PDA

View Full Version : Hpx500 ???



JohnT
04-16-2007, 12:38 PM
Waiting on some info on the HPX500. So what does it look like?

Ivanhurba
04-16-2007, 12:52 PM
And what about those CAC lenses?

ddh
04-16-2007, 01:45 PM
Waiting on some info on the HPX500. So what does it look like?
If it's basic info you are after:http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=112115&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AG-HPX500

JohnT
04-16-2007, 04:36 PM
Yeah,
I know about the info thats on the Panny's site, just wanted to see if anyone has seen demo footage and there reaction.

Barry_Green
04-16-2007, 09:27 PM
It's a better HVX. It's like an HVX that's taken more steroids than Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire together. It's a stop and a half more sensitive (i.e., you can get comparable brightness in 1/3 as much light) and it has two stops more dynamic range. It's a tad sharper than the HVX, but it really depends on what lens you're using -- better glass will give better results. At the booth they have a huge expensive cine-style Canon lens on it and the results are fantastic.

mjeppsen
04-16-2007, 09:42 PM
It looks rather nice. Here's some video of the beast..
http://www.freshdv.com/2007/04/hpx-500-hands-on.html

NorthernFilmMaker
04-16-2007, 11:04 PM
Barry, what lens were you using when you were in alaska? And do you know what size the chips are? i'm guessing they are not Native 1920x1080 or 1280x720. I know Panasonic says they are using pixel shift tech on existing SDX900 chips, are they like the 960x540 chips in the HVX200? anyways i'm really interested in buying this camera when its available....

Barry_Green
04-17-2007, 07:02 AM
They're actually not SDX900 chips, it's a different chip block that's a native progressive block that supports up to 60fps. And yes it uses 960x540 active pixels and the same spatial offset technique from the HVX200. And yes they have it running next to the native 1280x720 HPX2000, so anyone can freely compare the one against the other. If you can tell a difference, you've got better eyes than I do (other than the HPX500 having 1 stop more dynamic range than the HPX2000).

In Alaska I had the 16x Canon CAC with the doubler on it.

Zack Birlew
04-17-2007, 09:11 AM
Barry! Were you demoing at the Panasonic booth yesterday? I tried looking for you to say "Hi" and all, but I didn't see you anywhere. Pat and I figured you must have ninja-ed your way over to the RED booth or something for a quick look.

Oh, back on topic, I couldn't get a chance to see the HPX500 for myself, the Panasonic booth was flooded with people looking at EVERYTHING P2 related! It was an impressive sight to see to say the least.

NorthernFilmMaker
04-17-2007, 09:12 AM
Thanks for the info Barry, what about the EVF? would you say that it is a more capable EVF than what is in the HVX200 for HD work? and which one was on the Cam that you tried? I'd imagine it had the 2" 16/9 one......anyways thanks again for the info, very much appreciated.

NorthernFilmMaker
04-17-2007, 10:45 AM
So, the HPX500 is basically a shoulder mount HVX200 with some cool upgrades.

- 3 X 2/3" 960X540 Chips = better low light by about 1 1/2 stops than the hvx

- Interchangable 2/3" lens

- 4 P2 slots for longer record times.

- not sure about details on the LCD but i think its the same as hvx, the EVF may be that same too?

- 4 channel audio

Did i miss anything?

I wonder, since the chips are pretty much the same between the two, the HPX will probably resolve the same TVl on charts as the HVX which is about 540 TVl...but i guess it would depend on the HD lens used!? but would this mean that the HPX500 will not be fully accepatable by Discovery HD as an unrestricted format? or would it depend on the lens? will one have to buy a 20,000 dollar lens to make programs for Discovery HD and the like?

OldCorpse
04-17-2007, 01:58 PM
What is the retail/street price expected for the HPX500? I understand the list is $14K per panny's website...

Noel Evans
04-17-2007, 02:31 PM
- 3 X 2/3" 960X540 Chips


Disappointed.

OldCorpse
04-17-2007, 02:46 PM
Disappointed.

I agree. However, I'm thinking that this might be a big stumble by Panny if they keep to this price of 14K. Consider that you are really not getting that much more compared to the HVX200 which retails for under $6K - are you telling me the feature set of the HPX500 is worth more than twice as much as the HVX200? I don't think so!

The other thing to consider is what market segment is this targetted toward? Anyone who is in that market, would probably be just as well served by the HVX200. If you have 14K to throw at a camera, I'd say you are getting into the territory of Red, if Red stays under 20K. And who has 14K but not 20K? And who would therefore take the HPX500, if for a few K more, they get Red? Of course, Red is pricier simply because you need to accessorize it more, and though I have every faith in them, let's face it, they have no track record and no camera out as yet. Still, if Red pans out (sorry for the v. weak pun), then I really wonder about the HPX500 market wise.

