Matching HPX with a full raster second cam
- Thread starter BradFu
- Start date
Id use the 500 for the tighter stuff and EX3 for wider. Everything will play together much nicer. You will need to do a field comparison and match up your images as best you can, using a broadcast monitor that's calibrated.
There is more res on the EX3, no doubt. But the lens youre using will make a difference in the end. And Id more inclined to say something smart-ass like, you have to back that how far up to get a 50mm equivalent FOV? But thats just me.
EDIT: How will you do the edit? 500 is I frame and is pretty quick, whereas the EX codec will slow it down. Will you conform the EX stuff to pro res (FCP) from the outset? I'd seriously consider doing it.
There is more res on the EX3, no doubt. But the lens youre using will make a difference in the end. And Id more inclined to say something smart-ass like, you have to back that how far up to get a 50mm equivalent FOV? But thats just me.
EDIT: How will you do the edit? 500 is I frame and is pretty quick, whereas the EX codec will slow it down. Will you conform the EX stuff to pro res (FCP) from the outset? I'd seriously consider doing it.
Last edited:
Thanks Noel,
We did a quick comparison yesterday, shooting the same objects, but we weren't hooked up to scopes, and didn't tweak scene files. We'll hook them up properly next week.
He's going to handle the edit. He uses Avid Media Composer. The first and biggest problem is that he needs the project to be 1080p, 23.976, which out of the camera, Panasonic doesn't do (without pulldown added). I downloaded a trial of Raylight MXFX, converted, and he dropped them into the timeline, but he's worried that it's going to be a hassle down the road.
We did a quick comparison yesterday, shooting the same objects, but we weren't hooked up to scopes, and didn't tweak scene files. We'll hook them up properly next week.
He's going to handle the edit. He uses Avid Media Composer. The first and biggest problem is that he needs the project to be 1080p, 23.976, which out of the camera, Panasonic doesn't do (without pulldown added). I downloaded a trial of Raylight MXFX, converted, and he dropped them into the timeline, but he's worried that it's going to be a hassle down the road.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Hey Brad,
I use a 500 with an Ex-1 and the colors can be matched, but only from the EX-3's end.
I agree with Noel. Save yourself some post headaches and setup a well lit scene with a MacBeth chart and some other colored objects and bend the EX-3 to match the HPX-500, using a pro calibrated monitor.
Once you get the scene file for the EX your set for the rest of production and any other time you mix the P2 line with the XDCAM line.
I also agree with Noel, use the EX for the wider shots and the 500 for tighter shots.
These two cameras have a lot to offer. The EX looks better on wide shots but I enjoy the 500's look from medium shots on in.
Overall the 500 has a little more refined look and the color is better to my eye imho.
I use a 500 with an Ex-1 and the colors can be matched, but only from the EX-3's end.
I agree with Noel. Save yourself some post headaches and setup a well lit scene with a MacBeth chart and some other colored objects and bend the EX-3 to match the HPX-500, using a pro calibrated monitor.
Once you get the scene file for the EX your set for the rest of production and any other time you mix the P2 line with the XDCAM line.
I also agree with Noel, use the EX for the wider shots and the 500 for tighter shots.
These two cameras have a lot to offer. The EX looks better on wide shots but I enjoy the 500's look from medium shots on in.
Overall the 500 has a little more refined look and the color is better to my eye imho.
Thanks Bassman,
I think that the Director is leaning towards renting another EX3 now, and scrapping the HPX. Color calibration aside, the big worry now is (and yes, this thread is leaning towards another forum now--Avid) the fact that Panasonic doesn't shoot 1080pa without the pulldown added. Avid sees the files off the card as 29.97. We tried Raylight, but he's having issues with everything playing nicely together in a timeline.
Steering this back toward Panasonic technology now, does anyone here have any issues/comments about the pixel shifting methods in the camera, and if it makes a difference in color grading/post production? How it finally looks on a movie screen? The director is big on the EX3's full raster, etc.
I think that the Director is leaning towards renting another EX3 now, and scrapping the HPX. Color calibration aside, the big worry now is (and yes, this thread is leaning towards another forum now--Avid) the fact that Panasonic doesn't shoot 1080pa without the pulldown added. Avid sees the files off the card as 29.97. We tried Raylight, but he's having issues with everything playing nicely together in a timeline.
Steering this back toward Panasonic technology now, does anyone here have any issues/comments about the pixel shifting methods in the camera, and if it makes a difference in color grading/post production? How it finally looks on a movie screen? The director is big on the EX3's full raster, etc.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Hey Brad,
I can't help you with the big screen or the 1080p as most of my shooting has been in 720p60 so far which I see to be an equal format for the two cameras.
I suspect that at 1080p the EX series will strech its legs and pull ahead of the hpx-500 on a resolution/detail comparison.
In my view every Panasonic HD camera below the HPX-2000/HDX-900 is a 720p camera. The 1080p looks good, but they are best at 720p compared to other full raster cameras.
I can't help you with the big screen or the 1080p as most of my shooting has been in 720p60 so far which I see to be an equal format for the two cameras.
I suspect that at 1080p the EX series will strech its legs and pull ahead of the hpx-500 on a resolution/detail comparison.
In my view every Panasonic HD camera below the HPX-2000/HDX-900 is a 720p camera. The 1080p looks good, but they are best at 720p compared to other full raster cameras.
CinemaElectronika
Well-known member
You should take a look at the HPX300 which is 10 Bit 422 1920x1080 Master Quality Full Raster AVC-Intra 100 @ 1080/24PN.
Just my $0.02!!!
Cheers.
Henry
I looked at that, and we flirted for a moment or two, but I wanted to move away from the 1/3" chip arena. Full raster on a shoulder mounted camera at that price point......definitely worth a look.
It really shoots 1080p without pulldown added? I must've missed that. Please don't ignite any buyer's remorse in my head!
The HPX500 is a great camera.
It really shoots 1080p without pulldown added? I must've missed that. Please don't ignite any buyer's remorse in my head!
The HPX500 is a great camera.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Sorry, I forgot about the HPX-300. It is not included in my previous statement.
Yeah, being full raster with AVCI means it offers many things other low price point cameras dont.
But dont worry too much, aside from not "technically" being a 1080 cam, the 500 offers image components none of the others can at the price point. The main ones being - without any adapter its easier to simulate 35mm FOV whilst retaining a shallow DOF, and the other for me is the dynamic range. Im not sure how other feel, but for me the one thing that adds a film like quality to a shot is when the range is maxed out and youre able to get a lot of scale in the shot.
Christian m
Well-known member
Well, both the HDX900 and hpx2000/2100/2700 are 720p cameras if we where to look at the specs and only take that into consideration. A friend of mine shot with the HDX900 recently and according to him his Ex3 wont stand a chance against it on overall image quality, even in 1080p mode.
As for matching Ex's 1080p with hpx500 1080p you might want to utilize both cameras at what they do best. The Ex1 got slight advantage in large "overview" images in regard to details, but the HPX got the dynamic range if there are challenging light conditions. The Ex again might have the detail on close-ups, but the 500 have a much nicer DOF and are not that bad on details on close-ups.
Last weekend I did a event video outdoors with my Hpx500 and last year at the same location I borrowed a Ex1, both has it's advantages. But for my now bottom line are that HPX500 gives me the look I want without almost any post work with color/contrast, the ex required a lot of tweaking and still it will not match the dynamic range of the 500....the beauty of 2/3", and you get a nice DOF to.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I agree.
The HPX-2000/ HDX-900 have 720p native sensors, but with pixel shifting the 1080p mode has a lot of detail to work with.
Matching that with the processing these cameras offer and the 2/3" chips, they are in a different league (and price) from the EX-1/3.
The nice thing is that the HPX-500 carries a lot of that separation as well, but only at 720p imho.
The HPX-2000/ HDX-900 have 720p native sensors, but with pixel shifting the 1080p mode has a lot of detail to work with.
Matching that with the processing these cameras offer and the 2/3" chips, they are in a different league (and price) from the EX-1/3.
The nice thing is that the HPX-500 carries a lot of that separation as well, but only at 720p imho.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Yes the HPX500 is a great camera. And not to ignite the buyers remorse, the HPX300 does indeed do 24PN in 1080 in 10 bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra.
Best,
Jan
Bassman,
Do you mean that the 1080/24PA mode on the 500 is lacking compared to the 720P mode?
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
There is more resolution to be had on the HPX500 in 1080PA than there is in 720P.
Best,
Jan
Bassman2003
Veteran
I was talking to a camera to camera basis.
The HPX-500 really shines against its price competitors but only when all of the cameras are shooting at 720p.
When a native 1080p camera is compared to the HPX-500 (in 1080p), the native resolution chips are going to show more detail.
The HPX-500 still looks good, but 1080p is a lot of detail to pixel shift from PAL SD image sensors.
The great color and DOF always look good.
The HPX-500 really shines against its price competitors but only when all of the cameras are shooting at 720p.
When a native 1080p camera is compared to the HPX-500 (in 1080p), the native resolution chips are going to show more detail.
The HPX-500 still looks good, but 1080p is a lot of detail to pixel shift from PAL SD image sensors.
The great color and DOF always look good.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
First, the 620,000 pixel chip is not a PAL SD chip set. The PAL SD chipset for the SDX900 did not do 60P, could not do it. So this is one of those internet myths that are out there. To pixel shift or as I say spatially offset the imagers by the horizontal and vertical domain, you can indeed up the performance by simply putting an even better lens on it. The can easily be rented.
The 4:2:2 will indeed play to the camera's strength and the I-frame nature of the codec certainly lends a hand as well.
Best,
Jan
Bassman2003
Veteran
Sorry,
Don't want to spead false information.
I would think that economies of scale would let the camera cost come down if exisiting chipset designs were used and slightly modified for the spacia offset implemintation.
Just a guess on my part, does not matter.
Don't want to spead false information.
I would think that economies of scale would let the camera cost come down if exisiting chipset designs were used and slightly modified for the spacia offset implemintation.
Just a guess on my part, does not matter.
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
It possibly would if that chipset could have done the job, but it couldn't. But I do believe that the idea you propose is part of what spawned the rumor, heck I may have thought that initially as well but as I got closer to the delivery of the HPX500, I came to realize the SD chip couldn't do the job. It wasn't fast enough to read out 60 frames a second.
Best,
Jan
Last edited: