Sell me on it

There is no question in my mind whether or not it puts out an HD image or not. I consider the HPX500 to be a true HD camera.

They just use a bit of technology to get there. There isn't anything wrong with that.

You do loose a little bit of sharpness, but it isn't going to be noticeable to a normal viewer under normal conditions.

If you really need that extra little bit of sharpness then pay the extra money for the extra pixels. Until then use the technology to your favor.
 
It is absolutely an HD camera, and a darn fine one, at that. The large sensors and 2/3-inch lens options are what make this camera a winner.

David
 
just posed the resolution question below to two of my panny rep's. we'll see what they say.

"Need your help to put an issue to rest on a forum I'm apart of.
Is the ccd chip on the HPX500 1920x1080 native or is it a 960x540 pixel shifting HD ccd?
 
This is from the brochure, note the sentence in red:

Progressive 3CCD
The AG-HPX500's 2/3-inch progressive 3CCD* has a larger light receiving area for higher sensitivity, and achieves an optimal balance among image quality, sensitivity and cost.
The camera process scans at full 1080/60 (or 50) progressive frames a second. It is this initial capture that is the foundation for all of the formats that this camera generates. While the camera does not record 1080P/60(or 50), the signals start there and are either cross converted or down converted to the format being utilized that day.

* The effective image size of the CCD is equivalent to 2/3.2 inches.
A.P.T for Higher Image Quality
Advanced progressive technology (A.P.T) produces higher total image quality by linking the progressive 3CCD camera system with a high-performance digital signal processor (DSP). In A.P.T, an extremely accurate CCD alignment process is used to offset the pixels on the red and blue channels in both the Horizontal and Vertical directions. This allows for additional resolution to be gained from areas of the green CCD which are non-photo-sensitive.
The R, G and B color signals from the 3 CCDs are then sent through a 14-bit A/D converter. Next, a 19-bit DSP performs a highly precise calculation* on the signals to generate 1080/60P (50P) video signals. The signals are then converted into HD or SD format and recorded. By using these progressive video signals, with their excellent vertical resolution, as source signals, a high level of image quality is achieved that would be difficult to obtain by interpolating from interlace scans.
* Called an advanced offset spatial process.

Very clever wording going on here!
 
Last edited:
Barry must be busy lately but, 960x540 is 518,400. The 500 has a higher pixel count, cant remember exactly.
 
It means that it uses the three chips together to create a 2K imaging block, which gets scanned into a 1080p matrix and processed internally at 1920x1080, and then gets downsampled to the appropriate recording format.

Bottom line: if you like the pictures it makes, you like the pictures it makes.
 
I 100% agree with you Barry.

I have never said that the 500 doesn't record HD footage. By all means it does.

My beef came from someone saying that there is no way that the CCD was only 960x540.

I find it amazing that Panasonic can achieve such a picture from what most people would consider an SD chip. That means that they use the technology in their favor to save us a few dollars as consumers.
 
Everybody is looking for the holy grail of video...is it the ccd block, is it the dsp, is it the codec...break it down to a mechanical metaphor...the lever and fulcrum...with resolution on one side and signal to noise plus god knows what is on the other side.

One can't judge image solely on the parts that go into its production.

Is it a Jackson Pollack because of the composition of its paint?

Is it a Nam June Paik because of the tvs he used?

That's the nature of art..the interpretation and manipulation of a medium by someone with vision.

Do I have the gift? Naw...I have the need to try and achive and perhaps come close. (I wish)
Don't forget...it's the journey and not the destination that matters.

I read a few years back when the pixel resolution of consumer cameras was approaching ten mp that the Mars Rovers had _one_ megapixel imagers. They produced and continue to produce great images. Pretty good dsp I'd say.

Armless people paint with their toes and satisfy a need to express that should shame us all.

Get out there and shoot, edit and produce...and don't complain about your tools!!
 
I got this straight from Panny's mouth:

You can tell Mr.X that it is a 620,000 pixel imager with the red and blue imagers offset by 1/2 a pixel in the horizontal and vertical domain, this is the spatial offset process. This has a net effect of giving the imagers resolving power equal to that of a 1.1 million pixel imager. Once that is done, the analog signal coming off of them are captured in 1920 X 1080 and all of the signal processing is handled at this 1080P level. Keep in mind that this only adds to the luminance resolution but in HD that accounts for 70% of the image. Once all of the processing is finished, like color, pedestal and detail, it is then presented to the DVCPRO Codec, be it DVCPRO, DVCPRO50 or DVCPRO HD.
Alex
Regional Service Manager
PBTSC Service
Secaucus, NJ 07094
Off: 201-348-7975
Cell: 201-925-7172
Fax: 201-348-5200
 
Mr. MacLeod,
I agree to an extent. However TV is not paint. In order to paint in post we need the best image quality first. Other wise crap in, crap out.
If i don't like what's on the data I can't just paint over it until it's better. I can't paint in more detail.

I just shot a music video in 720PN to make use of the ramping feature. Footage looks awesome at first glance. Yes because of the composition, color, and lighting Al s referring to.
I used an SD lens and shi* loads of light. Still when in post, manipulating the video with either gamma, threshold, color correction, or color FX adjusters you have to be careful because digital pixlelation shows up quick especially in the blacks and highlights.

I've discovered with the 500 it's best to shoot with higher detail, no cine settings, more detail in the blacks, blast the color, and pay close attention to skin tone lighting.

I'm not selling anyone on the 500. You have to evaluate your income, your clients and your final output format.
I've used the XDCAM HD line for two years. It's a nice cam if you have an 8 core MAC to crunch the longGOP. It is hard to use in low light. It's better use is outdoors or controlled production. Plus the 1/2 lens selection is very small.
The 500 Panny is designed for NEWS or ENG. Indie film peeps will love it because it's affordable and you can rent a 2/3 Cine lens for it. News station can no longer afford to buy 12 $30,000 cameras but they can buy 12 HPX500 and slap their SD lenes on them. Panny knows this and is under bidding Sony big time.

I consider both cams for anyone still producing SD television which is still the majority. Digital 4:3 SD will be around for a long time. And having a low cost cam that can shoot all formats is amazing.
If you're a local commercial video company the 500 will still impress your clients.
If you're a national commercial company don't buy the 500 or anything similar.
If you're indie, it will get the job done way better than any unibody handycam will ever dream.
As I said I just shot an HD720pn Music Vid, after pressing it to a SD DVD letterboxed, it looked awesome. We'll see later what happens when blu ray catches on and burning to that format is easily affordable.

If you have comcast look close at your LCD Tv. The shows are highly compressed. They look like shi*. That's what happens to your beautiful 4:4:4 SD, HD footage. Yes the analog signal will be shut off next year allowing more band width for digital throughput but we don't know how much yet. The FCC is still selling off those extra frequencies. Some stations want to stay 4:3 and use their extra bandwidth for information transmission. We will live in a world of both formats for a long time.

I'm waiting to hear who has the best turn out with an HD lens. I've heard some guys hating the CAC lenses. I'm saving my pennies for the HD lens that rises to the top for the 500. I'm sure that will make a huge difference in image quality.
 
When I read "Mr. MacLeod" I had to look around...who's he talking to? :)
No, Video isn't paint. This forum shows that people looking at the same thing can have wildly differing opinions...you know..great taste/ less filling.

Folks can get frozen in place fixated on this or that video thingy. I know, I've been there!

It's the Coke vs Pepsi stuff that gets me. Look at the picture. If it pleases, that's great!
Don't let the "specs" color your opinion. That's why the cola blindfold commercials a while back were entertaining!
 
Barry_Green said:
Bottom line: if you like the pictures it makes, you like the pictures it makes.
Click to expand...
I agree! That's what I always tell everyone, and I really dig the HPX500's image.

And I don't believe the HPX500 does 1080p60--I don't think any camera does yet.

David
 
Here it is, I had a chance to realy see what the fuss was all about where the hpx500 was concerned, and I was not impressed at all. although it made a beautiful image I had the opportubnity to see the 500 split screened beside the hpx 170, and just let me say, panasonic should be awarded for their marketing. Because they almost sold me until I seen that image wise on an hd split screen these images were so very similiar in image quality I don't know how they were able to justify the price of the 500 with an hd lens compared to the 170 at 5200 dollars.

It was frightening to see this little palm corder produce such a similar image at a quarter of a cost. This is when I said no more letting good marketing cloud my judgement, and dictate my purchases when the proof is in the image. pany you almost had me.
 
Absolutely reem12 a split screen on some kind of monitor, using some kind of editor, with some sort of shots is absolutely the way to uncover the marketing ruse of Panasonic. Fill your boots with the 170 and be a happy man.
 
walnutcrunch said:
Absolutely reem12 a split screen on some kind of monitor, using some kind of editor, with some sort of shots is absolutely the way to uncover the marketing ruse of Panasonic. Fill your boots with the 170 and be a happy man.
Click to expand...

Man, you made my morning, almost spilt my coffee on that one.

But in all honesty reem12, if thats what YOU see, then thats all that matters right? As Al said, its what you do with it.
 
reem12 said:
Here it is, I had a chance to realy see what the fuss was all about where the hpx500 was concerned, and I was not impressed at all. although it made a beautiful image I had the opportubnity to see the 500 split screened beside the hpx 170, and just let me say, panasonic should be awarded for their marketing. Because they almost sold me until I seen that image wise on an hd split screen these images were so very similiar in image quality I don't know how they were able to justify the price of the 500 with an hd lens compared to the 170 at 5200 dollars.

It was frightening to see this little palm corder produce such a similar image at a quarter of a cost. This is when I said no more letting good marketing cloud my judgement, and dictate my purchases when the proof is in the image. pany you almost had me.
Click to expand...

this is such a naive statement. given the right circumstances, you could make a lot of cameras look the same or close. put both cameras in a high contrast or low light situation and then see what happens. the 170 won't hold up to the 500. sorry.

how about dof? any 2/3" cam will have nicer dof than any 1/3" cam. just a simple fact.
 
What about filmouts?

What about filmouts?

I hear all this talk about the image quality, pixals etc. but how does the image look on the big screen, after a filmout?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top