HVX200 vs HMC150 - what kind of user needs what?

[filmguy123]

So I have an HVX200, but as I look at the HMC150, I'm actually wondering if I should sell my HVX200 to get this step down. Even if I don't, I'm wondering - what kind of user needs what (even if they can afford both)?

DVCPro-HD records at 100 megabits a second, versus AVC-HD which does 13-24 megabits per second... but Barry, you said this is irrelevant, as the bit stream depends on the codec... so a lower bitrate w/AVC-HD looks better than the same bitrate with MPEG-2 (HDV)...

So the question is, how does 13-24 megabit AVC-HD compare to 100 megabit DVCPro-HD? Is DVCPRO-HD noticeably better? If so, *how* noticeably? What kind of users need DVCPro-HD? What kind of users could use and be completely happy with AVC-HD? Is the quality difference likely to really be that noticeable?

Will editing AVC-HD require significantly more processing power (but less HDD space & bandwidth)?

Oh and also, what is the difference between long-GOP frame compression VS intra frame? I know intra compresses within a single frame and GOP is group of pictures... but what does this mean practically? I don't REALLY get how it plays out, affects quality, etc.

[Barry_Green]

We can't answer your questions yet. All we have to go on is a press release. Nobody's seen a working model or footage or even a finalized specification sheet yet.

The only question I can answer clearly is yes, AVC-HD requires much more computing horsepower than DVCPRO-HD, and requires more horesepower than MPEG-2/HDV.

As for the GOP vs. I-Frame, there's tons and tons and tons written about that. It's not the easiest question to answer because it depends on the length of the GOP. I-frame is always consistent no matter what, and it is the easiest and fastest to edit, and all professional formats have always been I-frame-only; XDCAM is the first foray into a professional format to actually use a GOP. Interframe can cause mild to serious problems with blocking and artifacting whenever too much changes from frame to frame, but it also depends on the bandwidth and the quality of the codec. Early Sony FX1s and JVC HD100s could be pushed into totally falling apart in many circumstances; the new EX1 is actually quite robust and it's difficult to put it in a situation where it falls apart. I expect AVC-HD to be comparably resilient when run at high bitrates (20 to 24mbps) but -- we won't KNOW until we see it.

[pitstain]

filmguy, I understand your concerns. I share them. I will be in a position to buy and am considering hvx200 and hmc150. I am going to have to wait until we can see how the footage will compare.

I didn't know about the increased processing horsepower to edit avchd. Will a macbook pro with intel 2.33 core 2 duo and 2 gigs of ram work for avchd?

[filmguy123]

On the flip side, it requires much less HDD space and HDD bandwidth... so you may spend a lot less on storage...

But I need to do some research on the editing stuff and problems with editing GOP compression apparently.

[kgimedia]

After hanging up my camera for several years and working in a broadcast facility I have spent way to much time focusing on bitrates and GOP Structure. In all this time I have never heard it put into the simple, easy to understand way Barry just did.

My opinion, having viewing literally Hundreds of thousands of Digital Videos, is we will not know until somebody here gets one and uses it.

Am I gonna postpone buy 2 or 3 new DVX-100B's. Maybe? Either way you cut it the HVX and DVX are here and are time-tested, but the near future looks fun!

[Barry_Green]

Will a macbook pro with intel 2.33 core 2 duo and 2 gigs of ram work for avchd?
Depends on what software you run on it. If you're running EDIUS Neo under Windows, yes you can probably get a stream of AVC-HD in realtime. If you're running FCP, you're stuck with FCP's lame implementation where they require you to transcode to ProRes 422, which is really just ignorant because the transcode is going to take a long time and will drive your file sizes up by something like 4x to 8x.

Let's hope Apple gets native AVC-HD editing so their silly little workaround won't penalize AVC-HD users by requiring them to spend extra time importing, and lots of money on extra hard disks.

[Barry_Green]

On the flip side, it requires much less HDD space and HDD bandwidth... so you may spend a lot less on storage...
Yes, when implemented in a proper native-codec way. But if you're forced to transcode the footage to a new codec, then it'll take up a lot more space.

