Hpx300 rumors

Dino said:
Full raster is full raster, sensor size has no bearing except for light gathering/noise/dynamic range specs. I have no reason to believe the HPX300 3MOS array, if 1920X1080 would have less resolution than EX3's CMOS array at 1920X1080.

DVCPRO is not the codec I was referring to, it is not a 10 bit, full raster codec, AVC Intra is. A Long GOP 4:2:0 8 bit codec running at 35Mbps is nowhere close to the almost D-5 quality of an I Frame 4:2:2 10 bit codec running at 50 or 100Mbps.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the 1/3" would have just as much resolving power as the 1/2" sensor?
 
I'm on a plane right now so can't post my article yet. But I spent two weeks in Africa with the HPX300. I will have an article, photos and a little footage posted tonight.
 
Joe Lawry said:
ah Dan, doesnt lower pixel density equal a softer picture?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You do reach a point of overkill. You can stuff as many pixels as you want onto a sensor but it is always a juggling act between resolution and light sensitivity/noise levels. The copy already states 2.2 million, which is of course the total between all three sensors.

No different than with still cameras. 6MP is almost all anyone needs unless they make really large prints, which few users do. In still cameras, I have typically tried to stay with technology that uses lower MP over higher because super high megapixel counts on smaller imagers is always a bad thing.

Dan
 
Until resolution tests come out its difficult to speculate if it is sharper than an EX1. I think what Dino was refering to is the fact that AVC INTRA 100 which is an amazing codec and full raster which might equalize the 1/3 vs 1/2 difference.

Remember that glass is far more important when it comes to resolution than anything else. I say we wait until Barry posts his findings, as he has hands on experience with the camera.

All speculation aside, We'll be getting our hands on it hopefully early next week and I'll post my thoughts on it then. Just to clarify the camera does include the lens and has an anton bauer gold mount for batteries.
 
Daniel:

On the Abel page, they say camera includes lens and camera body viewfinder. Is the tripod plate going to be extra?

Dan
 
Kholi said:
Why do you think the 1/3" would have just as much resolving power as the 1/2" sensor?
Click to expand...

Kholi, point taken. I was speaking to samples recorded by AVC Intra. What is resolved optically can be a different story. We know that larger sensors can resolve small high frequency detail, assuming good lenses. A wide shot with lots of smal detail is going to resolve better with a larger sensor.
 
evsdan said:
Until resolution tests come out its difficult to speculate if it is sharper than an EX1. I think what Dino was refering to is the fact that AVC INTRA 100 which is an amazing codec and full raster which might equalize the 1/3 vs 1/2 difference.

Remember that glass is far more important when it comes to resolution than anything else. I say we wait until Barry posts his findings, as he has hands on experience with the camera.

All speculation aside, We'll be getting our hands on it hopefully early next week and I'll post my thoughts on it then. Just to clarify the camera does include the lens and has an anton bauer gold mount for batteries.
Click to expand...

Ooh ooh! Me too me too! LoL
 
Dino said:
Kholi, point taken. I was speaking to samples recorded by AVC Intra. What is resolved optically can be a different story. We know that larger sensors can resolve small high frequency detail, assuming good lenses. A wide shot with lots of smal detail is going to resolve better with a larger sensor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's true. I think the fine detail is what's going to separate the EX-1 and HPX300, but then again we'll have to see! I hope footage rolls around today....

COUGH.
 
Looks like it's going to be a beautiful thing... my order will be in...

Although I don't think it's a HVX170/200 replacement rather a step up at an amazing price point...??? (although for us in Oz we might get stung with conversion rates)...

I guess I'll be carrying 2 cameras now...

Cheers
 
meh. I rather stick with hpx170, small and so lightweight, its CCD (no rolling shutter) plus, can you imagine putting a 35mm adapter on the hpx300 ? Imagine the length of the entire setup going to be. If you want CMOS and resolution, might as well stick with your current cam and wait for a year or two for the $4000 2/3" Scarlet.
 
LuckyStudio 13 said:
meh. I rather stick with hpx170, small and so lightweight, its CCD (no rolling shutter) plus, can you imagine putting a 35mm adapter on the hpx300 ? Imagine the length of the entire setup going to be. If you want CMOS and resolution, might as well stick with your current cam and wait for a year or two for the $4000 2/3" Scarlet.
Click to expand...

You just had to go there didn't you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top