What's the next gen HVX200 / HPX170?

Blackout

Blackout

Veteran
The hvx & hpx have been around for a while now and I am wondering what is the next generation of these cameras? IS the only way to get a true 1920 x 1080 24p to go to the avchd cameras? Is P2 kind of ridiculous at this point?

When I shoot with the GH1 in 1080 24p (and remove the pulldown) I think it
looks so much better than the HVX/HPX - yet we all know the problems that the GH1 has with other issues, yet I am going to be in the market for another camera soon and it's a strange time... it seems dslr hybrid type things are the way of the future but they are not quite there yet. I don't really feel like having to get a HVX and a $2000 lens adapter and expensive P2 cards bringing me up to $8000 to $10,000 to match a look I can get on a dslr for under $2k.....

Yet, of course I would like the stability of not having to be so delicate with camera moves. Are there any new cameras in the works that will improve on the old HVX/HPX and give true 1920 x 1080 24p yet... (other than the EX1.. I don't like the look of most of what it produces) or is this still not happening unless you spend $10,000 + for one of the Panasonic biggies? And please... don't say 'scarlet' because people have been talking about this supposed scarlet forever that never actually materializes.
 
IS the only way to get a true 1920 x 1080 24p to go to the avchd cameras? Is P2 kind of ridiculous at this point?
Click to expand...
AVC-Intra gives full 1920x1080 @ 24p on P2. Why would P2 be "ridiculous" when it's the most-reliable, highest-quality recording media available?

There are no large-sensor (as in, 35mm cine-sized) video cameras on the market or announced, other than the $350,000 F35. The Red One is the closest digi-cine large-sensor camera, and it's $22k for a minimally-operational shooting package. Scarlet, when it exists, will be more like $10k for a cine-sized frame.

Which is why everyone is putting up with the ridiculous limitations of DSLRs -- it's the only way to get the large-sensor dynamics at a low cost point.

Conventional video cameras do tons of things the SLRs don't, but conventional video cameras don't have that large-sensor shallow-DOF look.
 
If i had a film shoot, id use both dslr and hvx200 theyre both in the same sharpness range.. well thats my opinion. may differ from person to person...
 
Ugh.. I just have this feeling the hvx200a/hpx170 is reaching its time frame end of the line. I don't know if I want to invest in another one of those now. I've never been a fan of P2 even though I am a fan of the Panasonic film look - but they never delivered it fully how I wanted it. I have always thought P2 was ridiculously overpriced... even the new cheaper e series cards. Neither of them do correct 1920 x 1080 24p native ... and I think the dvcpro codec is old and needs to be ditched / reworked for modern workflow... the scaling and weird legacy low res resize scaling in it bugs me and I see it clearly. Red is out of my reach right now... scarlet doesn't exist....
Maybe one of the avchd cams or intra is the answer.

And to me, the GH1 24p looks a hell of alot sharper than the hvx200 in 1080 mode.
 
Last edited:
Why would the DVCPRO-HD codec need to be "ditched" and "reworked" for modern workflow? It works natively in every editor out there, at realtime speeds. Is it that you prefer the modern workflow of having to transcode files and strip out pulldown and have endless hassles? DVCPRO-HD is accepted by DiscoveryHD for unlimited acquisition, editing, and mastering. It isn't the latest codec, but it's a **** sight better than MPEG-2 or h.264 long-GoP.

GH1 "looks" a lot sharper than an HVX200 in 1080 mode, but it isn't. It's all smoke and mirrors. You're seeing the effects of the aliasing. Try shooting some tiny 4-point text and you'll see that it's no more legible on the GH1 than it is on the HVX -- or if it is, it's only barely.

But still, P2 supports AVC-Intra, a codec that is superior in every imaginable way to anything else out there in a camcorder. P2's doing just fine. It just isn't the product for you.
 
P2 and DVCPROHD are completely different things. One is a medium, another is a codec. Seeing how the EX now can accept SDHC and MemoryStick, and how new Canon 422 camera will record to -- I hope -- something cheaper than P2 or SxS, Panasonic may want to entertain the idea of enabling DVCPROHD on cheaper media like Class 10 SDHC cards, which are technically a bit slow for 100 Mbit/s, but in reality card manufacturers always provide quite a lot of headroom. Maybe Panasonic will come with faster SDHC cards?

After all, AVC-Intra is all the rage now, so DVCPROHD can be "consumerized".
 
I'm happy with the panasonic cameras, but a lot of us are wondering if the DSLRs blow up nicely on a theater screen. A buddy of mine ditched his 7D and is shooting HPX + EX1 footage for something intended for the big screen. He made this decision based on what he 'heard' about the 7D, and more specifically because its such a new editing workflow he didn't want to deal with the headache.

I guess the bottom line is he's trusting his content to the tried and true devices, as opposed to the newer and not necissarily *pro* cameras.
 
I can't believe your buddy would make important shooting decisions on which format and camera to use for his/her film based upon "what he/she heard" about the 7D. Amazing.

I recall that many filmmakers used to do these things called tests. Shoot some test footage, take it through their entire post pipeline and project it. It is the only way to know how anything is going to work for sure. The workflow for the 7D and 5D MKII are a bit more convoluted than shooting the HPX but it is typically very workable for a feature because you typically don't need to shoot a gazillion hours of footage per day unless you don't know how to direct. Shoot the footage each day, batch render overnight. Not a big deal.

FWIW, if it were me, I would use the HPX over the 7D for a feature in a heartbeat but your friend really shortchanged him/her self by not finding their own way. With some care, and hassle, the 7D is capable of stunning footage and a look that might or might not have suited his/her project better.

Dan
 
What I meant Barry about not liking the dvcpro is because it does not really handle 1920 x 1080. It does lower res resizing that I don't like. I know what you are saying and all the arguments about the GH1 24p just looking sharper but it not actually having the res, and I hate the workflow on it too.. that's why I am posting this post.. just to see if anyone has scoops on a next gen camera that's gonna do what we all want.

Also... even though the GH1 might be 'making up' resolution.. call it what you will.. audiences won't know that... I projected it on a huge screen and it looked better to me than the hvx200a projected, which was my prior favorite for getting a 'film look' out of a video camera. Of course, the scenes were carefully composed to avoid any of the dreaded GH1 codec problems.

Just scoping out, because a friend is coming on board who wants to get a camera....to help with a few projects and I'm not sure which way to go.. we were going to get a HVX170 but now I'm just not so sure. I hate lens adapters too.

Also, as to the 'projection' argument - apparently Lucas was in love with the 7D projected at his ranch, and ordered a slew of them for some project. I guess so he could mount them and just blow them up and still use the footage. Philip Bloom has a whole blog about it and a video that everyone praises:

http://vimeo.com/8100091

I dled the 1080p file and while the shots and composition ARE beautiful.. I think a lot of it is very soft/mushy in the wides..... but.. some like that.



It's weird.. the 7D has a softer image.... the GH1 def looks sharper / more detailed projected.... but the 7D has this 'solidness' to the image that the GH1 sometimes lacks........ the more robust codec and I think less jello in 1080p, and real 108024p no annoying 60i wrapper and I think that is a huge thing.... all cameras need to move in that direction.

The GH1 and 7D need to have sex and have the ultimate DSLR love child.
 
Last edited:
I work in the commercial, documentary, news field. I bought my second camera, a HPX171, almost a year ago. I had the same doubts about going Sony, GH1... And this is my experience:

1) Yes. 1080 in the HPX171 is not supersharp and we all know why
2) P2 are expensive and I wish I could use cheap SD memory

But then again, I have never regreted having purchased a P2 / DVCProHD combo despite the new DSLR's blow its image quality out of the water, or despite claims of the upcoming scarlett being amazing.

The truth is this camera does what I need in a tried and trusted way. DVCProHD is a very solid and convenient codec to work with, P2 work, and the image quality is very very good for the price. You film something and it looks nice, even if it is not the sharpests of footage. The camera is rock solid, and you can even work alone as it is quite simple and small, yet powerful.

I could sit all day watching Vimeo videos with guys using slow motion + letus + sad music clips, or guys showing off the shallow DOF of their cheap DSLR. Videos of people believing they soon will be filming the next big hollywood film.

The truth is my panny will give them all a run for their money on operational effectivity and flexibility, the quality/time ratio which is essential in my business.

And I can tell you that most of my footage is miles better than many of the reality shows you can see on TV, so broadcast quality is certainly there.

So please. Stop your pixel counting and sharpness analysis, as at the end of the day the only thing that counts is being cost effective at what you do.

If you do commercials, go 35MM. If you do the odd indie film, rent a Red One. If you are, like me, a mercenary and journalist... go for any camera you want. The key is the story.

PS) Of course if I could choose I would choose a small handheld camera with true 4K, cheap SD storage, interchangeable lenses and a perfect codec that runs in real time from a single SATA drive.
 
I am really an actor / writer / director... who fell into doing video and sound work as I bought equipment to do my own projects and then started getting hired on others. I agree that for a 'business' model the hpx170 is better... but I am always after that true elusive film work in the things I am working on personally, yet acting is hit and miss pay wise so I make money doing production as I bounce around the acting world. I am talent & tech. I enjoy the talent side more, but I like the tech as well. I like crafting a movie. Most industrial clients wouldn't even notice the difference of what we are talking about, but I do.
 
