Hi all,

I am not familiar with shooting in HD at all. I haven't had to be. All I shoot is mainly news in SD which is captured (or transferred from a Firestore) into a Mac Laptop, edited, compressed, and sent to the network via FTP.

But a recent write-off of the camera means I am considering all that are available to replace my trusty DSR-570.

The only thing I can find suitable is a Panasonic HPX-502. Suitable, I say, because it uses 2/3" chips to suit my lens and it is available immediately - unlike the sony XDCAM (which uses 1/2" chips anyway) or DSR-450 (2/3") cameras that have a 4-6 week wait.

I would, for probably the next 12 months if not more, be shooting on the P2 in SD. No need to shoot HD at all at this stage.

But among several other things, the issue I am dealing with in my head now, is whether or not my Fujinon SD lens is suitable for this camera. I hear all these horror stories about SD lenses causing all sorts of problems on HD cameras. But I ahve to ask: do these problems arise only when shooting in HD, or when shooting in SD on these cameras as well?

In other words, if the P2 is the only camera available to replace mine via insurance, and if my lens is unsuitable for this camera, should I therefore be demanding the insurance company replace my lens as well because it is, pretty much, obsolete? Would I have to accept my lens back if it doesn't suit available cameras, or is this just my problem and I would have to buy my own suitable lens?

But I guess my main question is this:

If I shoot SD with an SD lens on a HD camera, will I experience any problems? Can I do this successfully until I need to shoot in HD, and only then go and buy an HD lens?

I appreciate any advice. This changeover is indeed confusing in this transitional time of SD to HD. And, let's face it, I want to make sure the insurance gets the right gear for me.

Cheers,

David

Check the threads, there has been quite of bit of discussion about this. The general feeling is that decent SD lenses are not that much worse performers than HD ones, and so are suitable even for HD recording let alone SD. And on a camera like the 502, which doesn't have the highest resolution in the first place, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate. If you do side by side shots on something like a PDW700, HPX3000 etc. with tons of resolution then it does start to show some difference, but again only in side by sides.
I did tests on a Varicam with an old Canon J14 vs an HJ11 and I couldn't see any difference at all.
Also note that your 2/3" lens will work on the XDCams as there is an adapter available off the shelf.
Steve

Check the threads, there has been quite of bit of discussion about this. The general feeling is that decent SD lenses are not that much worse performers than HD ones, and so are suitable even for HD recording let alone SD. And on a camera like the 502, which doesn't have the highest resolution in the first place, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate. If you do side by side shots on something like a PDW700, HPX3000 etc. with tons of resolution then it does start to show some difference, but again only in side by sides.
I did tests on a Varicam with an old Canon J14 vs an HJ11 and I couldn't see any difference at all.
Also note that your 2/3" lens will work on the XDCams as there is an adapter available off the shelf.
SteveI was a little concerned to read "And on a camera like the 502, which doesn't have the highest resolution in the first place, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate."

I might be reading into it too much, but are you hinting at the 502 is pretty ordinary?

Would I be correct in assuming that the 502 is going to present me with superior quality SD pictures to the DSR-570?

And I understand the XDCAM with 1/2" chips can be adapted to 2/3" lenses, but I had heard this would affect the images/DOF in a negative way.

Also, the XDCAM cameras aren't available for 6 to 8 weeks.

Cheers,

David

I was a little concerned to read "And on a camera like the 502, which doesn't have the highest resolution in the first place, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate."

I might be reading into it too much, but are you hinting at the 502 is pretty ordinary?


This is a touchy subject. Proceed with caution!

The going theory is that the HPX-500 can operate well with an SD lens because the imaging chips pixel shift the image after the optical path.

So input with an SD lens will still take advatage of the imaging sensors, then the processing achieves HD resolutions.

About the DSR-570, the main image difference would be the HPX-500 would record 4:2:2 color while the DSR-570 would be recording 4:1:1.

I might be reading into it too much, but are you hinting at the 502 is pretty ordinary?
By and large, you get what you pay for. In the Panasonic range, the HPX500 costs far less than a HPX3000, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise to find it isn't as good as a HPX3000. That applies not just to picture quality, but ability to take radio mic receivers, ability to set double zebras (as with a DSR570), input/output capabilities etc etc.
Would I be correct in assuming that the 502 is going to present me with superior quality SD pictures to the DSR-570?
No, worse. That's the trouble with taking an HD camera and using it to produce SD. Unless you spend a lot of money on the downconvertor (probably more than the entire cost of the HPX500) the fine HD detail won't get filtered off, but will instead produce aliasing.

Far and away the best review of the camera I've seen done was by the BBCs R&D labs, available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034_ADD26-Panasonic-HPX5003.pdf . That also gives suggested settings if you do go for this camera.

Maybe of most interest to you is the image on the last page, Figure 5. Basically, circles centred on the bottom left corner are genuine resolution, anything with a centre elsewhere is an alias, to be considered a *bad thing*! The reviewer sums the SD performance up with "While not up to the standard of a genuine SDTV camera, these images are not as bad as they might be."

In terms of what I said previously about the HPX3000, that gets the same treatment at http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034_ADD27-Panasonic-HPX30002.pdf . Astonishing the difference 1920x1080 chips make, isn't it!? As I said before, you tend to get what you pay for.
About the DSR-570, the main image difference would be the HPX-500 would record 4:2:2 color while the DSR-570 would be recording 4:1:1.
Not so, Tim. Australia is PAL for SD, and a DSR570 therefore is 4:2:0. The only PAL 4:1:1 system is DVCPro - DVCAM and DV are both 4:2:0. In practice, David would have the option to record DV and DVCPro at 25Mbs in camera, and I'd recommend the former, to get 4:2:0 rather than 4:1:1.

Have you investigated a secondhand DSR570 at all, David? To tide you through until you actually NEED HD?

Sorry if I was incorrect.

I thought DVCAM was a standard that did not involve color space differences.

Yes, David, the HPX500/502 has pretty low res chips (something like 600,000 pixels I think) as opposed to 2.2 million for the top end cameras like the HPX3000, and the XDCam PDW700. The XDCam F355 has about 1.7 million I believe, so it's quite a jump, and certainly the HPX500 I used once looked fairly softish, though the look of the image re colour etc. looked very nice - full of good features too.
As for 2/3" lenses on the 1/2" cameras, there's not much effect really, I suppose you get more DoF at the same aperture/magnification, but you can always put in NDs and use a wider aperture.
Steve

As for 2/3" lenses on the 1/2" cameras, there's not much effect really, I suppose you get more DoF at the same aperture/magnification, but you can always put in NDs and use a wider aperture.
If there is one big difference, it's in angle of view. Angle of view depends on focal length and size of chip, use a 2/3" lens on a 1/2" camera and there will inevitably be a magnification effect. Since the normal complaint is that lenses don't zoom wide enough rather than tight enough, this is normally reckoned to be a bad thing. Your wide angle zoom becomes a standard.

So wait you really think the hpx 500 will look better than a dsr 570 on SD broadcast.
Say converted through final cut, or say shot originally in camera in SD mode?

That's not cool at all considering 90% of the final output (for most of us here) is SD one way or another. I kinda thought the hpx 500 would school the dsr especially since I have some DSR's and am not thrilled with the final output.

"write off" so what happened to it? if you don't mind me asking.

If looking for a second hand get a dsr-500ws might be a little cheaper. (look for the fire wire though)

Ok, so to outline my problem:

The insurance company has to replace my DSR-570 with a new camera, something of similar value to what I had. I have a 2/3" lens.

The options:

Sony XDCAM 335 or maybe 350 (1/2") - availability 6 weeks
Sony DSR-450 (2/3") - availability 6 weeks

Panasonic HPX-502 (2/3") - availability now

I would like to see this insurance situation being used to my advantage to future-proof myself somewhat, but the information here is making me think perhaps the P2 is not the way to go.

Is anyone here actually shooting on a HPX 500/502 in SD? Are the pics acceptable for news gathering? Is there any difference between the said 502 and the 500 you guys are talking about here?

500 is ntsc 502 is pal other than that their the same thing. The chips from the sdx-900 where used as the base for the hpx 500 chips. So if you think the very popular sdx-900 is good then the hpx 500 will be great.

Remember P2 is an expensive pain, but it is very fast.

I'd like to know what people think about the SD image quality between the sony and the pana.

Ok, so to outline my problem:

The insurance company has to replace my DSR-570 with a new camera, something of similar value to what I had. I have a 2/3" lens.
Hmmm. So it has to be new? Be easier if they just said "get another DSR570, same as was destroyed"!

One other suggestion. How would you feel about using your own money to get a secondhand DSR500/570 (which should only be a couple of thousand £s without a lens), and using the insurance money to get a smaller camera? An EX3/EX1/Z7, depending how much they'll pay?

