First Feature HPX500 Help!

[kalapakiboogie]

Hey guys im new to the HPX500 part of the forum. I have the opportunity to be the Cinematographer for an independent feature that my school is shooting this summer. We will be shooting on the HPX500 with the Letus B4 Pro (Hopefully) and Letus Extreme adapter. We will probably be pairing it with some Zeiss glass. I have never shot on this camera before so if there is any tips or important information that you all have from working with it that would be much appreciated. Any useful information at all is great! Im already reading the manual and what not but some real life experienced people would be great too. BTW I am used to shooting primarily on the HPX170, HVX200, and HMC150 with the Letus Extreme and Zeiss Super Speeds if this helps what information you guys want to tell me! Thanks in advance!

 

[Bassman2003]

I would say much of the same that you are used to with the other Panasonic cameras.

I prefer to turn detail down, coring up a bit, sharpen in post and use Cine V color matrix.

 

[kingwo]

These are little things but they'll help. Get your backfocus calibrated. Tweak the contrast and brightness on viewfinder to match what you're actually shooting. I highly recommend a Panasonic monitor while shooting (in focus red feature of the Panasonic BT-LH80W is imo essential esp. since the viewfinder sucks.) Also like Bassman2003 I like detail down, coring +2 but gamma-cinelike v and matrix-norm2.

 

[Noel Evans]

And to be most likely unpopular, I dont see any point using a B4 adapter and Letus with the HPX500.

To quote myself

The 500 helped me a lot in some areas as far as getting the shot I wanted. Heres how and sorry for the technical specs. The 500 has 2/3" sensors and has pixels that are 29 microns. Relatively speaking thats big and thus the ISO rating for the 500 in the scene file set up I was using (whilst not measured) would be around 500ISO, maybe more. This means that whilst using an equivalent 35mm AOV I was able to maintain a pretty close to 35mm DOF by using my aperture at a lower fstop. To put it simply, lets say your shooting 35mm at 80mm at f4-5, I can emulate this pretty closely if not almost precisely by selecting the converted FOV on my lens and opening the aperture up much more than f4-5. This also means I needed a lot less light for this piece. One of the great conveniences when shooting on the 500. My way of thinking says a lens adapter for the 500 would be a waste of money, others will most likely disgree. But with the 500's ISO it makes life much easier in doing this.

If the budget was there, Id personally scrap the B4 adapter and letus and zeiss glass, seems little point to me to try and re emulate something you can get within a pinch of, and go with the Fujinon E series Primes or a single Fujinon E series zoom.

And to add Barry Green put the ISO of the HPX500 around 800 (hope I got that right Barry), pretty solid.

EDIT: And these could also be of use to you. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=154432

 

[Solomon Chase]

And to be most likely unpopular, I dont see any point using a B4 adapter and Letus with the HPX500.

To quote myself



If the budget was there, Id personally scrap the B4 adapter and letus and zeiss glass, seems little point to me to try and re emulate something you can get within a pinch of, and go with the Fujinon E series Primes or a single Fujinon E series zoom.

And to add Barry Green put the ISO of the HPX500 around 800 (hope I got that right Barry), pretty solid.

EDIT: And these could also be of use to you. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=154432

I agree. If your shooting with a 2/3" sensor and larger, don't bother with an adapter. There is more room for error, lower image quality, lower light sensitivity, bigger camera rig, etc. Wide open primes on a 2/3" will emulate a film look pretty nicely. Expensive features shot on 35mm hardly ever shoot wide open like everyone seems to do with their 35mm adapters. :beer:

 

[Dino]

This is an interesting thread, and I have a bias here. While I agree that there is more of an imperative to use a 35mm adapter with a 1/3" palmcorder, I have spent over 25 years shooting with 2/3" cameras and find the organic, selective DOF that my Ultimate/B4 relay/Nikons offer is a worthwhile option.

Shooting with 2/3" primes wide open is more like 16mm DOF, and no lens, not even Zeiss Super Speeds, look their best wide open.

The P+S Pro35's in San Francisco have been very busy for many years at various rental houses, being used with F900's, Varicams, HDX900's, etc, by top DP's. If these very experienced and talented DP's didn't see a worthwhile difference vs. Digiprimes, they wouldn't put up with the extra hassle.

Here are some images shot with a 1/3" camera, 2/3" camera, 2/3" w/Pro35/Zeiss SS, all at f2.8 for taking lens:

 

[Noel Evans]

Im doubting - and Im not doubting your word - that these were all shot at f2.8.
The sensors in these cams are all different (this is the video world) and these images look as though either one of two things is going on - either the shot was relit so the cams could show comparable exposure at f2.8 or the aperture was adjusted to show comparable exposure on each lens. There's simply no way a 1/3" chip will demonstrate the same exposure at f2.8 as a 2/3" running a pro35 with ziess glass, for a start the cameras ISO would be entirely different.