The HPX500 to me is frankly a replacement for the HVX200 - and should not cost more. Obviously, with no competition at this time in this segment of the market, Panny gets to put out any prices they want, and more importantly, they don't have to replace the HVX200. Still, I think with Red on the horizon they could get killed on the HPX500. And killed by Canon (A1) for the replacement to the DVX100. That leaves the HVX200... for now. Sorry, but Panny marketing department does not impress me at this time: giving away the DVX100 market, and fumbling the HPX500.

Noel Evans
04-17-2007, 03:23 PM
Well Im not entirely sure about that. This is a pure shoulder mounted 2/3 inch cam, Id say the biggest target market is the eng, event, doco guy/girl, which really isnt the red crowd. It does have the cross over ability to narrative. It has a similar FEATURE set as the HVX but I dont think it should be confused.

With 4 16gb p2 cards included and 4 p2 slots for use, that tells me long shooting times. For my money the cam does seem worth it at this stage ranked amongst its peers with similar specs. Its just that those peers are now using 1080 chips and I need to look 3 years ahead.

vidled
04-17-2007, 03:36 PM
Agree with ncje, the HPX500 is one HECK of a deal! Just look at what the cam offers! It's much more of a "out-of-the-bag-ready-to-go-cam" than a Redone will be, and its cost is QUITE A BIT lower than Red. Like ncje said, it's for a different customer alltogether.
B&H has packages with lenses that are really out of this world considering what was available just a few months ago really:
B&H Link (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=GlKyfMGyH1!-1623084647!1176849128883?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&I nitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=%2A&bhs =t&shs=hpx500&image.x=0&image.y=0)

Base cam is $12'500.00; with lens & 4 x 16GB P2 cards, $20'000.00

Nik Manning
04-17-2007, 03:39 PM
I think it is worth more than the hvx200. It is the cheapest 2/3 chip camera and it does every hd broadcast format. This cam is for the TV folks, but still should seriously be considered for movie making.

ddh
04-17-2007, 05:46 PM
I agree. However, I'm thinking that this might be a big stumble by Panny if they keep to this price of 14K. Consider that you are really not getting that much more compared to the HVX200 which retails for under $6K - are you telling me the feature set of the HPX500 is worth more than twice as much as the HVX200? I don't think so!

I have to agree that the price points per upgrades are high (if you don't already don't own a good lens.) I love the idea that Panny has finally gotten down to business on a lens switchable HVX but $14,000 for the cam ~ $4,000 for the P2 cards ~ $4 - 6,000 for a good lens = over $20,000. Before I throw down $20,000 on this cam ~ I'm going to seriously consider an additional $10,000 throw down for Red! As Wellington said at Waterloo, in for a penny ~ in for a pound!

jonnyh1968
04-17-2007, 06:59 PM
Can we compare the HPX500 to the SDX900 ? - which is still highly popular among the ENG folk. SD to SD should they not be the same? Same chip set and pixel count and all?

SPZ
04-17-2007, 07:28 PM
Guys, like Vidled posted, the camera is NOT 14 000, but 12 500- B&H are normally very conservative in their pricing, and 12 500 should not be the best price for the camera. I bet Abel Cine or other DVXuser sponsors like Speccom can come up with even better deals... The only think making me think of other solution is the Mini-Red.

vidled
04-17-2007, 07:47 PM
Can we compare the HPX500 to the SDX900 ? - which is still highly popular among the ENG folk. SD to SD should they not be the same? Same chip set and pixel count and all?

Yeah, good point. And the SDX was what when it came out? $26'000.00?
Now we can get a similar cam WITH FULL HD & SD PAL ***AND*** SD NTSC recording on SOLID STATE for less than HALF????
Awesome times!!

snowleopard
04-18-2007, 01:43 AM
I'm going to seriously consider an additional $10,000 throw down for Red!

Of course, if you order now, you'll have the HPX550 in about two weeks. With Red, it's a wait until January of 2008 (http://www.red.com/news/view/79).

jonnyh1968
04-18-2007, 10:05 AM
...in a best case scenario.

Back to the SDX comparison. I just rented the SDX last weekend. One day: $375 + $200 for the lens. What's up with that? Still a very popular camera I guess. So if the HPX rivals picture quality then maybe it will be just as popular for ENG? My concern is how many local post houses take P2. It seems many post facilities around here have not fully jumped on the P2/digital workflow bandwagon yet. And many clients (from here to NY) seem to prefer the medium size cassette tape when it comes down to it.

Erik Olson
04-18-2007, 10:51 AM
Those packages are insane. We're lensing two of those and one HVX for a new travel series. The 200 promises to compliment the 500 nicely and the interchangability of recording media only makes things easier.

With these packages, and a good batching laptop and dual drives at basecamp and you're good to shoot a day's worth of footage.

e

Sumfun
04-18-2007, 11:30 AM
If you can tell a difference, you've got better eyes than I do (other than the HPX500 having 1 stop more dynamic range than the HPX2000).

In Alaska I had the 16x Canon CAC with the doubler on it.

