i am very interested in this camera.

really adds to the 170/200a.

it is said to be a hand-held version of the 370.

http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/ag-hpx250.pdf

ymmv

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/494415-new-camera-panasonic-ag-hpx250-6.html#post1679304

Looking at the 1/3 chips and reading Barry Greens article on how this is now addressed and better than Sony's 1/2" chips I have to ask is this the same technology the Panasonic 370 employed and caused ghosting?

I notice the 250 doesn't come with a P2 card so this will certainly add to the price and just how compatible is P2 with NLEs. The 20x Signal processor sounds really cool.

If the noise reduction is from the 370 but fixed and a P2 card supplied this could be a camera to consider.

I'd like to have bought a large sensor camera and I'm getting frustrated at having to wait for a camera that isn't crippled. At least the 250 appears to have a decent build and technology for its £4000 price tag. Fingers crossed its a goodie.

Yes I think the 250 uses the same technology as the 370 so should be the same, they did a firmware update that cured the ghosting problems and as you are in PAL land you won't have a lot of the problems anyway.

The P2 system is tried and tested and I have used it for two years without any problems, it is worth the investment and E ser cards are a lot more cost effective these days but will last you for many years without problems.

The P2 system and the codecs are very NLE friendly and I have even completed projects on a single 5400 rpm firewire 800 drive on a macbook pro using AVC Intra 50.

AVC Intra 100 is a superb codec and about as good as you can get, it loads into FCP very smoothly and is very efficient thru post production to delivery as it all stays in pro res HQ all the way.

I have had my HPX301 camera's for two years now and they are very useable for all sorts of content, OK the 1/3" DOF limitation is there as is the cmos chip problems but for most 25p work I find it fine and no one has ever complained. In fact the last HD TV commercial I did the DOP said he didn't find the camera limiting at all.

Sounds great! I know I'm asking probably to much here but can you edit AVC-Intra 100 in sony vegas 10?

Yes you can. Have done it frequently, Vegas 9 & 10, but you will have to install Raylight Ultra from:

Raylight Ultra by DVFilm - Edit HVX200 P2 MXF DVCPROHD with Vegas (http://dvfilm.com/raylight/ultra/index.htm)

You can download a trial version. I highly doubt that Sony will ever put their major competitors codecs, that's Panasonic's P2 codecs into Vegas. A bit like Ford using GM parts... never going to happen... or would be very surprised if it did!

For what it's worth I have heard through the grapevine that there has been some behind the scenes cooperation between DVFilm and Sony to enable Vegas to handle P2 based material. Whether there has or hasn't been I have been impressed by the way Raylight Ultra seamlessly works within Vegas. Just bring in you DVC Pro or Intra footage and edit away. The other way to use P2 codecs would be to batch transcode to the CineForm codec using Neo. Much bigger files but run as smooth as butter on a decent speed box:

Cineform Neo4K (http://www.cineform.com/neo4k/)

Chris Young
Sydney

I've been thinking of getting the new HPX250 when it comes out, but I would also need Raylight Ultra to edit in Vegas. I've heard that Ultra uses a proxy video for the editing. That worries me, since I would be getting the HPX250 for it's 4:2:2 encoding, since I want to do a lot of green screen work. If I'm editing with a proxy, can I properly judge how the chromakey settings will work in the final render? Anyone know if Ultra has a non-proxy option, that would work smoothly with an i7 and 12 GB of RAM?

(I know the Canon XF300 is an option, but I really liked my old standard def Panasonic, so I'd like to get a high def Panny if possible.)

Ken

Using proxies is optional with AVC-Intra and Raylight Ultra, you can turn it off. The proxies are there for slower computers like single-CPU laptops with only one hard drive.

Also there are two "Power Pack" options for Ultra that improve the playback performance with or without proxies. The Power Pack I uses a Panasonic-licensed decoder and is about 2x-3x faster than the decoder that comes with Ultra.

see Raylight Ultra Power Pack I (http://dvfilm.com/PPI) for example

There is also a Power Pack II for authoring AVC-Intra P2 cards if you need that.

Finally you might be interested that DVInfo.net posters can get a $75 discount on Ultra, contact DVFilm Support for more info.

Re noise cleanup I believe noise removal occurs at the signal processing stage on the 250 I just wondered if this is better or the same as running neat video over Sony EX1 footage and if so do the benefits level out if you do.

A lot of night time footage I've seen from the 250 and maybe its me but doesn't look as good as the EX1.

Another problem is with the P2 cards as they are so expensive especially if you want to record at its highest level which equals 32 mins on a 32 GB card. It would be great if that cost could be bought down.

Well I've had my P2 cards for over two and a half years now and whilst it was a large investment at the start they have paid for themselves many times over, the E-ser are most cost effective and you can also pick up cheaper ones on e-bay.

Another problem is with the P2 cards as they are so expensive especially if you want to record at its highest level which equals 32 mins on a 32 GB card. It would be great if that cost could be bought down.

I really don't, really don't, understand why everybody keeps comparing EX1s cost per minute to the Panasonic P2 cost per minute. This is such an unrealistic remark.

