HPX250: Something Weird

[Mac]

I've had my HPX250 for nearly a year, and while it isn't the favorite camera I've ever owned, it is certainly a good tool for the price. I have always been surprised, however, that this camera seems to fly under the radar. There isn't, and never has been, much "buzz" about the HPX250.

Surprisingly, in just the last few weeks, three cinematographers that I've known for years have called me for advice and ultimately bought one. Now these aren't "wannabes", guys with real jobs that have decided to quit bookkeeping and start a wedding video business. These are experienced filmmaker/cinematographers with long track records who have owned and shot internationally with virtually every type of film and video camera.

The bottom line seems to be (as has been much discussed on these forums) that people who need to own their equipment are looking for the best interim camera that is capable of shooing broadcast quality without it costing an arm and a leg.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Not much buzz because everyone's gone to drool over the latest large sensor cameras that are multiplying like rabbits right now. But I do agree, the HPX's are some of the most cost-effective and dependable cameras out there, not much in the way of cutting-edge features though. You can take them from Antarctica to the Sahara and they'll just work, drop one and worry more about having steel toed boots on, than for the camera.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

I've been scanning a lot of TV shows on cable, satellite and DTV. Most of the latest shows are still shot on the good old 1/3" to 2/3" cams. For starter, live music concerts, reality TV shows, events & news are still dominated by traditional, non-large sensor camera. Good zoom lens w/ razor sharp focus, super sharp viewfinder, CCU control, rich audio inputs are fundamental features that traditional video cameras excel at. With the shrinking production budget these days, most crews are limited to 1-2 people max. Camera assistant to change prime lens, focus puller found on these large sensor cameras are a optional luxury.

I'm not at all seduced by the large sensor cam fad. Yes, I can see that they're great for narrative and cinematic feature. But when it comes to practicality use on most type of of productions, it's just too tedious and time consuming to setup and shoot. For starter w/ large sensor camera, changing the lens is a huge downtime. Back focus has to be readjusted every time, especially when shooting at 4K. The accumulation of dust particle to the image sensor is another concern for excessive lens changing on live event shoot. Zoom lens is great. But most of the affordable PL-zooms are all manual. It's very hard to do a nice smooth zoom in/out w/ manual zooming. This is where the PL-mount Fujinon Cabrio w/ servo zoom comes in. But will anybody be willing to spend $35-90K for it (depending on the grade of the lens)? Then you have to put it back in the matte box and follow focus gear. It's very slow to setup and strike.

The lowest large sensor class of cams are the Canon 5Dm2, 5Dm3. I've see it everywhere now whenever i go out. But it's plagued by using photo lens for video and a lousy internal h.264 recording media. Tethering to uncompressed HDMI out is possible on 5Dm3, but it gets really cumbersome. Good luck try to follow focus the subject and retain 90% of focus accuracy. F/stop control is horrible as it's not a video lens.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I've been scanning a lot of TV shows on cable, satellite and DTV. Most of the latest shows are still shot on the good old 1/3" to 2/3" cams. For starter, live music concerts, reality TV shows, events & news are still dominated by traditional, non-large sensor camera. Good zoom lens w/ razor sharp focus, super sharp viewfinder, CCU control, rich audio inputs are fundamental features that traditional video cameras excel at. With the shrinking production budget these days, most crews are limited to 1-2 people max. Camera assistant to change prime lens, focus puller found on these large sensor cameras are a optional luxury.

Yeah, I agree, camcorders are readily available but if the client wants an Epic or something it's usually on them to hire a camera and operator, unless that's your spec. Cameras like the 250 don't need buzz IMO, because those who know why they might need one, already own one.

 

[rzr219]

I have also had my 250 for the same time and looked for a camera that would not be obselite quickly. I had a budget since I had to buy it and all the extra items that would also be needed for it. I can say that I am very pleased with it, I have learned how to use it well and feel comfurtiable where ever I use it now. I also looked at a large sensor and am very glad I took the time to try it out first and reliaze how it would have been a waste as 90% of my work is live performance. I have a freind that brought his 5D camera along on a shoot with me and I asked him to capture some close up from a differant angles so I could mix it with my footage. Oh man was I sorry, when I looked at the footage it would take me more time to color it and take the shake out than its worth and out of focus. Not even as close as sharp as I thought it would be.

I never try to follow the masses and do my own homework and make my own choices for what is best for me, and not the current fad. I am pleased with my 250.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I often come in on live performances without any rehearsal, so 5D's and such are out from the get go, unless you fully plan your shoots, come early and shoot lots of b-roll. A 370 and 250 are enough to cover most things.
As for color, I'm pretty sure the 5D can be made more manageable with a Cine-like profile, to prevent the camera from crushing everything the way it does on standard profile. Install Magic Lantern, get a 1000x card, and you can easily crank the bitrate over 50mbps CBR. Still, it's a lot of things to set up, and add-ons to buy to make it manageable.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

A firm decision was made to NOT invest in large sensor gear (until a probably a decade later) when I saw the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony highlight footage on NBC back around 5 months ago. Pretty much all of it were shot w/ regular 2/3" and prob. a few w/ 1/3". The graded clips looked quite impressive. Rich colors, filmic skin tone that are commonly found on large sensor is already obtainable w/ traditional vid. camera. The composition, framing, super smooth servo tracking zoom, and dead on focus accuracy are compelling evidences to convince me that those are what matter the most. Shallow DOF effect is reasonable on a 2/3". I've yet to see an Olympics shot entirely w/ 4K equipment and get the same quality & speed of coverage. They probably would have to spend a lot more in gear and manpower to get the same quality of coverage. Not sure if it's 4K workflow is manageable to begin with for a super fast, around the clock broadcast TV delivery.

 

[Gary Huff]

Have you ever seen HPX-3000 footage? Breathtakingly gorgeous. I'd own one if it wasn't $20k.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

Yes. I have first hand account and literally daily usage of the HPX-3100. This is an improved version of the HPX-3000. It has Film Rec gamma that previously found only on expensive Varicams, much sharper LCOS flip out, hi-res PROXY plus realtime metadata editing via a smart phone, laptop or iPad.

I previously posted that $20K is a very misleading price for Panasonic's premium 2/3" cam. Add $4K for the AJ-HVF21KG viewfinder ($8.5K for the CVF100G color version), $1.5K for the stereo mic, $1K for proxy board, $1200 for two 64 Gb P2 cards. You'll be looking at about $28K total after taxes for a functional camera before lens. $30-85K for a decent EFP 2/3" HD lens if don't have one yet.

 

[Gary Huff]

$30-85K for a decent EFP 2/3" HD lens if don't have one yet.

Ouch. Still great footage though.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Yes. I have first hand account and literally daily usage of the HPX-3100. This is an improved version of the HPX-3000. It has Film Rec gamma that previously found only on expensive Varicams, much sharper LCOS flip out, hi-res PROXY plus realtime metadata editing via a smart phone, laptop or iPad.

I previously posted that $20K is a very misleading price for Panasonic's premium 2/3" cam. Add $4K for the AJ-HVF21KG viewfinder ($8.5K for the CVF100G color version), $1.5K for the stereo mic, $1K for proxy board, $1200 for two 64 Gb P2 cards. You'll be looking at about $28K total after taxes for a functional camera before lens. $30-85K for a decent EFP 2/3" HD lens if don't have one yet.

It's not that misleading, pretty much every 2/3" cam is sold body-only, except the PMW350. The $1500 ST shotgun is overkill though. It's rarely used as the primary sound source, and if it is, it doesn't need to be stereo. Even then, something like a Senn 416 is probably overkill for on-camera, if you're going to mount a microphone the ideal choice would be a cardioid (not hyper though because that will pick up camera noise).

2/3" lens prices need to go down though, IMO, they still cost as much as when camcorders used to cost 4x as much as they do now; it was normal then but not now. Then again I was searching around and someone on here is selling a used Canon 14ex4.3b (damn fine bit of glass) for something like 7,500 euros (new price $32,000?!?). The new prices must be hella fixed or something.

 

[Mac]

Lenses, whatever the cost, have at least traditionally been considered good investments because you could keep them from camera to camera - No longer - Sure 2/3" will probably be around for a while (Hell, people are still shooting Betacam) but it's not secure. In the 1990's I was shooting a couple of feature documentaries and invested lots of money in several high-end super16 lenses, figuring they were future proof... I lost a lot of cash, and still have one of the lenses, a Cooke that I refuse to sell cheap.

Steering back to the subject here though, which I started - Many of us older types have been burned enough in the past, that the HPX250 with P2, AVC-I and 10 bit is an appealing investment because if it becomes obsolete in a year so what? it has more than paid for itself.

But since we're talking about lenses, I should mention that when my friends asked for my advice, I did caution them that the lens on the 250 takes some getting used to. I've done some tests and it really does fall apart badly approaching f5.6, especially on wide shots. This has been already addressed elsewhere. but I mention it again because "old pros" are used to better performance - and when you figure that the maximum aperture at telephoto is f3.2, that essentially provides less than a 2 stop useable aperture range if you want to be able to use the full zoom potential. That can be tough to deal with. One of the people mentioned is off to shoot elephants in Thailand and he's devising a series of slip-on NDs so he doesn't have to use a matte box.

