HPX170 - A Second Look

Alex.Mitchell said:
No DRS in 24p really kills me. They NEED to do something about that.
Click to expand...
See, this is what's awesome here: we didn't even have any clue that the DRS would be on there *at all* and now we're up in arms because it's not in 24P mode. The internet community is a tough customer.

But, my understanding is that it cannot be. I've tried to dig into this DRS issue some and it seems like it needs the fast update speed of the 60p sensor in order to be able to work its magic. The slower frame rate wouldn't let it happen. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'm 80% sure.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
Is the picture of the 170 in your article a picture of the model you had in your hands or still te old picture from Nab. I ask this because there still seems to be no eye correction at the EVF.
Click to expand...
It was the new prototype. It's still a prototype. I can't fathom how there wouldn't be diopter correction on the finished model, I wouldn't even worry about that.

Why a DRS switch. Are there shooting conditions you want to switch it off?
Click to expand...
There are three different levels, plus off. One scenario you'd want to turn it off is if you want really deep shadows and blacks. Those are hard to get with DRS on because it lifts the blacks up so much.

But, a side benefit of lifting the blacks is that it makes it, effectively, a lower-noise picture.

Do I understand it well when you say that the LCD is much better not only due to the new focus assist tools but also because the LCD is just more sharp although it has the same resolution?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The processing on the video signal and the stronger peaking makes the LCD absolutely usable. It's not just the focus assists, it's when you look at the LCD you just see a sharp image. I don't know if it's higher res, I doubt it is, I think it's the same panel. But the image on that panel is way sharper and much more usable.

Despite the difference in glass size the sensitivity of the 200A and 170 seems the same. Isn't that strange?
Click to expand...
Again, I'm saying it's in the ballpark. There are things they can do, ways they can process it, and they haven't committed to the final version yet. So don't take any performance testing as gospel yet, like I said.

Any info about battery life time? Is the vertical mounting position of the battery an advantage?
Click to expand...
Battery life is claimed to be identical to the HVX200 so far. We'll see when the final version is done, but right now they're saying the power draw is the same. Vertical mounting means that it's probably going to be immune to the "battery tab" issue that affected some of the very earliest HVX200s.

Maybe less important but what about the colour of the cam ? Is it black or grey and is the colour of the lens different than the rest of the cam (or is that just caused by the photo flash like with pictures of the HVX)
Click to expand...
Same color as all the professional DVCPRO products. The flash makes it look bluer. It's not black, it's gray.
 
SPZ said:
Great article. The in camera software seems MUCH better! Anyway, I second everyone's opinion on the DRS- Will a poll make any difference?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that it's impossible at other than the 60i (or maybe 60p) rate. A poll wouldn't change that. :)

Barry, about sharpness and color reproduction: HVX200a vs HPX170- How does the new lens "sees" fine detail and colors compared to the HVX200a?
Click to expand...
Footage looked nigh identical to me. Only real difference I could discern was that the 170's lens was a little bit wider. And, you can make the footage look different with the finer control in the master pedestal, but you can also precisely match them.
 
This cam sounds amazing.

They should of just called it the "Take that Ex1" cam.

Just joking they are both cool cameras...But this one I will own.

Thanks Barry
 
Barry, can you expand on the following from your article?:

"2)LVL METER: This toggles the audio meter display between showing Channels 1 & 2, and showing Channels 3 & 4, so you can actually monitor the audio levels on 3 & 4 now!"

What would be an example of using Channels 3 & 4? How were they used before if they couldn't be monitored?

Thanks!
 
They could be used, but not monitored. You only had audio monitors on 1 & 2. So typically we'd use the XLRs on 1 & 2, and ignore channels 3 & 4 because they were relegated to being from the on-camera mic.

You still can't change the level of 3 & 4, but at least you can monitor it. Or... hmmm... maybe you could change 3 & 4 if you held down the LVL METER button while adjusting the audio dials? I didn't try that... dangit! Now I want to try that... grr.
 
Barry_Green said:
They could be used, but not monitored. You only had audio monitors on 1 & 2. So typically we'd use the XLRs on 1 & 2, and ignore channels 3 & 4 because they were relegated to being from the on-camera mic.

You still can't change the level of 3 & 4, but at least you can monitor it. Or... hmmm... maybe you could change 3 & 4 if you held down the LVL METER button while adjusting the audio dials? I didn't try that... dangit! Now I want to try that... grr.
Click to expand...

Barry, just to be clear, are the 3 & 4 channels assignable? If so, and if you could change the levels of 3 & 4, it would provide more flexibility for 'bracketing' the audio (which is something I like to do).

Thanks for your reply. :)
 
From my experimentation it works exactly as the HVX does. You have four input sources (XLR 1, XLR 2, int mic L, and int mic R). You can assign channel one to get its input from XLR1, XLR 2, or from int mic L. If you choose CH1 to be XLR 1 or XLR 2, then CH3 becomes int mic L. If you choose CH1 to be int mic L, then ch3 becomes XLR 1.