Are you saying that the HPX500 is actually better than the HPX2000 (at least in dynamic range)?

Also, how do the CAC lenses compare to the more expensive non-CAC HD lenses?

Sumfun
04-18-2007, 11:32 AM
Those packages are insane. We're lensing two of those and one HVX for a new travel series. The 200 promises to compliment the 500 nicely and the interchangability of recording media only makes things easier.

With these packages, and a good batching laptop and dual drives at basecamp and you're good to shoot a day's worth of footage.

e

I agree. $20k for a full package is incredible. Are you getting the CAC lenses? Let us know what you think of the picture quality.

Erik Olson
04-18-2007, 11:46 AM
I've been using the eHD lenses on the XDCams - but those were the 1/2 350s and appropriate lensing. I'll let you know.

e

NorthernFilmMaker
04-18-2007, 05:37 PM
I don't know about you guys, but i think i'm sold on this camera.... I was set on getting an XDcam F350, the complete package would have costed 50,000 Can, Tripod and cheap lens included. I didn't like the fact that i would need to drop about 26,000 can on a lens that would give me the telephoto reach and wide angle that i wanted. So i waited and then i saw this camera and it comes packaged with a lens & 4 X 16Gb Cards for about the price of the XDcam F350 body. with both the wide and telephoto lens that i need. (Fujinon 17X7.6 w/2X extender). I know, that the XDcam would probably give me more resolution than the HPX500 but, i'm planning to mainly shoot SD for the next while anyways...and later when all the HD stuff gets cheaper and more available, and possibly then it will be likely that most people will have High Definition TVs and Players then i can start to shoot and distribute in HD, but with this camera i will be ready when that happens. And just maybe, then we will be able to buy 64GB P2 cards for a decent price and then I can start to shoot 4 hours of DVCProHD in 1080 with the HPX, until then i think i will be mainly shooting DVCPro 50 and 720pN......:beer:

Barry_Green
04-18-2007, 10:56 PM
Are you saying that the HPX500 is actually better than the HPX2000 (at least in dynamic range)?
I'm saying that there are a few things the HPX500 does better than the HPX2000: dynamic range and variable frame rates, and 24pN/30pN modes. Other than that, the HPX2000 is pretty much better across the board.


Also, how do the CAC lenses compare to the more expensive non-CAC HD lenses?
Haven't had a chance to compare across the board. But a better-engineered lens will beat a lesser-lens-with-digital-correction system, obviously. It really comes down to: how much do you have to spend in order to achieve that level of quality?

NorthernFilmMaker
04-18-2007, 11:22 PM
So, Barry when are you going to release your review on the HPX500? It would be nice to hear in detail what you really think about the Camera.... i'm sure i'm not the only one anxious to hear...:huh:

powervideo
04-19-2007, 02:42 AM
I'm saying that there are a few things the HPX500 does better than the HPX2000: dynamic range and variable frame rates, and 24pN/30pN modes. Other than that, the HPX2000 is pretty much better across the board.

I agree Barry. The HPX2000/HPX2100 is better across the board, except for not having that damned variable frame rate. It has two filter wheels, extra P2 slot, slot-in Wireless, bigger CCD, upgradable to AVC-Intra, HD/SDI inputs, etc. It sounds like I'm trying to talk myself into it. If I do get one of these HPX cameras I'll get the 2000.

Peter

powervideo
04-19-2007, 03:26 AM
Plus I understand that the AJ-series HPX2100 body is more robust and higher quality construction than the AG HPX500.

Peter

Barry_Green
04-19-2007, 07:23 AM
It's certainly heavier! :) I don't know if there's a body construction difference though. Might be, don't know.

But one correction: you said a "bigger CCD", and that's not accurate. They're both 2/3". The difference is in the pixel density; the 2000 is 1 million pixels, the 500 is 620K.

As far as getting the "first look" article out -- you guys have seriously no idea how ridiculously busy it's been! Maybe I'll get it finished up on the plane ride, but there's just no time...

alexdias
04-19-2007, 10:04 AM
I had the privilege to view the camera at NAB with Barry and as usual he was very generous with his time and insightful comments.
I’ll not discuss technical features since you can find all the info you want it on line, but I’ll give my first impression.
The camera looks great; it’s not heavy or big. It handles really well handheld and has an excellent balance. It’s not too different in size from the HPX2000 or the HDX900 but it’s certainly lighter.
The viewfinder is not exceptional but it’s appropriate ($ wise).
With increased sensibility (1 and 1/2 stop if I’m right), more “cinematic” depth of field due to the 2/3 chips, 4 P2 cards slots and variable frame rates “it’s the perfect upgrade for serious HVX users” (Barry’s quote).
Thankfully, Panasonic kept the menu consistent with the HVX, SDX, etc... (which doesn’t look too different from the Varicam).
The price, as discussed here, is extremely competitive and it should be available next month.
For most people, like me, that has not an extensive experience with larger broadcast cameras I suggest a test run and I predict a certain adaptation curve. That said, the HPX500 is an excellent choice for independent filmmakers (narrative or documentary), corporate and any budget sensitive work that aims at high end, tapeless workflow.

ripupthehwy
04-19-2007, 12:25 PM
I don't think the camera is too pricy. I felt it was much more professional ergonomically and feature-wise than the hvx 200, which i do own. I would definately buy the hpx 500. Has tons more pro features than the hvx200 and practically identical looks-wise to the hpx2000. Barry was very enthusiastic about it at NAB. Rich Nation


http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9387/1177014910.jpg

the hpx 500 & Barry Green at NAB


http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9387/1177014995.jpg

Ernie Kovacs
04-19-2007, 02:34 PM
Wow, HPX 500 sounds amazing.

