Quality of HVX / HPX in 24p vs HMC150 in 1080

[Ronald Wilk]

Just happened across your post and was a tad confused by your mention of the HPX 300 being noisy… did you mean to imply in low light situations, whatever that means? Given that “low Light” can be defined differently by different people. Just as an aside, I own an HPX 300 (and an HPX 170) and with the next to most recent firmware(9.30) I do not find it noisy at all. Further more, I do not find it to be any noisier in poorly lit situations than my recently sold EX3. That said, the EX3 was 1/2 to 1 stop more sensitive than the 300 likely attributable to the 1/2″ chips. I wonder, do you own an HPX300?

[Jeff Regan]

Ronald,

I mean compared to a 2/3″ camera, the HPX300 will be slower and to get back to the same sensitivity to even the EX1 or EX3, much less a good 2/3″ HD camera, you’d have to boost gain.

I’ve only spent about an hour with an HPX300, but find it to be about the best 1/3″ camera I’ve seen, especially factoring in AVC-Intra, but there’s only so much 1/3″ imagers can do in the trade off between sensitivity and noise.

I wish Panasonic would offer -3db in their lower end cameras to reduce noise if wanted–I most often shoot with my HDX900 and HPX2700 in -3db. Of course, these cameras are very sensitive, so the -3db setting isn’t a big deal.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com

[Jeff Regan]

Isaac,

Native frame rate mode means that the camera is only recording the actual frames needed, ie; 24 frames or 30 frames vs. 60 frames with redundant frames to make a 2:3 pulldown or 2:2 pulldown. Native mode gives you 2.5 minutes per Gb in DVCPRO HD or AVC-Intra 100 in 720/24P vs. 1 minute per Gb in non-Native mode.

Yes, JVC 700, HVX200/200A, HPX170, HPX500 are pixel shifted CCD sensors vs. HPX300 or EX1/3 CMOS full raster sensors.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com

[Ronald Wilk]

Hi Jeff:

First off, allow me to address your lament, in re gain. The HPX 300 does indeed have a -3db gain setting and I keep the “low” gain set to that position 90% of the time.

As for the sensitivity difference between EX3 and the 300, in my comparison, the difference is no more than 1/2 to barely a whole stop in favor of the EX, hardly enough to quibble over in most situations and not enough to promote a noise differential. Frankly, I am not a fan of the Sony Ex “look” and when you couple that with the terrible ergonomics of the Ex series, the value of the 1/2″ chip fades quickly, IMO. And that, coupled with the bevy of accessories required to make the camera just barely ergonomically acceptable and or the costly external device required to improve upon its data rate, are what prompted me to sell the Ex3 in favor of the 300, a decision that established its righteousness from the moment that I opened the box.

[Dan Brockett]

Hi Ronald:

Great explanation of the positives and minuses of the EX1/EX3. They are great cameras and are totally capable of creating arresting images. BUT, the 300 is a superior package to either IMHO. The difference between the 1/2″ sensor and 1/3″ sensor is not as great as people make it out to be and the ergonomics, feel and codec of the 300 blow away the Sonys.

Dan

Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs

[Jeff Regan]

There is an informal review of the 300, EX1, JVC700 and Canon 5D in last month’s ICG Magazine, it was non-technical and didn’t get into the codecs. The 300 was chosen for the best ergonomics, form factor, good resolution, color, but was found to be the worst in low light. The JVC 700 did nothing that set it apart other than the convenience of QT file recording. The EX1 “punched above its weight” in image quality terms, according to them. The Canon 5D didn’t outdo the video
cameras except in low light ability and had the usual aliasing on the edges, worse ergonomics than the EX1.

The 300 has the best codec by far, in my opinion, but the EX1 is fast and clean at the front end. I’m glad the 300 has -3db, I had forgotten that, since my tests were trying to get my Letus Ultimate 35mm adapters to work with the stock Fuji lens vs. a true test of the camera.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com

[Ronald Wilk]

Couldn’t agree more in regards to your EX sentiments. Most of the derogatory comments that I have read in re the HPX300 have been from people repeating third party opinions rather than actual owner/users. After all, there are some intensely obvious biases put forth by Sony owners, some of whom actually admit to their bias, so, a grain of salt is required in those instances. In my case, I have had ample time to compare the two, having owned both at the same time (EX3 and 300) and having discarded the Ex3. That’s not to say that the EX3 did not produce wonderful images but for my purposes its negatives more than outweighed its positives.

But I have another pet peeve, and that refers to the phrase, “low light.” How does one determine where low light begins and ends? IMO it’s a meaningless attempt to describe a lighting environment and probably should be supplanted with something more quantifiable. From my perspective it’s almost like trying to describe the intensity of a specific hue without using actual, reproducible values but enough of my rant.

[Jeff Regan]

Ronald,

Agreed, “low light” is not a technical descriptor. ASA or EI numbers are better. This changes depending upon resolution and frame rate, shutter speed, gain setting and ND of course.

It does seem that CMOS offers very good sensitivity, a bit better than CCD given the same sensor size and pixel sites.

I find my EX1 to be pretty close to my HPX2700 in 720/24P, but is slower in 1080/24P. My HPX170 is much slower with the same settings.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
http://www.ssv.com

[Marwan Faraj]

I want to know some information about the camera panasonic hj p2 2100
And pixels????