HVX200A/HPX170 VS SONY EX1 for COASTLINE FOOTAGE

[Dino]

They are not *yet* uncompressed. Uncompressed support has been stated for the XDR, but not the Nano, hence my comment about having to step up with a few more grand. And yes, I am aware the F900R is HDCam, thanks. However, it also offers two SDI ports so it can also output uncompressed 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.

PerroneFord, your previous post referenced things that are ready right now.
The above solutions are not uncompressed. The F900R has two HD SDI outputs, but this is not intended for Dual Link HD SDI to enable 4:4:4 recording
externally, just for using multiple monitors--my HDX900 has two HD SDI outputs
also, but not Dual Link. Speaking of colorspace, did you know that HDCAM only
provides 480 pixels of chroma per line?

Any camera equipped with an HD SDI output can theoretically output a 4:2:2 uncompressed output, including an HPX170.

I did not say it would offer a 35mm field of view. Pretty tough to do with a 1/2" imager. However, a nice set of digiprimes will close most of that gap nicely. If one wanted to get all the way to a 35mm FOV, then yes, an adapter would be required.

Not sure why you're trying to slam me for things I neither said nor implied.

I'm not sure how Digiprimes will close the depth of field gap using a 1/2" to 2/3" lens adapter, but the magnification won't be as extreme as with a Nikon or PL
mount adapter--however, less magnification means deeper depth of field.

I am not trying to slam you in any way, just trying to be accurate. I totally agree that an external recorder can yield better results than the XDCAM EX codec built-in to an EX1.

 

[PerroneFord]

I see where the confusion was. Yes, the XDR does not have uncompressed right now. The unit is still in Beta (more like Alpha according to some), so hopefully things will progress that way. That said, it DOES record 100mb 4:2:2 right now, I believe with audio. And that alone, as we've seen from the footage, makes a huge difference over the native codec. I'd have no qualms at all shooting landscape footage with that configuration.

Thank you for the correction on the dual SDI ports on the F900R. I read the specs but wrongly assumed it could output 4:4:4. You say it doesn't do that, so fair enough.

And yes, I read the specs on HDCam as well as HDCamSR some time ago. I don't shoot with that gear, but one of my friends does, and I was curious about his cameras.

The HPX170 took a big step forward in my view with the SDI port, but it's unfortunate the resolution didn't follow along. A camera with Panasonic's out-of-the-box colors, native 1080 imagers, and a good codec, would really be awesome in our price range. And would have kept me in the Panasonic camp instead of jumping from my DVX to the EX1.

PerroneFord, your previous post referenced things that are ready right now.
The above solutions are not uncompressed. The F900R has two HD SDI outputs, but this is not intended for Dual Link HD SDI to enable 4:4:4 recording
externally, just for using multiple monitors--my HDX900 has two HD SDI outputs
also, but not Dual Link. Speaking of colorspace, did you know that HDCAM only
provides 480 pixels of chroma per line?

Any camera equipped with an HD SDI output can theoretically output a 4:2:2 uncompressed output, including an HPX170.




I'm not sure how Digiprimes will close the depth of field gap using a 1/2" to 2/3" lens adapter, but the magnification won't be as extreme as with a Nikon or PL
mount adapter--however, less magnification means deeper depth of field.

I am not trying to slam you in any way, just trying to be accurate. I totally agree that an external recorder can yield better results than the XDCAM EX codec built-in to an EX1.

 

[PerroneFord]

I'm not sure how Digiprimes will close the depth of field gap using a 1/2" to 2/3" lens adapter, but the magnification won't be as extreme as with a Nikon or PL
mount adapter--however, less magnification means deeper depth of field.

My point with the Digiprimes was in relation to field of view (closer to that available with 35mm), not depth of field.

 

[Dino]

My point with the Digiprimes was in relation to field of view (closer to that available with 35mm), not depth of field.

No, putting a 2/3" lens via the Fujinon 1/2" to 2/3" adapter on an EX3 will just multiply the focal length of the 2/3" lens by 1.37 or so. It will not give you the field of view of a 2/3" lens/sensor, much less a 35mm lens.

 

[PerroneFord]

Hmmm.... Well that's no fun!

 

[Stevet]

If you get a chance, hunt down Jim Arthurs EX1 to XDR 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP samples.
He offfered them here (or maybe the other forum) a while back. Subtracting the layers between uncompressed 4:2:2 was amazing... Looks damn near the same even under fast detailed motion.

