Should I rent Varicam or buy HPX500?
- Thread starter Indyreel
- Start date
wellll.... i think the varicam is a better camera.
BUT it carries with it a tape based workflow that gets pricey in post to digitize. However it shoots gorgeous gorgeous images....
if youre gonna rent, try out a F900 too, that camera is SPECTACULAR. Though you run into the same trouble because you would probably have to dub the HDcam to Cineform or soemthing to edit it. Atleast the DVCPROHD from a varicam is cuttable in FCP Avid etc... natively. not sure about its compatibility with NLE;s.
The HPX 500 is sensitive, and offers "ownership" at the price of a 2 month rental. But i dont feel its image is at par with a VAricam. Its close but not there... maybe if you shot 1080 and downresed you would hit its detail level.
BUT it carries with it a tape based workflow that gets pricey in post to digitize. However it shoots gorgeous gorgeous images....
if youre gonna rent, try out a F900 too, that camera is SPECTACULAR. Though you run into the same trouble because you would probably have to dub the HDcam to Cineform or soemthing to edit it. Atleast the DVCPROHD from a varicam is cuttable in FCP Avid etc... natively. not sure about its compatibility with NLE;s.
The HPX 500 is sensitive, and offers "ownership" at the price of a 2 month rental. But i dont feel its image is at par with a VAricam. Its close but not there... maybe if you shot 1080 and downresed you would hit its detail level.
MrGlory
Active member
Between the two, I'd use the HPX500 and put money towards renting Canon HD Cinema lenses. I used the Varicam along side the HPX500 on one shoot and just didn't find it worth giving up the P2 workflow as we already had it established, on a feature it's an aesthetic call, if you can expose for the highlights and controll the rest, HPX with nice lenses is good to go. Here's an 84mb h.264 of a Pugel fight at 60fps on the HPX500 Download
Otherwise, definitely RED if you can swing the camera and lenses in the same ballpark.
Otherwise, definitely RED if you can swing the camera and lenses in the same ballpark.
Last edited:
I agree with MrGlory 100%.
Hey Indy,
Here is an interesting article about varicam workflow for a feature film. No tapes were used.
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/topstory/9982.html
Here is an interesting article about varicam workflow for a feature film. No tapes were used.
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/topstory/9982.html
Chenopup
Well-known member
Not only is it a great story about the Varicam, but the sheer box office return of this film is staggering when you put it in the mix with other "religious themed" films. $500k budget and to date has done more than $30 million. Wow.
Whisper numbers for theater, dvd, tv revenue are around $70 million for Fireproof. Facing the Giants was also shot on a varicam, $100k feature = $10 mill theater, $24 mill dvd sales so far.
Hey Indy,
Is there a reason why you don't want to use a Red?
The reasons I don't want to use the red is;
A) Heard it takes about $70k to "really" use it.
B) Heard it has more of a video look than panny cameras.
Also, thank you for the info on "Fireproof". I actually saw it in a theater and thought it looked great. That is one of the reasons I'm considering the varicam.
I'd like to know if the 500 will look that good (or close) on the big screen and which one is better in low light.
A) Heard it takes about $70k to "really" use it.
B) Heard it has more of a video look than panny cameras.
Also, thank you for the info on "Fireproof". I actually saw it in a theater and thought it looked great. That is one of the reasons I'm considering the varicam.
I'd like to know if the 500 will look that good (or close) on the big screen and which one is better in low light.
Anytime man!
You might want to do some more research on the Red, it's not that expensive. A friend of mine shot a movie this summer on two reds, it looks better than the varicam. There is a reason why Soderberg (bad spelling
Phil Jackson etc are using the camera. Prices are coming down, one just sold on eBay for $15k. I'm not telling you what to do but you should consider taking a good look at it. It's actually cheaper than a varicam.
You might want to do some more research on the Red, it's not that expensive. A friend of mine shot a movie this summer on two reds, it looks better than the varicam. There is a reason why Soderberg (bad spelling
Phil Jackson etc are using the camera. Prices are coming down, one just sold on eBay for $15k. I'm not telling you what to do but you should consider taking a good look at it. It's actually cheaper than a varicam.
