Hpx300 rumors

markyf said:
That's the beauty of this. Those who lampooned it for years are now going to have to defend it. Maybe in the end we'll discover that the problem wasn't as bad as previously made out. And maybe the fear tactics are done for good and we can get a more even appreciation of the pros and cons.
Click to expand...
The situation is exactly as I described it when I did my first article on it. All CMOS cameras perform with the same issues. Some exaggerate it more, like the HV20/HV30, but the EX1/Red/HPX300/Infinity etc. all have the same rolling shutter, partial exposure, skew and jellovision potential.

It is incumbent upon you, the shooter, to understand when and how these issues can affect your footage and to choose the right tool for the job.
 
Simon Höfer said:
So it's confirmed that it is 3 cmos and not this speculated "MOS" technique?
Click to expand...
MOS is metal oxide semiconductor. As far as I understand, "3MOS" is a branded term for Panasonic's implementation of CMOS. It means three chips, with technologies designed to make the image look more like it came from a CCD chip.

But it's at its core a CMOS chip.
 
alpi69 said:
better form factor, ok, that wasn´t hard. If the full raster equates to resolution comparable to SONY shall be seen.
Click to expand...
It has been seen, and it has been basically confirmed. I've shot charts of both and the 300 is definitely in the running with the EX1. But that was with the stock lens; with a better lens it might match it pixel for pixel.

That could mean it is a 1/3 inch chip with 1/2 inch character?! Wishful thinking maybe?
Click to expand...
DOH! One test I wish I would have run is a comparable field of view between the 170 and the 300... didn't think to do that! 1/3" chips are kind of a ballpark anyway; the HD100's chip is quite a bit smaller than the HVX200's, which is smaller than the HPX170's and XHA1's. So four different cameras, all claiming 1/3", but three different actual chip sizes. So I don't know what the comparative size of the 1/3" chip in the HPX300 is...
 
should i already throw out my hpx500?
Click to expand...

Oh dont be such a consumer Tomas darling ;) The hpx500 i presume makes money for you - and read Barry's posts lol there respectively different.

Cmos is a no go for me - and im glad panny offers a great solution that lets me circumvent that. However, to me it looks like a great value for money camera - a real indy movie camera with a great professional set up.

Now Ive got an hvx200 and hpx500, but i wonder if an hpx300 couldn't find a happy wee roost in my lineup!
 
This new HPX300 seems purty cool. Tempting to upgrade. But I'll at least wait a little while to check out some footage and hear more feedback.

Different cameras for different needs indeed.
 
evsdan said:
Until resolution tests come out its difficult to speculate if it is sharper than an EX1.
Click to expand...
My tests were done on a prototype. Everyone has to keep that in mind. A prototype is not a finished, shipping product, and things can change between now and then.

But yes, I did charts, and yes they're about the same.

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.
Click to expand...
Chart testing was done with the stock lens. Much of our Africa shooting was done with that lens and another big honkin' Canon 21x lens. That Canon was also CAC-enabled, but we didn't get the benefit of CAC because there isn't an HPX300 CAC file for that lens. So anything we show will only get better by the time the camera ships.
 
Barry! You should have tested FOV ARG> But see, that's what I mean. For us Adapter users, if the 1/3" CMOS sensor is indeed larger then the option ot use Letus' existing 1/2" relay with an adapter will be right on ze money!

Please... post your footage.

Oh, and i saw that statement you made there: "Sharper" than the HPX500?

O boy. This thing might just fill the void between the HPX170's lack-luster (that's me) image and the EX-3's. Oh no...
 
puredrifting said:
To compete with the EX3, you are going to have to see street retail of less than $9k.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. EX3 is still stuck with ancient MPEG-2 recording and a semi-shoulder form factor. The HPX300 is a full-size proper shoulder mount with a real HD LCD and HD viewfinder and waveform and vectorscope and 10-bit recording and broadcast-accepted P2 recording format. It's not a direct head-to-head EX3 competitor; the EX3 is more of a handheld camera with a butt plate to stick up against your shoulder, and a magnifying glass tube over the LCD as a viewfinder. Take a glance at the HPX300 and you'll see it's totally different, it is more like an HPX500.
 
Barry_Green said:
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that. No flip module needed. And this isn't flipping the LCD, this is actually flipping the RECORDING! Someone finally got it absolutely right.
Click to expand...

So that's what that means! No wonder I didn't get it, this feature has never existed before.

Dan
 
lawriejaffa said:
Well this looks fascinating - i mean i operate an hpx500 myself atm for higher end stuff i do, and an hvx200, so what about an hpx300, are we talking a lighter cam with shoulder mount comparable to the xl (proportion wise) and weight wise?
Click to expand...
No, it's a full-size camera as big and about as heavy as the HPX500. This has *nothing* in common with the XL series or the EX3, this is a broadcast production shoulder-mount.

think a lot of folk will imagine people rushing to the hpx300 simply due to res but unless rolling shutter issues are er magically cured lol i think id still be wary.
Click to expand...
There's nothing magically cured. If you like an EX1 or EX3 or Red and accept their rolling shutter issues, you should love the HPX300. If you're one of the folks who claim that rolling shutter is no problem, you should love the HPX300 -- it's EX1 sharpness combined with Panasonic color.

But if you're one who can't work around rolling shutter issues, then this isn't the camera for you; you'd be better off with a CCD product like the HPX500.
 
On Street Price: If it streets for under 9K it's honestly a no brainer... comes WITH a lens, unlike the HPX500 and records AVC-Intra AND DVCpro-HD...

Oh, and how's the -3dB gain working ot?
 
Well, after seeing the pictures of the camera and the Abel footage, yes, now I see what you mean. But to Sony-holics, it will be a head to head competitor simply based upon price. But not to objective buyers, they will see that this camera presents a little more professional package.

Nice that you got to take it to Africa, I look forward to seeing your footage.

Dan
 
markyf said:
A couple things. One is it clearly says that the chips are 1920X1080 in the pdf.
Click to expand...
They are. As is the recording format.

And what is the scan reverse function for cinema lenses?
Click to expand...
It makes the system scan the chip in reverse, so (with a normal lens) it'd look upside down. With an upside-down adapter, it'd look right side up.

How is it different from the flip feature in the 170.
Click to expand...
The 170 only flips the display, not the recording. This flips both.

And this with a relay with an adapter without flip and a 35mm lens wouldn't be that long, correct? Not much longer than the Fujinon it comes with.
Click to expand...
That's probably correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top