Thread: HPX500 in 2020?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,341
    Default
    720p (and lower) may only be transparent in most cases when the case study includes all of the world's uploads.

    Many big YouTubers/channels and gamers are slowly moving from 4K to 8K.

    1080p masters/uploads from 4K+ resolution is probably the norm for most content creators.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member Mike Krumlauf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    OG from Chicago. Currently in Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,522
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    *Disclaimer: I've never used an HPX-500, so I have no idea what the image is like.*


    Depends... Depends on what you're doing, who your clients are, what their expectations/requirements are, what your expectations/requirements are, etc.

    For reference, I do a lot of network TV and I still own and use two 2700 P2 VariCam's. Even thought they are "only" native 720P and released about 12 years ago, they still look great. And I have a friend who just bought a used one from one of their friends a few weeks ago.

    Do I even need to get into the CCD aspect?

    Even though these cameras are "old", it kind of breaks my heart how they are looked down upon, today. I'm honestly hoping to still get many more years out of my 2700's.
    We share the same feelings about these cameras for sure. I went back to CCD tech in 2015 when I got a varicam and I had that camera for 3 years and loved the hell out of it. I went on to a few F900 models including the elusive Panavision model (still pissed I let that one go), A Sony F23, Panavision Genesis and now im back in the handheld space of CCD with an HVX200 and PAL Canon XL1.
    Cameras
    RED SCARLET X 5K



    LENSES
    Sigma 18-35 F1.8 ART Zoom Lens

    Recorders
    AJA Kona 3 PCIe 4:4:4 Dual Link Card W/ Breakout Box
    Panasonic AJ-PCD20 P2 Deck

    Accessories
    Astro DM-3000 HD-SDI Monitor
    Benro Fluid Head Tripod
    Chrosziel CLWAH-F4,5 Matte Box


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member Peter C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    513
    Default
    I see these cameras used for around $1,500 for the body. I imagine they're sold this way because the lens is expensive. So how much does the lens go for?


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,341
    Default
    Many of them most likely sell with SD lenses, which are now practically useless. Or maybe the cheapest HD kit lens that's available.

    Some of the best 4K lenses that can be compatible with the mount still sell for up to $100,000 - but no one is obviously selling the body with one of those for $1500.

    Most people probably had a HD lens around $5K-$15K on those cameras.

    Canon 2:3 Lens.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member Peter C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    513
    Default
    I see the HD version for $12,800 that could go in the price is right thread
    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ....html/overview

    It would seem that the purchase would hinge on whether you could get a hold of an inexpensive used lens and how badly you needed a servo zoom. I always wanted a professional one instead of those crappy built-in variable ones you find on non eng camcorders but I could never stomach the price.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member paulears's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lowestoft - UK
    Posts
    1,887
    Default
    Sometimes I love the way people say useless. I have my old broadcast Fujinon on one of my JVC cameras in my studio and the image difference between the SD B4 lens and the stock lens on my JVC 750s I really can't see. The B4 lens, because of my reduced size camera sensor gives me a less wide shot, but side by side the Fuji is so similar there is no difference. I don't bother putting the kit lens back on - which is of course an HD lens. Oddly, the Canon B4 lens I have is softer - but the Fujinon, with a 2X extender too, is excellent. I'll see if I can find a split screen screen grab.

    It's commonly talked about that SD broadcast lenses on HD are inferior, and I believed that with the Canon - I only recently tried the Fujinon, and was knocked out!

    I've only got this short clip - trying to do everything on my own, I was going to dump it because some bits are over exposed - caused by me forgetting to adjust the exposure when I flipped off the 2X converter, but the two cameras match fine. This is just a dump from Premier - nothing tweaked, but a random image used as the green screen was still up. The zoom in range is pretty impressive on 2X.

    I have never been a pioneer. I remained on tape for quite a while, moving from Beta SP to Hi-8 late, then moved eventually to SD, DV - eventually going to HD DV in 720, then 1080. My stuff never has to be cutting edge and 4K won't be on the list for a few years I suspect. My clients tend to not be following trends either, and two of my long term clients have only just stopped requesting DVDs! Audio remains at 44.1 or 48K, Video at 1080 - 4K and above, and 96K sampling for audio will be quite a while, I suspect.

    Most HPX500 owners already had good broadcast glass, so the push on HD glass only happened once the DVpro HD users moved up a step, about what? 5 or 6 years after the 500 was introduced?

    I simply don't subscribe to the need for ever increasing pixels. I remember being on a 4K Sony course at Pinewood and we were experimenting with the extended dynamic range on the Sony monitor - and it was stunning what the camera could pull out of the shadows and their monitor display it. Sadly, none of the Sony 4K domestic monitors could reproduce it at that time, and most people at home cannot either. Most people are viewing at 1080 and even lower on phones and laptops. I see the point in 4K or maybe 8K for lifespan and archiving for future use, but I don't believe we need to push it for the 'now'. Unless the end destination demands it, and for me - it doesn't.
    Last edited by paulears; 01-05-2021 at 02:14 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,341
    Default
    Useless in terms of that quality above would never be accepted by anyone I know or work with in my area...just would never happen.

    But it doesn't matter. Paul, you've already won if you can make decent money with the above and I would love to be in your shoes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member paulears's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lowestoft - UK
    Posts
    1,887
    Default
    Welcome to the real world. Do you really think 1080 isn't good enough any longer. I saw some stats the other day that over 80% of people who have HD TVs and have HD channels available are still watching in SD. I understand the people who want to make movies want 4K and some more, but the BBC in the UK still have SD regional TV and nobody even notices. All those people with massive flat screens in their houses, watching in 1080, or often much less. I'm really interested in the clients who want 4 and 8K. Setting real cinema to one side I don't know more than two people locally who haver the ability to play 4K on a large screen. Clearly, I don't know everyone who has bought one, but what actual media do people have available? You can download 4K, but most of it seems crunched by the Vimeos and Youtube's. I note one of my 1080 videos archived on Vimeo is half the size it was when I uploaded it.

    That video I knocked up quickly is a good example - in the studio it's very sharp, peering at the monitor, but by the time Vimeo compresses it, what exactly is the point - I'd expect the HPX500 on it's 720p setting to look pretty much like that.

    The HD studio cameras I occasionally work with have box lenses that cost about the same as a Range Rover, yet the viewfinders don't have remotely the resolution the camera actually outputs, and they're damn sharp.

    Here's another clip, of me. lit properly and more care taken - could you comment on the image quality of this one? Still 1080p, but I don't see it as something that's let down by the resolution. Maybe it's just I have history and memory and remember how soft previous formats were? I take it you've always kept on the front edge, going up every time the new formats are released? I can't justify that in expenditure, as pre-covid, all my work was stage based - so music and theatre. 4K for me is pointless and a poor investment. The clients don't want it (or at least would not be willing to pay for it).

    https://vimeo.com/488534899
    P
    Last edited by paulears; 01-05-2021 at 03:40 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,341
    Default
    With all due respect, truly, ignorance is bliss.

    I hate to say that because it sounds unkind, but it's very true with everything in life.

    Like if someone lives on a planet with only bicycles, they only know what bicycles are like for transportation. They don't know about cars or trains or planes and have a very different state-of-mind compared to someone who travels on cars or trains or planes.

    I'm sorry to say, but the second clip is extremely low-quality.

    [EDIT: These comments are about another clip that was posted and removed.]

    If I had to be a harsh critic, there are all kinds of problems with it:
    - The resolution is very poor
    - Even for HD, it's soft HD (everything is a puddle of mush, no detail)
    - Highlights are white blobs, destroyed
    - Lifeless colors
    - Chromatic aberration is through the roof
    - No shallow depth-of-field anywhere (given)

    __

    Paul...if you really care to learn more, you need to watch dozens of hours of YouTube, the best channels to see what people are doing.

    Video production is insane these days.

    And many, many people are watching 4K and 8K footage on native 4K and 8K screens. Some don't know what 720p is, ha.

    __

    I have been on the cutting edge all of my life until about 2018/2019 when IQ plateaued (IMO) - and so did I, ha - but I'm also very much a realist and understanding.

    I don't tell anyone they need to shoot 4K or 8K in their own lives, and I always compliment them when they don't have to.
    Last edited by NorBro; 01-05-2021 at 07:25 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,341
    Default
    P.S. My comments above are about another video link you shared on YouTube of some town and people.

    In the new link you edited/swapped, it is what it is...more detail in a MS/CU but still looks dated in 2020.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 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
  •