Frusterating Salesmen, HPX woes

D

Danielisnotadrummer

Member
Today, I'm buying either the HPX170 or the EX1.


Someone help me.


a list of grievances against the ex1, as far as I know:

Rolling shutter
Blue digital look, not as approachable as film
CMOS vs. CCD
lower color sampling
Format not adopted in as many NLE's as DVCPRO hd
Interframe compression
LONG GOP




I'm really in a bind. I have the money to buy the EX1. I've shot numerous features and docs with the hvx200. DVCPROHD's intraframe compression is a huge factor, as well. It's so much easier to edit with. I don't know how I feel about the EX1's long GOP...I thought we were trying to get away with that, with all the problems a long GOP caused in HDV. I love the way the HVX renders motion. I always shoot in 720p24pN and I stay as far away as I can from interlaced (I hate interlacing..so messy).

I walked into AbleCineTech today and the salesmen there practically laughed at me for wanting the HPX170 over the EX1, saying it used an "archaic format and media" and that that images on the EX1 were twice as sharp and everything. i told him i'd be sticking a 35mm adapter with some Zeiss glass on the front and then he said the HPX wouldn't be able to even pick up the amount of detail and the fine nuances of the zeiss glass and that I should buy cheaper glass if I'm using the HPX. He also called it "a sad excuse for an EX1 competitor." can you believe that? It seemed to me as bias, but were his claims valid? is the EX TRULY a better camcorder in EVERY way?
I mean, I've seen the Jello vision rollling shutter artifacts, and let me tell you, they're gross. I even tested out the EX at Able and I did some quick panning and sure enough, jello vision. Considering I do action films and visual effects in post (compositing, motion tracking, ect) shouldnt I prefer a global shutter over a rolling one?



It just really frusterated me how he approached it. He definitely got me doubting the EX. I mean, aside from resolution, I know the HPX has a far better signal to noise ratio than the HVX, and that it's cleaner. So in that case is it really worth it to buy an EX for a couple hundred more lines of resolution? I've always liked the filmic images coming out of the HVX200 and 200a camp. And it seems like most shorts and indies are shot with HVX+adapter rigs. I haven't seen the EX1 in action, in that way.

But to each his own.

So again i'll summarize

I'll be using the camera for LOTS of short film work with 35mm adapter out front with some high quality zeiss primes.

Which camera will achieve the best film look this way?
 
I was interested in EX1 so I've rented one for a weekend and after trying I have decided to not buy. The camera is very impressive in terms of resolution and low light capabilities, but the images are good only if you don't move the camera. If you try to pan the quality drop down dramatically and the images are full of intollerable artifacts.

The EX1 has a very very very very poor fidelity in movements rendering in my opinion. You can buy it only if you want a photocamera :-))

Regards

Gary
 
I guess me BIGGEST problem with the EX would be it's interframe compression vs. the superior (supposedly) intraframe compression of the panasonic.

Should I really be that concerned about it?
 
Personally, I'd really like to see comparisons between the HPX170 and the EX1. I've seen some between the EX1 and the HVX200 but the HVX200 has an older chipset and is less sensitive so I don't think that's a worthwhile comparison these days.

Personally, as much as I'm crazy for resolution, I'm always going to be more interested in the film-look and the ease of editing.

DVCProHD has treated me very well. It's a great format that provides a lot of flexability in the editing room and, since I almost always edit my own projects, this is really essential to me. I was interested in the EX1 and was consindering shelling out the cash for a sharper image and less noise (I'm still using an HVX200). However, the second I saw that it used long GOP and was only a 35mbs signal, I decide to see how the HPX170 faired against it and perhaps even wait for the Scarlet.

As far as filmlook goes, Panasonic has always done that better than anyone else at this level and it's still looks to be the case against the EX1. Not that I'm bashing that camera, it looks leaps and bounds closer to film than Sony's previous Prosumer stuff. And yes, I know that many say, "just get the film look in post!" The problem with that is that the 35mbs signal makes a lot of things more difficult in post. You just can't push the footage as far when you've got more compression.

Still, untill I've actually worked with an EX1 (which I may get the opportunity to do soon), I should probably keep my mouth shut.
 
Rent one and try by yourself. The progressive framerates of the EX1 are simply terrible with all movements. And also interlaced framerates are not so good.

A good videocamera must render movements in a good way and EX1 is often under the acceptability

Regards

Gary
 
i think the ex line has one thing in the plus column - higher actual resolution
and about 8 things in the negative column - all of which you mentioned in your original post.

seems to me that youve answered your own question right outta the gate.
 
