New user with an HPX170P

i wonder, if since you purchased it used, if the previous owner didnt somehow adjust the gain settings. because if you are at 0 gain, you should at least be getting an "acceptable" image...

i also wonder about your expectations. this camera is never going to give you national geographic looking images. especially if you are shooting in low light and cranking the gain.

there are some cheaper cameras that may have a sharper or cleaner image. but then they will suffer from an inferior codec, long-gop recording, whatever. no camera is perfect, at any price. and one of the fastest paths to sadness is expecting one to be so.
 
It's possible and I really do want to be happy with it. I also remember reading somewhere that you can restore factory settings and start from scratch. I think I might look into that first. And yesterday I was outside, plenty of light, colors were vibrant, I just remember seeing quite a bit of noise on a gentlman wearing a black shirt. It was fuzzing out in grey tones.

As far as expectations thats a tough one as it is mostly a judgement call, The gain says it's at 0 I have also turned up coring and turned down detail, twisted and tweaked, but willing to do some more.
 
Midnightsun37,
I have been shooting with the HPX170 since 2009. I think it looks pretty good. You might want to reset the scene files back to their initial settings in the menu and try shooting a few tests. Also, you can see what others are accomplishing at https://vimeo.com/search?q=hpx+170
Most of my stuff in the links with my signature is also shot with the HPX170.
 
This thread popped up again and I am amused at how this has gone. Op just can't make the HPX170 produce a good image. Of course, thousands of pro users have done so. The 170 is a bit noisier than the newer cmos cams, as noted earlier by myself and others, but the 170 has IMHO a more organic look to it which can still be very pleasing in todays market. And, if your not looking for theater resolution, the 170 will do you just fine.

Considering there has been little to no discussion about what the OP is shooting and how, seems to me the problem might not be the cam. Here are a few topics for further discussion:

After looking at the two Youtube videos, there are some problems. Neither vid seemed to have any supplemental lighting; the airport shoot was shot in mid-day lighting and much of the wedding was under-exposed. Both these scenarios are a recipe for disappointment. If you want some zing in your video, plan your shoot to avoid mid-day sun, bring lights, bounce or something to enhance your scene. Would anyone expecting good results do any less?

The OP seems to be struggling with getting a basic scene file. I would suggest to pick one of the conservative all-round files made to reduce noise, stick with it for a bit, and learn how to handle lighting and exposure. Use the WFM and or zebras to find the correct exposure.

How is the OP monitoring the footage? There could be compression-conversion issues in the editing process creating problems. Find the simplest workflow which avoids conversions as much as possible. Is the OP even shooting progressive?

Here is a basic scene file that will serve many purposes:
film cam
180d
detail +0-2
v-detail +0-2
detail coring +2
chroma +1-2
chroma phase -1
master ped -5
gamma b.press
knee high
matrix cinelike
skin tone whatever.

You can monkey around the detail settings a bit, 0 is certainly ok. Increasing detail too much will increase noise.

Detail coring will clean up some of the noise if you increase your detail settings, so it is important.

Adjust your chroma and chroma phase to suit your saturation tastes.

The most important item on the list is the B.press for gamma, this is the lowest noise of the gamma settings since it crushes the blacks a bit creating a more contrast. This will help avoid noise in the darker portions of your frame. The cine-gamma settings have a nice saturated organic look, but avoid them if you want to reduce noise.

I would also suggest you shoot 1080/30p to start. 1080 will produce the sharpest picture the cam can deliver, and 30p is slightly more forgiving on panning. If you are shooting action, go 720/60p. If you are short on P2, go with a native format like 720/30p

The most important advice is to start figuring out what you do know and what you don't. What we do know: your framing is very decent but your exposure and production planning isn't. We don't know how you are processing and viewing your footage and if that is creating a problem. We don't know if you have some weird scene file parameters that are sinking your images, so post up what you have been using, or try what I suggested as a place to start. Everyone will want to develop there own look, so start with something conservative and begin tweaking to suit.

Grant
 
Thank you for the reply. I will type in those settings after dinner and try a shot outside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOH-ja3284I

There is one I shot today when I got home. The colors look great and there may be some merrit to the thought I may have expectations that are too high. Either way let me know what you think and I will try those settings in a little bit.

*edit*

OP TYPE FILM CAM
FRAME RATE - DEFAULT
SYNCRO SCAN 180.0d
DETAIL - 0
V DETAIL - 0
DETAIL CORING - +2
CHROMA LEVEL +4
CHROMA PHASE - -3
COLOR TEMP Ach - 0
COLOR TEMP Bch - 0
MASTER PED - -36
A. IRIS LEVEL - 0
DRS - OFF
GAMMA - HD NORM
KNEE - AUTO
MATRIX - CINE-LIKE
SKIN TONE DTL - ON
V DETAIL FREQ - THIN
 
Last edited:
MASTER PED - -36
Click to expand...

GOOD GOD. no wonder your blacks are crushed!??!?!

it seems to me that the 170 simply may not be the camera for you. i wonder if your tastes might be better suited to a gh2.
of course then we'll hear you squealing about cmos jello issues... curvy props and such...

i truly hesitate to suggest anything at this point. if the 170 is just too noisy for you. maybe you just need to save your money for a red. but they come with their own set of drawbacks as well...
 
Last edited:
It's not that. Keep in mind I am new and probably like many videographers I kinda fell into this. The learning curve has been steep and I was hoping for that very AHA moment when someone can say well heres your problem right here.

Grant brought up some excellent points, I do need to organize a bit, and take less of a shotgun approach to figuring out this camera.

The scene file I used was one that was downloaded from the sticky in this forum. (VIVID)

So in short I promise to be more methodical in learning this camera. Just don't give up on me yet.

The youtube ones I posted were from a SONY HDR SR-11 a little palm sized camcorder, nice images, but I just want to do better.

BTW I saved the one grant posted as DVXUSR :-)
 
fwiw choma level +4 can contribute to noise. i generally dial chroma level down.
 
HD norm is a very flat gamma which might need a bit lower master pedestal, but doing so in a big way (-36) negates the idea of shooting flat for the greatest detail. B.press will give you a nice balance of contrast without being extreme, IMHO. +4 chroma is pretty extreme as well. Until you know that settings like that are what you want, which isn't likely, think conservative since dialing in dramatic setting locks you in in post. In fact, many pro shooters shoot very flat in the field and adjust color and contrast when editing. I prefer to get close with the cam settings.

Grant
 
Keep in mind when shooting a lens wide open it's gonna be less sharp than when you stop it down a bit. When I see a clip like the one you posted, I see a very uninteresting shot, The sky looks terrible, but I'm guessing if you were to stop down that lens you could have made it pop with some contrast and detail because I do see some clouds up there. or.....you can zoom in on a subject to get a shallow dof. But you need a subject in either the foreground or backround to isolate, (rack focus)

When you pan accross, you had some tree branches in your shot, had you zoomed way in, and moved the camera back, you would have created depth and seperated the foreground from the backround, simply by reducing your depth of field. Now this contradicts the first comment about stopping down your lens because that gives a deep depth of field, i'm just suggesting some ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top