HPX500 vs. HDX900

[Barry Green]

The HDX900 has far more extensive menu controls and adjustability. They’re both 2/3″ cameras, with basically comparable sensitivity and sharpness. The difference is in the features and in the menu depth (plus the tape vs. p2, etc.)

—————–
Get the most from your DVX camera. The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available on ebay and at Amazon (https://www.fiftv.com/db)

[David Skillicorn]

As always, it all depends on what you need etc etc…. but a basically $10,000 dollar price point difference…. better be more than deeper menu and adjustment options to justify that. Is there something that I missing?… if one is willing to jump into P2 at this point, is the hvx500 a better value as a camera and offer pretty much the same capability as the 900?

[Accountclosedduetopolicyviolations]

HDX 900 has got megapixel block,better VF,better processing and better finish.It is higher end broadcast camera…would be my pick anytime.

[Barry Green]

The HDX900 can use an HD viewfinder (I believe the HPX500’s VF is SD) and it of course has a tape deck.

The HPX500 can do variable frame rates and standard-def, the HDX900 doesn’t do either.

The HDX900 is going to deliver a better picture, primarily less noise but maybe a tad sharper too.

—————–
Get the most from your DVX camera. The DVX Book and DVX DVD are now available on ebay and at Amazon (https://www.fiftv.com/db)

[P2 Shooter]

Barry,

Why does the HDX900 produce a better image? can you tell me in terms of the capabilities of the CDD? Also when I upgraded from the hvx200 to the HPX500 I was instantly blown away with both how much better the HPX500 was in low light but also how bad the HVX200 is in low light too. I hear you say the primary image enhancement between the 500 and the 900 is less noise and slightly sharper picture. I have been beginning yo come out of my honeymoon phase with the HPX500 and to tell you the truth your comment about the 900 being less noisy is making me start listening to to the voice in my head that the while the 500 is better than the 200 by a long shot… I would have been a lot more happy with the reduced noise picture quality of the 900.

I’m not really debating that though as I try to sell the HPX500 into the HDX900 market space all the time (because I own it- and because it is in the end a GREAT picture for the cost).

But I would like to know what the best I can make the HPX500 look is? Are my darker blues, grays, and blacks always going to have some noise? And even though its the same issue really, apart from noise, why do I still feel like the 500 is just not as fast in low light as I want it? In standard CineD and CineV scenes @ 24 fps what is the speed of this camera? I’d like to use my light meter every once in awhile. and so I can compare what is the speed of the HDX900 and HPX3000?

Last gripe…I have the hardest time focusing with the SD viewfinder… what a bummer. even the 17″ Panny lcd can be difficult at times. (side question – are you supposed to use the Varicam setting in the 17″ lcd with the HPX500 when shooting with the Cone gamma settings?)

Now so Jan doesn’t track me down and sue me…

I LOVE THIS CAMERA!!!

IT’S 3 TIMES LESS EXPENSIVE when all is said and done then the HDX900 with lens and deck.

3 TIMES!!!

I have 2 fs100 but four 16 gig p2 cards is enough! I’m not even really jonesing for the 32 gigs really… other than extended record time takes, but that’s when I use my two fs100s.

I would buy this camera again if I had the same choices.

[Barry Green]

[P2 Shooter] “Why does the HDX900 produce a better image?”

Because it costs twice as much. There’s probably better higher-quality circuitry throughout — better DSP, better chip block, better everything. But I don’t really know, I mainly work with the 500/200/100 series, I haven’t dealt all that much with the 2000/900/3000 yet.

I had a 2000 and a prototype 500 side-by-side up in Alaska, and between the two I’d say the 500 was about the same sensitivity and maybe 1/2 to 1 stop more dynamic range (bigger pixels, etc) but the 2000 was cleaner. Not night and day different, but definitely cleaner.

It all depends on the 500 — if you know how to manage the noise, it’s never much of a big deal at all. But in the cases where it manifests itself (such as in a red brick wall, etc) then you’d notice cleaner noiselessness from the 2000/900.

[P2 Shooter] “my darker blues, grays, and blacks always going to have some noise?”

Yes. It’s not noise-free, there will always be some crawling noise. Try using the B.Press gamma and turning the color saturation and detail level controls down, and the coring up, and that should mask or minimize any noise. But you’ll never get it spotlessly noise-free.

[P2 Shooter] “why do I still feel like the 500 is just not as fast in low light as I want it?”

Because it’s high-def. All high-def cameras are slower than their standard-def counterparts. Try putting the 500 up against a Sony F350 if you want to really see how poor an HD camera can be in low light; the F350 is about on par with the HVX/HD100/XHA1. The HPX500 is 1.5 to two stops faster. But it’s still not as fast as a good 2/3″ standard-def camcorder.

[P2 Shooter] “In standard CineD and CineV scenes @ 24 fps what is the speed of this camera?”

In normal gamma it’s 960. In cine gammas it responds a tad slower, my guess offhand is 800.

[P2 Shooter] “I have the hardest time focusing with the SD viewfinder…”

Embrace the Focus Assist, it makes a world of difference — and be sure to turn up the peaking in your viewfinder too. But if at all possible, run (don’t walk) to get the Panasonic 8″ monitor, the LH80. It’s *fantastic* with the HPX500, the HPX500 can power the monitor so you don’t need a separate battery, and the monitor’s capability of showing pixel-for-pixel detail as well as the focus-in-red feature will make perfect focus an absolute snap.

[Jacek Strek]

Sometimes fine tune technical speculations are ending in the area of splitting hear in to the quarters. How really is diferent picture from HPX500 vs HDX 900, delivered as program to HD broadcaster? If we shoot in properly lit environment, can broadcaster see any difference? Can TV audience have more pleasure watching video from HDX900 or simply no one will never see any difference?

[Paul Jackson]

Hey, David! PJ here, how ya been?

We’ve been using a 500 for over a year here, and we’ve done some shoots where we’ve rented a 900 for the second cam. The focus assist on the 500 is much better (and I can’t shoot one without it – once you get used to it, you won’t ever worry about focus). In a gun-and-run situation, the 500 is faster to setup and you’re not clawing through menus just to do some quick tweaks.

There’s no question that the 900 is a better cam, the block will shoot a native 1080 whereas 1080 on the 500 is a blowup. Still looks good though, and we haven’t had to deal with noise issues because we rarely shoot in very low light.

For 10k + lens, I think it’s about as good as anything you’ll find. Allow an investment in a good fast laptop with a PCMCIA slot, plus an external HDD, so you can backup those P2 cards as they come out of the camera. No backups = No sleep. But clients love the instant playback, and I really like just dumping the files into the Avid and going to work.

Give me a call sometime and let’s catch up on recent history…