"Myself" I have no plans "right now" using anything more than 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP.
I'm in for the Nano.

And to all that think the Sony EX series gets a "tad" soft under moderate to fast motion viewing high detailed image, you're right.
Jim's samples clearly shows this and also shows that problem is not there when capturing to 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP.

 

[alexdias]

And to all that think the Sony EX series gets a "tad" soft under moderate to fast motion viewing high detailed image, you're right.
Jim's samples clearly shows this and also shows that problem is not there when capturing to 4:2:2 100mbps long-GOP.

I know that expressions like "a tad" and so forth are not meant to be technical, but in my experience under even moderate motion the loss of detail is a bit more than a "tad"...

Alex.

 

[skipioafricanus]

Skipioafricanus,

I live near the beach about 30 miles north of Big Sur and have shot the coastline for many years with all types of cameras and formats. Earlier this year I was hired to do a coastline shoot with an EX1 that was sent to me to use. I was very happy because I wanted to get rid of my Sony Z1 and thought the EX1 was the answer. The 1/2 inch chip and the great lens were some of the things I wanted. The EX1 certainly has the sharpness but after shooting for a week with it I was very disappointed with it's ability to shoot water even at the high quality setting. You can see artifacts in the water. It gets a little soft when you pan or something passes through the frame quickly. It has very good latitude but that and the sharpness was not enough to make me buy it. I also shot a few times with an HVX200 on the same day from the same spot and every time I picked the Panasonic for overall picture quality. I recently got the HPX 170 and to my eye, it easily makes a better image for this kind of work than the EX1. To me, it's no contest. The EX1 is an excellent camera but the format is not. That's my two cents.

Bob

Thanks for your inputs! Its good to know I have options!!

Skipioafricanus

 

[skipioafricanus]

I'm shooting landscape stuff, N. California coast stuff too, with my EX1 and it is freakin' incredible. We went to Big Sur a few weeks ago and I shot McWay Falls as it plunges on the beach (this waterfall http://www.flickr.com/photos/buckforester/151758309/sizes/o/ <--- still shot, not from my EX1) and it was like a "living postcard". The waves crashing in, a beautiful sunset, all so crisp and razor sharp in 1080p. Sometimes I'll just play that clip on my big screen while I'm in my office while doing other work, it's so relaxing.

For the web the EX1 wouldn't make any difference obviously, but when you say "tv" it depends on whether it's high-def broadcast or not, then it will most likely make a difference, both in acceptance by a broadcaster, and I suspect the 1/2" chips do make a resolution difference (admittedly I've never seen the HVX/HPX or HCM150 on a big high-def screen so I don't say that with personal experience). All I can say is, "WOW!" when I'm watching this footage big. And that's what I'm going for since I'm not a story teller with words, I let the beauty of natural places tell a visual story. The footage from the EX1 is a great way to do it. Static shots and slow pans are the bees knees with this camera, the WOW! factor for landscapes doesn't work as well with this camera when there's much movement beyond slow pans, in my experience. At this resolution it doesn't take much movement on a static landscape for the sharpness to drop.

I like that photo on flickr.. hope you can post footage from your camera... that view is awesome.. thanks for your inputs!!

Skipioafricanus

 

[skipioafricanus]

On a critical note…

Nobody talks about shooting style anymore. Do people still have that thing called “style”? It seems like all we have left to talk about in relation to an image is sharpness, bit rate, resolution. I’d like to hear more about innovative approaches to shooting landscapes, not simply copying the clarity and sharpness of calendar photos, which is great if that’s your goal, I guess, but it’s dismal as art. For me, the goal in shooting a landscape would not be to use a camera that produces the identical look of another camera, but to use a camera to produce a look that is all your own. But then I guess that would take a sense of style, which is harder to come by than the feats of technology.

I hope my comments don’t derail the conversation. Feel free to ignore my peevishness and carry on.

thanks for your comments.. I hear you .. I will do the best I can with my Canon HV20.. but my upgrade to a new camera will happen.

Skipioafricanus

 

[Chadfish]

So is there a better all around camera than the EX1 for under 6,000.00?

 

[Nick Walters]

I hope that others are in the same boat as me, as I come to DVXuser alot for technicals, and in my own time try to develop style. In fact I myself have developed an entire filming technique which is based around Tex Avery, Three Stooges, Evil Dead series, and is mainly influenced by the Disney rules of animation......but at the same time I totally geek out over uncompressed footage capture, 2k, 4k, and my recent experiments with HDR videography....I hope others are as enthusiastic about all aspects of videography as I am.

