Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tim Pipher

HDX900 vs. HPX3000

Recommended Posts

I have a 3000 on loan for two more days, anyone have any ideas for loops to put it through?

 

1st generation picture quality is best I've seen in a EFP style camcorder.

But will wait to put the pictures through an edit to see how AVC I behaves.

 

After years of losing pixels and bit depth we are back on track. Next step less compression!

 

If the client likes P2 then you would be wise considering the highest quality HD camera you can afford, 3000 doesn't add that much to total kit package and you'll be taking the high ground with full res and 10bit recording.

If you need HDSDI out, time lapse 11x or +22x lenses, camera remotes in the near future then 2/3inch camera is the way to go now. In a years time depending on RED development the decison will be different as there is a 35mm size sensor camera on the way from Sony as well as more tricked out smaller cams.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

Try underexposing the 3000, and pushing the dynamic range. The camera is incredibly quiet, with a great range in AVC-I 100. Using the Film Rec mode (or Cine Rec, I forget what they call it in this implementation), I found around 11.5 stops of usable range. Very low noise floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of the networks saying which camera can be used or not used. They're not qualified to make those decisions. A camera is simply a hammer used to construct our projects. As the DP, I will decide which tool is the right one...

 

I'm not convinced that Discovery and National Geo ever made that statement. I wonder if this wasn't some "upsell" tactic of the Panny salesman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm so tired of the networks saying which camera can be used or not used. They're not qualified to make those decisions. A camera is simply a hammer used to construct our projects. As the DP, I will decide which tool is the right one,

 

So how are some network QC people going to say that the 500 is unacceptable? And in fact, how do they even know what a project was shot on when we deliver everything to them on D5 or HDCam tape? I'm not convinced that Discovery and National Geo ever made that statement. I wonder if this wasn't some "upsell" tactic of the Panny salesman.

 

Sorry about that last mystery post. Just learning this system...

Just wanted to say the comments about restrictions made by Nat Geo and Discovery are accurate. You may be right about your assessment of picture quality, but good luck fighting that battle with these clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The different networks all do very extensive testing of different equipment to decide what is up to their technical standards. I can tell you from personal experience that the Discovery Lab QC process is quite exhaustive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a 3000 on loan for two more days, anyone have any ideas for loops to put it through?

 

1st generation picture quality is best I've seen in a EFP style camcorder.

But will wait to put the pictures through an edit to see how AVC I behaves.

 

After years of losing pixels and bit depth we are back on track. Next step less compression!

 

If the client likes P2 then you would be wise considering the highest quality HD camera you can afford, 3000 doesn't add that much to total kit package and you'll be taking the high ground with full res and 10bit recording.

If you need HDSDI out, time lapse 11x or +22x lenses, camera remotes in the near future then 2/3inch camera is the way to go now. In a years time depending on RED development the decison will be different as there is a 35mm size sensor camera on the way from Sony as well as more tricked out smaller cams.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

 

Mike:

 

What's your over-all assessment of the 3000 now -- have you had a chance to put the footage through an edit yet?

 

On another forum, comments were made that the 3000 was noticeably sharper than the Sony F900r and Panasonic HPX2000, and "visually indistinguishable" from the Sony F23. Do you feel that's an accurate assessment?

 

Thanks,

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw in format comparision:

 

DVCPro HD - 4:2:2 8-bit (100 Mbps)

AVCIntra 50 - 4:2:0 10-bit (50 Mbps)

AVCIntra 100 - 4:2:2 10-bit (100 Mbps)

Edited by Andrew McCarrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Panasonic salesman today, though, recommends the HPX2000 for me. The most compelling argument he made was that national cable networks like Discovery and National Geographic won't accept programs produced on the HPX500.

 

Hi Tim,

 

You might want to show your Panny salesman this cut/paste from the latest National Geographic "NGC US and NGCI Approved List of HD Primary Cameras" You'll note that the 2000 is in the same boat as the 500.....it can be used, but the footage "would be considered part of the 10% non-HD allowance."

 

(begin cut/paste)

 

NGC US and NGCI Approved List of HD Primary Cameras

 

For 1080i Productions:

(Minimum of 2 million pixels)

 

Thompson Phantom v12

 

Red Camera

 

Sony HDW-F900R / F950

 

Sony F23

 

Sony HDW790 / 730S

 

Sony PDW700

 

Panasonic AJ-HPX3000 – (shoots 1080 only)

 

For 720p Productions:

(Minimum of 1 million pixels)

 

Panasonic Varicam AJ -HDC27FP

 

Panasonic Varicam AJ-HDX900

 

NGC Approved HD Secondary Cameras*

Sony EX1 – both 1080i and 720p

 

Panasonic AG-HPX500 – both 1080i and 720p

 

Panasonic AJ-HPX2000 – both 1080i and 720p

 

* Footage would be considered part of the 10% non-HD allowance

 

 

NGC Does Not Support*

Anything built on the DV or HDV platform

 

Sony HVRZ1U / Sony HVRV1U / Sony HVRZ7U

 

*Usage can be approved for exceptional circumstances. Must get prior written approval from Network Operations. Footage would be considered part of the 10% non-HD allowance.

 

(end cut/paste)

Edited by Brian Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Tim,

 

You might want to show your Panny salesman this cut/paste from the latest National Geographic "NGC US and NGCI Approved List of HD Primary Cameras" You'll note that the 2000 is in the same boat as the 500.....it can be used, but the footage "would be considered part of the 10% non-HD allowance."

 

 

Thanks Brian. Actually, I found a new salesman -- Jonathan Eppner from AbelCineTech in New York (referred by Mitch Gross through this forum) -- and went with the HPX3000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a little odd that NGC would accept footage from the Varicam (which is a 720 imager) but not the HPX2000 (another 720 imager)? I wonder what the logic there is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


  • Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    G-Force Grips



    Metropolis Post



    Rig Wheels Passport



    FJS International



    Visual Products



    Serious Gear



    CineLab



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Just Cinema Gear



    Tai Audio



    Wooden Camera



    Glidecam



    Ritter Battery



    Abel Cine



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Broadcast Solutions Inc


×
×
  • Create New...