HPX370 First Look

Otis, you have just explained the camera for every job principle that seems to be well liked these days. Except as a business owner, I want a camera I can use in as many areas as possible to extract the value back from my investment.

This scenario looks like a rental house except these cameras are for purchase.

For the record, I never said I wanted everything in a camera nor am I big full-raster 1080p guy. Since a 1/2" chip camera (EX-1) is already in its second generation for $6,000 I don't think anything I have stated is asking too much.

JVC seems to be able to offer 1/3" 720p CCDs for ~$7,000. How much more would 1/2" 720p CCDs cost? I realize we probably will never know, but I use this to explain why I am not satisfied with the HPX-370 as a product offering for my uses.

I know the HPX-370 makes really nice images and I use two Panasonic cameras.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Otis, you have just explained the camera for every job principle that seems to be well liked these days. Except as a business owner, I want a camera I can use in as many areas as possible to extract the value back from my investment.

This scenario looks like a rental house except these cameras are for purchase.

For the record, I never said I wanted everything in a camera nor am I big full-raster 1080p guy. Since a 1/2" chip camera (EX-1) is already in its second generation for $6,000 I don't think anything I have stated is asking too much.

JVC seems to be able to offer 1/3" 720p CCDs for ~$7,000. How much more would 1/2" 720p CCDs cost? I realize we probably will never know, but I use this to explain why I am not satisfied with the HPX-370 as a product offering for my uses.

I know the HPX-370 makes really nice images and I use two Panasonic cameras.
Click to expand...
What are you arguing for? An HPX370 with 1/2" CMOS chips like the EX1, or an HPX370 with 1/2" CCD chips?

I don't think the HPX370 could exist with CCD chips, and still do everything that it does. If it were only 720p, people would still be complaining that it isn't as sharp as the Sony cameras.

I don't know why it doesn't have 1/2" chips, but it's probably to save us a significant amount of money.

If the EX1 was a full-size camera like the HPX370, it would likely be significantly more expensive. The 350 with 2/3" CMOS chips is $17k without a lens.
 
Mostly, I do not like the idea of 1/3" chip cameras being painted as the big pro models because before the HD craze they were treated as not good enough for the pros. Now when times are more challenging we are being told to buy them.

Yes, I would like a 1/2" model as I feel it is the perfect chip size for independent video people like myself. I am not a filmmaker, I am a videographer.

I might could consider the 1/3" type camera if it did not have any skew as I feel a list price of over $11,000 for a 1/3" chip size and the compromise of skew is not a good value for me.

I like Panasonic & Sony cameras, and I like the larger form factor as it is easier to execute proper camera movement with the inertia of a larger camera. I know the images are great. I also know larger chips cost more. But at the HPX-370 pricepoint, you have pretty much doubled the "normal" price for a 1/3" chip camera.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Mostly, I do not like the idea of 1/3" chip cameras being painted as the big pro models because before the HD craze they were treated as not good enough for the pros. Now when times are more challenging we are being told to buy them.

Yes, I would like a 1/2" model as I feel it is the perfect chip size for independent video people like myself. I am not a filmmaker, I am a videographer.

I might could consider the 1/3" type camera if it did not have any skew as I feel a list price of over $11,000 for a 1/3" chip size and the compromise of skew is not a good value for me.

I like Panasonic & Sony cameras, and I like the larger form factor as it is easier to execute proper camera movement with the inertia of a larger camera. I know the images are great. I also know larger chips cost more. But at the HPX-370 pricepoint, you have pretty much doubled the "normal" price for a 1/3" chip camera.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a camera that is going to list on B&H at $9,200.

That is less than $1k more than the EX3 for a shoulder mount camera with similar, if not better, performance (according to Barry). You would likely have to pay at least $1-2k for a shoulder rig that would make the EX3 comparable.

$9,200 is hardly the price of a product that is being "painted as a big pro model."

If you need 1/2" chips, get the EX3. The solution is very simple.


Edit:
In my opinion, the HPX-370 seems almost too good to be true for the price, especially if it really has caught up to the EX1/EX3 in the way Barry describes.
 
Last edited:
You have good points and healthy debate is positive.

When I look at a camera like the HMC-150 or the HPX-170, these cameras are under $5,000. $3,300 and $4,300 respectively. Both are considered to have very nice images and often used in for-pay environments.

