HPX250: HPX250 vs HVX200a test

D

Donald Gregory

Well-known member
0db and 6db is significantly cleaner with the HPX250. Obviously youtube compression doesn't help, but here's the video we did when making the comparison.
 
Thanks for the test. I just sold my HVX 201 but did some comparisons while I had both, the lowlight capabilities of the HPX 250 convinced me. I do however not make any judgements via youtube or vimeo material anymore.
 
I read in the fine print that the HPX was shot at 1080 and the HVX at 720. Since this would create much more detail in the HPX footage, is this really a fair comparison? No doubt the HPX will be sharper, but please compare apples to apples.

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
I read in the fine print that the HPX was shot at 1080 and the HVX at 720. Since this would create much more detail in the HPX footage, is this really a fair comparison? No doubt the HPX will be sharper, but please compare apples to apples.Strange cameras s to compare but I suppose .....
Click to expand...
 
Looks like the detail in the stuffed animals nose disappears in the 250 footage...is that the camera or just a youtube thing?
 
Yeah, I was surprised at how well the HVX stood up to the 250. All of these tests give clues about future purchases...are they worth it at this point or do I wait a little longer.
Sensor data and all that are part of it to be sure, but the proof is in the pudding as they say.
 
Not sure if this thread is dead, but very curious if Donald (or anyone else) has tried comparing the 200 and 250 with both cameras at 720 or 1080? As crazy as it sounds, anyone out there tried dialing down the detail a tiny bit on the 250 to match the 200.

Maybe others out there like me- who want to upgrade from 200 to 250 for 10 bit and the much better image codec low light and lens, but would save me some rental costs if I could also use them together for the occasional 2 camera shoot.
Thanks for any info or links!
 
Donald Gregory said:
Fair point about the 1080 to 720. We'll shoot another video comparison. Anything else you guys want to see in it?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think "shoot outs" are generally good ideas, but . . .

Make sure you're shooting everything the same -- same frame size, same frame rate, same codec, same scene files, etc.

It really wouldn't be very useful to, say, shoot AVC-I 100 on the 250 and compare it to anything on the 200. For example.
 
I disagree. The ability to shoot AVC-100 is a big reason to upgrade to the HPX250, so to compare it to the DVC-ProHD is on the 200 is very valid. Nothing can of course compare to personal experience with both, but if it helps someone with their buying decision along with all the other information that is out there, then why not?
 
Donald Gregory said:
I disagree. The ability to shoot AVC-100 is a big reason to upgrade to the HPX250, so to compare it to the DVC-ProHD is on the 200 is very valid. Nothing can of course compare to personal experience with both, but if it helps someone with their buying decision along with all the other information that is out there, then why not?
Click to expand...

If you're testing comparative noise, or any one specific factor, then it needs to be as apples-to-apples as possible, or it's not a real comparison. The only variable should be what you're testing for.

If you're just testing which is the pound-for-pound better camera, then there's really no test necessary; the 250 is it. The 250 has everything the 200 has and much more; the only advantage I can think of that the 200 might have is CCD vs. MOS -- but put up against everything else, there's really no question.
 
True, but if you're making a purchase decision its not as simple as that, since an HPX250 costs roughly double what an HVX200a costs used. So its not just is it better, it's how much is it better, and in what ways is it better, and obviously a host of other considerations have to go into a purchase decision for every individual.

I thought the HPX250 would be way better in low light than the 200a, but while its better, it's not quite the leap I thought it would be. The zoom lens on the HPX250 is fantastic, and obviously all that glass comes at a cost.
 
Maybe my situation is rare or a bad idea, BUT here goes. I've had a 200 for many years and very happy. I'm looking to upgrade cameras and everything I've read sounds like the 250 would be a good move, BUT I have a few week long shoots coming up where I need two cameras, so I would like to be able to use the 25o with the 200 and dial them to match for those two camera shoots. Am I being too thrifty?

Are there any other cameras out there that might fit this goal better?
 
Vince Franke said:
so I would like to be able to use the 25o with the 200
Click to expand...

If you were shooting the identical setting with the two cameras, but from different angles, it would be close enough that you could dial it in so that only the most sophisticated viewer would know the difference. If you are intercutting footage from entirely different locations, there should be no problem. Just use the 250 where it outperforms the 200 (like low light or blown out highlights) and take time to match the scene files - Cine-D works better (noise-wise) in the 250, but even in the 200, D is safer when trying to match later in post.

I have an HVX200, an HPX500, and AF100 and an HPX250 and I intercut them often (using footage I shot 2 years ago with the 500 for instance) and I have yet to have anyone notice.... To be honest, unless you're pushing the envelope with your shooting, the 200 will handle more than it's (currently) given credit for - mainly because DVCPRO HD just looks good out of the box, and AVC-I is pretty close (of course cleaner).. The AF100, because of the AVCHD codec, is a much bigger problem, but even it can come close with color correction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top