PDA

View Full Version : Screen Grabs of 170 and 300 Comparison



David Saraceno
06-12-2009, 10:09 AM
Stock scene settings at 1080/30p AVCIntra and 1080/30p DVCProHD from a HPX170.

Reduced in size and converted to jpeg due to limitations here.

Quite a difference.

HPX 300

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=178&pictureid=1182


HPX170

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/picture.php?albumid=178&pictureid=1181

CinemaElectronika
06-12-2009, 11:06 AM
Quite a difference.




Totally agreed!

But that jpg is from an HPX-300 or the HPX-3000?

:)

David Saraceno
06-12-2009, 12:52 PM
300

sorry

Cees Mutsaers
06-12-2009, 10:44 PM
Strange I see not a lot of difference resolution wise. The colours look quit different though. Maybe matching up both camera's would be a more honest to compare resolution if that was the aim of the test.

Jon S
06-12-2009, 11:37 PM
Strange I see not a lot of difference resolution wise. The colours look quit different though. Maybe matching up both camera's would be a more honest to compare resolution if that was the aim of the test.

How can anyone judge the resolution when the images are down-sized to 599 337 pixels. Any resolution difference would be totally invisible!

Huy Vu
06-13-2009, 12:01 AM
How can anyone judge the resolution when the images are down-sized to 599 337 pixels. Any resolution difference would be totally invisible!

Yup, looks pretty similar to to me. The significant color difference also seemed to be because the HPX grab is overexposured.

Cees Mutsaers
06-13-2009, 08:33 AM
I agree, but hey I did not post these images !!!!!


How can anyone judge the resolution when the images are down-sized to 599 337 pixels. Any resolution difference would be totally invisible!

David Saraceno
06-13-2009, 08:37 AM
Yup, looks pretty similar to to me. The significant color difference also seemed to be because the HPX grab is overexposured.

It wasn't.

Look at the whites in the lounge pants.

I shot it. It wasn't overexposed.

I don't have a way to host the full images, so I had to scale and use dvxuser's photo album

dangerd
06-13-2009, 04:08 PM
You can check out some still frames from my HPX-300.
Keep in mind they are frame grabs that have been first transcoded to prores then to .jpg's and compressed, after which the logo was dropped on top.
But you can still get the idea.

720 30p
http://www.revostock.com/preview_still.php?ID=78433

1080 30p
http://www.revostock.com/preview_still.php?ID=77639

Cees Mutsaers
06-14-2009, 05:23 AM
Get what idea???
Lately I see a lot of frame grabs on this forum of HPX300 footage. Maybe it is my pc but non of them seem sharp at all !!!! It really makes me worry !
No offence intended but those flowers seem like taken with a 300 euro cam sharpness wise (or is it all due to compression ??).


You can check out some still frames from my HPX-300.
Keep in mind they are frame grabs that have been first transcoded to prores then to .jpg's and compressed, after which the logo was dropped on top.
But you can still get the idea.

720 30p
http://www.revostock.com/preview_still.php?ID=78433

1080 30p
http://www.revostock.com/preview_still.php?ID=77639

Barry_Green
06-14-2009, 06:48 AM
Does this shot look like it came from a 300 euro cam?
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Lioness.jpg

Everts
06-14-2009, 07:22 AM
Yup, looks pretty similar to to me. The significant color difference also seemed to be because the HPX grab is overexposured.
It sure looks like it but not that the hpx 300 looks anybetter but these were shot using the stocks settings. I 'm sure if you tweak them they will both look alot better.


You can check out some still frames from my HPX-300.

720 30p
http://www.revostock.com/preview_still.php?ID=78433

1080 30p
http://www.revostock.com/preview_still.php?ID=77639

The pictures of the flowers are out of focus and abit noisy but a good noisy.


Does this shot look like it came from a 300 euro cam?
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Lioness.jpg

Darnet ,why the hell aren't there any lions in south america .
I dont think you can get that close to a lion with a 300 Euro cam and not be eaten alive till you die :)

dangerd
06-14-2009, 02:26 PM
Barry's shot looked pretty sharp. The flower shot was generated from the video file at the stock house so since the shot is a rack focus shot it may not be the sharpest frame. Glad the noise looked ok though.

I think that overall Canon's camera's look sharper to me ( I also have an XL-2)
although I like the 300. I suppose if I was to turn up the sharpness it would be better detail wise but this introduces too much noise for my taste.

I guess you just have to find the camera that is right for YOU.

If Canon had a 10 bit 4:2:2 HD camera I probably would have gone that direction but as far as I know they don't, at least not in my price range.