Another factor is handholding, which I do a lot. The stock HPX250 is fine for swing-and-sway LCD type handholding, but for all day verite shooting it ain't. I have built custom brackets for an EVF (Z-Finder), side grip, matte box (don't want to raise the camera with a base) and wireless receiver. I've done the same for my AF100. Set up this way the 250 is lighter, steadier, and less obtrusive than any 2/3" camera I've owned - and I can carry it on an airplane.

It's not a 3100 with a fine HD lens, true, but I can buy 10 of them for less money.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

I can buy a cheap $100 Sony DSR series shotgun mic. But that 3-4 pin XLR is a pain in the neck to get it custom made and fit just right. $1500 is outrageous for a no-name Panasonic stereo shotgun mic. If a Schoeps CMIT5U or Sanken CS3E, then it's reasonable for $1.5K.

Premium broadcast 2/3" lens manufacturing is a very meticulous, time-consuming and precision process. It's hard to be mass produced and achieve the quality that serious broadcasters demand. Quality glass materials, exhaustive optical measurements, grinding, and more measurements over and over again are what costing so much. It can take many weeks to months to make one. Price hasn't gone done since early 2000s and I don't see it anytime soon. But if you're lucky enough to own one, it can last for decades and outlive many camcorder generations.


The 14ex4.3b is one master glass for super wide angle zoom lens w/ over 100 lpm resolving power. Unlike the HPX250's stock KG softness at the widest setting, the Canon 14ex4.3 is super sharp at 4.3mm @fully wide open f/stop. Rectilinear - no straight line distortion found on those cheap add-on wide angle adaptors. Only small caveat is to use a very thin clear filter to protect it. Regular clear protection filter tends to vignette at the extreme wide if you're not careful.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

>>Set up this way the 250 is lighter, steadier, and less obtrusive than any 2/3" camera I've owned - and I can carry it on an airplane.<<

I'd do the same for any international shoot to 3rd world countries. Definitely do not want to bring expensive 2/3" and lenses and find out that it's being confiscated by the government for whatever reason. Not only that, I was almost mugged once by the locals. Lucky a taxi was passing by by and I got out of that ordeal. This is particularly troublesome during my trip to Cambodia. Either pay a lot of bribe money to get it back or loose it. It's very risky.

 

[Mac]

Definitely do not want to bring expensive 2/3" and lenses and find out that it's being confiscated by the government for whatever reason. Not only that, I was almost mugged once by the locals. Lucky a taxi was passing by by and I got out of that ordeal. This is particularly troublesome during my trip to Cambodia. Either pay a lot of bribe money to get it back or loose it. It's very risky. [/COLOR]

This is a very good point and often overlooked. I make social-issue documentaries and am often in places like homeless shelters or "dangerous" neighborhoods where people can get a little feisty. A $5000 camera is very comforting in those circumstances.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I can buy a cheap $100 Sony DSR series shotgun mic. But that 3-4 pin XLR is a pain in the neck to get it custom made and fit just right. $1500 is outrageous for a no-name Panasonic stereo shotgun mic. If a Schoeps CMIT5U or Sanken CS3E, then it's reasonable for $1.5K.

Maybe it's re-branded? The only stereo shottie that I'm aware of in that general price bracket is the MKH418s. Still overkill though.

Lenses, whatever the cost, have at least traditionally been considered good investments because you could keep them from camera to camera - No longer - Sure 2/3" will probably be around for a while (Hell, people are still shooting Betacam) but it's not secure. In the 1990's I was shooting a couple of feature documentaries and invested lots of money in several high-end super16 lenses, figuring they were future proof... I lost a lot of cash, and still have one of the lenses, a Cooke that I refuse to sell cheap.

2/3" seems safe enough... unlike other formats, it's already so wide-spread that a new standard would actually be a hard-sell, and then what could we "upgrade" to? 1"? For cinematic purposes, yes, bigger is generally better, and people were happy to move on to super35, but camcorders need to keep things in focus; the camera op is also the focus puller and it has to be made manageable. 2/3" survived for as long as it has thanks to the 3-sensor array that eliminates debayering and provides 100% RGB data for each pixel position, which compensates for the small sensor size. RED is claiming their "dragon" sensor will have 15 stops native DR @ 6K, considering sensor size, that's about the same pixel-density as 2/3", so there's definitely room for improvement.

But since we're talking about lenses, I should mention that when my friends asked for my advice, I did caution them that the lens on the 250 takes some getting used to. I've done some tests and it really does fall apart badly approaching f5.6, especially on wide shots. This has been already addressed elsewhere. but I mention it again because "old pros" are used to better performance - and when you figure that the maximum aperture at telephoto is f3.2, that essentially provides less than a 2 stop useable aperture range if you want to be able to use the full zoom potential. That can be tough to deal with. One of the people mentioned is off to shoot elephants in Thailand and he's devising a series of slip-on NDs so he doesn't have to use a matte box.