On a critical note…

Nobody talks about shooting style anymore. Do people still have that thing called “style”? It seems like all we have left to talk about in relation to an image is sharpness, bit rate, resolution. I’d like to hear more about innovative approaches to shooting landscapes, not simply copying the clarity and sharpness of calendar photos, which is great if that’s your goal, I guess, but it’s dismal as art. For me, the goal in shooting a landscape would not be to use a camera that produces the identical look of another camera, but to use a camera to produce a look that is all your own. But then I guess that would take a sense of style, which is harder to come by than the feats of technology.

I hope my comments don’t derail the conversation. Feel free to ignore my peevishness and carry on.

 

[Barry_Green]

So is there a better all around camera than the EX1 for under 6,000.00?

"Better" is always a relative term. Better how? Like, how much do you value the price tag? Is an HMC150 (a long-GOP, 4:2:0, 8-bit 1080 & 720 camera) "better" than an EX1 (another long-GOP, 4:2:0, 8-bit 1080 & 720 camera)? It's not sharper, it doesn't have variable frame rates, but it's also half the price, and that should count for something, right? EX1 is CMOS, HMC150 is CCD at half the price. Not as sharp, but no skew or wobble or partial exposure or InfraRed issues or anything else. Does that make it "better"? For some people, certainly. For others, no way.

The GH1 is $1500. You get interchangeable lenses and a large sensor for way shallower DOF. Does that make it "better"? Depends on your priorities, obviously -- it doesn't have the audio capabilities of the EX3, and it doesn't do variable frame rates, and it's a DSLR-ish form factor, not a conventional camcorder. It doesn't have HD-SDI out. But heck, you could get four of them for the price of the EX1, so does that make it "better"? If all you had was $6,000 then you could get an EX1 (and only an EX1), or you could get a GH1, a full set of lenses, a full set of lights, a complete audio kit, a body crane, a decent microphone and a beachtek adapter, a tripod, some flags & scrims, books and DVDs on cinematography and lighting and sound recording and screenwriting, and probably have some money left over to shoot your first short on. So that can be a compelling case. But does that make the GH1 a better camera than the EX1? It all depends on your perspective.

Point is, there's no such thing as one solid "better". There's "better for a specific purpose", yes. There are many ways that a motorcycle is better than a pickup truck. You can park anywhere, it costs less, insurance is cheap, gets much better gas mileage, you can drive in the carpool lanes... but it's certainly not for hauling plywood. Or driving in the rain. Or snow.

 

[Chadfish]

I hear what you are saying Barry.

I assumed "better all around" meant image quality, glass, low light, audio quality, sensor size/resolution. In side by side comparisons it seems the EX1 just looks better, though it is coming out at 35mbps, and the HVX looks less sharp, and with less depth in the color, though it's flowing at 100mbps, which sounds sweet and the 4:2:2 etc. I'm aware of rolling shutter issues on the EX1, and dang it I wish it used CCDs of the same size/rez. I guess I was hoping someone would maybe know of a camera in the range of these EX or HVX cams that comes close or surpasses them in all around quality, with of course the main thing being image quality.

I'm not fan boy either way. I'm in the position of living in a small market (Humboldt County, Ca, Eureka area) that has no rental houses, and very few camera operators who might have one of the new sub 10,000.00 cams. We don't even have any video cams for sale beyond what Costco, Sears or K-Mart carry. So I do web research ad nausea had hope I make a good decision.

Back to the EX1, it seems like the CMOS issues aren't much of a factor when using the camera like a pro would (tripod mounted, or reasonable movement hand held). I do TV ads and Talking head spots, as well as event videograpy in less than stellar lighting. I'm using a VX2100 now and it surprisingly handles everything pretty sweetly for a cam I paid 3,600.00 for 4.5 years ago. So anything I get in HD or HDV is going to look better (except for low light stuff).

To rephrase my question and keep it in the realm of this thread:

When used under normal professional conditions (forget CCD smearing or CMOS rolling shutter), on a tripod filming stores, nature, live bands, plays, lit studios, which cam might look better in you guys' opinion- HVX/HPX or EX1/3?

Any other contenders in the same price range, say, 4-7 grand?

Thanks.

Chad

 

[Nick Walters]

There are many ways that a motorcycle is better than a pickup truck. You can park anywhere, it costs less, insurance is cheap, gets much better gas mileage, you can drive in the carpool lanes... but it's certainly not for hauling plywood. Or driving in the rain. Or snow.

