It’s obvious that Panasonic wanted to price the HPX-300 close to Sony’s EX3 and I think 1/3” chips were the only way to achieve that goal. If they used bigger chips, they would have gotten some complaints that it cost to much more than the EX3. You cant please everybody and they took a gamble to keep the price low.

I think much mo9re likely they thought it would eat too much into Varicam territory. Me, cynical? Never!
Steve

I don't follow. If the EX3 uses less juice, it will have more available to power lights. It seems like the reverse of what you're saying.
I think what Christian is leaving unsaid is that the HPX300 MUST use expensive pro batteries (unlike the EX3), and as well as supplying the 18watts for the camera these have a lot in hand for accessories like lights.

The normal EX3 battery is much smaller and cheaper, ample for the 13.5watts of the camera, but not a lot more. The option does exist of using an adaptor on the EX3, and pro style batteries, when yes, even more power will be available for such as lights than the HPX300 would allow. At least the EX3 gives the choice.

Should have explained what I meant in more detail, but David is right. And us who do some work in cold weather the larger batteries should give us more time when the temp. drops well beyond zero. Pro battery system is an investment, the school where i study still use almost 10 year old Anton bauer packs without any problems. Still HPX300 at around 11000 USD with batteries and P2 cards ain't to bad...

I know EX1/3 can be used with pro batteries but EX1/3 with more weight isn't actually what I would like to use for long shoots handheld...the ergonomics is already a small disaster.

EX1/3 with more weight isn't actually what I would like to use for long shoots handheld...the ergonomics is already a small disaster.
I'll be the last to defend the ergonomics of the EX3 for hand-held work, but pro batteries can actually help. Although they increase the weight, they can be used to improve the balance with good mounting - shift the C of G backwards.

the school where i study still use almost 10 year old Anton bauer packs without any problems.

Not modern li-ion batteries though!

but pro batteries can actually help. Although they increase the weight, they can be used to improve the balance with good mounting

Totally agreed (from this rig right here). Not perfect by any stretch, but vastly improved. Actually I always find the modern shoulder mount cameras from Sony too front heavy. There isn't enough adjustment in the shoulder pad, sorry, shoulder carving board, for thinner people like myself.

What happened to gel shoulder pads anyway?

I'm actually very excited about this camera! South Florida has a lot of Panny users, so I'm hoping someone gets it so I can try it out.

Heath

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/provideo/brochures/AG-HPX300P_brochure.pdf

I just got back from a shoot in Norway. It was always below -20c and on several days it was -30c. My EX BPU-60 batteries still gave me 2 hours of operation, which is around 50% of normal.

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/business/provideo/brochures/AG-HPX300P_brochure.pdf



Learn about Panasonic's AG-HPX300 (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=329232&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AG-HPX300)

One downside I see from looking at the brochure is that the viewfinder is 0.45 inch!!! That's small! Viewfinders are a real sticking point with a lot of HD cameras (in fact they're all pretty crap, just some verge on the unuseable). This was the worst feature I found on the HPX500 I tried, and not too hot on the Sony F355.
Just trying to remember what the EX3 VF is, as that's reasonably OK.
Steve

Yea the viewfinder is small, however i didnt mind it all that much once i was using it. Its great that panasonic have finally gone to full 16x9 viewfinders/LCD in their HD cameras below the 2000. The new LCD technology is interesting and i did notice a few issues with it, some strange LCD flickering.. was probably a preproduction issue but i'd be interested in what Jan has to say on that issue.

It was also interesting to note that they didnt redesign the thumbnail menu and have just pillerboxed it the 16x9 frames. This was always an issue Jan brought up when people spoke about putting higher res/widescreen LCDs on the hand hand cameras, the fact that the menu was designed around a 4x3 frame.. Im so glad this camera has a widescreen LCD.

Its funny reading on 'the other forum' everyone saying "can we get this LCD on our 200 or 170?.. noone seems to have realised its a 16x9 screen.

I just got back from a shoot in Norway. It was always below -20c and on several days it was -30c. My EX BPU-60 batteries still gave me 2 hours of operation, which is around 50% of normal.
Just curious, where in Norway?

