HPX500 in 2020?

720p (and lower) may only be transparent in most cases when the case study includes all of the world's uploads.

Many big YouTubers/channels and gamers are slowly moving from 4K to 8K.

1080p masters/uploads from 4K+ resolution is probably the norm for most content creators.
 
Run&Gun said:
*Disclaimer: I've never used an HPX-500, so I have no idea what the image is like.*


Depends... Depends on what you're doing, who your clients are, what their expectations/requirements are, what your expectations/requirements are, etc.

For reference, I do a lot of network TV and I still own and use two 2700 P2 VariCam's. Even thought they are "only" native 720P and released about 12 years ago, they still look great. And I have a friend who just bought a used one from one of their friends a few weeks ago.

Do I even need to get into the CCD aspect?

Even though these cameras are "old", it kind of breaks my heart how they are looked down upon, today. I'm honestly hoping to still get many more years out of my 2700's.
Click to expand...

We share the same feelings about these cameras for sure. I went back to CCD tech in 2015 when I got a varicam and I had that camera for 3 years and loved the hell out of it. I went on to a few F900 models including the elusive Panavision model (still pissed I let that one go), A Sony F23, Panavision Genesis and now im back in the handheld space of CCD with an HVX200 and PAL Canon XL1.
 
I see these cameras used for around $1,500 for the body. I imagine they're sold this way because the lens is expensive. So how much does the lens go for?
 
Many of them most likely sell with SD lenses, which are now practically useless. Or maybe the cheapest HD kit lens that's available.

Some of the best 4K lenses that can be compatible with the mount still sell for up to $100,000 - but no one is obviously selling the body with one of those for $1500.

Most people probably had a HD lens around $5K-$15K on those cameras.

Canon 2:3 Lens.jpg
 
Sometimes I love the way people say useless. I have my old broadcast Fujinon on one of my JVC cameras in my studio and the image difference between the SD B4 lens and the stock lens on my JVC 750s I really can't see. The B4 lens, because of my reduced size camera sensor gives me a less wide shot, but side by side the Fuji is so similar there is no difference. I don't bother putting the kit lens back on - which is of course an HD lens. Oddly, the Canon B4 lens I have is softer - but the Fujinon, with a 2X extender too, is excellent. I'll see if I can find a split screen screen grab.

It's commonly talked about that SD broadcast lenses on HD are inferior, and I believed that with the Canon - I only recently tried the Fujinon, and was knocked out!

I've only got this short clip - trying to do everything on my own, I was going to dump it because some bits are over exposed - caused by me forgetting to adjust the exposure when I flipped off the 2X converter, but the two cameras match fine. This is just a dump from Premier - nothing tweaked, but a random image used as the green screen was still up. The zoom in range is pretty impressive on 2X.

I have never been a pioneer. I remained on tape for quite a while, moving from Beta SP to Hi-8 late, then moved eventually to SD, DV - eventually going to HD DV in 720, then 1080. My stuff never has to be cutting edge and 4K won't be on the list for a few years I suspect. My clients tend to not be following trends either, and two of my long term clients have only just stopped requesting DVDs! Audio remains at 44.1 or 48K, Video at 1080 - 4K and above, and 96K sampling for audio will be quite a while, I suspect.

Most HPX500 owners already had good broadcast glass, so the push on HD glass only happened once the DVpro HD users moved up a step, about what? 5 or 6 years after the 500 was introduced?

I simply don't subscribe to the need for ever increasing pixels. I remember being on a 4K Sony course at Pinewood and we were experimenting with the extended dynamic range on the Sony monitor - and it was stunning what the camera could pull out of the shadows and their monitor display it. Sadly, none of the Sony 4K domestic monitors could reproduce it at that time, and most people at home cannot either. Most people are viewing at 1080 and even lower on phones and laptops. I see the point in 4K or maybe 8K for lifespan and archiving for future use, but I don't believe we need to push it for the 'now'. Unless the end destination demands it, and for me - it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
Useless in terms of that quality above would never be accepted by anyone I know or work with in my area...just would never happen.