I'm interested in a wider lens.

Does anyone know the pricing with a wider lens? I saw the Canon KJ10ex4.5IRSD PS12 on Panasonics list of lens options, but no pricing for that setup. Anyone know $?

jonnyh1968
04-19-2007, 06:40 PM
So what can we expect (image wise) from the higher pixel count? (over the HVX200)?

Zack Birlew
04-19-2007, 07:35 PM
Much sharper image. I was playing with the HPX500 today for the first time. It was right next to an HVX200 so I could see a side-by-side comparison. I must say, the HVX200 held up pretty darn well, however, the HPX500 simply had a much clearer and better looking picture overall, immensely film-like as well.

jonnyh1968
04-19-2007, 08:26 PM
sweetness. thanks!

Barry_Green
04-19-2007, 09:42 PM
So what can we expect (image wise) from the higher pixel count? (over the HVX200)?
Well, it's not really higher though; it uses the same 960x540 technique that the HVX uses.

THe HPX500 basically does everything that we wish the HVX200 would do. It's got better sensitivity (1.5 stops more sensitive), better dynamic range (2 stops more latitude), shallower depth of field, more telephoto reach, interchangeable lenses, four fully-controllable audio channels on four XLRs, all the same HVX features but also NTSC & PAL frame rates, still does the "frame rate hack", has HD-SDI and TC in/out and genlock, and has a sharper/clearer picture (and, depending on the lens you get, can be much sharper and clearer).

Now, it's of course a lot more money, but it's less expensive than the SDX900 standard-def camera. Very, very, very cool.

mcgeedigital
04-19-2007, 09:49 PM
When I picked up the HPX500 at NAB and played with it, I REALLY dug it.

It had a GREAT feel, and the lens they had on it went from full wide to full tele in about 1/4 of a second....I mean it was FAST!

David Jimerson
04-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Decked out with four 16GB cards, you've got 160-180 minutes of 24pN in-camera -- more than enough to sate any appetite. You could shoot a 90-minute feature at 4:1 and only have to offload once.

Four 16GB cards will priobably street at around $3000, meaning you can get a full HPX500 system for under $25K. That's a screaming deal on a great camera.

baremis
04-20-2007, 06:00 AM
We Want Foootage!!!! Please!

Barry_Green
04-20-2007, 02:57 PM
You can already order a full HPX500 system (lens/vf/tripod plate/body/four 16gb cards) for under $20,000 from B&H or Samy's.

jonnyh1968
04-20-2007, 07:42 PM
So what (paying) market does this camera fill? is it limited because it uses P2 instead of tape? I mean... can you market yourself as a run and gun cameraman, ENG, etc. Would it not depend on your producer and their ability/willingness to work with P2? But I guess if you are the Producer then it all makes sense regardless of the type of project. Anyone care to elaborate?

Case Example: I was hired by a producer who came in from NY last week. He was familiar with P2 but didn't want to deal with it. So we rented a SDX900 and I handed off the tapes at the end of the 2 day shoot. He goes back to NY and edits wherever at most any post facility.

ripupthehwy
04-20-2007, 09:37 PM
So what (paying) market does this camera fill? is it limited because it uses P2 instead of tape?

I think (and hope) that will change in a couple more years as more producers get accustom to the absence of tape. Especially as tape begins to trend towards extinction.

TedRR
04-20-2007, 10:55 PM
It's not done, but it is changing. We did a studio shoot last month where the client brought in his own firestore. We recorded directly to that and he posted it on his FCP.

We've done freelance for so many of the network shows and they've always wanted Beta. I guess we'll just have to get used to charging them for hard drive rental until they return it, or they will have to wait for DVD dubs. The latter doesn't work so well for the network news shows flying out that same day.
The process is still involving and we'll have to adapt.

powervideo
04-20-2007, 11:02 PM
I'm saying that there are a few things the HPX500 does better than the HPX2000: dynamic range and variable frame rates, and 24pN/30pN modes. Other than that, the HPX2000 is pretty much better across the board.

I think 24pN/25pN/30pN is coming to the HPX2000 in a firmware update in third quarter, although why it's taking that long eludes me.

