Low Light Ability of the HPX300

[doondoon]

Does anyone have an idea? Barry how does it compare with the EX1?

Is there any chance it's faster/cleaner? I don't see how it could be since it's a smaller chip... but I'm hoping anyway.

[doondoon]

Anyone? Jan or Barry ?

[puredrifting]

Hey Doon:

I believe I have seen Barry post several times on various boards that actual noise is about at the same level as the 170, perhaps a tiny bit cleaner.

Obviously the codec is much better but if you look at the camera's live output, it looked about the same to me as my 170, as far as noise (saw the HPX300 last week at EVS). Cleaner than the 200, but not quite as clean as the EX cameras. A 1/3" imager is still a lot of pixels jammed in a tiny area, no way around it. Now I should say that the image looks better overall though, definitely more latitude, a little better color and a smoothness to the picture that the 170 lacks. The resolution is there that is just not present with the 170/200. I would totally agree with Barry, it has the clarity of the EX cameras but doesn't have the video-like qualities and it has better colorimetry to my eye, just like the 170/200 and all of the upper level P2s.

So the camera looked about the same to me noise-wise (I didn't have a 170 setup into the same monitor to A/B it with) but with the added benefit of the 10bit codec, better lens, etc. In the end, you end up with a noticably cleaner, clearer image in the edit bay. Unfrotunately, was just looking at a slightly lit interior, not a setup with a person with better lighting.

Dan

[doondoon]

Yeah, what you're reporting makes sense to me... it seems like 1/3" sensor with more pixels (but on newer 3MOS sensor with higher quality codec) would be on par with the less pixel dense HPX170.

I'm a bit bummed... but I guess I should hold off until I get a hold of one... maybe it's performance will be slightly better than I'm imagining. This is not to say that the noise level is "bad" ... it's just for my particular needs it might not be a match.

I've been working on a music feature doc for about two years (constantly shooting verite' in extremely low light environments where I have absolutely no control). . Originally I was shooting on the HVX-200 and I kept running into situations where I had no other option but to gain up to sometimes 6db. When the EX1 was released and I got my hand on one I was totally shocked at it's low light performance (so we started shooting on the EX1). I always really missed the ergonomics, gamma, colorspace of Panasonic though.... so when I first heard of the HPX300 I was really excited.

I thought maybe it would've taken all of the great qualities of the HVX200/HPX170 and married them with the EX1/EX3. It looks like for the most part Panasonic has accomplished and added 10bit AVC-INTRA (which is great) , but it looks like the very low light shooting that you can get with the EX1 still won't be matched by the HPX300 :( This probably won't matter to most people, but to me (on this particular project) it might not work.

Unfortunately the production just can't afford larger and more light sensitive (2/3" chip cams which would undoubtedly be the best way to go).


I look forward to getting a hold of one myself and running it through some tests.
thanks for the information.
Michael



Hey Doon:

I believe I have seen Barry post several times on various boards that actual noise is about at the same level as the 170, perhaps a tiny bit cleaner.

Obviously the codec is much better but if you look at the camera's live output, it looked about the same to me as my 170, as far as noise (saw the HPX300 last week at EVS). Cleaner than the 200, but not quite as clean as the EX cameras. A 1/3" imager is still a lot of pixels jammed in a tiny area, no way around it. Now I should say that the image looks better overall though, definitely more latitude, a little better color and a smoothness to the picture that the 170 lacks. The resolution is there that is just not present with the 170/200. I would totally agree with Barry, it has the clarity of the EX cameras but doesn't have the video-like qualities and it has better colorimetry to my eye, just like the 170/200 and all of the upper level P2s.

So the camera looked about the same to me noise-wise (I didn't have a 170 setup into the same monitor to A/B it with) but with the added benefit of the 10bit codec, better lens, etc. In the end, you end up with a noticably cleaner, clearer image in the edit bay. Unfrotunately, was just looking at a slightly lit interior, not a setup with a person with better lighting.

Dan

[Stijn]

Anyone have some EX1 vs hpx300 lowlight shot example's?
Thx in advance!
Stijn

[Emmet Brown]

Hi, hope its allowed to post this link:

http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Panasonic-AG-HPX301E---Kurz-Besuch-der-Vorserie--Vorlaeufige-Testergebnisse-Testlabor.html#Vorl_

There is a sharpness and lowlight comparsion EX 1/ HPX 301 (Pre-Production 301, so there is hope..:-) )

[Stijn]

Hi, hope its allowed to post this link:

http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Panasonic-AG-HPX301E---Kurz-Besuch-der-Vorserie--Vorlaeufige-Testergebnisse-Testlabor.html#Vorl_

There is a sharpness and lowlight comparsion EX 1/ HPX 301 (Pre-Production 301, so there is hope..:-) )
Thx for the article!
Sharpness is very nice but "wow", that low light capability could be alot better.
Weird, as i saw a post on this forum where the guy claims that the hpx300 is like the hpx500 in low light except for a bit more noise in the image... (He compared it himself).

Again, thx for the link Emmet!
Grts.

[alexdias]

The slashcam test looks really different from those first low light tests Barry Green have posted.
From Barry's test the 300 looked slightly less sensitive than the EX's in low light situation. He had published all settings details on both cameras. I've looked for the page but couldn't find.
The slashcam pictures shows a very different reality.
Further tests will be needed to determine the real capabilities of the HPX300.

[SPZ]

It seems like there's some sort of white balance problem there. I certainly wouldn't judge or take any conclusions from these shots.

[Emmet Brown]

I agree with SPZ. Slashcam writes something about "Autogain". But i didnt heard anything about a Autogain-Function at the 300... Think there is no.
I dont know the EX1, but maybe there is such a function... could explain the huge different. EX1 at 12 dB autogain, 300 at 0 dB..... Dont Know...
They say, that there was not much time to test. So...

@ Stijn: I read this post with the 500 comparsion too. Or an similar Post.
This guy has forgott the Extender was in at his 500-lens, he posted later.
So the 500 is definetly more sensitive, but thats okay, is a 2/3 inch...

[Ben Digedig]

I am very dissapointed after a shoot today - properly lit at 4300k. 1080i in 25P mode DVCPro, DRS off, Knee off, -3db gain, black sat down -15. Its absolutely crawling in the darker areas. I cant post a still as I need to deliver this to a client first. Gulp.

[Stijn]

I agree with SPZ. Slashcam writes something about "Autogain". But i didnt heard anything about a Autogain-Function at the 300... Think there is no.
I dont know the EX1, but maybe there is such a function... could explain the huge different. EX1 at 12 dB autogain, 300 at 0 dB..... Dont Know...
They say, that there was not much time to test. So...

@ Stijn: I read this post with the 500 comparsion too. Or an similar Post.
This guy has forgott the Extender was in at his 500-lens, he posted later.
So the 500 is definetly more sensitive, but thats okay, is a 2/3 inch...
I know the extender was on but still i was suprised when he said on his last post, and i qoute :) "All that being said, the 300 is very good in low light conditions but sheds quite a bit more noise than the 500. Surprisingly enough it picked up bats in a near-dark display."

