-
My first HPX500 experience
For the past 4 years I’ve owned a DVX100 and put nearly 1000 hours on it, shooting all over the world. I had used an HVX200 a handful of times and this past weekend I rented an HPX500. This was my first experience shooting with a “big” camera and my first real foray into P2 world. Here are some thoughts:
1. The big camera is HEAVY. Was not expecting that. But long handheld shots are easier because the camera sits on your shoulder instead of in your outstretched arms.
2. I didn’t know anything about “back focus” on real lenses until AFTER I looked that the footage. Oops.
3. I found it difficult to get good focus with the viewfinder, especially on wide shots. I didn’t find the peaking controls until the last hour or so of shooting.
4. I found it an adjustment using a B&W viewfinder and determining exposure. Yeah, I used zebras. But on the big camera, the zebras seemed to be more accurate and effective. With the 100, I new a zebra’d area was overexposed, but there seems to be a little “play”. In the B&W viewfinder, what seemed to be underexposed (dark areas) were not that underexposed.
5. P2 clips transfered to the hard drive faster than 1GB per min (using USB to a FW800 RAID 0 on my MBP). It was almost 2GB per minute.
6. I did a very informal, unscientific test comparing the image from a 200 to the image of the 500. Honestly, there wasn’t much of a difference. A wide shot of a house, with the blue sky, white puffy clouds, green grass, blowing palm trees and pink flowers, seemed to look identical from camera to camera (after slight color correction. Color tones seemed to be a little different between the cameras.) Latitude was only slightly better in the 500. Resolution was the same. And of course depth of field had no bearing on the wide shot.
7. The close up was almost the same as well. I had a focus issue with the shot from the 500. And there was the slight color difference as mentioned in the previous point. Depth of field was a little different, but my background was so dark that it wasn’t that noticeable. Again slight edge to the 500.So overall, I learned some things and it was fun to use a big camera.
-trevor ward
Red Eye Film Co.
http://www.redeyefilmco.com
orlando, fl -
17 Replies
-
If you shoot in lower light situation there will be a huge difference in quality. The bigger the chip that better. That and the ability to change lenses is the reason to go up to the big camera. I don’t know many people that can hand hold a small camera very well. I think that is why shaky footage is in style.
Always learn your camera before you take it on a job. 🙂
-
Trevor:
You have alot to learn. Congrats on your first foray into pro camera world. Make sure it’s not your last. As Mike said, spend some time with your camera before doing a job with it.
Im sure your eyes did not see it but 2/3 chip cameras produce much less noise, as well the feature set you get with these higher end cam are worth every penny. from menu features to real lenses to that extra little latitude you get in post when CC-ing, all worth it.
Broadcast networks(from my understanding, correct me if i’m wrong) dont accept stuff shot on anything other than 2/3 sensors.
I’m wondering when that will take a back seat as the newer cheaper cameras are becoming more efficient. lets wait and see.Nigel
HVX200, RED ONE, FCS and more,
High End, Production & Post Production
in the Caribbean
http://www.bistt.com -
One correction, the HPX500 is a 1/2″ chip verse the 1/3″ of the HVX200. So it has all the benefits you list but not as much as if you go up to a 2/3″ chip. But then again all 2/3″ are more than double the price.
-
Sorry Mike:
But that’s incorret. See link below.Panasonic has no 1/2 chip camcorders on offer as of now. Just 1/3 & 2/3.
HVX200, RED ONE, FCS and more,
High End, Production & Post Production
in the Caribbean
http://www.bistt.com -
[Michael Sacci] “One correction, the HPX500 is a 1/2″ chip verse the 1/3″ of the HVX200”
The 500 is indeed 2/3″. And it uses 960×540 SD imagers like the 200 does.
-
Hi,
The AG-HPX500 uses a 620,000 pixel 2/3″ imager. That combined with the spatial offset offers a picture that is very close to wat a 1.1 million pixel imager might offer.
The HVX200 imager is a 520,000 pixel imager. Not sure how every one has the wrong pixel count for the HPX500 but it has been quoted on and off the internet right from the get go.
Hope this helps,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, HPX500, HVX200, DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
[Jan Crittenden Livingston] “The AG-HPX500 uses a 620,000 pixel 2/3″ imager. That combined with the spatial offset offers a picture that is very close to wat a 1.1 million pixel imager might offer.
The HVX200 imager is a 520,000 pixel imager. Not sure how every one has the wrong pixel count for the HPX500 but it has been quoted on and off the internet right from the get go.”
I stand corrected. Thanks Jan.
I found that information while researching the HPX500 a while back. Don’t remember where–third party I’m sure, since Panasonic didn’t have it on the main site.
-
I’m going to sit and be corrected. Great camera for the price anyway you list the incorrect specs. 🙂
-
We couldn’t be happier with our 500. We’re coming up on having it 2 years and it’s met every challenge. It’s one of those rare purchases where the product exceeds every expectation. Just did a job with a client from CA and he raved about the images.
John
MacPro 8-core 2.8GHz 8 GB RAM OS 10.5.5 QT7.5.5 Kona 3 Dual Cinema 23 ATI Radeon HD 3870
ATTO ExpressSAS R380 RAID Adapter, PDE Enclosure with 8-drive 6TB RAID 5
24″ TV-Logic Monitor
Final Cut Studio 2 (up to date)Pro Tools HD w SYNC IO, Yamaha DM1000, Millennia Media HV-3C, Neumann U87, Schoeps Mk41 mics, Genelec Monitors, PrimaLT ISDN
-
Hi John,
What lens (or lenses) do you use with the 500?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up