[pitstain]

Depends on what software you run on it.

Now I have an updated version of FCP 5 from final cut studio. I hope to be able to upgrade to the new studio 2 at the time I have to purchase the camera.

Hopefully this workaround will be fixed by then. I'm also wondering if the hvx update [whenever that is] incorporates avc intra or if it sticks to dvcpro. If it sticks to dvcpro and avchd isn't as nice a deal to work with,...then my decision is easier.

[filmguy123]

I really hope the next HVX version allows DVCPRO-HD, AVC-Intra, and AVC-HD, as well as supports use of either P2 or SDHC cards. I can see they might not include AVC-Intra, but as for the other stuff, why not include it? It's a higher model, it should allow you to shoot more space/cost efficient if you desire.

[Look 1st]

no way would I sell my HVX for that camera. (Contemplating a Red One purchase anyhow)
I would however jump ship for the successor to the HVX. I would imagine the next gen HVX would be BADASS considering the leaps forward in technology. Just looking at this camera, slated as the replacement to the DVX, the replacement HVX should have us all drooling.
My only hopes are that P2 is going to be utilized still in some way down the road.

[filmguy123]

P2 supports bandwidth of up to 640Mbps, for reasons of offloading and editing multiple streams straight off the P2 card. Recording wise, 100Mbps is as high as it gets with either AVC-Intra100, or DVCPRO-HD.

What bandwidth does SDHC support?

[shrigg]

I'll just go on record and mention that the AVCHD spec lists 24Mbps as the max. The HMC150 in PH mode does this (actually 21Mbps+audio)

[puredrifting]

As an Apple user, I wouldn't touch this format until Apple updates FCP to work with it more efficiently. I have read user reports and tests where, as Barry said, you end up needing a TON more processing power and HD space. I have a PPC G5 that won't even handle Pro Res 422 so for me to use this format, I would have to lay out another $3,500.00 for a new Mac Pro as well.

HPX-170 for me!

Dan

[shrigg]

As an Apple user, I wouldn't touch this format until Apple updates FCP to work with it more efficiently. I have read user reports and tests where, as Barry said, you end up needing a TON more processing power and HD space. I have a PPC G5 that won't even handle Pro Res 422 so for me to use this format, I would have to lay out another $3,500.00 for a new Mac Pro as well.

HPX-170 for me!

Dan

Your comment is correct in that the FCS Log & Transfer requires an Intel Mac but you don't really need a new computer to use an HMC150. You can use Toast 9 on your G5 to transcode the HMC into the HPX170 codec (or any other of your choice).

If you are already invested in P2 that is one thing... Yes, with an HPX170 you would save time on ingest not having to transcode but the hard drive space required would be identical if you edit in DVCProHD. Myself, I have more time than money so I am willing to do a few workarounds or wait for updates or whatever it takes... Plus I love having the "bleeding edge" latest camera that computers have not caught up to yet! :Drogar-Love(DBG):

[Justyn]

mmmm.. that's interesting about Toast. I'm going to be buying that for the disk spanning feature and it's currently I believe one of the only ways to make a blue-ray disk...


I can tell you though that most 3rd party software options are really slow... and as far as the price difference, drifting.. if you bought the 150, with the price savings.. you'd be able to buy that 8 core mac pro and what a combo that would be....

[filmguy123]

If your system can't handle prores, it probably needs an upgrade as it is. Log & Transfer to ProRes would be a great way to go with the HMC150 footage, just as it is with HDV footage.

When you factor in the extra cost of HPX-170 + P2 over that of the HMC150 w/comparable storage AND a new computer along with it, you're looking at the same ballpark.

[puredrifting]

If your system can't handle prores, it probably needs an upgrade as it is. Log & Transfer to ProRes would be a great way to go with the HMC150 footage, just as it is with HDV footage.

When you factor in the extra cost of HPX-170 + P2 over that of the HMC150 w/comparable storage AND a new computer along with it, you're looking at the same ballpark.

Yes, but my old chugger PPC G5 with the Kona 3 will live very happily with the HPX-170. For my clients, DVCProHD is more than high enough quality, I have not yet felt the need to move to ProRes as few of my projects are graphically intensive.

I get depressed at the thought of having to transcode every card shot anyway, that steals all of the fun of shooting solid state for me anyway. It's a drag already having to wrap the P2 media in QuickTime for FCP, but RayLight mitigates that issue for me.

You guys have fun with the HMC, my HPX shows up on Wednesday according to UPS.

Cheers!

Dan

[seven.b]

I get depressed at the thought of having to transcode every card shot anyway, that steals all of the fun of shooting solid state for me anyway. It's a drag already having to wrap the P2 media in QuickTime for FCP, but RayLight mitigates that issue for me.

You guys have fun with the HMC, my HPX shows up on Wednesday according to UPS.

Cheers!

Dan

Congrats on the purchase! I'm jealous.

It is highly probable that FCP will support native AVCHD editing with it's next major release which is due to come out sometime soon.

[shrigg]

Yes, but my old chugger PPC G5 with the Kona 3 will live very happily with the HPX-170. For my clients, DVCProHD is more than high enough quality, I have not yet felt the need to move to ProRes as few of my projects are graphically intensive.

I get depressed at the thought of having to transcode every card shot anyway, that steals all of the fun of shooting solid state for me anyway. It's a drag already having to wrap the P2 media in QuickTime for FCP, but RayLight mitigates that issue for me.

You guys have fun with the HMC, my HPX shows up on Wednesday according to UPS.

Cheers!

Dan

Congrats on your HPX170! It's truly an awesome camera and no question superior to the HMC150. Regarding transcoding and ProRes: as suggested already, this is just a temporary symptom of the HMC150's newness. CS4 edits AVCHD natively very well and others will surely follow.

[filmguy123]

You guys have fun with the HMC, my HPX shows up on Wednesday according to UPS.

Cheers!

Dan

Well don't get me wrong, I was just trying to show you the options! :) I actually won't be having fun with the HMC150 as I am a HVX200/P2 owner myself. I'd love to upgrade to the HPX170 so I'm jealous!

Also as a side note, I did see that Panny is offering a free utility that transcodes the AVCHD files to DVCPRO, so actually, you could still even work with DVCPRO files in editing if that was an issue.

True, you'd have to transcode, but that's also part of the whole saving tons of money deal. And really, it's not that big of a deal. On a good computer, it doesn't add that much time to the ingest of the footage anyway, and it's still faster than tape.

[puredrifting]

Well don't get me wrong, I was just trying to show you the options! :) I actually won't be having fun with the HMC150 as I am a HVX200/P2 owner myself. I'd love to upgrade to the HPX170 so I'm jealous!

Also as a side note, I did see that Panny is offering a free utility that transcodes the AVCHD files to DVCPRO, so actually, you could still even work with DVCPRO files in editing if that was an issue.

True, you'd have to transcode, but that's also part of the whole saving tons of money deal. And really, it's not that big of a deal. On a good computer, it doesn't add that much time to the ingest of the footage anyway, and it's still faster than tape.

My editor was tempted to get the HMC-150 but once she read about all of the transcoding issues on Mac (we use FCS2), she asked to buy my HVX-200 that I needed to sell to buy the HPX. So now everyone is happy, she has my HVX and I will have my new HPX tomorrow.

We often work on insanely inadequate deadlines for DVD material so the thought of coming up with 30 cards of AVCHD and having to essentially re-render all of it to work with it is just a turn-off. HMC-150 looks to be a kick ass camera and I am sure that the edit manufacturers will eventually catch up and it will become as viable of a working format as HDV has been.

It strikes me as kind of funny that we all obsess about resolution, color space, formats, etc. One of my favorite shows is Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel. My DP friend just shot three episodes of the show and guess what they shoot it on? The Sony Z1. HDV. Crappy outdated last generation camera (I shot with one for a year before the HVX came out). And you know what? I could care less, I still love the show, Andrew and the amazing locations that they go tol It's bare bones and really doesn't look that good but the Travel Channel runs the snot out of it, and it is a big ratings vehicle for them. Content in king and formats be damned.

That said, I have devoted the entire day tomorrow to getting to know the HPX that UPS will be dropping off. It's like we all hae the disease, new-cameritis! ;-)

Dan

[MikeGunter]

Well don't get me wrong, I was just trying to show you the options! :) I actually won't be having fun with the HMC150 as I am a HVX200/P2 owner myself. I'd love to upgrade to the HPX170 so I'm jealous!

Also as a side note, I did see that Panny is offering a free utility that transcodes the AVCHD files to DVCPRO, so actually, you could still even work with DVCPRO files in editing if that was an issue.

True, you'd have to transcode, but that's also part of the whole saving tons of money deal. And really, it's not that big of a deal. On a good computer, it doesn't add that much time to the ingest of the footage anyway, and it's still faster than tape.

I downloaded Shrigg's clips and encoded them with an aging P4 3.2GHz to DVCPro without a hitch. Worked fine, looked great in CS3. I also encoded to HDV with TMPGEnc easily and edited with Vegas and CS3, same results - very easy.

I have a HVX200 that's great, but I'm tempted to go to the HMC150, only because of cheap media. I'd miss frame rates for sure. I might be able to fake that in software, but...

[ilauzirika]

It's like we all hae the disease, new-cameritis! ;-)


I hope to be suffering from it soon!!!!

[filmguy123]

Mike, I'm with you. I've already invested in an HVX200 and I have a 16gb p2 card. I'm looking at getting a 64gb P2 because I need more capacity... but part of me is wishing I had the HMC150 instead. The extra features on the HVX I have are great, and I do use them, but the additional cost is just SO much more. And there are some things on the HMC150 better than the older HVX200 original model now. Realistically, I don't need the benefits P2 offers. Yet I already have the investment, and I'm gonna need to drop about $2k on a 64gb P2 card... when I could have an HMC150 w/32gb SDHC card that records in the same mode for 3-4 hours... all for under $4k.

[ilauzirika]

now on a more serious note, I leaned towards the HMC for one main reason.........Price, camera's price and the media's price, not resolution....color...contrast (cause I don't think that they'll differ too much from hpx's) . I also think that this camera suits my needs best, I'm more of an event shoter than a narrative one, so I thought that having the possibility to buy 7 16GB card for the price of one P2 card was a winner FOR ME (not maybe for other people). And with the money I save I can buy a better tripod, mic, etc.... (this is for me , not for someone that has already invested in P2 and has tons of gear, I'm sure that for those HPX is the way to go).

More things, as of this moment I don't find any problem in MY workflow cause I'm using Vegas and it accepts the original files, just drag and drop...no more in it. (It's a shame that mac hasn't yet make this possible and I understand that this will be a negative point till this format is fully editable in any OS or editing app).

Many people talked about variable famerates, well HMC hasn't lost all the possiblities to make slow motion..... you have 720 60p, and you can go down there to 1fps (in software..). Not the same but.........

That said, everyone has different needs, I feel that this camera was what I needed, so, even though I could have afforded the HPX (but not all the pricey P2), I went for the HMC for the aforementioned reasons.


That's it hehehe......

[MikeGunter]

Mike, I'm with you. I've already invested in an HVX200 and I have a 16gb p2 card. I'm looking at getting a 64gb P2 because I need more capacity... but part of me is wishing I had the HMC150 instead. The extra features on the HVX I have are great, and I do use them, but the additional cost is just SO much more. And there are some things on the HMC150 better than the older HVX200 original model now. Realistically, I don't need the benefits P2 offers. Yet I already have the investment, and I'm gonna need to drop about $2k on a 64gb P2 card... when I could have an HMC150 w/32gb SDHC card that records in the same mode for 3-4 hours... all for under $4k.