And this is where I take my point from. First off let's look at an excerpt from a Barry Green article comparing the HVX200 with the HPX500

Performance is noticeably improved over the 1/3” camera, as you’d expect. The big beefy 2/3” chips give a substantial improvement in low-light performance. The HPX500 is about 1.5 stops faster than an HVX200; that means it can deliver comparable image brightness in 1/3 as much light, and it puts the ISO of the HPX500 at approximately 960.

OK so lets use that as a start point and compare approx exposure of HDX900 with the pro35 to the HPX500 with a prime

So
HPX500 ISO 960
HDX900 ISO 640 then add the light loss of the adapter 1-1.5 stops.

So from here you set the cams side by side in a lit scene and get correct exposure on the HDX900 with the pro 35 looking at a white wall, add the 500 use the same aperture as you are on the 35mm lens attached to the 900 and it will be totally blown out. That's one point, but an important one where budgets are concerned.

So lets assume this, both cameras are set to the same AOV. The pro35 on the HDX with a 50mm, and lets say we use the standard 17xfujinon on the 500, and set our lens to around 20mm (which is pretty close in AOV - Id have to check for the but this will do for comparison). Under the same aperture, the 50mm on the HDX with pro35 will display considerably less DOF. And of course the 50mm lens CAN achieve a MUCH MUCH shallower DOF if the right light is provided and you can open it right up.

But let's say we live and shoot in the real world and shoot with both lenses in a workable environment. One where a ridiculously shallow DOF makes focusing difficult or impossible for even the best focus puller. So we end up using our 50mm at a usable aperture say f4. Its around f2 on the 500 your going to see that the DOF for both cameras is very comparable. And as such workable on both.

Im not arguing that the pro35 with 35mm cant achieve a far shallower DOF. I hope thats utterly clear, what I am arguing is that within a workable DOF, you can get very comparable results without using one on a 2/3" chip, and with the benefit of not having as much to spend on set up and light.

And I stand by my words - given the choice to use a pro 35 or any other adapter on a HPX500 or rent primes, Im renting primes. Its always been my preference to shoot straight through as little glass as possible to maintain lens characteristics and not introduce anything else that can occur the more you add. Much preferable to me than closing the lens down a little to maintain the lens characteristics but then adding a bunch of unknowns (ground glass) in the process.

 

[Dino]

Noel,

I shot the pool table images myself with a DVX100 and DSR-450WS, available light from overhead practicals and adjacent windows. The faster 2/3" DSR-450WS exposure was equalized with ND with the ENG zoom lens. I don't remember what I had to do with the Pro35, these were shot in 2006.

I certainly agree that there are advantages to using 2/3" primes, just as you agree that the 35mm adapter will offer a shallower DOF.

The primes available for rental in my market are Digiprimes, and they cost significantly more to buy or rent than a 35mm DOF adapter and SLR primes. To my eye, the 2/3" primes will look more like 16mm DOF wise and HD video sharpness wise. Nothing wrong with that, just different than a 35mm film look. Certainly a viable alternative, but not the same as a 35mm adapter look.

 

[Noel Evans]

Yeah I had a brain fart there Dino, of course you can ND to match aperture.

But that doesnt alter the point of my post in the least.

 

[Dino]

Noel,

Agreed 35mm DOF can be too shallow. We did tests yesterday with the OP and an HPX500 w/Fuji XA17X7.6 vs. Letus B4 Compact/Extreme w/Nikon 28mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses.

We shot all at f2.8 and the DOF was more shallow than I would want for the Letus setup if I were doing a narrative with talent walking about. The ENG lens was still able to soften the background at 50mm and 85mm. The breathing from that lens was horrendous--another good reason to use primes, be it 2/3" or 35mm.

What I have noticed with both my Fuji HA lenses and this XA is that they are colder looking, color balance wise than the Nikons. Obviously this can be nulled out, but we all preferred the les sharp, more organic, warmer look of the Letus/Nikon rig.

 

[davhud]

I highly recommend that if you go the adapter route you get a VERY experienced AC/focus puller to help. Moving talent with that shallow dof can be a nightmare. Especially if you're working with non-actors.

SLR lenses are NOT geared slowly enough for critical dramatic work. The result will be a lot of soft shots and a slow moving production. Use film lenses if possible or plan on a very static show.

 

[kalapakiboogie]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for all of the input. I agree with Dino that the organic film look that the adapter with the relay provides looks great. The only other option I have as far as that part of the setup goes is to shoot on the stock ENG lens that came with the camera package my school bought. I'm sure all of you would agree that the breathing characteristics that this lens has isn't very ideal for rack focusing. It actually looks as if the lens is zooming somewhat!