-3000 is a whole lot more advanced than the HPX-500: native full raster 1920 resolution, 10 bit recording, AVC-Intra codec are some of the main differences over the 500. Your images will look much better, and they should for a $48K camera (plus lens).

Go check out the Digital Cinema Society website to watch a 3-part video presentation that gives a pretty good rundown on the camera and AVC-Intra.

http://digitalcinemasociety.org/content.php?page=Lighting%20Workshop

Best,
Simon Sommerfeld
Digital Cinema Society

[Andrew McCarrick]

I haven't really heard much about the HPX-3000, as there isn't a forum for it on here. But if anyone has any thoughts/opinions to share I'm all ears. I know that the camera has a standard B4 mount, but for some reason I thought there was also an option for a PL mount? At least the site seems to indicate some interchange-ability:

"It also features a built-in reverse scan that allows unique setups such as mounting the camera upside down or usage of an ultra prime lens or an anamorphic lens adapter to create a 2.35:1 aspect image."

The brochure says something about using an Angenieux HD lens adapter?

I'll have to look into it further.

Holy shit.... I didn't even know that...
http://www.smsprod.com/products/lenses/angenieux4.html

It's a Zeiss-Angenieux joint adapter.

[SPZ]

One thing to consider here is also Support gear. While you can get steadicam, tripods, dollys and Jibs that are relatively cheap for the HVX, these same support gear costs a heck of a lot more for an HPX500.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[joe 1008]

One thing to consider here is also Support gear. While you can get steadicam, tripods, dollys and Jibs that are relatively cheap for the HVX, these same support gear costs a heck of a lot more for an HPX500.

Just my 2 cents worth.

You don´t need that stuff every day on the set. (besides the dolly, maybe - and THAT one will cost the same) So it won´t make much of a difference. You will even make up that difference with the smaller lightning set you need for the 500.

If you have the budget for a film out it wouldn´t grow so much bigger renting the 500. If the 500 adds only 10% to 20% to your over all budget, rent it. If it´s more, go with the HVX.

[Tim Naylor]

+HPX500

You can get the 35mm look by using fast ENG or digital cinema lenses (like a ziess t1.6 lens (f1.45) will look like a f2.8ish in 35mm) .

Your calculations are a few stops off. A 23mm lens in 2/3" chip has the same field of field as a 50mm lens in 35mm (xferred to 16:9 broadcast). 23mm at a 1.4 at 10 feet gives you a depth of field of 3 feet 6 inches. 50mm at 5.6 at 10 feet away give you a DOF of 3 feet 6.5 inches (essentially the same). The stop differential to match Field of View and DOF between 2/3" and 35mm is three stops. A 2.0 in 2/3's is a an 8.0 in 35mm.

This is probably the reason I've never been sold on the notion that digi primes wide open give you 35mm like DOF. I like the look of 2/3" with an adaptor much better than a d primes wide open. D Primes still look like video to me. Just very sharp video.

On topic:
One of the main differences I find with the HPX is that it's far less noisy than the HVX. For a film out, the HVX noise in the darks and certain color signals would give one a severe migrain. Also the light sensitivity of the HPX, especially when coupled with an adaptor is still more sensitive than an HVX without. If I were doing a budget minded feature and wanted a "cinematic" look, a 2/3" chip camera with an adaptor would be a strong option. For web stuff, the sharpness/noise differences between the two cameras isn't as much an issue.

[hunter richards]

Tim: Not trying to bash you in anyway, but what chart are you referring to for your information?

I think you are accedentally comparing the 9.6x5.4mm (2/3" 16:9) to the 24 × 36 mm (35mm still photography) were the conversion factor is about 4x (actually more like 3.9x). That would explain why you are saying an f2.0 in 2/3" equates to an f8.0 in 35mm.

The conversion factor from 2/3" 16:9 to s35mm is 2.5x so a 24mm lens @ t1.6 (which really is an f1.45) on a 2/3" 16:9 chip would be equivalent to a 60mm lens @ f3.625 (an f2.8-f4 split)

Am I missing something?

Its easy to get a a very similar DOF to super35mm with 2/3". Most of your shots if you were shooting s35 film would be at around f2.8-f4 anyways.

Tim, go to your local rental house and slap a digiprime on a 2/3" body. You wont be disappointed!

My apologies if my math is incorrect, check with Panavision for more accurate information.

-Hunter

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I shot two shorts with the HVX and the HPX
I've been working on them for months and staring at them on an HD Monitor.

The only difference I can tell is that the HVX short is SHARPER. We used a Letus EX on the HVX and maybe a not so great zoom video lens on the HPX. So much sharper that my girlfriend's retired school teacher mom commented on it unsolicited.

I don't doubt all the stats and accolades for the HPX, but other factors coming into play like shooting style (rough handheld vs. painstaking stick work), quality of lenses, etc. There is not enough of a difference to eschew the HVX and spend money you could put elsewhere in the production IMHO.

In a 3 week period I worked on three films (directed two, acted in one) and we used the Red, HPX500, and HVX200, a different camera for each film. If someone was going to come in to my house tomorrow and offer to swap me a RED or an HPX for my HVX on the condition that I couldn't sell or rent the new camera, I would not give up my HVX. No way. Neither of those two cameras match the Ease of Use to Image factor, or the Form to Image quality factor the way the HVX does. Not that the Image is not better in the other two cameras, it's just that they require tradeoffs which the HVX doesn't that I don't think are worth it for me, right now.

When I have a crew, a car to hall gear around in vs. the subway or a cab, and even a little money, my answer might change, but while I am an ultra low budget guerilla the HVX is THE camera for me.