[G.P.]

I am very dissapointed after a shoot today - properly lit at 4300k. 1080i in 25P mode DVCPro, DRS off, Knee off, -3db gain, black sat down -15. Its absolutely crawling in the darker areas. I cant post a still as I need to deliver this to a client first. Gulp.


Once you are allowed to post this, please let me know, I am in the middle of putting together a space on our server that you guys can upload the footage to.

[Ben Digedig]

G - its tricky. I don't want my footage to be linked to anything a bit below standard, or god forbid my client to see it here.

At least I have some anonymity here which gives more options for free discussion than in, shall we say, certain stuffier forums.:smile:

Leave it with me.

BD

[Ben Digedig]

More research...

So, here is a still from a Digi Beta 700 of mine. 2/3" chip, no gain. A camera with a 'superb' front end; not CMOS/MOS.
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u49/sony_sofa/UNCOMPTIFFTOMAXJPGDIGIBETA.jpg

[I exported a 2 field uncomp TIFF, de interlaced and then save as a max res JPG.]

Its noisy and I am seeing similar background grain that I saw on the HPX301.

There is also no doubt that the HPX 301 IS noisier overall (particularly in blacks) - it is also £30k cheaper than this Digi Beta and lens combination.

Judgement slightly reserved, for now as I REALLY need a HDSDI monitor to conclude and especially one that isn't LCD.

BD

[Ben Digedig]

Does anyone care to comment how that looks compared to a HPX?

[alexdias]

Your still from the 700 looks quite "noisy", to compare with the 300 we need "a comparable" shoot out.

As far as price goes, it seems like the HPX300 will always be compared to more expensive cameras.
That's the risk Panasonic took creating such a pro looking package for under U$8K :-)

[Emmet Brown]

alexdias, you are right! Did some shoots with 301 and watched them in P2-Viewer on my HD-PC-LCD... Little bit noisy in dark areas... Then i watched the Indiana Jones 4 Bluray via HDMI on my Full-HD Sony Bravia... There was much more noise!! On a Hollywood Supermovie-Bluray! Go back one Step and it looks great! Maybe the noise is just normal and depends to the LCD-Technoligy... I dont know... But i love the Cam!

[G.P.]

alexdias, you are right! Did some shoots with 301 and watched them in P2-Viewer on my HD-PC-LCD... Little bit noisy in dark areas... Then i watched the Indiana Jones 4 Bluray via HDMI on my Full-HD Sony Bravia... There was much more noise!! On a Hollywood Supermovie-Bluray! Go back one Step and it looks great! Maybe the noise is just normal and depends to the LCD-Technoligy... I dont know... But i love the Cam!


I noticed that the "noise" that we are seeing on the hpx300 footage is much more rapid moving which tends to make it more distracting than normal noise. Also there seems to be these large black dots that are like "super noise" the black dots pop in and out rapidly in what seems to be the same area and its not as random, but more localized in the picture.

[USLatin]

It would seem that comparison for low light on the German site is completely useless due to the gain not being set the same or in a comparable way, right?

I went through Barry's article and he says it will be about ISO 500. And good noise levels at least as good as the 170, correct?

So the question for narrative work will be, how does it look with something like an SGblade or Ultimate. Can you guys share links to this if you have them?

[Barry_Green]

In my testing, at 0dB of gain, yes the ISO is 500. You should see, in the worst possible case, about 1/2 stop of difference between an HPX300 and an EX1/EX3.

For noise, in general the 300 has the same or lower noise levels than the HPX170. For some reason the factory has decided to ship the HPX300 everywhere but in the USA with the master pedestal set grossly high, which exaggerates all sorts of noise in the image and makes the overall image look like dog crap. Set the MP back down to zero, and consider running with -3dB of gain, and you should have lower noise levels than the 170 in pretty much all scenarios.

[Ben Digedig]

In my testing, at 0dB of gain, yes the ISO is 500. You should see, in the worst possible case, about 1/2 stop of difference between an HPX300 and an EX1/EX3.

For noise, in general the 300 has the same or lower noise levels than the HPX170. For some reason the factory has decided to ship the HPX300 everywhere but in the USA with the master pedestal set grossly high, which exaggerates all sorts of noise in the image and makes the overall image look like dog crap. Set the MP back down to zero, and consider running with -3dB of gain, and you should have lower noise levels than the 170 in pretty much all scenarios.

Damn I wish it was prudent of me to post this still image I have, taken at -3dB and at a sensible ped... Soon - clients ARE happy with it; phew!

Barry what IS the S/N ratio of the camera? It is not disclosed anywhere as far as I can see. Not even here on page 161 in the user manual ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/provideo/op_manuals/AG-HPX300P_oi.pdf .

As I've said before v e r y fishy...

D

[USLatin]

Damn I wish it was prudent of me to post this still image I have, taken at -3dB and at a sensible ped... Soon - clients ARE happy with it; phew!

Barry what IS the S/N ratio of the camera? It is not disclosed anywhere as far as I can see. Not even here on page 161 in the user manual ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/provideo/op_manuals/AG-HPX300P_oi.pdf .

As I've said before v e r y fishy...

D

Why would it not be OK for you to post footage?

[Barry_Green]

Panasonic has never disclosed the S/N ratio on any AG-series product, IINM. You may think that's fishy, but it's typical. They publish S/N on the AJ-series, but not the AG-series.

Could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

[Ben Digedig]

Why would it not be OK for you to post footage?

Explained earlier in thread...

[Ben Digedig]

Panasonic has never disclosed the S/N ratio on any AG-series product, IINM. You may think that's fishy, but it's typical. They publish S/N on the AJ-series, but not the AG-series.

Could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

I concur. Easy to find the S/N on an EX3 mind...

Wonder what I'd do in their position? Especially knowing that 0-60 time is NOT the ultimate mark of a car although a published and open common spec for ALL cars...). Caveat emptor???? BD

[Barry_Green]

0-60 time? That's rarely ever published by car manufacturers.

By car magazine reviews, yes. But by manufacturers? I can't think of a time when I've ever seen a 0-60 time listed in specifications. Occasionally in an ad, but not in the specs.

It wasn't that long ago that no car even listed horsepower figures. Rolls Royce used to just publish the term "adequate."

[USLatin]

Explained earlier in thread...

Oops... sorry. :D

EDIT: Well actually, it doesn't. There are mentions of not being allowed to post yet, but never why. You might be confusing it with an other thread?


0-60 time? That's rarely ever published by car manufacturers.

By car magazine reviews, yes. But by manufacturers? I can't think of a time when I've ever seen a 0-60 time listed in specifications. Occasionally in an ad, but not in the specs.

It wasn't that long ago that no car even listed horsepower figures. Rolls Royce used to just publish the term "adequate."

Well, they do however tell the magazine writers what their 0-60 claims are. This is some sort of indirect publishing.

[Ben Digedig]

US Latin - mate I'll spell it out! Who wants to show a shot of a clients' picture they have aconcern about- especially before the cheque arrives!!!

