hpx 300 vs. JVC's hm 700

Y'know, I keep hearing this "film skews just like CMOS" thing come up, but nobody's ever pointed to an actual example -- other than an old, old, old photo of a slow focal plane shutter.

Can someone please point out a rubbery rolling-shutter movie to me?

Because until then, I'm going to continue to go with what I know, which (as an owner of three movie cameras right now, that I can look through the film gate and see exactly what's going on) is that the entire frame gets exposed simultaneously for most of the exposure. Which makes film more like a global/CCD shutter than a CMOS rolling shutter.
 
I have a question for you all, I'm looking at the HPX300, I'll be shooting mostly sports (Football, Basketball), I also film weddings. However, Im scared about the skewing of the HPX300. I've been shooting with big ENG cameras for years now, so I know how to correctly use a camera. But still don't know a lot about how the camera will do in sports. I've got an Canon XH A1 now which has been alright. I just real want shoulder mount camera and I've used Panasonic's DVCPRO 50 cameras in high school and loved them. Most all the news stations in Nashville, TN are using P2 cameras. I've also been looking at JVC's hm 700, I know it has a 3ccd chip which I've been told is better with fast motion due to no rolling shutter. Right now at the ago of 19, $10,000 is a lot to spend on something and it now be worth the money. If anyone could give me in advices that would be great. Thank You all.
 
craggj said:
I have a question for you all, I'm looking at the HPX300, I'll be shooting mostly sports (Football, Basketball), I also film weddings. However, Im scared about the skewing of the HPX300. I've been shooting with big ENG cameras for years now, so I know how to correctly use a camera. But still don't know a lot about how the camera will do in sports. I've got an Canon XH A1 now which has been alright. I just real want shoulder mount camera and I've used Panasonic's DVCPRO 50 cameras in high school and loved them. Most all the news stations in Nashville, TN are using P2 cameras. I've also been looking at JVC's hm 700, I know it has a 3ccd chip which I've been told is better with fast motion due to no rolling shutter. Right now at the ago of 19, $10,000 is a lot to spend on something and it now be worth the money. If anyone could give me in advices that would be great. Thank You all.
Click to expand...

If you are shooting sports, then that usually means 720x60p or 1080x60i, which is a good option in either camera, with visual quality going to the HPX300. The included lens on the HPX300 combined with the internal programming for the lens, means significantly less CA and no IR contamination. Where the camera falls down is 1080x24p/30p where there are a lot of vertical lines in the image or sudden quick movement. For a wedding, that shouldn't be a problem either. The HPX300 performs significantly better in low light too.
In other words, for just about anything that doesn't require 24p, the HPX300 is a superior camera all around.
Remember it also offers 10bit color, both in camera and out via the SDI port. The JVC limits itself to 8bit, either on the SDHC card or via the SDI port.
For many of us who own older JVC equipment, the HM700 is something of a let down. At it's current configuration when compared to Pana or Sony cameras in the same range, it comes up a distant 3rd. Not a bad camera, just not as good as the competition.
An EX3 or HPX300 would IMHO be a better investment for you. If possible, keep your Canon handy for situations that aren't suited for the other cameras. which, contrary to what you may be reading on this board, are not very many.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your help, this year my crew and I did side line reporting covering 3 schools a night, I think next year we are going to do live switching and streaming of just one game to our site. But I've been looking to get a some what professional camera with the HD SDI out, I've shared some of the footage of some games to the local news stations and having the HD SDI out would have been great this year. I'm thinking I'll buy the HPX300, do you think the lens it comes with will be alright if ENG use and some weddings. Or should I try and get another lens down the road (still got to buy p2 cards!!!) so lens will prob... half to wait.
 
For a stock FREE lens, the 300 lens is excellent. It does breathe a lot though so forget cinematic rack focuses. But the CAC really works and the overall images are pretty darn good. Unfortunately, a better quality lens will cost you more than the camera with the stock lens cost but for some people and some situations, it could be worth it.

Dan
 
It's also reasonably wide and quite telephoto. Its range is 4.5 to 77mm, that compares to the HVX200A which is 4.2mm to 55mm. So it's not as wide as an HVX, but it's not that far off. And it's a lot more telephoto.

If you need wide-angle, Fuji makes a pretty good 3.5mm wide zoom, but it costs as much as another HPX300 would. You can also get wide-angle converters.

As Dan said, the stock lens is pretty surprisingly good for being free, the only downsides being that it breathes a lot, and the wide end isn't quite as wide as an HPX170 or HVX200A are.
 
Alright good, overall it should be a good lens for sports and local tv broadcast? I've read of a lot of local news stations picking the HPX300 as their studio an field cameras. And could you explain what you mean by it breathes a lot! Sorry not as smart as you all! Thank You all again for all the help.
 
craggj said:
Alright good, overall it should be a good lens for sports and local tv broadcast?
Click to expand...
Definitely.
I've read of a lot of local news stations picking the HPX300 as their studio an field cameras.
Click to expand...
Not just local stations, actually the NBC Network has standardized on the HPX300 as their main news camera for all their owned & operated stations.