That gives you high-def capability, a small camera for when that's useful, and a good second camera, still of use when you have to upgrade your main equipment to HD.

The big advantage of the 502 is it's available now, but if my main client was on XDCAM, and intending to get PDW700s, I'm not sure I'd feel going P2 a good idea.
I kinda thought the hpx 500 would school the dsr especially since I have some DSR's and am not thrilled with the final output.
The HD output from the HPX500 is one thing, the SD downconverted output another. (Same with all HD cameras.) If you want really good SD you need a good SD camera, or pay for a conversion done with a broadcast convertor. That said, the SD from a 502 or a Sony 350 will be quite adequate the majority of the time, it just won't be as good as from a dedicated SD camera.

so your saying if I should get some old dsr 500's for my fly pack instead of paying out of my nose for an all hd sdi system based around hpx 500's, because it will look better to the viewer at home!

At that rate I might as well keep getting dsr 300's for 2k with lens. Could have a six camera system under 25 k!!

This stuff just drives me nuts! Well back to the original question? how would the hpx 500 do in SD mode. I've heard it's supposed to be super clean, noiseless image in SD.

The HPX-500 shoots DVCPRO or DVCPRO50 which is SD and 4:3/16:9 switchable.

Why couldn't you run the camera in one of these modes to get SD?

I would think these modes would look great and compare to or better the DSR-570

The HPX-500 shoots DVCPRO or DVCPRO50 which is SD and 4:3/16:9 switchable.

Why couldn't you run the camera in one of these modes to get SD?
Absolutely no reason at all, but the camera is still downconverting internally to get these modes and as such they won't be as good as a good SD only camera in the first place.

In the PAL world the choice is DV, DVCPro, or DVCPro50 and there is little point in using DVCPro. Like DV, it's 25Mbs, but it's 4:1:1 whereas (in PAL) DV is 4:2:0.
I would think these modes would look great and compare to or better the DSR-570
Well back to the original question? how would the hpx 500 do in SD mode. I've heard it's supposed to be super clean, noiseless image in SD.
I can only refer you both back to the BBC R&D link I posted earlier - http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP034_ADD26-Panasonic-HPX5003.pdf and in particular the last page, giving the zone plate results in 576i downconvert mode. I wouldn't expect a DSR570 to give anywhere near that level of horizontal aliasing. That's not a criticism of the 500 in itself, just that HD cameras don't generate the best SD images.

Read the conclusions regarding SD in that test:
"While not up to the standard of a genuine SDTV camera, these images are not as bad as they might be."
and
"Down-conversion to 720p is surprisingly good, but the SD pictures at 576i were rather soft"

This is a bit surpising to me.

When you mention downconvert mode, I think of external software.

I would have thought since the imaging sensors were closer to SD resolutions that they could pull an actual SD image from them rather than pull it through the HD-SD up and down cycle.

Even though all information on these forums is certainly appreciated, I will really have to have a look at one with an SD lens on it to see how it goes.

And then there are those who actually use the camera with an SD lens:

I asked a colleague with 20 years experience in news who owns a 502 with an SD lens, about his camera setup and he says he LOVES it and says the SD lens in HD mode is fine. No complaints with the camera's pics in SD mode, either. Perfect camera and pictures for news, he says, and he is very particular - everything has to be perfect, so he wouldn't keep the cam if it was crap. He said that, if you put it side-by-side with a PDW-700 XDCAM, you would be able to see the difference, but that difference, in his opinion, was not enough to warrant the price difference to him.

I guess the proof is in the pudding - not the on-paper specifications.

This is a bit surpising to me.

When you mention downconvert mode, I think of external software.

I would have thought since the imaging sensors were closer to SD resolutions that they could pull an actual SD image from them rather than pull it through the HD-SD up and down cycle.
My understanding is that although the sensors are 960x540, all the image processing happens in a 1920x1080 matrix, frame by frame, and that's how the pixel-shift magic does it's trick as well. In fact, that's why the sensors are 960x540 - having them half of the full raster processing matrix makes for easier processing. You don't get full raster resolution - rather about 1200x650 for luminance, but that makes for pretty good 720p pictures.

All the other modes are then derived via scaling from this. Horizontal scaling gives DVCProHD (1280x1080), and H&V scaling gives 720p and 576i (in 50 Hz countries). The 720p conversion is reckoned to be pretty clean, as the chips and processing don't give much detail above the 720 resolution - there's nothing to give rise to aliases!

