200A Actually Cleaner than 170??

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Can anyone who's owned the 200A and now owns the 170 chime in? I'm not sure, but, I feel like the 200A was cleaner than the HPX170 as far as noise goes despite having the same sensor. And, Barry said they were same... It just doesn't seem so in FCP.

I wish I had another 200A to test...

Anyone else want to chime in?
 
I've owned a 200a for 2 months and now I've an hpx170.
I've seen the opposite: HPX170 seems cleaner than my previous 200a.
:-)
Evidently Barry is right: they have the same image

Regards

Gary
 
Gary Senda said:
I've owned a 200a for 2 months and now I've an hpx170.
I've seen the opposite: HPX170 seems cleaner than my previous 200a.
:-)
Evidently Barry is right: they have the same image

Regards

Gary
Click to expand...

I thought the case was you thought you had a 200A but actually had a 200?
 
Alright, does anyone have a 200A in Los Angeles?

I'm almost sure this thing is noisier than the 200A but I want to side-by-side them myself.
 
Okay anyone in LA got a 200A? I'm pretty positive of this now but want some side by side.
 
Kholi, the imagers are the same, any difference would be in how they set up the camera, and you cannot use the same numbers in the camera as the Menu structure is different.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Kholi, the imagers are the same, any difference would be in how they set up the camera, and you cannot use the same numbers in the camera as the Menu structure is different.

Best,

Jan
Click to expand...

I've been snooping through the menus, adjusting them and going back and forth between FCP and the camera. I really can't get the image as clean as the 200A with a few simple settings, to be honest.

I know they're supposed to be the same, but they really do not look the same.
 
All I can imagine (if what Kholi sees is verifiable) is that since the HVX's lens is larger (82mm vs 72mm for the 170), maybe it's just letting in more light through its larger 'window', resulting in a brighter and thus less noisy image (once brightness is compensated for). The HVX's lens is about 14% larger in diameter*, which means it's about 30% larger in total surface area**. Since the sensors are indeed identical, it seems to me that that might well explain what he sees.

All else being equal, a bigger lens opening = more light entering = less (relative) noise. Just like the iris, no?

Here's the math:

*82 - 72 = 10, 10/72 = 13.88 %.

**Pi times radius squared = a circle's volume. Therefore a 72mm lens is 4069 sq mm (36 x 36 x 3.14), and an 82mm lens is 5278 (41 x 41 x 3.14). 5278 - 4609 = 1209, which is 29.7% of 4069.
 
Last edited:
Ted please post that response in the Math Teachers thread. :beer:

Or the kids who didn't go to prom thread.

Anyone else have experience with this. DOes a the size of a lens surface area really have that great an impact on the image. Very Interesting hypothesis Ted.

Thanks
 
Ted Spencer said:
All I can imagine (if what Kholi sees is verifiable) is that since the HVX's lens is larger (82mm vs 72mm for the 170), maybe it's just letting in more light through its larger 'window', resulting in a brighter and thus less noisy image (once brightness is compensated for). The HVX's lens is about 14% larger in diameter*, which means it's about 30% larger in total surface area**. Since the sensors are indeed identical, it seems to me that that might well explain what he sees.

All else being equal, a bigger lens opening = more light entering = less (relative) noise. Just like the iris, no?

Here's the math:

*82 - 72 = 10, 10/72 = 13.88 %.

**Pi times radius squared = a circle's volume. Therefore a 72mm lens is 4069 sq mm (36 x 36 x 3.14), and an 82mm lens is 5278 (41 x 41 x 3.14). 5278 - 4609 = 1209, which is 29.7% of 4069.
Click to expand...

This is a thought. I think that Barry also said that the 200A was slightly, just slightly faster because of the larger lens but that wasn't a production model.

=T
 
You know what? I'm not even going to concern myself with it. I'm stuck with this camera either way it goes because it's ALREADY PAYING ITSELF OFF just on word of mouth, man.

Panasonic is such a double-edged sword it's ridiculous.

End of complaining.
 
Kholi said:
You know what? I'm not even going to concern myself with it. I'm stuck with this camera either way it goes because it's ALREADY PAYING ITSELF OFF just on word of mouth, man.

Panasonic is such a double-edged sword it's ridiculous.

End of complaining.
Click to expand...

As far as footage quality , and reputation?
 
Kholi said:
You know what? I'm not even going to concern myself with it. I'm stuck with this camera either way it goes because it's ALREADY PAYING ITSELF OFF just on word of mouth, man.

Panasonic is such a double-edged sword it's ridiculous.

End of complaining.
Click to expand...

well then you might want to go ahead and change your signature and make it official!
 
Kholi
you're welcome to come to EVS to test it out, we have both the 200a and the 170 in our rental department and have BTLH2600s and BTLH1700s you can test them out on.
 
I'll cast my vote for the hpx

Seems the same, if not noticebly cleaner


Love the color rendition too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top