I have everything in place to purchase a full body HD camera and because of the price point, I'm leaning towards the Pany AG HPX500. I still have several questions and don't neccesarily want to pose these to dealers....

A local dealer has devulged that Panasonic will be parceling out the gear from the Olympics as "b-stock".

1) Should I try to do a package deal (camera and lens) direct from a dealer or wait for NAB “show pricing?”

2) Does “b-stock” gear have a suitable factory warranty?

3) How is the 500 performing next to the 2000? Has the pixel shifting been an issue for anyone matching the 2000?

4) Has anyone heard about any upgrades to the 500, such as more variability in over and under cranking or an upgrade in codec (Intra AVC)?

This seems like the right camera for me in what I’m doing, but it also has to be a camera I can work well for the next 5 years.

Any thoughts are appreciated….

I have had two HPX-500's, one new one B-stock. The b-stock came with a new warranty and in fact is a better camera. I suspect this was because it had been completely speced out by Panasonic.

Paul Hudson
Lizardlandvideo.com
Phoenix, AZ video production

The question is, do you need a camera to shoot with before about Fall of this year? The 500, to me, seems to be overdue for either an update or a replacement. Who knows, but it is possible something could be introduced at NAB in April. But if something new was introduced, there is a very good chance you would not be able to buy it until Fall or even Winter.

If you definitely have settled on the 500, there are some good deals on used ones or B-stock around.

1. Package deal would be a good idea, perhaps a b-stock or discontinued lens? I do recommend an HD lens with the CAC function over a used SD lens.

2. I am not positive but I think I have read that b-stock may not be eligible for the 5 year warranty, I think it just has the 1 year standard warranty but definitely check with your dealer.

3. The 2000 is a whole other ball game than the 500. If you want to see the 2000 in action, just watch the Olympics tonight, about 60% of what you are seeing is being shot on 2000s, with the remainder on 3000s. You can match colorimetry with the 500 and the 2000 but the 2000 image will be sharper and cleaner. The 2000 is a much more sophisticated camera than the 500. The 500 is an HVX200 with 2/3" imagers and a better lens. It is a good camera but the SD viewfinder leaves me cold.

4. If the 500 is upgraded or replaced, it will be AVCINTRA and will possibly be CMOS so to me, that is a mixed bag. If I had a choice, I would rather have a CCD camera. I love the 300 but for certain things that I shoot like red carpets in Hollywood, CMOS, even with the FBC, doesn't cut it.

If you need a camera today to make money, I would buy a 500. If you can wait, I would see what is shown, if anything, at NAB. I would also scout around for used 2000s. They are rare but I have seen some good deals on bodies as low as $10k.

Dan

The 500 is a great toolkit camera since it does just about anything. HD, DV, Pal variable rates etc. Other P2 Cameras don't always match its flexibility even when they are more expensive. I agree with Dan B about the viewfinder, lens advice etc. I have the more expensive 2 inch B+W finder on it but I also use an external a monitor for it whenever possible.
We are fast approaching the don't buy season before NAB unless the job is going to need the gear or the price is irresistible. It makes sense for Panasonic to upgrade the 500 to do battle with the Sony PMW-350 but I would not be surprised either way. The problem for the manufacturers with all of these cameras is the low end is going to eat the high ends lunch in this kind of economy. The enthusiasm for DSLR video is an example.
Last year the prices seemed a little lower on Ebay than this year as the economy is a little firmer.

I bought one of the first west coast 500s three years ago for a particular documentary - the funder specifically requested DVCPRO HD 720/24p and I didn't want to rely on an HVX200 (although I bought one of those as well as a B camera).

Generally these days I get a new camera and by the time I'm finished with the film I upgrade to "the latest and greatest". However I have really been impressed with the 500 and will keep it - for another film or two at least. Here's why...

Despite what some may say, the picture is quite good (I have the Fujinon w/o the extender), it compares favorably in real world use with more expensive cameras - it takes a real eye and a side-by-side comparison on an exquisite monitor to detect any major differences.

Because it is less expensive, I tend to be less paranoid about using it in adverse conditions - and the insurance is less and easier to secure (may seem a small point, but not to me).

I also acquired the (expensive) B&W 16x9 finder which does help because I handhold and monitors are out of the question.. but the stock finder is useable (I shot super16 for years and the finders on some film cameras are pretty bad too).

The camera balances well with an Anton Bauer Dionic90 battery on back and the finder moved forward an inch and a half (simple custom bracket I made myself). The 500 IS way too heavy when you consider what those little Canon and Nikon SLRs are capable of, but those things are worse to handhold because of balance issues. Maybe they'll get it right eventually, but until then...

It holds 4 cards, which is just right - And I really have come to appreciate the value of P2 cards. I have five 16GB cards that I've been using for those 3 years for probably 15-18 short films (plus the feature doc I bought it for) and have never had a single problem and never felt the need for more cards - one purchase and that's it!

You spend zero time explaining your camera to people - It looks and performs like the kind of camera they expect to see.. Another small point, I admit, but I got real tired explaining the benefits of my DVX.

Hope that helps.

All great responses and great information. I have some "gotta haves" on my list for the 500 package and the upgraded VF is definately there as I plan on handholding the camera.
I have recently worked with a client shooting with their EX-3. They have it mounted on the Anton Bauer Shoulder extended but my forearm cramped up bad after just a few minutes. It wasn't natural or elegant at all. I have a Z1 and several outboard devices. It puts the EX3 to shame.

What does the group think about the possibility of a firmware upgrade in the 500 to add the AVCIntra codec? Is that even possible? And what about the possibility of adding or extending the variable frame rates. I think it has 11 steps now. It sure would be nice to crank to any frame rate.

Anyone using the Fuji XA series lens?

Thanks so much for the excellent information.....

Mike:

1. EX cameras are a mess ergonomically. Good pictures and sound but a nightmare to shoot handheld compared to a real broadcast form factor.

2. AVC INTRA comes from hardware. Impossible to add to a camera via firmware or software. The HPX2000 has an add-on board that gives it AVC INTRA. If AVC INTRA comes to the 500, it will be via a camera update/upgrade but not to existing units.

3. Perhaps some 500 owners can chime in here on if the frame rate hack works on the 500? I don't know. It works like a dream on my 170, I have scene files for 2, 4, 6 and 10fps with various shutter angles.

4. In my experience with lenses, I like the Fujinons better as cheap lenses and I like the Canons better for broadcast/expensive lenses. The Fujinon website only shows the HA and ZA series as current for B4 2/3".

Dan

The Fujinon XA17X7.6 series, which is made for Panasonic, is the exact same lens as the ZA17X7.6, except about $5K less. The glass is the same as the HA18X7.6, which is more than twice the price. The XA is a bargain.

I have seen XA17 and ZA17 side by side and compared them to HA18. An XA at $8K or less is a great way to go. CA error is very minor, even without CAC. I've seen low cost Canon glass on a 500 and if it wasn't for CAC, they would be unusable. As Dan says, Canon high end glass is great.

Any of the Canon or Fuji HD ENG zoom lenses will breathe severely, unless they are models with the huge focus barrel, which have cams that make them breathe much less. I don't see any reason to buy HA series Fuji glass, unless they are models that don't breathe.

The HPX2000 also has PAL and NTSC DVC and DVCPRO 50 modes, optional AVC-Intra board.
What I notice about the 2000 or HDX900 over the 500 is a smoother tonality, they aren't so contrasty, plus will resolve wide shots better. The DRS circuit and all the additional menu control are also very nice. An HPX2000 for under $14K with AVC-Intra would be my first choice, if it includes viewfinder--once you add a 2" HD finder to a 500, your are in the $12K range. Problem is finding a 2000 w/Intra option, but Panasonic was selling the 2000 with Intra at no charge for a few months.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

I'm going to NAB this year. Should I wait to make a deal there or make my best deal with a local dealer?

I was in the market for a 2700 this year but I am going to wait and see if panasonic comes out with a camera to compete with the new sony 350.

I may be that a 600/601 comes out with 2/3" cmos chips and avc intra 100!

The HPX 500 can NOT be updated to shoot anything other than it already shoots. Panasonic does not plan on updating this camera.

Using vari frame settings are super simple, even plays back in slomo so you an see your results right then and there.

The view finder is quite small, I have not gotten the 2'' only because I use an external hd monitor all the time.

You need super good glass to resolve wide shots in 1080 with this camera, CU's look amazing, and so do mids, but a good wide shot will need some really good glass. I'm not saying it looks bad, but dont expect it to look amazing either. It kinda looks like you shot a great sharp shot with 720 and the blew up to fill a 1080 frame... the detail isnt as powerful but still nice looking.

This camera will work till you die, great solid camera, works well in the cold, rain... ect.

much lighter than most cameras its size.

it really comes down to what you are shooting, this camera is great for a bunch of different types of things, specially because its PAL NTSC switchable. Also a fantastic SD camera as well. 720p 1080p its got it all... I love shooting with it, and you will never loose a gig because you didnt have the right frame rate, or resolution.

HD-SDI out as well as component Y-Pb-Pr out and standard video out... you really have everything you need and then some.

BUT!

you cannot upgrade this camera, it is what it is, panasonic will most likely come out with something new in this price range within the next year or 2. If they go CMOS or "3-MOS" then its totally not worth it, but if they stay 2/3'' CCD it might be worth waiting...

If you cant wait, buy it now, great deals, if you can wait, WAIT because something is coming... just might be a let down if its cmos.

If you need gear now, buy. If not, wait.

Probably one of the best things with the Hpx500 is the flexibility when it comes down to formats. So far I've done basicly every resolution in the camera, 4:3 SD for SNG link...up to 1080p25 for corporate video, and some 720p in the middle. Luckily for us in PAL country 720p are the way forward for a lot of European broadcasters and there the 500 performs quite good.

The image looks quite good, but it's not a HDX900, 2100 or 3000. You need to take it for what it is, a budget 2/3" hd camera. Luckily image quality is measured in more than effective pixels on the sensors, yes a Sony EX3 might be sharper on the wides...but 2/3" has some strengths that out weighs that for my use. You need to consider what's your need to figure out if a 500 will do.

On the negative side the stock VF is not verygood, but again still to this date the 500 don't have a single CCD opponent from Sony at this price point. And for some of us CMOS aint an option, yet. A better SD one is an ok option, i might add that soon.

Operational it's very well balanced with normal zoom lens, and build quality is very good to.

I have been watching this market a lot over the past few years as I have an HPX-500. And when I start to look at the HPX2000 range, I stop myself and ask, do I want to pay $10,000-12,000 more for a probably 15-20% image quality increase?

The 500 is a great value for what it is. I also think you will like the camera more if your shooting is more 720p centered. At 1080p, there are less expensive cameras that will out resolve it, but at 720p it is tough to see any resolution difference.

As far as a replacement, I believe this camera falls into a hole that nobody wants to step in right now. The camera makers do not want to give 2/3" imagers for $10,000.

Back when the rebate was on, the 500 went in the high $7,000s range. That is a far cry away from the next 2/3" imager camera. So I do not think the HPX-600 etc... will be priced so competitively with the PMW-350 going for $18,000.

Tough choices but it really comes down to what level of quality you are willing to pay up for.

I was in the market for a 2700 this year but I am going to wait and see if panasonic comes out with a camera to compete with the new sony 350.

I may be that a 600/601 comes out with 2/3" cmos chips and avc intra 100!

Gary, have you seen that DSVideo are offering an HPX2700 with viewfinder and an HJ11 lens for £30k. Good deal I think.

As for the HPX500, as has been said, it's not in the same league. One other massive problem on one I tried briefly was that the viewfinder was awful, virtually guesswork as to whether focus was OK when on long lenses.
Steve

It really comes down to budget and what you need. I would not go as far as saying the VF is all guess work, but it takes a some time to get used to.

And yes smaller 1080 cameras will out resolve the 500, but in difficult light and low light a 1/3" or 1/2" won't stand a chance. I kind of saved a large part of a event shoot last year...by having a 500 on hand and not a 300 or a Sony Ex1/3.

No camera out there is perfect anyway, regardless of if it's a small consumer camera, 2/3" HD cameras or RED/Arri/Phantom systems. It's all about the right compromises and you need to know what clients want...

I agree. My opinion is the EX-1 and the HPX-500 are the -best bang for the buck for what they are- cameras on the market right now.

If somebody would come out with a comparably priced 1/2" chip CCD shoulder mount with improved resolution I might be swayed.

Oh how the SD days with my DVC-200s where so much simpler.

Mike,

The HPX500 is to date still my favorite rig. Although many compare the 500 to the EX series cameras there is an important and often glossed-over distinction: The 500 is a 2/3" inch mount, the EX cams are all 1/2" inch. The reason that's important is because the 2/3" inch mount has the greatest - as in huge - selection of lenses both from Canon and Fuji.

Unlike the EX's you can mount anything from high-end HD-spec glass, the stuff that will set you back $60k or more, or even older APO-LD glass back from the SD days (which can be had on the used market for a song) that's as good or better than the current crop of HD-spec glass or, even cinema primes from Fuji, Canon or even the venerable Zeiss Digi-Primes. You just don't have those options on any 1/2" camera, period, unless you spend extra dough on an adapter but then you're losing light/sharpness etc.

Measurebators are quick to point out that like it's little brothers, the 200 and 170, the 500 uses a PAL SD chipset being up-ressed to HD but, when you combine high-quality glass with DVCPRO's 4:2:2 color there's absolutely no comparison in the quality of the output. Not even the newer HPX300 looks as good as the 500 when you mount good glass - more pixels doesn't make up for larger real-estate.

The 500 also doesn't have a rolling shutter; the 300 and all EX cam's do.

As others have pointed out the HPX2000 is a distinctive step above the 500 and having a true HD finder is a big help to many shooters but the 500 is still the "best-bang-for-the-buck" king. Now, having said all that...

I don't have any specifics but word on the street is that Panny is going to be introducing new things at NAB this year; exactly what I don't know but unless you have a project that just can't wait I'd highly suggest seeing what NAB will bring.

Otherwise get a 500 and be happy; I guarantee if you learn how to properly setup the camera and can afford good glass - especially the "good stuff" that's widely available used - you won't be disappointed.

Again, thanks to all who have contributed here. Great comments. Another thing I'd like to throw out there.

In researching the camera, I was talking to a Chief Engineer at a TV station here in the Dallas / Ft. Worth market. His station is transitioning to EX-3's right now and he said, "the 500 is a great camera. Sure it shifts pixels to get to 1080, but no one (broadcaster) is delivering 1080 anyway. There's just not enough bandwidth available to anyone, anywhere to deliver in 1080".

I thought that was interesting. I asked him about the HD channels on DirectTV for example and he said, "not even close. The pipe is only so big." meaning shared bandwidth is being swallowed by the entire delivery chain.

I have another meeting with someone else this week to confirm that but it sounds right to me. So, having said that, is the only way to deliver true 1080 to deliver blu ray to clients and if so, how would they deliver true 1080 further down the distribution chain?

It's sounding more and more to me that acquiring with a more expensive camera is simply supurfluos until bandwidth increases.

Mike,

Broadcasters are transmitting full raster 1080, it's just 60i, not 60p. 720/60P requires more bandwidth than 1080/60i and is the format of choice for all Fox networks, ABC and ESPN.

There are some cable and satellite entities that sub-sample horizontal resolution and of course all of them transmit over the air, via cable or satellite, a highly compressed data stream, typically around 11-17Mbps, but that doesn't preclude full raster 1080.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Mike,

One last tidbit in favor of the 500:

Last year we shot a commercial, in fact in your backyard in Addison, on the 500. The client was originally going to use their previous shooter who only shoots EX-1/3's; they didn't like the look of the camera's color output and the thinner 4:2:0 color space made getting natural-looking skin tones a challenge even by a colorist in post.

When we gave them our demo footage for the spot the director's eyes lit up as he noticed a huge improvement in those critical skin tones and their colorist loved the raw footage much, much more than the EX's.

You can debate the technicalities of any camera to ad-nauseam but in the end it's all about how good the imagery looks; all things being equal there is *no* replacement for better color. 4:2:2 wins hands down every time.

I agree. My opinion is the EX-1 and the HPX-500 are the -best bang for the buck for what they are- cameras on the market right now.

If somebody would come out with a comparably priced 1/2" chip CCD shoulder mount with improved resolution I might be swayed.
In so far as pricing goes, I don't think it's possible to compare the HPX500 and the EX1. From a (very) well known UK retailer (all prices less tax) the HPX500 is £9,000 without lens, the EX1 is £4,000 (£4,400 for the EX1R). You can get two complete EX1Rs for less than an HPX500 without lens!

A better comparison I'd reckon would be the HPX500 versus the new Sony PMW350. From the same retailer the like-for-like comparison cost of the latter is £12,000.

But it doesn't stop there. To get an hour of recording on the Sony you need much less memory because of the codec, so by the time you've equipped both cameras with enough memory to shoot two hours without downloading, the difference is not £3,000, but well under £2,000. Factor in things like the excellent v/f on the PMW350 (no need to upgrade) and that you'll need less batteries (the PMW350 is far less power hungry than the HPX500), and the difference for a working system is still less.

And the PMW350 offers things that the HPX500 doesn't, quite apart from far, far better image quality. Things like a slot to accept pro radio mics, ability to quickly dub between memory slots, card at a time, far more flexible media options.

The HPX500 might have been a good buy for the price a few years ago, but times have moved on and it's now looking very dated. Mike, have a look at a PMW350 before you part with money, ideally side by side with an HPX500 on a 1920x1080 monitor. I think you may get quite a shock.....

As far as transmission goes, then 1080 is most definitely being broadcast, in fact all transmission in the UK is such. Some channels are full 1920x1080, others sub-sampled to 1440x1080. Yes, 1080p/50 is not yet considered feasible - but 1080p/25 is. And that is carried over the 1080i channels as 1080psf/25, so the full 1920x1080 resolution is preserved.

David,

It's about a $3K difference in favor of the HPX500 with a Fuji XA17X7.6BRM lens and 2)64Gb E series P2 cards. You'll get better lens, 100MBps, 4:2:2 I-Frame codec for $3K less. The Sony 350 with $1500 Fuji lens and 2)32Gb SxS cards, will give you a higher resolution, quieter, more light sensitive front end, but CMOS vs. CCD and low bit rate, 4:2:0, Long GOP codec.

The 350 is a viable alternative if the codec is acceptable as well as very low cost plasticy lens and $3000 USD more. The 500 is definitely older technology, but the codec is ubiquitous, the HD lens is the real deal, it has the Panasonic colorimetry that many prefer.

I would certainly look at a 350 before purchasing(and attend NAB), but I would also consider a used HPX2000 with a new XA17X7.6 for similar money to the 350, albeit with 720P native resolution.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

David, for the record I was not comparing the two cameras. I stated "the two cameras are the best bang for the buck for what they are", a 2/3" class chip camera and a 1/2" class chip camera.

Both very good values.

Regarding the PMW-350 I would want a heavy skew test before I made this my main camera. Jeff had said there was no noticeable skew when he examnied a 350 recently, but I would want to check closely.

I did some testing with the EX-1 at full wide to the end of the lens with slow, moderate and quick pans. I was shocked when I examined the footage in my editor. It was almost comical how much skew was present. This was using 720p60.

Some of it does not show in realtime so much, but that does not mean it is not there.

Hi all:

Adam Wilt has the definitive 350 review so far and Adam really knows what he is talking about as a qualified engineer. ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/preview_sony_pmw_350_2_3_3_cmos_xdcam_ex_camcorder/)

Dan

Dan, that's right, except Adam was testing a pre-production model which had some issues. I don't think we know if all the issues were addressed with the production models, such as hyper gamma and knee saturation problems, IR or far red interference common with CMOS, and lens distortion from wide to 30mm. The CA correction wasn't operating either--this is important, especially with a $1500 lens--I'm guessing Sony is on top of this for production models.