Then I look at the HPX-370 which as you state will be $9,200, I see a $5,000 difference. But all three of these 1/3" chip cameras. From a layman's point of view, I think it would take more engineering to create a small form factor camera rather than a large form due to space limitations. I also read about CMOS being less power hungry and more less expensive to manufacture.

Shooting 720p with all three cameras, running through post then showing the end result on Blu-ray, how much difference would you see? 1080p would be a different story to some extent. How much are clients going to see? It would be an interesting comparison.

Bottom line, I am not a huge fan of 1/3" chip cameras and seeing them approach the $10,000 mark is troubling for me as historically they have not been this high.
 
Does the size of the chip matters when if performs exactly like the bigger chip? Get a 5d mk ii then. Thats waaaay bigger.

You cant compare hpx170 with the 370's price point based solely on 1/3 chip!

What your clamoring for is what im waiting for. 370 chip on a diff body.
 
I must say, a 1/3" camera for $11,700 does not sound very enticing, even if 10-bit and 4:2:2 are on the spec sheets. EX1R is 1/2" $6300 and the EX1 has been out for 2+ years at this price point. It is nice to hear that today's 1/3" sensors might finally be marginally better in terms of sensitivity than 1/2" of 3 years ago, they are making progress as one would hope.

As for the article. The things I really wish it mentioned were latitude, lens quality, and picture profiles. I'd be interested to know what picture profiles were used for the sensitivity tests as that makes a huge difference. I have found I am quite comfortable boosting up to 6db with very little perceived impact when using cine2 on an EX1, whereas cine4 I would try to avoid boosting gain at all. I would be interested to see what kinds of latitude improvements have been made with the new generation of sensors if any. It would also be interesting to see image artifacting tests between the two codecs, since intra-frame codecs do tend to be less efficient at compressing video as they cannot benefit from temporal image redundancies (and are of course also less prone to temporal artifacting for that reason).
 
If you want to compare a handheld fixed-lens unit (EX1R) against an interchangable-lens shoulder-mount unit, I think you're not going to come to any satisfactory conclusions. The EX1 is completely not the competition of the HPX370, the EX3R or the new PMW320 are.

Secondly, I said I didn't have the ability to properly test latitude, and I wasn't interested in chasing picture profiles; I laid it out that I used standard Rec709 gammas so that the actual images were as similar as possible.

As for image artifacting tests, the intraframe AVC-Intra is dramatically superior to the long-GoP XDCAM-EX codec. No question whatsoever. That's a settled question; the BBC doesn't even consider XDCAM-EX to be "HD", whereas they selected AVC-Intra as the primary/highest-caliber codec for their Digital Media Initiative.
 
I must say, I am surprised at the interest in 1/3" interchangeable lens designs as I am not aware that a significant variety of quality 1/3" lenses were available. Even 1/2" interchangeable lens seems to have few options besides using expensive 2/3" lenses with a fair bit of crop.

When you state that AVC-I is dramatically better than XDCAM EX, what are you basing that on? What's interesting about BBC's requirements is that 35Mbps 4:2:0 GOP uses the same compression ratio as 50Mbps 4:2:2, so it seems its primarily the color sampling not the compression ratio they have a problem with, whether or not they know it.

I would be interested to see some tests as I have heard that 50Mbps GOP is considered to be of higher quality than 100Mbps Intra. Of course Sony says this, but also Convergent Design says this and their recorder supports both Intra and GOP recording though certainly a different implementation of Intra than AVC-I uses.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
If you want to compare a handheld fixed-lens unit (EX1R) against an interchangable-lens shoulder-mount unit, I think you're not going to come to any satisfactory conclusions. The EX1 is completely not the competition of the HPX370, the EX3R or the new PMW320 are.
Click to expand...

How many people who purchase the HPX-370 are going to change the lens?

The chips in the EX1/3/320 are the same, so I would think of them as the same image in a different body.

I know Panasonic wants their camera to only be compared to the most expensive version of the 1/2" chip competitor, but the fact remains that the EX-1 is around $6000 and it produces the exact same image.

As a consumer, there is a comparison there, is just an ergonomic/useability difference. We gotta spend the money. Do you think we are not going to weigh the plusses and minuses of all the cameras? I am just getting a little tired of this notion that "you can't compare those two cameras". Well, I have to make an informed purchase decision based upon what I can afford to spend, which will include all of the cameras in that price range.