Cees Mutsaers
06-14-2009, 02:36 PM
Don't be offended so quickly Barry. I am not refering to the grabs you posted. But be fair and look at the graps in this tread (flowers), they don't seem sharp to my eyes. The lion of you is top sharp. By the way this was shot with the standard lens or the expensive one (wasn't it a Canon) you took on the Africa trip ?



Does this shot look like it came from a 300 euro cam?
http://www.dvxuser.com/barry/Lioness.jpg

JohnnyD
06-14-2009, 03:51 PM
The HPX is 1/2 to 2/3rd over-exposed. No doubt about it. At least on my PC

JohnnyD

Barry_Green
06-14-2009, 05:40 PM
Don't be offended so quickly Barry.
But... Cees, you seem always to panic whenever anything isn't perfect. You said yourself that you're worrying, even though this is a 1920x1080 sensor recording to the best recording format in the world!

Anyone can take a bad picture. There is *nothing* to be gained by judging from a bad picture. It is only from the good stuff that you learn whether a camera is worthwhile.

If you see sharp imagery from the camera, even once, then that should settle the matter once and for all. I posted that Africa footage back in February! It's June now. Why is there even a question as to whether the HPX300 is razor-sharp and super-crisp? I saw this footage projected on a 20-foot screen and it was jaw-droppingly sharp, so crisp that you would probably be very, very happy with it.

Nothing has changed, so why the panic because some end user took a mediocre picture? I guarantee you I could find mediocre shots from a Red One or a Sony F35, does that make those cameras bad?

Huy Vu
06-14-2009, 06:27 PM
It wasn't.

Look at the whites in the lounge pants.

I shot it. It wasn't overexposed.

I don't have a way to host the full images, so I had to scale and use dvxuser's photo album

Sorry, I meant the 170, not the 300. The 300 is well exposed, but the 170 is clearly overexposed at the white pants. That's also why the color seems to be lighter than the 300 grab.

Cees Mutsaers
06-15-2009, 06:11 AM
Dont worry Barry I am not panicing at all. Was the lion image with the stock lens?



But... Cees, you seem always to panic whenever anything isn't perfect. You said yourself that you're worrying, even though this is a 1920x1080 sensor recording to the best recording format in the world!

Anyone can take a bad picture. There is *nothing* to be gained by judging from a bad picture. It is only from the good stuff that you learn whether a camera is worthwhile.

If you see sharp imagery from the camera, even once, then that should settle the matter once and for all. I posted that Africa footage back in February! It's June now. Why is there even a question as to whether the HPX300 is razor-sharp and super-crisp? I saw this footage projected on a 20-foot screen and it was jaw-droppingly sharp, so crisp that you would probably be very, very happy with it.

Nothing has changed, so why the panic because some end user took a mediocre picture? I guarantee you I could find mediocre shots from a Red One or a Sony F35, does that make those cameras bad?

Barry_Green
06-15-2009, 06:29 AM
I don't remember if that was stock or Canon, I think it was probably the Canon. Didn't make much difference, both lenses were comparable in sharpness.

David Saraceno
06-15-2009, 09:09 AM
I'll see about shooting some additional footage in the same place and adjust the exposure with the 170.

I'll have a demo 300 in the next week or so.

Bounce
06-15-2009, 09:31 PM
it's definitly over exposed as her pants (highlights are clipped) are bright and the shadows are brighter than the 300.

the shadows in the 300 are darker and almost clipped to black.

tommetass
06-16-2009, 02:38 PM
But... Cees, you seem always to panic whenever anything isn't perfect. You said yourself that you're worrying, even though this is a 1920x1080 sensor recording to the best recording format in the world!

Anyone can take a bad picture. There is *nothing* to be gained by judging from a bad picture. It is only from the good stuff that you learn whether a camera is worthwhile.

If you see sharp imagery from the camera, even once, then that should settle the matter once and for all. I posted that Africa footage back in February! It's June now. Why is there even a question as to whether the HPX300 is razor-sharp and super-crisp? I saw this footage projected on a 20-foot screen and it was jaw-droppingly sharp, so crisp that you would probably be very, very happy with it.

Nothing has changed, so why the panic because some end user took a mediocre picture? I guarantee you I could find mediocre shots from a Red One or a Sony F35, does that make those cameras bad?


Well put Barry!

It has a lot to do with "the guy behind the camera". (hopefully that doesn't offend anyone...)

No wait.. it has everything to do with the guy/girl behind it!


I've seen crappy footage come from 35mm cameras and the oh'so mighty RED.

I mean.. I have even seen DVX100 footage that just totally smacks 35mm in the face.