Barry_Green
Moderator
I think this is accurate. The HPX170's chips don't deliver truly enough ooomph to saturate the 1920x1080 frame, but the CMOS chips do, so AVC-Intra makes more sense on this product.I suppose it fits a little awkwardly in between those two you mention tomas, i mean avc intra seems like panny is naturally integrating its better codec with its obviously more recent cam model probably to take advantage better of its full res (er yeah guys?)
Yep. Those who want and need those pixels, now can have them. And truthfully the image is sharper and cleaner/smoother than the 170/200A.Some EX users are probably bemoaning the irony of this and i dont blame them. However, this camera has been made to compete with the EX, and others... It may not be for everyone for this reason - but its appeal to those who do wish to chase res at all costs -
There's nothing "cute" about it, it's not like an HD100 or something. This is a real, full-size, broadcast shoulder mount camera. The casual observer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an HPX300 and an F900. It's full size, fully ergonomic, exactly what you'd want in a broadcast unit.and within what appears to be a cute (and genuine shoulder setup as opposed to ex3) will be appealing.
Yeah, it could be a fairly ideal adapter rig, in that if you had the 1/3 relay you could mount the adapter directly, and the scan reverse function eliminates all upside-down issues.- I know this is an impossible question lol, but what about mini 35 adapter solutions for the hpx300 - how would that er in theory work? // Oops just saw your post there Kholi, so theres a cute 1/3 relay that you could just clunk onto the hpx300 possibly? That would be neat!