HPX170 already outdated?

D

DanHD

Well-known member
Sooo. I went to a pro video shop in my town and the salesmen said the 170 was already outdated being that it's basically a good looking "Sd camera" as he put it.



It really pissed me off.
 
He said the camera only actually produces less than 720p actual resolution, (i know there have been a ton of threads about pixel shifting on here no need to explain)

and he said that the EX1 uses an efficient long gop codec that can "easily be transcoded to ProRes without any loss of quality"

and idk. I'm tired of getting blasted for owning the 170.

I make money with it. It makes good images. They look HD to me. So I don't care what salesmen say
 
Salesmen say what they say to make money. They look at what other marketting people spout out and then think they know best.

Truth is both cameras are good. Both shoot HD, both shoot great images. Use what you want. What do you have to gain by blasting the other guys camera other than "HA HA, mines better than yours! Neener neener neeeeener!" Very Elementary School. I'm getting tired of it.
 
Shane Ross said:
"HA HA, mines better than yours! Neener neener neeeeener!"
Click to expand...

I love that...

My Dad was a professional photographer. He taught me that a $5 garage sale camera can take museum quality photos. Some of his gear cost a fortune and some was what amateurs would look at and call junk, held together with duct tape and epoxy. You couldn't tell from the resulting images.

He also thought quite a few camera store salesmen were behind the counter because they were NOT professional photographers. (Some salesmen are great, some are professional blowhards.) What I took home at the end of the day was to seek multiple opinions, then trust my own perceptions of the images.

I really dig my HPX 170. Mine goes to 11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d54UU-fPIsY
 
In all seriousness, shane's 142% right. There are pluses and minus' to every camera out there. This is pixel-shifted, that is native size, but this is Long-GOp and that records every frame...."does it do the job?" and does it do a job you're proud of and can make a living with? They're HD and make great images.....the rest of the story is in our hands.
 
DanHD said:
He said the camera only actually produces less than 720p actual resolution, (i know there have been a ton of threads about pixel shifting on here no need to explain)

and he said that the EX1 uses an efficient long gop codec that can "easily be transcoded to ProRes without any loss of quality"

and idk. I'm tired of getting blasted for owning the 170.

I make money with it. It makes good images. They look HD to me. So I don't care what salesmen say
Click to expand...

I agree with Shane that both cameras have different strengths and weaknesses.
Also, transcoding to pro-res can't solve all of the issues with a long GOP codec. It can make it easier to edit later on but you can't put back information that has been lost on capture by transcoding. Fast pans can cause problems for long GOP and there is nothing transcoding to Pro-Res can do to remedy that.
 
See them all

See them all

p1045724902-3.jpg


And our conclusions about which is best from filmmakers ranging in age from 18 - 46 years old! The discussion is interesting to say the least. Every very major camera included: 35mm motion picture, HPX3000, EX3, HPX170, Nikon D90, Canon 5D Mark II, RED, Letus Ultimate, Elite, Redrock and more.
 
They already did something kind of like this. and when everything is converted to a 1080p. it all looks about the same. That was the kicker about the Red camera.. it doesn't look any better when downconverted so unless you are doing a film out, or 4k stuff then what's the point? Most of us are delivering in either SD or a compressed HD master.. atleast that's what I am.
 
It seems these threads keep coming back every few weeks or sooner.

Another "shootout" isn't going to change many minds in my view, but thanks for the testing.
 
The problem with "shootouts", in my opinion, is that they don't cover a lot of ground as far as real life conditions are demanded.
For instance, if we are talking about cameras under 10K the EXs will be the kings of sharpness and detail, but is it enough? I don't shoot only charts or perfectly controlled lockdown studio situations.
Anyway, I'll check it out as I usually do.
 
I get a little tired of the charts as well, and setting up specific lighting situations.

We don't shoot that way, and for the life of me, I don't really understand what they are showing or know how to really interpret them.
 
There are those who make specifications and worrying about codecs a way of life.

There are those who get off their ass with what they have or can afford and make great images.

Dan
 
Justyn said:
They already did something kind of like this. and when everything is converted to a 1080p. it all looks about the same. That was the kicker about the Red camera.. it doesn't look any better when downconverted so unless you are doing a film out, or 4k stuff then what's the point? Most of us are delivering in either SD or a compressed HD master.. atleast that's what I am.
Click to expand...


About is a broad term, though. They definitely do NOT look the same to me. EX1 gets close as far as resolution goes, but it's still not close enough as an overall image... at least for some of us. An HD master coming from a RED will crap on all of the above. That's probably just me.
 
No, Kholi, it's not just you.
I believe that if RED delivers half of what they are announcing by the end of next year we'll have a very interesting situation going.
But for now the 170 looks very attractive.
 
puredrifting said:
There are those who make specifications and worrying about codecs a way of life.

There are those who get off their ass with what they have or can afford and make great images.

Dan
Click to expand...

Amen, Brother.

I like to geek out on technology as much as the next guy, specs and tests are educational... but, sheesh. Sometimes telling the story seems to get lost in the mix. Sweaty-palmed upgrade fever... I picture a bunch of bug eyed chart viewers looking like they just stepped off the set of "Reefer Madness".

Most fun I ever had with a camera was a Super-8 in college, where the $25 for 3 minutes of footage cost me five hours toiling at the campus bike shop. Every shot had to count, which made it really exciting. But I don't miss editing with an Exacto knife. Everything we have at our disposal now just seems so AMAZINGLY great when I remember how things were, back in the day of trudging uphill through the snow in both directions...
 
"Geeking out on the technology" and window shopping is pure entertainment, and seriously who on this board would deny this for even a minute? It's the drug we all crave. Amen.

Who knows, there are sales people, and there are camera geeks in sales jobs. If both the EX1 and the HPX170 make workable images it's all about workflow, but there is no "better," and anyone who tells you otherwise is just sharing an opinion. Really.. both cameras will get you from point A to point B to use the old car analogy, but it's all about how you want to get there.

I wish I could afford either right now, or even an HMC150. I just put together a movie from Canon Optura 40 footage shot by my wife for one of her riding students high school projects. They ran around the ranch doing a modern adaptation of MacBeth. Anyway, to the kids at school this girl is Scorsese.

It's oh so fun to wallow in the tech stuff, but it's all just blah blah blah at the end of the day. I think the next generation of software upgrades will help me decide which path to take. It seems to me the hardware is one step ahead of the software which makes it hard to say which workflow is better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top