But it doesn't matter. Paul, you've already won if you can make decent money with the above and I would love to be in your shoes.
 
Welcome to the real world. Do you really think 1080 isn't good enough any longer. I saw some stats the other day that over 80% of people who have HD TVs and have HD channels available are still watching in SD. I understand the people who want to make movies want 4K and some more, but the BBC in the UK still have SD regional TV and nobody even notices. All those people with massive flat screens in their houses, watching in 1080, or often much less. I'm really interested in the clients who want 4 and 8K. Setting real cinema to one side I don't know more than two people locally who haver the ability to play 4K on a large screen. Clearly, I don't know everyone who has bought one, but what actual media do people have available? You can download 4K, but most of it seems crunched by the Vimeos and Youtube's. I note one of my 1080 videos archived on Vimeo is half the size it was when I uploaded it.

That video I knocked up quickly is a good example - in the studio it's very sharp, peering at the monitor, but by the time Vimeo compresses it, what exactly is the point - I'd expect the HPX500 on it's 720p setting to look pretty much like that.

The HD studio cameras I occasionally work with have box lenses that cost about the same as a Range Rover, yet the viewfinders don't have remotely the resolution the camera actually outputs, and they're damn sharp.

Here's another clip, of me. lit properly and more care taken - could you comment on the image quality of this one? Still 1080p, but I don't see it as something that's let down by the resolution. Maybe it's just I have history and memory and remember how soft previous formats were? I take it you've always kept on the front edge, going up every time the new formats are released? I can't justify that in expenditure, as pre-covid, all my work was stage based - so music and theatre. 4K for me is pointless and a poor investment. The clients don't want it (or at least would not be willing to pay for it).

https://vimeo.com/488534899
P
 
Last edited:
With all due respect, truly, ignorance is bliss.

I hate to say that because it sounds unkind, but it's very true with everything in life.

Like if someone lives on a planet with only bicycles, they only know what bicycles are like for transportation. They don't know about cars or trains or planes and have a very different state-of-mind compared to someone who travels on cars or trains or planes.

I'm sorry to say, but the second clip is extremely low-quality.

[EDIT: These comments are about another clip that was posted and removed.]

If I had to be a harsh critic, there are all kinds of problems with it:
- The resolution is very poor
- Even for HD, it's soft HD (everything is a puddle of mush, no detail)
- Highlights are white blobs, destroyed
- Lifeless colors
- Chromatic aberration is through the roof
- No shallow depth-of-field anywhere (given)

__

Paul...if you really care to learn more, you need to watch dozens of hours of YouTube, the best channels to see what people are doing.

Video production is insane these days.

And many, many people are watching 4K and 8K footage on native 4K and 8K screens. Some don't know what 720p is, ha.

__

I have been on the cutting edge all of my life until about 2018/2019 when IQ plateaued (IMO) - and so did I, ha - but I'm also very much a realist and understanding.

I don't tell anyone they need to shoot 4K or 8K in their own lives, and I always compliment them when they don't have to.
 
Last edited:
P.S. My comments above are about another video link you shared on YouTube of some town and people.

In the new link you edited/swapped, it is what it is...more detail in a MS/CU but still looks dated in 2020.
 
Here is an example of a channel I'm really into right now.

And this is one out of thousands of channels - not hundreds but thousands of channels - that are out there with talented people producing all kinds of content.

I have bounced around YouTube for the last decade and witnessed the industry right in front of my eyes drastically change overnight because of the practically nonexistent barrier to entry that now exists, and the immediate access to various equipment (particularly gimbals, drones and low-cost high-resolution motion picture systems).

I know you may look at this and say, "Well, this is film-like content and not everyone does film."

And that is very true but this kind of quality has actually transitioned over to being considered normal in everyday production by young and old online content creators for almost everything you can imagine.

Corporate, commercials, interviews, product shots, documentaries, even keynote speeches, lol...all kinds of freelance work looks like this if you spend time browsing YouTube.

Does it all need to look like this? No, of course not.

But when a general conversation dips into evaluating standards then it needs to be known that the bar is set extremely high for what most people today think looks really good.

___

I like this account's videos because of the lighting breakdowns and the use of a $1300 camera.


___

This is from a different channel...a random test showing what some higher-resolution footage may look like from a newer camera.

It is subject to the same compression everything else receives. And you can choose to playback in its highest-quality or 720p.

Do you see a difference in IQ?

 
Last edited:
Paul the second Vimeo link looks much better than the first YT. Although if I full screen it I notice something about the details, colors and highlights. So what camera and lens were they filmed with?

I still feel that if you're going to spend more than 5k on these older style cameras you should only do so if you need an eng camera. Whether a camera is good enough for Youtube or whatever you using it for is a more subjective question. For my type of shooting (event) I need servo lenses but would rather have multiple lighter cameras to get the unmanned coverage I need. Those big eng where built for local news where you have one camera and that needs to work in all outdoor conditions, often on a shoulder.
 
I think I know the clips you mean and those would be very soft, I’m cool with this. I liked those channels in UHD and above, but I would never get a return on the equipment costs, so I’ve no interest at all in production of that kind. It’s quite funny actually. When I first started we used to smile at 525 line NTSC as being so inferior to our PAL system. My own broadcast experience started with natural history on Beta SP, but my only broadcast experience in HD is game shows, and that image quality is my ceiling. My industrial work needs no more than that microphone video quality, which was shot after a day shooting industrial washing machine presenter stuff.

I’m just positive that I’m at the crossing point. Until clients want their washing machine promos and show videos in UHD and above, I’m content where I am, but one of the reasons I’m sticking with my Jvc GY-HD750 cameras is because of the depth of field . Shallow DoF is unacceptable for me, I need to be able to see everything. First looks at the material on the channels you suggested look stunning, but shallow seems to be the main feature of much of the content. Not something I’ll be going for. Thanks for the advice though. It does strike me that Netflix is a driving force for mainstream cinematic style TV, it certainly isn’t the BBC or ITV here.

EDIT

Here's a clip of where my work might be - as far from cinema as you can get. There's a vimeo link to a bit of it, with a still from Premiere so maybe what Vimeo does to it can be seen. In a warts and all - there's what looks like a little blue fringing - and errant light in the rig that I couldn't find to fix.
Video link https://vimeo.com/497585021
 

Attachments

  • ica22.jpg
    ica22.jpg
    74.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
For me - the best bit about ENG cameras was the trend to keep the controls in the same place and work the same way. You could put down your Sony, pick up a P2 and most things were exactly where you expected them - plus the lenses were also controlled the same way - most lenses having auto/manual iris switch with a prod button, so you could be on manual, and if you got lost, a prod with your little finger would get you somewhere useful. Most stuck the white balance in the same place and tended to make them work the same way. Menus were always radically different - but the basics were the same. I injured my shoulder quite badly while working in a theatre and I cannot hold the weight off even a modest ENG camera now, but my 750s are light enough to give mje a few minutes. The old ones I'd manage on my shoulder for the 45 minutes of a football game on the touchline. I love the balance of ENG cameras - even on a tripod, with perhaps batteries and other gizmos attached balance is easy. The Black Magic camera I was given to use for one live show was really front heavy - not at all nice to use.

POSTSCRIPT - there are some slightly bent ENG cameras in Washington I saw on our news where those crazy people rioted and smashed up the TV folks kit. ENG might well be tough, but not that tough.
 
paulears said:
For me - the best bit about ENG cameras was the trend to keep the controls in the same place and work the same way. You could put down your Sony, pick up a P2 and most things were exactly where you expected them - plus the lenses were also controlled the same way - most lenses having auto/manual iris switch with a prod button, so you could be on manual, and if you got lost, a prod with your little finger would get you somewhere useful. Most stuck the white balance in the same place and tended to make them work the same way. Menus were always radically different - but the basics were the same. I injured my shoulder quite badly while working in a theatre and I cannot hold the weight off even a modest ENG camera now, but my 750s are light enough to give mje a few minutes. The old ones I'd manage on my shoulder for the 45 minutes of a football game on the touchline. I love the balance of ENG cameras - even on a tripod, with perhaps batteries and other gizmos attached balance is easy. The Black Magic camera I was given to use for one live show was really front heavy - not at all nice to use.