Yeah, constant-aperture as on the 370 would've been great, but the diffraction-prone 1/3" chips limit the useable range to no more than f/4, f/5 at a stretch. I've shot an ISO12233 chart I printed out yesterday at z95 and z35 with apertures from wide open to f/5.6, I'll have see what the results will be like with my 370. I'm going to need a bigger chart to see how wide end responds to aperture variance.

Another factor is handholding, which I do a lot. The stock HPX250 is fine for swing-and-sway LCD type handholding, but for all day verite shooting it ain't. I have built custom brackets for an EVF (Z-Finder), side grip, matte box (don't want to raise the camera with a base) and wireless receiver. I've done the same for my AF100. Set up this way the 250 is lighter, steadier, and less obtrusive than any 2/3" camera I've owned - and I can carry it on an airplane.

It's not a 3100 with a fine HD lens, true, but I can buy 10 of them for less money.

Horses for courses I say, the 250 was made for those who need to stay mobile and on a budget, 3100 you can shoot a feature with.

>>Set up this way the 250 is lighter, steadier, and less obtrusive than any 2/3" camera I've owned - and I can carry it on an airplane.<<

I'd do the same for any international shoot to 3rd world countries. Definitely do not want to bring expensive 2/3" and lenses and find out that it's being confiscated by the government for whatever reason. Not only that, I was almost mugged once by the locals. Lucky a taxi was passing by by and I got out of that ordeal. This is particularly troublesome during my trip to Cambodia. Either pay a lot of bribe money to get it back or loose it. It's very risky.

There was this one project shot on Epic, but clips shot specifically in Africa were 5D, you typically don't want to brandish expensive things in places like that. I generally try to stay out of third-world countries. I carry full-size cams on the airplane regardless, never met anyone who actually put their camera in baggage, I don't know of any cases of confiscation either.

This is a very good point and often overlooked. I make social-issue documentaries and am often in places like homeless shelters or "dangerous" neighborhoods where people can get a little feisty. A $5000 camera is very comforting in those circumstances.

And a taser.

 

[Mac]

2/3" seems safe enough... unlike other formats, it's already so wide-spread that a new standard would actually be a hard-sell.

That is exactly how I felt about super16 - I started shooting super16 exclusively in the 80s because I knew that TV would be standardizing eventually on 16x9, and I wanted my films to be "future-proof". Unfortunately, when HD became the standard, that format was deemed unacceptable for conversion.

If there's one thing I've learned from the fluid nature of 21st Century technology, it's that nothing is for sure. I have no doubt that in the not-to-far-off future some genius will develop a small chip camera with all the attributes of a larger one, making for smaller, lighter, cheaper and better acquisition (remember it was only 8-9 years ago when gurus on this board and others were predicting that it was unlikely that Panasonic would ever produce a dvx100 with a 16x9 chip because it would push the price out of reach).. That's not a bad thing, it's just a factor to take into consideration when, as an independent filmmaker trying to make a living, I plunk down hard earned money for equipment that needs to pay for itself.

But I'm an optimist at heart - I'm hoping that the Digital Bolex (or something like it) will see the light of day with a super16 size sensor, and I can pull that old Cooke out of the closet.

 

[Gary Huff]

Unfortunately, when HD became the standard, that format was deemed unacceptable for conversion.

Are you sure about that? I have never heard that Super 16 was unsuitable for HD conversion. In fact, you can convert Super 8 to HD (it looks bad due to YouTube compression. I saw a version that was much better). Walking Dead is shot on 16mm, and it's available on Blu-ray.

 

[Mac]

BBC guidelines (which is ironic because they really pushed super16 in the 80s). I don't make things for BBC, but much of my stuff ends up on PBS, or APT, NETA, and they are influenced by BBC (and as a result some does make it to the UK).

Besides which, to be honest, and even if I wanted to push it, I couldn't get the budget anymore. The last feature length documentary I shot in super16 had a film budget of over $10,000 not including process and print. Those days are gone for most small independents like myself.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

There's like a 10% or so difference in the frame size between 2/3" and S16, I'm pretty sure it can convert well enough... BBC is always known to be clinical about their sources, it's not a universal rule that footage must be 50mbps long-gop or 100mbps i-frame 4:2:2 to make the cut, they just want it that way.

In any case, I've reviewed the chart I shot and... it would seem that aperture is less significant than focal length. At the 90% zoom position the chart is quite sharp and free of CA at any aperture, but at 35% there is a lot of softness in the corners and CA, that improves only a little stopped down. I'm going to have to plot image quality at every 10% or maybe every 5% towards the wide end. I already know from experience that there is a ton of CA at 100% that disappears by 90...