HPX500 or HPX300 / CCD or CMOS

Interesting. Can't wait to try it out. It was my understanding they were 960x540 with H/V spatial offset. They don't list a pixel count in the specifications.
 
hmmm so it seems possible to get 1280*720 on a 1/3" CCD with additional pixcel shift technology. If this was implemeted in the HPX300 (or even have taken 1/2" CCD's to improve the sensitivity) can it take full advantage of AVC-I or even not at all ?????? In other words does AVC-I makes sense only with 1920*1080 sensors?
 
Nobody has yet done 1/3" progressive-scan CCDs at 1280x720. If JVC has, this will be a first and a breakthrough of significant proportions.

AVC-I has four modes: 1080 @ 100mbps, 720 @ 100mbps, 1080 @ 50mbps, and 720 @ 50mbps. You can use the 50mbps modes with spatial-offset chips, and you could probably take advantage of the 100mbps 720p mode with spatial-offset chips. But for the full 1080p/1080i mode at 100mbps, you really do want to have either full-res sensors or at least 2/3" spatial-offset chips, like on the HPX2000/2700.
 
Barry_Green said:
Nobody has yet done 1/3" progressive-scan CCDs at 1280x720. If JVC has, this will be a first and a breakthrough of significant proportions.
Click to expand...

Why would that be such a big deal, because of square pixels? Canon has been throwing around 1440x1080 ccds for a while now which no such jvc stitching, it's just that it's non square pixels I believe.
 
Barry, what was the native Resolution of the JVC H200 ? I had the idea it was native 1280x720p. As this is a solid camera, I don't hear many people complaining about it, contrary to the original H100, i would assume that, In theory, the 700 is an H200 pixel shifted... Makes sense?
 
The earlier JVC series used two chips spliced together, so each chip was 640x720. That's what led to the split-screen effect.

If that's what JVC is using in this camera, and Tim said that he thought that might be what they're doing, then it makes a lot more sense. But if they're instead saying that they now have a single chip that has 1280x720 and no split-screen, then that's big big news.
 
[
So -- if you're planning on using lots of telephoto and moving the camera around, I'd say go CCD and save yourself a world of frustration. But, understand that the shots from the 300 would be noticeably sharper than shots from the 500, so you'll be giving up some resolved detail in exchange for worry-free, skew-free filming.[/QUOTE]


The 300 has noticeably better resolution than the 500? Sorry for the ignorance Barry, but why is that, when one camera costs double with lens and has larger chips?
 
The 500 uses 2/3" CCD chips with spatial offset, which lets it resolve around 1400 x 810. Which is okay, because its recording codecs support 1440x1080 at maximum.

The 300 uses 1/3" CMOS chips, which have 4x as many pixels on them. And, it uses AVC-Intra, which records full-raster 1920x1080. So it's able to resolve finer details, and keep them in the recording.

As far as overall sharpness goes, the 300 is going to win that battle. As far as pretty much everything else goes (latitude, color, contrast, noise, etc) I think the 500 with its bigger chips is going to do better. And when it comes to CMOS issues, the 500 is immune to them, where the 300 (like all CMOS cameras) is going to have them.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The 500... ...resolves around 1400 x 810.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that information. This is higher than I thought it would be. Does the 500 on a res chart SHOW 800 lines or is the raster of that virtual pixel shifted sensor 800 lines? (which would proably implicate a slightly lesser resolution of lines on a res chart)

In other words: Would a full raster AVCINTRA 720p image show the full resolution or would I have to go up to 1080P?

And: would the 10 bit resolution of the codec be worth a hypothetical upgrade to AVCINTRA, even if the resolution won´t match the codec (at 1080p)?
 
810 pixels of information doesn't mean that it can resolve 800 lines on a chart. On a chart I think it resolves somewhere around 700 x 650.

Even a full 1920x1080 EX1 and HPX300 showed a resolved 800 x 800 on a res chart.

So - would an HPX500, recording to AVC-Intra 720p, show the full resolution the camera is capable of generating? Not really, but it'd be very close. You'd need 1080p to extract every bit of detail, but it won't be a huge boost over what you'd see in full-raster 720p.

The 10-bit aspect of Intra wouldn't be utilized by an HPX500, as the 500 has an 8-bit SDI output (like the JVC and Canons). The 300 has a 10-bit output. So you'd be recording a 500 to AVC-Intra and getting full raster images (or as full as the HPX500 can fill the raster) and you'd be getting 4:2:2 and you'd be recording 8 bits of data in a 10-bit codec.
 
Thank you Barry, very informative. Regarding the 10 bit recording my question was rather related to something like a HPX500A - a 500 head and a 300 body. Now that the 300 is out that thinking might not be too far fetched anymore - but it's, of course, a mere hypothetical question.
 
I would LOVE a 500A. All the 300's updates, the new HD LCD and VF, the 2/3" CCD chips, the anti-noise magic from the 170, that'd be awesome. But it's also not gonna happen, Jan (the product manager) said there is no update to the 500 on the schedule at all.
 
Barry, we know Jan "the product manager" said there is no update for the HPX500.
I think what Joe is saying and myself is, will there ever be a HPX500A....or HPX600...or what ever you'd like to call it with the HPX300 R&D. like Joe said a "500 head and a 300 body".

I'm the new guy here and this question will probably not make me a popular guy.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry Paul - it was MY question that was a bit weird :Drogar-Dum(DBG):

But Barry described perfectly the camera that many probably would like to see in the nearer future, whatever name it will havve...

Now let's pray with the adapter gang that the production models of the 300 will be as fast as the 500 and that there will be a rely lens, soon. Then for many the 300/500 battle will be over.
 
joe 1008 said:
Don't worry Paul - it was MY question that was a bit weird :Drogar-Dum(DBG):

But Barry described perfectly the camera that many probably would like to see in the nearer future, whatever name it will havve...

Now let's pray with the adapter gang that the production models of the 300 will be as fast as the 500 and that there will be a rely lens, soon. Then for many the 300/500 battle will be over.
Click to expand...

the thing is.....
I really need a 2/3 chip camera.
i can not and will not compromise. I'm coming from a broadcast back ground...BVW600 and then to a DSR570 and now maybe a Panosonic HPX500.
I have all the stuff from the other 2/3 chip camera (Tripod, Batt, Len 8.5 X 5.5 glass) and i really need the DOF from the 2/3 chips and not mess with a rely lens.
Call me old school.....been in the business for 30 years.
when you're shooting Doc's and talking heads for IBM you have to be lean and mean.
Just give me the old DOF back......LOL

Paul,
 
If I was you I would go with the 500 in a heartbeat. I was on the brink to do so several times - but then there were not enough jobs... :(

If your work pays for it, I'm sure you will be happy with the 500.
 
yeah, dont get me wrong, i LOVE my hpx500. the DOF, the flexibility of SD/HD, the look, the weight, battery life. Clients love it too, especially since the rental rate is so much lower than the HDX900. If you already have the glass, sticks and batts, a 9-10k investment for the body is nothing really, especially considering the sweet financing panny always has. monthly payments are covered by one rental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top