You can assign channel 2 to get its input from XLR2 or from int mic R. Whichever you choose for CH 2, the other gets mapped to CH 4.

In the HVX you don't have the ability to change the volume levels of ch's 3 & 4, and I expect the HPX170 works the same way.
 
Somehow I floated RIGHT over the overscan mode. Now that's one I didn't even think about but secretly wished for in the back of my head. I always use 90% on LCD and external monitors so it'll be nice to at least not have to worry about remembering the lil white lines when I can just use overscan.

Lots of nice little options went into this camera, it ain't the resolution grabber still but things are headed in a great direction.

About DRS: Maybe it's just the compression of those stills but as I compare them where they're at I sorta don't like the DRS image. Somethin' off about the shadow casting on the grass, but maybe that's because of the image size/compression again.
 
Barry_Green said:
See, this is what's awesome here: we didn't even have any clue that the DRS would be on there *at all* and now we're up in arms because it's not in 24P mode. The internet community is a tough customer.
Click to expand...

You know, I was thinking about that when I made my post. I know that bought gear is obsolete gear, but it still feels really weird to not have DRS in every shooting mode considering that it's only available in the most taxing mode to execute it on.
 
Thanks Barry!

A lot of improvements...
iI ll bet Pana will do the extra 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 cages and DSR on 25p (and of course 720). Why not?
When will it be for sale in Europe?

Arno
 
What struck me most was that DRS function. Incredible what it does! It will safe you half a lightning set! While it's only in 60i I've got a little off-topic question: I don't have any experience with deinterlacing in post. I would be really willing to do that extra work if it's worth doing it. But would such a procedure give similar results compared to real 24p? Or is there any strobing, distortion or loss of resolution (I heard 20% of resolution loss is normal...)

By the way, how is the quuality of the LCD, especially in plain sunlight?
 
Putting the 1:85:1 and 2:35:1 guides would be a fantastic and easy way for Panasonic to show its commitment to the Indie community. I would love this feature, indeed...

As for the DNR. If we have it in 25p, fine, if not, no problem.

Now the Ntsc and Pal switchable option would be the true icing on the cake... Do it, Panasonic!
 
Barry_Green said:
See, this is what's awesome here: we didn't even have any clue that the DRS would be on there *at all* and now we're up in arms because it's not in 24P mode. The internet community is a tough customer.
Click to expand...

Because the internet customers are generally the most informed ones. It's not a matter of "ungrateful" as if DRS was a gift, its a matter of expectations for $6,000. It stings when a killer feature is introduced, but only implemented "halfway." How many people here actually use 1080i60i on a regular basis? I for one NEVER shoot this mode. If DSR was available only in the 720p modes (24p,30p,60p) I'm sure it would be a different story, as these are the most used.

Understandable if it truely is impossible, but I don't believe in impossible when it comes to tech. I'll bet my HVX200 that the HPX170 successor will have an improved DSR available in all modes. A better term might be, "not feasible at the moment" - ok, if that is really true, I accept, and I am glad but it has been included at all, but I can't help but be dissapointed that a great feature (DSR) is only available in a mode I will probably never shoot in.
 
The wide angle comparison compares the HVX200, 200a, and HPX170.

The tele only compares the HVX200a and HPX170 - which are OF COURSE really similar, almost identical! So why was an HVX200 vs 200a/HPX170 tele not included? I am sure the difference between the HVX200 and the 200a/170 is much more noticeable, and that is the comparison that actually matters...
 
Barry_Green said:
From my experimentation it works exactly as the HVX does. You have four input sources (XLR 1, XLR 2, int mic L, and int mic R). You can assign channel one to get its input from XLR1, XLR 2, or from int mic L. If you choose CH1 to be XLR 1 or XLR 2, then CH3 becomes int mic L. If you choose CH1 to be int mic L, then ch3 becomes XLR 1.

You can assign channel 2 to get its input from XLR2 or from int mic R. Whichever you choose for CH 2, the other gets mapped to CH 4.

In the HVX you don't have the ability to change the volume levels of ch's 3 & 4, and I expect the HPX170 works the same way.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know the set level that channel 3 and 4 are set too?

Cause if that was something decent like -12 or -20 then you could set 1 and 2 too Internal Mic and 3 and 4 to XLR, throw a mixer/soundie into 3 and 4 and then have full control over the internal mic while knowing 3 and 4 were safe getting a mix at a set level. and of course you could monitor it.

This isnt something that's HPX specific and could work on a 200 however it'd be easier to test on an HPX as you could see exactly where the tone was peaking when checking that level, on a 200 you'd have to do it in post.

Right wheres a soundie when i need one, i wanna figure this out.
 
filmguy123 said:
The tele only compares the HVX200a and HPX170 - which are OF COURSE really similar, almost identical! So why was an HVX200 vs 200a/HPX170 tele not included? I am sure the difference between the HVX200 and the 200a/170 is much more noticeable, and that is the comparison that actually matters...
Click to expand...
'Cause I can't find the clip that I shot full telephoto yet. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top