THANK YOU, Lowfour!!!
lowfour said:
So please. Stop your pixel counting and sharpness analysis, as at the end of the day the only thing that counts is being cost effective at what you do.

... If you are, like me, a mercenary and journalist... go for any camera you want. The key is the story.
Click to expand...
This is the best quote i've seen on any of these dv/camera forums and just what I needed to read to make up my mind. I'm in the market for a new camera thanks to a grant I've applied for and am so sick of reading all of these "our new toy is better than your old tool but the carrot on the stick RED keeps dangling is going to blow everything away so let's wait for that!" posts.

I get it: we're all artists and we all tend to fetishize our footage. STOP IT. Just write a good story and shoot it. Forget the gimicks already.

That's just my $.02 (cause I can't afford a RED camera, not even if I get this grant).
 
Yes, we all know that 'story' is key, and in about every other thread that comment comes up when people get into too much tech talk and a little too geeky - but we are on the dvxuser board, and if you can't talk tech here, where can you do it? You can shoot the best story you want on a vhs tape and it's not going to be released. Not now at least.. unless it's released on a news program and it's footage of you killing someone... but you're not getting a movie made with it that's going to be able to play anywhere. Yes.. there are examples that prove this wrong such as 'the blair witch project' and "paranormal activity" but these are one trick ponies that have to use the same gimmick of 'this footage is bad cause it's just us idiots playing with cameras in what really happened"

Some people also shoot landscape and nature film / video and specifically do want higher image count every last pixel. So call them pixel peepers if you will, that is what they are searching for - sharp high detailed resolution, and it is important to them. Monitors are only increasing in size, and resolutions on streaming playback as well. While it's till new, soon 1080p will be the norm on youtube and anything less will be considered off or blurry, especially when full screening to 4k monitors.
What was once accepted as ok for viewing on youtube... 320 x 240, now looks like a thumbnail on people with computer systems bought in the last year.

I'll have to take a closer look at the avc-intra cameras... do they use the same chips the hpx170 uses.. hence the resolution limitations or are they using different chips to resolve true 1920 x 1080. Have you done your res chart tests on them Barry? Do they do native 1080 24p or still incased in 60i?

Yes, google is my friend, I shall go look, just wondering from any of you using them already. What's the entry point price? Then of course you need the dreaded lens adapter that adds $2000 to the cost... will they mix with gh1 footage?
 
Last edited:
Blackout,

DVC Pro HD is a great codec for nature landscape since it isn't a long gop compressed codec. The HPX might not be the camera to do nature - landscape do to lens length and 1/3" chips, but given those limitations, it does just fine. Having said that, the HPX is a real workhorse in its class; think large swiss army knife. It might not have some things you crave like the ultimate resolution, but for an everyday cam which will go out and get the job done at a price point, it is a great cam. Even if Panny upgrades it, the HPX would still be a go to cam for a long time.

How many folks make a living at nature video? If you do, you can probably afford more camera than an HPX.

I used to sweat all the little detail crap like you are now. In the big picture, just buy solid gear and go get the job done. If you need more resolution than the HPX can deliver, there are plenty of cams that can do that, for more money. But for example, if you bought an EX1 for more money, you'll get more resolution no question. And you'll get a long gop codec to go with it.

Regards,
Grant
 
Blackout said:
I'll have to take a closer look at the avc-intra cameras... do they use the same chips the hpx170 uses.. hence the resolution limitations or are they using different chips to resolve true 1920 x 1080. Have you done your res chart tests on them Barry?
Click to expand...
The HPX300 uses 1920x1080 chips recording to AVC-Intra. It is very very sharp.

The HMC40 uses 3-megapixel chips recording to AVCHD in full 1920x1080. It is also extremely sharp, in bright light.

Do they do native 1080 24p or still incased in 60i?
Click to expand...
No, both models record native 1080/24pN.
 
HVX200 still gets it done in my book. Easy to match up to HVX200 footage to my 7D in post. And as for wide shots. Using the HVX200 eliminates the worry of aliasing. DSLR close up to medium and HVX200 wide and wild. Great match up if you already have 1. I came close to selling it and now I'm glad I didn't. Stock HVX200 is awesome!
 
Last edited:
I have always thought P2 was ridiculously overpriced... even the new cheaper e series cards. Neither of them do correct 1920 x 1080 24p native ...
Click to expand...

as far as i know P2 is just a storage medium and has nothing to do with image resolution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top