Forming the SD output is different, because there is detail between about 1200 and 720 horizontally, and about 650 and 576 vertically - that's what makes it an HD camera! And that's what gives rise to the aliases that can be seen in the 576i zone plate image.

I guess the proof is in the pudding - not the on-paper specifications.
Most definately, but I'd define the eating of the pudding as the end to end chain - camera via transmitter etc to viewer - whereas the direct camera output is a bit like the uncooked mix!

In the early days of ENG (Ikegami 79s and early U-matic) cameras were lined up simply according to their direct output. The better the camera output looked, the better the final result, obviously? As it turned out, no. Cameramen were seeing their pictures transmitted, didn't think they looked good, and would come to get the camera checked, only to find it was fine - so what was going on? Eventually it dawned that the optimum amount of aperture correction for straight out of the camera viewing was causing "ringing" in some of the U-matic electronics. A white-black edge would cause "rippling" after it, and this was the cause of most of the problems.

The cure was pretty easy. The output was recorded, and the aperture correction slowly turned up whilst recording a commentary on the audio track what it was set to. Then playback, look for optimum quality, note the setting from the commentary, and leave the camera set to that.

Of course, what then happened was a lot of cameramen were complaining that their camera then looked soft, which on the direct output and in the viewfinder it indeed did. Eventually, it got accepted that it was a worthwhile price to pay for a better OVERALL result.

Roll on 25 years and digits, and the same principles hold true. Aliases may be hardly visible on a direct output, but can really screw up compression systems, especially broadcast ones which may be running at an absolute minimum bitrate. You can't tell what final output will look like from a simple viewing of the camera, that's why aliases are so dangerous.

None of this is to say the 500 is crap. Just to say that it's *SD* output won't be as good as from such as a DSR570. Same applies to pretty well any HD camera you're likely to try.

Thanks David,

I am wondering then:

Is it better for me to future-proof myself here taking advantage (so to speak) of the insurance claim by replacing the 570 with an HD cam but shooting in SD until we need to go HD? Will SD be THAT bad on an HD cam??? And we are talking NEWS here, not production.

Or am I better getting the 570 replaced with, say, a DSR-450 SD? The trouble is, SD Sony's are a long wait.

The thing is, that if I go to SD now, I will have to actually PAY for HD in, say, 18 months. God forbid!! :-)

Incidentally, I saw a colleague's story go to air tonight that was shot on a 502 in SD and sent via FTP to the network. Looked great!

Will SD be THAT bad on an HD cam??? And we are talking NEWS here, not production.
I don't think it's a case of "cor, look at THAT!" bad by any means. It's just that the best SD comes from an SD camera, but the general belief is that if a camera is capable of HD, it's SD output must be great - better than an SD camera. And that assumption is wrong.

What you do depends on how much money you have to spend, and where you see your career going in the next few years. If I was biased, I could make a very good case for any of the options, and a very good case against.

As far as the 500 goes, it's pluses are it's available now, low power consumption, no extra money from you (all off insurance), use existing lens, and it has an in-camera DV 25Mbs mode.

Against that, it's the bottom of the P2 HD range and lacks some features that you might have got to take for granted in a DSR570 - double zebras, radio mic integration etc - and it's a different system to that used by your main client. That may not matter too much to you at the moment, but what if in a couple of years time you start to work more closely with their operation? If they are going on to PDW700s, I also think it will look soft against them come the move to HD, especially as full 1080 displays are becoming more prevalent.

Is anyone here actually shooting on a HPX 500/502 in SD? Are the pics acceptable for news gathering? Is there any difference between the said 502 and the 500 you guys are talking about here?

I am. I do it every day. Looks wonderful.

I have 2x HPX500's, and use them mostly with Canon J 15x9.5 SD, external focus lenses. The lenses cost me $125 each. I literally use them everyday for shooting HD commercials for our Digital Signage Network. We have done extensive testing on this very subject. I think that you would be foolish to get anything less at this point. Most SD Cameras these days cost as much or more than the HD counterparts. Even the SDX900 I believe costs more than the HPX500. Many clients request HD footage now, because they'll be able to use it in the future. Typically I record everything in HD and render out to SD if I need to, which looks awesome. Go poke around in the hpx500 forum and I think you'll find many more answers there.

Kit

Yup as Kit said, a GOOD SD lens on the HPX works just fine.

Here is a comparison between my Canon J series SD lens and my Angeniuex HD lens,

HPX-500 SD vs HD lens comparison on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1244031)