PS = in addition the ergonomy is terrible, all the commands and menu are not well organized and the battery life is ridicolous.

A camera is not only definition...
 
i said this about the original crop of HDV cameras and i'll say it about the EX.

"any video camera that doesnt handle motion well - may as well be a still camera"
 
Last edited:
Danielisnotadrummer said:
I guess me BIGGEST problem with the EX would be it's interframe compression vs. the superior (supposedly) intraframe compression of the panasonic.
Click to expand...

It's not "supposedly" superior. It is superior. Intraframe encoding gives you pure, 100% complete frames where as interframe encoding records some frames and recreates others. This can cause motion artifiacts and also requires more horsepower to edit. It's not personal preference which is better. It's just like shooting RAW files with a still camera is superior to shooting JPEG. You can argue if the extra space needed is worth having less compression but there's no room for debate as to which gives you more info.


Should I really be that concerned about it?
Click to expand...

I know lots of people who shoot using interframe encoding with HDV and say they don't mind. I know others who can't stand it and say they don't want to deal with the compression and motion artifacts. Personally, I shot mini-DV back in the XL1 and DVX100 days and that used intraframe encoding with pure frames. I'll be damned if, after all the upgrades we've made since then in resolution and other aspects, I'm going to take a step backwards and start shooting long GOP. The compression of mini-DV used to give me head-aches in post. I can't find a good reason to go with an even more compressed signal than mini-DV when I've now gotten used to the joys of DVCProHD and how much easier it is to work with footage.
 
Thank you guys so much for your help. I've only been personally interested in cinematography for a year and their is so much to learn. DVX user really is a great community.

Anyways, Thank you David and all more pointing out the stark differences between interframe vs intraframe.

I have always like editing with intraframe, and of course it IS a more professional codec, that doesn't create virtual B and P frames like HDV and XDCAM.

I think it's ironic that Sony took a step forward by encorporating 3 full raster CMOS ships, but STILL didn't listen to consumers and didn't use a global shutter, and stuck with LONG GOP

I'm going to confidently walk back in there and purchase the HPX. Because in the end, resolution is just ONE of the factors in an image. Contrast and color reproduction are also very important, and I think the HPX is superior there as well.

Thanks guys
 
The resolution wars have really gotten out of hand in both video and still work. The number of pixels your camera has is a cool thing to put on the box so they keep pushing that instead of worry about a lot of other stuff that is just as important. Don't get me wrong, I love HD an I love a sharper image but you can't have such a narrow focus.

HDV was the first thing to really confuse me. We get much higher resolution but they're trying to compress it on the exact same format that they did the standard definition mini-DV tapes. If you have more pixels but the same amount of space to put them on, then something's gotta give.

Or look at all the consumer still cameras. They keep cramming more megapixels on there even though they're often using fairly small chips. The results are images that are supposedly very high resolution but aren't actually resolving a whole lot of detail and have rather limiting dynamic range.

I think that was one of the head-scratchers with the RED. Everyone got excited about 4k because it was a buzz word that you could say to generate hype. Well, I've been on a number of shoots with the RED now and I gotta say that, while it looks amazingly when it's lit correctly, I constantly hear people who use it complaining about the dynamic range and it not qutie delivering what they hoped. I can't help but think it would have been a nicer camera if they'd just gone for 2k resolution and on the same sized chip and thus gained some sensitivity and lattitude. Most pros I know love the camera but would still rather use a Genisis even though it's only 1080p. I've seen a lot of digital stuff projected on the big screen. I've never seen 1080p footage and said, "that's not film, it's HD, it's not sharp enough! If they'd gone 4k I would have never known." I have however seen stuff where I say, "look how blown out all the highlights are, look at all the noise, look at those murky blacks, that's digital!"
 
Danielisnotadrummer said:
. . . I'm going to confidently walk back in there and purchase the HPX. Because in the end, resolution is just ONE of the factors in an image. Contrast and color reproduction are also very important, and I think the HPX is superior there as well.

Thanks guys
Click to expand...

Good to hear! I think you'll do more than fine with your HPX170. It's sad to hear those salesmen spoke in such a way to you. I could spend time easily rebuffing what they said, but I won't bother.

Some food for thought:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/how_important_is_resolution/

Enjoy your new cam! :)
 
What a great article, DC! I just spent the time reading it, and It's very informative. yes, the "res wars" have gotten out of hand. I'm tired of EX1 users putting down the HPX because of its offset CCDs, and it's lower native resolution.


