Sell me on it
- Thread starter taormina
- Start date
Having just invested on the BTLH-80w Monitor/ Anton Bauer Battery setup, and being an owner of an HVX200 and a Brevis 35mm, I feel like I would only need to invest on the camera Body + Brevis's 2/3 mount to have a fully operational Cinema Camera/Powerhouse. I can get the HPX for a very acceptable price here...
I too would like to know what HVX200 owners think of the HPX and how it improves on it...
I too would like to know what HVX200 owners think of the HPX and how it improves on it...
my 2¢
my 2¢
Left half of signature HPX 500 with zoom lens.
Right half of signature LetusE with HVX 200
Because of the 2/3rd" chips the HPX's D.O.F is like that of 16MM film. If you check out Unawakening you will see the D.0.F. is quite shallow. If you go with the HPX I would get a good zoom that's made for it and forgo the headaches of 35mm adapters. Don't get me wrong, I love the LetusExtreme, but all 35mm adapters add time. The Form factor of the HPX is limiting and that will add some time, effect how fast you can move. With the shallow depth of field inherent in the camera, I would only use an adapter in very rare circumstances if ever. But make sure you get a good zoom. The one we used breathed like crazy. More than any 35mm still lens I've used. It was almost like a practical joke and some shots were unusable.
Personally though. If I had to choose between owning a HPX and an HVX I would choose a kitted out HVX (inlcuding a Letus Extreme). In the course of 3 weeks I acted in a RedONE project, directed an HVX LetusExtreme project, and directed a HPX project. Of the three cameras ... to own and make shorts with, I would choose the HVX (keeping the supposed goldmine of renting the RedOne out, out of the equation). Why? The RedONE: Never without a full camera crew. Never. So much to deal with. Might as well be a 35mm film camera. Maybe the workflow and accessories will get sleeker and more streamlined, but it is not like an HVX that shoots 4K, it a serious piece of equipment that takes a lot of support. The camera is just the beginning of your costs. You will likely have to upgrade your tripod, many things. The HPX: Giant E.N.G. style body. Huge. Forget about sneaking it in anywhere. If guerilla is a word ever associated with any of your projects I would shy away from this compared to the HVX. The image is slightly sharper, it is slightly less noisy, but not worth, IMHO another 5 or 6 thousand dollars. Which, unless you are on an unlimited budget, could go to other things. In fact some of the HPX footage we shot was noisier than the HVX. Again, all depends on how you use them.
I am happy with my HVX. The small form factor and the speed and versatility that allows me in and of itself and as it trickles down to stabilizers, cranes, dollies, tripods, cases, etc. Make it my choice to own as a quick shooting, low budget indie filmmaker and I did not see night any sort if night and day difference (if any at all) with the HPX and HVX. If a producer said I had the choice of a great DP shooting my film on a RedONE with ample time and crew, then no-brainer, lets get the Red and start shooting. But when money and time and flexibility are issues I'd go for the HVX to own if I'm going to own just one. The HPX is slightly more headache than a HVX.
my 2¢
Left half of signature HPX 500 with zoom lens.
Right half of signature LetusE with HVX 200
Because of the 2/3rd" chips the HPX's D.O.F is like that of 16MM film. If you check out Unawakening you will see the D.0.F. is quite shallow. If you go with the HPX I would get a good zoom that's made for it and forgo the headaches of 35mm adapters. Don't get me wrong, I love the LetusExtreme, but all 35mm adapters add time. The Form factor of the HPX is limiting and that will add some time, effect how fast you can move. With the shallow depth of field inherent in the camera, I would only use an adapter in very rare circumstances if ever. But make sure you get a good zoom. The one we used breathed like crazy. More than any 35mm still lens I've used. It was almost like a practical joke and some shots were unusable.
Personally though. If I had to choose between owning a HPX and an HVX I would choose a kitted out HVX (inlcuding a Letus Extreme). In the course of 3 weeks I acted in a RedONE project, directed an HVX LetusExtreme project, and directed a HPX project. Of the three cameras ... to own and make shorts with, I would choose the HVX (keeping the supposed goldmine of renting the RedOne out, out of the equation). Why? The RedONE: Never without a full camera crew. Never. So much to deal with. Might as well be a 35mm film camera. Maybe the workflow and accessories will get sleeker and more streamlined, but it is not like an HVX that shoots 4K, it a serious piece of equipment that takes a lot of support. The camera is just the beginning of your costs. You will likely have to upgrade your tripod, many things. The HPX: Giant E.N.G. style body. Huge. Forget about sneaking it in anywhere. If guerilla is a word ever associated with any of your projects I would shy away from this compared to the HVX. The image is slightly sharper, it is slightly less noisy, but not worth, IMHO another 5 or 6 thousand dollars. Which, unless you are on an unlimited budget, could go to other things. In fact some of the HPX footage we shot was noisier than the HVX. Again, all depends on how you use them.
I am happy with my HVX. The small form factor and the speed and versatility that allows me in and of itself and as it trickles down to stabilizers, cranes, dollies, tripods, cases, etc. Make it my choice to own as a quick shooting, low budget indie filmmaker and I did not see night any sort if night and day difference (if any at all) with the HPX and HVX. If a producer said I had the choice of a great DP shooting my film on a RedONE with ample time and crew, then no-brainer, lets get the Red and start shooting. But when money and time and flexibility are issues I'd go for the HVX to own if I'm going to own just one. The HPX is slightly more headache than a HVX.
- - RedONE - best image (obv), hardest most time consuming to use.
- - HPX 500 with LE - very bulkly, somehwhat time consuming, not significantly better image than HVX
- - HVX 200 with LE, easier to use than HPX with letus due to small form factor, somewhat time consuming
- - HPX 500 with zoom - still very big, arguably easier / faster to use than HVX200 with LE, not significantly better image, nice shallow depth of field due to 2/3" chips, check the lens that comes with it for breathing when you rack focus (maybe not a problem, I do not think we had the lens that comes with it)
- - HVX 200, easiest to use, almost identical image to HPX, most versatile - use it with the adapter, or not.
Last edited:
The 500 pretty much takes anyone's objections to the 200 and obliterates them. Advantages:
Four P2 slots.
Heavier -- less camera jitter; smoother pans.
About a stop of low-light sensivity over the 200.
About a stop and half more of dynamic range.
Noticeably sharper footage.
Four degrees of neutral density filter, instead of three.
An easier, more reliable focus assist.
Four XLR inputs, assignable.
Genlock.
SDI out.
The 500 is, all around, a better camera in most respects, as it by rights ought to be, and I really, really, really like it. But it really does depend, like anything, what you're planning to do with it. Jack has some great points above.
Four P2 slots.
Heavier -- less camera jitter; smoother pans.
About a stop of low-light sensivity over the 200.
About a stop and half more of dynamic range.
Noticeably sharper footage.
Four degrees of neutral density filter, instead of three.
An easier, more reliable focus assist.
Four XLR inputs, assignable.
Genlock.
SDI out.
The 500 is, all around, a better camera in most respects, as it by rights ought to be, and I really, really, really like it. But it really does depend, like anything, what you're planning to do with it. Jack has some great points above.
hahah, ones man's plus column, another man's neg column
I know a heavier camera can give you more of a film look, but well ... it's heavier
And for a new york indie like me, backpack ability is a big plus. How I envied you and Barry with your gear filled trucks So there's a lot of info to consider with david's exact technical info. Again I didn't see a marked improvement in the footage we shot, but the conditions were very different - run and gun 2 day shoot with the HPX and 4 day meticulous controlled environment with the HVX letus. So that could be a big factor in my perceived naked eye similarity if of the two. The HPX was used under the worst conditions and the HVX under the best.
Barry_Green
Moderator
In my testing I find the HPX500 to be at least 1.5 stops faster than the HVX200, and probably guesswork-wise to be about 15% sharper. Other than that the image is quite comparable.
David laid out most of the advantages; there are others (such as having individually-selectable automatic or manual audio control, great for ENG; interchangeable lenses, TC in/out, PAL/NTSC switchable, etc). A big difference is the size and form factor; whether that's an advantage or disadvantage is up to your individual needs -- for Jack it's a big disadvantage, for someone wanting to get hired for 2/3" shoulder-mount gigs it's obviously a big advantage, so that depends on your particular needs.
ENG lenses are a mixed bag, obviously. A great HD lens will do away with the breathing, like a great high-end Canon -- but then you're at sixty grand or so for the lens. A cheap ENG lens is ... cheap. Breathing is an issue, a big issue, with the bottom-end lenses.
For a studio situation or an ENG situation I'd want the 500 over the 200 every single time. For one-man-band stuff, small crew etc., the 200 has compelling advantages and, in adequate light, the image is extremely close. The 500 flexes its chops in low light situations where it's just much better than the 200, but in adequate light they're pretty darn close.
A 500 body-only is about $11,500 right now, and the lens is a massive portion of the cost of a complete HPX500 rig; with a Letus Extreme 2/3" relay mount on it you might significantly slash that cost and it would make for a very interesting digi-cine camera. You'll need power, and maybe a bigger tripod, but you could also always just rent an ENG lens for the times when you get hired to shoot, and with HPX500 rigs going for, what, $600 to $800 per day (plus another $400 to $600 for your skills as cameraman) it could pay for itself in relatively short order.
As with every question, it all depends. It depends on what you want to shoot, how you like to shoot, what you can afford, etc.
David laid out most of the advantages; there are others (such as having individually-selectable automatic or manual audio control, great for ENG; interchangeable lenses, TC in/out, PAL/NTSC switchable, etc). A big difference is the size and form factor; whether that's an advantage or disadvantage is up to your individual needs -- for Jack it's a big disadvantage, for someone wanting to get hired for 2/3" shoulder-mount gigs it's obviously a big advantage, so that depends on your particular needs.
ENG lenses are a mixed bag, obviously. A great HD lens will do away with the breathing, like a great high-end Canon -- but then you're at sixty grand or so for the lens. A cheap ENG lens is ... cheap. Breathing is an issue, a big issue, with the bottom-end lenses.
For a studio situation or an ENG situation I'd want the 500 over the 200 every single time. For one-man-band stuff, small crew etc., the 200 has compelling advantages and, in adequate light, the image is extremely close. The 500 flexes its chops in low light situations where it's just much better than the 200, but in adequate light they're pretty darn close.
A 500 body-only is about $11,500 right now, and the lens is a massive portion of the cost of a complete HPX500 rig; with a Letus Extreme 2/3" relay mount on it you might significantly slash that cost and it would make for a very interesting digi-cine camera. You'll need power, and maybe a bigger tripod, but you could also always just rent an ENG lens for the times when you get hired to shoot, and with HPX500 rigs going for, what, $600 to $800 per day (plus another $400 to $600 for your skills as cameraman) it could pay for itself in relatively short order.
As with every question, it all depends. It depends on what you want to shoot, how you like to shoot, what you can afford, etc.
If you go with the HPX500 letus, which don't get me wrong, would make grate footage, I'd invest in the redrock remote (as in electronic) lens controler which will work with your 35mm lenses. I think its around $500. I dunno. Totally giving up electronic control of the lens is weird to me.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
In prototype form, not in retail form.
Barry_Green
Moderator
IINM, your same LEX would work with the bayonet relay lens, so your cost to get into it would be quite a bit less. But I don't know that for sure. Someone else on here started a poll about the 2/3" adapter, and he's currently beta-testing the prototype so you could ask him for more perspective on the actual product.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Well they better hurry up with that adapter because look at this recent thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=117909
This guy is gonna need it soon, before something horrible happens.
Edit: Turns out that's no adapter. Just a bunch of lenses and spacers. None the less, this could happen.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=117909
This guy is gonna need it soon, before something horrible happens.
Edit: Turns out that's no adapter. Just a bunch of lenses and spacers. None the less, this could happen.
Last edited:
Cees Mutsaers
Veteran
what is a Letus Extreme 2/3" relay mount
I totally agree with DJ on this one. And anyone who knows me knows my opinion of the HVX. There is absolutely*no comparison in image quality. JDS raises a valid point on form factor - but none of my clients are concerned. The HPX is cheap, offers an acceptable form factor for clients, I can use this and forgo the extra expense of XDCAM (specifically I refer to the 350).
I think the best advice I can give is to make sure you have a worthy tripod and sadly thats gonna sting you at least $4500.
I think the best advice I can give is to make sure you have a worthy tripod and sadly thats gonna sting you at least $4500.
Well I have two projects in my NLE right now. One with HVX and adapter one with HPX. I can't tell the difference. Let alone $5K of difference or $5K PLUS $4.5K in a tripod. Sorry.
You might consider where your level of filmmaking too in making this decision. Are you ready for $17K for camera and tripod?
Is there a free card with the HPX ... if not your looking at $15 or $17K with tripod and no p2 card ... or $6K with P2 card and $500 for a tripod. That's a huge difference.
Of course HPX is better.
But I don't think one or the other is going to make the difference in your low budget short getting in to a festival or your feature getting into a festival or distribution or whatever. Where could you put that extra $10K in camera support or into a production.?
... Ok, I'll :lipsrseal now.
You might consider where your level of filmmaking too in making this decision. Are you ready for $17K for camera and tripod?
Is there a free card with the HPX ... if not your looking at $15 or $17K with tripod and no p2 card ... or $6K with P2 card and $500 for a tripod. That's a huge difference.
Of course HPX is better.
But I don't think one or the other is going to make the difference in your low budget short getting in to a festival or your feature getting into a festival or distribution or whatever. Where could you put that extra $10K in camera support or into a production.?
... Ok, I'll :lipsrseal now.
Last edited:
taormina
Hates to Rent
It's a valid point, Jack, and I appreciate your frankness. I suppose my question is a little loaded - it comes on the heels of doing a doc with the HVX and LEX. Some of my footage had quite a bit of noise in the dark greens / browns of the background, and I was shooting in relatively good light (daylight interior). It pissed me off and I guess I went looking for a little more low light sensitivity.
Maybe I just need to light more effectively, but the feature I am shooting in February has a lot of low light (I'm talking night time) scenes in it, and i'm wondering if the HVX will cut the mustard.
Maybe I just need to light more effectively, but the feature I am shooting in February has a lot of low light (I'm talking night time) scenes in it, and i'm wondering if the HVX will cut the mustard.
MikeGunter
Well-known member
Hi all,
The HPX500 is more camera than the HVX200, but it's what it's more for that makes the difference. I'm in complete agreement with Jack. For my needs The HVX is the sweet spot. I can kit it up for under what a plain vanilla HPX500 w/lens and tripod would cost and do nearly anything under the sun that would come up on my horizon - and have enough left over to do rental if I really need it.
The HPX500 is more camera than the HVX200, but it's what it's more for that makes the difference. I'm in complete agreement with Jack. For my needs The HVX is the sweet spot. I can kit it up for under what a plain vanilla HPX500 w/lens and tripod would cost and do nearly anything under the sun that would come up on my horizon - and have enough left over to do rental if I really need it.
well you can see what I'm seeing at least here, and the basis of my opinion.
each clip, raw, a few seconds, low light, shot 1080, presented here 720
hardly a side by side comparison, but each needs light, once you bring your blacks down in post, add some S curve, the noise is not noticeable in most cases.
low light noisy HVX
http://frenchquarterfeatures.com/HVX.mov
low light noisy HPX
http://frenchquarterfeatures.com/HPX.mov
BUT CLEARLY, not apples and oranges, not a 7 thousand dollar orange, IMHO.
When the adaptor ring comes out, no question Barry and David and I will shoot on the HPX with the Adapter Ring and a Letus E.
But clearly we felt we could tell a story and make just as marketable a product with the HVX or we wouldn't have used it on the other film.
Then again maybe that's why most people like Unawakening more than the A Little Mouth to Feed. The HPX is the secret ingredient :grin:
Last edited:
Icarus2005
Well-known member
I love my HPX, and like my HVX, but I don't think there is any point in trying to compare them, just like there is no point in comparing a BB gun to a real gun.
bottom line is that the quality is much better, particualry with a high end lens. Moreover any professional clients that's been in this industry any reasonable amount of time is going to expect to see a camera on set that "looks" like a professional camera and will be seriously concerned if they see what loks like a toy or consumer camera; unless of course they were told this ahead of time and its because of budget reasons.
there is no question that for gorilla type work and one mand army type gigs the HVX is more suited.
bottom line is that the quality is much better, particualry with a high end lens. Moreover any professional clients that's been in this industry any reasonable amount of time is going to expect to see a camera on set that "looks" like a professional camera and will be seriously concerned if they see what loks like a toy or consumer camera; unless of course they were told this ahead of time and its because of budget reasons.
there is no question that for gorilla type work and one mand army type gigs the HVX is more suited.