And could you explain what you mean by it breathes a lot! Sorry not as smart as you all! Thank You all again for all the help.
Click to expand...
"breathing" means that as you change the focus, it looks like it's zooming in or out some.
 
craggj said:
And could you explain what you mean by it breathes a lot! Sorry not as smart as you all! Thank You all again for all the help.
Click to expand...


For example if you have the Rush Hour 2 DVD, go to timecode 0:12:10, and watch the shot of the door being kicked in. The lens slightly zooms as the focus is changed.


(Or 7:40 in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phFHTXSnenU&feature=related. It's not as high quality as the DVD though.)
 
Lens breathing is usually from external focus lenses. Internal focus lenses generally do not breathe but they generally cost a lot more too. It's another case of you get what you pay for. FWIW, the stock 300 lens is VERY useful and the 17x range would be good for your needs. No extender though. Once again, to gain a 2x extender, you need to pony up some big bucks.

Dan
 
Barry-
How would the 300 be good for sports? Aren't you often zoomed in all the way and doing relatively fast pans which would cause a lot of skew?
 
If you're shooting 60i/60p the skew is drastically lessened. And yes, if you're at 100% telephoto and moving quickly, you'll see skewing, no question -- so for that particular application it wouldn't be my go-to product, I'd rather use a CCD product for that. But if you're not trying to grab that particular shot (massively zoomed in tracking shot) then it'll work pretty well for just about anything else.
 
Alright, to try to better explain my point, I never said film was equal to CMOS, I said both use a rolling shutter (as defined by my very simple definition). I found something on Reduser that better explains my point.

Skew is caused by quickly panning the camera during the shot or a very fast object goes hurtling by at a high rate of speed. In a film camera, it is caused by the shutter. Arri skew is different than Panavision skew. Their shutters enter and exit the frame from different angles. Remember the old race car wheel image?

In a CMOS sensor camera, it is caused by read/reset times. The longer the read/reset time, the more skew. Our sensor has a read/reset time much faster than most other CMOS sensors. It is a bit slower than a film camera. Which means a bit more skew than a film camera, but a lot less than other CMOS cameras. We have yet to find someone that found our skew objectionable.

Just like film cameras, the RED ONE comes standard with a little bit of skew during fast pans. If you want a lot... you have to pay extra.
Click to expand...

Pulled from: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3160


My point was, both CMOS and film can skew, but film skew a lot less because the shutter is rotating faster than a CMOS chip can reset. You can have CMOS footage that doesn't skew, and you can have film footage that does skew.
 
Under what circumstances can a CMOS camera show no skew, but a motion film camera would?

The race car wheel image is a red herring. That's not a motion camera. That's an old, slow focal plane shutter.

I cannot conceive of a circumstance where a motion film camera would show more skew than a Red One or any other rolling-shutter CMOS camera. And I still can't think of any example where I've ever seen a motion film camera exhibit any manner of wobble. Are there any examples? You'd think with a hundred years' of source material to draw from, there should be some examples somewhere...

Skew is visible on the viewfinder of a CMOS camera. I wonder if there's any truth whatsoever to this "film skews too" supposition, if it'd be visible in the viewfinder of a rotating-mirror-shutter film camera... maybe I'll put the 300mm on my 35mm camera and go wobble it around and see if we get skew.

Anyone want to take bets?
 
Ok, everyone seems to be twisting my words...

Film can skew, so can CMOS....never debated how much, just stating that they both skew at certain points.
 
I feel like I haven't twisted any words, I'm going for clarification.

Okay, let's completely untwist all words and go with a direct question then:

Are you asserting that film movie cameras can exhibit skew and/or wobble? If so, is there any evidence of it?
 
In Woody Allen's "Love and Death" (1975), there is the battle scene. There is a quick whip-pan where the camera changes from facing the French to now looking at the Russians. A green tent with a white pole (or some other white vertical feature) caught my eye because it was supposed to be straight, but it was skewed to the right. I've been trying to find a pic or video on the internet, but have been unsuccessful, I'll try to get a grab from the DVD as soon as I can.
 
Interesting. I'd love to see it.

I'm tempted to put a roll of film through the ol' Konvas, and do a "skew-off" against a Red, to settle the issue once and for all. It just will cost a fortune to get the film developed and transferred, and I don't know how much I care to find out the answer. I mean, even if there's evidence of skew, it's obviously absolutely minimal in film as compared to CMOS, because nobody has ever talked about it, and I've never heard it mentioned anywhere ever in American Cinematographer, or among the shooters I know, whereas every film shooter I've ever worked with has been astonished when they've seen how the Red One or other CMOS camera skews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top