help - what's the better buy?

[qazwsx]

i need some help deciding. i have the option between two "packages" of equipment, (both cost the same amount):

two panasonic hpx300 with accessories (batteries, cases, etc)
one panasonic hmc150 with accessories (batteries, case, etc)
two 64GB p2 E series cards
two 16GB p2 E series cards
one 32GB sdhc cards

or

two sony s270u with accessories (batteries, cases, etc)
one sony z7u with accessories (batteries, case, etc)
six 32GB cf cards
ezfx jib with extension kit
a few lights (tungsten fresnel 650w,300w,150w & 1x1 lite panel)
assorted bounces and gels (ctb, cto, nd)
blu-ray burner

we already have existing equipment like a small lowel dv light kit with rifa softbox, three on camera lights, a few c-stands, and a handful of tripods (manfrotto, davis & sanford).

application would be weddings, training videos, government contract, local/small business commercials, playhouse b-roll and web video. we've done most of our work on either 1st gen dvx100s or xh-a1s (hdv to cineform); we're used to the intermediate workflow and out clients have not complained about the hdv acquisition.

our reason for upgrading is for the shoulder mount form factor (hence these two models) and for matching cameras. tapeless is just a bonus. what i want to know is what the best option is? i realize the hpx is the better all around camera and can do 10 bit 4:2:2, but for the work that we do, i don't really know if it's necessary. also, a lot of the extra equipment that we'd get if we went with the sony (however little it may be) is stuff we usually end up renting or borrowing quite often anyway, so that makes the option very enticing.

do the hpx300's advantages outweigh the bonuses of the sony package?

any input/insight is greatly appreciated. thanks, guys.

[accelv]

I'd go for the Pannies. More future-proof and better broadcast friendly. I like AVC and don't like mpeg2.

[Dave Nelson]

i need some help deciding. i have the option between two "packages" of equipment, (both cost the same amount):

two panasonic hpx300 with accessories (batteries, cases, etc)
one panasonic hmc150 with accessories (batteries, case, etc)
two 64GB p2 E series cards
two 16GB p2 E series cards
one 32GB sdhc cards

or

two sony s270u with accessories (batteries, cases, etc)
one sony z7u with accessories (batteries, case, etc)
six 32GB cf cards
ezfx jib with extension kit
a few lights (tungsten fresnel 650w,300w,150w & 1x1 lite panel)
assorted bounces and gels (ctb, cto, nd)
blu-ray burner

we already have existing equipment like a small lowel dv light kit with rifa softbox, three on camera lights, a few c-stands, and a handful of tripods (manfrotto, davis & sanford).

application would be weddings, training videos, government contract, local/small business commercials, playhouse b-roll and web video. we've done most of our work on either 1st gen dvx100s or xh-a1s (hdv to cineform); we're used to the intermediate workflow and out clients have not complained about the hdv acquisition.

our reason for upgrading is for the shoulder mount form factor (hence these two models) and for matching cameras. tapeless is just a bonus. what i want to know is what the best option is? i realize the hpx is the better all around camera and can do 10 bit 4:2:2, but for the work that we do, i don't really know if it's necessary. also, a lot of the extra equipment that we'd get if we went with the sony (however little it may be) is stuff we usually end up renting or borrowing quite often anyway, so that makes the option very enticing.

do the hpx300's advantages outweigh the bonuses of the sony package?

any input/insight is greatly appreciated. thanks, guys.


I can tell you that from my experience, the Sony HVR-S270 and HVR-Z7U are about as good as you can get in HDV. These cameras will both outperfom the HVX200a as far as sharpness, noise, and low light go. However neither of the Sonys have variable frame rate which is a great feature. Also, the Sonys are not able to record 720p.

Featurewise, the S270 is a shoulder mount camera and has a very similar feature set to the HPX300, except that the Sony has 1440x1080 sensors and the Panasonic has 1920x1080 sensors. This accounts for why the Sonys have better low light capabilities. The Sonys have less photo sites on their CMOS sensors which means better low light capabilities.

