HPX250: Wide shots, soft image

[Mac]

The first thing I did after buying the HPX500 was plop down another $2,500 for the 16x9 viewfinder, which made a huge difference in shooting, but of course no impact on picture quality. I shot a documentary over a 3 year period with the camera and was very pleased with the picture. And I also used the HPX200 for many shots where a smaller camera was preferable. The color and "feel" of the image of both cameras are very close to super16, which is my personal standard. In fact, when I look back at that footage I'm still impressed with the look.

However, in the 3 year interim, technology advanced at a geometric rate, and the image that I had been happy with was being regularly dissed on this and other forums. Unfortunately the producer (a filmmaker himself) at the presenting station I work with also reads these forums, and because he wants their national offerings to compete with HD seen elsewhere, is reluctant to push a feature length doc shot on what he considers to be a sub-standard camera/codec (especially since the subject matter, childhood sexual abuse, is also a hard sell).

This is a battle that is currently going on for me, and the reality is eye opening. Spending $27,000 (which is close to what I had invested in my 500 package) is no guarantee that what you invest in will be viable in 3-4 years. This makes long-schedule filmmaking a crap shoot.

I forgot to mention above that the doc I'm referring to started shooting in 2007 (when I bought the HPX500) and continued for three years.. then editing and film festivals took up another 1 1/2+, so the total time is actually nearer 5 years. Some projects, especially the ones I make, just take that long. I don't rent, provide production services or make short-term corporate videos, so I don't augment costs that way. That is why I'm currently using an HPX250 and shooting AVC-I (and an AF100 occasionally). If some new trend becomes fashionable in six months I can buy another $5000 camera - but no more 25K+ for a while.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

The next natural progression fr. 1080p is 4K. Varicam 4K looked promising at NAB 2012. But most people forget that a decent 4K capable lens costs about $92K (Fujinon PL 19-90mm Cabrio). This is a unique lens because it allows a detachable servo zoom motor. Shooter can switch fr ENG/EFP or Cinema mode almost instantly. Servo zoom is a huge feature for doc filmmaking. I can't imagine how one would not have it in a 1-man, fast-paced and ever changing condition. Alternatively, several Zeiss Master Primes will be similar in cost to the $92K Cabrio 19-90mm. By the time everything's purchased, it'll be $120-160K. This is just like the first generation Sony F900 1080i HD back in 1999-2000. Took HD almost a decade later to get it to reasonable prices (less than $5K).

I was very hesitant toward 720p and lucky didn't invest too much on it. Glad I skipped the 720p era. 1080p appears to be gaining traction. But that won't last long. On the other hand, I don't see any mass movement to broadcast in 4K. So I'm willing to risk that 1080p is a good intermediate format to produce in for the next 5 years at least. Within a decade where 4K is down to less than $20-40K total (lens & camera), I'll jump in the bandwagon.

 

[Mac]

Back to the theme of this thread...

It has been my habit with all Panasonic cameras since the DVX100 to bring the master pedestal down to -4 to -7 in order to get a clean black. In experimenting with the HPX250, it seems that holding it a 0, or even boosting it some, seems to help the apparent resolution on wide shots. Normally increasing the contrast tends to increase the eye's perception of sharpness, but in the case of this camera (I use CINE-D BTW) crunching the blacks seems to muddy things - I'm not comfortable boosting Detail, that just adds an edgy unattractive sharpness that looks like bad video.

 

[Dino]

The next natural progression fr. 1080p is 4K. Varicam 4K looked promising at NAB 2012. But most people forget that a decent 4K capable lens costs about $92K (Fujinon PL 19-90mm Cabrio). This is a unique lens because it allows a detachable servo zoom motor. Shooter can switch fr ENG/EFP or Cinema mode almost instantly. Servo zoom is a huge feature for doc filmmaking. I can't imagine how one would not have it in a 1-man, fast-paced and ever changing condition. Alternatively, several Zeiss Master Primes will be similar in cost to the $92K Cabrio 19-90mm. By the time everything's purchased, it'll be $120-160K. This is just like the first generation Sony F900 1080i HD back in 1999-2000. Took HD almost a decade later to get it to reasonable prices (less than $5K).

I agree with your observations about HPX500 vs. HPX2000, HPX500 is an HVX200 on steroids. HPX2000/2700/3000/3700 and I assume 3100 have a much better DSP, much better highlight handling, lower noise, better DR with Film-Rec gamma. Haven't used an HPX3100 or HPX600 yet.

The Fujinon Cabrio is around $37K, I believe, and not sure it's truly a 4K lens, edge to edge. The Arri/Fujinon Alura's are not 4K edge to edge. I think you need to go up to the Fujinon Premiere series 18-85mm for true 4K resolving power in a zoom, which sell in the $80K range.

I know DP's who own RED EPIC's who are selling them because they shoot most projects on Alexa's, so 1080P is alive and well and will be for some time for broadcast. "Skyfall" was shot 1080P on Alexa for theatrical, along with many other big budget feature films, where any 4K camera could have been be used.

 

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

I had the fortunate opportunity to try out the HPX2000, 3100 and HPX3700 for couple weeks to see the differences before deciding which cams fit best. The HPX3100 is subjectively a scaled down ver of the HPX 3700. Most TV broadcast shooters don't need 4:4:4 film workflow, 30 fps VFR, and 5-slot P2 card when 64 Gb cards are out. It's about $25K cheaper than the 3700 (after special discount) and has a much sharper LCOS display than the previous HPX2700, 3000, & 3700 series. In other words, just to get 4:4:4 one would have to pay $25-30K extra. Surprisingly, the HPX2000 still costs $26K and it's a 720p native camera. Most major networks still use 720p. Because of the 5-slot P2 & high quality DSP, Panasonic will not lower the price to match the 3100. The biggest selling point on the 3100 were the Film Rec gamma & optional on-board proxy recording on the 3100. This makes time sensitive, collaborative editing very efficient. I can simultaneously record the proxy video to the SD card (along w/ the P2) and hand it off to the editor on the same day. I think the new HPX600 will take the proxy recording idea to the next level and is certainly be welcomed for the TV news segment of the prod. community. Panasonic rep told me that all of their 2000-3000 series are using very high quality DSP circuits over any lower #'d models. They all have that similar big network look.

I've to check the Fujinon Cabrio price again. Last time I was told it was $85-90K range. May of have mistaken for their Premiere series w/ the optional servo zoom add-on.

 

[Mac]

It's too much dough for an independent documentary filmmaker.. For a DP shooting features it makes since - and in the days when I shot national TV spots I would have seriously considered one of these cameras, if they had existed, instead of regularly paying mega-bucks to rent a 35mm package.

For those of us in the docu-trenches, the Sony F5 is looking like the real contender. I will keep shooting with my HPX250 until that camera surfaces.

 

[whistler]

Well, I'd suggest that with used Red One MXs packages going for 9 grand, and Rokinon EF cine lenses running at 3 or so grand for a set, you can have a pretty capable 4k package for under $15K right now. Might not be as impressive as an Alexa with those Fujinons, but that's pretty cheap, and it could pump out some pretty impressive imagery.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

I agree with your observations about HPX500 vs. HPX2000, HPX500 is an HVX200 on steroids. HPX2000/2700/3000/3700 and I assume 3100 have a much better DSP, much better highlight handling, lower noise, better DR with Film-Rec gamma. Haven't used an HPX3100 or HPX600 yet.

Someone posted HPX600 clips over on DVInfo.net, but my account there is bugged up and the control panel is broken. Anyways, in examining the clips, I was surprised to find that the 600 actually looks very much like my 370 in almost every area except depth of field. It's still somewhat soft on the micro-detail level, still has noise running around in the shadows, and the lens they demoed had as much CA as the 370 kit lens. I can't say how the exposure would compare, but it's probably a bit more sensitive, just not what I would expect from a 2/3"er. In my opinion, the extra $7000 that would let you step up to a 3100 is a better idea.

The Fujinon Cabrio is around $37K, I believe, and not sure it's truly a 4K lens, edge to edge. The Arri/Fujinon Alura's are not 4K edge to edge. I think you need to go up to the Fujinon Premiere series 18-85mm for true 4K resolving power in a zoom, which sell in the $80K range.

The 19-90 Cabrio is listed as $38k on B&H and Abel. I think it's fair to say that comparing it with lenses from Angenieux, the price is fairly competitive considering the combination of focal length, aperture and size. As it is clearly a lens for hand-held use, absolute resolving power isn't likely an issue, the blur induced from micro-jitter of the camera being non-stable defeats the full potential of 4K.

I know DP's who own RED EPIC's who are selling them because they shoot most projects on Alexa's, so 1080P is alive and well and will be for some time for broadcast. "Skyfall" was shot 1080P on Alexa for theatrical, along with many other big budget feature films, where any 4K camera could have been be used.

Doesn't stop those movies from looking great. People on here constantly complain about the level of quality we see on our TV's and the web due to bandwidth constraints, but that's just the rub - if most of content distribution today is gaining ground in 720/1080p and even theatrical is mostly 2k around the world, then you should re-think your needs. RED users keep hammering on about "future-proof", but the future isn't going to wait and most people don't need to shoot RAW, they want same-day turnaround. If I had extra resolution to work with, I'd shoot wider and crop/reframe/stabilize the footage, and master in HD anyway.

I'm sure the people on here are aware, but don't mix camcorders and s35 film cameras such as the F5, they do cross paths in a number of potential uses, but are different enough that it matters. The F5 would need the Cabrio to be functionally comparable to say, a 3100, but you're still dealing with much less DoF, smaller zoom range, and the lens will cost more than the whole 3100 package. Every time I go to drool over on the F5/55 forum, I have to remind myself of the change in shooting technique that would come with it, unfortunately constant-aperture 30-550mm equivalent zooms have spoiled me.


Getting back to the topic, the lens on the 370 is also somewhat soft at wide-angle, though some people are having better luck using the 13x3.5 wide angle. Unfortunately, I don't have a resolution chart to make any objective statements with. I really do wonder if it's the lens, sensor, or processing that's behind this.