Panasonic records AVCintra a broadcast quality I-Frame codec. And because of that you get a lousier economy GB/min comparing to the prosumer mpeg2 long-gop that the EX series cameras use. P2 cards and SxS cards cost the same. So it's not that the P2 cards are expensive - it's the codec! You really can't complain that the cost "gigabyte per minute" is worse because you're recording in a completely different codec whilst the cost of the medium is the same on both sides!

P2 --- http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/panasonic_aj-p2e064xg
SxS --- http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/sony_sbs-64g1a

If it's more record time that you want then shoot in AVCi50. And if one doesn't need such a high quality codec he doesn't buy such a camera...

Sanjin

I had to sell my EX1 and now need to replace it I also want to wait until nov 3rd but have become very interested in the pannie 250's spec but after seeing some test footage I'm not convinced and would be nice to see some uncompressed 100 intra posted somewhere to have a real look.

I could consider another EX1 or Panny if Nov 3rd doesn't turn out right. I originally had the first sony version and the R version does look quite tempting too. I'm trying to compare features and sort out what is good what works and what is dressing. Im looking closely at these cameras because they are a lot of money and close to the price of a small car.

For example the new atomos Samurai has prorez and about the cost of the P2 cards. I also have EX1 accessories like batteries letus adapter etc. The SXS cards no way match the P2 ones The problem I have with P2 is it doesn't fit with my fav editing programme Sony Vegas and I'm a bit concerned about the compromises and extra software.

The EX1R is a £1000 more expensive but with a 14x lens although lens size is not an issue for me nice to have the 22x but what is an issue is the chromatic abherattion which the 250 corrects.. Also though noise is a consideration and I'd like to know if the noise reduction employed is worthwhile compared to using neat video on an EX1. I'd also look at what does better skin tones and look for the best IE filmic picture in lower light conditions and which camera handles highlights better Also which camera gives the better gamma curves for post and have things really moved on with the new pannie Initially I thought they had but on viewing the test footage online so far I'm not so sure anymore.

You see I have a lot of questions and those answers could be worth maybe a few thousand pounds in MY situation. IE all the accessories bits and pieces programs etc .

I also don't know whats going to happen nov 3rd and that's frustrating the hell out of me especially as I've had to wait for so long for a low end professional camera to come along to replace my EX1 that would preferably be a larger sensor but if compromised in a way I feel is going to affect my ability to make a film then *sigh* I'll go back to the smaller chips. Unfortunately in the world of cameras we seem to get experts biased this way or another for whatever reason and trying to see the woods for the trees is sometimes difficult. I guess I need to see a detaled review by someone trusted like Adam Wilt or Alan Roberts then I could stop asking questions!

I was just talking about P2 cards and the endless debate that's going in circles from the day the HVX200 was released that's all. Nothing else...

Regarding everything else you wrote I agree. The footage from the new 250 didn't impress me to. Albeit it was shoot rather dull and unimpressive. There also weren't any real tests done where one could see the qualities of the camera... It's really weird how little effort was/is put into marketing of this cam. It's really low profile.

Panasonic just recently lowered the cost of the E series cards. Before that they were a lot more than the S x S economy series. On top of that, there are S x S express 34 to SD slot adapters cards for 200.00 / 64 gigs. I would like to see Panasonic do this with the PCMCIA slot.

Re noise cleanup I believe noise removal occurs at the signal processing stage on the 250 I just wondered if this is better or the same as running neat video over Sony EX1 footage and if so do the benefits level out if you do.

A lot of night time footage I've seen from the 250 and maybe its me but doesn't look as good as the EX1.
I haven't seen the 250 yet, but in principle I'd think it must be better to do any software noise reduction as a post process. With software, if it looks too aggressive, you can always click the "undo" button, adjust the amount, and try again.

With the 250, it gets burnt in at time of shooting - if you don't then like it, tough.

This was the issue with the 371. It seemed to have a good, clean image for 1/3" chips, then matters like the noise ghosts gave the game away and it turned out the seeming lack of noise was due to processing, not low noise chips. And the "cure" was to offer the option to turn the processing down - so up came the noise again.

Even if it doesn't give the noise ghosting, software noise removal may get rid of subtle detail which post processing may rely on, even if it's not visible to the eye on the original picture.

The only way to get round it is lots of light, and don't even think about gain, or bigger chips, which is the undeniable advantage such as the EX1 has with the 1/2" chips. I consider this a far more significant issue than codec (at the level we're talking about, you're only going to start seeing the codec differences when you cascade codecs etc). That said, it would be good to see the full broadcast 50Mbs XDCAM422 in the EX range.

As far as P2 costs go, then don't forget about the use of SDHC cards in the EX via an adaptor, and maybe Compact Flash and the Canon range are a better comparison. CF versus P2 are about half the price currently per GB, but the Canon codec gives you twice as many minutes per GB, so a 1:4 ratio in time terms. If you spend £2,000 on memory with P2, £500 with CF will give about the same run time, and a fully approved broadcast codec in each case. Look at it in terms of adding £2,000 to the capital cost of the 250, £500 to the Canon for cost comparison. (Obviously it will vary depending how much continuous running time you think you'll need.)