I am a Sony XDCam EX user. I currently use the EX1/EX3 cameras. I am also torn for a slightly different reason, since I know the Sony XDCAM EX cameras will outperform the HPX300 (with rare exceptions). I also use HD-SDI for video acquisition which is 1920x1080 10 bit 4:2:2 just like the HPX300 so AVC-I is not as important to me as others.

I am also an avid Cineform user and love the digital intermediate workflow.

I have used HDV cameras with HD-SDI acquisition directly from the HDMI port to an HD-SDI converter and captured directly to Cineform Master files, on other Sony and Canon cams including the XL-H1 (no need for an HD-SDI converter) and the HVR-V1U. This is my preferred acquisition method which is another reason that AVC-Intra isn't important to me at this time, although in the future it may become much more important to me.

Cineform currently does not support AVC-I but has stated that they will very soon.

However, AVC-I is far superior as an acquisition format to either HDV or Sonys EX1/3 35 Mbps 4:2:0 8-bit Mpeg2 format. And down the road, you may even decide to use AVC-I as the Digital Intermediate and a replacement for Cineform's product, if you acquire your footage via HD-SDI. Panasonic's little P2 recorder can turn any HD-SDI output to AVC-I.

PCs will get faster and AVC-I has great potential in the future. And if Cineform were to decide to directly support AVC-I output as they do ProRes output on the Mac, now, Cineform's HD-Link and AVC-I would be the killer combination. However, the introduction of Cineform's First Light on all their products for the Mac and PC, except NewScene, will stop me from changing over to AVC-I from Cineform's Digital Intermediate.

My personal preference would be for the Panasonic system you describe above, instead of the HDV camcorders. I grew out of HDV camcorders as soon as Sony introduced the EX1, and never looked back.

From the sounds of your post, you seem to prefer the Sony HDV solution. And I already made the decision not to work with HDV any more, so the decision is easier for me.

However, I am still on the fence, but will probably purchase the HPX300 instead of another Sony XDCam EX. What stops me from jumping now is the lack of good video footage for the HPX300.

I think that Panasonic should make every attempt to remedy this problem so that people like me will get off the fence.

This is just my humble opinion. I hope it helps a little.

Dave.

[qazwsx]

thanks for your input, guys. i am assuming that the majority more or less agrees with your sentiments since there haven't been any more replies in over a hundred views.

unfortunately, i still don't see avci as a necessity for the work that we're doing. aside from local cable/access spots, it's not like we're shooting for a large broadcast network or trying to make feature films with it. the majority of our jobs are for private viewing and the internet.

i do like the whole idea of the hpx being more future-proof, but i suppose by the time we require a more robust codec, we'll have the funds to upgrade to something even more professional than the 300.

so if the only reason to go with the panasonic is the codec, i think i'm going to just settle with the sony just because we tend to rent/borrow/require that other equipment quite often; so it'll end up saving us some money and i think that far outweighs the benefits of avci... for now.

thanks for putting in the time to help me out, i really appreciate it. if at any time i end up regretting my decision, i'll be back in this thread letting you know you guys were right. :)

[Jan_Crittenden]

You should really think about the Long GOP nature of the Sony codec versus the I-frame only nature of the DVCPRO HD codec. You can edit the DVCPRO HD codec as easily and seamlessly as you can DV. Not so with Long GOP codecs.

[Ben Digedig]

One of the key reasons for me in getting the HPX 301 was its flexibility - I havent hired since. That just has to be good for business and getting to REALLY know your kit? BD

[Dave Nelson]

You should really think about the Long GOP nature of the Sony codec versus the I-frame only nature of the DVCPRO HD codec. You can edit the DVCPRO HD codec as easily and seamlessly as you can DV. Not so with Long GOP codecs.


The gentleman already stated that he uses a wavelet based digital intermediate known as Cineform Visually Perfect (no DCT blockiness). He edits with a wavelet based, full 1920x1080, 10 bit 4:2:2, frame based DI similar to JPEG 2000 or the RED codec, the visual equivalent to HDCAM SR.

He certainly wouldn't go to the lower resolution DCT based DVCPro HD codec. This would degrade his image to DCT based 8-bit 4:2:2 with a resolution of barely half what he has now. It would be like saying that he should use DVCPRO HD rather than AVC-I 100.

