Leaning heavily towards the AG HPX500....

Dan Brockett · March 4th, 2010, 09:04 AM

Hi David:

I don't need to look to the BBC tests. I owned the HVX200 for two years, replaced it with a 170 and regularly shoot with the EX1 as I have a client who owns three of them and they have me shoot with the EX1 whenever I shoot for them. Have not tried the EX1r but I would imagine the picture doesn't look very different?

It definitely comes down to personal preference but to my eye, when I shoot with the EX1 at 1080 24p, the image is so clean and razor sharp that it looks like 1080 60i almost, even though it is progressive, it has that Discovery HD sterile kind of look that doesn't appeal to me personally. Even after tweaking every setting possible, the Sony colors and gamma curve just cannot reproduce images that look as organic and exciting to me as the Panasonic images from the entire line of cameras, from the 170, up to the 3000.

I DP'd a film shot with my 170 in November that premiered at the IMAX theater in Copenhagen so I was able to see the footage, shot at 1080 24pA, projected from a 4k data projector onto a gigantic, curved IMAX screen. Since the film wasn't shot in IMAX, of course all of the vertical lines were curved but I was surprised at how film-like, clean and clear the images looked. The audience response to the images was great as well. Full raster resolution and razor sharpness are not everything, they are almost insignificant as far as I am concerned when compared to how the camera image strikes the viewer. I have seen plenty of great looking images from the Sonys, they are good cameras, but the flavor is just not as appealing to a lot of viewers.

To me, the Sony cameras look like digital video and the Panasonic cameras, with some tweaking, remind me very much of the footage I used to shoot with my S16 cameras back in the 90s. Just comes down to which look you prefer. The Sony images remind me of the images from the RED One, too clean, too sterile, very little "soul". Guess I am just a film guy at heart so a video camera that makes more film-like images appeals to me more than images that look exactly like real life.

Dan

Jeff Regan · March 4th, 2010, 11:32 AM

Dan,

I agree with you. Plus, if one wants the Panasonic mojo AND the full raster sharpness, the 300 and 3000/3700 would offer both.

When I saw the movie "It Might Get Loud" for the first time, I thought the first few shots were shot with a Panasonic camera because of the colorimetry. It was the different quality of the film grain that made me realize it was film.

The original color balance of the F23 studio shots were balanced warmer, as can be seen in deleted scenes on the Blu Ray, but the decision was made to go for a neutral balance instead for the final release. This made the transition from S16 to F23 more jarring--the difference was startling. I can't help but think that if they had shot with Panasonic cameras in the studio the look would have been closer to the S16 location footage.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Mike Peacock · March 4th, 2010, 02:36 PM

What a great thread!

Again, I'm simply amazed at the thoughtful and thought provoking posts this has generated. I've been agonizing over this decision for literally weeks, have talked to dozens of people from all over the world.

I was set to wait for NAB and roll the bones there to see which camera manufacturer was the most interested in making me a deal.

Then earlier this week an opportunity arose that I could not turn down. So, after a couple more days of agonizing over the decision and talking to some trusted people in my circle, I've purchased a B-stock HPX 2000. I've been able to "crow-bar" that camera and a nice HD lens in my CapX budget.

After the conversations that I've had and this thread, my decision to move away from the 500 became very easy and I feel confidant that I can work a full raster camera to a more broad based market. It will oen up some markets to me that would have been closed with the 500.

Best to all. I very much appreciate everyone who took the time to post here. Please know that I read everything, understood most everything and it was incredibly helpful in my decision.

David Heath · March 4th, 2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

Hi David:

I don't need to look to the BBC tests. ...........

Guess I am just a film guy at heart so a video camera that makes more film-like images appeals to me more than images that look exactly like real life.

Dan

You don't seem to have followed the links I gave. Look at what I previously posted, and you'll see the tests have absolutely nothing to do with the UK's public service broadcaster (the BBC), everything to do with the BSC - the British Society of Cinematographers.

Pinewood Studios (where the tests were performed) is one of the main feature film studios in the UK, and the tests were primarily intended to see how top budget digital cinema cameras compared with 35mm film. 16mm film of different speeds and makes formed a big part, the EX3 and HVX200 only a small bit. The top film guys in the UK were at the heart of the tests.

I certainly can't speak for everybody, but I think the big majority would prefer to keep 35mm film or the top digital cameras over the EX or the HVX200. That said, the overwhelming impression I got was that if it had to come to one of them, the EX was the easy winner.

As a colleague said to me today, it's easy to make a good thing worse, far more difficult to make a bad thing better. You can always make a sharp, clean picture soft and noisy, you can't do the opposite.

Dan Brockett · March 4th, 2010, 06:10 PM

Sorry David, I thought I had heard that the BSC tests were done for or in cooperation with the BBC, I will check out the link.

Dan

Dan Brockett · March 4th, 2010, 06:11 PM

Congratulations Mike!

The HPX2000 is a great camera, you should have a good run with that piece of gear. Did you get one with the AVC I board?

Enjoy,

Dan

Jeff Regan · March 4th, 2010, 06:25 PM

Good work Mike! I think I'll take a bit of credit for your decision! Did you buy from that dealer I told you about? Which lens?

FYI, HPX2000 is a full raster 720X1280 camera, but not a full raster 1080X1920 native camera. AVC-Intra will, however, if you have the board, give you full sample horizontal recording and 10-bit color depth, unlike DVCPRO HD, which is 3/4 sub-sampled horizontally and 8-bit.