The 250 is undoubtably a big step forward from what Panasonic had at this price point before, but it feels like they're now catching up with Sony and Canon - not overtaking them.

the footage i've seen posted has been uninspiring, at best.

but much of what i've seen has been shot by a vendor who was kind enough to take the time to give all those interested a wee bit of a taste.

now that b&h has the camera in stock, i am sure shooters will soon be posting gobs of footage and then and only then can those interested truly start to assess whether the hpx250 is a camera they want for their kit.

i've waited this long, so i'm willing to wait till more footage is posted.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...&A=ShowProduct

ymmv

be well

rob
smalltalk productions

The 250 is undoubtably a big step forward from what Panasonic had at this price point before, but it feels like they're now catching up with Sony and Canon - not overtaking them.

If you ask me Panasonic overtook, just for a few centimetres.

On top of that, there are S x S express 34 to SD slot adapters cards for 200.00 / 64 gigs. I would like to see Panasonic do this with the PCMCIA slot.

It would be great if Panasonic did that!:)

Panasonic just recently lowered the cost of the E series cards. Before that they were a lot more than the S x S economy series. On top of that, there are S x S express 34 to SD slot adapters cards for 200.00 / 64 gigs. I would like to see Panasonic do this with the PCMCIA slot.

They do: it's called the AC-160 ;)

But seriously, it's a smidge easier to feed 35mbps to an SD card than 100mbps... and the most reliable SD cards (ie, SDXC UHS) aren't much less expensive than P2.

I'm liking their tiered approach, aside from making my inevitable upgrade choices more difficult.

If you ask me Panasonic overtook, just for a few centimetres.
Well, in terms of codec, they may have caught up with the Canon and yes, overtaken such as the EX, but what about front end? They've caught up there in terms of resolution - all the cameras we're now talking about are true 1920x1080 - but the 1/2" of the EX still gives it a big advantage for such as diffraction limiting, native sensitivity, and dof control.

As far as the XF305 goes, both it and the 250 are 1/3", but the XF305 does have a very good fast lens with f1.6 max aperture. That let's it compete somewhat against the bigger chips of the EX.

So what's the lens on the 250? Strangely, the Panasonic documentation doesn't give any figure for max aperture - which tends to make me suspect it's unlikely to be as good as the XF305. Hence the likely reliance on software noise reduction. I just don't believe the front end comes close to that of the XF305 or EX, and feel that's a more significant factor than codec.

The 250 may have a price advantage at first sight against it's competitors - but for an equal amount of recording time the extra cost of the P2 memory is likely to balance that out. It's a big step forward for Panasonic, but I still believe they fall short of the competition overall.

Its max aperture is 1.6

Panasonic AG-HPX250 P2 HD Handheld Camcorder AG-HPX250PJ B&H

I like the 370's performance in comparison to the EX series, and this camera promises very similar performance.

Add in VFR, world compatability, AVC-Intra, the entire gamut of other available codecs, longer lens... on paper, at least, it appears to kick the crap out of the XF305, and for ~$1500 less (which will easily buy you two 64GB P2 cards)... also considering that good reliable CF cards are nearly as expensive as P2, and the availability of AVC-Intra 50, can it really be said that P2 is "too expensive?"

The XF series never really excited me enough to ditch my HVX. This camera does.

.............also considering that good reliable CF cards are nearly as expensive as P2, and the availability of AVC-Intra 50, can it really be said that P2 is "too expensive?"
I've just checked online with one of the main UK dealers, and Sandisk Extreme 32GB CF cards (rated 60MBs - 480Mbs) are £107.50 - so £215 for 64GB.

A 64GB E-series P2 card from the same dealer is £468.95. (More if you want 2x32GB.)

In other words, CF (and I consider Sandisk Extreme to be as relaible as it gets) are well under half the price per GB of P2 - where do you get the "nearly as expensive" from?

Add in that for 2 hours recording time, you need 128GB for AVC-Intra100, 64GB for XDCAM422, the comparative figures are £937.90 for a P2/AVC-Intra approach, £215 for CF/XDCAM422 then it can certainly be said that P2 is a lot more expensive - 4-5x more.

Cost doesn't come into it for me and I would be very nervy about recording broadcast AVC Intra 100 onto a single CF card of whatever quality, P2 works and in over two and a half years I have never lost a single frame of footage on any shoot that I have done.

When I had my Z7 and S270 HDV camera's I lost lots of clips and that was with recommended CF cards so that is why I went to P2 as it is a system designed for broadcast use and is tried and tested! The sony FCP plug in never worked on all my systems and I had to buy clipwrap to do my data wrangling.

Yes it cost me up front for the card investment but as said they have made their money back many times and continue to earn me money and more importantly give me the confidence that I will deliver my media every time.

The sony EX1 barely existed when I bought my first HPX301 and sony were using disc based media for broadcast but it was still only 35mbs, they have now changed to solid state but I am still using the same P2 system that was developed for the HPX500, 2700 and 3700, when I go to a 3100 for the olympics next year I will still be using the same P2 cards to do DV, DVCPro, DVCPro 50 DVCPro HD, AVC Intra 50 and AVC Intra 100 in NTSC or PAL at 50i or 25p with the HPX371 and 3100.