I didn't like the out of the box look color wise compared to Panasonic, particularly in red, but that should be addressable with matrix and multi-matrix in the 350.

I don't like having only one HD SDI output and having to wait longer to go in and out of thumbnail mode compared to Panasonic 2/3" cameras I'm used to.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

David, for the record I was not comparing the two cameras. I stated "the two cameras are the best bang for the buck for what they are", a 2/3" class chip camera and a 1/2" class chip camera.
Quite true, it just seemed that the HPX500 was being overwhelmingly compared throughout the thread either with other Panasonic cameras or the EX models. The 350 was mentioned, but to me it is far and away the best direct comparison. It's also 2/3" and with 2 hours of memory is far and away the closest in price terms.

To Jeff - you may refer to the bundled Sony lens as "very low cost plasticy", but that's to belittle the results it gives. It relies on very advanced control methods to correct for much cheaper optics - dynamically controlling focus of a varifocal lens whilst zooming, if you want the details - the point is, it gives extremely good results comparable to a far more expensive lens. It also gives chromatic abberation control. Alternatively, the PMW350 is a 2/3" camera, just use any 2/3" lens you like.

All I'm saying is that it's the camera Mike should be considering as an alternative at the moment - though Panasonic may disagree! Either way, the HPX500 is possibly the last camera I'd be looking at, and surely must be about to be replaced? Low-res chips, DVCProHD (not AVC-Intra), surely something better must come along to replace it soon? NAB?
Measurebators are quick to point out that like it's little brothers, the 200 and 170, the 500 uses a PAL SD chipset being up-ressed to HD but, when you combine high-quality glass with DVCPRO's 4:2:2 color there's absolutely no comparison in the quality of the output.
Well, call me a measurebator if you will, but I recently got to see the results of the trials done by the British Society of Cinematographers. (See http://www.bscine.com/evaluation09.asp and The International Association of Wildlife Film-Makers (http://www.iawf.org.uk/index.aspx?page=2&articleid=1020) .) Mainly for top end digital cinema cameras, and a variety of 16mm and 35mm film stocks, but they threw in an EX3 and an HVX201 as wild cards.

I'd expected the EX3 and the HVX201 not to look as good as the far more expensive cameras (neither of them were) and the EX3 to be better than the HVX201 (it was) but it was the degrees of difference that surprised me. The EX3 stood up quite well against the top end cameras - and they all trounced the HVX201. It wasn't just being sharper, it was being EFFORTLESSLY sharper, more natural. OK, the HPX500 is 2/3" and better glass than the HVX201, but the conclusion must be that it was mainly the low-res pixel shifted chips that most let the HVX201 down. (The EX3 is only 1/2", and not vastly expensive glass either, remember.)

Given the choice between rolling shutter or low-res chips, I'll go for the former any day.

David,

I agree that sophisticated optical error correction makes sub-standard optics look much better than they have a right to--the HPX500 with CAC has proven that for years with low end Canon glass. There are more to lenses than that, of course. Things like smooth zoom motors, smooth and robust mechanical bits, markings, overall build quality. If one were to put a Fujinon XA17X7.6 on a 350, that would raise the price by another $5K. That means $8K more than an HPX500/XA17X7.6.

Since high res. chips are your number one criteria, then the HPX300 and EX1 would seem to be all the camera you'd need. Yet we know there are many other parameters besides pixel count that make up image quality.

I think a side by side demo between the Panasonic and Sony models would be a great thing for the OP to do. And yes, the 500 is getting long in the tooth, but even if a new camera is shown in the price range by Panasonic at NAB, it is unlikely to deliver before the fall. Meanwhile, the 350's XDCAM EX codec has made it handicapped by codecs from much less expensive cameras possessing superior codecs--even Canon's $4K cameras have 50Mbps, 4:2:2 recording.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Although my head is offically spinning right now, please keep the comments coming. This has been a great thread...more than I ever expected. All I wanted to do was gain a better understanding of the 500 and the alternatives. This fine group has delivered far beyond my expectations.

Despite dealers going hard to the hoop right now with great pricing, I will likely wait for NAB to make a final decision. I am comparing the 500 with the Sony 350.

Glass is less of a decision for me. The Fuji XA series seems like the right glass, even if I wanted to trade or upgrade the camera later in the year.

Many thanks for all the great posts, opinions, remarks and experiences.

Please keep them coming and I hope to meet some of you at NAB in April.

I agree that sophisticated optical error correction makes sub-standard optics look much better than they have a right to.......
As I understand it, there is nothing sub-standard about the optics in the PMW350 kit lens. In essence it's better considered a varifocal lens than a zoom, as normally found on DSLRs. The intrinsic difference is that every time the focal length of a varifocal lens is changed, it has to be refocused - a zoom lens keeps focus as zoomed in and out. Until now, that feature has ruled out such designs for motion picture work, for obvious reasons.

What Sony seem to have achieved is overcoming the problem by dynamically changing focus as the zoom is varied, effectively simulating a zoom lens from a varifocal by electronic control - as opposed to more complicated optics.

Why bother? First reason is cost - the control system is cheaper (once developed) than the zoom optics. Second is quality - do it the traditional way and the varifocal is turned into a zoom by the use of many more elements, so many more glass-air surfaces - not good news. Keeping the optics simpler, and overcoming the focus tracking by control systems, actually means BETTER image quality. (All else equal.) Thirdly, a dynamic system should (!) be more accurate at focus tracking across the range than doing it optically.

The control systems are allowing the use of better fundamental optics, not correcting for poor optical quality.

A good analogy may be the ignition system in a petrol fuelled car. Once upon a time, it had to be kept in perfect alignment, and various mechanical methods were developed of increasing complexity to compensate timing for engine speed etc etc. They worked - more or less. Then along came electronic ignition systems. The mechanics could be kept fairly simple, the difficult bits being done by electronics. Would you trade your mechanically simple ("sub-standard"?) electronic system in for a set of points nowadays?

If there is a downside (isn't there always?) it means that the lens and camera have to be matched closely together - one has to be designed around the others needs. In the case of such a kit lens, that doesn't really matter, they're designed to be sold together. And you can always use any existing lens as an alternative if desired. It'll just cost a lot more.......

Well, call me a measurebator if you will, but I recently got to see the results of the trials done by the British Society of Cinematographers....

I'd expected the EX3 and the HVX201 not to look as good as the far more expensive cameras (neither of them were) and the EX3 to be better than the HVX201 (it was) but it was the degrees of difference that surprised me. The EX3 stood up quite well against the top end cameras - and they all trounced the HVX201. It wasn't just being sharper, it was being EFFORTLESSLY sharper, more natural....