I'll guess HPX300 vs EX1 would be about the same in runtime on batteries, hpx more juice and larger bricks...EX1/3 less juice, smaller batteries.

It borders Sweden, Finland and Russia.
norway map - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=norway+map&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&ei=Tt-hSf-pCcH7tgeg64yfDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=image)

It’s one of those places that I have to visit one day.

Why there are no sensitivity specs for this camera?
All i see is minimum illumination ratings. (Sony provides both numbers for EX*).

Here’s a video of the camera on Vimeo if you haven’t seen it already:
Introducing the Panasonic HPX300 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/3341380)

It’s obvious that Panasonic wanted to price the HPX-300 close to Sony’s EX3 and I think 1/3” chips were the only way to achieve that goal. If they used bigger chips, they would have gotten some complaints that it cost to much more than the EX3. You cant please everybody and they took a gamble to keep the price low.It also looks like the HPX-300 actually records 10-bit color, which it seems like the EX1/3 does not do.

http://www.videoscope.com/pdf_files/Sony_HD_Formats_Guide.pdf

Sony's own documentation states that the EX1/3 quantitizes color to 8 bits upon leaving the sensor.

This would help to explain the higher power requirements of the 300.


P.S. The Panny also has TC in/out and gen lock, which the EX1 [edited] doesn't have.

P.S. The Panny also has TC in/out and gen lock, which the EX1/3 don't have.

In the interest of accuracy, the Sony EX3 features both genlock and TC i/o.

Dan

It also looks like the HPX-300 actually records 10-bit color which it seems like the EX1/3 does not do.
The 300 does indeed record 10-bit color (when using AVC-Intra) , and the EX1/3 do not; the XDCAM-EX recording format is 8-bit.

All of them have 10-bit SDI output.

There is a raging debate in the EX forum over if the EX1/3 supply 10 bits of meaningful color info out of their HD-SDI ports or if they just supply 8 bits of color info padded with two zeros. There seems to be no definitive answer, as of yet.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/109035-comparison-sony-ex1-canon-xl-h1-4.html#post1018214

There is a raging debate in the EX forum over if the EX1/3 supply 10 bits of meaningful color info out of their HD-SDI ports or if they just supply 8 bits of color info padded with two zeros. There seems to be no definitive answer, as of yet.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/109035-comparison-sony-ex1-canon-xl-h1-4.html#post1018214

My understanding is that EX outputs 10-bit live. When playing back SxS recorded material, it is 8-bit padded.

Why would they take such a lovely camera and put such a small chip in it? Seems a bit late in the game for more 1/3" chip cameras with the current state of things. Lovely codec and all that jazz though.


The 1/3" does a pretty rmarkable job and the lenses for the 1/3" are already out there and less expensive.


If a Sandisk Extreme III SDHC card (http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Item(2687)-SDSDX3-016G-A31-SanDisk_Extreme_III_SDHC_16GB.aspx) can handle 30 MBps, that's 30 MegaBYTES per second then it could easily handle 100 Mbps, thats 35 MegaBITS per second or 240 Mbps. (http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/?input_amount=30&input_units=megabytes&notation=legacy).

It isn't the speed of the memory that's holding the 1080P/60 back it is the codec not doing it at this time. We could record more data on the P2s no problem up to 800Mbps on the 64GB card, the codec board can't produce it at this time for writing.

Best,

Jan

The 1/3" does a pretty rmarkable job and the lenses for the 1/3" are already out there and less expensive.
I think the reservations about 1/3" chips are more to do with optics, photography, and the laws of physics than technical quality, in particular depth of field issues and diffraction effects. The latter mean that for HD work a 1/2" lens shouldn't be used stopped down any more than roughly f5.6-8, for a 1/3" lens, you should really stay more open than around f4. Especially for such as news work (where this camera would seem to be targeted) that effective lack of iris range could prove very limiting. Resolution and other factors equal, 1/2" chips will also be inherently more sensitive.

The 300 has a lot of good points, handheld ergonomics being top of the list. But the EX wins in other areas, namely 1/2" chips, and the ability to use SDHC cards via an adaptor. Hardly surprisingly, people are wanting the best of both worlds - basically an HPX300, but with 1/2" chips and SxS. Throw in the 50Mbs XDCAM-HD422 codec and you've got a package with full broadcast approval, but which should still be able to use cheap SDHC cards.

Here's hoping the boys at Sony do something right with the EX5 or EX7?

This camera looks nice but yet again a 1/3" chipper. I wonder if Sony have something around the corner in a 1/2" shouldermount to fit between the EX3 and the F350 camera price range. I hope so as I have a large investment in the SXS cards.

Simon

Not sure if anyone posted this yet:

HPX300 EX3 Rolling Shutter Shootout on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/3367266)

There is a raging debate in the EX forum over if the EX1/3 supply 10 bits of meaningful color info out of their HD-SDI ports or if they just supply 8 bits of color info padded with two zeros. There seems to be no definitive answer, as of yet.
I would go on record and say that it definitively, definitely DOES supply 10 bits out of the live feed. Look at the footage on a vectorscope and it's very easy to see the difference between the recorded footage played back, and the live feed. You can easily see the 8-bit quantizing going on in the recorded playback footage, vs. the smoother 10-bit live output.

The XLH1 is 8-bit with padding. The EX1/3 output 10 bits live; when playing back footage they take the 8-bit data and pad it with two zeroes to make it 10 bits.

This camera looks nice but yet again a 1/3" chipper. I wonder if Sony have something around the corner in a 1/2" shouldermount to fit between the EX3 and the F350 camera price range. I hope so as I have a large investment in the SXS cards.

Simon

they must do...there is a niche that has to be filled. Also Sony haven't brought out a new camera this week yet, so maybe tomorrow!

No one ever makes the perfect camera and perfectly affordable camera - hasn't happened yet!!! Why would they?!

Ohh but please let Sony NOT announce an EX4, proper shoulder mount, SDHC, 1/2" bundled with a Senny 416 for £8k and a couple of batteries in 2 weeks time, as I need that HPX301 for 4 shoots next week and need to STOP hiring now (well, I said THAT 3 months ago!!!!) ;-)

Call me a Panacynic, but why do they not disclose S/N or max F stop on the HPX301 though? Sony are quite open about both stats on the EX3. Fishy, very fishy...

BD

Ohh but please let Sony NOT announce an EX4, proper shoulder mount, SDHC, 1/2"
BD

You mean the EX5? That will for certain happen. Who knows when though. Sony don't do even numbers.

I doubt SDHC, why introduce sxs? And the fact that SDHC drops frames above about 35fps or so, or at least from what i've read on the web.

But a proper shoulder mount Ex would be a direct competition to the other 1/2" size xdcams...

You mean the EX5? That will for certain happen. Who knows when though. Sony don't do even numbers.

Technically Sony when using multiple digits in the names has had even numbers very often. (a 400 in both DVCAM and Betacam, a 600 plus the 500 to name but a few) Now in the single digit names I don't remember any even numbered Sony cameras.

Call me a Panacynic, but why do they not disclose S/N or max F stop on the HPX301 though? Sony are quite open about both stats on the EX3. Fishy, very fishy...
I don't think they've ever quoted an S/N number on any of the AG series (DVX100, HVX200, HPX170, HMC150, or HPX500). I may be wrong, but I don't remember seeing it, it seems like it's just something they don't do.

As for max f-stop, I assume you mean minimum iris opening (as in, how wide-open can I get this lens?) It's f/1.6, IIRC.

i mean i expect them to leave the sdhc ability to record on the camera, but yes you cannot overcrank to sdhc.

After reading the first few pages of this thread, I thought I would post some reviews by Philip Bloom, and lo and behold here you are. Thanks for the nice reviews Philip.

Philip Bloom CVP TV: Review of Panasonic HPX 301e (http://philipbloom.co.uk/reviews/cvp-tv-review-of-panasonic-hpx-301e/)

Being quite charitable to the HPX 301, still a very good review of this camera, but after seeing footage for this camera panning I believe I'll stay away from it.

SonyEX3 review.
Sony XDCAM EX3 review HD on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/882030)

Currently I'm looking for a camera to shoot outdoor footage, mostly wild life and scenery at 3 nature perserves. There will be some indoor shooting of lectures and interviews as well. I like the picture the EX3 makes but am concerned about the CMOS problems. I'm considering going to the Panasonic HVX200 for safety. Thoughts?