EDIT: Macgregor emailed me two or three weeks ago. He had 18 Seconds (http://www.frenchquarterfeatures.com/watch18seconds.htm) blown up to 35mm and was very impressed and happy. He said there were only two shots where you might question if it was shot on video or not - the shot of me standing in front of the copier and I forget the other one.

[aravance]

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Jack.

I actually decided to go with the RED for this new short film, which we shot two weeks ago, and even though it does give a better quality image, the new limitations made the whole production experience different. I felt very limited in terms of mobility...set-up times took longer, and equipment was more expensive. I feel the movie could've benefited more by using all that money in other areas of production.

We are in the postproduction process now, so I'll have to wait to give a full opinion...but I do know this. Throughout the production, I missed the simplicity and ease of use of the HVX.

[Tim Naylor]

Tim: Not trying to bash you in anyway, but what chart are you referring to for your information?

Its easy to get a a very similar DOF to super35mm with 2/3". Most of your shots if you were shooting s35 film would be at around f2.8-f4 anyways.

Tim, go to your local rental house and slap a digiprime on a 2/3" body. You wont be disappointed!

My apologies if my math is incorrect, check with Panavision for more accurate information.

-Hunter

Am I missing something? Take a look at the charts. Give or take 1/2" the FOV and DOF are virtually the same. Got them off Panavision Australia.
Let me know if I got the inputs wrong.

re: Digiprimes. Last year I shot a feature Vanessa Williams with w / Digi primes and they're the best 2/3" will ever get. But I still find it's DOF a ways off from 35mm like DOF. It especially shows in the wide lenses.

Tim Naylor - DP
www.timnaylor.com

[hunter richards]

Ouch my eyes! Based on that chart your right Tim. I wonder why I am thinking differently?

[hunter richards]

Maybe the subject distance is throwing me off. I noticed with 2/3" that if you pull your subject distance just a little closer (like 6' instead of 10') The dof gap from s35 and 2/3" gets much tighter.

Ok now back to HVX vs HPX film out...

[Tim Naylor]

Funny you mention this. I used to think the exact same thing that a 1.4 was app a 2..8 in 35mm. Maybe it was the Silicon Imaging lit or the way rental houses were always trying to push D primes on me and I woke one day and believed them. Then after some disappionting results with wides I decided to go the Panny charts to see what's up. I coudln't believe my eyes. I wasn't expecting a 3 stop difference.

Now I know why lot of old 70mm films were shot at 5.6-8.

[Noel Evans]

The only difference I can tell is that the HVX short is SHARPER.

Jack I believe what youre seeing, but if thats the case, blame the DP. I could bring up a list of ten people I work with regularly that would tell you quite clearly the HPX is sharper (for the record using pretty much standard canon or fujinon ENG zooms), seriously less noise and the dynamic range gap huge - one of the BEST going around and one of the main reasons I invested in this technology - take a look on a wave form for comparison.

Once again if you didnt see this blame your DP and I make NO bones about that.

But your main point I agree 100%.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I can tell you why it's sharper. Because one was run and gun with a crap zoom lens shooting 8 pages in less than two days with no AC and because the other was entirely on sticks shooting 8 pages in 4 days.

I know the HPX is sharper. I know, I know.

Mostly I think it was the zoom lens because even the shots that seem in focus aren't as sharp. It's like they have thicker lines or something.

[Tim Naylor]

I can tell you why it's sharper. Because one was run and gun with a crap zoom lens shooting 8 pages in less than two days with no AC and because the other was entirely on sticks shooting 8 pages in 4 days.

I know the HPX is sharper. I know, I know.

Mostly I think it was the zoom lens because even the shots that seem in focus aren't as sharp. It's like they have thicker lines or something.

Sounds like your back focus was off on the HPX.

[Barry_Green]

Jack I believe what youre seeing, but if thats the case, blame the DP.
Can't -- it was the same DP for all three films... :)

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Well it will be interesting. Mr. Green will have a chance to look at both shorts in full 1080HD on a giant plasma at Abel Cine Tech this week and will be able to offer his expert opinion. The Back Focus thing sounds plausible.

[David Jimerson]

Given the specific camera involved, I don't think it's backfocus.

[davhud]

I've also noticed that the 500 isn't very good at the wide end of the lens. The kit lens I mean. When I first got the camera I believe I set the back focus about 20 times while I was trying to shoot a wide time lapse of downtown Atlanta with the camera. I was fine tight and medium.
Fine detail wide just never looked sharp. Ran into a bit of the same issue shooting a 5 camera P2 music video. 2 500s, 2 200s on stage and 1 2000 wide in the balcony.
The 2000 was noticably crisper then 500s as you would expect. The 200s on stage weren't as far from the 500 as you would think based
on sensor size difference.
I'll get in trouble again if I go much further.

I just think you've got to be careful what you ask this camera to do on the wide side. At least with the kit lens.

[Tim Naylor]

Given the specific camera involved, I don't think it's backfocus.

Why? Every 2/3" camera loses backfocus sooner or later. Sometimes from going form the cold trunk of a car to a warm interior, once your camera acclimates, your back focus maybe off. Whether it's a Varicam, Viper, F 900, I'm always checking backfocus on a daily basis or when the climate changes. Ever shoot digi primes? You'll adjust backfocus at least 10 times a day.

Unless you have a lens that's out of whack or a cheap non CAC SD lens, I don't know how the HVX can be sharper, unless you back focus went off.

[David Jimerson]

Tim, I understand that, and I don't disagree. :) But for that specific HPX500 (the one used in Jack's films), in this particular instance, I have reason to doubt the problem was the backfocus.

I don't know exactly what the issue was -- it was likely a combination of factors, many of which mentioned by Jack.

[Noel Evans]

Can't -- it was the same DP for all three films... :)

Yeah i was just reading about the lens. What exactly were you using?

[Barry_Green]

The bottom-of-the-barrel Canon.