Given the choice between rolling shutter or low-res chips, I'll go for the former any day.

You said it, not I, but those are exactly "measurbator" statements. If your prime concerns about any camera are the pixel-count and absolute sharpness then you're only getting half the picture. (pun intended)

Putting even the new PDW350 against the "older" HPX500 is a no-contest win for the Panny. Why? Color. All XDCAM cameras (excepting the ultra-high-end) shoot the 4:2:0 color space exactly the same as HDV (albeit at a higher bitrate); DVCPRO50 and 100 (SD and HD) are 4:2:2. That may not sound like much when comparing "raw" numbers but the implications in post are huge, as I noted earlier. What do you think happens to that "0" in the XDCAM codec? Once color is deleted from the profile you can't somehow magically make it reappear in post, once it's gone, it's really gone, period.

In point of fact, the XDCAM cameras (and the JVC's recently released) are the sole reason AJA created the KiPro; a stand-alone recorder that takes the HD-SDI out of any camera and transcodes it into ProRes 4:2:2, specifically to get *get away* from the limitations of 4:2:0 - and it's also not a long-GOP format anymore (that's another animal for it's own thread to be sure). If color wasn't such a huge issue in post then AJA would not have invested millions in the development of the KiPro. That should be a huge red-flag that at it's core, there's something massively wrong with long-GOP 4:2:0 of any flavor.

In fact, Adam Wilt whose article you link to, was one of the very first people to vocally - and globally - be a detractor of the 4:2:0 profile and in his now outdated website where he made a visual comparison between all the then current codecs (DV25, DV50, DV100 DVCAM, HDV, HDCAM, etc) and showed quite distinctly how 4:2:0 falls apart. In fact he makes that very comment in his list of "CONS" about the 350 saying:

"On-board recording is only 8-bit, 4:2:0 sampling; can show compression artifacts when stressed."

Is the 500 technically outdated? Not for it's price-point; to date it still has no equal when you consider *all* it's features. Would the 350 potentially out-resolve the 500 when shooting a chart (assuming you could level the playing field with matching optics)? Quite possibly but by a margin so small it would take a technical overview to show it, not the casual observer and absolutely not in the final product to a client.

I can guarantee that real-world footage from the 500 will *look better* with the higher color gamut of DVCPRO than anything any 4:2:0 camera can provide, hands down.

But if pixel-count and absolute sharpness rule your roost, Sony will be happy to take your money! Trust me, they will - I've seen it! (laughs)

Robert,

On another thread in this forum, "Sony PMW-350 or Panasonic HPX2700?", David and Alister Chapman sided with the 350. This despite the 10-bit(4 times better than any 8-bit format in gray scale), 4:2:2, I-Frame, 100Mbps AVC-Intra Native frame rate codec, the proven Film-Rec gamma from the Varicam, improved to 600% dynamic range, 32 bit A-D processing, CCD's vs. CMOS, Panasonic colorimetry, five card capacity, 1/2 price deal at the time($19,950 plus VF w/camcorder trade-in), 3 HD SDI outputs--so it's no surprise that David would talk down the HPX500.

Don't get me wrong--the 350 is worth looking at. It's super sharp(too sharp for my taste), super quiet, super sensitive. I don't like the color, I don't think the codec holds a candle to AVC-Intra 100, I don't think it has the tonality and film like look that all Varicams are known for, but I'm not a pixel counter, I just know what I like when I see a pleasing image.

I stated in that thread that if somebody has to have native 1080X1920 sensors, then my choice would be a used HPX3000 for $20K. The 350 is a more flexible camera, however, offering DVCAM(no 24P), 720P with variable frame rates and 1080P from a native, full raster CMOS sensor. For my client's needs, I believe the HPX2700 is the right camera, a bigger step above the HDX900 than I expected.

A used HPX2000 w/Intra board is my first choice in an under $14K camera. But this might take some time to find on the used market.

Overall, I find the look of Sony cameras to be unacceptable out of the box and to possess a "clinical, videoish" image that Panasonic cameras don't have. Panasonic cameras look more like Super 16 cameras/stock to me from a colorimetry and tonality standpoint--and yes, they are noisier as well, which adds to the organic, filmic feel, to my eye.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

"Overall, I find the look of Sony cameras to be unacceptable out of the box and to possess a "clinical, videoish" image that Panasonic cameras don't have. Panasonic cameras look more like Super 16 cameras/stock to me from a colorimetry and tonality standpoint--and yes, they are noisier as well, which adds to the organic, filmic feel, to my eye."

Well said Jeff, I totally agree. I have compared a lot of my own S16 footage I shot in the 90s with footage from my HVX200, 170 and the 300 as well as HDX900 footage I have shot on rentals and I see the same thing, it is a Panasonic thing. Sure the Sonys can look better if you tweak them but I always get the distinct impression with the EX1 and EX3 footage I have shot that even though it was shot in 24p, it looks more like 60i because the camera is just too clean. It's a look that Sony fanatics seem to revel in and Panasonic fanatics seem to find wanting. I have not shot with the new 350, but according to Adam Wilt, that camera possesses a similar basic look to the EX1/EX3.

Dan

The HPX500 is a great camera, as others have mentioned, it is getting a bit long in the tooth and there may now be better options depending on the type of projects you're producing. BTW, Doug Jensen of Vortex Media (Sony EX1 / EX3 training video creator) is selling a 350 in the classifieds.
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/private-classifieds/473365-pdw-f350-fujinon-1-2-lens-sale.html

If you're looking at the HPX500, here's a little video I tossed together to give a quick overview.

Panasonic HPX500 Broadcast camera basics on Vimeo

Shot with the "clinical" Sony S270U. If I still had the HPX500, I'd have our Ki Pro mounted under it. Phew, that would look amazing as we used to shoot HDSDI direct to ProRes through a Kona LHe in the studio. Works great for green screen.

......those are exactly "measurbator" statements. If your prime concerns about any camera are the pixel-count and absolute sharpness then you're only getting half the picture.
Did you look at the link? Have you seen the results of the British Society of Cinematographers test? If not, and if you get the chance, you really should. Conducted by some of the best DOPs in the British film industry, and the link ( BSC Film & Digital Image Evaluation 09 (http://www.bscine.com/evaluation09.asp) ) gives an idea of the level the test was conducted to. I never said that pixel-count or absolute sharpness are the prime concerns anyway (certainly not for their own sakes) - rather "......wasn't just being sharper, it was being EFFORTLESSLY sharper, more natural.....". I put it down to the higher res chips meaning that it's possible to get away with a far lower level of detail correction in the EX3 - effortless detail, more film like.

But I can only recommend anyone who gets the chance to look at the tests for themselves and make up their own minds.
Putting even the new PDW350 against the "older" HPX500 is a no-contest win for the Panny. Why? Color. All XDCAM cameras (excepting the ultra-high-end) shoot the 4:2:0 color space exactly the same as HDV (albeit at a higher bitrate); DVCPRO50 and 100 (SD and HD) are 4:2:2. That may not sound like much when comparing "raw" numbers but the implications in post are huge, as I noted earlier. What do you think happens to that "0" in the XDCAM codec? Once color is deleted from the profile you can't somehow magically make it reappear in post, once it's gone, it's really gone, period.
Interesting. Pointing out the difference in chip resolutions is me "measurebating", yet the above isn't. Why?

The above is also ignoring that colour space numbers are ratios, not absolute numbers. They refer to the ratio of chroma to luma samples. Hence, the number of actual chroma samples depends on both colour space AND luminance resolution. So, for the PMW350, it's 1920x1080 for luminance, and a quarter as many for each of U &V - that's 960x540 or 518,400. For the HPX500 and DVCProHD, the recording resolution is only 1280x1080, so the 4:2:2 means half of that for chrominance - 640x1080 or 691,200. Yes, OK, more - but nowhere near twice as many as the 4:2:0/4:2:2 arguments would have you first think.

As far as implications in post, don't let's forget the number of luminance samples. 1920x1080 (2,073,600) for the PMW350, 1280x1080 (1,382,400) for the HPX500. If you haven't recorded the extra 691,200 luminance pixels, you can't make those magically reappear in post either. (And I'll happily trade 172,800 chrominance pixels for 691,200 luminance pixels....... :-) )
On another thread in this forum, "Sony PMW-350 or Panasonic HPX2700?", David and Alister Chapman sided with the 350. This despite the 10-bit(4 times better than any 8-bit format in gray scale), 4:2:2, I-Frame, 100Mbps AVC-Intra Native frame rate codec, the proven Film-Rec gamma from the Varicam, improved to 600% dynamic range, 32 bit A-D processing, CCD's vs. CMOS, Panasonic colorimetry, five card capacity, 1/2 price deal at the time($19,950 plus VF w/camcorder trade-in), 3 HD SDI outputs--so it's no surprise that David would talk down the HPX500.
Well, I think you'll find that I initially put them somewhat on a par - the 2700 lost marks by me for 1 megapixel chips, the 350 lost them for the 35 Mbs codec, not 50Mbs. I did go on to say that at least you could bring the 350 up to full spec with an external recorder, you couldn't put external chips on a 2700! I also think the PMW350 wins in having a wider choice of media options.

At the start, I assumed the 2700 price reduction would be permanent, hence a reasonably like for like comparison price wise. It turned out not to be, the 2700 price went way back up, so it's then two comparable cameras for quality, but one far more expensive than the other.

But this thread is not about the 2700, it's about the HPX500. And from the main dealer I looked up, the street prices of the HPX500 and Sonys PMW350 are very similar - certainly when you take into account that a given recording time will cost more for P2, to say nothing of wanting to upgrade the 500's viewfinder. And for the same money, I would go for a PMW350 over an HPX500 any day. That's not to say the 500 is bad - it's to say the 350 is a whole lot better.

"And from the main dealer I looked up, the street prices of the HPX500 and Sonys PMW350 are very similar - certainly when you take into account that a given recording time will cost more for P2, to say nothing of wanting to upgrade the 500's viewfinder. And for the same money, I would go for a PMW350 over an HPX500 any day. That's not to say the 500 is bad - it's to say the 350 is a whole lot better."

David,

They are not the same price. 350 is $18,900 at every dealer I've seen in the US. 2)32Gb SxS cards are $1,200, for a total of $20,100.

HPX500 is $9,900, XA17X7.6BRM is $6,500, 2)64Gb P2 cards are $1,800, for a total of $18,200. This is from B&H Photo, the largest online dealer. I know of at least three dealers I could get a better deal from, for a total more like $17,200.

Put the same lens on the 350 and the price is more like $25,200, a big price difference over an HPX500, $6,900. Add an external recorder and that's another few grand to get 4:2:2 and higher bit rate, now it's more like $10,000.

Again, I wouldn't buy a 500 without looking at a 350, because the final decision should be based on aesthetic image preference, work flow and budget and other priorities the OP might have that we wouldn't.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

My words about pricing were "very similar" - not "the same price". And the inclusive prices you quote - $20,100 for the 350, $18,200 for the 500 - are within 10% of each other. That's not making any allowance for needing to upgrade the v/f on the 500, or that a 500 may need extra batteries owing to somewhat higher power consumption. (About 23w v about 15w.)

You're also budgeting for 2x64GB cards on the 500 (2 hours) and 2x32GB on the 350 (well over 3 hours at 35Mbs)

Allowing for dealer variations, let alone country to country, I think to call their street prices "very similar" is justifiable, and bourne out by your figures. I suspect better deals are possible on both cameras, and they'll change week by week anyway.

Yes, I take your point about the extra recorder, but with these cameras we're natively comparing 35Mbs XDCAM-HD with DVCProHD - not AVC-Intra 100. The codec in neither the 350 or the 500 is fully approved according to the latest recommendations, unlike XDCAM 422 50Mbs or AVC-Intra 100.

David,

Until dealers start to discount the 350, which won't take too long, undoubtedly, the real price difference in the US is $3,000. This assumes the owner is happy with the stock $1500 lens on the 350.

Also, if shooting 720/24P Native on a 500, that would be over 5 hours of record time with two 64Gb P2 cards, but yes, 2 hours in 1080.

In this country, DVCPRO HD is considered a high-end broadcast format, with no restrictions on its use by any broadcast or cable network that I'm aware of. P2 DVCPRO HD is the official recording format of the 2010 Winter Olympics--50 HPX2000 and 3000 P2 cameras, 160 P2 Mobile decks.

On paper, it would seem that the HPX300 is the camera of choice for the money--full raster, AVC-Intra 100 in an ENG camera form factor with ENG zoom lens for $7,000. But as we know, specs on paper don't tell the whole tale.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

If the thread starter may jump in here...

Again, I appreciate the thoughts and perspectives of the many who have weighed in. The thread has taken a couple of side roads, but all in all I think the info has been great.

I've read everything thoroughly and even tried to understand some of the more technical...bordering on engineering speak (for me anyway).

I've also continued to speak with others about the "workability" of the camera. I think everyone will agree that the camera is only as good as it's sellability and from those I speak to about booking the camera (and me), clients and producers are asking for media format and not so much a specific camera. Only a portion of that info has been helpful as most people are still asking for digi-beta, sx and yes...even sp.

So, it is still left to use gamblers ...the guys making these purchases to guess and a lot of it falls to gut feelings.