If they don't release an EX4 and choose EX5 instead it will be because 4 is an unlucky number in Japan. Notice we had Z5 and Z7.

The 300, or rather 301E looks like a great camera. I am very impressed that Panasonic have worked on a firmware that solves the issue with stobing flashes and the CMOS. Jan has also said over on DVX User that they are also looking at the CMOS skew thing as Barry Greens' tests appear to show that it has around 70% more skew in 24p mode, but slightly less skew than the EX in other modes.

Frankly in all my shooting with any CMOS sensor, even my initial tests with my new cute little Sanyo WH1 knockabout camera, I've never had an issue. Zooming in a long way and having lots of high frequency vibrations can cause a problem, and having an extreme telephoto with lots of panning and tilting following birds for example might cause an issue too.

Ive just ordered a 301 and the skew and cmos doesnt bother me as I am away of it and dont push the camera too much.
I also shoot everything in 1080i 50i and do 25p in post so that will not affect me either, looking forward to testing it when it arrives next week and I also have four 32gb E cards coming too.

I have always been a big sony fan but this 301 is such a flexible camera that I have bought one, it can do SD all the way up to avcintra 100 so is covering a lot of ground in one camera, OK its 1/3" chips but at the end of the day I feel that will be the least of my worries as I am used to the S270 now.

Let us know what you think once you get some shooting under your belt Gary. Personally I find the 300/301 an amazing camera and a great value IF your work doesn't rely on the limitations that the camera has.

Dan

Choosing a sub $10k camera is turning out to be a little more difficult than expected. At first I assumed I'd be getting the HPX300 or HVX200. But it's not so cut and dried.

My preception is the AVC - 100 fromat is a bit of a waste on the HPX300 with 1/3 sensors, although it has excellent features. I've also heard the noise and cmos issues are worse than EX1/3. Image quality on the EX3 and sdhc recording may win the battle.

I've also heard the noise and cmos issues are worse than EX1/3. Image quality on the EX3 and sdhc recording may win the battle.

Hi John,

Just go try out the camera. It really is a great camera for the money.

Best,

Jan

My take on it is from a broadcast perspective so I need a shoulder mount camera that has a robust shooting format and offers some compatibility with broadcast specs.

The EX-1 and 3 are not shoulder mount and the SDHC card route just isnt robust enough for my liking. OK SXS is better but the flash raid on the P2 cards is more to my liking, it is also what my ex colleagues at Talkback Thames are using on The Bill and the BBC use avc intra 100 as their archive format.

I also have an S270 HDV/Dvcam camera so wanted to keep everything in 1/3" The applications for my kit dont need large sensors and besides once it is in the mac's it is all pro res 422 and the chip size becomes irrelevant.

Hi Gary,
Are you saying that if you shoot with a 1/3 you vision looks better in Pro res 422 ?.
Hmmmm, interesting prospect.
Cheers

Hi Gary,
Are you saying that if you shoot with a 1/3 you vision looks better in Pro res 422 ?.
Hmmmm, interesting prospect.
Cheers

No I am not saying that at all, it is just that I use pro res as my master format so once video is in the box it is irrelevant what the chip size was, I also have a canon HF11 too so it makes sense having everything on 1/3" chips.

OK the laws of physics says that a 1/2" and 2/3" chip set will be better quality than 1/3" but I am interested in making programme content not what chip is better than another, I leave that to the camera dept!

Hi Gary,
Excuse my ignorance,
I shoot DVCPro50 SD and edit in FCP, what advantage could there be by using a Pro-res sequence, unless your mixing in some other vision/graphics/etc created in another format.
Cheers

No advantage at all but as I understand it when the video from the P2 on the 301 is loaded into FCP in log and transfer it goes to pro res 422 or pro res 422 HQ

Certainly the canon HF11 loads in pro res 422 once the clips are transfered to the scratch capture disk as I have already used it this way.

I had been just using the S270 in HDV and loading the video via clipwrap but I seems to now make sense to have everything on my mac drives in pro res 422 and edit the sequence in that format.