The frame rate I use a lot, some of which I can do in software as ilauzirika notes, but day in/out stuff, the HMC150 can likely do the load.

I was training some Army folks from the cold weather training center this month where they plan to get both cameras to augment their acquisition of video. They use a Sanyo Xacti right now that works great in extreme cold, but doesn't have the quality we want. Both Panasonics would fit the bill. (I want to pass the Sanyo out to the testers' pockets to let them use it for their purposes and reports.)

Shopping around you can get 16GB Class 6 media for under $40 shipped. So, yeah, I'm thinking.

I'm hoping we can cajole Shirigg to do some tests for us. Perhaps Mr Green, too.
:beer:

[NWP]

does the HMC has the same scene files settings as the HVX and HPX ?

[shrigg]

I'm hoping we can cajole Shirigg to do some tests for us. Perhaps Mr Green, too.
:beer:

Ummmm, you mean cold weather tests? That kind of weather is still a ways off around these parts...

[MikeGunter]

Hi Darren,

No, Scene tests. If I read the specifications correctly, the camera has the same Scene capabilities as the HVX200 (and saving ability to SD card). It would be interesting to see how well it works.

Also, do you have two SD slots? One for regular SD and one for SDHC?

I'm heading to Alaska to do in December, I think, to continue teaching and training both software and hardware, to include this and the HPX170, depending upon when we get them in.

I think that AVCHD is 4:2:0 in color space, and if I read the PH specification correctly the microblock should be a lot finer since it isn't confined to 16 pixels, which is pretty cool.

I hate losing 4:2:2, though. DVCPro is so pretty.

[shrigg]

Hi Darren,

No, Scene tests. If I read the specifications correctly, the camera has the same Scene capabilities as the HVX200 (and saving ability to SD card). It would be interesting to see how well it works.

Also, do you have two SD slots? One for regular SD and one for SDHC?

I'm heading to Alaska to do in December, I think, to continue teaching and training both software and hardware, to include this and the HPX170, depending upon when we get them in.

I think that AVCHD is 4:2:0 in color space, and if I read the PH specification correctly the microblock should be a lot finer since it isn't confined to 16 pixels, which is pretty cool.

I hate losing 4:2:2, though. DVCPro is so pretty.

Just one SD slot, I guess scene files get saved right alongside the clips. Yes AVCHD is 4:2:0 and I believe the AVCHD microblock is 4 pixels. 16 times finer!

[MikeGunter]

Just one SD slot, I guess scene files get saved right alongside the clips. Yes AVCHD is 4:2:0 and I believe the AVCHD microblock is 4 pixels. 16 times finer!

Okay, I read the manual. It's like the HVX200. You can load the scenes into the camera's memory. I suppose you can have some scenes in some chips to load while you're out and about, load them up, or modify on the run. I doubt it's much of a stretch.

Nice camera. I'm trying to figure out what I'd be giving up besides frame rates, 4:2:2, and 2 pounds.

[Bassman2003]

Nice camera. I'm trying to figure out what I'd be giving up besides frame rates, 4:2:2, and 2 pounds.

Well I think it depends upon your audience.

If your work is not for the big screen for Discovery HD theatre, then I don't think one would see much of a difference once run through the normal editing enhancements.

Especially if you are delivering on DVD.

The specs seem to important, but in reality, most television watchers notice about a quarter of the details us video folks notice anyway.

Now if we compare the HMC-150 to a 2/3" chip camera, I think the change would be quite evident, but next to a camera with the same imaging device just a different codec, once edited and tweaked, I don't think there would be much difference.

This is just my opinion for my work...

[Barry_Green]

does the HMC has the same scene files settings as the HVX and HPX ?
Yes, all the same settings as the HPX170. (excepting film cam/video cam and frame rate, of course).

[Barry_Green]

Just one SD slot, I guess scene files get saved right alongside the clips.
Correct, the clips get saved in the AVCHD folder and the scene files get saved in the P2 folder. So you don't want to format your SD card all the time or you'll lose your scene files; instead use the "delete all clips" function.

[David Odell]

My editor was tempted to get the HMC-150 but once she read about all of the transcoding issues on Mac (we use FCS2), she asked to buy my HVX-200 that I needed to sell to buy the HPX. So now everyone is happy, she has my HVX and I will have my new HPX tomorrow.

We often work on insanely inadequate deadlines for DVD material so the thought of coming up with 30 cards of AVCHD and having to essentially re-render all of it to work with it is just a turn-off. HMC-150 looks to be a kick ass camera and I am sure that the edit manufacturers will eventually catch up and it will become as viable of a working format as HDV has been.

It strikes me as kind of funny that we all obsess about resolution, color space, formats, etc. One of my favorite shows is Bizarre Foods on the Travel Channel. My DP friend just shot three episodes of the show and guess what they shoot it on? The Sony Z1. HDV. Crappy outdated last generation camera (I shot with one for a year before the HVX came out). And you know what? I could care less, I still love the show, Andrew and the amazing locations that they go tol It's bare bones and really doesn't look that good but the Travel Channel runs the snot out of it, and it is a big ratings vehicle for them. Content in king and formats be damned.

That said, I have devoted the entire day tomorrow to getting to know the HPX that UPS will be dropping off. It's like we all hae the disease, new-cameritis! ;-)

Dan
Thanks for that input. It's nice to read some good emotions sometime.
And according to the cameras functions as you discribed, we often forget about the narrative and so much else. Unfortunately that kind of discussion isn't nearly as updated as the discussion about the technology.

Take care, and love what you do!

[johnnyha]

I hate losing 4:2:2, though. DVCPro is so pretty.
There is an HDMI that outputs uncompressed 4:2:2. As far as i understand it you can get 4:2:2 on a Firestore or your laptop if you record directly to it.
[Edit: Arg. I stand corrected. No Firestore. No laptop. You can record to a card, read Barry's post further down. But you CAN get 4:2:2!]

[manglerBMX]

i don't think you can shoot to a firestore with the 150, no firewire port is there?

[Barry_Green]

As far as i understand it you can get 4:2:2 on a Firestore or your laptop if you record directly to it.
No FireStore records 4:2:2 (except the DVCPRO-HD FS-100, of course).

FireStores are not an option for the HMC150 or any AVC-HD camera, because AVC-HD doesn't stream the footage.

You could use a different type of recording system, something that supports HDMI and 4:2:2 directly, like a Black Magic Intensity Pro card, but you're not gonna be fitting that in a laptop.

[MikeGunter]

There is an HDMI that outputs uncompressed 4:2:2. As far as i understand it you can get 4:2:2 on a Firestore or your laptop if you record directly to it.

Hi,

That's true, and for the greenscreen work that I do a lot of, that might be the solution going to a Blackmagic card, something I don't have and hadn't really thought of doing. I do have a laptop with HDMI - I don't know if it is bidirectional, perhaps all HDMI is; it might be part of the specification for all I know.

I do like DVCPro a lot. That's one beautiful CODEC.

In a perfect world I'd keep the HVX200, but that's more money than I need tied up in cameras.

[johnnyha]

No FireStore records 4:2:2 (except the DVCPRO-HD FS-100, of course).

FireStores are not an option for the HMC150 or any AVC-HD camera, because AVC-HD doesn't stream the footage.

You could use a different type of recording system, something that supports HDMI and 4:2:2 directly, like a Black Magic Intensity Pro card, but you're not gonna be fitting that in a laptop.
Thanks Barry!

[johnnyha]

i don't think you can shoot to a firestore with the 150, no firewire port is there?
Correct, sorry.

[ulisses]

Side by side in a monitor, could the 170 quality be noticeable better than 150 (same situation / settings) ?

Ulisses

[Bucknfl]

The 150 keys real well just recording to the SDHC card. My editor transcoded to prorez and had a clean key in after effects without making a single adjustment.