For the record, I'm still leaning heavily towards the 500 and this is why. 2/3 chips! Even though it pixel shifts, if I fall out of love with the 500 I think I can upgrade to a 2000 in less than a year and I will only need the camera body to make the entire transition. Bargains will certainly abound before the economy rebounds.

I've owned a Z1U for 3 years. I've worked it extensively and it has paid for itself many times over. I've shot with the EX-3 for one of my clients. It's clunky and I'm just not happy with the picture quality. Sony continues to move everything around on that caliber of camera and things that I reach for on my Z are not there on the EX3 and it pisses me off.

What I've seen shot with the 500 really looks outstanding. The P2 workflow makes a lot of sense to me because of my business model.

And as I am 90% certain of my decision, I'll still wait for NAB and look at the Sony products very closely. I may also look at Ikegami products and see if JVC has anything in the hopper worth looking at.

Yes, the age of the 500 does scare me a bit, but perception being what it is, just showing up on a shoot with a full size camera with a 2/3 lens in a porta brace bag will cure a lot of ills and put a lot of my clients at ease. If I record in DVCProHD, they'll be happy with the results.

Different markets seem to have changed over technologically at different times so I had to laugh when you said people where still mostly asking for digibeta, sx and beta sp as it sounds like a particular network which is keeping the old war horses going. Funny thing I remember coming to Dallas for a shoot and the local company (can't remember who) was all over P2 with HVX-200 so I guess it depends on who you know. We have found that some people are very comfortable with P2 workflow while others are still committed to tape. I also dislike the EX-3 ergonomics compared to the HPX500 which is one of the reasons I bought the 500 but that was in May. Unfortunately it doesn't mean I don't have to deal with XDCAM EX as many people have adopted it for projects. Given the new rage for DSLR's I would think hard and long about what the clients think they need now and what they think they will end up using 6 months from now. Since you are going to wait until NAB it sounds like you don't have a job to motivate the purchase as of yet so I would not be surprised if something is announced at NAB which will make the decision harder for you. Good Luck

In this country, DVCPRO HD is considered a high-end broadcast format, with no restrictions on its use by any broadcast or cable network that I'm aware of.
I suspect that for HD use that's similar the world over. For the last few years, HD has meant DVCProHD, HDCAM or XDCAM HD. But the latest recommendations aim to look forward, and apply to considerations of what to buy when the older equipment needs natural replacement - they're not meant to ban any existing equipment overnight.

So DVCProHD and XDCAM HD are indeed well used at the moment. But there's better now around - XDCAM 422 50Mbs and AVC-Intra 100 are the two most obvious.

For the point of this discussion, neither camera gives the more advanced codec natively.
For the record, I'm still leaning heavily towards the 500 and this is why. 2/3 chips! ......... perception being what it is, just showing up on a shoot with a full size camera with a 2/3 lens in a porta brace bag will cure a lot of ills and put a lot of my clients at ease.
Mike, I share your views towards 2/3" cameras in general, and not just because of perception - with all else equal, they give better results than smaller chipped cameras.

But it sounds as if you believe the PMW350 isn't 2/3"? It most definitely is, and in general shape, size etc in a porta brace will outwardly look very similar to a 500 or any similar 2/3" camera.

If you've any doubts - http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=PMW-350K&site=biz_en_GB&pageType=TechnicalSpecs&category=XDCAMCamcorders .

"But it sounds as if you believe the PMW350 isn't 2/3"? It most definitely is, and in general shape, size etc in a porta brace will outwardly look very similar to a 500 or any similar 2/3" camera."

I can see how one might get confused--there's the Sony PDW-F350 1/2" XDCAM HD disc based camera and now the PMW-350 2/3" XDCAM EX camera. You can't accuse Sony of being very original! Kind of like Panasonic coming out with a couple of camera models that ended in a "900"--I think they did that on purpose to confuse those interested in a Sony F900!

One thing we all know is that there will never be another universally adopted format standard again in this file based codec world we live in. The good news is that we don't have to buy expensive decks anymore, unless we want to shoot HDCAM SR.

I know of a regional cable sports network who had bought a bunch of XDCAM 422 decks that were less than a year old. They were receiving discs from the other side of the country that were shot in 24P for a series and the almost brand new decks couldn't play them back. They had to ship a deck along with the discs just to get them to play out.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

This still looks apples to oranges to me. The 350 is 3k more in price than the 500 and will require an external recorded for 4:2:2? It also looks like it will require anton bauer conversion for my existing power? Where does it out perform the 500?

Where it will outperform the 500, no question whatever, is in resolution. It's got about 3 times the number of pixels on the chip. This is indisputable.
Steve

The 350 is also the fastest, quietest 2/3" camera I've seen due to the CMOS sensors. Very fast ISO rating, very high SN ratio.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

This still looks apples to oranges to me. The 350 is 3k more in price than the 500 and will require an external recorded for 4:2:2? It also looks like it will require anton bauer conversion for my existing power? Where does it out perform the 500?
As far as 4:2:2 v 4:2:0 goes, then let's try an analogy.

If I offered you a quarter of my bank account or a half of my bank account, which would you choose? Easy - a half.

But let's say I had two accounts, imaginatively called "A" and "B". Now I offer you half of A, or a quarter of B, what then? The first thing you'd want to know is how much is in each - it's obviously better to have a quarter of $100,000 than a half of $10,000, isn't it?

And it's exactly the same here. The colour space numbers show how many chroma samples there are *AS A FRACTION OF THE NO OF LUMINANCE SAMPLES*. The PMW350 records many more luminance samples per frame than the HPX500, which greatly lessens the impact of the 4:2:0 v 4:2:2 factor on chroma resolution compared to what you'd first think. As well as meaning it's much sharper in luminance, which will have far more influence on what the overall picture looks like than chroma.

Still not convinced? I gave the figures in post 34 above:
.......colour space numbers are ratios, not absolute numbers. They refer to the ratio of chroma to luma samples. Hence, the number of actual chroma samples depends on both colour space AND luminance resolution. So, for the PMW350, it's 1920x1080 for luminance, and a quarter as many for each of U &V - that's 960x540 or 518,400. For the HPX500 and DVCProHD, the recording resolution is only 1280x1080, so the 4:2:2 means half of that for chrominance - 640x1080 or 691,200. Yes, OK, more - but nowhere near twice as many as the 4:2:0/4:2:2 arguments would have you first think.

