PRE PRODUCTION HPX300 Hands On 'review'

[Jan_Crittenden]

No one should shoot any of these with the 300 either. Lets see...
on the shoulder, so maybe some shaking after a while from fatigue = Skew and Wobble

So we can say the same for the EX1/3 series of cameras as well and those would actually be even more difficult to hold still because you don't have the same ergonomic features of the HPX300.

ENG? ok maybe for interviews...

It woud be perfect for this.

Sports? Too much movement... will skew if you go too far on the telephoto...

Depends, if you are down on the field at the scrimmage line, I don't see a problem, the inital footage that the EX1 showed was a scrimmage line. the only problem that raised its head in that footage was the long GOP throwing away back ground detail only to come back when the camera stopped moving. You have to remember that the camera that this HPX300 is competing with is also a CMOS imager. Now if you were up at the nosebleed section of the arena, yeah the CMOS would work against you. But most of those cameras are mounted cameras or big cameras with 40X lenses, that isn't where this camera is proposed to fit.

Events? Anybody taking a photo? Cuz you just lost your shot. Any time a high speed flash goes off, you have a strange banding effect talked about in The DVXuser Article about cmos.

This is true, and yet more and more I see this sort of footage. I was watching a biography of Jennifer Aniston the other night and there was a scene on a red carpet and sure enough there was the partial exposures that plague the CMOS imager. Did it keep the show from using the shot, I guess not, because there it was and I saw it.

Oh and I hope you weren't planning on shooting with available light that are flourescents... might not go so well...

Well in my lab I have flourescents and tungsten, so far so good. JUst keep in mind that anything you say about CMOS has already been said and acknowledged. The only thing left to find out is how this camera performs(I think it will stand up to the competition) with a different and imporved set of codecs.

Best,

Jan

 

[Barry_Green]

I'm sorry but come on Jan. The idea that the problems associated with rolling shutter on the cmos sensor should be associated with "learning how to control the tool you have been given" is insulting.

And yet it's the way it is. I got crucified on the internet for pointing out the rolling shutter problems, yet they're there and CMOS isn't going away. The tone of my articles has always been "these are the issues, and you'd better learn about them and how to deal with 'em, because more and more CMOS cameras are coming and they ALL have the same issues."

So what else can you expect her to say? The market clamors for more res, so Panasonic delivers it, and now she says "you'd better learn how to deal with it because it's got the same issues as everyone else does." What else could be said?

but I personally would have been much happier with lower pixel count and a ccd global shutter.

Which is why the HPX500 is on the market. Not only is it a lower pixel count and CCD global shutter, but it's also 2/3".

At least Panasonic gives you the choice. You want super-densely-packed 1920x1080 pixels? You can have the HPX300. You want CCD? You can have the 500. The 300 includes the lens, but other than that they're about the same price, so pick your preference.

Especially if you admit the fact that the skewing is just as bad as the EX1 / EX3.

They are the same.

The fact is if the camera moves too fast (which takes out crazy handheld), A flash goes off (sorry WEVA), or heaven forbid a live gun flash (SFX programs love CMOS), this camera is not a tool that I could use.
Agreed, those are areas where CMOS causes complications. Whether with a Red, an EX1/EX3, an Infinity, or an HPX300. Forewarned is forearmed.

Honestly, why should we settle for a camera with higher native res that simply cannot live up to the name and quality that I have seen throughout the panasonic line. I am simply tired of this idea that resolution is the end-all be-all descision when buying a camera.

I think it was Jim Brennan who offered a great quote, let me see if I can find it...

... found it.

Resolution is like the penis. It's what makes ignorant people think they have something important. But it also affects decisions, sometimes adversely.

It's only part of the picture, and often not the most important part.

Point being - only CMOS can offer the combination of resolution and smaller chip size. Only CMOS can deliver this kind of resolution at this price point. So if someone wants/needs that resolution, they're going to have to go CMOS, and they'd better learn what that means. There is no free lunch, there are tradeoffs in all engineering decisions. If you go CMOS, you're going to be dealing with wobble, skew, and partial exposure, and there's *nothing* that can be done about that. It can be improved a little by speeding up the read/reset time of the chip, but it will still be there.