And B, re 0-60, its in my BMW manual & generally when its any good the manufacturers crow about it...:Drogar-Thinking(DBG

D

[hotchkiss]

US Latin - mate I'll spell it out! Who wants to show a shot of a clients' picture they have aconcern about- especially before the cheque arrives!!!

And B, re 0-60, its in my BMW manual & generally when its any good the manufacturers crow about it...:Drogar-Thinking(DBG

D

Ben,

So... do you still have concerns about the noise levels in the 300, or did adjusting the master ped , -3db etc.. mitigate those concerns?

[Cees Mutsaers]

Not that is important but in Europe every manufacturer of cars publishes the acceleration time from 0-60 miles/hour and the top speed (as well as fuel consumption under various circumstances).


0-60 time? That's rarely ever published by car manufacturers.

By car magazine reviews, yes. But by manufacturers? I can't think of a time when I've ever seen a 0-60 time listed in specifications. Occasionally in an ad, but not in the specs.

It wasn't that long ago that no car even listed horsepower figures. Rolls Royce used to just publish the term "adequate."

[Ben Digedig]

Ben,

So... do you still have concerns about the noise levels in the 300, or did adjusting the master ped , -3db etc.. mitigate those concerns?

I used -3dB no DRS etc mate, properly lit...and yes I still have concerns, but need to do more research - that 700 still after all is hardly noise free is it...

I can e-mail you the still if you are at a buying decision point, and if it will help you.

Noise doesn't move in stills which kind kills this subject here a bit mind..

BD

[hotchkiss]

I used -3dB no DRS etc mate, properly lit...and yes I still have concerns, but need to do more research - that 700 still after all is hardly noise free is it...

I can e-mail you the still if you are at a buying decision point, and if it will help you.

Noise doesn't move in stills which kind kills this subject here a bit mind..

BD

Ben,

An emailed still would be great, thank you. I'm getting pretty close to making a decision, as one of my clients just gave the green light for 300 use. Otherwise I'll continue to rent a HPX 500 for them, which I'd rather not do. The money I've spent in rentals over the past six months would have nearly paid for a 300 kit.

I'm not particularly noise-phobic, but if there is some particularly disturbing noise then I have my concerns. Barry (and others) have mentioned that the 300's noise is on par with the 170, if that's the case then I have no worries as the 170 is just fine with me. I'm not expecting this camera to be the cleanest thing out there, just reasonable enough. And yeah, the 700 isn't quite noise free ;-). That's some tough competition to be compared to.

Is the movement pattern of the noise what concerns you, or is it the amount of noise ?

Regardless, I'd love to get a still from you. It's appreciated.

P.S. About ten years ago, I had a shoot in Wales. I absolutely fell in love with the landscape and the country. I've always wanted to return with my family on vacation. Someday...

[Barry_Green]

Not that is important but in Europe every manufacturer of cars publishes the acceleration time from 0-60 miles/hour and the top speed (as well as fuel consumption under various circumstances).
Really? Wild. Over here I've never seen a 0-60 time published as a spec, and certainly not a top speed! The car magazines will occasionally run tests to find out what the top speed is, but the manufacturers don't publish it.

Interesting. Yet another difference of Europe vs. USA...

[puredrifting]

Basically, in the U.S., if it is fun or cool, it is banned. In California, even what is cool and fun and isn't banned in the other 49 states, it is banned here. I can't even buy Denton Dr, Pepper in California even though all of the other states can order it from their website. Something about the silk screening on the bottles isn't safe, even though for the rest of the world it is.

California is a bureaucratic nightmare.

No fireworks, no switchblades, no class 3 licenses, no concealed carry permits, etc.

Dan

[Ben Digedig]

Hotch - PM your e-mail addy. Or you are welcome to pop over as its sunny next week;) Later I could also try to squirt you out a 5" clip as a massive mp4 too. I do feel your pain.

Barry - check out my wheelz dude http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications_detail/?seriesID=5&bodyID=LI&modelTypeKey=Z5S8 Its limited to 155mph like all German cars . I took the 'in-dash' P2 card option and offload to HDD on the drive back ;) Wicked!

BD

[Ben Digedig]

Puredrifting (damn we got onto cars & I'm a petrolhead with an Evo too) look what happened here today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8035511.stm Ohh the sweet irony as the misery foisted on millions of safe diligent drivers here, and all based on a 'computer says NO' principle for minor speeding transgressions. And then this hypocritical guy milking it all goes and drives like a lunatic...

[Barry_Green]

Okay, so -- I checked out that BMW UK link and saw that yes, you guys are right, the specs are right there.

So I thought "well, I'll show you the US link, and how it's not listed here" -- but... it is! They publish 0-60 and top speed specs on the 550i page. I've never seen that before.

So I went to the Lexus site -- and for the 2009 IS F, and for the hybrids, it flat-out shows a 0-60 time.

So then I went to the Chevy site to look up the Corvette -- no 0-60 time published.

The Dodge site, for the Viper -- yep, it lists it.

Ford Mustang? nope, not listed. Nor for the Fusion or the Taurus or any of their models that I looked at (which were not all, obviously).

Hyundai? Nope.

So, wild -- I'd never seen anyone publish those specs, and yet clearly some of them now do. Like I said before, there was a phase where they wouldn't even publish horsepower specs. Used to be the only performance specs you can find at all are fuel economy and maybe noise level.

Wild.

[Ben Digedig]

I'll have the 'all above board' 550i then Barry (but not the fuel bill!) My Diesel burner does 38mpg regularly; I'd miss that :) D

[hotchkiss]

Basically, in the U.S., if it is fun or cool, it is banned. In California, even what is cool and fun and isn't banned in the other 49 states, it is banned here. I can't even buy Denton Dr, Pepper in California even though all of the other states can order it from their website. Something about the silk screening on the bottles isn't safe, even though for the rest of the world it is.

California is a bureaucratic nightmare.

No fireworks, no switchblades, no class 3 licenses, no concealed carry permits, etc.

Dan

I prefer the term "totalitarian nightmare" to describe California. Coming soon to a country near you....Oh that pesky little document called the Constitution, it's "so yesterday".

What would we do without the states efforts to protect us from ourselves ? The road to serfdom is always paved with good intentions.

Concealed carry ? I just carry mine on my hip . ;-)

I feel your pain Dan.

[hotchkiss]

Puredrifting (damn we got onto cars & I'm a petrolhead with an Evo too) look what happened here today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8035511.stm Ohh the sweet irony as the misery foisted on millions of safe diligent drivers here, and all based on a 'computer says NO' principle for minor speeding transgressions. And then this hypocritical guy milking it all goes and drives like a lunatic...

PM sent.

I'd love to pop on over, but I'd have some explaining to do with the wife... ;-O

[puredrifting]

Poop on over? Is that what they call it in AZ? Weird man! ;-)

Dan

[hotchkiss]

Poop on over? Is that what they call it in AZ? Weird man! ;-)

Dan

Doh... The error has been duly noted and appropriate embarrassment has been experienced. This could have initiated an international incident.

[G.P.]

Is the movement pattern of the noise what concerns you, or is it the amount of noise ?




To me the movement is the most distracting, its so fast and erratic it really does draw your eyes right to it

[Ben Digedig]

I prefer the term "totalitarian nightmare" to describe California. Coming soon to a country near you....Oh that pesky little document called the Constitution, it's "so yesterday".

What would we do without the states efforts to protect us from ourselves ? The road to serfdom is always paved with good intentions.

Concealed carry ? I just carry mine on my hip . ;-)

I feel your pain Dan.

We do digress, and I think violence begets violence/size of gun carried... I'm 'armless myself :)

We now get nannied here in UK to a ridiculous level mind - it creates jobs after all... They now want to spend $$$$billions on ID cards that most of us want to stuff up their @rses and that every terrorist will want so to copy with rather basic technology...

Back to cams & the PM's for stills - I will happily send tomorr and a sub 10Mb video file too ifyou like.

BD

[puredrifting]

It's all between friends hotchkiss. Made me laugh a bit, that's all.

[Ben Digedig]

To me the movement is the most distracting, its so fast and erratic it really does draw your eyes right to it

G - yes...its busy..esp in blacks...dammit. BD

[shapna]

We do digress, and I think violence begets violence/size of gun carried... I'm 'armless myself :)

We now get nannied here in UK to a ridiculous level mind - it creates jobs after all... They now want to spend $$$$billions on ID cards that most of us want to stuff up their @rses and that every terrorist will want so to copy with rather basic technology...

Back to cams & the PM's for stills - I will happily send tomorr and a sub 10Mb video file too ifyou like.

BD


Please Ben, send me the links or any thing you have for the hpx 300, i have to make a decision in the next few days. also a sent a PM.

Thanks a lot.

Damian

[puredrifting]

Damian:

PM me for my phone number if you want to call me and discuss. I shot a big project on the HPX300 last month. I am writing a thirty page or so article on my experience right now but it won't be published on the web for a week or two. We have just finished post and saw no black speck issues or really too many issues of any kind, clients are thrilled and the project is destined for a small theatrical exhibition of sorts.

Shot side by side with the HPX170 and HVX200 so I can tell you about the differences as well. Great camera for the money. Far from perfect but very impressive.

Dan

[alexreina]

Hi,
We have a serious problem with the two 301's we just received some days ago.
We went to shooting at 1080i recording to 25pn, AVCi, and the result was so much noise in midtones as I never saw in any camera before (even comparing with my old HVX200 first series).
We tried different settings, all 1080i/p, but the result was really bad. We had very good previous reports and images from that camera, and we saw it in London at the Broadcast Show, but in practice the camera is almost unsable in all 1080 resolutions.

I reported to the seller, than have been contacted by Panasonic UK, very kind but no solutions untill now. I see the problem as a faulty design of the MOS image sensor. Any kind of software "repair" will degrade the image.
I am sending some frames, we shoot with some new settings from Panasonic to relief the problem, we exported direct from QT/AVCintra comp to frames of the 200 shooting at the same conditions, at same time. Or see it in annex if I can upload it. If this is the best result you can imagine the worst...

[shapna]

Damian:

PM me for my phone number if you want to call me and discuss. I shot a big project on the HPX300 last month. I am writing a thirty page or so article on my experience right now but it won't be published on the web for a week or two. We have just finished post and saw no black speck issues or really too many issues of any kind, clients are thrilled and the project is destined for a small theatrical exhibition of sorts.

Shot side by side with the HPX170 and HVX200 so I can tell you about the differences as well. Great camera for the money. Far from perfect but very impressive.

Dan

Send you the PM

thank you

[hotchkiss]

It's all between friends hotchkiss. Made me laugh a bit, that's all.

It was received that way :-). Thank goodness for the "modify" function on this forum.... The eighth grader within is giggling nonetheless.

[hotchkiss]

Hi,
We have a serious problem with the two 301's we just received some days ago.
We went to shooting at 1080i recording to 25pn, AVCi, and the result was so much noise in midtones as I never saw in any camera before (even comparing with my old HVX200 first series).
We tried different settings, all 1080i/p, but the result was really bad. We had very good previous reports and images from that camera, and we saw it in London at the Broadcast Show, but in practice the camera is almost unsable in all 1080 resolutions.

I reported to the seller, than have been contacted by Panasonic UK, very kind but no solutions untill now. I see the problem as a faulty design of the MOS image sensor. Any kind of software "repair" will degrade the image.
I am sending some frames, we shoot with some new settings from Panasonic to relief the problem, we exported direct from QT/AVCintra comp to frames of the 200 shooting at the same conditions, at same time. Or see it in annex if I can upload it. If this is the best result you can imagine the worst...

Alexreina,

Could you please provide some setting info to help us understand what we are looking at?

• db setting
• master pedestal ( I'm wondering if it was at the Euro default of +15 )
• was DRS on ?
• Did you see these same issues in 720, DVCpro 50 ?

Thanks

[hotchkiss]

We do digress, and I think violence begets violence/size of gun carried... I'm 'armless myself :)

I no more equate violence with guns than I do with the automobile, whose death toll in our country far exceeds that from guns. Guns are intended to kill, cars are for transportation. I abhor violence as well. When it comes to that matter the state is without peer.


We now get nannied here in UK to a ridiculous level mind - it creates jobs after all... They now want to spend $$$$billions on ID cards that most of us want to stuff up their @rses and that every terrorist will want so to copy with rather basic technology...

We have the "Real ID" card coming online, although it has been set back by those last vestiges of sanity that still remain in this country. Apparently, it was the lack of proper ID cards that allowed 911 to happen. Not to fear, the illustrious members of our TSA will protect us from any further harm. Speaking of "creating jobs", and speaking of absurdist theater...

That's all to say that both of our countries would be vastly improved if we were to collectively stuff these ID cards and Orwellian initiatives up their collective @rses. Now it's my turn to digress.... :-0


Back to cams & the PM's for stills - I will happily send tomorr and a sub 10Mb video file too ifyou like.

Yes, back to the cam and sub 10Mb video files- that would be great when you get a chance. Two more points of clarification: was your client happy or unhappy with the 300 footage afterall ? Secondly, is the 300 footage less, more, or equal to the 700's noise?

Sorry, I wasn't quite clear on those points.

[AwakenedFilms]

wow this thread has gone on a tangent...


J

[alexreina]

the settings sent by Panasonic:
DRS OFF
DETAIL LEVEL= -2
V DETAIL LEVEL = -2
DETAIL CORING = -1
CHROMA LEVEL = -2
MASTER PED = +4
GAMMA = HD NORM or SD NORM
LOW GAIN = -3dB
MID GAIN = 0dB
HIGH GAIN = +3dB

we tested in 720p AVCi and DVCproHD and the resul is better, you can see the noise but in a acceptable level . we did not tested in DVCpro50.

[USLatin]

I can't remember in which sample I saw it but there it is again, the noise in the mids which is so visible. Not that I mind it, but I thought it was supposed to be much cleaner.

