HS400a and HPX300 tested in my church

Z

zeke

Well-known member
We had our test today.
The HS400a mixer is excellent. 10 bit signal processing, lots of features and flexibility, easy to learn and setup.

What surprised us in a good way was how well the HPX300 performed in low light. After setting the gain properly (the factory setting was way to high)
there was little to no noise in the truly dark areas of the stage. It
exceeded our quality standards for live capture. Colors were accurate and no breakup when the pastor went up on stage wearing a multicolor plaid shirt.

In the worst case scenario, we completely turned off the lights over the congregation area, and had low power color pars and one source 4 spot on the stage covering 2 people, 1 playing drums, the other the piano.
Honestly, the quality of the footage looked like something you would see on the Tonight Show or Conan Obrian. I am not exagerating on this.

As expected..zero IR contamination and no CA with the kit lens.

We shot both in 1080i and 720x60p (preferred format). No rolling shutter issues, since we know how to pan our cameras.


We had a professional Panasonic HDSDI monitor hooked up to the mixers preview output (preview up to 10 inputs) so we didn't rely on low end consumer equipment for testing.

For comparison Dom Cicchetti brought along a remote control pan and tilt camera that used the same chipset/lens as the HVX200. IR, and lots of noise showed up under the same conditions. But at least it gave us something to compare to.

What we didn't do was completely optimize the camera for our environment, and it still looked awesome.

Before this demo, because of all the negative info swirling around the internet we did not consider this camera at all. After, I'm confident that if we decide to purchase, it will meet or exceed our needs.

While the EX3 is slightly better in low light, the HPX300 camera is superior in every other category you can think of (that truly matters). It has broadcast features that are expensive add ons for the EX3. Plus having a longer lens means we don't need to replace it or add a tele extender like we would have on at least one of the EX3s. (This is based on our current church layout).

Being able to record 10bit 4:2:2 directly to the P2 media means we don't need to haul around the AJA IO HD and a laptop to get best quality. Built in Scopes and waveform monitoring is a plus, also.. something I didn't know until today, built in tally support when using supported cables from Panasonic.

Let me say again. This camera perfoms great in low light when set up properly.


Note: 1080 24p is not a format we will use during services. But it's cool to have that option for video skits.

Any churches or educational institutions looking to upgrade to HD, you owe it to yourselves to check out this camera. Don't let the internet naysayers (many who have never actually used the camera) carry any weight with your decisions.

I want to thank Pansonic and Dom Cicchetti and the mixer/camera expert he brought with him to the demo . (Sorry I forgot his name).

Joe Carney
 
For the life of me, what does "it looked awesome" mean?

I've seen awesome used from pizza ingredients to cell phone plans to the Grand Canyon and to God, so that's doesn't help much.

What did it look like?

Also, what does "we know how to pan our cameras" mean?

We shoot footage with subjects that move. We can't control how fast they move.

How fast did you pan, and what did you see?

thanks
 
David,

Did you look at the footage that was on the Mpg4 file with the Go-Karts, or download the big file that I sent you the link to. The GoKarts moved, and so did the cameras. I think what Joe is saying is that the camera really does make nice pictures. I know you downloaded the basketball footage I sent you a while back. It seems as though the only footage that is given creedence here is footage shot by people that are unfamiliar with the camera. Look at the stuff that I posted, it looks great.

Best,

Jan
 
David S. said:
For the life of me, what does "it looked awesome" mean?

I've seen awesome used from pizza ingredients to cell phone plans to the Grand Canyon and to God, so that's doesn't help much.

What did it look like?

Also, what does "we know how to pan our cameras" mean?

We shoot footage with subjects that move. We can't control how fast they move.

How fast did you pan, and what did you see?

thanks
Click to expand...

awesome is in I've seen a lot of well shot HD footage from various cameras and this was among the best considering the lighting. This was not optimal studio lighting. Our current lighting setup is in need of improvement (which will happen this year). So, not only are the cameras perfroming admirably in the current setting, they will be even better after the redesign. In theory, we can replace,improve our lighting to make optimal use of the cameras' strengths.

Panning? The people on stage (musicians and later the pastor) don't move that much, so constant slow pans and zooms to avoid shots looking static and lifeless.
Several times during the year, we have short drama skits, and even then, the stage area is limited.

Anyone who shoots live modern church services knows what I'm talking about. No quick pans or jerky movements. The pastor moves more than anyone eles (no podium), and we will have no problems following him around. At 1280x720x60p rolling shutter is a non issue.

Hope that answers your questions. My statements are geared to the House of Worship and Educational folks. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
 
Funny story...

When Dom first brought in the HPX300, my media paster was thinking, no way we could afford this camera. When I told him what the street prices were, his jaw dropped. He intially thought I had wasted his time. He thought the camera with all it's features had to cost at least 20k. About an hour into the demo he asked, when I told him he got real happy about things after that.
Since we need 3, 20K per would have put us over our budget.

p.s. Please don't get any ideas Panasonic, hehehe.
 
Barry_Green said:
Doesn't this sum it up?


Seemed to be pretty clear as to what he was stating.
Click to expand...

As I said, awesome is used to describe everything from cell phone plans to kitchen remodels.

As a result, it conveys little specific information.

Comparing the footage to similarly shot 170/200a footage would be helpful, for example.

I'm not being difficult, but tell me what it looks like rather than categorizing it with one word that is overused.
 
Last edited:
Zeke: your explanation is helpful.

Barry: I need specifics, not overused phrases that as a result, have lost their original significance and meaning. Not trying to be difficult. But I need specifics or comparisons so I can objectively evaluate.

Jan: I downloaded the LV footage today and was impressed with parts of it. It took nearly six hours. I'm about to download from the go kart link.

I also downloaded the BB footage, and there were parts of it that replicated what we generally shoot.

I'm a Panasonic fan. However please understand that if I ask for specific descriptions it's because this forum is the only source of footage for me to evaluate before we plunk down about $10K.

We've seen such a wide variety of footage.

There are comments from users all over the place on noise and skew.

I wish there were a procedure to get a consistent evaluation.

In any case to all who have contributed . . . . thanks for the assistance.
 
Last edited:
zeke said:
...my media paster was thinking, no way we could afford this camera. When I told him what the street prices were, his jaw dropped. He intially thought I had wasted his time. He thought the camera with all it's features had to cost at least 20k....
Click to expand...


Maybe this means something....


H.
 
David S. said:
Jan: I downloaded the LV footage today and was impressed with parts of it. It took nearly six hours. I'm about to download from the go kart link.

Please, I'm a Panasonic fan. Been here for more than three years. Posted thousands of times. But currently this is my only source to evaluate, so if I ask for specific comments, I trust that you will understand why before we plunk down about $10K.
Click to expand...

Hi David,

I know you are a fan. Glad to say that I think it helped. I trust the yousendit site was a little faster. It only took me 15 minutes to put it up there.

All the best,

Jan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
David S. said:
As I said, awesome is used to describe everything from cell phone plans to kitchen remodels.

It means nothing to me.

A description of the footage is important, compared to something we also see as comparable.

I'm not being difficult, but tell me what is looks like.

It looks ten times better than same shot HPX170 footage helps.

But "awesome" is so over used it means nothing.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with David, "awesome" would be fine in the world of buying cameras for 200-300 bucks, but I think there's a bit more at stake here money wise. We are talking critical things now.... put it this way, if we weren't so nit-picky with how the footage would look, wouldn't we NOT be buying this camera, and looking at way cheaper consumer or pro-sumer cameras? Isn't the whole point of this camera to be better than anything below it?

The reason why we are so critical is because this is supposed to be a step up from the rest. We aren't talking a palmcorder without a "real" lens, non-pro batteries, poor quality viewfinder and non-HD sensors... This is a full size ENG type camera that has a real lens, AB battery system, high quality COLOR HD viewfinder, and native 1080p sensors that shoots AVCI "master quality" HD at 10bit 422 color space... I think we should have a little leeway in how critical we can be with the specs and form factor provided before us. No one steps into that lightly before some critical thinking and views. I dont think its fair to bash the critical views some of us have on here. Some of us have higher standards than others, and this camera just so happens to bridge a gap between 2 arenas that were separated by Money, Years of EXPERIENCE, and MONEY. You have now the 2 nit-picking about it because some of these guys are coming from the pro-sumer world, and some are coming from the pro world. Of course heads are going to bash a bit, but the footage will all shut us up. I don't own the camera YET, but I will be doing more hands on work with it very soon, and I AM optioning it to be the camera for me to personally buy next.

We are not attacking Panasonic, we are being critical of a piece of equipment in a price range that causes compromises along with being in a for factor and specs that is up there with the 40k plus range. We are of course all interested in the camera, and all considering it, but we have to be careful what we spend our money on and this is the way it happens, arguing about silly things that most people would consider us (Nut-Job Geeks) for arguing over.

