Andrew McCarrick
Carbonite Member
With the HPX300 being able to shoot in AVC-Intra, is there any upgrade possible for the 500 to get AVC-Intra Capabilities?
HPX500 + AVC-Intra
- Thread starter Andrew McCarrick
- Start date
Christian m
Well-known member
With the SDI on the 500 being 8bit, not much of a point to add a AG-HPG20 to get avc-i.
Also the resolution of the chips on the 500 I suspect can't justify the Avc-i codec which is full raster.
I would not choose the 300 over 500 down to the codec, dvcprohd ain't that bad. Lots of varicam and hdx900 on high end discovery/NGC HD, there is more to image quality than bits and bytes.
Also the resolution of the chips on the 500 I suspect can't justify the Avc-i codec which is full raster.
I would not choose the 300 over 500 down to the codec, dvcprohd ain't that bad. Lots of varicam and hdx900 on high end discovery/NGC HD, there is more to image quality than bits and bytes.
shorelinedigital
Active member
Look at the HPX-2000. That's pretty much it. Although the HPG-20 along with the 500 WILL give you intra with the sweet look of the 500. Not a bad thing at all.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The HPG20 can get you AVC-Intra on an HPX500, yes, and it's pretty much the only way that'll happen. But it won't give you the full benefit of what AVC-Intra can do, because the HPX500's HD-SDI output port only spits out 8-bit data, not full 10-bit.
The HPX300 is really a screaming deal right now, with the rebate or the financing, the new firmware update which aggressively tackles the noise complaints, and the flash-band compensation. I was torn between the 500 and the 300 before, but if I was making the decision now, I think I'd take three HPX300s over one HPX500 (and that's about what you can do, once you factor in lens costs for the HPX500).
The HPX300 is really a screaming deal right now, with the rebate or the financing, the new firmware update which aggressively tackles the noise complaints, and the flash-band compensation. I was torn between the 500 and the 300 before, but if I was making the decision now, I think I'd take three HPX300s over one HPX500 (and that's about what you can do, once you factor in lens costs for the HPX500).
Christian m
Well-known member
Almost regretting that I went with the 500 in the spring time.:crybaby:
But I still think the 500 has some going for it, aiming for the something like the 3000 as the next big investment...if I still prefer to own gear when that time comes
Barry_Green
Moderator
The 500 has lots going for it. It's 2/3" chips, way better in low light, no rolling shutter issues, four XLRs, etc. It's a great camera.
I was just pointing out that if someone was going to try to get AVC-Intra, the 300 offers a nearly unbeatable deal right now.
I was just pointing out that if someone was going to try to get AVC-Intra, the 300 offers a nearly unbeatable deal right now.
Andrew McCarrick
Carbonite Member
They really seem to be missing a product in their product line up then. Where's the 2/3", AVC-Intra, with limited variable frame rates (like the HPX170, 300, and 500, and the HVX200)?
The HPX2000 fits for the codec but not variable frame rates, the HPX500 fits for the framerates but not the codec. Maybe a HPX700? I'd be willing to take CMOS sensors too, in order to keep costs down. Then a HPX1000 (CCD version).
The HPX2000 fits for the codec but not variable frame rates, the HPX500 fits for the framerates but not the codec. Maybe a HPX700? I'd be willing to take CMOS sensors too, in order to keep costs down. Then a HPX1000 (CCD version).
Last edited:
Christian m
Well-known member
Missing? You already have the hpx2700 with VFR and Avc-i, ofcourse in another price point...but then all the competitors for hpx27/37/3000 are in about the same league in pricing. 1080p CCD with avc-i don't come cheap(the 2700 is 720p though), but it beats the hell out of any 1/3" or 1/2" cmos camera.
There is a theoretical gap to fill, but the question is if it's possible to do it financially. Larger sensor means more expensive optics, the hpx300 lens is basicly a "freebie"...2/3" HD lenses are pretty expensive. Even if you got a 1/2" or 2/3" cmos house for around 10 grand, you still need to lash out about 14-15 grand for a standard budget 17x HD lens, or near 20k for a very good lens. Any more weight than the Hpx300 also bumps the tripod/head need up to around 4500$ for a good one...skimping on tripods are not ideal as the HD cameras today need god support.
Then i fear you end up with a camera that's to expensive for the customers who think the 1/3" of the 300 are a problem, but the higher end users have budget for ccd 1080p 2/3" cameras anyway and thus avoiding any cmos "trouble".
There is a theoretical gap to fill, but the question is if it's possible to do it financially. Larger sensor means more expensive optics, the hpx300 lens is basicly a "freebie"...2/3" HD lenses are pretty expensive. Even if you got a 1/2" or 2/3" cmos house for around 10 grand, you still need to lash out about 14-15 grand for a standard budget 17x HD lens, or near 20k for a very good lens. Any more weight than the Hpx300 also bumps the tripod/head need up to around 4500$ for a good one...skimping on tripods are not ideal as the HD cameras today need god support.
Then i fear you end up with a camera that's to expensive for the customers who think the 1/3" of the 300 are a problem, but the higher end users have budget for ccd 1080p 2/3" cameras anyway and thus avoiding any cmos "trouble".
Barry_Green
Moderator
Oh yeah, one other thing the HPX500 has going for it -- Discovery HD has rated it "Silver", which can be a significant advantage in certain circumstances!