Edit 6-7-09 -------------------
After seeing the HPX300 in operation, yesterday at the CineGear Expo at Paramount Studios in Hollywood, I am very impressed.

I agree with the decision he made in his case, but I would still go with the HPX300 solution, myself.

Dave

[Jan_Crittenden]

The gentleman already stated that he uses a wavelet based digital intermediate known as Cineform Visually Perfect (no DCT blockiness). He edits with a wavelet based, full 1920x1080, 10 bit 4:2:2, frame based DI similar to JPEG 2000 or the RED codec, the visual equivalent to HDCAM SR.

Dave,

Unless he did his initial recording in the intermediate codec, which he is not doing, then the original codec would be what would determine his final outcome. For weddings and events he isn't dragging his edit system with him, he is going to record to a long GOP codec at 8 bit 4:2:0 instead of 8 bit I-Frame 4:2:2. So saying that the HDV or XDCAM EX footage at higher compression levels would look better once conformed to Cineform just isn't true. In compression once you have given it away, you can't get it back.

Best,

Jan

[Dave Nelson]

Dave,

Unless he did his initial recording in the intermediate codec, which he is not doing, then the original codec would be what would determine his final outcome. For weddings and events he isn't dragging his edit system with him, he is going to record to a long GOP codec at 8 bit 4:2:0 instead of 8 bit I-Frame 4:2:2. So saying that the HDV or XDCAM EX footage at higher compression levels would look better once conformed to Cineform just isn't true. In compression once you have given it away, you can't get it back.

Best,

Jan


You are right but he would give away more in most cases with DVCPro HD which is lower in resolution and always produces softer footage. That is why Sony Mpeg2 cameras are sharper than the HVX200 and 170. The native resolution is only 1280x1080. There are only some exceptions which I would agree to. However XDCam EX and HDV are always sharper than their Panasonic bretheren.

The charts always bear this out and so do reviewers such as Adam Wilt. And despite the fact that Adam gives favorable coverage to cameras such as the HVX200, His camera of choice for his productions is the Sony XDCAM EX, despite the fact that it uses Long GOP Mpeg2. He doesn't seem to be losing any sleep over missing the chance to shoot at a lower resolution with DVCPro HD.

Your argument that Long GOP mpeg2 doesn't do well with confetti at ticker tape parades is a good example of where Mpeg2 fails, is true, but in practice, most people don't shoot confetti on a regular basis.

In any case, I believe that AVC-I is a superior codec to DVCPro HD and Long GOP Mpeg2, in all cases. In fact, I believe that AVC-I is one of the best codecs out there, other than HDCam SR.

Dave

[Jan_Crittenden]

Actually Dave if you are just counting piels you would be right but when compressing to 35Mbs Long GOP or Individual Frames at 100Mbs, there is less loss in DVCPRO HD. Been there done that have the frame grabs to prove it.

Best,

Jan

[Dave Nelson]

Actually Dave if you are just counting piels you would be right but when compressing to 35Mbs Long GOP or Individual Frames at 100Mbs, there is less loss in DVCPRO HD. Been there done that have the frame grabs to prove it.

Best,

Jan


Hi Jan,

Pixels are important.

That's why Panasonic finally added a few more pixels to their new cameras. However, when they added pixels, they had to add a new codec, because DVCPro HD just wasn't up to the task.

In fact, you are begging the question. You can't have it both ways. Now that AVI-I exists, DVCPro HD is being positioned as the "conventional" codec for compatibility with the HVX200 and 170 (read low end, from your own brochures).

Panasonic developed AVC-I to give your higher end cameras and Varicams the pixels (sharpness) that DVCPro HD couldn't provide.

And that sharpness is why I'm so excited by AVC-I and Panasonic's new offerings.

I guess it's only good to count pixels if you are Panasonic and you have some more pixels to count now.

But you've been fighting this fight for a number of years with the HVX200 and most recently the HPX170. You won't have to fight it much longer.

And, we will have to agree to disagree on DVCPro HD vs 35 Mbps Mpeg2. The tired Intra Frame vs Mpeg2 Long GOP argument is a hard one to win at the low end. But you have a real winner with AVC-Intra against all the Sony XDCam series and you will win, hands down.

