There has been chatter on the net in regards to an alleged upcoming release of the Panasonic HPX 370, with details said to be available on or about April 5th.

All should become clear at NAB 2010.

These days, it is tough to know whether a company should be glad that something leaked and caused a preemptive buzz that will mean increased sales or if they should be mad because someone violated their NDA and stole their thunder. It did seem pretty strange that EVS posted that on their website, they should/would have known better? That leads me to believe that it could have possibly been a "semi-authorized" leak, I know that when specs are released to dealers, there is always an embargo? Who knows? As far as the ethics, I think it is morally bankrupt to sign an NDA and then violate it by posting all of this stuff about on the boards.

From a marketing standpoint though, it is kind of RED on one side and Apple on the other. Both are valid strategies that have worked for their respective originators.

I am in total agreement that if the 370 exists and is a version of the 300 that reduces noise significantly, reduces the image skew at 1080 24p and 30p and does not cost significantly more, they will have a pretty good seller on their hands.

Dan

Hi all,

The 370 is a go, I have in my hands a hard copy of Event DV April 10 the back cover shows the 370 in all it glory, not much detail.

We had seen this ad eariler, but now it real, on my desk and I do believe it is a real camera.


Copy from the AD:

Panasonic's AG-HPX370 p2 HD cmcorder moves you up to a whole new level of production quality. A new, state-of-the art 2.2 megapixel 3 chip ULT imager produces stunning HD content in a wide range of shooting conditions, with sensitivity and signal to noise ratios of larger imagers. With a superior 10bit 4:2:2, full 1920 x1080 resolution AVC-Intra codec, the HPX370 can record more image detail more accurately. Ready for global production, the HPX370 offers international HD and SD standards, including 1080p/i and 720p as well as industry standard DVCPRO HD

Mike- Whatever "Ultra Luminance Technology" (ULT) is, it better be a big breakthrough for Panasonic to completely change the nomenclature of a camera that's only 1 year old. Afterall this isn't a HPX300A, the is a HPX370, and all current 300 owners just took a hit on the resale value ot their now "older generation" cameras. Not really a way to endear yourself to your user base unless HPX300 sales were so low as to chance allienating all of the faithful or that the technology was so outstanding that the name change was warranted. Afterall the specs look the same and the camera looks identical.
I can't wait til the 5th when Panasonic formally introduces the 370 and Sony is rumored to be making an announcement of either an update to the EX3 or a completely new replacement. This coupled with new lenses from Fujinon could make for an interesting NAB.

Now it is official in Panasonic site.


Learn about Panasonic's AG-HPX370 (http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=406090&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AG-HPX370&displayTab=O)

Rajiv

Link to the new 370 PDF on the pann site

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/op_manuals/AG-HPX370s_PE.pdf

Have a great day

Thanks for the links to the .pdf guys. It does raise some questions in my mind.

It looks as if the main changes are:

New ULT sensors. Their samples against the EX1 look interesting. You have to hand it to them, Panasonic is obviously highly committed to 1/3" sensors. Based upon physics though, I am curious about how exactly the new ULT technology functions. That is a tiny sensor for containing 2.2 MP of pixels, how do they so improve the light gathering ability of those tiny pixels so well?

U.S. model camera now seems to support world standard (50.00Mhz and 59.94Mhz) scan rates. Which begs the question, if Panasonic has given the 370 international scan rates built-in, why are the 371, 372 and 374 still needed? Makes no sense to me, Sony sells the EX series the world over with no model number differentiation.

It looks as if they did stay with the current Fuji 17x lens, some rumors had pegged a new 20x lens being included. It is not a bad lens for a stock one although not wide enough.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the 370 this weekend?

Dan

An upgraded sensor is all that it would give me different, the PDF says f10 but as the chromatic aberration above f4 or 5.6 with the CAC on is worse with it being 1/3" I presume that the noise floor is lower.

I cant see myself buying one just for that alone as I have found my 301 very useable in most situations as I light things well and work to the BBC specs.

I feel this is a marketing exercise as the 300/301 has not sold quite as well as they had expected, I already have PAL and NTSC ability too so in europe the difference is not very big as f10 will only give me two more stops of noise floor from f5.6.

It seems kind of interesting for it's price point, but am I missing something? I can't tell if this is CCD or CMOS based? Is it another 960x540 uprez chipset?

Pick-up Device: 2.2M pixels Progressive MOS Image sensor x 3

Ahh... I was missing something. Thanks.

