Dont get mad at me

D

DanHD

Well-known member
I know this is a naive question, but I've been dying to know


what makes the Varicam look so much better than the 500?
I recently 2nd ACed on a Varicam shoot

It looked damn good. I've shot many times on the 500, am thinking of purchasing one

I cant logically think of the differences though...


Both record in 8 bit
Both use DVCPRO HD
both use 2/3 inch glass
both have 720p imagers, basically
both record 4:2:2


what's the difference?
I am prepared to be slapped for my ignorance

go!
 
Native 720p sensors, more sophisticated image processing, setup options. HPX500 uses SD chipset, pixel shifted for HD, menu structure and processing more similar to HVX200.
 
Oh i see, the chips have more pixels natively,

how is the DSPbetter?

does it process at a higher bit rate
 
Lets see:
The varicam's chips are totally different than the HPX500's, allowing it to be noticeably sharper. This is just a guess but the DSP in the Varicam is probably much more expensive than the one in the HPX500 and thus may lead to a cleaner quantization (is that the correct term?) of the CCD array into a digital signal.

Unless you're comparing the HPX and the Varicam with the same lenses, while they both have the ability to accept the same glass, chances are the Varicam is using much more expensive glass.

The Varicam also has a few cool gamma tricks and menus that are not available in the HPX500, such as Dynamic range strech, which allows you to increase the latittitude of the Varicam. (this in my opinion is by far the reason why the Varicam is still superior to the HPX 500, sharpness does not affect my current projects much, but being able to shoot in a beach with the sky and the ocean not blown out can make a huge difference). The varicam film gamma FilmRec is also quite nice.

There are other reasons but I'm guessing you were looking for reasons why it visually would look better correct? Well these are my three cents. Hope it helps
 
Jay Nemeth shoots Varicam and HPX500 extensively, and intercutting between them is no sweat, he can get the HPX500 (with great glass) to look every bit as good as the Varicam. But I would suspect that is probably with aiming to get the Varicam to match the HPX500; I would suspect that if he pushed the Varicam to its limits the HPX500 couldn't keep up.

Frankly you're comparing an $8,000 (after rebate) camera head against a $45,000 camera head. A common saying is "you get what you pay for." I don't think that's always true, it seems like "you rarely get what you pay for" :) but a truism would be "you never get what you don't pay for" so...
 
I had a 500 and 200A next to my 900, A-B'd, and was impressed with the 500. The CAC really works, the resolution difference between the native 720p chipset of the 900(same as the Varicam 27H) didn't look to be that much sharper. The 200A looked soft on wide shots, but no surprise there(although it was being monitored via component vs. HD SDI for the 2/3" cameras).

I am a fan of the DRS circuit and use it a lot with my 900, and felt that the 900 had a smoother, less contrasty look than the 500, but it wasn't much cleaner. I do like having more setup flexibility with the 900 and the Varicam has even more.

The 500 is a lot of camera for the money, it's too bad the viewfinder is so soft--but the 900 viewfinder is $3500, so that would affect the 500 price-point.
 
The difference ??

a) Varicam Film-Rec
b) They also probably used a far more better cine lens on the Varicam. IT is not unusual to see high end digi primes and digi zooms being used on the Varicam.
 
so basically..



more resolution..better glass by default...better dsp...more expansive gamma setting, ect


So, when you say "the dsp is just better", explain..

Does it just do all the converting more clean and precise, with less noise, ect?

What;'s the difference between a cheap DSP and an expensive one, in laymen's terms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top