Sony is sitting on their hands here, and they will come to regret it.

Ultimately, even Mpeg2 50 Mbps 422 is inferior to AVC-I, at least on paper. And in practice, I'm sure the results will show AVC-I to be superior.

And that doesn't begin to touch on AVC-Ultra. :-)

Dave

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Jan,
That's why Panasonic finally added a few more pixels to their new cameras. However, when they added pixels, they had to add a new codec, because DVCPro HD just wasn't up to the task.

Pixels are important to initial resolution, but it isn't what you make it is what you keep. Keeping is the compression side of the equation.



In fact, you are begging the question. You can't have it both ways. Now that AVI-I exists, DVCPro HD is being positioned as the "conventional" codec for compatibility with the HVX200 and 170 (read low end, from your own brochures).


Read the AJ-HDX900 brochure, Read the AJ-HDC27H Varicam brochure, read Planet Earth which remains as one of the finest and most beautifully shot/recorded nature show in the last 10-15 years. It was recorded on DVCPRO HD. Read high end from our own brochures. DVCPRO HD was designed as a codec to compete at the top end of the industry prior to 2005 when we introduced an inexpensive camera to put it in aka the HVX200. And yes we can have it both ways and we have brought it to our customers.

HDV and its extension to XDCAM EX was born on the consumer end of the business, not the high end of production.


Panasonic developed AVC-I to give your higher end cameras and Varicams the pixels (sharpness) that DVCPro HD couldn't provide. And that sharpness is why I'm so excited by AVC-I and Panasonic's new offerings.
We are repeating the very same thing we did in 2005 with the DVCPRO-HD.



I guess it's only good to count pixels if you are Panasonic and you have some more pixels to count now. But you've been fighting this fight for a number of years with the HVX200 and most recently the HPX170. You won't have to fight it much longer.


When you work in I-Frame codecs and have less compression it allows more resolution from the inital capture to stay in the final recording. In Log GOP with too much detail and too much motion the codec actually starts to give away too much because the bit bucket is only so big. I actually have frame grab that copares a shot taken with the HVX200 compared to the EX1. It is of a river. The HVX200 shot is actually sharper, because the codec copress less and does so on a frame by frame basis vs. working over a series of frames.



And, we will have to agree to disagree on DVCPro HD vs 35 Mbps Mpeg2. The tired Intra Frame vs Mpeg2 Long GOP argument is a hard one to win at the low end. But you have a real winner with AVC-Intra against all the Sony XDCam series and you will win, hands down.


I am not asking you to live at the low end, I am asking you to live at the top end. DVCPRO HD has competed against HDCAM since 2002, and held its own extremely well. AVC-Intra takes it one step farther.


Ultimately, even Mpeg2 50 Mbps 422 is inferior to AVC-I, at least on paper. And in practice, I'm sure the results will show AVC-I to be superior.

I would put the AVC-Intra-50 at a little below DVCPRO HD but above the long GOP of MPEG 422.


And that doesn't begin to touch on AVC-Ultra. :-)

And this is why we came up with a recording scheme that would handle anything that we might want to throw at it, 25Mbs to 200Mbs, and beyond.

Best,

Jan

Dave[/QUOTE]

[Dave Nelson]

Hi Jan,

What you are neglecting to mention is that most of your high-end cameras, especially the older VariCam, have been 720p up until just a short time ago, with support for 1080i/p, but without a sensor to back it up. This was fine when Fox and ABC adopted 720p in the early days of HDTV, but a lot has changed since that time.

DVCPro HD is great for 720p. It's 1080p where DVCPro HD's shortcomings are revealed. And for the first time in Panasonic's history, you have introduced a 1080p ONLY (no 720p) VariCam.

Of course all your little AVCHD cameras are 1080i/p but your mid level cameras all favor 720p over 1080i/p. Even if they have the ability to shoot in 1080p, the sensors don't really have the resolution for 1080i/p, except for your new cameras.

In my experience with the HVX200, there was really little to no improvement when shooting 1080p vs 720p.

Your new products are actually a watershed for Panasonic. No more 720p ONLY Varicam. And the company has embraced full raster 1920 x 1080, across your line, along with the unbeatable AVC-I codec.