[Martin Rose]

Hi,
We have a serious problem with the two 301's we just received some days ago.
We went to shooting at 1080i recording to 25pn, AVCi, and the result was so much noise in midtones as I never saw in any camera before (even comparing with my old HVX200 first series).
We tried different settings, all 1080i/p, but the result was really bad. We had very good previous reports and images from that camera, and we saw it in London at the Broadcast Show, but in practice the camera is almost unsable in all 1080 resolutions.

I reported to the seller, than have been contacted by Panasonic UK, very kind but no solutions untill now. I see the problem as a faulty design of the MOS image sensor. Any kind of software "repair" will degrade the image.
I am sending some frames, we shoot with some new settings from Panasonic to relief the problem, we exported direct from QT/AVCintra comp to frames of the 200 shooting at the same conditions, at same time. Or see it in annex if I can upload it. If this is the best result you can imagine the worst...

I would agree totally!
The only way I can see of getting rid of the dreaded black spots is to shoot at -3 gain, detail at -7 and DRS off which rather limits the multi purpose use of the camera
Barry mentioned that there were no black speckles on the Hpx300 that was at Nab.
Maybe that one had newer firmware
Here is a extreme example dark picture shot +6db gain, coring +5, Detail 0, black level was at -4 I think

[USLatin]

It is hard to compare because of the differences in form factor and chip resolution being different, but if the noise can't be tamed I am disappointed. An EX or a 170 seem much better of a choice atm.

However I see a lot of you talking about possible fixes, so I guess there is still hope.

Is that why some people say you are not allowed to post stuff? Is it because this camera is still in development of sorts?

[Martin Rose]

It would seem that comparison for low light on the German site is completely useless due to the gain not being set the same or in a comparable way, right?

I went through Barry's article and he says it will be about ISO 500. And good noise levels at least as good as the 170, correct?

So the question for narrative work will be, how does it look with something like an SGblade or Ultimate. Can you guys share links to this if you have them?


I think they might have put the wrong Ex3 pic up
If you go to conclusion the click then link for the hpx300/Ex3 comparison you will see that the 12lux pictures look closer. Aso you can download the hi rez versions.
I know that they only had the camera for a short time but at least they could have got the color balance right

Martin

[Ben Digedig]

Send you the PM

thank you

Meet me half way...include an e-mail address!!! BD

[Ben Digedig]

PM sent.

I'd love to pop on over, but I'd have some explaining to do with the wife... ;-O

I'ver sent you a still - max res jpg from an uncompressed 11Mb TIFF. Also a link to a 30Mb 2" clip via an embedded AAF export.

BD

[Ben Digedig]

Yes, back to the cam and sub 10Mb video files- that would be great when you get a chance. Two more points of clarification: was your client happy or unhappy with the 300 footage afterall ? Secondly, is the 300 footage less, more, or equal to the 700's noise?


High end client was happy and is settling invoice today. Phew!!!

The noise on the 300 is far greater than the 700 and the lower the IRE value (luminance level) the greater the noise.

On the weekend I test bread and butter DV mode. This will be MY footage so can do/post what I want with it! I can also properly monitor this on a CRT at full res rather than using pesky LCD panels. It is however a valid comparable using same LCD panel as I view the 700 material on.

BD

[hotchkiss]

I can't remember in which sample I saw it but there it is again, the noise in the mids which is so visible. Not that I mind it, but I thought it was supposed to be much cleaner.

I'm seeing the same thing throughout all of the posted video, the noise in the mid levels is the most conspicuous.

As an aside, a local retailer is having a 300 demo day today here in town. If time permits I'll be attending. I'm going to try and pop in a card and replicate some of these issues for myself.

Is there anything I can check on for folks here ? I'll head over to the demo in about six hours time, so post a request in the mean time if so.

[Ben Digedig]

Hotch - glad the stuff I sent helped.

On your test you have to assign the DRS off/on to a user button - so dig deep in the menus!

Here is still with DRS on, 0Db, blacks -11 from a SD DV setting. I could see the hair area crawling in the viewfinder, but I have no noise issues with the still...
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u49/sony_sofa/face_0dB_DRSHIGH_black-12_stdSDDV.jpg

I'm nailing this cam on the weekend and getting definitive answers on all the stuff we worry about. Again it will be my material and I'll upload freely.

BD

[renhinks]

I'm seeing the same thing throughout all of the posted video, the noise in the mid levels is the most conspicuous.

As an aside, a local retailer is having a 300 demo day today here in town. If time permits I'll be attending. I'm going to try and pop in a card and replicate some of these issues for myself.

Is there anything I can check on for folks here ? I'll head over to the demo in about six hours time, so post a request in the mean time if so.

Looks you and I went to the same demo - at EAR in Phx, correct?

I had them set up a 300 and a 170 up, side by side, shot a static of lit flowers against a green screen using 1080i 60i with both cameras and created 3 short clips: an AVC-Intra100 and a DVCPRO HD both on the 300, and a DVCPRO HD on the 170. I set both cams to cinegama (Scene File F6) and matched the master ped of -2, and detail coring at +5. I couldn't determine if the DRS was on on the 300 as I was running out of time (everyone wanted to go home - I could have spent the entire day there). I do believe the 170 menu reported DRS off but I'm not sure it is the same function on both cameras. I don't recall seeing a DRS setting on a 200 on which I have most of my experience using a Panny.

The most important thing I was looking for was the crawling noise I have always noticed in the low mids on a 200 for instance and seems to defy defining in a still because, I would agree with someone who posted somewhere here not long ago, that the distraction seems more the Movement of the "noise" than the noise itself, so to speak. There was another shooter with me there and was quite vocal about how one should evaluate images on a great monitor as a client would, not magnified 3x or something, even though that kind of scrutiny might provide clues to an image that seems "off" if it can't be categorized otherwise.

So what I saw surprised me and yet made sense. The most striking thing among the three shots was the amount of clarity and depth of color one saw with either 300 shot compared to the 170's shot - that's what got my attention, not noise in the 30 IRE or so. And although at the time of the test, we had thought that it seemed obvious that we were seeing the difference (among several factors I'm sure) between 10 bit's quantizing output of 1024 values versus 8 Bit's 256, in retrospect, looking at the 300's spec sheet later this evening, I read that 10 bit processing is only used with the AVCIntra format, so the almost identical dynamic, gorgeous shots from the 300 seem to be endemic to the camera overall, at least in 1080 mode. If there had been time, I really wanted to go to 720 as that has been the mode I've shot in the last couple of years.

As to noise, it was not evident full screen, as a client would see it, in pause or running from any of the cam's shots. It's possible that it existed and would be evident if compared to a 30k and upwards camera (which we didn't do) side by side but as it was viewed straight out of the camera on a $6k Panny monitor, none of us saw objectionable noise in any part of the picture and instead commented on the obvious picture quality differences. Now, this was an extremely limited test and other shooting situations might create very different results. My attempt today was simply to try and compare one little aspect - get a handle on what one can expect if one is used to shooting on a 170 or 200.

