View Full Version : HXV200a - HPX170: not the same image
Gary Senda
10-02-2008, 12:47 AM
The same chip, the same DSP, the same codec but ***NOT*** the same image.
HPX170 is much better: this is my impression after a side to side test.
Perhaps the lens is better?
Regards
Gary
not supposed to be the case. but the glass is supposedly the only diff.
could it make THAT much diff?
maybe...
have you screencaps to share your conclusion?
ChipG
10-02-2008, 01:02 AM
I never would have thought the 72mm lens would look better than the 82... Interesting.
Gary Senda
10-02-2008, 01:05 AM
No screen caps at the moment: I've owned a 201 before and I have had this impression as soon as I've shooted the first clip. So I have performed a quick side to side test in the shop where I've bought the camera. I want to repeat the test in a better situation and I'll post the images, anyway the differences seem significative.
With the same settings 170 seems to have a more equlibrated image, more natural colors, less grain and seems to perform better in lowlight.
This is only an impression, obviously, but in the shop there were other people and all of them had the same words
Regards
Gary
ChipG
10-02-2008, 01:48 AM
Gary,
I have heard this before.
Thanks for the heads up, I'll do some testing this week out in the field for real world situations.
weixiang623
10-02-2008, 02:25 AM
perhaps the settings?
USLatin
10-02-2008, 03:13 AM
Man! You can't do this and not post comparisons! please do! before a lot of us pull the trigger on either camera. :)
Seriously, please post some screen grabs, same lighting same framing same settings... please!
Gary Senda
10-02-2008, 06:08 AM
It was only a quick test in a shop. I have had this clear sensation as soon I've used the camera. We have decided to perform a controlled test and in taht occasion we will post our results.
Anyway this sensation is very very diffused and solid after only few days the cameras are available
Regards
Gary
David Saraceno
10-02-2008, 09:56 AM
Were identical scene settings utilized?
Barry_Green
10-02-2008, 10:02 AM
I've had a 200A and a prerelease HPX170 side by side in the lab, shooting the same stuff, and if there's any difference in the image it's infitesimal. There must be some other factor at work -- either there was a UV filter on the 200A, or the settings were different, or something like that.
Ted Spencer
10-02-2008, 02:40 PM
What were you using to monitor the images? The built-in LCDs perhaps?
Gary Senda
10-02-2008, 02:58 PM
The images were monitored on 62" full HD panasonic plasma. We have evaluated both the live images and the recorded images. The settings were the same. No filters. We have also used a panasonic video mixer to evaluate the images on the same monitor: for ALL the images were different and HPX170 was better... but it was a quick test. We will repeat it
Regards
gary
Ted Spencer
10-02-2008, 04:27 PM
And you're certain it was an HVX200A, not a 200? They look absolutely identical externally, but the 200's performance would in fact compare to the 170 (or 200A) pretty much as you described.
ChipG
10-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Ted,
You could be on to something. The box my old hvx came in has an "A" for AG infront of the 200 and I'm wondering if some people are confusing that with the new 200A model.
Gary Senda
10-02-2008, 04:47 PM
And you're certain it was an HVX200A, not a 200?
The (quick) test was performed in Italy and there was an HVX201 vs. an HPX171. In july I've bought a 201: I've used it for only 4 hours and I've decided to change with an HPX171. So I've given back the camera to the seller and he has given me an HPX171 without asking other money. Well, the camera we tested was my previous HVX201.
Perhaps this is more evident in 50 Hz footage that has a different resolution (we've tested 1080p), perhaps the lens, perhaps we've made a mistake (and for this reason we have to try again), but the HPX image seemed better to us
Regards
Gary
USLatin
10-02-2008, 04:58 PM
Thanks for the continued posts Gary!
Barry, I might be smelling a eminent shootout...
I just put my HPX170 up on charts. I am finding it to be much more similar than different from an image standpoint to an HVX200A. Noise is about the same, no chromatic aberration, same as 200A, 3200 preset is a little plus green, same as a 200A. Image is no sharper, however I am getting better edge to edge focus with my Letus Ultimate than witha 200A. I find the edges of any content to be very smooth, organic, no aliasing or other artifacts that scream video.
Biggest problem is with slopiness between the zoom ring and body. There is a lot of play and with a 35mm DOF adapter, the problem is exacerbated, add a follow focus and the whole camera twists when running to the end of focus range on a 35mm prime lens. Looking at the image, you can see side to side shifting while focusing. I added a second
support for the Letus and this time installed a screw through the support, into the Letus.
The slopiness is much improved, happily, but I am concerned about using a 170 with a clip on matte box, a follow focus, wide angle adapter--this front end play could be a problem.
Ted Spencer
10-03-2008, 09:40 AM
The (quick) test was performed in Italy and there was an HVX201 vs. an HPX171. In july I've bought a 201: I've used it for only 4 hours and I've decided to change with an HPX171. So I've given back the camera to the seller and he has given me an HPX171 without asking other money. Well, the camera we tested was my previous HVX201.
Perhaps this is more evident in 50 Hz footage that has a different resolution (we've tested 1080p), perhaps the lens, perhaps we've made a mistake (and for this reason we have to try again), but the HPX image seemed better to us
Regards
Gary
Sorry, but it's still not completely clear to me that your HVX was the "A" version. Was it?
It's quite possible that a non "A" HVX could have been bought new in July.
USLatin
10-03-2008, 10:46 AM
Biggest problem is with slopiness between the zoom ring and body. There is a lot of play and with a 35mm DOF adapter, the problem is exacerbated, add a follow focus and the whole camera twists when running to the end of focus range on a 35mm prime lens. Looking at the image, you can see side to side shifting while focusing. I added a second
support for the Letus and this time installed a screw through the support, into the Letus.