I would be very nervy about recording broadcast AVC Intra 100 onto a single CF card of whatever quality, P2 works and in over two and a half years I have never lost a single frame of footage on any shoot that I have done.

When I had my Z7 and S270 HDV camera's I lost lots of clips and that was with recommended CF cards .......
I think we need to separate the media from the system. CF has been used for years by photojournalists in photography, is heavily used for professional sound recording in some systems, and is also used extensively in many video recording systems such as the nanoFlash, let alone the Canon cameras. I'm not aware of any reports that it's intrinsically less reliable than such as P2 or SxS. The BBC has recently chosen the XF305 for their standard camera of this type, and I don't believe they would have done that if they had had the slightest doubt about Compact Flash usage.

I hear what you say about your Z7/S270 experiences - but is it not more likely that was a problem with your equipment specifically? Either the specific system, maybe due to conflicts with recording to tape/card simultaneously, or even a fault within your specific equipment?

Please note that I am not trying to infer there is anything wrong with P2 or AVC-Intra - I'd be surprised to hear if you had had any problems. What I do disagree with are the opinions earlier in the thread that they are essentially superior to alternatives.

And I don't think you can ignore cost. You say you use a 371 - would you really have gone for that in preference to a 2/3" camera if cost didn't come into it? And comparing the costs of any cameras, you need to take account of the memory needed for a usable recording time. Using my figures above, that adds £215 for the Canon camera, £937.90 for the 250 for even 2 hours - a difference of about £725. So for a realistic comparison you need to add £725 on to the capital cost of the 250 to compare with such as the XF305 - more if you need more than 2 hours of recording.

If I thought that the 250 would really give superior results to an alternative camera then this may not matter too much. But going back a few posts, the reports seem to suggest it has a front end very similar to the 371. Hence the first thing I'd want to be checking out is the noise/noise ghosting issue. I've seen that first hand, and according to a colleague it makes for big problems for some post operations, even if not too bad on original pictures. The real issue is that noise processing in camera is not neccessarily a good thing, normally better done in software if necessary, and a real negative if it can't be turned off.

Of course cost comes into certain elements of any business but we were talking about media and that is where I have never compromised on cost. Yes a 2/3" camera would be my preference on everything but as rates have stood still for 10 years clients get an HPX371 most of the time and I have had no complaints.

The noise problems on the HPX301/371 were mainly in NTSC land as was the skew but most of it was from people who were dialling in huge amounts of gain or not using the camera correctly.
All cameras have noise but the 371 is BBC approved so that is fine with me and as I don't do stupid things like try to shoot in the dark I never hit any problems.

I know lots of people who have problems with CF in their Z7's so it is not just me but I do take your point that it would be great to have lower CF based costs for my storage but I paid my money and made my choice over two years ago and have no complaints as I was looking at a system that was across all the P2 cameras at that time.

Well, in terms of codec, they may have caught up with the Canon and yes, overtaken such as the EX, but what about front end? They've caught up there in terms of resolution - all the cameras we're now talking about are true 1920x1080 - but the 1/2" of the EX still gives it a big advantage for such as diffraction limiting, native sensitivity, and dof control.

As far as the XF305 goes, both it and the 250 are 1/3", but the XF305 does have a very good fast lens with f1.6 max aperture. That let's it compete somewhat against the bigger chips of the EX.

So what's the lens on the 250? Strangely, the Panasonic documentation doesn't give any figure for max aperture - which tends to make me suspect it's unlikely to be as good as the XF305. Hence the likely reliance on software noise reduction. I just don't believe the front end comes close to that of the XF305 or EX, and feel that's a more significant factor than codec.

The 250 may have a price advantage at first sight against it's competitors - but for an equal amount of recording time the extra cost of the P2 memory is likely to balance that out. It's a big step forward for Panasonic, but I still believe they fall short of the competition overall.

For info the HPX250 has an f1.6 lens, it's stated on their PDF spec sheet: http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/sales_o/broch_pdf/ag-hpx250.pdf

Optical image stabilizer lens, 22x motorized zoom, F1.6 – 3.2 (f=3.9 mm – 86 mm), 35 mm conversion: 28 mm – 616 mm (16:9)

Panasonic cameras (hvx, hpx170, hpx500, hpx371) were always a bit different from the crowd regarding the media and the codec. They always had a strong codec and a reliable media. In this regard they are not for the same crowd that uses SD or CF cards and records in highly compressed codecs (mpeg2 35Mbit, AVC 24mbit). This is the crowd who is willing to compromise by shooting in a highly compressed GOP codec and record to a media that is not "bullet" proof. It is completely understandable that this crowd is going to banter around about the cost of the P2 media. But this is are not the people for whom this Panasonic cameras are aimed at. In my opinion this cams are aimed to a little (just a little bit) more "professional" folks who understand and/or need the robust codec and appreciate the reliability of a professional media that is the P2 system. I am one of those folks, ergo I have a P2 system:)

Sure you can hook an external recorder to an EX1 or an XF300 but still, is it the same as having a strong codec on-board? No, it isn't. And yes having an external recorder does give you some extra options, but you can also hook a recorder to an HPX250...

