The New Panasonic HPX-300...

[Tom Klein]

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

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by Tom Klein

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

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

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

[Tom Klein]

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

[Gary Nattrass]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Klein]

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

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by Tom Klein

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

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

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

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

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

The laws of optics are what's relevant here and for a given aperture it's the chip size that will govern depth of field. Hence the arguments against 1/3" chips in a relatively expensive camera are more photographic than to do with "technical quality" - and will remain relevant regardless of any transcoding to such as ProRes. There's also the issue of lens availability.

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

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

[Christian Magnussen]

Originally Posted by David Heath

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

350? Apart from the PDW700/F800 the rest of the Xdcam HD lineup are 1/2" sensors, so not much difference with regard to DOF there. And with the F355 you are very close to HPX2000, and that's really a no-brainer.

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

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Christian Magnussen

350? Apart from the PDW700/F800 the rest of the Xdcam HD lineup are 1/2" sensors, so not much difference with regard to DOF there.

I disagree - 1/2" sensors aren't ideal but are roughly halfway between 1/3" and 2/3" for dof etc. As I said before, not ideal, but better than 1/3". The real point I wanted to get across in answer to Gary though is that the lack of enthusiasm for 1/3" (in a fairly expensive camera) is less to do with technical quality, more to do with photographic imaging and the artistic side. No amount of post or codec conversions will ever solve that.

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

Sorry, but I really think the days of 960x540 chips are over now that 1920x1080 displays are becoming the norm. I suspect the full resolution chipset of the 300 is an acknowledgement of just that by Panasonic, and is something that I applaud them for. It's just a shame they're 1/3"............

[Gary Nattrass]

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

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

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

[Christian Magnussen]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Sorry, but I really think the days of 960x540 chips are over now that 1920x1080 displays are becoming the norm. I suspect the full resolution chipset of the 300 is an acknowledgement of just that by Panasonic, and is something that I applaud them for. It's just a shame they're 1/3"............

Well, for some types of shooting CMOS just won't be "safe" enough today and 1080 ccds from both Panasonic and Sony we are talking 30 grand for that(or more), or about 25 for 720 chips. I agree that basicly sd chips are not ideal, but that's kind of the compromise to get 2/3" ccds in a hd camera, in the same matter cmos are the compromise to get 1080 on a budget camera. Ofcourse it would be a dream to own a hpx3000 or 2700 instead of a 500, but the list price of those are about five times what i paid for the 500 body.

I'm also a bit afraid that 1/3" would not cut it for some the low light situations i need to shoot in, so 1/2" on the 300 i agree would be nice. But it seems that Panasonics sticking with either 1/3" or 2/3" with Sony being the only one with 1/2" chips. From a business point of view 1/2" might be to close to the larger high end cameras.

In Gray's case, S270 vs Hpx300 the 300 will probably be a knockout just with the codec...hdv vs avc-i.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Christian Magnussen

In Gray's case, S270 vs Hpx300 the 300 will probably be a knockout just with the codec...hdv vs avc-i.

I couldn't make much of a case for the S270 - it's 1 megapixel chips versus 2 megapixel for the for the 300, apart from codec.

But surely the battle is more HPX300 v EX3? Both 2 megapixel chips. EX3 is cheaper, 1/2" chips, and cheaper media, HPX300 is shouldermount. I can't help feeling that Sony may come out with a shouldermount competitor to the 300 (an "EX5"), and if they keep the 1/2" chips and SxS/SDHC media, that will be the one to get.

[Gary Nattrass]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I couldn't make much of a case for the S270 - it's 1 megapixel chips versus 2 megapixel for the for the 300, apart from codec.

But surely the battle is more HPX300 v EX3? Both 2 megapixel chips. EX3 is cheaper, 1/2" chips, and cheaper media, HPX300 is shouldermount. I can't help feeling that Sony may come out with a shouldermount competitor to the 300 (an "EX5"), and if they keep the 1/2" chips and SxS/SDHC media, that will be the one to get.

I am sure you are right but it was the recording codecs that made me go across to the 301, even if sony do a shoulder mount EX5 with 1/2" it will be 50mbs at best but I suspect 35mbs as that will tie in with the SXS format cards.
I could have got an F355 but it is about twice the price of the 301 and still 35mbs.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

.........but it was the recording codecs that made me go across to the 301, even if sony do a shoulder mount EX5 with 1/2" it will be 50mbs at best but I suspect 35mbs as that will tie in with the SXS format cards.

I'd put a lot of money on 50 Mbs, SxS cards are capable of vastly higher bitrates, but 50Mbs would fit in very well with existing product.

My understanding of the history is that 35 Mbs came from the first gen XDCAM discs, which couldn't manage much better than that. But it did mean that Sony could offer file based recording on consumable media. As technology improved, 50 Mbs to disc became feasible, and with it full 1920x1080 recording, 4:2:2, and lower compression. Currently, AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM-HD 50Mbs have full EBU approval for general use for acquisition.

So my guess would be that any SxS shouldermount would be 50 Mbs. The question that raises would be whether it would still be possible to use SDHC cards in such a camera. The cards are certainly fast enough with plenty to spare, and if an ExpressCard-SDHC adaptor came about using PCIExpress (rather than USB) I'd be pretty sure they'd work. As it is, the speed of transfer of clips in camera, and the speeds at which overcrank fails leaves me optimistic that they will still work.

Bear in mind that full "broadcast approval" depends on other factors than codec, and chip size is one. Hence for full broadcast compliance, technically the HPX300 fails due to chip size, the EX due to codec.

See why a £5,000-£7,500 camera with 1/2" chips, recording to XDCAM-HD 50 Mbs or AVC_Intra 100 is so eagerly awaited? :-) And why so many are saying "why doesn't the 300 have 1/2" chips"?

[Christian Magnussen]

Anyone actually tested the write speed of the SxS cards? I've hear a lot of rumours around what's the real sustained writespeed. Sony's seems kind of awaiting the flashmedia based world when it comes to large broadcast cameras. Xdcam's are approved by EBU and others, but for commercial, drama and what's maybe can defines as a bit "higher" end productions seem to opt for a format that's less compressed. Which seem to be both dvcprohd with the HDX900 and hpx3000 with avc-I.

If Sony where to lunch a Ex5, it will compete directly with the other 1/2" models which I suspect will continue to carry a higher pricetag. That's kind of jeopardizing you own market a bit, and I'm more into Panasonic's use of more efficient new codecs rather than the older mpeg2 even with the fact that Sony are very good with mpeg2.

The acceptance of 1/3" chips I'll guess will differ from country to country, and what customers you serve. Recently did a some helishooting with my Hpx500 for a 30 min show, the rest and most was shot on hvx200. The only issue with 1/3" was the lack of the 2/3" chips wider dynamic range with snow and dark rock/mountains. Professionals users will notice what's what, the regular viewer won't to the degree that you would care.