HPX3000 vs IKEGAMI Editcam HD?
- Thread starter daktulus
- Start date
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
I am assuming that you mean the HPX3000. That being true, the HPX3000 is probably one of the best cameras on the market today and there is no moving parts. But you should go evaluate these two cameras side by side and you will see what I mean.
Use the AVC-Intra Codec and you will choose the 3000, without question!
Best,
Jan
Use the AVC-Intra Codec and you will choose the 3000, without question!
Best,
Jan
RED or HPX3000
RED or HPX3000
As an owner/user of both an HPX3000 and a RED one, I should mention that there are several differences beyond the specs that people seldom talk about. One being that Panasonic has made hundreds of HD cameras and makes an array of HD products, RED is made by a sunglasses manufacteurer. Here are some other key differences I've found:
1. SHOOTING WORKFLOW.
The HPX-3000 is a full-size HD camcorder with controls similar to, well, full-size HD camcorders. Anyone who's shot Cine-Alta, Varicam, or even Betacam will feel right at home with it right out of the box and onto their shoulder. TC in, Video out, XLR audio in, white balance, shutter controls, and viewfinder are exactly where you expect and know them to be.
The RED one touts that it's a "modular design:" you attach stuff on and configure it as you see fit. This is a good thing, right? Most experienced AC's and DP's (who are not techs supplied from the rental house) do NOT see this as an advantage. Especially since much of the RED stuff needs more RED stuff. Just one example: the HDSDI out is a mini-BNC connector, so you need that converter cable and a BNC couple before your LD gets it on his monitor. Not a show-breaker, but just one of the many pleasures of modular design. In short, count on everything taking longer.
2. POST WORKFLOW.
Everyone is all about 4k until it comes to post. The options for editing RED 4k footage are: edit in 4k (and it'll take FOREVER), or offline in proxy then online in 4k (and it'll take FOREVER), or simply down-res to a high-quality compromise like Apple Pro-Res or Avid DNxHD in 1080p (a software process that takes FOREVER). And if you're using anything less than a dual quadcore with 4+ gigs of RAM, keep a suicide hot-line number on hand. I watched the post budget of many projects explode because producers didn't take RAW 4k file conversion into account.
Once in post, the disadvantage of the HPX-3000's recording AVC intra-frame codecs in 1080p isn't a disadvantage at all. While theoretically not as good as "real 4k RAW footage," it can transfer into the NLE at faster-than-real-time, and be immediately edited in master-grade quality without hellish file converting. It's not 4k, but most clients who have literally gone both routes prefer the latter when time and budget in post aren't unlimited.
Still 4k Horny? Keep in mind that hundreds of successful films have already been shot and distributed in less than 4. Remember that little film “Star Wars Attack of the Clones”? That footage came from a 1080psf source (the Sony F900) for mainstream, worldwide theatrical release. If it's good enough for George Lucas, it's probably good enough for indie film and music videos.
3. IMAGE QUALITY
This is where I'm going to be really unpopular. Have your friend put the two cameras with the same lenses (with either a Pro35 adapter on the 3000 or a B4 on the RED one) on identical monitors side by side and see which one looks better. Since you cannot monitor beyond 1080p anyway, the additional resolution is a null point in this scenario. (And is your final product going to be on a medium over 1080p? If not, the extra resolution from the RED won't matter then either.) Most undecided clients choose the HPX-3000 over the RED, especially in the area of color accuracy. While single-CMOS cameras like RED have come a long way, the 3-CCD cinema cameras still look better.
Another complaint is the lack of global shutter on the RED. This is something I've yet to see as a problem myself, but have heard from unhappy clients. When extremely fast light (strobes/flashes) are used in combination with high frame rates (did someone say concert video?), the light can be segmented asynchronously within the frame: i.e., the top half of the frame you see the light flash, and on the bottom you do not.
CONCLUSION
My conclusion: if you feel like jumping through hoops for the bragging rights of 4k, RED one is your best value bar none, and I'd be more than happy to rent you one. If a work flow with far less hassle and a superior final image is you're main goal, I think that the HPX-3000 is your best bet bar none, and I'd love to rent you one of those too.
Either way, they are both exceptional for master-grade cameras without the price tag of Genesis, Viper, or Sony's F23 or F35... we'll save that speech for another forum.
