That's the shallow depth of field talking. In every other respect (in well-lit situations), the 200/170 and above completely kill the image quality of the HDSLRs.
What's the next gen HVX200 / HPX170?
- Thread starter Blackout
- Start date
That's the shallow depth of field talking. In every other respect (in well-lit situations), the 200/170 and above completely kill the image quality of the HDSLRs.
You're correct. P2 stores whatever the camera is recording. The AVC-Intra format can support 1920x1080, and the camera (e.g., HPX300) will store the data on a P2 card.
DelRio
Well-known member
sooooo What's the next gen HVX200 / HPX170?
the next gen HVX is going to be announced at the upcoming NAB....
sike!
besides getting off topic and everybody getting all worked up and replying on a whole different topic(s), I think
there will not be a next gen soon enough for you to worry about it.
Additionally there are things that I want and need out of many products (not just my setup), however if I cant afford it i cant have it. It is my job to do what i can to afford it and acquire it. Complaining about what something cost vs what it does is a gripe to the manufactures, just as "what the next Gen HVX/HPX" is going to be. Unfortunately we are in an expensive industry if you didnt know that coming into it, there is your problem. Rent what you need till you can afford it for yourself, or until the next gen is released.
the next gen HVX is going to be announced at the upcoming NAB....
sike!
besides getting off topic and everybody getting all worked up and replying on a whole different topic(s), I think
there will not be a next gen soon enough for you to worry about it.
Additionally there are things that I want and need out of many products (not just my setup), however if I cant afford it i cant have it. It is my job to do what i can to afford it and acquire it. Complaining about what something cost vs what it does is a gripe to the manufactures, just as "what the next Gen HVX/HPX" is going to be. Unfortunately we are in an expensive industry if you didnt know that coming into it, there is your problem. Rent what you need till you can afford it for yourself, or until the next gen is released.
New HPX possibilities
New HPX possibilities
The next logical step for Panasonic is to put AVC-Intra or AVC-Ultra into an hpx170 sized body. They definitely have the technology to put AVC-Intra in there now. The only other thing that I can think of, that would make this new HPX170/AVC-Intra the perfect camera, would be PAL/NTSC switchable. Panasonic must have a plan to compete with the new Scarlet, near the same price point.
New HPX possibilities
The next logical step for Panasonic is to put AVC-Intra or AVC-Ultra into an hpx170 sized body. They definitely have the technology to put AVC-Intra in there now. The only other thing that I can think of, that would make this new HPX170/AVC-Intra the perfect camera, would be PAL/NTSC switchable. Panasonic must have a plan to compete with the new Scarlet, near the same price point.
Completely agree. That's what I'd like to see at NAB- AVC-Intra in a 170. But seems like they'll have to switch to 1/3" CMOS for that to be worth it, yes?
I hope they have a plan to introduce a micro 4/3 chip in an HPX170-sized body, too, but my gut says the bigger manufacturers will wait until next year for that, after Scarlet is released.
From my understanding, there are technical issues putting AVC-Intra into the 170/150 form factor.
170 and 150 use spatial offset chips; 300 does not.
And how would handle the CMOS rolling shutter issues?
The battery to power AVC-I codec along with 3 CCD chips would be half the camera size? ;-)
10-bit encoding, perhaps?
With Canon about to release a 422 MPEG-2 camera I would not be surprised if Panasonic releases long-GOP 422 AVC codec with 35 or 50 Mbit/s, which would be more economical than AVC-I 100, having better quality than MPEG-2. 100 Mbit/s is too fast for Class 10 cards, so Panasonic will want something with lower bitrate. But this is just my uninformed opinion.
AVC-I has more pixels (except AVC-I 50 in 720; that's the same). Plus, as mentioned, the bit depth.
I consider DVCPRO HD better-quality than AVC-I 50 (among other things, the AVC-I 50 4:2:0 color is apparent vs. 4:2:2), but you can record twice as much AVC-I 50 for the same card space.
But AVC-I 100 leaves it in the dust . . . especially given that there's never any over-60 or over-50 and has the same recording times as the DVCPRO HD 720 Native modes, even at 1920x1080 resolution. AVC-I 100 is the real deal.
Unless the HPX-XXX delivers more pixels than the HPX-170, it wouldn't mean much right?
Grant
It's a better codec (AVC-I 100), for the reasons stated -- bit depth, record time, overall quality.
But why would you assume it wouldn't "deliver more pixels"?
signs of replacement coming soon?
David,
Maybe we are parsing the same issue. I assume the HPX delivers as many pixels as its got to the codec which is presently DCVproHD. Can a change in codec to Intra deliver more pixels from the same imager? Correct me if I don't understand this right. As you say, there may be other reasons to make the change.
Best Regards,
Grant
Maybe we are parsing the same issue. I assume the HPX delivers as many pixels as its got to the codec which is presently DCVproHD. Can a change in codec to Intra deliver more pixels from the same imager? Correct me if I don't understand this right. As you say, there may be other reasons to make the change.
Best Regards,
Grant
Well, any 170 form-factor camera which implemented AVC-I almost certainly would not use the same imagers as the 170, but I can say definitively that AVC-I 100 does produce a better image than DVCPRO HD when coming from the same chips.
Is there any reason why AVC Intra couldn't be derived from spatially offset chips?
And would AVC Intra 100 from spatially offset chips produce a better image the DVCProHD from the same chips?
And would AVC Intra 100 from spatially offset chips produce a better image the DVCProHD from the same chips?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Of course there's no reason that you couldn't record 170 footage with AVC-Intra. That technology is used in the HPX2000 and HPX2700.
I think the only issue here is that the 1/3" spatial-offset chips don't have quite enough "oomph" to fully saturate the AVC-Intra100 frame with detail, and therefore the potential gains from going to Intra over DVCPRO-HD are minimized.
Yes, unquestionably AVC-Intra100 (from spatially offset chips) would produce a better image than DVCPRO-HD from those same chips. If nothing else, you'd be getting 10-bit recording and cleaner/more-advanced compression. But if we're talking about the 1/3" chipset, you're probably not going to see much more luminance detail. Maybe a little bit, but not a lot.
I think the only issue here is that the 1/3" spatial-offset chips don't have quite enough "oomph" to fully saturate the AVC-Intra100 frame with detail, and therefore the potential gains from going to Intra over DVCPRO-HD are minimized.
Yes, unquestionably AVC-Intra100 (from spatially offset chips) would produce a better image than DVCPRO-HD from those same chips. If nothing else, you'd be getting 10-bit recording and cleaner/more-advanced compression. But if we're talking about the 1/3" chipset, you're probably not going to see much more luminance detail. Maybe a little bit, but not a lot.