The best camera for the purchaser's needs will win in the end no matter what "class" it is in. Won't it?
 
For the customer who doesn't care what the form factor is, you may have a point. For those who do care, there's absolutely no question -- they'll choose one or the other. Images are only one part of why someone chooses a particular camera. Recording format, ergonomics, price, workflow, wireless, interchangeable lenses, warranty, all those things come into play.

Surely you can recognize that someone is far more likely to consider a PMW320 to be a more likely direct competitor to the HPX370? And they would look at the HPX170 as the more likely direct competitor to the EX1.

I don't think many people spend much time arguing about whether they should get a motorcycle or a pickup truck... usually you pretty much know which one will do what you want done. But if someone truly only cared about getting from point A to point B, I guess they could consider a pickup truck and a motorcycle to be in competition with each other. They're both "vehicles", after all.

I don't consider a 7D to be in competition with an EX1. I don't consider an EX1 to be in competition with an HPX370. And I don't consider an HPX370 to be in competition with a Red One. And I don't consider a Red One to be in competition with an HMC40. They're all so very different -- even if every one of them delivers 1080p video.
 
I would say a high resolution intraframe camera is closer to Red One and high end 2/3" cameras than to any GOP camera in terms of motion quality.

4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 hasn't got the slightest important when the motion has turned the chroma into a mess anyway. BBC know it's a very bad idea to start with GOP. It's very easy to break the image. Perhaps it's not apparent in the typical test, you know the type of test, done by bloggers with locked camera in tripods and no motion at all, still mode video as a friend in BBC uses to say. This type of test started when Sony FX1 was released. The old mpeg2 codec looked ok in static shots so they became the norm for GOP cameras. Test charts and postcards shots on video. No GOP camera test involves heavy motion, waves, waterfalls, extreme sports or handheld situations right? And if it does, no full resolution images are presented. A GOP codec of this generation will show blocks even downscaled to SD under demanding situations. And the chroma is useless for post in these scenarios.

This camera is superior to EX1, EX3 and anything CMOS+GOP. It has a professional format that can handle anything. The only compromise is shallow DOF but one who thinks it's more important, can get it for $1000 today.
 
I agree and disagree at the same time. Sure, interchageable lens cameras are similar and the Sony 320 and the Panasonic HPX-370 are competitors.

But making a purchase decision is not that simple cut and dry.

In todays mish mash of products, I consider everything to be on the table for a purchase. So in that regard, they are all competitors to each other. The 7D is in competition with the EX-1 because you could make the decision to use either one on a lot of projects with satisfactory results. So many models can get the job done that I don't see cameras in classes anymore.

The "class" idea comes from a marketing perspective to establish defined values to attribute to items. It is kind of unrelated to the consumer who sees needs and price.

You could have made this argument about the 5DMKII and the RED or any other expensive film output camera a little while ago. "The 5D is not in the same class". "You can't compare a still camera with an established bla bla bla..."

I will be wathcing the House episode that was shot with the 5D to see how it looks. They have access to a lot of nice cameras but for some reason they used the $3,000 model. Totally out of its class.

It is all upside down now and the class model is fading from my point of view.

Sorry Barry. I don't want to be argumentative. You have a lot of experience and knowledge, I just don't see it from the manufacturer's point of view.
 
I think the class distinctions are valid from an engineering point of view. Tests can show the difference. It's just that the market is becoming more tolerant if the cost is right. If one comes with a $5,000 budget, he would think a camcorder with many flaws is still a wonderful thing and create wonderful things with it, working around the limitations. There is no other option within that budget anyway. But that's not the only market out there. GOP codecs do not have the fluidity of intraframe codecs, there is artifical blur in every single motion which does not represent the shutter setting correctly, the easthetic is inferior, the image in busy in a negative way, you can't pull a key for an action shot in most cases without major artifacting, the GOP material does not compress as well or use delivery codecs efficiently, etc etc. It's similar for everything that defines a product class in the way that you mean it. Large pixel size gives high dynamic range and rich color, CCD provides unlimited camera motion and higher saturation, and so on. We all know a Toyota Corolla takes a family from A to B quite effectively but there is room for other car designs that come from an entirely different perspective. Toyota Corolla competes in its class just like any product.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Third, I will still stand up and say "but it has 1/2" chips". Sorry, but as much as Panasonic wants to tells us they are the same, they are not. Maybe not a huge difference, but the whole world is on focus with a 1/3" chip camera.
Click to expand...