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=87859&highlight=hpx2000

Peter

jonnyh1968
04-20-2007, 11:59 PM
Sorry to rant on about the workflow of P2 on this thread - but this camera at this price point brings into question it's economic viability for a cameraman. And, yes, it seems like it's agreat price and a great solution for a producer. However, for a cameraman? What are we suppose to do? Hand off a couple $900 P2 cards and the end of a shoot? Request the producer to bring a hard drive? Bring a laptop an download 64GB of data while everyone waits for an hour? So if you can't hand off anything then is it still considered an ENG solution?

OK I'll stop now.

SPZ
04-21-2007, 01:10 AM
Sorry to rant on about the workflow of P2 on this thread - but this camera at this price point brings into question it's economic viability for a cameraman. And, yes, it seems like it's agreat price and a great solution for a producer. However, for a cameraman? What are we suppose to do? Hand off a couple $900 P2 cards and the end of a shoot? Request the producer to bring a hard drive? Bring a laptop an download 64GB of data while everyone waits for an hour? So if you can't hand off anything then is it still considered an ENG solution?

OK I'll stop now.

Well, I wouldn't say an hour, but if you have a decent laptop and a Firewire 800 case, you can dumpt the 64 gb of data in half an hour. Is 30 minutes too long? If you are doing ENG for broadcast, you can actually do an immediate edit and send the file to the network. If you were using any other type of media, you either had to capture everything, select and edit, or send a tape by mail. In ENG, if you need fast, nothing beats immediate edit, compression and online delivery.

Now if you want to deliver tape... And you want viable, you can do something else: copy everything from camera to a dvcprohd tape deck. it will take 64 minutes, but you have your tape master for delivery there.

Anyway, 30 minutes for a phisicall full delivery doesn't seem too much time, at least for me. Not as immediate as handling a tape to the producer or client next to me, but still fast.

mule ferguson
04-21-2007, 04:43 AM
Wow HPX2000 with 24pn..... You just made my day. And hopefully I will receive mine in May.

Hey, Hey, Hey
HeHaw
Mule

digitalinnovations
04-21-2007, 07:55 AM
My .02 on the P2 issue is just plan on/build in a hard drive to the shoot. What do you pay for 60+ minutes of DVCPROHD tape? $60-$80 (depending on if you want it split over a couple of tapes)? You can pick up a 80 gig hard drive for what...$40-$50? Which the 80gig hard drive will hold more than an hour and is more cost effective, not by much..but hey I will save wherever I can without a loss in quality. The client also has the added benefit of not having to capture the footage real time off of a tape. So the 30 minutes it takes to dump it to a hard drive will save them an hour in editing. Like most things, some people are slower to accept change or new workflows but if you lay it out like that I don't see a whole lot of downside for the client. Again...just my .02

NorthernFilmMaker
04-21-2007, 12:50 PM
Quick question: what lens did the HPX500 have at the Panasonic booth?

Barry_Green
04-21-2007, 01:30 PM
There were many in the booth at different stations. The only lens I've worked with is the Canon 16x7.7 with optical doubler. They also had one with a huge cine-style lens on it at the camera comparison booth.

mule ferguson
04-21-2007, 06:33 PM
[ lens I've worked with is the Canon 16x7.7 with optical doubler. uote]

Barry;
What is your impression of the Canon lens?
Mule

jameswmulryan
04-22-2007, 08:02 PM
Still thought I saw a lot of noise in the new 500. Is this a bias I inherited from the HVX
200? Is this a product of DVCPROHD compression? The 2000 seems to have much less noise, superior viewfinder. Pixel shifting seems kind of old at this point.
The 3000 looked fantastic. But then again, 50,000 for a body without a lens? How much Red can you buy for 50,000? Starting with a huge sen---sor results in much lower noise, No?

digitalinnovations
04-23-2007, 08:58 AM
Still thought I saw a lot of noise in the new 500. Is this a bias I inherited from the HVX
200? Is this a product of DVCPROHD compression? The 2000 seems to have much less noise, superior viewfinder. Pixel shifting seems kind of old at this point.
The 3000 looked fantastic. But then again, 50,000 for a body without a lens? How much Red can you buy for 50,000? Starting with a huge sen---sor results in much lower noise, No?

That surprises me, I would have thought the 500 to be quite a bit cleaner than the 200. Of course I haven't had any hands on and I haven't seen any footage on an HD or even the internet from a 500. I guess those are going to be the deciding factors for most.

Barry_Green
04-23-2007, 11:46 AM
The 2000 also uses DVCPRO-HD compression though.

The 500 does still have noise in its signal. Not a lot, but it's there if you look for it.

NorthernFilmMaker
04-23-2007, 11:59 AM
is the noise from the 500 comparable to the HVX200? is it any better?

Barry_Green
04-23-2007, 12:31 PM
It is better, yes. There's less of it, and it's cleaner.

digitalinnovations
04-23-2007, 01:36 PM
Barry - Forgive my ignorance, but there should still be a world of improvement over the 1/2" DVCPRO25 format cameras I am used to shooting with, correct? I haven't used the HVX200, so this is the only frame of reference that I have.

