Sell me on it

SPZ said:
The thing that worries me in making this jump is the results I get with the camera vs investment.

If the HPX500 with the fujinon, or directly with the letus/Brevis and a 35mm lens, doesn't look significantly sharper and better than the HVX with stock lens or similar 35mm adapter, than I fail to see the advantage of going HPX.

As much as the HPX looks attractive on paper, I really would like to be convinced of the advantages of the 2/3 CCD's for filmmaking- Mainly using a 35mm adapter. Basically the exact same question as Taormina.

Jack, you said the Letus prototype was connected trough a SD Canon 2/3 lens and then added a 35mm lens, correct? Is there no way you can do an adaptor that connects without the use of a 2/3 lens?
Click to expand...

Agree 100% and this is my dilemma. I can handle the size and form factor. Except for some screwing around at home, all my stuff is crewed / permitted so I don't care about flying in under the radar.

What I really want is a RED but the wait time is a killer.
 
Mac said:
Yeah, primes don't breath much - that's why feature DPs mostly use primes (plus they're smaller and lighter)... Zooms are generally used for B camera and specific scenes where a zoom may be needed in the shot...

Actually, I'm surprised that some adventurous manufacturer hasn't introduced an affordable set of primes for 2/3" cameras. From all I read in these forums it seems that there would be a decent market for something that didn't require an adapter that puts more optics in the image path...

They might not be Zeiss.. but a nice set of five or six off-brand lenses would be a nice thing to have... I'd love a nice WA equivelent to a 10mm in super16...
Click to expand...


Good point.

I've always heard that the downside of using 35mm still camera lenses, even though they should be sharp enough given that they were designed for cameras with 4 times the resolution of either the HVX or HPX was that they breathed more than cinema primes. So I'm kind of thinking any lens on a motion camera of any kind shouldn't breathe more than any good still camera lens. But maybe zooms are different.

I think I have one cheap still camera zoom. When my new LetusE finally gets here I will have to test it and see if it breathes perceptibly or more than the canon zoom for the HPX.
 
Hi all,

When I started in this stuff, video was still tethered to the wall sockets. So my portable experience was with 16mm and 35mm cameras. My notion that the HVX200 is terrific is just that, terrific.

I still think for me to carry a dressed kit with the HVX around is very cool. It doesn't compare to a HPX nor was made to (and my pocketbook appreciates that a lot), but for a small producer, the small HVX is hard to beat.

We have a small classroom here in Montana and I teach here and there on things video and graphics related and the mobility of the HVX is just fantastic.

Of course, it gets back to what you're doing with these things in the first place. That's what ought to be driving the train.
 
I have to chime in here - having shot a feature with the HPX (stills on my website) - the HPX is FAR FAR Better then the hvx. No contest, no comparison. THe image is far cleaner, the camera controls are easier to use and more professionally laid out. The Fuji CAC lens is superior (except for breathing which can be controlled with composition and staging.

Its no competition. If you could strap on an adapter that is edge to edge sharp this is a killer camera.

The seasoned actors on our set (Jeremy London, Ryan Hurst etc) marvelled at the image on the monitor.

just my 2 cents
 
I totally agree, but maybe I already said that somewhere else..

HVX is a very nice small camera for shooting in cars or with an M2 - or what I used to refer to as a "glove compartment camera" (like a Bolex)... but the HPX500 is a real pro camera at a terrific price...
 
Hi Smelni,
I too would be very interested in learning your workaround method for the breathing situation.

Thanks,
Brad
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Do you really think that's what I was asking?

how?
Click to expand...


sorry - now I get what you were asking - I was totally confused.

the breathing is the breathing and you cant get rid of it completely - but by understanding at what focal lengths its more acceptable and when its drastically reduced you can strategize around it.

One technique - is to always try to use a longer lens - so if you are at a 10 lens and it breathes like darth vader then go to a 20 lens and double the distance of the camera - not only with the breathing be less but the travel on the lens is less for the rack making it even less apparent. You can then go to a 40 lens and double the distance again if you have the space. All of these will have the same image size althought the backgrounds will obviously be looser or tighter.

Another technique is to "hide" a rack in movement. so instead of racking on a locked off camera. Pan or tilt as you rack. The motion of the camera will hide the breathing to a large degree.

Yet another technique is to "hide" it in composition. For example - imagine a golf ball rolling towards camera with the hole in the forground. If the ball is not traveling very fast and you rack with the ball. The movement and composition makes the breathing feel much more subtle then if an object wasnt moving toward camera.

Finally - take a look at tv these days - since having this camera I have noticed that VERY often they using lenses on shows that breathe a whole lot - its surprising actually how much breathing can happen on broadcast high quality shows.

I think I might have some other techniques but these have helped me. Its like anything in a digital world - understand the tools and how they perform and then adjust to use them in a beneficial way instead of thinking of it as a limitation. By thinking out shots in ways such as these I avoid costly lens rentals. Is it limiting - of course. But so is shooting with half the budget you really want.

hope this helps.
 
Well since its brought up again and Ive been using this camera much longer now. One thing you can light for and notice more clearly on the HPX is shades on surfaces, the camera can pick up subtle changes, so creating gradients away from a perceived light source is much easier.
 
The 2/3-inch chips, to throw in my two cents. Those alone are worth the money. Shoot in 720p, and you're golden! Yes, the HPX500 pixel-shifts like the HVX200 (native 960 x 540 sensor), but those 2/3-inch chips allow great low-light shoots, better lenses and more shallow DOF.

David
 
Noel Evans said:
Youve been misinformed.
Click to expand...

He is right. The camera does use 960x540 chips. It acheives HD through spacial offset technology.

http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/panasonic-hpx-500-review.html

"Much has been made in the video press about the resolution of the CCD's on the 500. It is true that they are 960x540 and that the high def resolution is achieved by way of pixel shifting. Despite the publicity blurb this does have drawbacks, but it also has advantages in other areas. Obtaining 1080p from pixel shifting in this way is always going to be a stretch. Certainly when viewed critically the image is softer than other 1080 native cameras. This has to be expected as there is no such thing as a free lunch. Put it this way, if the image was as sharp as a native 1080 imaging device all the manufacturers would be saving money by using low res chips!"

Maybe you where misinformed?
 
I had heard from sales reps about the sensor size, first thing I asked when we were testing out the camera.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top