The slopiness is much improved, happily, but I am concerned about using a 170 with a clip on matte box, a follow focus, wide angle adapter--this front end play could be a problem.
Dino, could you please explain where the problem stems from. I don't think I understand. Are you saying that the lens on the 170 has some play?
EDIT: OM(F)G! http://vimeo.com/1873268
Are you kidding me?!? This is not good...
I am sure it won't create that much trouble
but this is a major ball drop for a camera that's
known for being used with DoF adapters....
I, Filmmaker
10-03-2008, 11:00 AM
Roberto,
Yes there have been quite a few compaints now that there is a considerable amount of play between the body and the end of the lens, taking place at the zoom ring
USLatin
10-03-2008, 11:16 AM
I can't believe this... I'd like to hear more about this... MAN! that's bull-crap!
Has anyone posted footage shot while wiggling it like that? Does it go haywire or does it stay perfectly aligned with the CCD block? I suppose the whole guts wiggle with it! But that won't make anyone feel better about it.
Gary Senda
10-03-2008, 11:56 AM
Sorry, but it's still not completely clear to me that your HVX was the "A" version. Was it?
It's quite possible that a non "A" HVX could have been bought new in July.
HVX201 is the european version for hvx200a, so I'm more than sure. We don't have the 200a model, we have the 201 so it is imposssible to make confusion between 200 and 201
Regards
gary
Barry_Green
10-03-2008, 12:29 PM
I can't believe this... I'd like to hear more about this... MAN! that's bull-crap!
Has anyone posted footage shot while wiggling it like that? Does it go haywire or does it stay perfectly aligned with the CCD block? I suppose the whole guts wiggle with it! But that won't make anyone feel better about it.Read my latest post in the show-stopper thread -- this "play between the lens and the body" issue is EXACTLY THE SAME on the HVX200. Just tried it. No difference. And we've been using HVX200s for almost THREE YEARS now.
This is a tempest in a teapot and a non-issue.
USLatin
10-03-2008, 12:33 PM
No way! Really? I am going to check it right now! This is great news Barry!!!
EDIT: OMG! WOW!!! Well... hahahahaahah!!! This is great them! If I haven't noticed it yet then I CERTAINLY don't have an issue with this at ALL!!!!
EDIT #2: I just can't believe it!! hahaha.... I've had this all the way back to the DVX and never noticed it... well at least we know it is never going to fall apart cause after nearly destroying DVX's back in the day and using my 200 for quite some time now I never has a single issue with the cameras... I was all freaked out and not I feel like Barry gave me some much needed valium. lol
I, Filmmaker
10-03-2008, 12:53 PM
dUDE
USLatin
10-03-2008, 12:53 PM
dUDE
hehehe... yea
I, Filmmaker
10-03-2008, 12:55 PM
This is so hilarious to me. Here we all were screaming and complaining, and it's done it all along.
I'm so happy with the HPX. the image is SUCHHHH an improvement over the HVX. More than I thought it would be.
It has the clean prestine look of the EX1, with the beautiful color rendition we've all grow so used to
and....I frame compression!
yay.
Kholi
10-03-2008, 12:58 PM
BACK ON TOPIC
Can anyone Confirm the 170 and 200A are different images?
And, I thought the 200A equivalent was 201AE? Not just 201
I, Filmmaker
10-03-2008, 12:59 PM
I've also done a side by side test (nothing scientific) under the same lighting conditions and scene file settings
and I prefered the HPX170 image. It seemed brighter and cleaner.
I, Filmmaker
10-03-2008, 01:00 PM
but no none of this is officially "confirmed" man.
its the same imager
Kholi
10-03-2008, 01:00 PM
I've also done a side by side test (nothing scientific) under the same lighting conditions and scene file settings
and I prefered the HPX170 image. It seemed brighter and cleaner.
We're not talking about the original HVX200. We're talking about the 200A.
Barry_Green
10-03-2008, 01:01 PM
Brighter and cleaner than a 200A? They're the same. You sure you guys aren't comparing against the old/original HVX200?
HPX170 vs. HVX200, yes it'll be noticeably brighter and way way cleaner.
HPX170 vx. HVX200A, they should be basically indistinguishable.
I, Filmmaker
10-03-2008, 01:03 PM
FALSE ALARM
I made a really stupid mistake.
The comparison WAS 200a against 170
BUT
the 200a had a shutter speed of 1/60 vs the 170's 1/48.
It's my pal's 200a, so I just turned it on not noticing the shutter.
Now that I look at them they look alot more alike. Almost identical actually.
USLatin
10-03-2008, 01:21 PM
so you liked the 1/48th better just because you had better exposure... you were probably setting exposure on the 170 and then carrying over the settings to the 200a...
that makes sense!
PHEW!!!! MAN! My poor little heart can't take all this... I need to rest. SO glad to hear that either cameras would be a good choice cause I juuust might go for a used 200A to save some money. The only thing that is making me thing 170 is the HD-SDI for use with a Carrion.
Gary Senda
10-03-2008, 02:37 PM
Hi Roberto,
there are several reason to switch to HPX others than the HD-SDI
1. the weight
2. the focus assist
3. the multistandard (for us in europe)
4. the waveform and vectorscope
5. the lockable firewire port
6. the ability to change framerates without access to menu
7. the lockable focus ring (for using with adapters)
8. the overscan/undercan monitor function
and others
Shooting with HPX is a real delight expecially if you use a 35mm adapter
Regards
Gary