HPX500 is video - say it like it is

S

shivrajs

Active member
Is it just me who thinks a good deal of footage shot on the hpx500 look so obviously video?
maybe its just that i like grain, one of the reasons i like the lens adapters (german and american) is because of the forced DOF fun you can have with it.
the other reason is that the xtra grain/shutter effect, maybe i just dont like super clean images.
maybe a relay lens/adapter will produce way more interesting images.dunno, will have to try it out soon.
please post ur replies, im curious to hear thoughts, comments and opinions.

shivraj
 
Ive shot with the 500 and well its kinda hard to explain the look of it in my perspective, I think that the "HD look" is the future, take red for example it does not look like film but it does not look like video, I was on the same boat of thoughts that you are right now, I think the super clean sharp look of the high end HD cameras is the look of the future

just my thoughts poured out on html :)
 
Like anything else it's largely determined by the skill of the user. R.P.D.M. looked really great and it was shot on an HPX500.
 
yup the HD look!:thumbsup: I remember when i first saw a music video a few years ago and i was like "geez its so clean, kinda like film without the grain" but its really hard to push HD like the the new emulsions, the highlights never seem to hold.

Just watched R.P.D.M sex, drugs and blood = great entertainment! but a lot of the movement and DOF just looks so video (like the bathroom sequence or the shot of her laughing after he sucks her nipple for example) voicing the thoughts in my head.
 
It's a lot easier to add grain than remove it. So while the a clean image may not be that exciting to some, at least it gives you options. That must be why Kodak invested so much money in reducing the amount of grain in their film stocks with Vision 3.
 
HD will never ever ever compare with film as far as how they handle the highlights and the shadows

I will say that the "problem" with HD cams is that they see too much into the shadows where as film does some beautiful magic of blending the shadows and when the hd cam clips with the highlights, film still has ways to go before it clips
 
I guess to each his own. If you think it looks too video, fine, to others it may not. The best thing is that if you don't like what you see get another camera thet might look more "film".
 
There's a corny old saying - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... and I've always felt that way about video images compared to film...

But you can make a really nice pigskin purse out of a sow's ear...

I have a wonderful super16 Aaton camera with a Cooke 10.4-52mm that I've owned for nearly 20 years. I spend more yearly on maintenance and insurance on that camera than it makes now - but I will never sell it...

As I've said in other posts here, the 500 at 720/24pn looks more like super16 than any video camera I've used... When you shoot 1080 with it, it looks like video, but at 720, underexposed 2 stops (you have to be courageous and shoot dark) and never shooting above f4 and using the mid to long end of the lens... Cine D, unless you like Kodachrome or Bleach Bypass, then Cine V.

It's a pretty nice pigskin purse in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Want more grain? Add it in post. But the HPX is a video camera so sure, it looks like video that is trying to look like film, like any others. And, Ive said it many many times, there are prime lenses for use with the 500. By far and away the 500, has a far shallower DOF than any 1/2 or 1/3" chip camera on the market. And the other point, anything put on the internet at a fraction of its original size looks very crisp and clean. Watch RPDM on a large LCD thats 1080 compatible at full screen, looks great.
 
There have been a lot of stuff shot thru the years on 16mm or even 35mm that looked like crap, to go along with the good stuff. The same with any of the video camera emulating film, there have been a lot of awful stuff but there have been great stuff also. The average person watching a great story been told on the screen would not care in what medium it was shot. Take the soap operas by example, they have the ultimate “video look” and are loved by millions.
 
So if you think the 500 looks so "video", why did you buy it / use it? It IS a video camera dude.

Like Blaine said, it's how you use it.

What I find funny in this business is the fact that so many people rely on the tools to make them look good. But the truth of it is that it doesn't really matter what you are using to a degree. The good DP's will make whatever they have look great, while the bad DP's will try to compensate with better gear, but it rarely works.

Look, If you need a film camera, I highly suggest you purchase a film camera. If you need a video camera, then buy a video camera. I have seen pleanty of footage from these "video" cameras that looks absolutely amazing but you gotta use it in the right way.
 
Mac said:
There's a corny old saying - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear... and I've always felt that way about video images compared to film...

But you can make a really nice pigskin purse out of a sow's ear...

I have a wonderful super16 Aaton camera with a Cooke 10.4-52mm that I've owned for nearly 20 years. I spend more yearly on maintenance and insurance on that camera than it makes now - but I will never sell it...

As I've said in other posts here, the 500 at 720/24pn looks more like super16 than any video camera I've used... When you shoot 1080 with it, it looks like video, but at 720, underexposed 2 stops (you have to be courageous and shoot dark) and never shooting above f4 and using the mid to long end of the lens... Cine D, unless you like Kodachrome or Bleach Bypass, then Cine V.

