HPX500 recording to external deck

T

Tim Pipher

Member
I'm having to scramble since the RED cameras I was planning on using now won't be offering an HD-SDI output for recording. I'm considering the HPX500.

Would recording via the HPX500 HD-SDI output to an external deck (for example, the Wafian 2) result in a higher quality image than recording on-board the 500?

If so, would that image recorded via the HD-SDI output to the external deck be as high quality as recording HPX2000 on board?

Finally, would recording from the HPX2000 HD-SDI output to the Wafian 2 be higher quality than recording from the HPX500 HD-SDI output to the Wafian 2?

Thanks for any input!
 
Tim Pipher said:
Would recording via the HPX500 HD-SDI output to an external deck (for example, the Wafian 2) result in a higher quality image than recording on-board the 500?
Click to expand...
No. Same. Except some format variations don't output exactly the same via SDI. It's sort of complex, so download the 500 manual from Panasonic & look at chart on page 47.
**edit** OK, just realized I wasn't considering the DVCProHD compression aspect, which is what I'm sure you're concerned about! Sorry, but can't speak to comparison of SDI straight out of camera vs DVCProHD compression.

Tim Pipher said:
Finally, would recording from the HPX2000 HD-SDI output to the Wafian 2 be higher quality than recording from the HPX500 HD-SDI output to the Wafian 2?
Click to expand...

If you've lighting control, better lens than 500 packages, it'll be sharper than 500 (more pixels on CCDs).

Still seems like a lot of $$ to bypass the P2 process.
 
Last edited:
Can't answer without trying it, but you know the Wafian is quite expensive, right? Last I checked it was $15,000...

Okay, let's try to answer: would a Wafian HD-SDI recording be better than an on-board DVCPRO-HD recording? It had better be, or else you just wasted $15,000 on the Wafian. I would expect it to be of higher quality, yes.

Would the 500/Wafian do better than the 2000/P2? Don't know. The 2000 definitely records sharper imagery than the 500 when recording to DVCPRO-HD, maybe they'd be more comparable if the 500 went to the Wafian? No way to know without trying it.

Would an HPX2000->Wafian be better than an HPX500->Wafian? Definitely.
 
The Wafian is a 10bit 4:4:4 320Mb/s CineForm codec, so it's definitely going to be better than DVCPRO-HD or AVC-Intra.

But, since the HD-SDI out is a 4:2:2 signal, your answer is very dependent on what you're going to be shooting and how far you need to push your grading. If you're shooting with plenty of light and you're not pushing your grading, you're unlikely to need more than AVC-Intra 100 on the 2000 and might be fine with DVCPRO-HD on the 500. But if you're dealing with low light and need to push your grading, CineForm could save you.
 
BlueWorld said:
The Wafian is a 10bit 4:4:4 320Mb/s CineForm codec, so it's definitely going to be better than DVCPRO-HD or AVC-Intra.
Click to expand...
There's specs, then there's real world. "Definitely" is not a word I'd use here until trying it. I would say "probably" better than DVCPRO-HD, but I'd reserve judgement on AVC-Intra.
 
Thanks for your responses. As a follow up question, my Panasonic salesman is recommending the HPX2000 for me instead of the HPX500. He says that national cable channels (like Discovery and National Geographic) and broadcast networks in general won't accept programs shot on the HPX500, but will accept HPX2000 shows. I hope to rent my facility to producers whose shows are to air on those networks, so it's a factor.

Is my salesman correct?
 
Salesmen are there to sell more expensive gear. I haven't heard of any network, any channel, any broadcaster, or any station that wouldn't air an HPX500 show!

Your salesman may be thinking of the HVX200, where Discovery HD has said that they restrict any 1/3" camera to no more than 15% total program content. Even so, many programs from 1/3" cameras air on Discovery all the time.

SO, no, I'd basically say that unless your salesman can back up what he's saying with some proof, he's completely off base.
 
Thanks Barry. As you'll see, my thinking is all over the place -- sorry about that.

Here's another scenario:

Three cameras in a studio configuration, recording to a Wafian 2 deck. (In case it matters, the bulk of my in-studio stuff will be shot in front of a greenscreen cyclorama and run through a switcher, Ultimatte chromakeyer, and Orad virtual studio system. For virtual set tracking, two of the three cameras will be on encoded jibs, the third tracked in another way).

My questions:

1. If I put a pair of HPX3000 Panasonic bad boys on the jibs and used them for 80 to 90% of my shots, do you think I could I get away with mixing in a HPX500 as the third camera, using it for 10 to 20% of my shots -- probably for center deep establishing shots. Could the HPX500 colors etc. match up with the HPX3000, or would the image differences be too jarring?

2. Using the same thinking, could I get away with using one HPX3000 and try to use it for 60-70% of my shots, and two HPX500's used for the remaining 30 to 40%?

Thanks for any input!
 
In 720 they'll match pretty well, in 1080 there'd be a big difference. If you want to try to match those, you're thinking backwards -- you'd want to use the 3000 for the wide shots, and the 500's for the close-up shots.

A 3000 can be painted to look like any footage in the universe, it's got extraordinarily deep image controls, so you could definitely match a 500. But the sharpness difference will be significant, so use the 3000 for the wide shots.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you want to try to match those, you're thinking backwards -- you'd want to use the 3000 for the wide shots, and the 500's for the close-up shots.
Click to expand...


Thanks Barry for all of your help the last couple of days.

I'm sure you're right. This set-up would be a bit of a tight rope act because the 500 will be better for closer shots, but there will likely be more close shots than wide shots, and I'd want to use the 3000 more often than the 500 -- a real catch 22.

Maybe I'd be better off to try to get by with just two cameras in the studio (the 3000's) and move them around enough to give the impression and utility of a normal three camera shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top