Barry_Green
04-23-2007, 01:40 PM
Three or four worlds of improvement, yes.

digitalinnovations
04-23-2007, 01:47 PM
Ha! Glad to hear it!

NorthernFilmMaker
04-23-2007, 05:54 PM
So Barry, do you think you will be getting this cam in the future?

Barry_Green
04-23-2007, 09:19 PM
I'm juggling that very decision right now...

blckhawk542
04-23-2007, 09:29 PM
Barry how many cameras do you own? just wondering....

Do you own a RED yet? lol


I bet Barry has like...a separate room in his house with shelves up to the top of a 12 foot ceiling with cameras sitting on them. Each wall has different brands...then from left to right..the oldest to newest.

thatd be siick. haha

NorthernFilmMaker
04-23-2007, 09:46 PM
I'm juggling that very decision right now...

I am too, i mean it does look like a great camera.... especially for the price, but i'm not too sure. What i would really like is to get an HPX2000 but man, that's a nice chunk of change.... i probably could get the body, EVF, and 5 P2 cards now, and then wait for a bit (save some cash) to get a lens!? I'm sure that the 2000 is steps ahead of the 500 in giving a really sharp image, and thats what i'm looking for...plus i dont really want to find that because of the 960X540 CCDs it will be unacceptable by some broadcasters. Can the 2000 use the 16Gig Cards? And who are the dealers who are selling the 2000? i wouldn't mind to see some packages.

arrestthisman
04-24-2007, 12:28 AM
You know it's funny, as the RED and all of the other new digital cinema cameras come out, including the pannies, I keep wondering what I'd do with an unlimited budget.

There's something about RED that... it doesn't push me away, but it's more like even though on paper the RED is superior to the higher end Pannies, the pannies just draw me closer.

I love P2. But more important, I love the look.

I've been thinking a lot that while imagers are like format, the codec imparts a "look" to the footage, so chosing an aquisition camera with a certian codec, is almost like chosing a stock of 35mm.

With the film guys coming out of NAB (interview with the Dalsa guy on freshdv) calling 4k the new 70mm, and 2k the new 35mm... or more like comparing those as comperable.

So as the market floods up with new choices, and quality reaches acceptable standards within reasonable deviation, people will hopefully begin to choose based on artistic preference.

For me, the pannies just have this great, "real" warm, look. And their motion is like butter. RED looks great too, but it totally does "look" like high budget hollywood.

I wonder if I got a dream job, the HPX3000 is out, so is RED, I have my pick, budget it not an issue... I'd estimate that I'd go with the HPX if I like the look even 1 iota over RED.

That said, with RAW-anything, you can do alot.

I keep beating the drum... no matter what you pick, it's the best time for digital cinema ever. We all get to witness the birth and growth of a historic transition.

Barry_Green
04-24-2007, 09:44 AM
Barry how many cameras do you own? just wondering....

Do you own a RED yet? lol
Don't have it yet, but I'm reservation #364.

I don't have that many, but if I were to catalog them off the top of my head there's three 16mm cameras, one Super16, one 35mm, the HVX, the DVX, the HV20, the forthcoming Red... um... well, my phone is an N93, which is marketed primarily as a video camera... um, what else... oh, a PowerShot that does 640x480x30fps... and... um... well, probably a couple others stashed away somewhere that I don't use anymore...



I bet Barry has like...a separate room in his house with shelves up to the top of a 12 foot ceiling with cameras sitting on them. Each wall has different brands...then from left to right..the oldest to newest.

thatd be siick. haha
Actually I had almost that at one point, with Super 8 cameras. I went on a mad collecting spree when I first found ebay, so I had dozens of Super 8 cams including all the top models like the Beaulieu 6008PRO, Elmo 1012XL-S, and the Chinon Pacific 200/8XL, etc., several old Auricons, Eyemos, three or four CP16s, an Eclair ACL or two, a bunch of Filmos... my old office had display racks all over the walls, stuffed to the brim with classic S8 cams, and old cams like a WW1 Filmo set out on a tripod in the corner, etc.

I haven't really bought a lot of video cameras, I mainly shot film and rented the Sony lineup of video cams up until the DVX came out. That changed everything, but I'm still clinging onto the film equipment for some reason...

David Jimerson
04-24-2007, 09:48 AM
His house is a museum, when people come to see 'im. :)

Barry_Green
04-24-2007, 10:04 AM
I am too, i mean it does look like a great camera.... especially for the price, but i'm not too sure. What i would really like is to get an HPX2000 but man, that's a nice chunk of change....
2000 does things the 500 doesn't, but mainly those features are news-related. Or ENG-related. 2000 doesn't do variable frame rates, and doesn't currently do 24pN mode (or 30pN or 25pN). The 2000's big features are that it has the option-card slot for expansion to AVC-Intra, it has a digital doubler for no-light-loss tele-extending, and it has digital super gain for see-in-the-dark performance. It also has much more extensive menu controls, being in the AJ series instead of the AG series.