In my opinion the HPX250 beets (overall) the XF300 and the EX1r. But Panasonic is late, very late to the game and it will be beaten by a new Sony competitor when they'll release it in the not so far away future. Probably way before Panasonic releases an upgrade to the HPX250.

I was just thinking: is the focus on the 250 mechanical?

Looking at a photo in the brochure, the zoom ring has markings. But I don't see markings for the focus ring. The brochure says all 3 rings are manual, but says the zoom ring is a cam-driven mechanical ring. So it's not quite clear if the focus ring uses a servo motor, or is directly linked to focus.

Panasonic cameras (hvx, hpx170, hpx500, hpx371) were always a bit different from the crowd regarding the media and the codec. They always had a strong codec and a reliable media. In this regard they are not for the same crowd that uses SD or CF cards and records in highly compressed codecs (mpeg2 35Mbit, AVC 24mbit). This is the crowd who is willing to compromise by shooting in a highly compressed GOP codec and record to a media that is not "bullet" proof. It is completely understandable that this crowd is going to banter around about the cost of the P2 media. But this is are not the people for whom this Panasonic cameras are aimed at. In my opinion this cams are aimed to a little (just a little bit) more "professional" folks who understand and/or need the robust codec and appreciate the reliability of a professional media that is the P2 system. I am one of those folks, ergo I have a P2 system:)

Sure you can hook an external recorder to an EX1 or an XF300 but still, is it the same as having a strong codec on-board? No, it isn't. And yes having an external recorder does give you some extra options, but you can also hook a recorder to an HPX250...

In my opinion the HPX250 beets (overall) the XF300 and the EX1r. But Panasonic is late, very late to the game and it will be beaten by a new Sony competitor when they'll release it in the not so far away future. Probably way before Panasonic releases an upgrade to the HPX250.

The most important part of the equation is how does the picture look. For me the codec in the EX1 is enough for ordinary filming and even some scenes that need high quality. The only time 100 intra or Prorez 220mb comes in useful is when you want the very highest quality for post work otherwise its not really neccesary although you are guaranteed its all BBC proof and I would probably use the 50mb most of the time. If I was making a film I would go for the prorez 220 and use the atomos samurai when it becomes available. Would be nice to have the 100 intra but it's not as important as it once was precisely because of the samurai's imminent release and cost of P2 media wouldn't be an issue if it was recording an equivelent to Prorez 220 its only an issue because intra 100 is a similar price to prorez 220mb albeit an external recorder but a small one and one that will give the quality advantage in post. I think until we get some 250 100 intra footage saying one camera is better than another is a waste of time.

I hope the focus ring doesn't turn endlessly on the 250.

This is the crowd who is willing to compromise by shooting in a highly compressed GOP codec and record to a media that is not "bullet" proof.
A "highly compressed GOP codec"? In very extensive and scientific trials the EBU gave XDCAM422 full approval as an acquisition format, as indeed they did AVC-Intra 100. (But not AVC-Intra 50.) XDCAM422 has been heavily adopted by large sections of the broadcast industry, and maybe one of the highest profile adoptions early on was by the BBC for "Eastenders", which (for those not in the UK) is overall the most watched soap in the UK. Full story in Taking Eastenders HD - theworkflownews-content | TVBEurope Magazine Online & In Print (http://www.tvbeurope.com/theworkflownews-content/full/taking-eastenders-hd)
Following extensive trials and testing, to see if they {the BBC} could break the digital compression system, the combination of the HSC-300 and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders were selected. The XDCAM’s were for location work .......

And since then, the BBC have made a huge investment in Canon XF305s and PMW500s for other purposes. Same with many other big name broadcasters. And by all accounts the testing involved cascading codecs and post work, and scientifically seeing how it stood up to the broadcast chain. Does this really sound like "the crowd who is willing to compromise".......? Do you not consider them "professional"?

OK, this is XDCAM422, as used by the XF305, and I'm sure you'll point out that the EX uses the 35Mbs version - not 422 50Mbs. I've said many times that the EX should get the full 50Mbs codec, but the real difference is 4:2:2 v 4:2:0, in other respects they are very similar. In no way can 35Mbs XDCAM be said to be "highly compressed".
Sure you can hook an external recorder to an EX1 or an XF300 but still, is it the same as having a strong codec on-board? No, it isn't. And yes having an external recorder does give you some extra options, but you can also hook a recorder to an HPX250...
No, it's not the same - but why would you want to hook an external recorder to the XF305 (or the 250)? They both have a fully approved broadcast codec as defined by the EBU. As for the EX1, then I would indeed prefer the 50Mbs codec built in - but at least it can be added externally. You can't upgrade the 1/3" chips of the 250 to match 1/2" chips - you're stuck with any issues such as noise ghosting they give.
In my opinion the HPX250 beets (overall) the XF300 and the EX1r. But Panasonic is late, very late to the game and it will be beaten by a new Sony competitor when they'll release it in the not so far away future. Probably way before Panasonic releases an upgrade to the HPX250.
On the first sentence we will have to agree to differ. It's my opinion the front end of the EX1 is , and that is more significant than the codec differences - and an ext recorder can always be used.

