I think camera makers would find quite a nice market by adding the bigger chips to the "fixed lens, light and portable" prosumer model. Just look as the stir caused by the 2/3" Scarlet with 3K resolution, and it's not even out yet! Just the idea of a decent sized imager with higher than HD resolution for a fair $3,000 is very appealing.
Would you like the HPX170 to be PAL/NTSC switchable?
- Thread starter Jason Ramsey
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, yes and no. Mainly "no."
The stock US-model HPX170 will have 25fps as one of its frame rates. But, it's not a PAL-compatible 25fps, it'll be something like 25.033 or 24.877 or something like that. If you shoot in PN mode, it won't record sound when using the 25fps. If you shoot in 720/25p mode it will record sound. You could use that mode to create a PAL-compatible file, you'd just have to do the tiniest amount of speed adjustment.
So, straight out of the box? Not really, but with some work you could get it there. But if you spring for the upgrade, then you'd have true PAL compatibility including PN mode with sound.
joe 1008
Veteran
First of all, thank you Barry. So, If I shoot 720/25p and open the footage in a "PAL" 25p timeline there would be very little difference compared to "true" PAL footage, I suppose. Is there any major adjustment necessary to do so in FCP, for example, or do I have to live only with minor speed differences (especially soundwise)?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Good luck. You are already buying a camera that has unimaginable features for its price range (SDI out, built-in WFM/Vectorscope, DVCProHD codec) that were either unavailable in any camera or were only available just a couple of years ago in a camera that cost $70k. The tape transport cost a few hundred dollars at best, the SDI output section costs a bundle just to license, developing a WFM/Vectorscope and improving the LCD, chips and quality alone make it worth more than what they are asking for it IMHO.
You may think it's a fair price at $3k but they will sell every unit they can produce at $5k and for a while, I would not be surprised to see the price go up as dealers can gouge when a camera is this desired. I seriously doubt that they will ever make a removable lens model of this camera, it was just a fantasy on my part that they could do it to pacify the whiners.
Personally I see no competition between the Scarlet, if and when it is ever released, and the HPX. They are totally different products, intended for different users looking for different workflows and results.
Best,
Dan
puredrifting
Major Contributor
You mean like Nikon has on the D90? Except that is removable lens for under $1,000.00. Yes, the times, they are a changin'. All bets are off now, things are getting interesting.
Dan
Barry_Green
Moderator
I wouldn't say that necessarily, but... perhaps. The reason I say "perhaps" is because the original Varicam tape-based workflow never really had a 50P timebase, it was always 25fps in 60P. So maybe the infrastructure supports what you need already? But I don't know. I would assume you'd have to conform all the footage through the frame rate conversion tool, telling it to use a 25p timebase or something?
I don't use FCP so I can't tell you what it will or won't do. But I should try some 720/25p in Vegas or EDIUS or CS3 and import it into a 25fps timeline to see what happens, that could prove interesting.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hmmm. Close. I just tried it through processing the files in Raylight and... it looks like I might have made it work in Vegas with a little fiddling. Perhaps 720/25p with sound is not going to be the hassle I thought it might? I'll have to try it on some long clips to see what happens to sync. I think it'll probably lose a frame or two per minute, about the same as DF/NDF timecode sync...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Looks like the same thing worked rather effortlessly in Premiere Pro 3.0. I set up a new project preset based on DVCPRO-HD 720/50P, customized it to have a timebase of 720/25p, then dragged in a 720/60P clip @ 25fps into the project. Right-clicked the clip and disabled "frame blending" and stepped through it and, yeah, it looks pretty accurate... again, longer clips may reveal sync errors, but so far it's looking like it's more practical than I thought it'd be.
joe 1008
Veteran
Hmm, sounds nice! Though I had never thought there would be so much possible hazzle at all. Didn't know that there is SUCH a difference between PAL and NTSC speeds using variable framerates. So shooting PAL means that each frame is marked by a different timecode compared to shooting NTSC? I just thought it would be more similar to film: You shoot 25 fps., you play 25 fps. and everything is in sync...
Barry_Green
Moderator
There are different crystal speeds between the two territories. In PAL 25 fps = 25.000. In NTSC, 24fps = 23.976. So on the NTSC camera, 25fps is not 25.000. That's where the potential incompatibility comes in.
joe 1008
Veteran
Hopeful somebody will have a try with a longer clip. If it works flawless that would solve 2/3 of my problems with NTSC/PAL compatibility of this camera (and maybe for a couple of people more)
I guess I disagree with that. I find the Scarlet addresses the 170's two biggest shortcomings - the size and resolution of the LCD and the size and resolution of the imaging device - while keeping many of it's strengths - hand held form factor, full auto and manual modes, solid state recording, XLR audio ins, etc.
And it does all this for only $3,000.
I don't think the Scarlet is perfect. Personally I'm more a fan of CCDs than CMOS. And having three chips would be nice, as would a faster lens and longer zoom ratio. But overall I bet the Scarlet will appeal to a great may of the same crowd as the 170 - digital cinema, production and event producers alike.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I thought that RED had not even decided on any specs on the screen yet? How would you know that the screen on the Scarlet is superior when you have never seen or used either camera?
The reason I wrote that I feel that they are two different products aimed at different users is highlighted by your post. If you have no used for 3K as 90% of users won't, why wouldn't 1080 suffice?
I have a 170 on order. Scarlet, eh, I am lukewarm on the whole idea. I have used the RED workflow with the RED One and I find it wanting, it's frankly a PITA for most users unless they are creating an indie film. But for MOWs, episodic, documentary with large amounts of footage, the RED workflow is a major hassle and still glitchy. When and if it comes out, I will borrow one and try it, I have plenty of friends who will buy them. If it's great, I may buy one but I wouldn't be using it for DVD/doc work and I wouldn't shoot any of my television shows on it (if I am ever lucky enough to win the "pilot" lottery). I would only use it for art films, music videos, etc. Unless RED finds a more efficient workflow.
Dan
To be honest, I don't know precisely what resolution the Scarlet's LCD will be, only that it will be 4.5", a full inch bigger than anything else out there, which is nice. Especially when I read a lot of complaints about the LCD on the 200 (and presumably the 170 as well).
1080 would suffice, but the 170 doesn't deliver that, either in the CCDs or the measured performance. The Scarlet with it's 3K sensor actually measures at about 2.1 Megapixel, which as it happens is the same as the Full HD format.
I'm also not sure how the two work flows differ all that much. They're both solid state/drag and drop type.
1080 would suffice, but the 170 doesn't deliver that, either in the CCDs or the measured performance. The Scarlet with it's 3K sensor actually measures at about 2.1 Megapixel, which as it happens is the same as the Full HD format.
I'm also not sure how the two work flows differ all that much. They're both solid state/drag and drop type.
TellLiesVisually
Member
I dont exactly need pal since im probably not going to europe any time soon.. but why would a variable frame rate camera not have this bonus feature..
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Jim:
Have you actually used the RED ONE workflow? Basically you have to shoot 4k to obtain 35mm depth of field. To actually edit with and use that 4k requires lengthy conversion times/render times. It's fine if you are shooting a feature and have the time and rendering power but shows that shoot a LOT of footage are finding the RED workflow to be inconsistent and time consuming. Not quite drag and drop like the P2 media is.
Dan
I've not used either type of footage myself yet, but I recently saw a demo of the Importer RED is developing for use with Premiere Pro (which I use). I see nothing sufficiently different about the RED work flow. Minor variations mainly.
RED did have one advantage, though. You could tell it to treat your 4K footage as 1/8 res files, and Premiere would see it as such and play it back as if it were such (meaning using much less horsepower than full 4K.) Then when you're done editing, you simply tell Premiere to treat the files as 4K for finishing.
It seemed a very nice work flow, and the files were indeed just drag and drop. If anything, I might like the RED work flow a little better because it looks like only one file is created per clip and you import actual files, not folders whose structure must remain intact.
RED did have one advantage, though. You could tell it to treat your 4K footage as 1/8 res files, and Premiere would see it as such and play it back as if it were such (meaning using much less horsepower than full 4K.) Then when you're done editing, you simply tell Premiere to treat the files as 4K for finishing.
It seemed a very nice work flow, and the files were indeed just drag and drop. If anything, I might like the RED work flow a little better because it looks like only one file is created per clip and you import actual files, not folders whose structure must remain intact.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Being a Premier user, I think that you are on to something here http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/adobe/story/new_red_camera_adobe_support/
Dan
Dan
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Yes, but I still think that they are different end users or at least would be for me. Everything about the Scarlet screams filmmaking and everything about the HPX screams long form, which is largely what I do.
While the Premier plug-in a cool, very few pros use Premier, they all use FCP and Avid. My shop is mostly FCP so we are still back to the hassle workflow.
The Scarlet will be interesting but I take delivery of my HPX next week (I received a call today that it is in stock). By the time the Scarlet releases, I will have made enough money with my HPX to afford a RED One ;-)
Dan
While the Premier plug-in a cool, very few pros use Premier, they all use FCP and Avid. My shop is mostly FCP so we are still back to the hassle workflow.
The Scarlet will be interesting but I take delivery of my HPX next week (I received a call today that it is in stock). By the time the Scarlet releases, I will have made enough money with my HPX to afford a RED One ;-)
Dan