I'm sure that the 2000 is steps ahead of the 500 in giving a really sharp image,
Not really. They had the 2000 and the 500 set right next to each other, and they looked extremely comparable.


plus i dont really want to find that because of the 960X540 CCDs it will be unacceptable by some broadcasters.
Hasn't stopped the HVX, and I'm certain it won't stop the HPX500.


Can the 2000 use the 16Gig Cards?
Not until September or so.


And who are the dealers who are selling the 2000? i wouldn't mind to see some packages.
Any larger dealer should be carrying it; guys like Abel and CineQuipt and Roscor and Lerro and ... well, probably any "Flagship" dealer should have it. It's on the market now, although as I understand it supplies are very limited because basically Fox is buying them all.

NorthernFilmMaker
04-24-2007, 10:12 AM
Not really. They had the 2000 and the 500 set right next to each other, and they looked extremely comparable.


They were probably comparably when the HPX500 was equipped with the big Cine style HD lens though right? or are we talking one of the lenses that are offered in the sub 26,000 dollar package deal?

Barry_Green
04-24-2007, 10:22 AM
Lenses are lenses; if you put the same lens on both I believe they'll deliver a quite comparable picture. But if you put a cheap $5,000 lens on one and a $60,000 lens on the other, you're going to see big differences in how they look.

As for the base camera body, I think they're comparable in image recording capability. With comparable lenses you'll get comparable results.

mule ferguson
04-24-2007, 10:31 AM
And who are the dealers who are selling the 2000? i wouldn't mind to see some packages.

I purchased my HPX2000 at WH Platts in Charlotte. They met the price quoate at dealers in LA and Chicago. It is promissed in early May. We'll see.
Mule

dwcwiak
04-24-2007, 10:53 AM
What about these lenses in the kits for the 500? Are they worth it or should I just get a HVX200?

Barry_Green
04-24-2007, 10:56 AM
The HVX200 costs less than just about any of those lenses. I mean, you're talking about a $25,000 to $32,000 camera package, vs. a $5,995 one. I don't see how you'd even compare 'em.

The 500 does everything the 200 does and lots lots lots lots more. But it costs about 4x as much as well, so it had better do more. It all comes down to what you need.

NorthernFilmMaker
04-24-2007, 11:13 AM
It all comes down to what you need.

For me, there are a few reasons why i didn't get an HVX.....and why i'm seriously considering the HPX....

HVX200

1. it's much too big as a handycam style camcorder, for long periods of hand held work, which i do alot of...you'd need support devices ie, steadicam vest system= more $$

2. the focussing tools are lacking .... so its hard to get really sharp focus 100% of the time, unless you have a third party monitor = more $$

3. only 2 P2 slots, and small capacity P2 cards, (until recently), then you'd need a firestore, and P2 store ....again = more $$

4. fixed 13X lens..... which is much to short for the work i do.... another add on (telephoto lens adapter) = yes, more $$

5. poor low light performance due to the 1/3" chips....more $$ on good lighting setups....

so after all these add ons i bet i would be able to easily buy a HPX500 package and have most of the things that i personally need dealt with. This is all based on my own personal needs as a cameraman....

Barry_Green
04-24-2007, 11:54 AM
Every one of those things is improved on the HPX500, so yes you sound like an ideal HPX500 candidate.

TedRR
04-24-2007, 12:45 PM
Northern, don't forget DOF is much better on the 500. I think that's one reason so many people add extra hardware and then more hardware to support that hardware. :D

David Jimerson
04-24-2007, 12:53 PM
Meaning, it's easier to get a shallow depth of field. :)

NorthernFilmMaker
04-24-2007, 10:05 PM
Barry, do you know when the HPX500 will be shipping? Early May? Late May?

Jim Brennan
04-24-2007, 10:25 PM
I've been thinking a lot that while imagers are like format, the codec imparts a "look" to the footage, so chosing an aquisition camera with a certian codec, is almost like chosing a stock of 35mm.

.


That's an interesting way to look at it. After seeing the red footage, I have been really tempted to buy one when it's available. It gives a higher res than the HPX500, and I am guessing more latitude (although I don't know how many stops the HPX is estimated at), for a comparable price if you just buy the body. But man, there is something about the colors of Panny footage. I know the casual viewer can't tell, and like film stock, you can do some stuff in post. But I just like the look of Panasonic cameras.

Barry_Green
04-24-2007, 10:37 PM
Red is claiming about 11 stops of dynamic range (and it certainly looks like it delivers); the HPX500 clocks in at about 10. No doubt the Red is way higher resolution than the HPX500 (or anything else on the market at 10x the price).