As to the diff between the 300's AVCIntra 100 shot and the DVCPRO HD shot: the AVC-Intra was slightly smoother but oddly enough, the DVCPRO HD lack of "smoothness" made it seem more dynamic, 3D looking to me than the smoother version - but no one else really felt that way. Whatever the difference was, one REALLY had to look hard to see it.

So what made sense, aside from any creature features or the user interface, camera form factor, etc, the 300's imagery, as tested in our little setup at 1080 justified a camera that costs roughly twice as much as the 170. Noise, if indeed present, would not have been a deciding purchasing issue in our evaluation of the camera based on this test.

Notice that I didn't mention skew - we/I weren't testing for that, and although I did bring it up at one point today, the rep wouldn't say anything more than one imager is scanned (MOS), the other is not, hence skew issues for the 300. I mentioned the faster chip read mod someone else here had posted as a fixit down the road, but the rep didn't touch that comment. The only fixit mentioned was something to remove still flash lighting glitches where part of the frame is lit by a flash going off in mid scan, a software post-process using a frame before or after to correct the bad frame.

So the owner of the store has said he is going to publish the three clips on their blog. And depending on the format of what he ends up publishing (H.264 or something too compressed to be useful), you all may want these three clips to be also available on Giuseppe's FTP in native format. Now I know people had asked for the clips that have been sent to date to remain in P2 format, but that has made it difficult for folks who don't have the ability to convert AVC-Intra clips (like me) because they have PPC and not Intel Macs. But assuming for the moment, that people are mostly using FCP to edit, it makes sense to me for me to publish the AVCIntra 100 clip as a converted ProRes file - that's what would be used for the edit ultimately anyway. Even if there is a ProRes "footprint" as has been suggested, if one is editing in FCP, one is going to have to live with it (unless I've missed something in the latest workflow paradigms offered of late). So unless someone has a better idea, objection, or general lack of interest, sometime early next week I'll send a ProRes file and 2 DVCPro HD files to Giuseppe's FTP. The three files are all 10 secs or less - shouldn't be too big - waaay shorter than this post anyway :).

whew...

[USLatin]

Ok, since I don't know where it was mentioned what can and can not be posted I'll just ask. Could you post the three frames? I would love to compare the 300 with the 170.

[Ben Digedig]

Great post renhinks :)

Its probably good for you to do the Pro Res transcode/re-wrap for FCP boys.

I'm doing AVC as 'native' P2 MXF this weekend as a test and this just flies into Avid without any transcodes/tweaks. Unusual for Avid to be ahead, but they had to catch up at some point - the workflow is beautiful! I edit ON the card for mega quick turnarounds.

BD

[hotchkiss]

renhinks,

Yes it was the EAR demo. ;-)

AVCintra 100 1080 24PN

I shot some down and dirty tests, requesting that the DRS be turned off by the Panny rep, so if you had the same camera as I , it was probably still off late in the afternoon.

I haven't had a chance to download the footage yet so I can't comment fully on the footage, but I can chime in via the Readers Digest version FWIW. My primary concerns were the noise complaints and skew concerns.

In regards to noise, and evaluating through the monitors they had set-up, it's definitely not a low light wonder cam, and I would avoid cranking the gain up past +3db unless (ENG stuff) needed. Yeah it's not as clean as the 500 or cameras costing twice what the 300 does, no question. However, at it's price point and considering it's feature set and form factor it's a deal. Ultimately, I'm going to reserve judgement on the noise until I'm able to view more comprehensive tests from the likes of Ben D. and others. Like you, my main work station is a G5 (with FCP 5.1.4) , but I do have an Intel laptop that I can view the clips I shot in P2CMS.

As for skew I went out on the street and did some panning shots of cars going by. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, with most cars going 40-45 mph. I shot long lens shots trying to fill the frame and then zoomed out as they went by. They weren't race cars or otherwise traveling super fast, but there did not appear to be any objectionable skewing. That's not to say that the camera doesn't skew, but for my purposes it most likely will not be an issue. The truth will be in the viewing of course.

I pointedly asked about a skew fix as well, and got a similar answer. The flash band fix is very likely the only modification they will be making to improve the cmos issues. A skew fix is not in the cards. Of course we could always be surprised.

I'll post back after viewing the goods.

[renhinks]

Great post renhinks :)

Its probably good for you to do the Pro Res transcode/re-wrap for FCP boys.

I'm doing AVC as 'native' P2 MXF this weekend as a test and this just flies into Avid without any transcodes/tweaks. Unusual for Avid to be ahead, but they had to catch up at some point - the workflow is beautiful! I edit ON the card for mega quick turnarounds.

BD

Ahh, I was wondering if there was an NLE out there able to use AVCIntra natively. And AVID no less?? - you're right, I would have not expected them to be out in front. I can see now why people would want samples posted in the original wrappers. What I had thought prior to your post here was that it might be some obscure editing box that hardly anyone used. I'll have the dealer unwrap the AVCIntra example into ProRes then - maybe post both versions.

Looks like I jumped ship to FCP too soon :) - I was an AVID editor for 10 years until 03. Your workflow sounds slick.

All of this brings to a head for me if, or how, I'm going to field offload P2 cards in the near term (now that I'm buying a cam and won't be renting a P2Store) and how much I should take into account the ability of a laptop (I have both a PC and a Macbook Pro sans FCP), if that's what I use, to transcode as well. But my musings on this are another thread so I'll stop here.

[lyonfilms]

We spent the $75 bucks to try Calibrated Software's plugin that allows FCP to work with the AVC-Intra files in their native state without transcode.

The good - works fine.
The bad - There are no FCP presets for AVC-Intra, so you do need to make sure you set your sequence manually as the timeline won't just adjust to the clip. Also, the clip comes in with a red bar and therefore needs to be rendered in the timeline in order to play back smoothly.

So, not a bad way to handle the AVC-Intra without transcode. Not perfect though.

Here is the link: http://www.calibratedsoftware.com/

I have no affiliation with the company.

[renhinks]

Yes it was the EAR demo. ;-)

AVCintra 100 1080 24PN

I shot some down and dirty tests, requesting that the DRS be turned off by the Panny rep, so if you had the same camera as I , it was probably still off late in the afternoon.



There were two 300s there until the rep took off with his. What I used was EAR's demo cam so I'm not sure if we used the same bird. I don't usually shoot 60i and I was hoping to work my way down to 24pN in both 1080 and 720 (but ran out ofd time), so it's conceivable noise could creep up in other formats and certainly a broader range of shooting scenarios than what I spent time on.

What is tweaking me (and my meager budget) is that now that I've seen comparable images from both the 170 and the 300, my plans to buy a 170 this month are being re-evaluated - constantly - I think I'm even dreamed from inside a viewfinder last night! However, there are lots of times in my style of shooting where the smaller form factor of the 170 makes it almost a must-have. I have lived with the rented 200's noise the past two years mainly because the clients I have had appreciated my low budgets more than they objected to (if they even noticed it at all) the occasional squirmy shot. I have become quite intimate with FCP's 3-way color corrector, it occasionally competing with my girlfriend's Jammie'd glare and oft repeated "When are you coming to bed?", most often met with me muttering slurs about contemporary production standards and wondering why I ever moved from LA into the sticks.