As said before, then whilst I don't think the 250 is the overall winner, I do think it's a significant step forward. For the last few years, Panasonic has been left way behind by the EX at this price point, and the Canon camera just emphasised that. The HPX250 does now provide some real competition - but as you say, it's late to the game. It only needs Sony to put the broadcast codec into a 1/2"camera to draw indisputably ahead again.

And this is before we even start to think about sales lost to large format cameras. For varying reasons, I've found the first generation (AF100, FS100, F3) disappointing, but let's see what November 3rd brings from Canon and Red. I wouldn't buy anything before then if I could help it, and that includes the 250.
The noise problems on the HPX301/371 were mainly in NTSC land as was the skew but most of it was from people who were dialling in huge amounts of gain or not using the camera correctly.

All cameras have noise ..........
The 371 I saw was a 50Hz ("PAL land") version, and was before the "fix". I'd read of the noise ghost, and it didn't take long to see what the fuss was about, so it was certainly an issue this side of the Atlantic as well - I can't comment if it was even worse for 60Hz models. It's important to put it in perspective. It wasn't obvious at first sight, but once spotted you couldn't ignore it, and the real problem came as some post techniques exacerbated it. Put it like this - the post issues the noise reduction caused were worse than any advantages the use of AVC-Intra may have given.

I didn't notice the noise as too objectionable at that time - but I'm told that subsequently the ghost "fix" made it worse, hardly surprisingly. It was the noise reduction that gave the ghosts, getting rid of the ghosts meant getting rid of the noise reduction!

Yes, all cameras have noise, but the 371 is worse than such as the PMW320 - which is probably the closest rival in terms of price, features etc.

A "highly compressed GOP codec"? In very extensive and scientific trials the EBU gave XDCAM422 full approval as an acquisition format, as indeed they did AVC-Intra 100. (But not AVC-Intra 50.) XDCAM422 has been heavily adopted by large sections of the broadcast industry, and maybe one of the highest profile adoptions early on was by the BBC for "Eastenders", which (for those not in the UK) is overall the most watched soap in the UK.

OK, this is XDCAM422, as used by the XF305, and I'm sure you'll point out that the EX uses the 35Mbs version - not 422 50Mbs. I've said many times that the EX should get the full 50Mbs codec, but the real difference is 4:2:2 v 4:2:0, in other respects they are very similar. In no way can 35Mbs XDCAM be said to be "highly compressed".


Yes. The 35Mbit 4:2:0 GOP codec is highly compressed. I must confess that in the time of writing this I didn't have broadcast in mind. At least not NEWS programs. And in yes I was talking more or less about the EX codec not the Canons. But the Canons codec is still intra-frame and 8 bit (although 8 bit doesn't do much in a 1/3 chip camera as you alone have pointed out many times...). I myself don't like and probably won't ever shoot (at-least not for my own production) in a GOP codec. Maybe just to use it as a proxy or a backup when recording with an external recorder (with an AF100 or something similar).

Anyway to truly say the 250 is better or worse from the competition we'll have to wait and see for some true tests to be done and to hear feedback from the users. I wouldn't buy an 250 at this moment either. Not just because of the 3rd. November but because it's a new camera probably full of bugs and such. Sad, but that's how things work now days. The first batch is for testing and user feedback...

I myself don't like and probably won't ever shoot (at-least not for my own production) in a GOP codec.
But why on earth not!? The example I gave was drama - a long way from news - and lots of big quality productions have no qualms about long-GOP per se.

The point about long-GOP is that it will give the quality of an I-frame only codec in about 1/2-1/3 the datarate. Why's that a bad thing?
Anyway to truly say the 250 is better or worse from the competition we'll have to wait and see for some true tests to be done and to hear feedback from the users.
Having just seen an online demo, it seems that although it does have three separate rings for iris, zoom and focus, the iris and focus operate via a servo mechanism. Hence, relatively imprecise control, continuously rotating rings with no end stops, and no direct read out on the rings.

The obvious comparisons are the EX1 and the XF305, and the lenses on those don't have those drawbacks. I consider this a pretty big negative, and although the lens seems to be f1.6, it ramps by two stops over the range.

Yes but not a bad range and seemingly quite a nice pic zoomed in.

that although it does have three separate rings for iris, zoom and focus, the iris and focus operate via a servo mechanism. Hence, relatively imprecise control, continuously rotating rings with no end stops, and no direct read out on the rings.


I'm really disappointed by this. Why can't they give us a normal focus ring...??

I'm really disappointed by this. Why can't they give us a normal focus ring...??
Simple answer - it costs more!

Don't underestimate what Canon and Sony have both done, especially Sony, combining true manual lens with 1/2" chips. It's having the ability to use a lens as either auto-focus OR a true manual lens with good response and end stops that's difficult. Either one alone is one thing, both together is difficult. It means a more expensive camera.

It all comes down to cost and compromise and the points about memory costs earlier. Very roughly, the camera only price of the XF305 is more than the HPX250 - but take memory costs into consideration and the package costs become similar. Engineering a true manual lens to the HPX250 would likely have made the camera only costs very similar, so taking memory costs into consideration it would have then been at a significant cost disadvantage.

Simple answer - it costs more!