I'm not supposed to ride my motorcycle in the rain or snow? When did this happen?!(I'm a crazy guy who does both)

 

[Barry_Green]

I've done it before too. But I'm saying a pickup truck will keep you drier and won't fall over as easily. Remember, it wasn't whether you *could* or not, it was all about which was "better" for the task.

 

[Nick Walters]

I've done it before too. But I'm saying a pickup truck will keep you drier and won't fall over as easily. Remember, it wasn't whether you *could* or not, it was all about which was "better" for the task.

I've definitely had some moments I re-thought the whole motorcycle in the winter thing, lol!

 

[ddp]

But what if the motorcycle was a Panasonic and the pickup truck was a Sony?rogar-Love(DBG):

 

[Flash Beaver]

Get a 150!!!

Get a 150!!!

I hear what you are saying Barry.


Back to the EX1, it seems like the CMOS issues aren't much of a factor when using the camera like a pro would (tripod mounted, or reasonable movement hand held).

Hey there Chad, I'm not too far north from you up here in Coos Bay.

When it comes to shooting like a pro, "tripod and reasonable hand held movement" are all dependent on the job...We spend a lot of time on rivers, boats and such. Sometimes we have to shoot paid work under less than optimum lighting in industrial/commercial settings. Other times we're running a century 2x for wildlife. I really wanted to like the cmos product I was testing but in the end, we got a sour taste of just about every kind of rolling shutter artifact you could experience. CMOS may be the future but it certainly isn't in my present, for now. We just purchased a 170 from Spec-Com to go with our 200 and 200a on Friday afternoon.

Looking at your work and the kind of material you work with I could totally recommend the HMC150. If you were already invested in the HVX/P2 workflow I would go 170 hands down.

But if I were starting out today, I'd be going the 150 route. Say you've got $7k to work with.....

You could get the 150, a sack of SD cards,extra batteries and charger, good tripod, awesome mattebox, ton of 4x4 filters, and some decent lighting with change to spare! The money you'll recoup you get another 150 and some FRS headsets to shoot local events.

:bath:


Here's the convention piece we just produced

http://beaverhill.tv/oac/

That piece was shot 98% with an HVX200a, and HVX200, and a little SD9 and a Nikon D200 for flavor. Our 200a is nicely equipped. Chad, I would have had NO problem shooting that piece with a 150.

I know what its like being on the coast and no pro shops easily available to test stuff. Testing the gear was part of the expense for us. I hope this helps you to make a decision and take a step up.

Remember the camera itself is just one piece of the whole package. The biggest part is you. :beer:

 

[Chadfish]

I really wanted to like the cmos product I was testing but in the end, we got a sour taste of just about every kind of rolling shutter artifact you could experience. CMOS may be the future but it certainly isn't in my present, for now. We just purchased a 170 from Spec-Com to go with our 200 and 200a on Friday afternoon.

Looking at your work and the kind of material you work with I could totally recommend the HMC150. If you were already invested in the HVX/P2 workflow I would go 170 hands down. :beer:

Hi Flash

First I want to ask: What CMOS product were you testing out? Not all CMOS chips are created equally.

Second: Why do you suggest the 150? AVCCAM ain't too fun to work with. Why would you choose that camera over the 170? Well, you chose the 170, but why would you go with the 150 to start out? SD cards? I have also heard of adapters to replace P2 with cheaper cards, same wth SxS.

Third. I really like your promo video you linked me to. It's color graded, so I can't tell what the raw footage would look like, but your finished product was pretty sweet. I'll check out your website.

I guess I am just wanting the best all around camera I can get. I will use it mainly for my day job where I am an employee, but I also moonlight doing events and plays and bands and seminars. So far it seems like the EX1 is THE cam to get. I'm looking into the P2 cam stuff to see the whole picture. It seems the Sony has more control over the lens and picture etc. I just need to see some real world footage to see if the CMOS problem is really an issue. I've seen the horror clips of guys whip panning in front of a fence, but what about a medium pan of a hotel? Anyway I have 5 grand saved so far. I know I could get the 150 now, but I don't want to transcode. 170 has promise, but I need to look into the overcranking abilities and more. So I'm not decided yet. I'm just still at the EX1 at this point. CMOS is a concern for sure. So please tell me more about what cam you were using and what was happening.

Thanks

Chad