The footage will shut us up, we can talk alllll we want and bash all we want, but as soon as the good footage comes out, I think you will hear the bad comments fade and the good comments enter.
 
Last edited:
David S. said:
I'm not being difficult, but tell me what it looks like rather than categorizing it with one word that is overused.
Click to expand...
Are you not reading what I quoted? I didn't quote his line that said "awesome". I quoted the line that said it looked like top-line network broadcast HD. He said it looked like "The Tonight Show" or "Conan O'Brien". How much more quantifiable need it be? He's saying turn on your TV, look at The Tonight Show, and that's what it looked like to him.
 
Barry_Green said:
Are you not reading what I quoted? I didn't quote his line that said "awesome". I quoted the line that said it looked like top-line network broadcast HD. He said it looked like "The Tonight Show" or "Conan O'Brien". How much more quantifiable need it be? He's saying turn on your TV, look at The Tonight Show, and that's what it looked like to him.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off as a reply to that, I was kind of taking it to the point that we would like to see the footage instead of reading words describing it, that's what I was going for.
 
Not you, Giuseppe, that was a response to David S. I had quoted a different line, but in his post it read like he was still saying "I need something more than 'awesome'".
 
ahhh ok I understand now, sheesh all this reading is making my eyes pop out! :shocked:
 
David S. said:
We've seen such a wide variety of footage.
Click to expand...
Yes, including some stuff that was, frankly, "awesome". :D And I still contend that it's the good results that show what something is capable of. You can get lousy results with any camera.

There are comments from users all over the place on noise and skew.

I wish there were a procedure to get a consistent evaluation.
Click to expand...
There is -- do a side-by-side against a known quantity. I did that with the EX1. And concluded that you give up 1/2 stop of sensitivity, 1 stop dynamic range, and get more skew in 1080/24p, and autofocus and OIS. But that's about all that you give up. You get the same resolution, about the same noise (a little more), a 10-bit codec, a full-size shoulder mount form factor, EX1 resolution with Panasonic color & gamma, P2 recording in AVC-Intra instead of MPEG-2, interchangeable lenses, 4 channels of audio, a built-in wireless slot, a real filter wheel, hugely improved ergonomics, and less chromatic aberration.

Or compare it with the other known quantity, the HPX170. I did that as well, and concluded that you get a significantly sharper image, a smoother-looking slicker image, less noise, a high-def VF, a high-def LCD, TC in/out, two HD-SDI outputs, genlock input, three XLRs, and all the features above. But, you also get the rolling shutter and you give up a few things I like better in the 170, such as creature comforts like being able to change the cam's playback format by just holding the menu button down.

Or read reviews from experienced people who know what they're doing, like Barry Braverman's review in Millimeter, or Philip Bloom's review, or my own writeup in HD Video Pro, or Dan Brockett's, or Kyle Doris's, or listen to Alan Roberts of the BBC (which hasn't released his test results yet), but he said "it passed all my tests".

Or firsthand user reports like Hotchkiss's, or Zeke's, or James Mulryan's, or Emmet Brown's, or Ben Digedig's, or... well, lots.
 
Last edited:
Hey Barry, I apologize. I missed that reference -- my mistake.

Sorry.

I may score a demo in the next weeks.

I'm going to try shoot 170 and 300 side by side.

We'll see.

But again, my reading skills aren't awesome at times. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Or read reviews from experienced people who know what they're doing, like Barry Braverman's review in Millimeter, or Philip Bloom's review, or my own writeup in HD Video Pro, or Dan Brockett's, or Kyle Doris's, or listen to Alan Roberts of the BBC (which hasn't released his test results yet), but he said "it passed all my tests".

Or firsthand user reports like Hotchkiss's, or Zeke's, or James Mulryan's, or Emmet Brown's, or Ben Digedig's, or... well, lots.
Click to expand...


Don't forget Philip Johnston http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/category/hdcamcorders/panasonic/
 
Hadn't found that review. I googled for reviews, that didn't pop up. Seems like he doesn't like how the image develops black dots at +9dB. I don't either. Gain is not the HPX300's friend. I imagine he really, really wouldn't like the image at +24dB of gain either. He says they're "not as noticeable" at 0dB, of course, and if you go to -3dB it should pretty much get rid of them.
 
I thought that the HPX300 could also playback clips with different formats immediately without having to switch first to the format it is recorded in (like you have to do with the HVX200). Maybe you mean something else with the statement below?

Barry_Green said:
you give up a few things I like better in the 170, such as creature comforts like being able to change the cam's playback format by just holding the menu button down.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top