HPX300 Africa footage

Hi Jim,

We probably will but you have to know that it took about 7 months to get those done and up. I said at NAB last year that we were doing it and 7 months later we were done. Now granted it was for 4 different cameras, but it really does take time.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan,
Thanks for the response. You have really locked in some nice looks with some of those settings for the HPX500 and the HVX200 and it would be great to be able to emulate them on the HPX300.

I certainly understand the time factor when dealing with something like this. I'll keep an eye on the scene file site for any updates.

Thanks again.
Jim
 
I totally yanked the inner panels off and tried to figure out a way to remove that whole glass window. It would have been fantastic. But, alas, it was not to be... :(
 
Fantastic footage! The close-up of the lion in the rain is stunning. Bravo!

And kudos on the music choice. Makes it all feel so grand...
 
Beautiful, a bit much saturation in the green channel for me.. but all good.

and that shot from the 170 is amazing!
 
I like the footage overall. It seemed very sharp, however it seems as though a lot of the shots are oversaturated and have a slight yellow/green shift in the white balance. Did you balance to 56K for all these shots or manual from a white card? Was there any CC manipulation in post of this footage, or is this straight out the of cam.

On another note:

1. Is the stock 17x lens image stabilized?
2. Is it still possible to get all the same variable overcrank frame rates shooting in 720p as with the HVX?
3. Does the frame rate hack for the HVX work for the HPX300, I very much like the night timelapse footage the HVX produces with the hack.

Thanks much for posting the footage, I look forward to seeing more.
 
Last edited:
Kevin will have to answer questions about post, and I'm not sure what he was doing for white balance (whether manual or riding the preset).

1. No
2. Yes
3. Now that I think about it, I'm not 100% sure, but I thought that at least on the first prototype it did. Remains to be seen whether it will on the production versions.
 
Last edited:
Really fantastic footage Kevin and Barry.

Kevin you have really established a recognizable style.

Even on the lower resolution clip it is evident that large areas of fine grass and leaves hold up better. On the HVX it was always a thorn in my side that they would turn to mush.
 
Thanks KevinM.

I know it's probably too saturated for a lot of people here but I just showed the footage to a bunch of pro dancers I was filming Wednesday and the first thing they all said after "YOU filmed all that?" was that they just loved the color. But like I said earlier, it goes back to my Kodachrome and Velvia days.

I tried to white balance when I could, but a lot of times i just used the preset.

Barry had a set of warm cards but there was never enough room to stick the cards out of the window. :)

The other white van was often ahead scouting for wildlife otherwise I would have balanced off that. Course, it was covered in red dust from the roads so I guess that wouldn't have worked either. :)
 
I'm with you on the saturation.

I started as a commercial still photographer and became very accustomed to seeing amazing 4x5 chromes "back in the day". My eye still tends to gravitate to that sort of look.

After using the HPX300 prototype, are you sold? Is this a camera you are likely to add to your bag of tricks? You can PM me if you wish.
 
KevinM,

I still have a freezer full of Kodachrome and E-6! :) Not sure why I keep it since I'll probably never use it. Maybe the bricks of Kodachrome will end up in a museum or something.
I'm sure in a few years people will think it was barbaric to have to keep pro film frozen. :)

Anyway, back to the 300...

The 300 is a CMOS camera so you have to be willing to accept what all comes with that. Every CMOS camera has it so it's not like this is something new.

Since this was a prototype, I don't feel I can say that there are things I wish were different because they may be different in the final version.

Were these things big enough to make me not want to get one? No. It would be sweet if I could get a final version to see what changes if any were made.

My biggest concern is the form factor. I wish I could have a 170 with interchangeable lenses and AVC-Intra.

Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone is a long hike with a big elevation gain. Hiking with a camera that big compared to my 170 is going to be huge. But, the extra sharpness, the ability to have greater reach override that. If they made a 170 with interchangeable glass and AVC-Intra, I'd go that route because of the size and weight.

So after all that will I get one? As soon as I can get enough $'s in my bank account to pick one up I will.

I can't stress enough what a cluster it was trying to shoot that footage in Africa. It was like the Perfect Storm of things not to do when trying to shoot. Yet, I still got decent footage from the 300. COuld I have shot the same stuff with my 170 using OIS etc? You bet. But not as sharp and certainly not as far away.

Heck, I think those elephants on the river were like a 1/4 mile away or something. I would never have been able to get shots with the 170.

If I had the 300 on a "real" tripod on solid ground we'd be talkin magic.

I just woke up so I'm not sure if this all makes sense or not. :) Let me know if you want me to clarify or not. :)
 
I'm still on the fence about CMOS sensors but if you shoot within the limitations of the camera, the AVC-Intra is a huge plus.

So much of what I do involves camera movement. I've shot with the RED on my Steadicam and the only time I had an issue is doing a fast whip pan in a room with strong verticals. Most times I'm just not jerking the camera around like that. The bigger issues I had with the RED is that everything just takes longer. The modular design is a plus and minus. The post-production compared to P2 isn't even in the same ballpark as far as convenience. That is why I RENT the RED. Now before people freak out about that, I like the RED. It just doesn't suit all situations.

I also came across this article that speaks well for the whole Panasonic P2 line - including the 300.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/74502

Thanks for your input, Kevin. I makes perfect sense, even first thing in the morning.
 
Kevin,

Sounds weird like I'm talking to myself or something. :)

I think the best thing if you're sitting on the fence is to wait a month or two when the production units start rolling out because you know people are going to put the 300 through hell testing it all out.

I've never used the RED but I've heard it's not the easiest process for getting footage into the computer. The HPX300 is P2 so it's the same workflow with the exception of AVC-Intra.
I had to get a Intel Mac to support the codec and upgrade ShotPut and P2 Log to work with AVC-Intra. I also had to pick up Calibrated's software to let me load AVC-Intra clips right into FCP because I sure as hell can't get FCP to transcode to ProRes for me on Log and Transfer.

Once that was done it's the same workflow as with my 170 or my original HVX-200.

I think even if nothing changes from the prototype to the production model they still have a winner.. Most of my suggestions were tweaks. Like I'll give you one.

I thought the prototype overexposed compared to what it looked like in the LCD.
I know how the footage on my 170 looks compared to the LCD so I shot it that way. On the 300 what looked good on the LCD was overexposed on the actual footage. So, I had to keep dialing it down.
So, I don't know if this is just an adjustment I'll need to make when shooting the 300 vs. the 170 or if this is something that will be tweaked in the production model.

I saw some other footage that someone shot and people thought it was underexposed. So who knows.

But, that's the reason why we keep saying it's a prototype and not finalized. Cause someone will now start a thread about how they hear the 300 overexposes everything when in actuality it could just be the way I was using it.

But, it was all stuff like that. There was nothing I considered a deal breaker knowing it was a CMOS camera and what issues come with that.
 
This will give you an idea of how far away the croc was in the footage.

1235278506.jpg
 
WOW! The footage was amazing, and that still frame above looks so sharp you could probably make a good print of it!

The only thing that keeps me iffy on this camera is the CMOS sensors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top