Off course. I wasn't really asking:)

The 250 IS a nice replacement for the 170. But I'm still waiting for a bigger chip camcorder with a P2 system. I'm at a crossroads. The stuff I'm currently doing (documentaries) requires more P2 cards that I own. But I don't want to buy up on the P2 cards without having a solid upgrade option in the camera department. And selling P2 cards is a total loss if you ask me (at least here in Slovenia where everybody thinks that used stuff should be automatically half the price or more...). I don't really want to upgrade to the 250 - although it is a compelling upgrade for a 171 owner - same batteries, same media, not that pricey of an upgrade. I would like to upgrade to a bigger sensor. Not to a 1/3. The 3100 is what I would need but it's to pricey for the production we're doing at the moment and the foreseeable near future.

I guess we're waiting for the day Panasonic releases a 2/3 ENG cam in the price range of the EX350:) Or an AF100 with P2. Think it's going to happen? I don't want to stay in the Panasonic camp just because I own P2 cards...

I just got back from a Panasonic demo and I was able to handle a 250. With the short time I had with the cam, I must say I came away mightily impressed. It felt light and comfortable to hand hold. I thought the image was crisp, sharp and clean. I turned the camera toward an unlit part of the room and shot on 6db and 12db. Even at 12db, I felt the image was very clean and absolutely usable. I liked the image from the 250 more than from the AF100s, which they also had on display.
With the AVC-i 100 codec, I think this camera is a terrific bargain. Compared to the XF305 which I previously owned, I would have picked the 250, had it been available when I bought my XF. The fact that the 250 is a cool $2,000 less, with that terrific codec, can't be overlooked.

Sounds good, I've never shot with P2 cards,
could someone give me an idea, of how many cards would I need to shoot a wedding, AVC intra 100mbs?

I can have a laptop, with hard disc to download foogate from time to time..
Look forward to test the cam, too many good things in it!

Sounds good, I've never shot with P2 cards,
could someone give me an idea, of how many cards would I need to shoot a wedding, AVC intra 100mbs?
A good approximation is around 1GB a minute. Hence a 64GB card gives close to an hour of recording time etc. How many hours of recording time do you want?
I can have a laptop, with hard disc to download foogate from time to time.
I really, really don't think this is a good idea. I know of at least one person who has had a laptop stolen in just such a situation, and I suspect he's not the only one. And you really need to make two separate copies of material on two separate hard drives before deletion from the original cards.

Any risk to your material is far more likely to come from human error than equipment or card failure, and downloading is an activity best carried out in a calm environment - NOT in the middle of a shoot if you have other responsibilities. It's easy to think "but it won't happen to me"..... believe me, it has happened to a lot of people who thought exactly that!

Far more satisfactory to have enough memory to cover the entire event and leave downloading until afterwards. If that rules out P2 on cost grounds - so be it.

I have two old laptops for P2 wrangling, a powerbook G4 and an old PC laptop both with PCMIA card readers, if security is a problem then I use a kensington lock to secure them to something but as they are so old I doubt anyone would nick them anyway. As David correctly highlights I do tend to leave data wrangling till at the end of the day as it allows the two copies to be done, once verified from the camera and the other straight into FCP with my other laptop a mac book pro.

I have four 32gb cards and find that if I need lots of space AVC Intra 50 is perfectly acceptable for most jobs and would certainly be OK for weddings.

Sounds good, I've never shot with P2 cards,
could someone give me an idea, of how many cards would I need to shoot a wedding, AVC intra 100mbs?
Well, a 64GB card is enough for about 72 minutes of recording time in either 1080p25 or 720p50. You get a little less time in NTSC modes (30p/60p) and more time in 24p. With two 64GB cards you'll get about 140 minutes.

....... if security is a problem then I use a kensington lock to secure them to something but as they are so old I doubt anyone would nick them anyway.
Hah! That's what my friend thought! Trouble is that to the sort of person who might be tempted to nick them, a laptop is a laptop, period.
I have four 32gb cards and find that if I need lots of space AVC Intra 50 is perfectly acceptable for most jobs and would certainly be OK for weddings.
But then isn't this sort of defeating what must be one of the main pluses for this sort of camera - the inbuilt fully approved codec? AVC-Intra 100 is, AVC-Intra 50 isn't.

Up against the XF305, then with each at the same 50Mbs datarate, the XF305 has a fully approved codec, the 250 doesn't - and CF cards are cheaper than P2 per GB.

And the XF300 has that true manual lens - the 250 has a servo lens. However good the 250 may be (and yes,it's a lot better than the 171) I can't really see why I'd want to buy it in preference to the XF300?

I can't really see why I'd want to buy it in preference to the XF300?

Folks that have lots of batteries, P2 cards and other accessories for the HPX170 are probably on the fence for the 250.

Has anybody seen if the 250 has inproved in the highlights? Is the red chroma still clipping to soon? I was disappointed with the AF100 in this regard...

I use AVC Intra 100 for broadcast and AVC intra 50 for corporate or jobs where I don't need the full 100 codec but may need more space.

Never run out of card space anyway and if I were to do a full broadcast production that required more space I would just buy some more cards!