MrGlory
Active member
As they both shoot at 720P (with 1080 options on the HPX as well, unless you're talking about the Varicam 2700), I would refer back to your lenses and exposure control, The Varicam has been praised more for it's cinematic look however it's been around longer, and I have not found an inability to get the look I want out of the HPX, so personally I would not step, diagonally somewhat, to the Varicam if it meant any less options for lens $$$...
The lenses I'm referring to: http://www.usa.canon.com/html/industrial_bctv/pro_hdec.shtml
http://www.usa.canon.com/industrial_bctv/pdf/HDEC%20Updated%20Brochure_10.08.pdf and http://www.usa.canon.com/industrial_bctv/pdf/Star Power Brochure_Single Pages.pdf
I've used their FJs24 and was amazed and the cinematic images you can produce with a B4 lens when it's the right lens.
These are stills exposed on the fly from that military shoot that I captured with the FJs24
http://glorycubed.com/~hpxbct/images/0007T5.jpg
http://glorycubed.com/~hpxbct/images/00473R.jpg
http://glorycubed.com/~hpxbct/images/0064BW.jpg
I also used a Canon 22X and a 40X (neither cinema lenses) on the shoot (the pugel was with the 40x).
However, to throw an example of a cheaply setup RED on the fly: an article with some footage I shot in Afghanistan on the RED and an old Angenieux 20-120. While I love both cameras, the RED has a smoother image in the end I feel. HD is a bit of a conundrum as it provides the sharpness everyone has grown to expect from it, but we find ourselves thinking "hmmm... maybe this edge enhanced look isn't really what I'm looking for" So with HD you need to work a little harder to find a happy balance between your camera settings and post production when it comes to the finished look you want.
Shipsides
DVXUser Sponsor
It terms of quality the VariCam (and the new P2 VariCams) will always win over the HPX500. The image sensor is higher resolution (1280x720) vs (960x540) and this is very noticeable on the big screen. The HPX3700 and HPX3000 have the a full 1920x1080 sensor which completely blows away any other shoulder mount ENG camera. Also the VariCams are much more adjustable and have the advantage of FilmRec. For the price the HPX500 and the HVX200 are great and match with the VariCam very well on closeups but you'll really notice the difference on wide shots.
You could use the same quality glass on either the 500 or the VariCam.. HJ series Canon lenses are my favorite as well. The HJ11x4.7 is the most popular ENG lens in the country right - it is very wide and very sharp.
The RED camera is of course another great solution.. I've been amazed by the image quality and looks good on the big screen. But if you are looking into a full working solution then buying the body, lcd, production package, and glass will probably cost you more in the end. We sell a whole variety of accessories for the Red and believe me our VariCam owners have lower quotes. But if you are after the 35mm look and don't want to pay for film then the Red is the way to go.
At Abel we offer a free training course for the HPX500 if you purchase it through us. The classes are given every two months or so.
You could use the same quality glass on either the 500 or the VariCam.. HJ series Canon lenses are my favorite as well. The HJ11x4.7 is the most popular ENG lens in the country right - it is very wide and very sharp.
The RED camera is of course another great solution.. I've been amazed by the image quality and looks good on the big screen. But if you are looking into a full working solution then buying the body, lcd, production package, and glass will probably cost you more in the end. We sell a whole variety of accessories for the Red and believe me our VariCam owners have lower quotes. But if you are after the 35mm look and don't want to pay for film then the Red is the way to go.
At Abel we offer a free training course for the HPX500 if you purchase it through us. The classes are given every two months or so.
MrGlory
Active member
There are so many factors to take into consideration when choosing a camera.
First, buy or rent? If you can accurately schedule your shooting schedule, and budget accordingly, then renting the best available makes sense because you won't be losing money on obsolescence. But in my case, I make documentaries, which often means I need a camera readily available, and I live in Monterey CA, which is not conveniently close to rental facilities - plus I like to customize my grips, viewfinders, wireless mounts, etc. - And sometimes I just like to go out and shoot when the muse strikes, so I have always owned my equipment.
