BBC evaluation of HPX301

DRS 3 and a master pedestal of +3? Huh. Who would've thought?

I wonder if they've ever done a document like this for the DVX?
 
Alex.Mitchell said:
DRS 3 and a master pedestal of +3? Huh. Who would've thought?
Click to expand...
Adam Wilt at provideocoalition wrote that DRS 3 can produce some unwanted artifacts at times, so he did not recommend to have it always on, but BBC's evaluation does not have any warnings about that.

Alex.Mitchell said:
I wonder if they've ever done a document like this for the DVX?
Click to expand...
All I could find were the Sony guides: http://www.bbctraining.com/onlineCourse.asp?tID=5160&cat=2781
 
I'm very surprised at the recommendation for DRS3. DRS3 can be a noisemaster, especially in the darks. It can pump in up to +18dB of gain.

I always recommend DRS off, unless you really need it.

The master ped +3 is a little higher than my taste, but it's light years better than the +15 that the camera ships with!
 
Alex.Mitchell said:
DRS 3 and a master pedestal of +3? Huh. Who would've thought?

I wonder if they've ever done a document like this for the DVX?
Click to expand...


If you look in the left column in the PDF, you can see that it is referenced on a
Master Pedestal factory setting of +15. That was the original setting of the first
cameras panasonic shipped with the old firmware.
My camera, that was delivered last week, came with the new noise reducted firmware
and a Master Pedestal Setting of 0.
So my feeling is that you can´t use this BBC-Settings without reservation.
Maybe we have to find out the ideal settings for ourselves.
 
From my testing of the camera, I as well cannot understand a recommendation for DRS3.

My feeling remains keep it turned off.

Ned Soltz
 
I think Alan did his evaluation on a pre-firmware-update version. It would be great to see if he'd follow up with a new evaluation after the firmware update, since it did significantly address the noise issue.
 
Great info Barry

Great info Barry

Barry:
Thanks for the great link.

Seems like the 300 is two stops slower than the 2000 or 3000?
300: F5.6 at 2000 lux.
2000. 3000
F11 at 2000 lux. Does this sound about right Barry?

Also they do not recommend shooting 720p, the downconversion softens image, better done in FCP or by AJA?

The performance is not bad, and is probably
acceptable if the need is to shoot off-speed,
but for shooting on-speed, it would be better
to shoot at 1080 and down-convert
externally as part of the post-production
operation unless the motive for using 720p
is to improve motion capture.

Does the line "improve motion captere" translate into reducing skew?
 
Haven't put the 300 next to the 3000 but I wouldn't be surprised at 2 stops different.

The 720p looks fine from the HPX300 but I'd always shoot 1080/24p whenever possible; 720/24p provides a good alternative if you're trying to reduce any skew effects. I'm sure a downconversion in post would be superior to one done in-camera, provided your downconversion program is a good one!

I think in all the stuff that I've shot on the HPX300, something on the order of 90%+ was shot in 1080 mode. I do like 720/60, but for filmic stuff I way prefer 1080/24, so I don't have a lot of 720p stuff to compare.

I don't know what the "improve motion captere" line refers to.
 
Barry_Green said:
Haven't put the 300 next to the 3000 but I wouldn't be surprised at 2 stops different.

The 720p looks fine from the HPX300 but I'd always shoot 1080/24p whenever possible; 720/24p provides a good alternative if you're trying to reduce any skew effects. I'm sure a downconversion in post would be superior to one done in-camera, provided your downconversion program is a good one!

I think in all the stuff that I've shot on the HPX300, something on the order of 90%+ was shot in 1080 mode. I do like 720/60, but for filmic stuff I way prefer 1080/24, so I don't have a lot of 720p stuff to compare.

I don't know what the "improve motion captere" line refers to.
Click to expand...

Barry - what are your thoughts on good downconversion software?
 
If you pop over to dvdoctor, I'm sure Alan will answer any questions. He's very approachable and extremely knowledgeable.

http://forums.dvdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=35 (He's the mod and usually involved in most threads.)

I don't think he's employed by the BBC, but does test a lot of cameras for them. (He's done the HVX200 and HMC151).

He's very technical and doesn't view things in the same way that perhaps the average dvxuser might. (He talks a lot of aliasing etc that I've never seen .)
 
My understanding is that he's now retired from the BBC, although I imagine they still commission him to do these tests for them?
 
Yeah, I think that's it.

The forum tends to be fairly Sony centric though (Alan is very impartial) but as forum they've never quite swallowed the P2 pill over there for some reason. With many citing SDHC to be just as reliable, so I struggle with some of the logic.

But likewise I guess we're all very Panny leaning here.
 
ROne said:
He's very technical and doesn't view things in the same way that perhaps the average dvxuser might. (He talks a lot of aliasing etc that I've never seen .)
Click to expand...
I suspect a lot of engineers see stuff the rest of the world never will see what so ever. Appart from great thecnical knowledge, they usually have access good test and measuring equipment. This also should pinpoint any potential problems when pushing the final master trough transmission.
 
Hello Folks,

Alan Roberts says:

Clearly considerable resolution has been lost by stopping the lens down; at F/8, the camera barely makes enough resolution for 720p.

So is this a factor of the lens or something else? With the better lens he does not directly compare at F8. In a situation where I want DOF, how much do I loose by using F4 with ND?

Thanks,
Robert
 
It's caused by diffraction, and every 1/3" camcorder (or smaller) will face a similar issue, no matter what lens you use. It's best to avoid stopping down past about f/4 if you can avoid it.

In the olden days we used to know that the smaller you set the iris, the sharper your focus got. That's changed with small-chip HD cameras. Now, there's a limit -- go past about f/5.6 and you'll start seeing your image getting softer and softer.
 
Barry_Green said:
It's caused by diffraction, and every 1/3" camcorder (or smaller) will face a similar issue, no matter what lens you use. It's best to avoid stopping down past about f/4 if you can avoid it.

In the olden days we used to know that the smaller you set the iris, the sharper your focus got. That's changed with small-chip HD cameras. Now, there's a limit -- go past about f/5.6 and you'll start seeing your image getting softer and softer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that,

So can I get good depth of field at F4 or 5.6? On my film still cameras I would of course do F8 or higher if possible.

Robert
 
I haven't tested an HPX300 for diffraction, but seeing as it's a 1/3" chip it's safe to say you're going to get deep depth of field at just about any iris, certainly way more than you ever had on your still cameras. I would say that you should probably look at f/5.6 as about the maximum that you want to stop down, maybe f/8 but I would assume diffraction would be softening the image by f/8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top