I would agree, AVC-i 100 is overkill for a wedding. If I were an event videographer and weddings were a big source of my income, I would look at the AC130. It's basically the same camera as the 250, same lens and chipset, but records to AVCHD. It uses much cheaper SD cards and it's priced about $1,500 less than the 250. If you don't need a broadcast-level codec, or HD/SDI out (like the AC160), it makes a lot more sense to go with the AC130.
And let's not forget the Sony NX5U. It's been a proven performer for event videography.

As far as choosing the HPX250 over the XF300/305, you can't go wrong with either camera, especially at the broadcast level. I don't know if the 250 has been approved for full acquisition by the BBC HD or Discovery HD, but since the HPX370 already is, and the 250 uses the exact same chipset and codec, I would expect the 250 to get approval. The AVC-i 100 codec is 100mbps, 10-bit, 4:2:2, and all this for $2,000 less than the XF305. That's amazing.
Again, if the 250 had been available when I bought my XF305, I might have gone with the 250. In my case, I already own P2 cards, so it would have made better economic sense. A $2,000 savings is, for me, a lot of coin.
When I looked at the video of the 250 at 12db, I thought it looked as clean as comparable XF305 footage. This is in no way scientific, just a quick observation based upon my prior experiences with my 305, and I fully admit I could be wrong. A side by side comparison is needed.
This in no way takes anything away from the XF305, which is an excellent camera. The 250 has to be very good to match the performance of the 305.

Folks that have lots of batteries, P2 cards and other accessories for the HPX170 are probably on the fence for the 250....
Fair point - I was basing my comparisons on buying a complete package from scratch.
I don't know if the 250 has been approved for full acquisition by the BBC HD or Discovery HD, but since the HPX370 already is, and the 250 uses the exact same chipset and codec, I would expect the 250 to get approval.
You have to take the BBC list with a bit of caution - it used to signify "suitable for everything" now it's "passes the bare minimum". Hence the 370 (amongst others) may be allowed for some work, but frowned upon for other purposes. That said, I suspect they may be far less interested in the 250 now than they might have been a year or so back. They've bought a load of XF305s, and I don't see why they'd want to confuse matters by going onto another type of camera as well unless it offered a significant step up - and in the case of the 250 most aspects are comparable, but the servo lens is a significant step DOWN from the XF305.

They've also recently bought a large number of PMW500s, which together seem to show a preference for the 50Mbs XDCAM422 format.
When I looked at the video of the 250 at 12db, I thought it looked as clean as comparable XF305 footage.
I'd be a little careful for reasons mentioned earlier in the thread. The best guess is that it uses the same or similar chipset as the 370, and the "noise ghost" issues are well documented. Do you know what the noise reduction profile was set to in camera? The concern would be that noise is being minimised to look better at simple viewing - but give rise to other issues (the ghosts) that grab you further down the post chain. That said, the specs seem to imply it should be comparable to the XF305 for low light performance - but both to be trumped by the EX.

But for weddings I agree that the 130 is likely to be a more sensible choice than the 250 - in many respects they are the same or similar, but the 130 is cheaper to buy, and memory costs become far less of an issue.

I thought the 370 "noise ghost" was fixed with a recent upgrade?

And I'm not suggesting the BBC will go out and purchase HPX 250/370 cameras, but will allow independent producers to submit projects shot with these cameras.
And agreed, the XF300 lens is incredible.

I thought the 370 "noise ghost" was fixed with a recent upgrade?
I believe the "fix" was to offer an option of using less software noise reduction - effectively going back to something like the HPX300. The knock on is obviously that a "fixed" 370 is then noisier than a "ghostly" 370!

Since the 370 was introduced to counter complaints about higher than desired noise levels and the low light performance of the 300, I'll let you draw your own conclusions!! :-)

I believe the "fix" was to offer an option of using less software noise reduction - effectively going back to something like the HPX300. The knock on is obviously that a "fixed" 370 is then noisier than a "ghostly" 370!

Since the 370 was introduced to counter complaints about higher than desired noise levels and the low light performance of the 300, I'll let you draw your own conclusions!! :-)

Yeah, the P.A.P. filters, Type 1 and Type 2 and the "micro-jello." I was hoping Panny had ofered a more recent upgrade, but apparently not.

50mbps long-gop is equal to 100mbps I-frame because the data is spread over several frames instead of a flat amount for each. In some circumstances (definitely not weddings, but who knows?) this plays an important role in compression because if there is too much change between frames (such as often happens in nature or if flash photography is involved) the first frame may get overloaded with information, and will leave about 10% of the data rate for the rest of the frames in the group.

They've also recently bought a large number of PMW500s, which together seem to show a preference for the 50Mbs XDCAM422 format.
Cash city my friend, how I'd like to live there, but $25k is too much for anyone but a network to consider.
...And that's only for the body.

Don't knock your heads too much about the issues surrounding the 370, it works great for what it is, I mean it's not like you're trying to capture a blockbuster on the darned thing, otherwise you're looking in the wrong section of the forum. With -3db and good light I can barely see some noise in the shadows, and on a typical HDTV with typical network compression you can't see anything until much higher gain levels are used. Don't be too critical of footage on a 27" 2560x1440 monitor from a foot away, it'll look awful.