As far as implications in post, don't let's forget the number of luminance samples. 1920x1080 (2,073,600) for the PMW350, 1280x1080 (1,382,400) for the HPX500. If you haven't recorded the extra 691,200 luminance pixels, you can't make those magically reappear in post either. (And I'll happily trade 172,800 chrominance pixels for 691,200 luminance pixels....... :-) )
It's actually even more complicated than that. 4:2:2 means recording the same no of chroma/luma samples vertically, so in this case implies being able to record 1080 chroma samples vertically. That is vastly more than the HPX500 can resolve. Pixel shifting only improves luminance resolution, not chrominance, so the best chroma resolution 960x540 chips can resolve vertically is 540. it's half of what the recording system can manage - so the 4:2:2 ability gains nothing over 4:2:0 at all here. It's like pouring one litre of water into a two litre bottle, you'll still only have one litre of water. (Whereas with the EX cameras you start off with the full 2 litres and pour into a one litre container. You end up with onlyone litre either way!)

As far as power goes, it has the industry standard V-lock mount for batteries. Adaptors are available to use other types such as Anton Bauer or PAG.

David,

I ran your color space vs. luma sample response by Adam Wilt. Here is his response:

"DVCPROHD will allow more extreme grading / color correction without artifacts becoming too prominent. I prefer the added detail from the EX1, even with 4:2:0 recording, for green screen work--but I shoot progressive. If shooting interlace, I'd probably go with the HPX500."

His response would seem to validate both 4:2:2 of DVCPRO HD and full raster detail of EX1, and presumably PMW-350.

There is no question that the human eye is much better with seeing luminance detail vs. chroma detail, most of us couldn't discern4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4, however, computers can tell.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

.....the human eye is much better with seeing luminance detail vs. chroma detail, most of us couldn't discern 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4, however, computers can tell.
Yes, and computers can not just tell, but when they manipulate the video (such as chromakey) the chroma resolution gets mapped into luminance detail - so then the human eye can tell. There is no debate that *IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL*, it's better to have 4:2:2 recording than 4:2:0 - especially if you wish to do something like chromakey. I've made no secret that I'd prefer to see the 350 with the 422 50Mbs codec. (At least you can add a nanoFlash if neccessary.)

But here all else is not equal. DVCProHD and XDCAM EX don't record the same number of luminance pixels, and the chip resolutions of the two cameras are different.

I don't agree with Adam that I'd prefer the HPX500 over a PMW350 in interlace for the following logic. The advantages of 4:2:2 over 4:2:0 are certainly more pronounced in interlace mode than progressive (*all else equal*!), but the chips of the HPX500 mean that the camera can't really exploit it in the way that a camera with full R,G,B 1080 chip resolution vertically could. The limiting factor will not be the way the chroma is recorded, but the way the chips initially resolve it.

If we assume that the chromakey background is blue, the maximum resolution of blue that an HPX500 can resolve is 540 lines vertically. Pixel shifting is of no help - this is the whole point, that pixel shifting only improves LUMINANCE resolution. The chrominance resolution can't get any better than 540 lines. In the case of the PMW350, the chip produces a lot more chroma res - but the sub-sampling knocks it down to 540.

So similar chrominance resolution in both cases - but for the PMW350 the luminance resolution is far higher than the 500, which will make a big real world difference.

The above all applies to the vertical direction. Horizontally, there's no comparison - all the figures are well in the favour of the PMW350.

But forget all the theory. After seeing the BSC trials, and split screens of the HVX201 against the EX3 under controlled real world conditions, there is just no doubt that 1920x1080 chips recorded full raster, substantially outperform 960x540 chips recorded to a sub-sampled format like DVCProHD. I'd expect to see a comparable difference with an HPX500 and a PMW350.

David,

I agree with your points, especially as they pertain to luminance samples being recorded. Adam has always told me that XDCAM EX really shows it limitations in interlace mode and he avoids using EX1's in interlace.

I also agree that the HVX200/200A/HPX170/500 are interchangeable in regards to luma and chroma samples, ditto EX1/3/PMW350.

When you say the Sony full sample cameras outperform the Panasonic pixel shifted cameras, clearly that's true with luminance, but Adam believes that even a pixel-shifted, 3/4 sampled DVCPRO HD is superior in terms of more extreme grading and color correction. And, of course, my contention regarding AVC-Intra 100, being a 10-bit, full sample, 4:2:2 codec, is above and beyond XDCAM EX and DVCPRO HD, and certainly at least as good as XDCAM 422 by virtue of having 4X the shades of gray as any 8-bit format.

I think we're back to any prospective buyer needing to do real world tests, from shooting through work flow. My editors don't like XDCAM EX, one just corrects me by saying, "you mean HDV", but there are some people who don't think the pixel shifted cameras are adequate in resolving power. This is why Panasonic offers the HPX300, 3000 and 3700, and for many(me), the HDX900, HPX2000, 2700 resolve enough detail.

And of course, up until recently, there were NO full raster one-piece cameras as far as on-board codecs. The F900 and original Varicam seemed to please most people, despite not having full raster chips or codecs.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

But numbers aside, again. I still think it's not completely right or fair to compare a EX1/3 to a Hvx200/hpx171, or a PMW350 to the Hpx500.

HPX170, around 4100$ vs. EX1, around 6200$

PMW350 w/lens around 19000$ or PMW350 wo/lens around 17000$

Hpx500, around 9900$
Hpx500 kits available for around 18000$ w/ lens, P2 cards and tripod plate.

Ofcourse there might be rebates available for all cameras, or kits...i got my Hpx500 kit for about 18k last spring, HD lens, batteries, P2 cards, tripod plate and a backpack.

The 350 will be a lot better in the resolution department, and I'm aware of the 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 being relative. The 500 will deliver a bit softer image, but with 100mbit codec and a better "out the box" color. That the 350 will be sharper for the extra cost isn't surprising...

QUOTE "... The 500 will deliver a bit softer image, but with 100mbit codec and a better "out the box" color. That the 350 will be sharper for the extra cost isn't surprising..."

But extreme sharpness isn't always becoming nor desirable, if it were, filter manufacturers would not be producing softening filters and portrait and other still photographers would not be purchasing them. Sure, it's nice to have the option but if it doesn't fulfill your needs in regards to the type of work that you do and you prefer the Panasonic Mojo to that of what I assume is the alternative (Sony), then the choice is obvious.

I understand that there are those whose primary concern appears to be the acceptibility of their content by the BBC but there is an entire population—imagine that—of videographers on the other side of the continent for whom the BBC's requirements or those of NatGeo have no bearing. With the U.S. economy in the dumpster, it appears that many of the local newsies and network subsidiaries are doing their own recording with cameras that would not meet the requirements of the purists nor the followers of the BBC white papers. So, as always, content is king and being on scene with whatever you have available to document the action seems to carry the greatest level of importance. On the other hand, if your bent is to film a feature length production, then you probably would not be using any of the cameras mentioned in this topic's various posts and my diatribe becomes less valid.