HPX370 First Look

Bassman2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Regarding the two comments, “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,” and “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.”

The HPX370 is NOT a normal 1/3” chip camera. This camera has a new, low noise 1920x1080 imager. Also, this camera has a full-resolution AVC-Intra codec and the reliability of P2, built-in. Other 1/3” and almost all ½” chip cameras offer MPEG-2, long-GOP 4:2:0 compression, while the HPX370 offers full-resolution AVC-Intra 100, space efficient, 10-bit AVC-Intra 50 and industry standard DVCPRO-HD/50/25.

These are key points. The HPX370 has all of the advantages of a shoulder mount camera with full-raster AVC-Intra and P2.
 
Full disclosure, I use an HPX-500, EX-1 and an HMC-150. I also use two Nano-flash recorders and do not own a P2 card.

1080p, the EX-1 just wins. 720p all are pretty equal in the end with the HPX-500 drawing my attention the most with great color and modelling in the image.

Yes, pretty close to the "camera for every job" principle I hate. I used to own three matching DVC-200s which was great. Not in the HD era. Yes I freely admit I am bitter. The DVC-200 was a perfect small business tool. Full size, 1/2" chips, long record time, great audio, no skew, nice image for $5,000-$7,000 with an adult lens. I have yet to find this value & feature set in the HD era.

I realize there is a want to sell cameras but I would just ask one question to the working pros out there who own their own business, not use other people's cameras.

Would you want to base your entire business around a 1/3" chip camera?

Because around the $10,000 mark it is not another camera purchase like the $3,300 HMC-150, it is getting to be quite an investment.

All broadcast standards up until present have shunned the use of 1/3" chip cameras. Why would this be the camera to get knowing this?

That is where I am coming from. Send the flaming arrows!
 
Well, if the 1/3" camera delivers better images than the 1/2" camera... seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

I mean, are you delivering images, or are you selling spec sheets?

All broadcast standards up until present have shunned the use of 1/3" chip cameras
Click to expand...
Well, the key point being "up until present". When NBC and ABC decided to shift their news operations over to 1/3" (HPX300 and HPX170) that certainly changed things.

That said, you do have a point about the 1/3" and acceptance, those that have certain clients who demand certain things, will still have to meet those clients' requirements. If you're shooting for the BBC, the XDCAM-EX format doesn't qualify, nor does the HPX370's 1/3" chips. So if you are trying to contract out footage, you would of course be well served to research your proposed client's requirements.

But the same question can easily be asked: would you want to base your entire business around a 1/2" chip camera? Especially when it doesn't even perform to the level of today's 1/3" cameras? You can still go with the relatively affordable 2/3" HPX500 option and have a full 2/3" system that is certified for unrestricted acquisition by Discovery.

So really, you're saying the same thing -- you're saying you have a smaller-chip camera (EX1) that produces sharper imagery than your larger-chip camera (HPX500). And you're okay with that. So why is it any different for Panasonic to say they have a smaller-chip camera (HPX370) that produces better, more sensitive, lower-noise images than your larger-chip camera (EX1)?
 
If Panasonic is so confident in the equality (or superiority) of the advances demonstrated in the 1/3 inch format, why not slam dunk it by showing what they could do by offering the technology in a 1/2 inch, and cause a mass defection from envious EX owners? I just don't see the point of declaring victory in the poker match by calling, not raising the bet. The EX series has been on top for over 2 years, practically legend.

To be sure, the HPX370 has a lot going for it including being mostly alone in a 1/3 inch shoulder mount class. But aside from placating their own base, who's going to unload their EX for this? Collect some fence sitters? Sure why not but just around the corner is Sony again, armed with the PMW-320, and Canon with the XF.

What has always irritated me about Panasonic beginning with the HVX200, is like dining at a French Restaurant. The food is good but it never quite satisfies the hunger. You can call it a no brainer, but the blame for those of us who never give Panasonic the time of day is squarely for reasons like P2 and codec salesmanship because there wasn't an actual answer to EX imagery. Now that they do, and let's be clear that IF they do, it's by an ever-so-teeny still disputed margin that's hardly clear cut or conclusive, no disrespect to your tests Barry, but it'll be ripe to get knocked off just like everything eventually does, including the EX (and probably a lot sooner), and the reason why just the thought of 1/3 inch generates no excitement for me whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Jeez, get over it - honestly to me 1/2 is a gimmick (imo) and for most people who see it that way, its just not the pertinent issue with camera selection.

For those who really do percieve an astonishing benefit, betwixt 1/3 and 2/3 then power to them but sorry, i don't really feel Panny has to jump to 1/2 just to satisfy a fairly adolescent affinity in my book.
 
If the HPX370 should be around the same price as the HMC150 or the HPX170 than shouldn't the PMW320 be the same price as the EX1R?
You see what I'm saying?
 
I actually had an EX-1 and traded it in for an HPX-170, simply because the codec and lens on the Sony weren't as good as the Panasonic...I could care less about what size chip it was, the image quality was everything. I say this as an Owner-Operator who has been in business for 5 years using my own gear. I used a Letus Extreme/Nikon lenses with both. I also have a Canon 7-D and will be getting a Scarlet package. I didn't think that the Canon codec would be able to grade well, but it's pretty fair. The small form factor of the Canon allows me to get B-roll in places I would never be allowed into with the HPX-170(or a 370 for that matter), but it has limitations on it too. The Scarlet will probably be the least limited of all, but I wouldn't use it to document corporate speakers or depositions...
My point is that there isn't one all purpose camera package. The real debate is to be had with one's self as to what tools will get the image quality required(or better) with the least amount of risk to the bottom line in the form of wear and tear and/or damage to gear.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you're shooting for the BBC, the XDCAM-EX format doesn't qualify, nor does the HPX370's 1/3" chips. S
Click to expand...

Codec, I can understand the whole limitation thing. But sensor size? That I don't get. Why not allow the use of 1/3" chips? I have a DVX, and I feel that in every situation I have been in, the 1/3" chips performed just as well as a 2/3" chip camera (except obviously in low light, but I never received one complaint about low light shooting). Now with this new U.L.T. technology, 1/3" chips are gonna be even better in low light.

I mean, look at Deadliest Catch, when they switched over to HD, they were using Sony Z1s. 1/3" chips, HDV codec, and it looked fine. It wasn't as great as watching a movie on Blu-Ray in 1080p, but it was passable HD. A better codec would have retained more information, but the whole chip size limitations I don't understand.
 
I've bought a HPX371 and my test have shown that fine detail smears into a mush when you pan. It then quickly returns the detail after the pan. This seems to happen in all modes whether 'P' or 'I'.
I think this is the result of the anti-skew firmware.

Has anyone else found this?
 
Check your shutter settings. It is possibly if shooting in 24p, without the 'shutter on' that you are shooting at 1/24 of a second and inducing a lot of motion blur, Peteremery.


Jason
 
Peteremery said:
I've bought a HPX371 and my test have shown that fine detail smears into a mush when you pan. It then quickly returns the detail after the pan. This seems to happen in all modes whether 'P' or 'I'.
I think this is the result of the anti-skew firmware.

Has anyone else found this?
Click to expand...

Does that happen on DVCPROHD also?
 
Late to the party, but..
Since the BBC has approved the 1/3" 3MOS Canon XF300/305 with 50mbps, 4:2:2 sampling for full acquisition, has the HPX370 been approved? How about for Discovery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top