The 2000 is the best deal going in a 2/3" camera if bought used or B-stock for under $18k, especially with the Intra board, as I've stated previously. I'm sure you will love the camera!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Mike Peacock · March 4th, 2010, 07:51 PM

Thanks Dan. Yes, Jeff...you definately played a role in the decision. It was a great, great deal on a great piece of gear. Yes, AVC-I board and Fuji XA series glass that I hope to upgrade later in the year. I might even find a lens upgrade deal at NAB.
Finding 64 gb cards for $900 and I'm very happy and excited for the markets this will open for me that didn't otherwise exist.

March 4th, 2010, 06:25 PM	#67
Jeff Regan Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Foster City, California Posts: 192	Good work Mike! I think I'll take a bit of credit for your decision! Did you buy from that dealer I told you about? Which lens? FYI, HPX2000 is a full raster 720X1280 camera, but not a full raster 1080X1920 native camera. AVC-Intra will, however, if you have the board, give you full sample horizontal recording and 10-bit color depth, unlike DVCPRO HD, which is 3/4 sub-sampled horizontally and 8-bit. The 2000 is the best deal going in a 2/3" camera if bought used or B-stock for under $18k, especially with the Intra board, as I've stated previously. I'm sure you will love the camera! Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video Last edited by Jeff Regan; March 4th, 2010 at 07:00 PM.

March 4th, 2010, 09:04 AM	#61
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Hi David: I don't need to look to the BBC tests. I owned the HVX200 for two years, replaced it with a 170 and regularly shoot with the EX1 as I have a client who owns three of them and they have me shoot with the EX1 whenever I shoot for them. Have not tried the EX1r but I would imagine the picture doesn't look very different? It definitely comes down to personal preference but to my eye, when I shoot with the EX1 at 1080 24p, the image is so clean and razor sharp that it looks like 1080 60i almost, even though it is progressive, it has that Discovery HD sterile kind of look that doesn't appeal to me personally. Even after tweaking every setting possible, the Sony colors and gamma curve just cannot reproduce images that look as organic and exciting to me as the Panasonic images from the entire line of cameras, from the 170, up to the 3000. I DP'd a film shot with my 170 in November that premiered at the IMAX theater in Copenhagen so I was able to see the footage, shot at 1080 24pA, projected from a 4k data projector onto a gigantic, curved IMAX screen. Since the film wasn't shot in IMAX, of course all of the vertical lines were curved but I was surprised at how film-like, clean and clear the images looked. The audience response to the images was great as well. Full raster resolution and razor sharpness are not everything, they are almost insignificant as far as I am concerned when compared to how the camera image strikes the viewer. I have seen plenty of great looking images from the Sonys, they are good cameras, but the flavor is just not as appealing to a lot of viewers. To me, the Sony cameras look like digital video and the Panasonic cameras, with some tweaking, remind me very much of the footage I used to shoot with my S16 cameras back in the 90s. Just comes down to which look you prefer. The Sony images remind me of the images from the RED One, too clean, too sterile, very little "soul". Guess I am just a film guy at heart so a video camera that makes more film-like images appeals to me more than images that look exactly like real life. Dan

March 4th, 2010, 11:32 AM	#62
Jeff Regan Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Foster City, California Posts: 192	Dan, I agree with you. Plus, if one wants the Panasonic mojo AND the full raster sharpness, the 300 and 3000/3700 would offer both. When I saw the movie "It Might Get Loud" for the first time, I thought the first few shots were shot with a Panasonic camera because of the colorimetry. It was the different quality of the film grain that made me realize it was film. The original color balance of the F23 studio shots were balanced warmer, as can be seen in deleted scenes on the Blu Ray, but the decision was made to go for a neutral balance instead for the final release. This made the transition from S16 to F23 more jarring--the difference was startling. I can't help but think that if they had shot with Panasonic cameras in the studio the look would have been closer to the S16 location footage. Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video

March 4th, 2010, 02:36 PM	#63
Mike Peacock New Boot Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 10	What a great thread! Again, I'm simply amazed at the thoughtful and thought provoking posts this has generated. I've been agonizing over this decision for literally weeks, have talked to dozens of people from all over the world. I was set to wait for NAB and roll the bones there to see which camera manufacturer was the most interested in making me a deal. Then earlier this week an opportunity arose that I could not turn down. So, after a couple more days of agonizing over the decision and talking to some trusted people in my circle, I've purchased a B-stock HPX 2000. I've been able to "crow-bar" that camera and a nice HD lens in my CapX budget. After the conversations that I've had and this thread, my decision to move away from the 500 became very easy and I feel confidant that I can work a full raster camera to a more broad based market. It will oen up some markets to me that would have been closed with the 500. Best to all. I very much appreciate everyone who took the time to post here. Please know that I read everything, understood most everything and it was incredibly helpful in my decision.

March 4th, 2010, 06:10 PM	#65
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Sorry David, I thought I had heard that the BSC tests were done for or in cooperation with the BBC, I will check out the link. Dan

March 4th, 2010, 06:11 PM	#66
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Congratulations Mike! The HPX2000 is a great camera, you should have a good run with that piece of gear. Did you get one with the AVC I board? Enjoy, Dan

March 4th, 2010, 07:51 PM	#68
Mike Peacock New Boot Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 10	Thanks Dan. Yes, Jeff...you definately played a role in the decision. It was a great, great deal on a great piece of gear. Yes, AVC-I board and Fuji XA series glass that I hope to upgrade later in the year. I might even find a lens upgrade deal at NAB. Finding 64 gb cards for $900 and I'm very happy and excited for the markets this will open for me that didn't otherwise exist.