Is the AG-HPX500 the P2 replacement of the VariCam?

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

[Jon Davidson] “What is the point of buying this supposedly “HD” camera if it simply uses pixel-shifting of an SD chip to create the illusion of HD? I have heard pixel-shifting and “interpreting” HD derided from many sources as no substitute for true HD. So what is the point of even buying it in that case? I had hoped to buy a camera to get work shooting independent films.”

Hi,

First it is not an illusion of HD that the 500 creates, it is HD. The people that deride the pixel shift(spatial offset) are the ones that don’t use it and think that you should put all your money on the cameras with higher native resolution chips and forget about the fact that the codec in those cameras work in long GOP recording schemes. It isn’t all about the native imager, it most appropriately summed up by saying it is not what you make it is what you keep that makes the difference. Video recording is a sum of the parts that take part in making the signal. The guys that diss the spatial offset, want you to think that if you start with the high count imager you will have higher count images and that is not always true. It is a sum of the parts, the type of imager, the size of the imager, the codec used and the glass. And not necessarily in that order.

The benefit of using a 2/3″ imager over 1/2″ images that have higher resolution is that you have better dynamic range and better low light sensitivity. A 2/3″ 1.1 million pixel imager is expensive, and you would find those in the new Varicam, the HPX2700, or the HPX2000. And for the record,those cameras also use spatial offset for much the same reason that it is use in the 500, it adds resolution.

In the case of the HPX500, a less expensive CCD can be used and with the spatial offset we can add to the native resolution of the chip. This can be proven and anyone that discounts the benefit of the spatial offset is just uninformed. You can get a very nice image from the HPX500 that is very competitive with the XDCAM cameras and the codec will be an intra-frame codec, DVCPRO HD, which means that each frame is compressed independently of the next, unlike the XDCAM codecs. The point is that you can buy a camera that does a very nice job for around $20,000(with lens and all.) For comparison the AJ-HPX2000 with its native imager of 1.1 million pixels starts with the camera body at $27,000 or so and then you will need to add a nice piece of glass and a viewfinder to that, so you will end up spending around $45,000.

Hope this helps,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, HPX500, HVX200, DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems