rolling shutter hxp300?

Because they cost more and they're a more complex chip to manufacture, and the additional transistors take up light-sensitive space on the surface of the chip so a global shutter is, as of right now as far as I know, going to mean a slower/less sensitive chip.
 
Barry u said that it only has more skew than the ex1/3 in 1080 24p. Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that mode the whole point of the camera? Otherwise couldn't u just use a 170?
 
Is 1080/24p "the whole point" of it? Of course not; this is a news/eng/production camera that can be used in live studios, genlocked together for multicamera production, being used by NBC for field production and news reporting, etc. 1080/24p may appeal to the folks on DVXUser as the "main point" but in the overall production world in general, no way; there's plenty of work being done in 720/60p and 1080/60i.

With that said, 1080/24p was definitely my main interest in it, and I'm sure it's a key point of interest for those aiming at filmmaking.

(and, I do use a 170!) :thumbsup:
 
And frankly I have not yet seen any video shot at 1080/24P that wasn't under some compromised sceanrio, like Barry and Kevin's shoot in Africa and having to shoot out of the flatbed of a truck, to see how bad it is when you have control over the situation. We know what it looks like when whipping it across a chart, but how close to real world is that. Soon we will have real people using it for real stuff and we will see how it really looks. The cameras have started to ship.

In the meantime, the engineers are continuing to study the situation.

Best,

Jan
 
combatentropy said:
I will never buy a video camera with a rolling shutter.
Click to expand...

Write a bigger check then to buy large CCDs.

I am cradling the HPX300 right now as I learn the menus, this is an amazing camera for the money. I am heading out to do some initial shooting this afternoon. I have the 170 and I use the EX1 and EX3 quite a bit, this is a whole other level of coolness.

I promised myself I wouldn't even consider buying one because I have the 170 and am making plenty of money with it but once you use this camera, that all flew out the window because this camera is so sweet. I am sure Barry felt the same thing when he took it to Africa. This is like a digital, smaller lighter version of my BVWD600 I had back in the day. I mostly shoot interview and tabletop, occasional narrative stuff. I also shoot almost exclusively 720 24pN because of P2 run times and the amount of cards I can afford. I also own the Aja Kona 3 which I have been using to deliver 1080 24P D5 and HDCAM SR to the studios for years from my 720 24p originated material. Does it pass QC? Yes. Do the clients at Paramount, Fox, Disney and Warner Bros. love the look? Yes. I've also been living with the EX1 for a year so I know I can deal with rolling shutter artifacts.

So for me and my needs, this is a perfect camera for most situations. For the rare occasion where i need to whip the camera around on long lens, shoot around flashing lights and strobes, that would be what the 170 is for.

This is a LOT of camera for under $10k. Absolutely amazing that technology has evolved to this.

More soon, I'm headed out to shoot.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
This is a LOT of camera for under $10k. Absolutely amazing that technology has evolved to this.
Click to expand...

THIS is why I plunked my money down. True, you wouldn't want to shoot any of the "Bourne" films with it, but I shoot a lot of 30P and off speed stuff - and have been looking for a camera like this for a while. Don't think I'll have any regrets
 
It is a bit disappointing (actually very disappointing), that the 1080/24p mode is so bad, considering that the main appeal of this camera is to the Panasonic users who want more resolution. Also, I find it hard to believe (may be wrong though), that Panasonic did not know about the problem, and they certainly were denying it, saying "all CMOS rolling shutter cameras have the same problem". Yes, BUT it is not to the same degree and I don't think this is something Panasonic can ignore.

I looked through the thread but could not find Barry's test. What page is it on?

I really want this camera but the appeal to me would probably be in that 180/24p mode. Can a simple firmware update fix this? Any time estimates Jan?

BIG QUESTION: Can one shoot in 720 modes on AVC-intra? How does this look? Would it blow normal HPX170's 720p out of the water? Would it be comparable to it and other cameras 1080 modes? How would it compare to 1080p comming out of an HPX500?

Thanks guys.
 
Even with the skew in 1080/24 I'm still considering this as a worthy replacement for my XLH1 and I'm a narrative filmmaker. The skew, in my opinion, will be a potential issue 1-2% of the time (flash bulbs, lightning strikes, whip pans).

I am hoping Panasonic's engineers are successful at finding a fix that can be done via firmware.
 
Entity said:
Yes, BUT it is not to the same degree and I don't think this is something Panasonic can ignore.
Click to expand...

Where in this thread does it say that we are ignoring it? I think I have specifically said we are studying the issue.

I looked through the thread but could not find Barry's test. What page is it on?
Click to expand...

Why not look down the page to find the Skew-Off. Keep in mind that is not a test trying to get the best out of the camera but rather wildly moving the camera back and forth against a chart.

I really want this camera but the appeal to me would probably be in that 180/24p mode. Can a simple firmware update fix this? Any time estimates Jan?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, the engineers are studying it. Do not have a time frame, and am looking to see some footage that is actually working to get the 1080P without the compromises of working in the flatbed of a truck and a 21X 2/3" lens which has a 1.8X factor to it.

BIG QUESTION: Can one shoot in 720 modes on AVC-intra? How does this look? Would it blow normal HPX170's 720p out of the water?
Click to expand...

Yes it does do 720P in Intra and yes there is more resolution in this camera than in the HPX170.


Would it be comparable to it and other cameras 1080 modes? How would it compare to 1080p comming out of an HPX500?
Click to expand...

Haven't done that comparison, but one of the things I would say it is hard to quantify the 2/3" chip look vs. the 1/3."

Cameras are shipping now and there should be more field reports soon.

Best,

Jan
 
puredrifting said:
Write a bigger check then to buy large CCDs.
Click to expand...

The latest 2/3" CCD from Kodak is $425. It is 1920 x 1080, can take up to 64 frames per second, has 10 f-stops of dynamic range. This is the sensor Ikonoskop is using. Leica and Hasselblad are also using Kodak CCDs (though not this particular one).

My point is, I bet it costs Kodak less than $425 to make each one. And so I also bet that it costs Panasonic, or any othe major company, less than that to make a 2/3" CCD.

Rolling shutters, to me, are a regression. We had global shutters for decades. I will not add to my mental list of things to keep track of (exposure, focus, angle, is there something distracting in the background, etc.) yet more stuff (are there camera flashes? am I panning too quickly?). We should be moving forward not backward.
 
combatentropy said:
Rolling shutters, to me, are a regression. We had global shutters for decades. I will not add to my mental list of things to keep track of (exposure, focus, angle, is there something distracting in the background, etc.) yet more stuff (are there camera flashes? am I panning too quickly?). We should be moving forward not backward.
Click to expand...

i too second your thought ... how much more do we have to think beyong nice framing & timing the best shots.

As for thr RAW truth about these companies extorting money thru their products seems like crazy to me too but cant help but waste our hard earned money since the companies who make low cost CCD dont make HD camcorders. this has been going on since 80's since the inception of videos...cant help much but eat the bake of these companies. as it is the pricing are so high & then to further enhance that are the global recession clubbed with high exchange rates.

The major share of the Nth % of the profit goes to the future R&D on making future upgrades so but still the extortion saga goes on for ever. As of now we dont know much ahead of HD Video ... lets see in few years we see some other recording media camcorders etc rendering the past investment miniscule :(
 
Entity said:
BIG QUESTION: Can one shoot in 720 modes on AVC-intra?
Click to expand...
Yes, in variable frame rates, in AVC-I 50 and AVC-I 100.

How does this look?
Click to expand...
Didn't try AVC-I 50, but shot some AVC-I 100. Lots of our Africa footage was 720/60p AVC-I 100.

Would it blow normal HPX170's 720p out of the water?
Click to expand...
In AVC-I 100? Yes. It's sharper, cleaner, crisper, better in all ways.

Would it be comparable to it and other cameras 1080 modes?
Click to expand...
Don't know. Haven't compared them. For the most part good 720p is easily a match for good 1080i, but not for good 1080p.

How would it compare to 1080p comming out of an HPX500?
Click to expand...
Don't know. 2/3" is going to have shallower DOF and more dynamic range, the CMOS has a different texture to the footage... they'll probably be of comparable sharpness, but then there's 2/3" DOF vs. 10-bit vs. CCD vs. CMOS, so ... I don't think there's any easy answer to that question.
 
I thought we were discussing rolling shutter issues here.

How did it move to extortion, and multinational corporate greed?

There must be something in the water. :)

As an aside, why do so many people here complain about prices?

If you don't want the product because you see it as too expensive, then just don't buy it.

Or buy something that you see as a value.

But like clockwork, it comes around -- p2 prices are extortion.

Panasonic (or Sony or JVC or Canon) are making too much money or have too high of a profit margin.

MSRP on the HPX300 is $10700 USD. How many expect to pay that much.

We paid $7800 for a 200 with an 8 GB p2 card three years ago.

I would bet you could come close to that price right now for a 300. Batteries and mic will cost more -- but close.
 
I like things as cheap as possible too, but as a 500 owner I can tell you there is a lot of support that goes along with that price you pay. We had a small problem with our 500. We thought it was the 500, but then again we thought it could be the canon lens. Both of those manufacturers stepped up. Canon sent us a 25k loaner lens while we sent them our cheapy 7k lens. Panasonic gave us a loaner body to use while we sent them our 500.

Two engineers at head office gave our camera a thorough going over, and even brought the canon guys to their shop to try and isolate the problem. While the engineers were messing with our camera, they upgraded a few things and even asked the engineers in Japan if they could modify our camera's internals to help protect the camera from the extreme conditions we shoot in.

The problem was determined, our camera was returned, and I don't know what they did but it looks better than it ever did. Of course it might look better because Panasonic also released a new batch of settings files. We started using one of those settings and it kicks the butt of our homebrew settings.

So while the camera is expensive, there is a big team out there to support you.

I've been told on the HD cameras like the 500 and up, there is a standing order for a one day turn around on service.
 
I was a little back and forth on this camera at first but now I think it may just what I need. Here's the thing: I like wide angle, deep focus scenes (I shoot narrative) so 1/3" chips are fine, even preferred. Full raster 10bit 1080p would be great leap forward, as I'm coming from an HVX200 (sans "A"). How would the rolling shutter (in 1080/24p) perform in wide angle scenes with a static camera? Actors no more than moving walking speed. Am I wrong in thinking the rolling shutter will have little if any consequences in these types of set-ups? Of course my best bet would be to go to a dealer and see if they let me play with one ...
 
Last edited:
All I know is I am eagerly awaiting the $500 camera using Kodak's amazing chip that Combatentropy is apparently about to start manufacturing. And if it doesn't have amazing depth of field capability, 8 channels of PCM audio and a free 64 GB stick of digital recording media, I will be P.O.'d.:beer:
 
combatentropy said:
The latest 2/3" CCD from Kodak is $425. It is 1920 x 1080, can take up to 64 frames per second, has 10 f-stops of dynamic range. This is the sensor Ikonoskop is using. Leica and Hasselblad are also using Kodak CCDs (though not this particular one).

My point is, I bet it costs Kodak less than $425 to make each one. And so I also bet that it costs Panasonic, or any othe major company, less than that to make a 2/3" CCD.
Click to expand...

I don't think still & video CCDs would be a direct comparison.

Still imagers are on for short periods of time, even when they say it can do so many frames per second. Usually they are limited to certain shooting times.

The heat dissipation is what makes non-stop chip design so difficult.

This goes for computer processors as well. Intel could make a very fast processor really cheap. You could fry eggs on your comuter, but it would be fast & cheap.

At this point in time, we have seen a lot of development and cameras have really evolved. I think if it were that cheap we would have seen it by now. Actually we are seeing it but in CMOS chips because they run cooler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top