Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43
  1. Collapse Details
    Advantage of an Hpx-500 vs Dslr Camera?
    #1
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    965
    Default
    As a current Dslr user and now I will be working with a friend who works for a company that uses these cameras I would like to know some heads up.

    I keep hearing people say that the codec cuts like butter and works very nice in the editing stages. Also what main advantage does this camera have over dslrs.

    Sorry for the noob question, just want to know what exactly makes this camera better.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member Kolor-Pikker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    444
    Default
    Well, where to begin? A nice camera is more than just about image quality, there are many factors such as ergonomics and robustness that can be very indispensable depending on your needs. Here's a small list off the top of my head:

    Form factor: If you learn how to use an ENG cam, you'll be able to pretty much use any professional camera regardless of make or model, as most share a very similar layout and support the same features. They are much more comfortable to use out of the box than dSLR's which need rigs and viewfinders to make em work, the camcorder will have all the connections you could possibly need for audio, monitoring, remote control, external recording, ect.
    Build quality: Modern ENG cams, especially those using solid-state media, can be used in just about any hazard nature (and sometimes mankind) can throw at you and keep working; there's no junk like shutting off from over-heating, limited record times, outrageous skew, ect.
    Codec: dSLRs record data at 44~50mbps 4:2:0 long-gop at best, which doesn't exactly have most people jumping for joy. More robust codecs such as DVCPRO HD record more color data at higher bitrates and encode every frame instead of spreading data out over several frames, which is much more convenient in difficult situations such as when flash photography is being used, or you're shooting footage of something like ocean waves and other unpredictable, high-detail subjects. What people mean by "edits like butter" is the fact that you can pretty much edit DVCPRO footage on just about any computer made in the last 10+ years, and it's widely supported.

    I could go on, but the point is, the only things I find nice about dSLR cams is the selective focus, compactness and low cost. If you need any combination of those things, which people often find they do, then you know why they've become so popular, otherwise a camcorder is almost always better, especially in situations where a narrow DOF is not needed.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    965
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolor-Pikker View Post
    Well, where to begin? A nice camera is more than just about image quality, there are many factors such as ergonomics and robustness that can be very indispensable depending on your needs. Here's a small list off the top of my head:

    Form factor: If you learn how to use an ENG cam, you'll be able to pretty much use any professional camera regardless of make or model, as most share a very similar layout and support the same features. They are much more comfortable to use out of the box than dSLR's which need rigs and viewfinders to make em work, the camcorder will have all the connections you could possibly need for audio, monitoring, remote control, external recording, ect.
    Build quality: Modern ENG cams, especially those using solid-state media, can be used in just about any hazard nature (and sometimes mankind) can throw at you and keep working; there's no junk like shutting off from over-heating, limited record times, outrageous skew, ect.
    Codec: dSLRs record data at 44~50mbps 4:2:0 long-gop at best, which doesn't exactly have most people jumping for joy. More robust codecs such as DVCPRO HD record more color data at higher bitrates and encode every frame instead of spreading data out over several frames, which is much more convenient in difficult situations such as when flash photography is being used, or you're shooting footage of something like ocean waves and other unpredictable, high-detail subjects. What people mean by "edits like butter" is the fact that you can pretty much edit DVCPRO footage on just about any computer made in the last 10+ years, and it's widely supported.

    I could go on, but the point is, the only things I find nice about dSLR cams is the selective focus, compactness and low cost. If you need any combination of those things, which people often find they do, then you know why they've become so popular, otherwise a camcorder is almost always better, especially in situations where a narrow DOF is not needed.
    Thanks for the reply. Now on the flip side to that can you answer some things where a Dslr is better than an Hpx500


    * Performs better in less light
    * Can achieve selective dof
    * Price
    * Interchangeable Lenses

    That's only a few I can think of. I think the P2 media that is used to record is a lot more professional than Sd cards. Also the higher bit rate and color sample of the hpx500 is something that is really important as well.

    Not to cause an argument here with anyone, just wanting to know more about actual users who have used both technologies

    thanks


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member mb72378's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hudson, NC
    Posts
    692
    Default
    The HPX is going to be just as good in low light as the dslr. The larger chips helps a lot with that. The HPX also has interchangeable lenses....ones actually made for shooting HD video (but yes they are more expensive) and you can def get SHALLOW depth of field with them. And sure the price is a little up there....but it's not really an issue if your a serious videographer investing in your business. I like DSLR's but only because they produce some pretty decent film like images. But I personally would never choose one over an HPX500 or similar camera. If the HPX wasn't filmlike enough to soot my needs I'd rent a RED. After all how many "serious" film productions buy their cameras? rarely any.
    HVX200
    Libec LS38
    15" MacBook Pro i7 Quad-Core 8GB Ram
    24" Imac 2.9 Duo 4GB Ram
    Final Cut Studio
    Adobe Production Premium CS5.5
    http://www.mbowdenproductions.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member Kolor-Pikker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    444
    Default
    * Performs better in less light
    The HPX is going to be just as good in low light as the dslr. The larger chips helps a lot with that.
    2/3" 3-chip cameras do perform rather well against dSLRs because of the 3-chip design, there are some pretty high-end cameras that do utilize a single-chip designs, but unlike SLR cameras they actually down-sample the image instead of line-skipping.
    If anything, SLR cameras perform better in good light, because even with -6db gain on some camcorders, you are still probably at ISO400, whereas dSLR cameras can go down to ISO100 and even ISO50 for squeaky-clean images.

    * Can achieve selective dof
    * Interchangeable Lenses
    The HPX also has interchangeable lenses....ones actually made for shooting HD video (but yes they are more expensive) and you can def get SHALLOW depth of field with them.
    While having a variety of lenses makes sense in photography, where image quality must remain critical regardless of the intent of the lens, in video things are much simpler. By and large, you just pick a wide zoom or long zoom, 2x extender or not, and call it a day. You really won't need anything else because a good video lens is most likely going to be sharp at any focal length, have macro, a rather wide aperture, and an extreme focal range; you would need over a dozen 35mm lenses just to do all that.
    Also although you can knock a background out of focus using a 2/3" camcorder, it's most likely going to be done at a long focal setting, while dSLRs do have the advantage of being able to do so even with wide lenses.

    That said, you can't truly say which is "better" because they serve different stylistic and practical purposes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    965
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolor-Pikker View Post
    2/3" 3-chip cameras do perform rather well against dSLRs because of the 3-chip design, there are some pretty high-end cameras that do utilize a single-chip designs, but unlike SLR cameras they actually down-sample the image instead of line-skipping.
    If anything, SLR cameras perform better in good light, because even with -6db gain on some camcorders, you are still probably at ISO400, whereas dSLR cameras can go down to ISO100 and even ISO50 for squeaky-clean images.



    While having a variety of lenses makes sense in photography, where image quality must remain critical regardless of the intent of the lens, in video things are much simpler. By and large, you just pick a wide zoom or long zoom, 2x extender or not, and call it a day. You really won't need anything else because a good video lens is most likely going to be sharp at any focal length, have macro, a rather wide aperture, and an extreme focal range; you would need over a dozen 35mm lenses just to do all that.
    Also although you can knock a background out of focus using a 2/3" camcorder, it's most likely going to be done at a long focal setting, while dSLRs do have the advantage of being able to do so even with wide lenses.

    That said, you can't truly say which is "better" because they serve different stylistic and practical purposes.
    Thank you for your professional post, truly great to hear from someone with knowledge on this matter.

    Hpx500 is a professional Camera with pro controls for video and audio which a dslr does not have, you have to use external mics and audio recorders to get good audio with dslrs, so that's always a problem when you need to record audio.

    That's very interesting regarding the way the Hpx500 uses it's chips and I honestly did not know that a dslr with a lot of light can produce a super clean image as opposed to other cameras which are at higher iso's


    Very informative,


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,701
    Default
    I have found the color space to be off in the DSLR world (5D, 7D) if you are editing and producing in the YUV colorspace for television. If you put a Mac Beth chart in front of a 5D and an HPX-500 you will find the DSLR to be pretty far off when viewed on a proper production monitor.

    I tried to match the 5D to the HPX-500 (using a chart) and pretty much gave up because to get the colors correct on the 5D I have to push to the level of posterization and it still was not true. So if you are shooting for broadcast the true "video" cameras have an edge because that is what they are built for.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member mb72378's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hudson, NC
    Posts
    692
    Default
    vision_filmz are you alluding to the fact that you think my response was not "knowledgeable on the matter"?

    Kolor-Pikker is most certainly correct with his statements. He exaggerated on on some of the things that I had mentioned.
    HVX200
    Libec LS38
    15" MacBook Pro i7 Quad-Core 8GB Ram
    24" Imac 2.9 Duo 4GB Ram
    Final Cut Studio
    Adobe Production Premium CS5.5
    http://www.mbowdenproductions.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    965
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mb72378 View Post
    vision_filmz are you alluding to the fact that you think my response was not "knowledgeable on the matter"?

    Kolor-Pikker is most certainly correct with his statements. He exaggerated on on some of the things that I had mentioned.
    His post was less biased than yours. When you say that Dslr's produce a descent film like image & hpx500 is not expensive if you are "Serious" . Just rubs me the wrong way.

    Many amazing projects have been shot on a Hpx-500, but many have been shot on a dslr as well. So much so that No One can deny the "Picture Quality" alone of either project. So please lets not get into actual quality as I have seen amazing projects shot with both cameras.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member mb72378's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hudson, NC
    Posts
    692
    Default
    First of all my post wasn't "biased." It's just my opinion. I wasn't hacking on anything. I even stated that dslr's produce a nice film like image. I did not mean to rub you the wrong way. It's just one guy's opinion. I don't have any issues with dslr's nor with the issue of people choosing them over other cameras. And I def. didn't say anything about or deny "quality" of either camera.

    I apologize for offering my opinion. I thought you wanted people to chime in. It seems that you have your mind made up about the DSLR considering you are defending it sooo much when there is no need to be defensive. I merely wanted to say....I personally prefer the HPX500. DSLR's are nice but not my cup of tea (PERSONALLY/OPINION). If I want the film like quality I'll rent a red.
    HVX200
    Libec LS38
    15" MacBook Pro i7 Quad-Core 8GB Ram
    24" Imac 2.9 Duo 4GB Ram
    Final Cut Studio
    Adobe Production Premium CS5.5
    http://www.mbowdenproductions.com


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 5 12345 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
  •