Hpx300 rumors

Please dont go CMOS (Irather wait for the cheap 2/3" fixed scarlet) !!! I hope "typo" would be 1/2" CCD with better resolution and form factor. If "typo" is 2/3" it means at least 6-7k for 2/3" lens.
 
Typo said it's 1/3" 3MOS. Scarlet is CMOS.

All I'm saying is: if you want that resolution, at that chip size, it's gotta be CMOS (or "3MOS"). If you want CCD, the HPX/HVX is about as good as it can get, at 1/3" size. If you want 1/2", there's only two 1/2" CCD cameras on the market, the XDCAM-HD cameras, and neither of them are 1920x1080 either. You only find 1920x1080 CCDs at the full 2/3" size.
 
Now if Panasonic comes out with global shutter 3MOS or whatever they wanna call it. That would be a Killer. Ikonoskop dII is 1920 x 1080 2/3" CCD sensor but that is about 2x the price of the hpx170.
 
The Ikonoskop is, at this point (like the Scarlet btw), wishful thinking.
Until these cameras are been tested among us and available that's the situation.

The HPX 170 and 500, the HVXs and the EXs are here.
 
Global shutter on 3MOS would be very interesting indeed! I'd kind of given up on us ever seeing an affordable global shutter system. Maybe we'll see it in the 3MOS. Has anyone tried the consumer camera with the 3MOS system? Is it a global shutter?
 
Barry_Green said:
Global shutter on 3MOS would be very interesting indeed! I'd kind of given up on us ever seeing an affordable global shutter system. Maybe we'll see it in the 3MOS. Has anyone tried the consumer camera with the 3MOS system? Is it a global shutter?
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with any camera having a 3MOS chip.
The Global Shutter is essential IMHO for flexibility when handheld and guerilla-one-man situations.
This combination could be the best of both worlds.
 
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/1956741/index.html#anker_1956946]

we were all waiting for this ?

1956978
\
 
Anything with a CMOS sensor and without a Global Shutter will be quite disappointing.
I'm always surprised how many people constantly use cameras with "jello-issues"!
Maybe it's just me, and I might be doing something wrong, but every time I've tried I had problems with it and I was unhappy with the results. Even the Red One is far from ideal on this issue.
 
What i read is:

3MOS = a MOS Chip with 3 Cores, one dedicated to each color.

BTW, MOS = Metal–oxide Semiconductor

What truly matters to me is the codec they will use, i just hope they keep a 4:2:2 compression. I just don't buy this 4:2:0 nowadays, to me this should be kept as a delivery mode, not capture.
 
alexdias said:
Anything with a CMOS sensor and without a Global Shutter will be quite disappointing.
I'm always surprised how many people constantly use cameras with "jello-issues"!
Maybe it's just me, and I might be doing something wrong, but every time I've tried I had problems with it and I was unhappy with the results. Even the Red One is far from ideal on this issue.
Click to expand...

I am there with you on that one. I am shooting a film now where we ended up shooting on the EX1 because after I showed the producers the three big cameras footage projected in full HD on a huge theater screen, everyone jumped for the EX1. I could clearly see some weird issues that make my eyes itch but apparently a lot of people just don't see it, it's like thier brain adapts to it and swooshes with the image to correct it because I clearly saw it on some shots and played it back and they were like 'wtf? what it looks great!"

So I gave up and gave in and we are shooting on the EX1 and while some shots do look spectacular over the HVX when this stuff doesn't happen, half of my car accident shots have a lot of camera movement and some fast shakey cam and it looks awful I had to reshoot it 4 times and slow things down.

I don't like the HVXs softness and like of 1920 x 1080 24p n and I don't like the cmos issues I am SCREWED.
 
Blackout said:
I am there with you on that one. I am shooting a film now where we ended up shooting on the EX1 because after I showed the producers the three big cameras footage projected in full HD on a huge theater screen, everyone jumped for the EX1. I could clearly see some weird issues that make my eyes itch but apparently a lot of people just don't see it, it's like thier brain adapts to it and swooshes with the image to correct it because I clearly saw it on some shots and played it back and they were like 'wtf? what it looks great!"

So I gave up and gave in and we are shooting on the EX1 and while some shots do look spectacular over the HVX when this stuff doesn't happen, half of my car accident shots have a lot of camera movement and some fast shakey cam and it looks awful I had to reshoot it 4 times and slow things down.

I don't like the HVXs softness and like of 1920 x 1080 24p n and I don't like the cmos issues I am SCREWED.
Click to expand...

There're a lot of things that I'm not crazy about it on the HVX/HPX cameras, the softness and lack of "stupid" detail are just some of it, but I have worked a lot with the 200 (a bit with the 170) and I know what I'm getting.
I've said before, many times, that I've shot a whole feature doc with the 200 and after we mastered in 1080 it has been projected in some pretty large screens (at Festivals all over the US) from a HDCAM dub and when the projector is calibrated and good enough the images are fantastic.
I respect a lot of people out there having excellent results with the EXs and other CMOS cameras, they seemed quite happy every time I ask about it.
For me and for now, it just doesn't cut.
 
This past weekend, I found an old hard drive that I thought walked off.
It had some HVX200 footage on it. I re-edited it and projected it and it looked fantastic.

That same week I was at a film festival and saw more HVX200 footage.
IT also looked awesome.
Then I saw some EX1 footage (not sure if it was really EX1 footage as the director didn't know but said thought it was EX1).
The EX1 footage looked like blown up SD. I don't think it was really EX1 footage.

In any case, I have seen both look great projected.

EX1 has more detail, but the HVX200 looks great projected if done right.
I have been back and forth on this, and am now concluding that they both
can produce professional results....end of story.
 
I shoot with all three, HVX, HPX170 and EX1 on a regular basis and any pro can make any one of them sing. They all can look amazing, don't know why picking one over the other became a Jihad? I wish I was wealthy enough to own all three.

Dan
 
Barry_Green said:
Still can't find anything out about "3MOS" and why they call it that instead of just saying "3 CMOS".
Click to expand...

Because "3MOS" (pronounced three-moss) rhymes with CMOS (pronounced see-moss), but it must be cooler because it has "three" in the name. :) C'mon, Barry, think from a marketing perspective... :D
 
puredrifting said:
I shoot with all three, HVX, HPX170 and EX1 on a regular basis and any pro can make any one of them sing. They all can look amazing, don't know why picking one over the other became a Jihad? I wish I was wealthy enough to own all three.

Dan
Click to expand...

Yea I feel the HVX, HPX, EX will all look good in the right hands.
Because it is the shooter that renders the good results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top