POSTSCRIPT - there are some slightly bent ENG cameras in Washington I saw on our news where those crazy people rioted and smashed up the TV folks kit. ENG might well be tough, but not that tough.
Click to expand...

From a BVW-300 made back in the 90's to an Ike DVCPro to a P2 VariCam to the latest 4K true ENG cams from Sony all have about 99% of the same buttons, dials and switches in the same place. WB, BB, WB Memory, gain, power, ND, etc. If you shot on a one-piece back in the 90's, you can pick up the newest one today and know where everything is.

And yes, Paul, it's crazy and crazy that this is happening here in the USA and that it happened SO EASILY. The pictures I've seen were of the AP's gear being trashed.
 
Yes - The Guild of TV Camera Professionals (we aren't allowed to say Cameraman any more) here are very keen on monitoring the safety of news and video crews worldwide, and ignoring the hyped up stuff on the mainstream media, the news crews appear to be specifically targeted, which is very worrying. Getting in the way in a war zone is bad enough, but actually being a 'legitimate' target is just crazy.


Hope it all settles soon.

I still have a BVW-300 I cannot bear to throw away. I cannot believe I ever used to have that thing on my shoulder, and it makes me smile a bit when we are complaining about the cost of equipment now - when it was new the cost was phenomenal. I tried to work it out, but it means a camera and lens now would be over $200,000 - that surely cannot be right, converting for inflation. Mind you a 22" monitor I bought back then was £359 - which works out at about four grand on today's money. Our new kit now is pocket money by comparison.
 
paulears said:
Yes - The Guild of TV Camera Professionals (we aren't allowed to say Cameraman any more) here are very keen on monitoring the safety of news and video crews worldwide, and ignoring the hyped up stuff on the mainstream media, the news crews appear to be specifically targeted, which is very worrying. Getting in the way in a war zone is bad enough, but actually being a 'legitimate' target is just crazy.


Hope it all settles soon.

I still have a BVW-300 I cannot bear to throw away. I cannot believe I ever used to have that thing on my shoulder, and it makes me smile a bit when we are complaining about the cost of equipment now - when it was new the cost was phenomenal. I tried to work it out, but it means a camera and lens now would be over $200,000 - that surely cannot be right, converting for inflation. Mind you a 22" monitor I bought back then was £359 - which works out at about four grand on today's money. Our new kit now is pocket money by comparison.
Click to expand...

Yes. Largely, the media has always been off-limits, in the past, but in recent years that has changed. And even though I largely cover sports, I have been on shoots where security was brought in for for us, because of events that were going on surrounding the events we were doing. I did two shoots, as recent as this past summer, where security was brought in to protect us specifically because of the “sensitive” nature of the events unfolding. And one of those was with the addition of a uniformed Sheriff’s deputy.

And yes, again. So many today don’t realize just how good they have it with the cost and capabilities of equipment. I guess that’s why us “old timers” don’t bat an eyelash at the cost of so much of the stuff when prices are talked about, while others seem almost incensed that a manufacturer charges more than $500 for a camera and it doesn’t do 8K/1000fps to a $3 SD card.

Technology progresses and prices lower, but too many in this business now have no grounding in the not-so-distant past and are only used to consumer pricing, because they came in through the door opened by the DSLR revolution.
 
I used the HPX500 for 10 years. I am now using the EVA-1.
The HPX500 had SD chips, and I used a high quality SD broadcast lens. It really had good color, was quick and easy to use.
It was a little soft around the edges (lens) but no one ever complained about the commercials. Really good for faces and closeups.

https://vimeo.com/94796388

I also had the HPX 250 - zoom control of lens not quite as good. And with HPX500 I could power 2 wireless mics off the camera. And shoulder mounting was great.
But image wise HPX 250 was probably better since it has HD chips and lens.
 
That's pretty good for that camera!

Commercial would fit in perfectly even today with the ones I see on my local TV from car dealerships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top