Today Panasonic announced a series of new cameras. Among them is the successor to the outdated HPX170 - the HPX250.

Here is the press release:

LAS VEGAS, NV (April 10, 2011) – Panasonic Solutions Company today sets a new standard for video quality in mobile HD acquisition with the introduction of the AG-HPX250, a P2 HD handheld camcorder with 10-bit, 4:2:2 independent-frame, full 1920 x 1080 resolution AVC-Intra recording.

“The AVC-Intra codec is highly prized for the stunning, master-quality 10-bit, 4:2:2 sampled, independent frame images it produces,” said Joseph Facchini, Vice President of Sales and Product Management, Panasonic Solutions Company. ”Now for the first time with the HPX250, Panasonic offers an ultra-portable handheld camera with full-resolution, 10-bit, intra-frame recording in a one-piece unit without the need for an add-on recorder. This is an unprecedented level of image quality in a lightweight camera.”

Weighing 5.5 pounds, the HPX250 incorporates high-sensitivity 1/3”, full-HD 2.2 megapixel 3-MOS imagers and a 20-bit Digital Signal Processor to acquire native 1920 x 1080 resolution images.

Offering a wide 28mm to 588mm (35mm equivalent) 21X HD lens with 3 independent adjustable rings, the HPX250 covers most shooting situations without the need for a wide-angle conversion lens. The 21X lens also features an Optical Image Stabilizer (O.I.S.) function that ensures stable images during shooting.

The HPX250 offers variable frame rate capability in 1080p up to 30fps as well as 720p up to 60fps for undercranking/overcranking to create fast or slow-motion effects.

In addition to AVC-Intra 100/50 recording, the HPX250 records in DVCPRO HD, as well as standard definition recording in DVCPRO50, DVCPRO and DV. The HPX250 supports international HD and SD standards, an added benefit to producers with global clients. In AVC-Intra 100/50 and DVCPRO HD, it records in 1080 at 59.94i, 29.97pN, 23.98pN, 50i and 25pN and in 720p at 23.98pN, 29.97pN, 59.94p, 50p and 25pN. In DVCPRO50/25 and DV, it records in 480 at 59.94i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 23.98pA, and in 576 at 50i and 25p over 50i.

The HPX250 offers Genlock/timecode input for multi-camera operation, as well as an HD-SDI output, an HDMI output, and an IEEE 1394 in/out. The camcorder is equipped with a Dynamic Range Stretch (DRS)* function to help compensate for wide variations in lighting, a waveform monitor and vector scope display, and two focus assist functions – a picture expanding function and a focus bar.

Equipped with two P2 card slots, the HPX250 can record for up to 320 minutes in AVC-Intra 100 at 720/24pN, 160 minutes in AVC-Intra 100 1080/24pN and 128 minutes in other AVC-Intra 100 or

DVCPRO HD formats on two 64GB cards. In AVC-Intra 50, the recording time is twice that as AVC-Intra 100.

The P2 HD handheld offers all the benefits of a faster, file-based P2 HD workflow including such recording features as instant recording startup, clip thumbnail view for immediate access to video content on all cards, and a host of time-saving recording modes including continuous recording, card slot selection, hot swapping, loop, pre-record (three seconds in HD and seven seconds in SD), one-shot and interval recording. The camcorder also features an SD memory card slot for saving or loading scene files and user settings.

For easy HD viewing, the camera is equipped with a widescreen 1,226,000-pixel LCOS color viewfinder and a widescreen 921,000-pixel 3.45-inch LCD color monitor. Its power consumption is low at only 17 watts.

The HPX250 will be available in Fall 2011 at a suggested list price of less than $6,500. It is backed by a five-year limited warranty program (1 year + 4 additional years with registration).

Panasonic NAB 2011 Show - Professional Video Solutions for the Real World (http://www.panasonic.com/promos/nab/2011/)

Lots of new announcements on that link Les! This bit interests me (but I have not heard what Apple's are going to say about the new FCS yet)...

Panasonic Solutions Company is introducing AVCCAM Importer software, a QuickTime plug-in that eliminates the need to convert AVCHD files to ProRES422 files before editing in Final Cut Pro.
AVCCAM Importer is a software plug-in for Apple Final Cut Pro to enable direct editing of an AVCHD “.mts” file without conversion. Since AVCCAM Importer is a plug-in component for Apple QuickTime, QuickTime Player can play an “.mts” file directly after installation of AVCCAM Importer on a MAC.
The AVCCAM Importer will be available this summer as a free download from the Panasonic web site.

It's the 370, except more compact.

Still, same rolling shutter issue is going to plague this camera carried over from the 370. Wouldn't be surprised to see extreme skewing in 1080p24N.

I think rolling shutter is something everybody is just going to have to get used to unless you want to be behind the times in terms of gear. CCD seems to quickly be becoming a thing of the past and many high end cameras now use CMOS including Red. Most of us complain about CMOS while some of the world's highest productions are being shot on CMOS. Yes I know it isn't perfect and it has it's limitations but I just don't see many companies using CCD very much anymore. In fact I would be really surprised if anybody makes a CCD camera anymore.

Panasonic NAB 2011 Show - Professional Video Solutions for the Real World (http://www.panasonic.com/promos/nab/2011/)

Thx for the link, the AG-AC130/160 certainly look like hmc151 replacements, very interesting.

"Weighing 5.5 pounds, the HPX250 incorporates high-sensitivity 1/3”, full-HD 2.2 megapixel 3-MOS imagers and a 20-bit Digital Signal Processor to acquire native 1920 x 1080 resolution images."

Well, I'm a bit surprised that this camera - or any new semipro cam - would still have a 1/3" chipset.... 4:2:2 is nice though.

CCD seems to quickly be becoming a thing of the past and many high end cameras now use CMOS including Red.....In fact I would be really surprised if anybody makes a CCD camera anymore.

What about the new HPX3100 or the also new PDW500!? There is nothing wrong with CCDs. They are more expensive to produce that's all. They also generate more heat and consume more power. Don't compare old CCD cameras to new CMOS cameras. Rather compare new CCDs with new CMOS cameras.

Anyway I to think that CCDs are slowly moving away from the market. The only cams that will be using CCDs in the foreseeable future in my opinion are ENG type cameras. As far as I understand it: 1/3 is to small for 1080p and 4/3 and up are to expensive to make (for a competitive product) and would probably produce lots and lots of heat and consume lots of power. 2/3 seems to hit the spot with CCDs...

Well, I'm a bit surprised that this camera - or any new semipro cam - would still have a 1/3" chipset.... 4:2:2 is nice though.

Why not? Bigger chip means a bigger camera - if you want to have a nice long zoom lens attached to it that is... And there's also the SDOF with the bigger chips. SDOF isn't welcomed always.

I don't know...can a handy-cam stile camera even be made with a large sensor (4/3 and up)?

I was happy to read this announcement. It looks like Panasonic will continue to offer one of the better cameras (if not the best camera) for hand-held / verite-style documentary shooting in this price range. The HPX250 looks like a worthy replacement for the HPX170 (which I love both in terms of ergonomics and image quality) with welcome upgrades like full HD imaging and the AVCHD-Intra codec. The aperture ring on the lens is a welcome improvement too! For hand-held shooting (especially since I like to pan and move in my shots) I welcome the added depth of field of the 1/3" chips and the lack of rolling shutter-effect thanks to the use of CCD technology. D-SLR and large chip cameras have their place, I love shallow depth of field for many things, but when it comes to hand-held documentary work I like what the 3-1/3" CCD HPX170 provides me (and soon the HPX250) as a very capable tool in the toolkit.

David, sorry if I have mis-read your message but the HPX-250 has CMOS chips, not CCD chips.

[QUOTE=Sanjin Svajger;1637627I don't know...can a handy-cam stile camera even be made with a large sensor (4/3 and up)?[/QUOTE]

Yes. 4/3 and Super 35 chips. But they are only single chip camcorders. Do we really need 3 chips? Way back when, 3 chip cameras delivered very obvious color and image quality advantages over single chip cameras. Is that still the case now? I know my latest single chip DSLR delivers amazing color and IQ.

Yes but it won't deliver very high resolution like a 3 chip cam can...

... but the RED MX and EPIC deliver very high resolution with a single chip. The dSLRs can't because they have optical filters designed for still and video, both. A compromise follows on video. A single chip camera optimized for video could shine.

I saw this camera in the display case today. It has a noticable lower profile. Especially compared to the tall XF300.

Yes. 4/3 and Super 35 chips. But they are only single chip camcorders. Do we really need 3 chips? Way back when, 3 chip cameras delivered very obvious color and image quality advantages over single chip cameras. Is that still the case now? I know my latest single chip DSLR delivers amazing color and IQ.

By handy-cam I meant with a big motorized lens in front of it. A HPX170 with a 4/3 chip... I know Sony has announced a motorized zoom for the F3 but let's wait and seen how that's going to look like. As of today I don't think it's possible for a manufacturer to make let's say an XF300 with a APS-C chip. I am eager to see what that zoom is going to look like.

Yes. 4/3 and Super 35 chips. But they are only single chip camcorders. Do we really need 3 chips? Way back when, 3 chip cameras delivered very obvious color and image quality advantages over single chip cameras. Is that still the case now? I know my latest single chip DSLR delivers amazing color and IQ.

The Sony EX series and Canon XF 300 series offer higher resolution than any of the current single sensor cameras at the Sony F3 or below levels. Neither do they have the artifacts of the current DSLRs. It really depends where your priorities lie.

I suspect currently 2/3" is about the tipping point for the smaller single sensor camera otherwise other trade offs start kicking in.

Seems to me the new camera with the most sales potential is the AG-AC130. From what I gathered, reading the press release, it's essentially a 1/3" chip version of a souped-up HMC40 (a tiny beast, capable of producing astonishing images, especially for such a low cost camera), and likely to wind up being the most direct competition to Sony's HXR-NX5 (an exceptional AVCHD camera, in my opinion) at that price point. It's good to see that Panny didn't cripple the AC130 (or 160) with an abysmally low-res LCD and viewfinder, like the HMC40 (a major weakness of the 40). If the 1/3" chips in the AC130 produce images as cleanly as the 1/4" chips in the HMC40, allowing gain to be cranked way, way up, without making the images look radio-active, the 130 could be amazing in low-light, for a camera in it's class - potentially making it the next bread and butter king of low-budget wedding and event videography, and a great all-around workhorse. I can't really imagine the AG-AC160 selling all that well, unless it's discounted considerably from the list price - it doesn't really seem to offer anything significant, that the NX5 doesn't offer, but carries a $500 heavier (list) price tag. If one absolutely can't live without SDI and/or uncompressed audio, I could see potentially paying $500 more for the AC160 instead of an NX5 tho, if the 160 performs notably better when the lights are turned down (and it just wouldn't surprise me much if the 130/160 is as clean at 12dB as the NX5 at 6dB, after having shot with both the NX5 and HMC40).

Yes but it won't deliver very high resolution like a 3 chip cam can...

Not sure about that. The new Sony Super 35 cameras deliver full 1920 x 1080 and will also do 1080 60p and amazing low light capabilities. Sounds pretty good to me. PMW-F3 and NEX-FS100. Exciting stuff.

I can't really imagine the AG-AC160 selling all that well, unless it's discounted considerably from the list price - it doesn't really seem to offer anything significant, that the NX5 doesn't offer, but carries a $500 heavier (list) price tag. If one absolutely can't live without SDI and/or uncompressed audio, I could see potentially paying $500 more for the AC160 instead of an NX5 tho,

The AC160 will have full raster chips while the NX5 has pixel shifted chips. That might be the $500 difference for some.

The AC160 will have full raster chips while the NX5 has pixel shifted chips. That might be the $500 difference for some.

The AC130 will have the same imaging chips as the AC160. The only real differences between the 130 and 160 look to be SDI and uncompressed audio recording with the 160 - and of course, the price tag. Oh, I guess there's variable frame-rate with the 160 also. I know I sure won't be spending well over a grand for those added features, since they're almost irrelevant to me, although for some folks it makes a world of difference.

As far as resolution, it would be great if the AC130/160 actually records a sharper image than the NX5 (which sure isn't soft, by any stretch of the imagination), but the HMC40 has full raster chips as well, and actual recorded resolution/detail, in decent shooting conditions, is virtually identical with the HMC40 and NX5. I'm betting the AC130/160 will be no better or worse, in that regard.

The HPX250, while having a low vertical profile, is quite fat. I did not get to see it from all angles yesterday. Today I did and it's a remarkable large camera for a handycam form factor. It's also long and straight (lacks the upward bend of the Ex3 and XL semi-shoulder designs). Man the thing is big.

Design-wise to me it looks ugly:) Compared to it's competitors XF300 and EX1 it looks like it came from the past maybe...:)

I agree with you, Sanjin. In an industry so linked to style, you would think they would have done a better job of packaging.

If the cameras are getitng that big the makers need to consider the mini-shoulder design of the JVC cameras.

"In an industry so linked to style, you would think they would have done a better job of packaging."

Shallow as it sounds, i have to agree. This looks like a chubby consumer camcorder. The HVX looked like a very distinctive product, but this thing looks cheap, as if it was knocked up as an afterthought. If you look at - and feel - the mighty little XF100 from Canon, you get the impression you're holding a mini Pro camera in your hands, while the 300 is more impressive than the EX1. Meanwhile the HPX250 looks like a poor cousin of the HMC150.

With all the goodies inside, and what looks like an outstanding piece of glass, you'd think they'd make it look like something worth plunging into the pricey world of P2 media to acquire.

The only classy thing about this camera is the red band round the lens which has a Canon L-series association, regardless of whether it is or not. They've even taken the colours out of the P2 logo on the side, and, like the later manifestations of the HVX, the black has been replaced by a dreary grey.

Of course it's not due for release for sometime yet so we don't know what will eventually turn up, but at this point in time it doesn't compete with the competition on looks. What's inside it is another story of course, and vastly more important. But they could at least have made it look like a desirable camera.

'If the cameras are getitng that big the makers need to consider the mini-shoulder design of the JVC cameras"

Then they would not be this kind of camera anymore, not to mention eating into their more expensive models. This size camcorder is great for doco stuff and can be carried as hand baggage on a plane and used for run and gun work etc. But i see your point.

The Xf300 - and JVC - is significantly bigger than the EX1 while having smaller sensors. As is this camera. In fact these new releases from the competition remind us of what a bargain deal the Sony EX1 still is. Especially since little used models go on Ebay at half price every day with loads of extras, and years after its release, no other manufacturer is offering a 1/2 " sensor at this price point.

I think it looks all right.
It looks functional, that should be enough.
Now, how it handholds is another matter.

The XF300 is huge because of that beautiful, fat, super-sharp lens. It's a work of art. It deserves a bigger camera behind it. Not even the mighty EX1 can match that lens.

I'll take an butt ugly camera that yields stunning images, over a gorgeous paper weight, any day of the week.

All of these cameras are large in diameter

The AC160 will have full raster chips while the NX5 has pixel shifted chips. That might be the $500 difference for some.

The NX5U chips are not pixel shifted, the pixels are interpolated from the sensor sites which are roughly twice the area of the interpolated pixels. A simple way of thinking about the Sony system is to imagine the diamond shaped sensor with a square pixel taken from its center and the four corners that are left forming parts of the four adjacent interpolated pixels. This interpolated pixel gets information from four sensors that do in fact cover the same area a true pixel would cover. The DSP rationalizes the data as in all modern cameras.

Ron Evans

Hey Ron,

I was just pointing out that the NX5 only has a ~1 megapixel chipset where the HPX-250 will have a ~2 megapixel chipset. Might be worth more to some (to answer the "why the $500 difference" question).

Sorry I used the Panasonic's term for voodoo resolution. :)

Understood. I too was just trying to separate the difference between sensors and pixels which exist in all modern cameras. Sensors are arranged to gather as much light as possible with lowest noise while providing the DSP with enough information to create pixels. Pixels are created by the DSP. Sometimes there are more pixels than sensors and sometimes there are less pixels than sensors. Sony system is intended to gather maximum light for the chip size. The larger the sensor the more effective the light gathering. The diagonal arrangement creates the geometry for the DSP to create the pixels effectively. The theory is one gets better performance. Unfortunately my XR500 single chip or the CX700 single chip I have has better noise performance from the "R" sensor that I wish Sony had used in my NX5U !!!

Ron Evans

All the stylistic issues aside, I appreciate how Panasonic has delivered cameras that produce images that transcend specifications, the Panasonic "look" has won my respect. I also appreciate the features that really make a difference, for example, the built-in waveform that helps me obtain perfect exposure on the fly in uncontrolled situations, better than Zebras or a Histogram by a long shot, it's these things that sold me on the HPX170 so long ago in video time and may sell people on its HPX250 successor.

I know that at least part of the difference in "look" between the NX5, and the current Panasonic AVCHD HMC150 and HMC40, at default settings, is greater edge enhancement with the Panny models. Crank up sharpness on the images coming out of the NX5, and they start looking a bit more similar.

I have a picture profile for my NX5U with gamma ITU-709, black level -2 and detail +4 seems to give a more pleasing picture similar to the added edge enhancement of the more consumer cameras.

Ron Evans

Panasonic seems to go out of their way to deliver a pleasing image straight from the camera ("shooting for dailies"), while Sony leans a bit more toward delivering an image better suited for post production.

All my cameras are Sony but I know that it is easy to manipulate the images on all of them to look much the same without destroying them in the process.

Ron Evans

Panasonic have consistently produced the nicest "straight out of camera" images IMO. I've never owned one due to the cost of P2, but this thing looks fantastic. Anyone done a price comparison between buying P2 and using a Nanoflash (or similar gizmo) to shoot with? I'm referring to the cheaper E-Series P2 cards since i wouldn't pay for the lifetime guarantee version.

Hi Dom I have been in mainstream broadcast for over 30 years and seen and used Sony kit for most of that time, I had sony camera's myself up until two years ago when I invested my own money in the panasonic P2 system with two HPX301 camera's using hire HPX3700 for mainstream broadcast.

The HPX371 (the 301 is virtually the same in PAL land) is now on the BBC list of approved HD camera's and the HPX250/251 will no doubt be added once it is released.

What I like about P2 and all the panasonic camera's is that they produce superb images and they look much more film like than the sony camera's which to me now have a very red colour cast and are more video like, that includes the high end sony cameras too and the panasonic codecs look nicer too and stand up to re-compression far better than the long gop ones.

Linked with that a five year warranty makes the investment a no brainer for me and if I had gone with the EX ser two years ago I would still have to add an external recorder as I would also have to do to the much more expensive 320 or 350 cameras.

OK the 301/371 is 1/3" chip but I have shot news, doco, sport, feature film and many other broadcast material over the past two years and the P2 system and the panasonic camera's have always given me what I wanted, they also go smoothly into my FCP edit system and that can not be said with the sony cameras I have had or tried as I have had no end of problems with loading and re-compression for output.

Gary + Dan

Ok, i'm warming to the idea of this being my next camera having been set on the Canon XF range.

A couple of questions regarding recording times, and by all means pass me on to another link if this issue has been done to death.

I like the idea of being able to shoot in AVC100 at times, but at others i can live with lower end codec's.

What is the lowest HD quality this camera shoots at in terms of recording times?

