Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bassman2003 View Post
    You have good points and healthy debate is positive.

    When I look at a camera like the HMC-150 or the HPX-170, these cameras are under $5,000. $3,300 and $4,300 respectively. Both are considered to have very nice images and often used in for-pay environments.

    Then I look at the HPX-370 which as you state will be $9,200, I see a $5,000 difference. But all three of these 1/3" chip cameras. From a layman's point of view, I think it would take more engineering to create a small form factor camera rather than a large form due to space limitations. I also read about CMOS being less power hungry and more less expensive to manufacture.

    Shooting 720p with all three cameras, running through post then showing the end result on Blu-ray, how much difference would you see? 1080p would be a different story to some extent. How much are clients going to see? It would be an interesting comparison.

    Bottom line, I am not a huge fan of 1/3" chip cameras and seeing them approach the $10,000 mark is troubling for me as historically they have not been this high.

    Regarding the two comments, I also know larger chips cost more. But at the HPX-370 pricepoint, you have pretty much doubled the "normal" price for a 1/3" chip camera, and Bottom line, I am not a huge fan of 1/3" chip cameras and seeing them approach the $10,000 mark is troubling for me as historically they have not been this high.

    The HPX370 is NOT a normal 1/3 chip camera. This camera has a new, low noise 1920x1080 imager. Also, this camera has a full-resolution AVC-Intra codec and the reliability of P2, built-in. Other 1/3 and almost all chip cameras offer MPEG-2, long-GOP 4:2:0 compression, while the HPX370 offers full-resolution AVC-Intra 100, space efficient, 10-bit AVC-Intra 50 and industry standard DVCPRO-HD/50/25.

    These are key points. The HPX370 has all of the advantages of a shoulder mount camera with full-raster AVC-Intra and P2.


     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,495
    Default
    Full disclosure, I use an HPX-500, EX-1 and an HMC-150. I also use two Nano-flash recorders and do not own a P2 card.

    1080p, the EX-1 just wins. 720p all are pretty equal in the end with the HPX-500 drawing my attention the most with great color and modelling in the image.

    Yes, pretty close to the "camera for every job" principle I hate. I used to own three matching DVC-200s which was great. Not in the HD era. Yes I freely admit I am bitter. The DVC-200 was a perfect small business tool. Full size, 1/2" chips, long record time, great audio, no skew, nice image for $5,000-$7,000 with an adult lens. I have yet to find this value & feature set in the HD era.

    I realize there is a want to sell cameras but I would just ask one question to the working pros out there who own their own business, not use other people's cameras.

    Would you want to base your entire business around a 1/3" chip camera?

    Because around the $10,000 mark it is not another camera purchase like the $3,300 HMC-150, it is getting to be quite an investment.

    All broadcast standards up until present have shunned the use of 1/3" chip cameras. Why would this be the camera to get knowing this?

    That is where I am coming from. Send the flaming arrows!


     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Default
    Well, if the 1/3" camera delivers better images than the 1/2" camera... seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

    I mean, are you delivering images, or are you selling spec sheets?

    All broadcast standards up until present have shunned the use of 1/3" chip cameras
    Well, the key point being "up until present". When NBC and ABC decided to shift their news operations over to 1/3" (HPX300 and HPX170) that certainly changed things.

    That said, you do have a point about the 1/3" and acceptance, those that have certain clients who demand certain things, will still have to meet those clients' requirements. If you're shooting for the BBC, the XDCAM-EX format doesn't qualify, nor does the HPX370's 1/3" chips. So if you are trying to contract out footage, you would of course be well served to research your proposed client's requirements.

    But the same question can easily be asked: would you want to base your entire business around a 1/2" chip camera? Especially when it doesn't even perform to the level of today's 1/3" cameras? You can still go with the relatively affordable 2/3" HPX500 option and have a full 2/3" system that is certified for unrestricted acquisition by Discovery.