If you don't want to deal with that, you have to go CCD instead. Going CCD gives up those issues, but it also means lower res at the smaller chip size.

So, like I've been saying for years, pick your compromise. Or, compromise with money - pay the price and get a 2/3" full-raster CCD chip. Those are the choices available in the market.

Please stop trying to pin the problem of rolling shutter on the operator. It is something that can be avoided, but for me the limitations of CMOS outweigh any benefit to be found in AVC-Intra at full raster.

Your statement is contradictory at the core. You say "stop trying to pin the problem of rolling shutter on the operator" (which, of course, is accurate; the problem is in the way the chip works) but then you follow up with "It is something that can be avoided" (presumably by an informed operator, yes?)

So the original point stands: if you don't know how a rolling shutter can affect your footage, you can get yourself into trouble with it. If you know how it works, you'll know when it's the right choice (or the wrong choice) for any particular job.

 

[SPZ]

Will try it out. Hopefully I can find a way to use it in a night situation- Shooting HK and Macau, without shooting it at night, is like shooting In Tokyo in the morning- nice, but not its better side!

I'll post my findings here!

EDIT- Just read your post, Barry, my question is: is this what we really wanted? Are HVX200- HPX 500 unhappy? .Why not an updated Camera with a Z7 form factor (which includes interchangeable lenses) with an improved CCD, even if its not full HD? why not use HPX500 CCD's on a smaller cam? A trully killer EX3 beater? Is resolution what everyone wanted? I recall I filled in a survey from panasonic asking what did we wanted improved on the HVX200. Well, I, at least, didn't put "full HD" as my main request!

Anyway, like Jan said, I haven't tried it out yet. Will see how it works out for me. One thing is for sure- my main bread and butter is filming the Macau Grand Prix. I sincerely hope the camera is up to the task of filming racing- or I'm screwed!

 

[Barry_Green]

To be honest, I think Panasonic would be better off by not producing the hpx300 at all, instead they could have just offered an AVC-Intra Codec Board upgrade for the 2/3" CCD hpx-500.

You do realize that NBC, CNBC, and Telemundo have all pre-bought "a large quantity" of the HPX300 before it's even been released, right? I'm sure Panasonic is doing just fine by producing the 300. :thumbsup:

 

[puredrifting]

Sergio:

I am on a dozen video boards all over the Internet, having native resolution is ALL most uninformed users care about, they all see that as almost the only reason why the EX/EX3 are supposedly such great cameras. I have rarely seen anyone post about how they love the codec, ergonomics, etc. on the Sonys. Panasonic was very smart to give these users what they think they want, although I think them naive by being fixated purely on resolution. The bottom line is "the look" but whatever, if that's what they want, that's what the market will give them.

If you shoot the GP with lots of panning on long lenses, this is not the camera for you. I have been shooting with the EX1 for almost a year now and it is the worse sports camera ever made (if you are not on a wide lens and close in to the action). I have shot two baseball games with the EX1 and the skewing rendered the footage unusable.

I produced and shot a documentary on Drifting a few years ago and I feel that a CMOS camera is the absolute worse choice you can make for shooting any kind of motorsports because by default, you will be on a long lens and will be constantly panning, the two ingredients that are terrible with CMOS imagers in any camera.

Dan

 

[Joe Lawry]

One thing is for sure- my main bread and butter is filming the Macau Grand Prix. I sincerely hope the camera is up to the task of filming racing- or I'm screwed!

God i'd love to see some HVX footage from Macau, every year (for the past 3 years) i get a 4:3 Beta SP Line Cut of the race to cut a general story out of for a motorsport show in NZ.. its painful.. this year at least my links and IVs all came in on XD Disc so i had at least IMX50 to work with..

Joe *drifting off topic because its his thread* Lawry.

 

[MrBill]

Lately, my bread and butter has been corporate industrials. Having come from editing and branching off into Shooting/Directing, most of the work I'm presently doing is talking heads, combined with archival footage

I'm thinking the new 300 will be the perfect upgrade from the 200 and look forward to seeing it at NAB.

 

[Cees Mutsaers]

price point in the Netherlands

price point in the Netherlands

This is the mail I got from Panasonic Broadcast Europe on the price for the HPX301

Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your inquiry. The HPX301 will cost 7.850,00€ + VAT.
There are no batteries included and it will be available in the end of march.
Regards
Alexander Sommer
​

 

[Barry_Green]

That would presumably be the MSRP, and the "street price" would be even less.

 

[Cees Mutsaers]

Yesteday I read the sticky somewhere on this board about the rolling shutter issues (skew, wobble, etc) and to be honest it makes me scared to jump in because I want a to buy a camera which can be used in as many circumstances as possible. So is there a chance that there will be a an upgrade of the HPX500 (keeping 2/3" CCD's full HD) with AVC-I, same improved LCD, colour HD EVF of the HPX300 and all the software improvements the HPX170 already got? Of course the price will be higher than the HPX300 ( and it wil be competitions for the higher end Pana cams) but you can pick the lens you want and you will not have the CMOS related issues.:beer:

Actually I want to see some footage of the HPX300 where I can see how severe the CMOS relates issues in fact are !

 

[David Saraceno]

The best bang for the buck with p2 is the 170.

The best bang for the buck for AVCHD is the 150.

I love the AVCIntra capabilities and optics of the 300, but for what we shoot, the rolling shutter is to big of a factor for us to gauge properly in our business. Wish it were otherwise.

For others with different requirements it appears to be a great cam and excellent value.

But you have to match your business with your tools.

 

[puredrifting]

Yesteday I read the sticky somewhere on this board about the rolling shutter issues (skew, wobble, etc) and to be honest it makes me scared to jump in because I want a to buy a camera which can be used in as many circumstances as possible. So is there a chance that there will be a an upgrade of the HPX500 (keeping 2/3" CCD's full HD) with AVC-I, same improved LCD, colour HD EVF of the HPX300 and all the software improvements the HPX170 already got? Of course the price will be higher than the HPX300 ( and it wil be competitions for the higher end Pana cams) but you can pick the lens you want and you will not have the CMOS related issues.:beer:

Actually I want to see some footage of the HPX300 where I can see how severe the CMOS relates issues in fact are !

Definitely try before you buy Cees!

Dan

 

[SPZ]

God i'd love to see some HVX footage from Macau, every year (for the past 3 years) i get a 4:3 Beta SP Line Cut of the race to cut a general story out of for a motorsport show in NZ.. its painful.. this year at least my links and IVs all came in on XD Disc so i had at least IMX50 to work with..

Joe *drifting off topic because its his thread* Lawry.

Joe, if you have facebook, add me (its Sergio Perez, on Macau Network). I have some footage on my facebook page shot with the HVX of the event. You can also check out macautourism main site on the Videos section for the Macau GP Promotion 30 sec TVC- its done of about 80% HVX footage and 20% Beta SP (I hear you about the 4:3- the local broadcaster doesn't do the event justice).

Back on topic- Dan, I get you. imagine this cam without the Cmos but with CCD's- instant winner. Heck, maybe if it had the new JVC's CCD's (the 700) it would be enough!

 

[Barry_Green]

Back on topic- Dan, I get you. imagine this cam without the Cmos but with CCD's- instant winner. Heck, maybe if it had the new JVC's CCD's (the 700) it would be enough!

JVC's new CCD is a 960x540 spatial-offset chip. Basically the same thing as the 170/200A have.

This new cam would not be "the 300" without the CMOS (and all the good and bad that comes with it). If it was a 960x540 CCD, it'd just be the HPX500 all over again, and we already have that...

 

[SPZ]

JVC's new CCD is a 960x540 spatial-offset chip. Basically the same thing as the 170/200A have.

This new cam would not be "the 300" without the CMOS (and all the good and bad that comes with it). If it was a 960x540 CCD, it'd just be the HPX500 all over again, and we already have that...

Really? Are you sure? Wasn't the old JVC 1280x720 native 1/3 CCD's (HD100)? Wouldn't it make sense to use these and spacial offset them? Or did they change and use Panasonic tech?

 

[Barry_Green]

The old JVC was, apparently, two CCD chips side by side. Hence the split screen.

The new design would be free of split screen, but won't have as many pixels (which, again, with spatial offset, isn't that big of a deal, a spatial offset 960x540 does a great job of 720p). But it won't be competitive with a 1920x1080 chipset when doing 1080p.

JVC has been using 960x540 with both horizontal and vertical offset in their consumer cameras, and this is how their website describes the 700:

The GY-HM700 utilizes three precisely aligned 1/3-inch progressive scan full HD CCDs—one each for red, green and blue primary color. JVC engineers have developed a unique 1/3-inch optical block with Diagonal Offset and a patented exclusive Adaptive Pixel Correlation Technique that produces resolution comparable to cameras with larger image sensors.

So I can't be 110% sure that it's 960x540 with H/V spatial offset, but I would say I'm 95% sure. Add to that the fact that they don't quote a number for sensor pixels in the specifications, and yeah, I'm pretty sure that they're 960x540 H/V. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they're the actual same chipset as in the 170/200A.

 

[Kholi]

Really? Are you sure? Wasn't the old JVC 1280x720 native 1/3 CCD's (HD100)? Wouldn't it make sense to use these and spacial offset them? Or did they change and use Panasonic tech?

I still think the HD250 produced really great footages.

 

[LuckyStudio 13]

You do realize that NBC, CNBC, and Telemundo have all pre-bought "a large quantity" of the HPX300 before it's even been released, right? I'm sure Panasonic is doing just fine by producing the 300. :thumbsup:

So the decision maker/s decided to use a CMOS chip rolling shutter plagued camera to get capture of press conferences, red carpet events, crime scenes, police take downs, fast action sports ...etc where there are tons of strobes light, camera flashes and fast panning requirements ???? I hope that decision maker is very high up in the organization chart or have a backup career plan.

Shame on Panasonic for pushing the absolute wrong tool for the job to those tv stations.

 

[Kholi]

I have to ask: does anyone outside of the realm of videography, low/no budget filmmaking or web forums even TRULY care about rolling shutter? We analyze a lot here (I do it of course) that most people won't care about in the real world..

The human eye/average human will forgive a lot of what we think we can't. There's already been so many feature films that are plagued with the same things we complain about, I got over CMOS issues a while ago. CCD is still better, IMO, but you take what you can get!

Go P2!!!

 

[LuckyStudio 13]

Wobbles are avoidable with careful planning and some suspension for the camera. Skews are also not the final nail in the coffin, panning speed can be controlled. Partial Exposure of a rolling shutter sensor is fatal.

http://freshdv.dreamhosters.com/mjeppsen/video/ex1_strobe_cmos_rolling_shutter_artifact.mov

http://vimeo.com/2132665

Now imagine this footage on the theater with its giant size screen. A brief shoot of flash is a different story vs a continuous firing of flashes like in the catwalk or news conference.

Last Aug I worked for a big budget film (1.2mil) shooting on 2x Red. The editor was shocked with the contamination of the blue channel and also the partial exposure coming from the strobes light of the police car and ambulance. No body has yet reported on how the hpx300 deals with IR contamination that also plaque CMOS sensor.

There is no doubt that the world is moving towards CMOS sensor, but we are still at the first generation of CMOS sensor. If anybody would have the will and technology to fight rolling shutter on a CMOS sensor, it is going to be RED. I hope all the Scarlet will have a super fast read/reset rate in order to offset the undesirable effects of a rolling shutter cmos chip.