Pros and cons from daily users / owners of the HPX500

This HPX500 sounds like a great camera. I admittedly haven't payed much attention to it because it's a shoulder mount camera (smaller/lighter is good for what I'm doing), but I noticed it has 2/3" CCD chips. Excuse my ignorance with this question (I was reading through this thread and didn't see anything mentioned) but does this HPX500 shoot 'native' 1920x1080, or is it adjusted (or whatever they do with the HVX200) to uprez it to 1920x1080? Gracias!
 
Buck Forester said:
This HPX500 sounds like a great camera. I admittedly haven't payed much attention to it because it's a shoulder mount camera (smaller/lighter is good for what I'm doing), but I noticed it has 2/3" CCD chips. Excuse my ignorance with this question (I was reading through this thread and didn't see anything mentioned) but does this HPX500 shoot 'native' 1920x1080, or is it adjusted (or whatever they do with the HVX200) to uprez it to 1920x1080? Gracias!
Click to expand...

Pixel Shifted from 960 x 540 to 1920 x 1080. Similar to the 200, but with a higher pixel count.
 
Gracias, Kit! Man, I just looked this up at B&H and it's only $9,999! Sounds pretty sweet for a sub-$10 grand camera!
 
Plus there is a $2000 rebate. But keep in mind you need batteries, P2 Cards, a lens, some sort of microphone / audio, etc. Reaistically, you could probably be into a nice setup for around $14k-$15k depending on what gear you currently have.
 
Barry_Green said:
It does use the spatial offset technique, but not from 960x540. The only spec we've been given is that it uses 620,000-pixel imagers.
Click to expand...

Well, that's been said multiple times, even from you if i recall correctly, but I'm not perfect and could be wrong. I didn't pull the number out of thin air, but I would imagine that it is close to that. I know when creating files for DVCPRO HD, it's usually that, but again...
 
Barry_Green said:
The HVX is 960x540. The HPX500 is 620,000 pixels, which doesn't equate to 960x540.
Click to expand...

okie dokie. So what does it equate to then? It can't still be 960 x 540 and have higher resolution imagers?

Isn't the HPX 3000 1920 x 1280 but does 2.2 Million? Cause 1920 x 1280 is 2,457,600

And isn't the HPX 2000 1440 x 1280 but does 1.1m? Cause that is 1,555,200

I'm no expert and don't profess to be, but the math doesn't seem to fit any of them. Is there a reason for this? Because if it is less, it would seem that the 500 would be right on target.....
 
Kit Hannah said:
okie dokie. So what does it equate to then? It can't still be 960 x 540 and have higher resolution imagers?

Isn't the HPX 3000 1920 x 1280 but does 2.2 Million? Cause 1920 x 1280 is 2,457,600

And isn't the HPX 2000 1440 x 1280 but does 1.1m? Cause that is 1,555,200

I'm no expert and don't profess to be, but the math doesn't seem to fit any of them. Is there a reason for this? Because if it is less, it would seem that the 500 would be right on target.....
Click to expand...

Just a correction on the math, its a bit closer to the posted figures that they rounded off to:

HPX3000 : 1920x1080=2,073,600
HPX2000 : 1280x720=921,600 or 1366x768=1,049,088 (but this pixel arrangement is commonly found on 768p plasma displays)

HPX500 : 960x640=614,400

The math still isn't an exact match for any of the common pixel arrangements but i suppose they round up for marketing purposes or maybe they use slightly different imager configs altogether. My guess is that the HPX 500 is more like 960x640 or 960x646=620,160 which seems about right to me.

At the end of the day though I think what's more important over the actual sensor resolution is latitude and color depth/saturation and so on. The HPX series tho does a wonderful job with the system they use to sample the imager, as they claim to capture the sensor data at a raw 1080/60p and move from there. The only place the HPX500 falls short is on high frequency detail in wide shots IMO, and that is mainly in comparison to the bigger sisters and other higher end cams. With that said its a "horses for courses" thing like they say overseas. I hope this helps a bit.

just two cents

And I'm in no way affiliated with panasonic or any stores nor am I an engineer for imaging technology. Anyone please feel free also to contribute any additional info on this if you have it:-)
 
Last edited:
Oops, put 1280 instead of 1080. Guess that's what happens when you post after drinking... :-)

Note to self..... post comments before consuming alcoholic beverages.....
 
Kit -

I never thought of Fresno as a party town on Monday afternoon. Maybe I need to move out West!

Mark
 
Ducatimark said:
Kit -

I never thought of Fresno as a party town on Monday afternoon. Maybe I need to move out West!

Mark
Click to expand...

If you live in a place like Fresno where there's hardly ever anything going on and boring as hell, it's ALWAYS a good time for alcohol:Drogar-Evil(DBG)::thumbup::Drogar-Dum(DBG)::zombie_smiley:

Plus I'm also the Executive Director for a professional hockey team.... goes with the territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top