    So really, you're saying the same thing -- you're saying you have a smaller-chip camera (EX1) that produces sharper imagery than your larger-chip camera (HPX500). And you're okay with that. So why is it any different for Panasonic to say they have a smaller-chip camera (HPX370) that produces better, more sensitive, lower-noise images than your larger-chip camera (EX1)?


     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    840
    Default
    If Panasonic is so confident in the equality (or superiority) of the advances demonstrated in the 1/3 inch format, why not slam dunk it by showing what they could do by offering the technology in a 1/2 inch, and cause a mass defection from envious EX owners? I just don't see the point of declaring victory in the poker match by calling, not raising the bet. The EX series has been on top for over 2 years, practically legend.

    To be sure, the HPX370 has a lot going for it including being mostly alone in a 1/3 inch shoulder mount class. But aside from placating their own base, who's going to unload their EX for this? Collect some fence sitters? Sure why not but just around the corner is Sony again, armed with the PMW-320, and Canon with the XF.

    What has always irritated me about Panasonic beginning with the HVX200, is like dining at a French Restaurant. The food is good but it never quite satisfies the hunger. You can call it a no brainer, but the blame for those of us who never give Panasonic the time of day is squarely for reasons like P2 and codec salesmanship because there wasn't an actual answer to EX imagery. Now that they do, and let's be clear that IF they do, it's by an ever-so-teeny still disputed margin that's hardly clear cut or conclusive, no disrespect to your tests Barry, but it'll be ripe to get knocked off just like everything eventually does, including the EX (and probably a lot sooner), and the reason why just the thought of 1/3 inch generates no excitement for me whatsoever.
    Last edited by Tom Roper; 04-14-2010 at 09:40 PM.


     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Senior Member lawriejaffa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,012
    Default
    Jeez, get over it - honestly to me 1/2 is a gimmick (imo) and for most people who see it that way, its just not the pertinent issue with camera selection.

    For those who really do percieve an astonishing benefit, betwixt 1/3 and 2/3 then power to them but sorry, i don't really feel Panny has to jump to 1/2 just to satisfy a fairly adolescent affinity in my book.
    Feature: LORD OF TEARS - A New Legend in Horror - Pre-Order Now http://www.lordoftears.com/


     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    927
    Default
    If the HPX370 should be around the same price as the HMC150 or the HPX170 than shouldn't the PMW320 be the same price as the EX1R?
    You see what I'm saying?


     

  7. Collapse Details
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Default
    I actually had an EX-1 and traded it in for an HPX-170, simply because the codec and lens on the Sony weren't as good as the Panasonic...I could care less about what size chip it was, the image quality was everything. I say this as an Owner-Operator who has been in business for 5 years using my own gear. I used a Letus Extreme/Nikon lenses with both. I also have a Canon 7-D and will be getting a Scarlet package. I didn't think that the Canon codec would be able to grade well, but it's pretty fair. The small form factor of the Canon allows me to get B-roll in places I would never be allowed into with the HPX-170(or a 370 for that matter), but it has limitations on it too. The Scarlet will probably be the least limited of all, but I wouldn't use it to document corporate speakers or depositions...
    My point is that there isn't one all purpose camera package. The real debate is to be had with one's self as to what tools will get the image quality required(or better) with the least amount of risk to the bottom line in the form of wear and tear and/or damage to gear.
    Monday Sunnlinn

    President
    7th Level Non-Linear Inc.
    Zero Point Studios

    www.7thlevelnonlinear.com
    my graphic art gallery

    2D/3D FX/Animations/Compositing
    Digital Cinematography
    Digital Photography
    Audio Sweetening/ Film Scoring
    VO Recording
    Graphic Design
    Production Consultant


     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3
    Default
    Hello,
    What is the difference between HPX370 and HPX 371? thanks


     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    540
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by image90 View Post
    Hello,
    What is the difference between HPX370 and HPX 371? thanks
    The 370 is the NTSC version, the 371 is PAL/NTSC switchable, from my understanding.


     

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •