So I've been thinking about the EX1 for some time now, but all this stuff has me having second thoughts.

I am looking for a drama production camera. So I'm between the EX with a letus a other stuff plus the insane workflow to get it to SD DVD and DVCAM. Or the a stock HPX 500 with deccent DOF from the 2/3 inch lens and great cinema colors (panasonic Mojo) and a cake workflow.

They'd proboably cost about the same once it's all said and done.

So I'm between the EX with a letus a other stuff plus the insane workflow to get it to SD DVD and DVCAM. Or the a stock HPX 500 with deccent DOF from the 2/3 inch lens and great cinema colors (panasonic Mojo) and a cake workflow.

It's as plain as day for you: HPX500. Why even consider the EX1?

I know EXACTLY why I'm now shooting with the EX1. My output is web, PowerPoint and DVD, and I can achieve a DigiBeta look with an EX1. Mostly talking heads between run & gun stuff.

You're shooting setups with rehearsal, blocking, lighting, a DoP, a crew, somebody to pull focus and somebody to wrangle cards. The whole workflow screams Panasonic.

I've only got experience of the HVX200, and the Cine modes are to die for. I almost switched from Z1 just for the progressive modes. If I were doing staged setups and had help, and I could give up my passion for tack sharp images, I'd go HVX and so your choice of the HPX follows that line. I'm thinking 'Mellow' images, sandalwood over pine (there goes the synesthesia), rock solid post, easy format to work with.

I'm curious... So what was it that attracts you to even _consider_ an EX1?

Sorry to contradict Matt but I'm assuming shallow DOF is very important for you? Based on your question.

On a 2/3rds you'd only get shallow depth of field with fast lenses (T1.3). So the choice of lens on a HPX would be the critical factor, most mid range zoom lenses aren't that fast and a set of 2/3rd primes are probably out of the question. (a 9mm canon prime at T1.5 is over £10k by itself)

T1.4 on 2/3rds is the same as T5.6 on 35mm which is the same as a theoretical T1.0 on the EX.

A letus on the other hand has 35mm DOF straight away.

So i don't think it's quite as easy as the HPX. If you can afford that plus either rent or buy the appropriate lenses then it would be a lot less fiddly then the letus that's for sure.

Also the HPX500 is 1080i or 720p, so probably 720p for your uses.

There are advantages to a 1080 frame in post, in terms of reframing and stablisation even if you deliver at 720p.

At the end of the day uou can shoot drama with either. But either solution involves compromises. So what are the most important aspects of a camera for you?

You could always just go and rent something for that production?

Or get an EX (this is an EX forum afterall) and use the extra budget for the letus on buying decent lighting and grip gear - you'd probably get a better overall result that way.

hth
paul

Sorry to contradict Matt but I'm assuming shallow DOF is very important for you? Based on your question.

No problem, Paul - I'm on a learning curve, not owning a Letus or equivalent and having been singed by an early experience.

In my defense (says he, rapidly getting on topic and feeling his cheeks blush), I'd say that the brush I have had with a 35mm adaptor, whilst giving breathtaking results, demonstrate that they are totally NOT run & gun, and probably not 'let's do a voxpop, no wait, let's grab that guy for a sit-down talking head' production, which is where I live. Maybe I'm biassed.

Come to think of it, 2/3" DigiBeta is my gold standard so I shouldn't comment on 35mm adaptor questions.

We are all set with light and sound and what not. With the HPX 500 I would probably just get the standard cheapo zoom lens and some ND's to feep it wide open.

The DOF would be half that of a 35mm adaptor, But I'm okay with that. Ive been shooting with 1/2 cameras for awhile now and can usally get some decent Bokeh.

Any way brevis and Letus are coming out with 2/3 inch adaptors soon.
With some ziess Nikon lens and that would be pretty Bad@$$.

My questions are mainly about workflow and image quality.
From my understanding on the panasonic you set the cinema gama and wamo!instant movie cam. While the EX is more of a tv camera that would need some post work to get the look one wants. (Magic Bullet)?

I was attracted to the EX because of it's blisteringly sharp image and that fact that expirenced DOP's can't tell the difference between it a $30 dollar xdcam.

The look we are going for is that proffesional comercial/advertisment/real look.

Evently we would get a 35mm adaptor for either camera.

I can't stand the current solid state workflow. Who wants to keep track of 4 or more cards that only hold the equivalent of one tape.

I would only just get two 32 gig cards and treat them like tapes. no onsite stuff.

I tested the EX1 with the Redrock, we got the camera the day before and had virtually no time to tweak settings on it. So this is virtually out of the box.

http://web.mac.com/chupap/Films/tablemanners.html

With the XDCAM transfer tool in Final Cut Pro, it was no effort at all to open up the clips, drop them straight onto a timeline and work with them immediately.

I do not agree that this is a "tv camera" any more than the F900 is a TV camera and while I have shot with the HVX and its big brothers also, I think they are very capable cameras that also can achieve a nice film look; not necessarily better, just different. I do think the added resolution of the EX1 over the HVX is worthwhile.

However it is a bit of a tough question comparing the EX1 to a HPX500, especially when you factor in the 35mm adaptor. Ultimately I think you can make stunning results with both. If depth of field is a major factor for you, the EX1 might be the way to go.

I'm with Charles.

And I think the EX-1 workflow is a breeze with Final Cut, for what it's worth.

B

I can't stand the current solid state workflow. Who wants to keep track of 4 or more cards that only hold the equivalent of one tape.

Thanks, man. Now I feel REAL old.

"Aye, when I were a lad, we 'ad to fill out our neg reports, changing film mags every 400 feet, and that were if you were lucky - bloody Arris with their piddly little 200 foot spools. And don't get me started about them cake headed Eclairs and their poofy 2 frame loop..."

Tape's nice, quick and simple. For the cameraman. Oh, so now you have to log and capture on site? Welcome to videography and the curse of the editor. :D

On Topic, I've noticed that Card Wrangler is soon to be a key position (any Hollywood films credit this yet?).

Matt - an editor who shoots

I hate logging tapes too, what we need is some kinda solid state card,About the size of a 1/2 a sandwich, that hold 100gigs.

Then there wouldn't be any complaints from me.

Wait you what would be even better If there was some kind of media that held 50 gigs and cost $50 dollars. Oh wait it already excists. I love the Xdcam worflow, but I just can't afford the cameras.

The EX1 is remarkably efficient on space.

A 16-gig card gives you 57 minutes of shooting time. The camera holds two cards so that's good for almost two hours.

On a nine-hour fishing shoot I haven't yet used all three cards. And even then I still have an 8-gig as a standby.

No need for a card wrangler, either. Not like the Panasonic. I have each card labeled numerically and start with card One. Sometimes half a day goes by before I'm ready to insert card Three. And when I get back, I transfer the three cards into the archive and that's that.

On the other hand, with the Panasonic I have to swap out cards every eight minutes and carefully track what was shot, what was transferred to the P2 Store, and which one is ready to re-use. A grease pencil comes in handy for that but it doesn't take much to distract someone and lose track of what went where.

I am more worried about what the final image is going to look like on SD broadcast.

I've down-converted "on the fly" through a Decklink SP card and it looks just fine.

I also output via DVD and that looks good, too.

OK, I'm still iffy though (heard all the horror stories about EX1 sd downconverts)

I relate to you Andrew.

I was going to get the EX1 but then felt the camera fell short. I think it's probably a really good camera at doing many things but not great in any one area.

The HPX500 probably has better low light capabilities and the 2/3" chips will give your reasonably good dof (don't forget that using a dof adapter is NOT a trivial matter and while it will give you better dof than your native chip you also may have down time on the set due to technical problems)

See Steve Cahills' blog if you haven't already done so... http://web.mac.com/stevecahill/Steve_Cahills_Blog/Blog/Blog.html

I demoed the 500 and thought the look was a little 'softer' than the ex1. It still looked good, just a matter of taste. I like a shaper look.

I choose the ex1 mostly because of cost to image quality ratio and size. I do a fair amount of run and gun shooting.

When comparing the cost, don't overlook the bigger tripod, more expensive batteries, the charger, bigger carry bags and other accessories.

I wrangled cards for myself on a wedding shoot where I recorded well over three hours of footage on a 16 gig and an 8 gig card (in a 5 hour period). I was always able to find a second to plug one card into the laptop, then resume shooting on the second. Even the 8 had enough capacity to get me to a break point where I could deal with the cards - From what I've heard, the P2 cards get a LOT less time per card, so wrangling your own becomes trickier (doesn't the HPX 500 have a bunch of card slots, though, unlike the HVX200, so you can load more capacity at a time). The EX1 can take a 2 hour load with 2 16 gig cards... One issue with any of these cameras is that they'll eat just about any laptop's internal hard drive REALLY fast (the EX1 was responsible for 43 gigs in one evening at the wedding I just shot, and aren't the Panasonics about three times as disk hungry?) I'd count on external drives on set...

-Dan

regarding card capacities, i havent met many people who shoot more than 720p on the HVX (besides myself but i do a lot of greenscreens), so at that setting, the EX1 and HVX record times per card at the same capacity are pretty similar. 40min/16gb HVX, and a bit more for the EX1. of course keep in mind the HVX is recording about 700k pixels and the EX1 is recording about 2MP. if you prefer a sharper look, however, HVX/HPX's 500k pixel CCDs might be a tough sell over the EX1's 2MP CMOSes.

The XDCam EX format is surprisingly efficient.

It provides more recording time per gigabyte than DVCPro50. Yet it's robust enough to capture a lot of changing detail in a larger frame without falling apart.

Still, it means having a lot of HDD capacity instead of tapes.

I shoot everything in 1080p30, even with the HVX. So the difference in the amount of disk space required between the two cameras is dramatic.

We are all set with light and sound and what not. With the HPX 500 I would probably just get the standard cheapo zoom lens and some ND's to feep it wide open.

The DOF would be half that of a 35mm adaptor, But I'm okay with that. Ive been shooting with 1/2 cameras for awhile now and can usally get some decent Bokeh.

Any way brevis and Letus are coming out with 2/3 inch adaptors soon.
With some ziess Nikon lens and that would be pretty Bad@$$.

My questions are mainly about workflow and image quality.
From my understanding on the panasonic you set the cinema gama and wamo!instant movie cam. While the EX is more of a tv camera that would need some post work to get the look one wants. (Magic Bullet)?

I don't think it's anything like half (logarithmic for a start T1.4 on 2/3 is T5.6 as i said, that's no where near half) but if you're happy with 1/2in then 2/3 will only improve things. It's difficult to quantify everyones idea of shallow DOF.

As Matt quite rightly points out too i also find the 35mm adaptors a bit too cumbersome but they do seem a lot better than they used too and if you have the time to setup properly then they might be a good idea. I still find them like shooting through a window though and i don't know whether this is just operator choice but everyone seems to like wide open and 35mm just looks like the foreground is pasted ontop of a blurred background, too little DOF. If you stop down the lens to something more normal i don't know if there are problems with grain and dirt (it used to be the case but i think the current generation are much better).

I don't see the point of sticking a 35mm adaptor on a 2/3rds - i'd rather find faster lenses. Are those zeiss nikons okay for pulling focus on?

Anyway, the workflow on the EX has been faultless for me. And shooting drama you shouldn't be shooting too much each day. But i have a vaio laptop and can just take a card out dump it off and backup in two places.

Turn everything off (sharpening and whatnot) and i think the image looks like a SLR image, very useable with genuine 1080p resolution. Dynamic range is good, i've managed to get good skin tones outside and not blown the skies and it's very tweakable in camera.

cheers
paul

Well I'v see a whole lot of f900 with pro 35's. I just have the feeling that an HPX500 might make life easy, and then eventualy I'll make it complicated when I get a 35 adaptor. I could probably get away with one or two 32 gig cards.

But I don't want to give up on resolution and the CINE ALTA name. I bet you feel real special with that badge on your camera.

One of these days I'll have to rent them both and see what I like better.

By the time I buy a camera scarlet, and some new cameras from sony and pana will be out. Arrg.