I also master to pro res 422 at 1080i 25p

Does that make sense I havent got the 301 yet but that is what I am proposing as a workflow.

Hmm, Interesting concept, Good luck with it. I'd do some tests and see if that is best way to go.
I use differing sequence settings depending on what the project is. ie, TVC's I use 10bit uncompressed, General events I simply use DVCPro50, personally there's little difference between them in pic quality that most punters can't see, except the file size of a 30sec TVC in 10bit is over 700meg, and a 30sec TVC in DVCPro50 is a mere 220 meg.
that's a huge saving in HDD space... if your doing lots of projects and they are long form that's an important factor to consider.
Cheers

Hmm, Interesting concept, Good luck with it. I'd do some tests and see if that is best way to go.
I use differing sequence settings depending on what the project is. ie, TVC's I use 10bit uncompressed, General events I simply use DVCPro50, personally there's little difference between them in pic quality that most punters can't see, except the file size of a 30sec TVC in 10bit is over 700meg, and a 30sec TVC in DVCPro50 is a mere 220 meg.
that's a huge saving in HDD space... if your doing lots of projects and they are long form that's an important factor to consider.
Cheers

I agree it may be that pro res 422 may eat my drive space, it may be better to go DVC pro 50 for most jobs as you say. The good thing about the P2 platform is that you can choose so many different codecs depending on the job in hand and I look forward to seeing what is best.

..... it is just that I use pro res as my master format so once video is in the box it is irrelevant what the chip size was, ......

OK the laws of physics says that a 1/2" and 2/3" chip set will be better quality than 1/3" but I am interested in making programme content not what chip is better than another, I leave that to the camera dept!
The laws of optics are what's relevant here and for a given aperture it's the chip size that will govern depth of field. Hence the arguments against 1/3" chips in a relatively expensive camera are more photographic than to do with "technical quality" - and will remain relevant regardless of any transcoding to such as ProRes. There's also the issue of lens availability.

Even 1/2" are seen as an unwelcome compromise compared to 2/3" for dof reasons, but for a camera at this price point 1/3" are just seen as a step too far down by many.

The EX cameras may not be seen as satisfactory if you want a shouldermount, but another possibility may be the 350 XDCAM. Not full 1920x1080 chips true, but better from the photographic point of view. And solve the archiving issue of rushes, just keep the discs.

The EX cameras may not be seen as satisfactory if you want a shouldermount, but another possibility may be the 350 XDCAM. Not full 1920x1080 chips true, but better from the photographic point of view. And solve the archiving issue of rushes, just keep the discs.
350? Apart from the PDW700/F800 the rest of the Xdcam HD lineup are 1/2" sensors, so not much difference with regard to DOF there. And with the F355 you are very close to HPX2000, and that's really a no-brainer.

If 2/3" are a favoured option, go with the 500 and live with the compromises, I did and glad I skipped at least 1/3" when it comes to shooting low light. .

350? Apart from the PDW700/F800 the rest of the Xdcam HD lineup are 1/2" sensors, so not much difference with regard to DOF there.
I disagree - 1/2" sensors aren't ideal but are roughly halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" for dof etc. As I said before, not ideal, but better than 1/3". The real point I wanted to get across in answer to Gary though is that the lack of enthusiasm for 1/3" (in a fairly expensive camera) is less to do with technical quality, more to do with photographic imaging and the artistic side. No amount of post or codec conversions will ever solve that.
If 2/3" are a favoured option, go with the 500 and live with the compromises, I did and glad I skipped at least 1/3" when it comes to shooting low light.
Sorry, but I really think the days of 960x540 chips are over now that 1920x1080 displays are becoming the norm. I suspect the full resolution chipset of the 300 is an acknowledgement of just that by Panasonic, and is something that I applaud them for. It's just a shame they're 1/3"............

My 301 arrived today so I will be doing some tests soon, as for the 1/3" DOF the type of projects I do do not require huge DOF cinematic type pictures so it is fine for my use.

What sold the 301 to me is the 1920x1080i 50i at 50 or 100mbs certainly on initital set-ups it is a lot more of a pro camera than the S270 I have.

I have some nice settings to dial in too to give me similar picture profiles to those used on the BBC planet earth ser.