-
hpx 300 help!
-
Phil,
I shot with the new JVC HM700 this am.
Say what you will, but it has a wonderful picture.
It leaps over the HPX300 in my opinion.
It’s a little dinky, but menu functions were very easy to nav. Its basically a Sony EX on the inside.
JVC has really got their stuff together on this model. Check out the vimeo link to see some of the HPX300 test footage that I was unhappy about. It actually looks like the cam isn’t shooting HD. Anyways, I’m still on the fence about exhanging for another 300 or moving over to the HM700. Thanks again!John
https://www.vimeo.com/wvm -
Thank You
-
John,
I have watched both the interior and exterior tests of both cameras. The HPX300 looks like HD to me, not dissimilar to the 700. The 700 has so much chromatic aberration that it’s distracting–the stock Canon lens looks like crap on the exteriors.
As far as a 700 being like an EX1 on the inside, how do you figure?
The EX1 uses 1/2″ CMOS full raster imagers, the 700 uses 1/3″ lower resolution CCD’s that are pixel shifted to derive an HD image.The 700 XDCAM EX recorder is an optional separate unit. I don’t see much similarity except for the MPEG2 based codecs. The 300 and EX1 are much more similar at the front end due to both having full raster CMOS sensors, albeit the EX1 has the 1/2″ advantage. Once you get to the codecs, the 300 leaves the 700 and EX1 for dead due to its AVC-Intra 100 format.
Again, if the 700 looks right to you, go for it, I’m just perplexed because I don’t see what you’re seeing, but I try to not make judgments from highly compressed net streams. Although, the CA error with that Canon lens on the 700 is distressing. Didn’t see a bit of CA with the 300, probably due to the CAC circuit.
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com -
I hate to add fuel to the fire, but I have had my HPX 300 for approximately one month and have not encountered a single disappointing moment that wasn’t self inflicted. The images, with the stock lens, are extremely sharp and depending upon which of the stock scene files are chosen, they generally stand out in terms of punchy color and “crispness,” whatever that is. I actually sold an Ex3 and replaced it with this camera and I can truthfully say, that IMO and to my eyes and 24″ HD monitor, that the images are much more pleasing and striking than the apparent hyper-sharpened files produced by the EX3. With this in mind, I would have to assume that the original poster’s camera was defective, given his stated credentials, or…
-
We have an EX1 in our rental inventory and I didn’t like the standard picture profile look at all, it just looked like a hyper sharp video camera to me, not filmic. Once I did some scene files it looks much better to me. Also, shooting in 1080/60i really reveals the shortcomings of the 4:2:0 Long GOP low bit rate XDCAM EX codec.
AVC-Intra, being a 10-bit codec has 4X the shades of gray(1024) vs. any 8-bit codec(256). Much more tonality and room for grading and color correction.
The look of any camera is very subjective and there are so many image control parameters that can be addressed in digital video cameras that it should not be too difficult to find a pleasing look or looks.
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com -
I concur Jeff, I have been shooting the EX1 since it came out, I have a client with three of them and when I shoot for them, I shoot with the EX1. The camera can produce really nice pictures, but I find overall, even with tweaks, the picture seems to have that Discovery Channel 60i look. Not bad, just different. It is that razor sharp, antiseptic look. That appeals to a lot of people, it seems especially in Europe and Australia for some reason.
I find the 300 to have a more pleasing colorimetry to my eye. Yes, definitely more noise than the EX1/EX3 but that doesn’t bother me at all. When I go back and look at a lot of my S16 footage, the 300 footage in comparison looks leagues cleaner and then the EX1 looks cleaner yet. It all just depends on what appeals to you. For tabletop, I love the EX1 as to my eye, tabletop looks great super clean. But for people and nature, I much prefer the look of the 300.
YMMV and I would never buy either camera without trying them out in the real world. It is worth a one day rental to evaluate either.
Dan
Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs
-
I agree Dan. I think most DP’s would agree that Panasonic is the standard bearer for colorimetry, good skin tones, and great tonality with the higher end cameras that have 14-bit A-D’s.
Whether an HVX200 or an original Varicam, this is what Panasonic is known for. I am continually blown away from the look of our new HPX2700 P2 Varicam, especially with Intra. We’re getting one more stop of usable latitude due to lower noise with Intra and the camera has 10-11 stops of latitude with Film-Rec 600. But it’s the color that clients comment on most. It’s funny how many clients look at the monitor for the first time at the start of a shoot day and say, “Wow!”
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com -
This might be somewhat off topic to John’s original post and I hope that John is still reading and will let us know what he finally decided to do with his camera situation..It seems like there are two different expectations out there from people (whether one is a professional in the video industry or a general viewer) The first expectation, I think, in HD is the very razor sharp antiseptic look that Dan has spoke of, that 60i Disco. look, I think most general viewers think that this is what HD is suppose to be, and for the most part it should be very sharp but with the exceptional colorimetry that Dan and Jeff speak of with the Panasonics, which would be the second expectation of HD.
My question, for Jeff or Dan or anyone else (and maybe this should be another thread, sorry) is how to achieve both? The razor sharp or very sharp picture and the full colorimetry?Thanks.
-
Phil,
I don’t think saturated colorimetry and sharpness are mutually exclusive. The HD news and sports look that you and Dan referenced, or Discovery 1080/60i look is more likely due to detail circuit settings and frame rate, plus possibly lower saturation, higher gamma and blacks.
I prefer lower detail levels, less contrasty images(although that is often changed in post). The 60p or 60i frame rates, combined with lots of use of edge enhancement(which I believe has little place on an HD camera) is what many viewers and producers think of HD as being, vs. the more subtle, organic film look, much of which is also affected by depth of field and lighting.
I have some clients who want 60i, 60p or 30p, none of which is a filmic look.
Sony cameras from way back had too much enhancement in the blacks. They have improved this over the years, especially with HD cameras, but I like Panasonic’s detail settings better–although, like colorimetry, that can be changed to a large extent, depending on the menu items available in the camera.
Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com -
Good evening all,
The camera that John and I use is the HPX2000p. Our current setup has us shooting SD at 480i 16:9 DV25.
The opinions on JVC are ones that I too have shared. Shared right up until I saw video shot with the hm700.
It looks fantastic. Apparently JVC is making a concerted effort to improve their products and professional image. I applaud their efforts.
Yes, we are news guys so we spend a lot of time doing “meat grinder” shooting. We sometimes, accidentally make pretty pictures even if we can’t recite scene file settings and gamma curves for all cameras made since last Tuesday. 😀
I looked at his camera, I shot with it, I examined the settings. Everything looked setup to Panny defaults. As unlikely as it sounds, it looks to me to be a bad imager.
Thanks for the helpful commentary all. Steve, your post, if meant as I took it, clearly comes from a position of ignorance.
Jason Smith
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up