RED or HPX3000
As an owner/user of both an HPX3000 and a RED one, I should mention that there are several differences beyond the specs that people seldom talk about. One being that Panasonic has made hundreds of HD cameras and makes an array of HD products, RED is made by a sunglasses manufacteurer. Here are some other key differences I've found:
1. SHOOTING WORKFLOW.
The HPX-3000 is a full-size HD camcorder with controls similar to, well, full-size HD camcorders. Anyone who's shot Cine-Alta, Varicam, or even Betacam will feel right at home with it right out of the box and onto their shoulder. TC in, Video out, XLR audio in, white balance, shutter controls, and viewfinder are exactly where you expect and know them to be.
The RED one touts that it's a "modular design:" you attach stuff on and configure it as you see fit. This is a good thing, right? Most experienced AC's and DP's (who are not techs supplied from the rental house) do NOT see this as an advantage. Especially since much of the RED stuff needs more RED stuff. Just one example: the HDSDI out is a mini-BNC connector, so you need that converter cable and a BNC couple before your LD gets it on his monitor. Not a show-breaker, but just one of the many pleasures of modular design. In short, count on everything taking longer.
2. POST WORKFLOW.
Everyone is all about 4k until it comes to post. The options for editing RED 4k footage are: edit in 4k (and it'll take FOREVER), or offline in proxy then online in 4k (and it'll take FOREVER), or simply down-res to a high-quality compromise like Apple Pro-Res or Avid DNxHD in 1080p (a software process that takes FOREVER). And if you're using anything less than a dual quadcore with 4+ gigs of RAM, keep a suicide hot-line number on hand. I watched the post budget of many projects explode because producers didn't take RAW 4k file conversion into account.
Once in post, the disadvantage of the HPX-3000's recording AVC intra-frame codecs in 1080p isn't a disadvantage at all. While theoretically not as good as "real 4k RAW footage," it can transfer into the NLE at faster-than-real-time, and be immediately edited in master-grade quality without hellish file converting. It's not 4k, but most clients who have literally gone both routes prefer the latter when time and budget in post aren't unlimited.
Still 4k Horny? Keep in mind that hundreds of successful films have already been shot and distributed in less than 4. Remember that little film “Star Wars Attack of the Clones”? That footage came from a 1080psf source (the Sony F900) for mainstream, worldwide theatrical release. If it's good enough for George Lucas, it's probably good enough for indie film and music videos.
3. IMAGE QUALITY
This is where I'm going to be really unpopular. Have your friend put the two cameras with the same lenses (with either a Pro35 adapter on the 3000 or a B4 on the RED one) on identical monitors side by side and see which one looks better. Since you cannot monitor beyond 1080p anyway, the additional resolution is a null point in this scenario. (And is your final product going to be on a medium over 1080p? If not, the extra resolution from the RED won't matter then either.) Most undecided clients choose the HPX-3000 over the RED, especially in the area of color accuracy. While single-CMOS cameras like RED have come a long way, the 3-CCD cinema cameras still look better.
Another complaint is the lack of global shutter on the RED. This is something I've yet to see as a problem myself, but have heard from unhappy clients. When extremely fast light (strobes/flashes) are used in combination with high frame rates (did someone say concert video?), the light can be segmented asynchronously within the frame: i.e., the top half of the frame you see the light flash, and on the bottom you do not.
CONCLUSION
My conclusion: if you feel like jumping through hoops for the bragging rights of 4k, RED one is your best value bar none, and I'd be more than happy to rent you one. If a work flow with far less hassle and a superior final image is you're main goal, I think that the HPX-3000 is your best bet bar none, and I'd love to rent you one of those too.
Either way, they are both exceptional for master-grade cameras without the price tag of Genesis, Viper, or Sony's F23 or F35... we'll save that speech for another forum.
k2director
Well-known member
Thanks for the detailed post, Adam. I don't have too-much hands-on experience with the HPX3000 and none with the RED, but I love the HPX's images and am totally aware of the headaches involved with getting the most out of RED footage. Your post continues to confirm my desire to stick with Panasonic for my next camera.
One question: how has real-world battery life been with the 3000? It draws more power than any HPX camera, and I've heard people say that it makes it hard to use it out in the field, rather than in a studio. I mostly focus on documentary stuff, so field use would be important. The HPX2000 and presumably the 2700 would be less battery hogs, but I love the idea of a native 1080 imager in the 3000.
One question: how has real-world battery life been with the 3000? It draws more power than any HPX camera, and I've heard people say that it makes it hard to use it out in the field, rather than in a studio. I mostly focus on documentary stuff, so field use would be important. The HPX2000 and presumably the 2700 would be less battery hogs, but I love the idea of a native 1080 imager in the 3000.
A+
I'd count on the reliability of an HPX3000 over RED ONE despite using RED very often.
Good post, Adam.
Where are you located?