Seriously the difference to 1/2" is so minimal - 1/2 stop in technical terms, but times Ive shot with a EX series camera I have not noticed any big gain and have still had to implement the old DOF tricks. If a short DOF is what youre after, many cheap options now, that make 1/2" and 1/3" DOF seem wider than the pacific.

Bassman2003 said:
That is just closer to a consumer look imho.
Click to expand...

Interesting as some of my favourite movies of all time were shot with extremely large DOF and lit beautifully. Difference of opinion I guess.

Bassman2003 said:
The 370 dance footage looks great, but $9,200 for a 1/3" chip camera before all of the memory is pretty rich.
Click to expand...

You say ..... I say.....

Personally I think at that price its well placed for what it is. I still say Pana's on board preamps and sound quality blitzes almost everything else. I also say its a good price for a camera capable of AVC Intra, an exceptional straight to media format.

And I just read on the Japanese press release (suprised I missed this), but the 370 has the DRS function. Isnt / wasnt that only available on the 3700? Regardless Ive used / worked with it on the 3700 and it utterly kicks ass.

Bassman Im not trying to dig at your post overly, seems we have a varying opinion of value for money functions.

But based on everything you have stated, regarding more DOF control, not counting pixels and dynamic range Id say the perfect camera for you would be a HPX500. I know Im still a huge fan and big user of the 500. Im waiting for a scarlet.

EDIT TO ADD: I do this for a living and have for sometime now. And am moving further and further away from ENG, live performance and events. The 500 has been the perfect in betweener with its robust CCDs. But the S35 Scarlet offers me the next phase... when it comes out :p
 
Last edited:
Cranky said:
Is Panasonic's U.L.T. equivalent to Sony's backlighted Exmor R? If this is true, then the EX still can be improved, because current EX models have the basic Exmor chip. EX1R was supposed to have Exmor R chip, it does not. But rumors are that Sony will soon unveil a new model in the EX family with the backlighted chip, and the status quo will be restored.

I am no Sony's fanboy, but there's no replacement for displacement. With all things being equal bigger chip wins, and I have no reason to believe that Panasonic has better technology than Sony.
Click to expand...

Regarding, “all things being equal bigger chip wins, and I have no reason to believe that Panasonic has better technology than Sony.”

Well, all things are not equal. Panasonic’s new ULT-based imager significantly reduces the noise floor, which has been an industry issue with MOS-based imagers. In addition, it increases the sensitivity. This is what causes the 370s performance to meet or even exceed ½” camcorders. What causes the 370 to really exceed performance of those EX camcorders is the built-in full resolution AVC-Intra codec. All things are NOT equal. There’s obviously different cameras out there for different budgets, though the 370 is an incredible value in that it includes AVC-Intra and is selling in the $10k price range (and less with some resellers).
 
Noel Evans said:
And I just read on the Japanese press release (suprised I missed this), but the 370 has the DRS function. Isnt / wasnt that only available on the 3700? Regardless Ive used / worked with it on the 3700 and it utterly kicks ass.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the HPX300 also featured DRS.
 
Joe Calabrese said:
My viewpoint on this is: Panasonic mostly uses CCDs with lower resolution, and uses pixel shifting to achieve the standard HD resolutions. JVC does the same things (but different up conversion method). However, more of that resolution is kept as the camera compresses it, since Panasonic has some of the highest quality compression formats available in cameras under 100k.

Sony advertises its cameras as full raster because they use full raster CMOS chips. Allows them to advertise more actual "resolution", but since they use old MPEG-2 based compression formats (except for their HDCAM-SR format), a lot of that resolution is lost.
Click to expand...


Regarding the comment, “My viewpoint on this is: Panasonic mostly uses CCDs with lower resolution, and uses pixel shifting to achieve the standard HD resolutions,” please understand that this only applies to our hand-held P2 cameras, such as the HVX200 and HPX170. Still, these cameras are incredible values with suggested list prices under $5k and 4:2:2 DVCPRO-HD codecs.

Our other cameras do NOT use pixel shifting to achieve HD resolutions. The HPX370 actually is a full 3-MOS 1920x1080 imager. The HPX370 does NOT use pixel shifting to acquire 1920x1080 images. In addition, our HPX2000 and HPX3000, as well as our VariCam 2700 and 3700 have native HD imagers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top