Jim Brennan
04-24-2007, 10:45 PM
And all things being equal, more res is great (especially since red code is supposed to compress at 12:1 and still looks amazing.) But is 4K really necessary, even for a theatrical release? It's a rhetorical question, and I've never been a filmmaker who focuses on the tools more than the project. But I'd like a weekend with both cameras to see which one I liked better.

ksteiger
04-25-2007, 12:45 AM
Maybe 4K isn't "necessary" for theatrical release, but why not shoot for the stars with these things. I worked for a major post house about 8 years ago and had a conversation with an engineer who was "advising" a major theatre chain about resolution issues. He insisted that 1K was all we would ever need. He said that even though a 35 MM negative has a 4K capabilty, by the time you consider resolution loss due to print generation anfd projector jitter 1K is all you should expect on the screen. SO WHAT? If I could get the kind of resolution that a sheet of large format film stock could give me, reasonably,...LET ME HAVE IT !!

It's akin to the debate over sample rates and bit depth resolution in the audio world, or even Beta vs VHS. Give us progress, don't settle for less.

I still have "quad" reel to reel tapes from 1970 that I have re-digitized for playback on my 5.1 home theatre system. They sound great. (OK so I had to fake the center channel) More is more.

Jim Brennan
04-25-2007, 06:32 AM
No doubt. ANd all other things being equal, I'd rather have more res. But let's just say that there was a film stock that had amazing colors, but it only came in super 16....

Barry_Green
04-25-2007, 08:43 AM
But is 4K really necessary, even for a theatrical release?
Of course not. If Lonesome Jim, The Aristocrats, November, Murderball, Iraq In Fragments, Personal Velocity, 28 Days Later, Mad Hot Ballroom, SuperSize Me, Tadpole, Hoop Dreams, and Open Water can all get theatrical releases (and they did), and they were all shot on standard-def video at 0.3k resolution, I find it hard to understand why someone would think 4K is "really necessary". Better, certainly -- but necessary?

Then there's Star Wars Episode II and III, Grindhouse's Planet Terror and Death Proof, Collateral, Spy Kids I, II and III, Once Upon a Time In Mexico, and everything else that's been shot in 1080p. That's not 4K, it's not half of 4K.

And one of last year's bigger hits, "Borat" -- that was shot on 720p on a VariCam. Not even 1K resolution. And Al Gore's film -- a lot of that was shot 720p on an HD100.

Simple fact is: the tools are now good enough. Anyone blaming their camera for not getting the results they want or, worse, thinking that by buying something else bigger and better is the "key" to their success, simply has their priorities in the wrong place.

Better is better. Nobody's disputing that. We all want better, and that's why I got a DVX, why I've got an HVX now, and why I've got a Red reservation, and why I'll probably get an HPX500 as well. But people are getting Oscar nominations off of the standard-def, 4:3 DVX already.

The tools are good enough.


But I'd like a weekend with both cameras to see which one I liked better.
Absolutely the right idea.

TedRR
04-25-2007, 01:40 PM
And Al Gore's film -- a lot of that was shot 720p on an HD100.

And it would have been a waste of pixels if shot on a cell phone! :beer:
Sorry, I had to hit that softball!

It's wasn't the paint brush that made Michael Angelo great ya know.

I gotta admit, until the last couple years I used to be a video snob. But with reality shows and video on the web being accepted so well, it's the perfect concept rather then picture quality that matters.
Kinda sad that both don't matter as much. But the recent technology in low priced camera imagery helped bridge the gap, at least for me.

Enough rambling. Back to work.

Sumfun
04-25-2007, 07:21 PM
I like to think of the great American novel analogy. Anyone with access to pen and paper can write a book, but very few can write best selling novels.

Same with film and video. Although good tools can help, and the new low cost cameras make video available to a lot more people, you still need to bring some talent to the table.

dotconnproductions
04-30-2007, 02:25 PM
Here's some cool footage of the Camera and P2 Gear with Jan at NAB. Nice job on the interview Jan!

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/video/8012.html

David Jimerson
04-30-2007, 02:33 PM
They could have tightened up that edit a little . . .

David Jimerson
04-30-2007, 02:34 PM
I like to think of the great American novel analogy. Anyone with access to pen and paper can write a book, but very few can write best selling novels.

Same with film and video. Although good tools can help, and the new low cost cameras make video available to a lot more people, you still need to bring some talent to the table.

Talent is only the beginning. :)

Erik Olson
04-30-2007, 03:22 PM
That little AGXXX10 thing is what I'd seen a couple months ago. I want one of those. P2 recorder across 2 cards from any 1394 input - that's cool. Wonder if you can hook up an external shuttle controller?

e

David Jimerson
04-30-2007, 03:28 PM
I don't think so. It's pretty much the HVX200 without the camera part, and with an HD-SDI out.

l3lLLY
05-01-2007, 09:43 AM
The 2/3" interchangable lens sets it apart from the HVX200. Nice glass in front of the camera as opposed to the dinky HVX200 lens will make all the dif in the world.

Jim Brennan
05-07-2007, 09:03 PM
HEY! Don't knock that Leica glass. :grin: