PDA

View Full Version : Best Bang for the buck...



kyledroid
10-10-2008, 04:18 AM
Here's my conundrum...I can afford either the hmc150 or the hpx170, and my needs as of right now would be events videography(i.e weddings) and short narrative work. I just recently purchased a new imac and so im looking towards finalcut studio as my nle. I was just wondering which camcorder id be better off with...budget isnt a concern, but this is more of a question of image quality and storage convenience....how would u compare the two camcorders in these regards...how does avchd hold up in comparison to the prohd? Im ready to plunk the money down but im concerned that when it comes down to it, ill either pick a camcorder thats has 2000 dollars worth of features ill hardly ever use or pick a camcorder that uses a compression that'll be more of a nussance when it comes to keying or compositing for... any advice would be greatly appreciated!!!

Richard J. Johnson
10-10-2008, 04:56 AM
HPX170. If you doing any type of narrative work you still may need some of those HPX features. If budget is no concern I would go with the HPX all day.

Hidef1080
10-10-2008, 06:06 AM
I'd say the 150 because as I understand it image-wise they are about the same. I have not seen any side by side test so I'm stating what I've heard on that.

What I know:

SD cards are cheaper and easier to find than P2 cards.

DVCPRO HD is easier from a workflow standpoint.

AVCHD files are smaller so you can gain in hard drive space.

I'd say look at the two cameras feature-wise and if the 170 has things that you need then there you go.
But if the 150 covers your needs I would go with it.

Can anyone offer real proof of the image quailty of the 150 vs 170?

kurtmo
10-10-2008, 06:07 AM
Keying is great with the 150. Checkout my sample clips in this (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=149244)thread. I was nervous about the workflow, but Sony Vegas works well with the raw footage, but I'm a PC guy and I hear the workflow is slightly more challenging on the mac right now.

MikeGunter
10-10-2008, 06:55 AM
Hi,

I have a HVX200 and really like it. The CODEC is terrific and the P2 media is stable.

Here's my take.

If you're doing wedding and event stuff, you likely don't have a need for variable frame rate control that you can't get from software manipulation - that is, you can fake what you need.

What the event guy/gal needs is long run times, something that the HMC150 will give them over the HXP170, in terms of cheaper media without trying to do some downloading or using a Firestore to collect content.

Kurt's footage of green screen is terrific. I took some of this generously provided footage into both Premiere (using the Panasonic AVCHD to DVCPro CODEC) and Vegas Pro 8 and it looked pretty good to me - I think will pass the most critical viewer's tests.

If I were doing work that called for texture - mixed frame rates, a lot of changing of custom scene files - or transfer of video to film, I probably would suggest the HPX170.

Mike Harvey
10-10-2008, 07:14 AM
AVCHD has a higher resolution. DVCProHD has 4:2:2 color space. Other than that, the images ought to be really similar I would think. The question is... do you need all or most of the the features the HPX has over the HMC? Do you need SDI out? Over/Undercranking?

Also, you're going to get an 90minutes of high quality footage on a 16gig SDHC card. You definately won't get that on a 16gig P2

Also, download some of the AVCHD footage to make sure your iMac can handle it. I was under the impression that only MacPro's would work.

matt s.
10-10-2008, 09:49 AM
Also, download some of the AVCHD footage to make sure your iMac can handle it. I was under the impression that only MacPro's would work.

Transcoding is used as of now even within FCP so the iMac should be able to handle the ProRes or DVCProHD footage no problem.

My G5 handles DVCProHD or AIC pretty well and have read many edit their HVX footage on lesser powerful machines with no problems. So I think you will be all right with the iMac for now but when native support for AVCHD comes along you may need a beefier processor.

BobDiaz
10-10-2008, 10:11 AM
As far and image quality, it should be about the same, because both the 150 and 170 use the same CCDs and lens. The only real difference is the CODEC.

As far as work flow, the DVCPRO-HD is a safe bet, HVX-200 users have been using it for several years now and have it nailed down. We are at the front end of the AVCHD work flow, but in the case of an iMAC, transcoding does seem to be the best solution right now. Most would point to Toast 9 as the current best answer. However, over time as improved software comes out, that is likely to change and any change will be for the better...

IF 720p mode is the resolution you wish to use, that is the 150's sweet point. That's the mode with the lowest compression ratio, thus the chance of compression noise is very small. Both cameras do very well here, but this is the 150's strong point.

IF 1080 mode is the mode you wish to record in, that is the mode that the the strong point for the 170. Unlike the 150, the compression ratio is the same for all modes on the 170, so the highest resolution offers the most detail. Sadly, the special effects (overcranking, undercranking, and slow motion) are all limited to 720p mode. For 1080, the 170 has an advantage over the 150 in terms of compression.


So, the resolution (720 or 1080) you intend to use may be a deciding factor as to which camera to purchase. I hope this helps...


Bob Diaz

Mike Harvey
10-10-2008, 10:22 AM
...IF 1080 mode is the mode you wish to record in, that is the mode that the the strong point for the 170. Unlike the 150, the compression ratio is the same for all modes on the 170, so the highest resolution offers the most detail...


I would like to point out that while more compressed, AVCHD is 1920x1080, whereas DVCProHD is 1280x1080, so it may be a wash there. The colors will probably look slightly better on DVCProHD though.

But if you're transcoding to DVCProHD to edit anyways... it's kind of a moot point.