Well hey, they have to deal with Long GOP and PRoRes and all that, so jokes on them
 
i'm just gonna guess here and say that the markup is slightly better on the ex1, so the salesguy gets a better commission rate for selling an ex1.
 
agentjonny said:
i'm just gonna guess here and say that the markup is slightly better on the ex1, so the salesguy gets a better commission rate for selling an ex1.
Click to expand...

I think you're right and I can add that all the arguments used by the salesguy are normally used by sony promoters and are the arguments of sony marketing

Gary
 
DC said:
Some food for thought:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/how_important_is_resolution/

Enjoy your new cam! :)
Click to expand...

Thats a good article . One I agree with which turned me onto the HPX500. Just prior to the 500's release I was even considering going back to SD so I could have my own 2/3" cam and all the benefits it has over 1/3" chips.

And if you want to see what Adam Wilt also says about the 170 read his article here: http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_panasonic_ag_hpx170p_1_3_3ccd_p2_camcorder/

The problem with this salesmen he isnt listening to you and only trying to force his opinion on you. Even happens in these forums.

Some Facts that I know from use

- Resolution loss on fast pans is about same as HVX, no more or less.
- EX1 Rolling shutter can be an issue with fast flashes, especially when you are unprepared for them. CCDs dont have this but are prone to light streaking on bright light sources - my 500 hardly suffers this at all due to larger chips.
- EX shoots long gop, which takes longer in my experience to work with in post. The better your editing mac or pc the less of an issue. I have had some grading issues with Apples color with EX footage - a quick fix is to transcode to Apples prores codec - issue gone.
- EX1 shoots 1920 x 1080 at 4:2:0 - the end result is similar to the HVX shooting a lower res at 4:2:2. The EX image is sharper when your close to the viewing source - HVX seems smooth and natural.
- EX record times are much longer.
- EX and 170 LCDS are much improved over previous cams, but 170 has a waveform and vectorscope (In Homers voice..... hmmmmmm waveform)
- Direct to cam sound recording - I think the HVX Audio is better than EX with simpler controls (thats my opinion and dont see why the 170 wouldnt be the same).

I know I referenced HVX a bit as I havent used 170, but youll find similar at the end of the day.

etc etc etc etc in the end youll find the 170 and EX pretty evenly matched. Youll have to compromise something which ever way you go, whats important to you? Decide that and get your camera. Either way, you wont be disappointed.

Ill go back to the salesman. What a dick.
 
Last edited:
I had an HVX-200 that I just sold. I just bought an HPX-170. I also shot an interview today with the EX-1, my client rented one and wanted to me to shoot with it so I did. I have shot quite a bit with the EX-1 over the past six months. It's a very nice camera. It is much sharper than the Panasonics, has a better lens, better LCD and much higher native resolution. But I agree, it does lose detail when moving and the JelloVision artifacts make it useless to me for shooting handheld b-roll. Others have been happy with the look and they either don't see the JelloVision artifacting or can live with it, I guess?

To me, the HVX and HPX have a more filmic sort of look, better color, I like P2 cards much better than SxS cards, I like using P2CMS and P2 Log Pro much better than the kludgy Sony software for managing XDCAM EX. The HPX in particular has some cool features that the EX-1 lacks like waveform monitor/vectorscope. I just like the HPX better although the EX-1 is a pretty capable tool overall. The both have compromises though, it just adds up to which set of compromises you can live with. In a perfect world, I would own both the HPX and the EX-1. I would use the EX-1 for sit down interviews and the HPX for everything else.

Dan
 
With the Red Scarlet announcement in November, ikonoskop debut in Dec, Nikon and Canon venturing into 35mm movie making camera, Hpx170 first gen possible bugs and hpx170 lens wobble issue it would be foolish to invest in a cam now. Unless of course, you are like, a lot of these people here where they already invested a lot in P2 tech or have an immediate high $$$ paying job, buying a new cam now just does not make much sense.

p/s: Food for thought, all Panasonic high $$ cam all have full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution, and dont forget, with 35mm DOF adapter, you will be losing even more resolution. Remember any footage you saw in the internet after being compressed to such a small size, would look better than what it really is.
 
Dxmetal said:
p/s: Food for thought, all Panasonic high $$ cam all have full HD 1920 x 1080 resolution, and dont forget, with 35mm DOF adapter, you will be losing even more resolution. Remember any footage you saw in the internet after being compressed to such a small size, would look better than what it really is.
Click to expand...

Actually this isn't true. Our AJ-HDX900 is the same as the Varicam, the HPX2000, and the HPX2700, and these are all 1.1 million pixel CCDs. There are only two cameras that have the 2 mil, the HPX3000 and the HPX3700. And all of these cameras cost way more than the HPX170.

Best,

Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top