The plan at the moment is that EAR is going to let me have the 170 demo out for a shoot next weekend. Then, depending on my tolerance for mental anguish, I thought I should also take the 300 out for a test drive before I plunk down my money, although, based on some posts here, I'm not sure I should be shooting the 300 for a client when I do. But, given what I've seen to date, aside from the larger size, the superior imagery and good value of the 300 is sure giving me pause.

[G.P.]

So unless someone has a better idea, objection, or general lack of interest, sometime early next week I'll send a ProRes file and 2 DVCPro HD files to Giuseppe's FTP. The three files are all 10 secs or less - shouldn't be too big - waaay shorter than this post anyway :).

whew...

I will gladly post up the ProRes files, please contact me when they are done.

[Barry_Green]

Ahh, I was wondering if there was an NLE out there able to use AVCIntra natively.
Sure there are. EDIUS 5 has native AVC-Intra support, and Premiere Pro CS4.1 has it; they were demonstrating it at NAB. And Avid. I'm sure there are lots more at the higher levels, but as of right now those are prosumer-priced and they have native support.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, FCP can do it on an Intel mac if you have installed the AVC-Intra codec and the Calibrated MXF plug-in.

[Barry_Green]

What is tweaking me (and my meager budget) is that now that I've seen comparable images from both the 170 and the 300, my plans to buy a 170 this month are being re-evaluated - constantly
I know what you're saying. I go back and forth on whether I should sell my 170 and put the dough towards a 300. The image is much nicer. However, the form factor of the 170 is so fantastic! And no CMOS issues... When we came back from Africa both Kevin and I were torn on this same issue, because we used both cameras there, and frankly I think I appreciated my 170 more and more as I became more exposed to the 300.

But no doubt, the 300's image is sharper and cleaner, especially in AVC-I, but even in DVCPRO-HD it's still noticeably better.

And less noisy. Not a lot less, but a little.

[renhinks]

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, FCP can do it on an Intel mac if you have installed the AVC-Intra codec and the Calibrated MXF plug-in.

Me still PPC. And even if I ponied up for a Mac Pro, the constant re-rendering in FCP using the Calibrated MXF plug-in would be enough to put me off my feed.

But when the 300 becomes a reality for me (as well as an upgrade to FCP 6.0.5 or the Next Generation - 7.0 ? - that (hopefully) incorporates AVC-Intra natively) - and I really think you sent me off on the right track about this with your Africa article - by end of year, I'd like to own both cams, although the intercutting, based on my little test yesterday, would have to be shots that don't have to visually dovetail - I saw too much difference between the 2 images.

Now, my test was in 1080, which I've not been shooting to date - 720 24pN is where I've been living the past year or so and that is what I need to compare next time I'm up to my dealer. The 170 CCD images might come somewhat closer to being able to compete with the 300's 2.2mp 1920x1080 images if one levels the playing ground by shooting in a resolution closer to native for the 170 - 720 or even SD. I may be (way) over-simplifying the tech behind my understanding of this, but I'm rushing to get out the door and act like a normal person on a Friday night - eeehah.

[hotchkiss]

Renhinks,

Good to hear that even the 300's DVCPRO HD image is a step forward from it's predecessors.

The heavy CPU requirements of the 300 are a bummer , for field use in particular. My latest thinking is that I'll shoot DVCPROHD on the 300 in the interim until adequate field dumping/viewing gear for AVC-i becomes necessary or paid for by a job that requires it.

In the mean time I have the capabilities of the 300. MY impetus for buying this cam comes from a client who I've been renting a 500 for ( and shooting 1080/30P DVCPRO HD). I have a built in ROI with this camera. I do have a 200 and 170, but this client require a large form factor P2 camera.

I was going to sell the 200 to help off set the potential 300 purchase, but then I land a client that wants to shoot SD DV on tape- go figure.

So...buy the camera for DVCPRO HD now and utilize the AVC-i down the road.

Just thinking out loud.

[Cees Mutsaers]

That is a strange requirement.



[quote=hotchkiss;1633049]Renhinks,

................. but this client require a large form factor P2 camera.

[Barry_Green]

Now, my test was in 1080, which I've not been shooting to date - 720 24pN is where I've been living the past year or so and that is what I need to compare next time I'm up to my dealer. The 170 CCD images might come somewhat closer to being able to compete with the 300's 2.2mp 1920x1080 images if one levels the playing ground by shooting in a resolution closer to native for the 170 - 720 or even SD.
Well... yes and no.

The 170 can generate an image that's about 1440 x 810. So it's more than 720 can handle, and most particularly it's a lot more than DVCPRO-HD 720p can handle. It's a pretty good match for DVCPRO-HD in the horizontal; DVCPRO-HD 1080 stores 1280x1080. So I've always recommended that if you want to get the most out of a 170 or 200, you should be using 1080 mode.

720 mode might seem like it's a better match, but you then lose 33% of the horizontal resolution due to the codec's prefilter down to 960, so -- 720p mode isn't optimal for an HVX or HPX170. 1080 mode is sharper, and noticeably less compressed.

Either way, a 170 can't match a 300 for sharpness in either mode, unless you're comparing dVCPRO-HD 720pN mode against dvcpRO-HD 720pN mode. If you're comparing 720p AVC-I on a 300 against 720p DVCPRO-HD on a 170, the 300 is gonna smoke the 170 in all ways.

But dvcpRO-HD to DVCPRO-HD, 720 to 720, that would be the closest those two will look to each other.

[Ben Digedig]

Hotch - i still feel your pain and you make me laugh - dreaming from inside the viewfinder indeed! I do relate! Y mi amigo en Buenos Aires Damian - tranquilo por un poco mas tiempo!!!

I have a much better handle on the camera now after tests this weekend and will try and upload/post tomorr.

I have made major changes to the settings and, although noise can be a big issue, I have also achieved some truly stunning results too (and that is feedback based on watching them at usual half res on the P2 viewer). If only I had an HDSDI CRT - I would probably be dancing in the streets!!!

More later...

BD

[renhinks]

Well... yes and no.

The 170 can generate an image that's about 1440 x 810. So it's more than 720 can handle, and most particularly it's a lot more than DVCPRO-HD 720p can handle. It's a pretty good match for DVCPRO-HD in the horizontal; DVCPRO-HD 1080 stores 1280x1080. So I've always recommended that if you want to get the most out of a 170 or 200, you should be using 1080 mode.

720 mode might seem like it's a better match, but you then lose 33% of the horizontal resolution due to the codec's prefilter down to 960, so -- 720p mode isn't optimal for an HVX or HPX170. 1080 mode is sharper, and noticeably less compressed.

Either way, a 170 can't match a 300 for sharpness in either mode, unless you're comparing dVCPRO-HD 720pN mode against dvcpRO-HD 720pN mode. If you're comparing 720p AVC-I on a 300 against 720p DVCPRO-HD on a 170, the 300 is gonna smoke the 170 in all ways.

But dvcpRO-HD to DVCPRO-HD, 720 to 720, that would be the closest those two will look to each other.

Great response Barry - I appreciate it. I'll try to be brief, hah!

As I've mentioned, using my current PPC G5 FCP edit station, I would need to convert AVC-I formatted files externally, not impossible, but given how I currently use HD shot footage - more below - I'm not sure that it is worth the hassle for me. In my noise test I've posted about before, I did include one shot using AVC-I from the 300 as I was looking for noise in any of the 300s modes, but what was even more useful to me was comparing the two cams both running DVCPRO HD (apples to apples). I started off mostly looking for noise differences, but I ended up comparing imagery as both of the 300's shots in 1080 were stunning, comparatively.

So yes, your comment about the possibility of a favorable comparison of 300 and 170 imagery, both running DVCPRO HD 720, for MY purposes is the test that will most represent my current workflow. Until my clients (I've narrow-casted myself into creating fundraising pieces for non-profits, mostly social service agencies) start asking for HD output from me, my current need is to shoot in HD in some form, only to the extent that it improves my SD finished output. I'll explain...

My shooting in 720 24pN last year started because I noticed that in using a 200:
(a), I could see very little difference between its recorded 1080 and 720 images which I assumed was due to interpolation of the 200s native pixels upwards for the 1080 storage resolution.
(b) I have been shooting film-look for several years now, first in SD 24pA anamorphic, but last year noticed that to my eye, shooting and editing picture in 720 and then dragging that cut into an SD timeline looked much better than simply shooting in SD anamorphic. My post style has also been to not only preserve the letterbox of 16:9 on clients SD 4:3 TVs, as they like the cinematic touches - 24 FPS, widescreen, cine-gamma - but also sometimes shoving the 16:9 image to the top of 4:3 timeline screen and using the bottom 1/5 for a persistent on-screen web address or phone number. (In fundraising, my clients measure of success is when someone contacts them with a donation, whether they've finished watching the piece or not. Aesthetically, I only hope to get a lick or two in for my own edification.)
(c) 720 24pN gives me significantly more HD shooting time on a P2, while providing the frame rate I post in and sufficiently improved imagery, given that I'm finishing in SD.

A caveat, and perhaps a significant one that would support my currently shooting in the very best format such as AVC-I 1080, is that for many of my clients, my footage is the first professionally shot (not giving myself a plug here) images they have, and if this footage is still useful to them down the road, then I should be shooting in the highest resolution and quality available to me now to try to best match future production values in common use by then.

But aside from this archival footage issue, the use of two cameras that are almost mutually exclusive for various shooting situations - one great for handheld, close quarters, don't know what is going to happen next, and the other for planned, gorgeous shots with a longer lens that significantly increase the perceived production value for the client - and yet produce imagery similar enough to intercut fairly seamlessly, and are, even purchased together, a pretty affordable "package", seems ideal for my bread and butter.

Oh - a final note, you would know far better than I - I read this afternoon (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/panasonic_aghpx_1001/index1.html) that "...the HPX170 uses three 1/3in. CCDs with 960x540 native pixels, scaled to the storage resolution via a technology called pixel shifting." What am I not getting given your stated higher resolution for the 170?

[Jon S]

I read this afternoon (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/panasonic_aghpx_1001/index1.html) that "...the HPX170 uses three 1/3in. CCDs with 960x540 native pixels, scaled to the storage resolution via a technology called pixel shifting."

Pixel shifting is not a scaling operation. It is a technology that is used to over-come the resolution limitations of CCDs by mounting each sensor on the prism block in a way where each is offset from the other two by a sub-pixel amount (instead of the conventional approach where they are all perfectly aligned).

This means that the camera genuinely has a higher spatial sampling frequency than in the conventional case based on normal alignment of the sensors. Whereas up-scaling is effectively just "making stuff up" based on the available data.

Pixel shifting is expensive though, and can only deliver a limited improvement in resolution, in part because most of the luminance information comes from just the green sensor anyway.

[Ben Digedig]

I've uploaded a couple of videos = one 'bad' before settings adjustments I have arrived at after much research. Unfortunately the compression after upload renders it useless - forget seeing grain, think BLOCKS! This from a 200MB 2min original file.

I've also uploaded a video of a compilation of shots and test that I am very happy with - some are quite stunning. PM me for a link.

BD

[Emmet Brown]

Hi Ben, could you post your prefered settings?

[Ben Digedig]

Hi Ben, could you post your prefered settings?

Sure mate. Can do that tomorrow - key points are that having high detail settings adds grain/noise and that the black level is FAR too high (as is usual) on the cam. High blacks again seemingly adds noise - crush it out... Finally be VERY wary of adding any gain other than -3Db!

BD

[Barry_Green]

Yep, I would agree with those recommendations. Higher detail level does accentuate the presence of noise, but it can be counteracted with a higher coring level. And the master pedestal is set alarmingly high from the factory; I think in Europe they set it at +15! Crazy, and noisy. Drop that down to -6 or so and it cleans things up nicely.

[Emmet Brown]

Thank you guys for your replies. That i allready read somewhere and i set my Master Ped to -5, Detail Coring +3, Gain -3.... But i dont know what the other settings can do, so i set them all to 0.... Unfortunatly there are no detailed informations in the Manual to every Point.... So im very curious about you recommendations in ALL Menu setting Points... Maybe we should start a new Theme, were everybody can post his prefered Settings. I think that would be very interesting to every HVX 300 owner....


Edit: Okay, i started a new Topic....

[Ben Digedig]

PLEASE SEE 'SETTINGS' THREAD FROM NOW ON

Yes - I'd like to know what exactly detail coring is too...

My hpx301 settings, as per the links e-mailed to some, but about to complete upload to Guiseppe's FTP (900Mb):

DETAIL LEVEL - 1
V DETAIL LEVEL -1
DETAIL CORING 0
CHROMA LEVEL +3
COLOUR TEMP A & b CHANNELS -2
MASTER PED -25 (PAL, COULD GO LOWER STILL I THINK?)
A IRIS +1
DRS 3 !-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->(but remember to assign it to a user button to switch it off if it aint bright/contrasty!)
GAMMA CINELIKE D
KNEE MID (AGAIN I SWITCH OFF IF IT AINT BRIGHT)
MATRIX CINE LIKE
SKIN TONE DTL OFF (on Sony's you select the matching skin tone on person!?...)
V DETAIL FREQ THIN


ON OTHER MENU
GAIN IS SET AS -3dB(LOW) 0(MID) +3DB(HIGH)

I like this look for the warm summery outdoorsy stuff I've uploaded, and, other than the moss on tree slow zoom shot, it is quite accecptably low noise. I'm also uploading a shot taken before these settings which was similar material but suffered noisy crawly dark blues.

BD

[Barry_Green]

Detail Coring is an anti-noise control. Try it. Jack your detail all the way up to +7 and your v-detail to +7, then set the coring to -7 and you'll see the sharpest/crispest image with the most noise. Then set the coring to +7 and watch the noise disappear (along with some of the finest detail and the addition of a bit of a plasticy smoothness to the image).

[Ben Digedig]

Thanks Barry - answers same q in 'settings' thread too. :)