It's a pretty nice pigskin purse in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Its great to hear an objective and informative opinion from a person who has a film background. Its a little annoying when people reply with the shoot on a different camera or shoot film because thats not the point.

Good production design/lighting/camera moves/great talent makes viewers want to watch a film, most of us know the basics.

The reason i started this thread is because i've seen many films shot with the HVX+adapter combo which could've passed for 16mil without much argument but most of the HPX clips i have seen looks like video.

am i missing something?

p.s. I am in no way trying to dis the 500 but rather just trying to understand the necessity for an affordable relay/adapter system.
noel you maybe right about the internet/viewing bit will watch it on my plasma screen.
 
I'm sad to say that I barely remember what film looks like when I've shot it, or what it's like to focus through a flickering viewfinder...
 
Shrivrajs, this debate is really old and this is a video board.
The HPX is clearly a video camera which produces incredible HD footage that looks "a lot" like S16 mm for a fraction of the price.
Please don't judge a few comments here as being too simplistic.
At this point in time you either go for film because you absolutely have or want to or you shoot HD like anybody else.
:-)
 
Another thing I think you may be overlooking is that this camera is for the most part, the step up for shooters and DP's who've been working with the 1/3" cameras. I would assume most of them don't have loads of money to dump on fantastic lenses, so when the HPX500 is paired with a $6,000 ENG lens, of course it's going to look like video. The HVX200 looks like video until you throw the adapter on and shoot with prime lenses, and with that you lose a stop and a half of exposure, the image gets soft, you have bouncing reflections within the adapter itself.

Throw a high end cine zoom, or digiprimes on the HPX500 and this camera sings. Even with a crummy lens, the HPX500 has better latitude and DOF than the 200, AND you can still throw on an adapter if you are so inclined.

I've already posted this link before, but look at my website http://harrisfilms.com where I have stills and a compressed video of the first test shots I did with the 500. To me, for the most part, these shots come off as looking very much like film. Yes, for pros like you and I we can see where the 500 falls short of actually being film, but I garuntee the audience can't. Unless you're heading for Tijuana, for the buck you aint getting any better bang.

I'm also starting to get little tired of this retarded film vs. HD debate. Of course there's a place for film, and for now, it's the king of formats; but don't be a snob, there's a market for HD that film can't touch. HD allows people who don't have money for 35 or super 16 to learn the ropes of production. That means getting things together, running a crew, planning, planning, PLANNING... Why pay the cost of film to learn these lessons when there's a VERY suitable alternative that wont necessarily drain your bank account? HD makes films that are good enough for our audience, so who are any of us to scoff at it? Is is ideal? Not always, but many times, yes it is. HD allows for immediate review, and with a properly calibrated monitor, the director and DP get to see EXACTLY what they are shooting as they shoot it. Not to mention that after investing in a few decent sized P2 cards, you never need to pay for tape or film stock ever again.

peace,

Nick Harris
 
Nick Harris said:
Throw a high end cine zoom, or digiprimes on the HPX500 and this camera sings.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. The other component we should be more aware of is that the market itself is shifting. Even films shot on 35mm these days will end up on blueray - watched blueray or HDDVD lately? The image is so crisp and clean. And these advanced consumers are starting to expect to see that. Hate to say it but we do not drive the market - consumers do. Personally I think the 500 fits into this transition rather well.
 
I think all points had been stated. So, I'll just say, from my own experience...I love my HPX500 and it had serve me well. I tried not to be picky and go with the amount of Ben Franklins I have in hands. I for sure ain't Mr. Spielberg who can shoot with any camera he wants with any size budget. I have nothing but strong recommendations on the HPX500 for those who have 25 grands in hand for an HD camera. With or without any DOF adaptors, the HPX is a real contender among some of the big boys in the HD arena. That's my two pennies.
 
aalleexx said:
HD will never ever ever compare with film as far as how they handle the highlights and the shadows
Click to expand...

History is filled with things that many people said would "never ever ever" happen.
And technology specifically so.

So not only would I say that it's possible that HD will replicate film's lattitude at some point, I'd say it's inevitable.

In fact I'm certain it will surpass it.
 
I hear it again "HD will never be as good as film". And the CD will never be as good as a vinyl record, and digital still photography will never be as good as film... it's always the same discussion - but in the end only a handful of nostalgic freaks will stick with the old format. Look at still photography, who is still shooting on film? Even a Hasselblad full format is available as a 35MP digital camera today, because the only reason to shoot still photography on film is nostalgia...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top