For 30 years I shot with the same Aaton super16 camera, which I still own. When I saw the handwriting on the wall, I started shooting video. Because I could feel the technological ground rumbling, I didn't want to invest in a camera that would become obsolete before it paid for itself (at the time it would have been, ugh, Beta SP)... I've gone through a DSR300, a DVX 100a, a Canon XL2 and XL H1. All of these cameras more than paid for themselves in less than a year, and the image quality of all of them has been at least good enough for the job, resulting in national PBS broadcasts and numerous awards.
And now i have the HPX500 (plus a 200 as backup). This is an affordable setup for me because, again, I have already more than paid for both (plus five 16g cards) and the image quality is extremely good, better than super16 when blown up to 35. I also make commercials to pay the bills, and the 500 has replaced my trusty old Aaton there as well.
Most films never see a theatrical distribution, even those originated on 35 - as they say, the chances are better of getting hit by lightening. Consequently, your realistic distribution options are broadcast television, DVD and Blu Ray (and, of course, the internet). The films I've shot on the 500 look comparable to those shot on high-end HD cameras when projected from Blu Ray on a large screen. And if a potential distributor is looking at the marginal differences in image quality instead of the story, you've got a problem going in.
I admire what Red is doing, because they're creating a modular design that will theoretically offset becoming obsolete... But a filmmaker friend of mine sold his Red reservation and bought a 170 instead for the reasons above, he just didn't think it would be practical in the long run.
Also, Red is a production camera. Although some (see above) have used it in a documentary setting, personally I don't want that thing on my shoulder 8-10 hours a day. If they design a doc-oriented light weight shoulder mount camera, I will consider one... Until then I am more than satisfied with the HPX500 - and I really like and trust the P2 cards and the work-flow, despite the constant grousing here and elsewhere about their cost - if they pay for themselves, cost is irrelevant.
First, buy or rent? If you can accurately schedule your shooting schedule, and budget accordingly, then renting the best available makes sense because you won't be losing money on obsolescence. But in my case, I make documentaries, which often means I need a camera readily available, and I live in Monterey CA, which is not conveniently close to rental facilities - plus I like to customize my grips, viewfinders, wireless mounts, etc. - And sometimes I just like to go out and shoot when the muse strikes, so I have always owned my equipment.
For 30 years I shot with the same Aaton super16 camera, which I still own. When I saw the handwriting on the wall, I started shooting video. Because I could feel the technological ground rumbling, I didn't want to invest in a camera that would become obsolete before it paid for itself (at the time it would have been, ugh, Beta SP)... I've gone through a DSR300, a DVX 100a, a Canon XL2 and XL H1. All of these cameras more than paid for themselves in less than a year, and the image quality of all of them has been at least good enough for the job, resulting in national PBS broadcasts and numerous awards.
And now i have the HPX500 (plus a 200 as backup). This is an affordable setup for me because, again, I have already more than paid for both (plus five 16g cards) and the image quality is extremely good, better than super16 when blown up to 35. I also make commercials to pay the bills, and the 500 has replaced my trusty old Aaton there as well.
Most films never see a theatrical distribution, even those originated on 35 - as they say, the chances are better of getting hit by lightening. Consequently, your realistic distribution options are broadcast television, DVD and Blu Ray (and, of course, the internet). The films I've shot on the 500 look comparable to those shot on high-end HD cameras when projected from Blu Ray on a large screen. And if a potential distributor is looking at the marginal differences in image quality instead of the story, you've got a problem going in.
I admire what Red is doing, because they're creating a modular design that will theoretically offset becoming obsolete... But a filmmaker friend of mine sold his Red reservation and bought a 170 instead for the reasons above, he just didn't think it would be practical in the long run.
Also, Red is a production camera. Although some (see above) have used it in a documentary setting, personally I don't want that thing on my shoulder 8-10 hours a day. If they design a doc-oriented light weight shoulder mount camera, I will consider one... Until then I am more than satisfied with the HPX500 - and I really like and trust the P2 cards and the work-flow, despite the constant grousing here and elsewhere about their cost - if they pay for themselves, cost is irrelevant.