I'm sure you (Panasonic) will do extremely well with your new products.

You sold me.

Dave.

[Jan_Crittenden]

DVCPro HD is great for 720p. It's 1080p where DVCPro HD's shortcomings are revealed. And for the first time in Panasonic's history, you have introduced a 1080p ONLY (no 720p) VariCam.

Dave the AJ-HDX900 does 1080 and 720P and it does extremely well in 1080, with the higher resolution that the HDX900 brings to the game it is very clear that it does 1080, just fine. See if you extract the segmented 1080P frame from the 1080i signal it just looks awesome. As good as AVC-Intra, well no, but better than Long GOP anything! The HPX2000 does 720 and 1080, the 2700 does both. Now it happens that the 2700 comes with the intra card but the 2000 doesn't. Are these cameras used for the 1080, yes they are, just like the AG-HVX200/A and its brother the HPX170, and big brother the HPX500. All of these cameras show an increase in resolution on the 1080 DVCPRO HD. The AJ-HPX2700 is closer to being like the Varicam than the HPX3700 as the 3700 doesn't do overcrank.



Of course all your little AVCHD cameras are 1080i/p but your mid level cameras all favor 720p over 1080i/p. Even if they have the ability to shoot in 1080p, the sensors don't really have the resolution for 1080i/p.

The AVCHD codec is aimed at the broad base of the production pyramid where the HDV algorithm is, comsumer and prosumer.

The DVCPRO HD codec has never been aimed at the AVCHD market. The AVCHD Market understands the number 1080 and 1920 but doesn't understand what a prefilter does. They only have so much money and the numbers are right. The good news is that with the sophistication of the AVCHD codec, it does the best Long GOP recording available today.

Regardless, to keep that footprint at 1080 X1920, there is even more compression, just due to the size of the payload. People make the assumption that anything that is 1080 X1920 is better. Not true. Could be that there are more artifacts as well.


In my experience with the HVX200, there was really little to no improvement when shooting 1080p vs 720p.

Frankly I can tell, as many on this board would agree, they can tell the difference between the 170/200 in 1080 vs. 720, and if you could not see it, then you might want to consider a different monitor. Was it night and day, no, but it most definitely is better in 1080. Point is that when the subject matter gets challenging, the I-Frame Codec will always prevail. Will it take more bandwidth to record it. Yes. And so it is with that idea in mind that we have maintained on the high end of our product line that the I-Frame codecs will be for the serious production.


Your new products are actually a watershed for Panasonic. No more 720p ONLY Varicam. And the company has embraced full raster 1920 x 1080, across your line, along with the unbeatable AVC-I codec.
Dave.

Thank you, but know that we only have 2 cameras that have 2M pixels, the others are varied and they all make their owners money. Obviously I am a little passionate about what Panasonic did when we brought the DVCPRO HD into the $5,000 range. We rocked the world by allowing DVCPRO HD to be brought over firewire so that our customers could edit a professional codec on a laptop editor. For our competition to have come close to what we did, and risked, the EX1 should have had HDCAM in it and you would be able to edit HDCAM natively, and we know neither of those things happened. To say that the 35Mbs XDCAM EX codec is better than DVCPRO HD, well it just isn't so, 4:2:0 is not as good as 4:2:2 and Long GOP is not as good as I-Frame. It is just that simple.

Best,

Jan

[Dave Nelson]

Hi Jan,

This discussion could go on forever.

It's kinda like a trade show where you are attempting to overcome objections to your product.

All we can agree on at this time is that we agree to disagree. We can also agree that AVC-I is a great codec.

I am a Panasonic convert precicely because you have a new codec and a few great new cameras.

Any other discussion on this topic will not be productive because you are a Panasonic evangelist and represent your company faithfully. Your views are colored from years of fighting the good fight against formidable foes.

I enjoyed this conversation and our meeting at Cine Gear Expo in Hollywood Saturday.

Regards, Dave.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Dave,

So sorry you didn't bring this up when we me. Could have shown you the frame grabs that I reference. None-the-less, glad you are part of the party now.

Best,

Jan