If i decided to askew P2 altogether am i right in thinking i could buy the 160 version and a nanoflash instead?

Not sure about the Nanoflash option - or those diddy SD cards - so P2 makes more sense.

Should i go the P2 route, i would not want to buy more than 2x 32 GB cards, so what is there on the market for capturing this footage in the field? Do the Nexto recorders work for these cards, or is there another affordable device that does it?

Cheers

Dom

Ouch! Just stumbled upon the Nexto that is P2 friendly and its getting on for 2 grand. I'd previously been looking at the 200 quid models thinking they might do the job. Surely there are cheaper options available?

The NX5U chips are not pixel shifted, the pixels are interpolated from the sensor sites which are roughly twice the area of the interpolated pixels.

Both processes are simply different forms of pixel offset -- one is on a square
grid and there other on a diagonal, otherwise they are very similar. Both are
viable means of increasing resolution directly from the sensor block.

Both processes are simply different forms of pixel offset -- one is on a square
grid and there other on a diagonal, otherwise they are very similar. Both are
viable means of increasing resolution directly from the sensor block.

Chris,

do you know where one could read further into this topic?

thanks

The topic of pixel offset? You should be able to find white papers covering
the Pansonic version (known as the Pixel Shift process) and the Sony version
(known as the ClearVid process) on their respective company web sites.

Edit: here's a Sony document for ClearVid: http://www.sony.co.uk/res/attachment/file/78/1237477501978.pdf

Pixel Shift described within this Panasonic document: ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/panasonic/drivers/PBTS/papers/AG-HVX200.CCD-WP.pdf

Both processes derive an increase in sensor resolution by creating more sampling points at the sub-pixel level.

Thanks Chris! That's what I wanted:)

What I like about P2 and all the panasonic camera's is that they produce superb images and they look much more film like than the sony camera's which to me now have a very red colour cast and are more video like, that includes the high end sony cameras too and the panasonic codecs look nicer too and stand up to re-compression far better than the long gop ones.


I agree, and that desirable rich film look goes back to the tape based Pana GS400 which first appeared in July 2004. IMO it *beats* the Canon look too, regardless of the Custom Preset used.

I've still got 2 fully working GS400s squirreled away .. to play their tapes from the archives.

Cheers.

Hi Dom the lowest HD shooting on the HPX371 is AVC Intra 50 at 720p you can also shoot AVC Intra 50 at 1080i 25np which gives you 1440x1080 pixel images. 720p will also allow you to over and undercrank the camera too.

I tend to shoot AVC Intra 1080i 25np most of the time unless I need to do varicam or need a lot of storage space when I drop it down to AVC 50.

I have four 32gb cards but find that two are enough for most projects and my low cost way of offloading to hard drive is by using a powerbook G4 mac which has a PCMIA card slot, I can then leave a card copying whilst still shooting but most of the time I clone the cards and verify them direct from the camera to a USB hard drive or go direct into my edit system.

You could also use a PC with a PCMIA card slot to copy the cards as they just appear a hard drives on your desktop and can be copied easily or get the new card reader that is less than £500 if you already have a laptop.

Thanks for the info Gary.

Looking forwards to Dan Brockett getting hold of this cam to review later in the year. It seems destined to Join Canon's XF300 with the Beeb's seal of approval, and more importantly, will produce outstanding images. Also, as Dan pointed out elsewhere Panasonic have covered all price points by making 2 ACVHD versions. Can't complain with that.

i'm also very interested in this camera.

i had the original hvx200 and never loved the camera. i found focusing to be a chore and forced me to use an external monitor in the field which really slowed me down.

over the years, i have been more open to p2. with that in mind, i would again look at p2 if i went with the hpx250.

my only wish is for the camera to be in the stores by summer 2011 rather than autumn 2011.

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

The HPX250 is now listed on B&H at $6495, just $4 less than the Canon XF300. I'm hoping for a comparative review when the HPX250 is released. This looks like it will be a fun horse race!

Ken