Is the HPX500 noticeably sharper than the HVX200??

J.R. Hudson said:
What are you using to focus ? A chart ?

Both of the examples of the HVX look soft, soft, soft.
Click to expand...


That's the reality of a 2/3" chip HD camera with a lens that costs the same (or more) than the entire HVX200 itself! The image should look better if you're sinking $$,$$$ into it as opposed to $,$$$
 
I still think those HVX shots look way, way too soft. Yes the HVX is a little softer than the HPX500, but not as much as those shots show. There's something else at play here -- either the backfocus is off, or the detail level's down around -7, or something... the HVX looks a lot better than those shots are showing.
 
Agree.

I don't even need to see that shot in a comparison to know that it's considerably softer than what I have shot with the hvx. In 720 or 1080.

That just looks.... too soft to the point of blurriness. Whatever it is... out of focus, crappy lens filter in front of lens, or whatever, it's not like my hvx looks.

Jason

EDIT: As I look at the background of the bicycle pic... It seems that parts of the background appear sharper than the bike itself...
 
Last edited:
I can assure everyone that the shot of the bike was as sharp as I could get it using the veiw finder and focus assist on the HVX. (focusing a lens is well within my skillset.)

I agree that the image is soft as well and since the camera is not my own, I have not had time to investigate more.

Right now the suspect is probably the Hoya UV filter which I should have taken off before capturing these stills. I'll also look at the detail level when I have a chance and see if that could also be compounding the problem.
 
Barry_Green said:
I still think those HVX shots look way, way too soft.... the HVX looks a lot better than those shots are showing.
Click to expand...

You would hope so...who would want to spend that kind of money to get that kind of picture quality. I've seen better grabs from an HV20.
 
again i think the crocodile pictures are a better comparision and it shows that the HPX is only a tad sharper than the HVX to my eyes.
 
Barry_Green said:
I still think those HVX shots look way, way too soft. Yes the HVX is a little softer than the HPX500, but not as much as those shots show. There's something else at play here -- either the backfocus is off, or the detail level's down around -7, or something... the HVX looks a lot better than those shots are showing.
Click to expand...

I just happened to face the same issue this evening: I'm a cameraman for a popular Belgian weekly TV show which uses several (3) HVX200. We bought them at the beginning of the season (in June) and now all 3 have serious backfocus issues, even the one which was the backup (almost unused). And this evening, I did notice that one of the 3 cameras can't even properly focus at all (and this has nothing to do with the detail level): no matter what you do, the best you can achieve is something comparable with what dolby is showing us. Fortunately, with the season ending on sunday, we will finally have the chance (and time) to bring them back for repair.

I personally believe it is pretty disapointing to get issues like these after shooting only 100 hours or so. Granted, the show we shoot (open air "active" sports and leisures) often forces us to take "wild shots", like standing on the roof of a car going at 30 Mph, or "death riding" a few hundred meters down a cliff, bungee jumping from a bridge and so on. But none of these cameras ever fell or received any unusual amount of shock or bad treatment whatsoever.

By comparison, we shot last year's show on 3 DVX100 and never got a single issue at all. One of those even fell on the ground from 1 meter, but was still running perfectly. Go figure...
 
Well my next cam will be the HPX500. Still surprised about the wide variety of quality of lenses out there. Running JVC HD110 right now, and don't like the stock Fujinon lens. I got to test a Fujinon 13x lens on a JVC HD250 next to a HPX500 with (stock?) lens a few months ago. Really liked the Funinon 13x lens ($6,500 or so) So what sort of lenses (upgrades from stock) are people using with HPX500 that they are liking. With the JVC line, the 13x ($6,500) is far superior to the stock lens ($800?) corner to corner sharpness, CA etc, and every other way better. What lenses have people been using on the HPX500 that they are liking? Not sure if I want to drop $6,500 on a lens for the JVC. The lens plus the original camera gets me in the same price range as the stock HPX500.
 
k2director said:
I have an HVX200, and like the camera, but am always a little envious of the tack-sharp look that HDV cameras such as the Canon A1 or even the HV20 are able to achieve. HDV cameras just look a little sharper to my eye, and their pictures feel more akin to what I see on Discovery HD theater.


To get back to the original question, specifically the "sharper" points of reference.

While I am not sure about the HV20, most HDV, and indeed Discovery Channel, live in an interlace world. All other things being equal 60i always looks sharper than 24P.
Click to expand...
 
CamOp said:
k2director said:
While I am not sure about the HV20, most HDV, and indeed Discovery Channel, live in an interlace world. All other things being equal 60i always looks sharper than 24P.
Click to expand...


I dont know how you can make this assertion - how can interlaced lines, which spread info over time more then progressive look sharper then progressive images, all else being equal.

That just doesnt make sense
Click to expand...
 
I seriously wonder if some HVX's with offset image blocks (very common) may suffer somewhat from the offset? Very few of the HVX's used with the Brevis (and we've got a very large sample size to work with) have lens-centric capture. This would suggest that some of the HVX's out there may differ in terms of image softness as some of them are clearly not capturing from the center of the HVX optics. The Canon HV20 is a definite challenge, with the XH-A1 coming in on the other side of things as shooting nearly perfectly lens-centric. The Brevis adapters are all assembled using a master set of CNC custom machined steel tools and the imaging elements are typically +- .002" (XYZ axis postioning) from each other. As the number of HVX200 and HV20 users has increased, we've been able to establish some very reliable data on the lens-centricity of various cameras.

Barry, can you post a pic from the HPX combo with a step down ring attached? Zoom out until you can visualize the edges of the step-down ring. I bet it's nearly perfect. If you can, try the same with the HVX you've got there.
 
Last edited:
Why would you buy the Fujinon? Do you have since your message below got more experiences with lenses for the 500. I asked Spec-comm what they thought of the lenses below. What is your opinion is the best in terms of resulution and less breathing? Are there other factors you took into acount if you had to make a choise from the lenses below?


KJ16eX7.7MIRSDPS12 Canon 16x w/2x extender HD CAC lens $8,600 KJ16eX7.7BKRSDPS12 Canon 16X HD CAC lens $8,000
XA17x7.6BERM-M58B Fujinon 17x w/2X extender HD CAC lens $8,600 XA17x7.6BRM-M58B Fujinon 17x HD CAC lens $6,750

Barry_Green said:
I haven't had a chance with multiple lenses side by side. So far with the brief experience I've had with the Canon w/2x, vs. the Fujinon w/2x, I'd buy the Fujinon. This Canon w/o 2x seems a tad better than the Canon w/2x though. But that's just really an overview impression, not based on scientifically comparing the lenses against each other.
Click to expand...
 
In the experiences I've had, I just think the Fujinon is sharper and with less chromatic abberation. Both of them breathe significantly. That's not a scientific assessment though, that's just a general impression.
 
I understand that the extender is a piece of glass which you can flip into the lens (by a knob on the lens barrel) so you don't have to zoom. Did I understand this well? Does it work on the whole zoom range of the lens (meaning you can get e.g. 2*17 = ~34 * zoom). What does the extender do on the light sensitivity. Im mean is a lens with extender as sensitive as a lens wthout an extender even if you do not use the extender. I know these are newby questions but I appreciate if you can clarify this for me.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
I understand that the extender is a piece of glass which you can flip into the lens (by a knob on the lens barrel) so you don't have to zoom. Did I understand this well? Does it work on the whole zoom range of the lens (meaning you can get e.g. 2*17 = ~34 * zoom). What does the extender do on the light sensitivity. Im mean is a lens with extender as sensitive as a lens wthout an extender even if you do not use the extender. I know these are newby questions but I appreciate if you can clarify this for me.
Click to expand...

The extender basically just doubles the focal length of the lens at both the wide and the telephoto end -- so if your lens was a 7-20mm, flipping the extender switch would give you 14-40mm. It would also rob you of a stop (maybe more) of light, so you'd have to open up.
 
The lens doubler is a flip-in doubling element that does convert your 17mm to 34mm. Yes it works throughout the zoom range. And it costs about 2 stops of light performance.

The lens with the extender removed should be equally sensitive to a lens with no extender at all, IINM.
 
The extender is basically the same concept as a teleconverter with still cameras, only it is built in -- not an add on piece. I worked with a cameraman on a shoot where he had a wide lens, which was generally perfect for verite-style shooting where you're walking around with the person you're filming. But the 2X came in handy for some long distance stuff. You would use the converter for increased telephoto power, to fill more of the the frame with something far away. You would use it for anything you can't get close to or don't want to get close to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top