My thoughts are that unless CMOS or MOS has been improved to operate without a lot of skew, it is kind of a non-event for me.

I realize not a lot of viewers are likely to notice, but I see cameras as an investment. I don't see buying another CMOS camera as a good investment until they get all of the compromises worked out. Wait a year or two when they do fix it and what you purchased is going to look a bit sour. Kind of like the original P2 cards purchased for an arm and a leg.

Basically, seems like some new acronyms and a little better sensitivity which will have to be proven beyond the little image on the PDF as the predecessor was supposed to be "the" camera. But in my eyes, it is still a 1/3" camera no matter how good they say it is. I know it is stated that Panasonic doen not do 1/2" anymore, but I just can't get too excited about a 1/3" camera.

"I see cameras as an investment."

A bad investment unless they can earn their purchase price back to you within six months, tops. I am glad that my 170 paid for itself long ago. I charge my clients $250.00 per day for the camera package, but I have seen some LA rental houses that now rent 170s for as low as $120.00 per day including one 16Gb P2 card! Amazing. But I guess it beats having your 170 sit around collecting dust.

The VDSLR revolution is really changing everything when you can buy a T2I (granted it's not a video camera, it's a still camera that shoots video) that is capable of pretty impressive footage for well under $1,000.00. I have to say that unless I sell a TV series, I am not planning on buying any more video cameras for quite a while. As we can all see, the new high end video camera (not digital cinema camera) is going to be around $20k and the new average video camera price is still way up in the air.

While the 370 will be a great camera I am sure since the 300 was, I just cannot see shelling out the money for any camera unless your business is booming. I know mine is not, it is just at a trickle this year so far.

Cheers,

Dan Brockett

My sentiment as well, cams an expense not investment. Just today, I purchased a Pelican case off Craigslist, from the former largest rental house in Denver liquidating everything, F900's, Betacam, Varicam, you name it. There was so much pro-stuff slammed in that warehouse I could not believe it. Not a good time at all. Unemployment in Denver is only 7.7%, but very misleading, no manufacturing or production in this town, just a retail service economy and government offices.

It seems kind of interesting for it's price point, but am I missing something? I can't tell if this is CCD or CMOS based? Is it another 960x540 uprez chipset?

It's native 1920x1080. That's the CMOS advantage - cheaper than the 960x540 HPX500. But there's no free lunch!
Steve

but I just can't get too excited about a 1/3" camera.

Why not Tim? What do you see as the problem with 1/3" chips?

I posted a question regarding the pixels in 1/3" vs 2/3" chips, as it occured to me that unlike film a pixel is not enlarged when it is shown on a 50" screen, a pixel is a pixel, and its information is just transposed onto the screen. So the size of the pixel and therefore the size of the chip has no effect on quality.

There are plenty of other factors of course, but many of them are only relevant to certain types of work. You might talk about shallow depth of field, good for drama, but if you're using long lenses or doing run and gun doc/news you need some dof to help get things in focus. Besides, open up to f2 and you've got pretty slim dof even on 1/3".

Light gathering is better on the bigger chips, true. But even 1/3" chips are pretty sensitive, so unless you're doing a lot of night work you're more likely to worry about not having enough NDs rather than enough sensitivity.

Lack of lens options? Well, not really. You only really need 1 lens for most things, a standard zoom or a wide zoom, and they're are several of each for 1/3". Long lenses? Get a 2/3" or Nikon adapter.

I've never been able to quite understand the prejudice against 1/3" cams. And unlike a lot of folks on the forums who tend to want to defend their own kit, that's not my intention here, all the gear I use is 2/3".

Steve

Well, maybe it is a stigma with me. My opinions come from different areas.

When the 1/3" chip cameras first made a splash, they were considered less than pro because they were (viewed as) limited compared to the pro cameras. Pros used larger chips which were supposed to get better images. I think that has changed as the new 1/3" cameras get amazing imagery. But I still see them a limited? It is like an assumption that the good technology is saved for the larger chip cameras in the line.

When I use a 1/3" chip camera, I am turned off by having so much in focus. I don't mean wanting 35mm DOF, I mean when you go towards the wide end of the lens everything is in focus and to me that suggests a consumer leaning video image. I agree, for long telephoto work this would evaporate, but for everthing else, I just enjoy the look of a focus area. In the still or lighting world they call it modeling. You can achieve this with lighting techniques, but I see this between 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" imagers. It is a sense of depth in the scene and to me, the 1/3" imagers have a flatter dimensional look.