Barry_Green
10-10-2008, 10:56 AM
but in the case of an iMAC, transcoding does seem to be the best solution right now.
Only until CS4 comes out. :thumbsup:

13th Judas
10-10-2008, 11:09 AM
Here's my conundrum...I can afford either the hmc150 or the hpx170, and my needs as of right now would be events videography(i.e weddings) and short narrative work. I just recently purchased a new imac and so im looking towards finalcut studio as my nle. I was just wondering which camcorder id be better off with...budget isnt a concern, but this is more of a question of image quality and storage convenience....how would u compare the two camcorders in these regards...how does avchd hold up in comparison to the prohd? Im ready to plunk the money down but im concerned that when it comes down to it, ill either pick a camcorder thats has 2000 dollars worth of features ill hardly ever use or pick a camcorder that uses a compression that'll be more of a nussance when it comes to keying or compositing for... any advice would be greatly appreciated!!!


1. you'll be shooting events (i.e weddings) and narratives as well.
2. you got an imac
3. and the most important is: budget is not a concern

with those criteria, i think this is your winner: EX1 or EX3
1. better low light performance - very good for wedding reception and inside the church.
2. sony is always compatible with apple products.
3. i envy you. budget is my biggest concern :(

mcsmooth
10-10-2008, 11:34 AM
I would like to point out that while more compressed, AVCHD is 1920x1080, whereas DVCProHD is 1280x1080, so it may be a wash there. The colors will probably look slightly better on DVCProHD though.

But if you're transcoding to DVCProHD to edit anyways... it's kind of a moot point.
On the current Panasonic HD imagers, full raster 1080 seems more of a waste of bandwidth since it is nowhere near that sharp. It will let you pull in that extra color info though that will help with CC and keying.

If color is that important, that isn't a moot point since if you transcode from avchd, you already lost the color info and took a re-encoding hit. DVCproHD is also better suited to fast motion at 1080. I personally enjoy that the 150 can have sharper 720p60 than any (non avc-intra) P2 cam.


For the original poster, the 150 makes more sense so long as you can deal with avchd. Unless there are nitty gritty details that get to you, they are both great cams with a great picture. For many people the record times and media cost is going to be the main factor to sway them to the 150.

Mike Harvey
10-10-2008, 01:07 PM
Actually, I was referring to the detail being the moot point, not the color. I know you can't get back color you never had if the source footage is AVCHD. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

mikkowilson
10-10-2008, 01:16 PM
Don't forget one other key difference: The 170 also does SD.

If you are just making wedding DVD's. There's a lot to be said for the ability to work quickly with the standard DV codec based workflow.


- Mikko

13th Judas
10-10-2008, 01:44 PM
Don't forget one other key difference: The 170 also does SD.

If you are just making wedding DVD's. There's a lot to be said for the ability to work quickly with the standard DV codec based workflow.


- Mikko

that's an expensive way of shooting SD. i rather stay with my mini DV for that :)

mcsmooth
10-10-2008, 02:01 PM
Actually, I was referring to the detail being the moot point, not the color. I know you can't get back color you never had if the source footage is AVCHD. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
Gotcha, my bad. Right, you'd lose those extra pixels if you were transcoding anyway. Picture wise, this is minaly a concern if you are shooting 720. A lot of people will need to make this compromise until the NLEs are more avchd friendly.

That is a good point on the SD option. I personally see no reason to ever shoot SD if you have an HD option since you can always downconvert and keep a hirez master. Also, the AVCHD files are about the same or less in size. But I'm sure there are people who want/need to be able to use a classic DV file that can quickly be used anywhere. I'm thinking that less and less people care about this option when buying an HD camera or Panasonic would have enabled the SD resolutions that AVCHD supports.

mikkowilson
10-10-2008, 02:16 PM
P2 was originally made for SD. .. the HD possibileties came later.

I had a SD event shoot yesterday. I was shooting to MiniDV. At 60mins the tape ran out and I lost a bit of material during the tape change.
With P2 I'd have been able to swap cards on the fly and keep going ... or with a 32GB card I wouldn't have needed to swap at all.

Now we have to spend a couple of hours to capture. With P2, I'd allready have the program edited for air.


The 2nd of our cameras just went out of service to be sent in for it's anual head cleaning & service. It'll be out of action for the best part of a month. Then we'll send the other camera in. This procedure will cost us money in addition to the down time.



We broadcast local high school football and basketball.

Capture time is 2 - 3 hours.
Editing time is 2 hours.

With P2, we could literally be done editing in the time it takes to drive from the game back to the station.


Just beacuse it's great for HD, doesn't mean that it doesn't rock for SD too. And SD isn't going anywhere soon.

- Mikko

ullanta
10-10-2008, 07:42 PM
If budget really isn't a concern, I'd say go with the 170 for event work. The main benefit - and a big one over the 150, I think - is the ability to swap cards for seamless continuous recording.

However, the cards cost a lot more, and the higher data rates take a lot more resources for backup and archiving, etc. So budget is more than the cost of the camera!

Justyn
10-11-2008, 12:51 AM
Don't forget.. you can get slow-mo with the 150 in the 60p stuff.. just can't view it like that.


As it stands now, being able to use the SD card hack with the EX1 makes that look even more appealing. I would love to be able to use a 32 gig card that costs 1/`10th of the cost of a P2 card of equal size...


Since they are so cheap for either cam, EX or 150, you could buy enough cards and shoot 30 hours of footage for the price of one 80 minute P2 card.

kyledroid
10-11-2008, 08:25 AM
Has anyone tried comparing the images coming off these 2 cameras? How close are they i wonder?

Bucknfl
10-13-2008, 08:36 AM
I'd go for the 150. SDHC cards are low cost and have long recording times. You don't have to carry around a laptop and extra hardrives, devote production time to dumping your p2 cards or hire a digital asisstant.

kyledroid
10-17-2008, 02:24 PM
well i have 7500 to play with leaning towards hmc....but every sample ive seen from both cameras, the hpx170 seems noticeably better.