Optically, it seems 1/3" chip cameras have a sticky situation. Their smaller chips demand much more precise opticts but their pricepoint is limiting. There is also diffraction which creeps up to f4-f5.6 on this chip size which is working against you. A lot of 1/3" chip cameras come in little packages which is good and bad to me. They are portable, but a large camera handles so much better. The 300/370 have this covered.

I am a fan of 1/2" chips for folks in my position. I shoot a lot of different things and I find 1/2" imagers is the right mix of DOF for multiple shooting situations. I used to own three DVC-200s. They were perfect for my uses. 1/2" chips, adult lenses and cost around $5,000. These cameras had a much better image and flexibility than the 1/3" chippers at that time, so that is where a lot of my assumptions/assertions got started.

Maybe I am a bit angry that 1/2" chips have been largly left out of the HD party and the number of 1/3" cameras is quite large and growing. I use all three chip sizes btw.

Given the price of the EX-1, for $10,000 I would expect the HPX-370 to be 1/2" imagers when most of the market is around $3,500 - $5,000 for 1/3" chips.

So, why do you use all 2/3" chip cameras?

Good to hear your thoughts Tim.

Still I'm not sure some of it makes sense though. In terms of everything seeming in focus on wide shots, well it does on 2/3" chips too. According to a DoF calculator I just checked, if you focus a 7mm lens at 10 feet even at f4 you have focus from 1.2ft to infinity on 2/3" chip! So I can't see how a 1/3" chip would make any difference really.

In terms of diffraction, you are right of course, but bearing in mind the argument about wanting to restrict DoF you want to stay wider than f5.6 anyway surely? And as long as you have NDs on the camera, and maybe even some in your matte box if needed then f1.8-f5.6 should work for any situation.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just cautioning against people making these assumptions, as when you look into them they may not be quite as you think.

As for why I use 2/3" - that's what I'm given and what I'm told to use. I tend to be on medium to high end TV productions so they have the money to spend on gear and I think if you can afford it (and carry it!) then 2/3" is the way to go, why not. But I just think it'd be a mistake to write off 1/3" without really looking into it.

Steve

Here are some frame grabs of a test I did years ago with a DVX100 1/3", DSR-450WS 2/3" and DSR-450WS with a Pro35 adapter, 85mm Zeiss Super Speed, all at the same aperture of f2.8 and framing matched with cameras in the same position.

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

I guess I mis-spoke regarding the towards the wide end of the lens comment. Sure, DOF increases with wider fields of view. What I was thinking was a lot of the zoom range has most everything in focus.

When I look at Jeff's example, the 1/3" chip image does not hold my attention from a "look" point of view, and that is at f2.8 at smaller aperatures the walls would start to be in focus. If one were to shoot an entire pool related video, would you rather watch the 1st image or one of the other two? Just my opinion that the 2nd and 3rd image have a more porfessionally shot look. This does not mean people who use 1/3" chip cameras are not professionals, I use a 1/3" camera too. Please don't anybody go there. Now the 1/3" chip could function nicely in a role as a deep DOF style shot, but that would part of a group of cameras.

But if you had to present something to be judged with one camera, what would you put your name on if you had the choice?

Yes Jeff, sometimes it makes a difference!
Steve

You could always put a Letus or similar on your 1/3" camera though of course.
Steve

I'm not after the 35mm DOF for my work, so far, but 2/3" offer a few things the 1/3" or 1/2" don't:
Dynamic range, especially when shooting outdoors in difficult light. Done a few shoots where we have "flat" light, snow and black mountains in between or very strong sunlight in the same environment. I used a Hpx500 together with 4 cameras that are 1/3"; Hpx171/Hvx200 on a recent freeride skiing contest. A 2/3" offer some sort of slack , you're not screwed with the exposure a tad of...which is nice.

Low light ability, usually the 1/3" is left trailing behind in the dark or has to add enough gain to make it ugly.

2/3" DOF if sort of useful for "everything", not to much to cope with on fast paced action and but enough for sitdowns or nice scenery which make the editors happy.

But ofcourse you pay for the 2/3", either with compromises as the Hpx500...or the much higher price point for a Hpx2100 or higher.

Now that it's been officially announced, please direct
any posts regarding the AG-HPX300 to this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/476244-press-release-panasonic-announces-ag-hpx370-p2hd-camcorder.html

Thanks in advance,