170 vs 150

[Richter Video Equipment]

So,
Does anyone have a side by side comparison of these 2? Leaving out media cost because i feel the reliability of p2 outweighs its expense, how do they cameras compare. Can some one that has both answer this?

Does the 150's codec require more computer power to edit? Does it work with as many editing systems? (avid 3.5 primarily) The 170 is quite a bit more, what justifies this cost?

Thanks,
Cody

[surfrx]

I could not be farther from being a pro and I consider this a hobby but I do have both

Basic differences

HMC 150
AVCHD is 1920 x1080 w pixel shift
4.2.0. colorspace
2x focus assist, magnification, evl detail (may have got the abreviation wrong)

HPX 170
DVCPRO HD 1280 x1080 w pixel shift
4.2.2. 200% more colorspace ( Better for gradient skies , colors etc )
Interverlometer for timelapse recording
720 variable frame rate for slow and fast motion effects
3x focus assist, waveform , vectorscope , magnification

Aside from that the cameras are very similar three ccd chipsets with pixel count of 960 x 540
in panasonics pixel shift technology
Same 13x Leica Dicomar lens
I love them both but do definatley prefer the 170 although I do hold a grudge against it because the codec is 1280 x 1080 but at the same time I love the 4.2.2. colorspace although I do have footage of both intercut and it is possible to distinguish to a veiwer who is focusing on content I would be surprised if they noticed.
Also Broadcast stations have stipulations on what formats they will accept so as long as your not trying to jump through those hoops either camera will do. you can always convert to other formats in computer anyways
I pickup my 150 and feel somewhat dissapointed i dont have a few other creative options so that
i guess is that is where the price differences

But I will try to find some more time to figure out a comparison for you

[SPrimeau]

I could not be farther from being a pro and I consider this a hobby but I do have both

Basic differences

HMC 150
AVCHD is 1920 x1080 w pixel shift
4.2.0. colorspace
2x focus assist, magnification, evl detail (may have got the abreviation wrong)

HPX 170
DVCPRO HD 1280 x1080 w pixel shift
4.2.2. 200% more colorspace ( Better for gradient skies , colors etc )
Interverlometer for timelapse recording
720 variable frame rate for slow and fast motion effects
3x focus assist, waveform , vectorscope , magnification

The HMC 150 user manual says about focus assist:
The center part of the camera will be enlarged by a factor of about 4 in the vertical direction and a factor of 6 in the horizontal direction. I think it's more than 2x.

The HMC also have a waveform, vectorscope and and histogram display, like the HPX170.

The real differences are, as stated above, the codecs, variable frame rate, P2 vs SDHC, HD-SDI out and firewire (HPX170) vs HDMI out, etc.

[Richter Video Equipment]

so the 150 doesn't have sdi-hd out? Can the 150 shoot in SD? What codec does it use then? Thanks for the info guys...SURFRX, your comparison was great, exactly what i am looking for.

As a rental company I have to consider my users need's. Which cam would you say is easier to jump right into with little experience? I have a few 170's for rent now, but am considering adding 150's to my product line.

[Mike Harvey]

No and no. It doesn't do SDI out and it doesn't shoot in SD. It uses a higher bitrate version of AVCHD.

[Richter Video Equipment]

Doesn't shoot in SD...that's a downer...I use SD all the time still. Does AVCHD requier more horse power on the editing computer the dvcproHD? What ind of hard drive transfer speeds are need to work with it?

[ullanta]

AVCHD requires a lot more horsepower, a lot less drive transfer speed. It's max bitrate is 24Mbps; DVCProHD's bitrate is 100Mbps. AVCHD is a highly compressed interframe codec, which produces great quality but requires a lot of processor power to view and edit natively. Various editors support native editing, but it's often reported to be pretty slow for all but simple cuts. FCP requires that you transcode to ProRes, which results in much larger files but much faster editing (i.e., needs less horsepower to edit/view).

Media, of course, is much cheaper for the HMC150...

[starcentral]

Are you really chosing the codec because of your computing power?

If you plan on any green screen work, or a lot of color grading in post you will learn to like 422 over others. Just a thought!



Are you really chosing the codec because of your computing power?

I just read a further post of yours, that you're actually looking from the standpoint of a rental company... which in case I can see why computing factor may be a requirement. :D

[Gary Huff]

I just shot properly lit green screen with my 170 and it came out looking fantastic (and very easy to key).

[starcentral]

...that's why I love P2, and that's why I love the overall flexibility the 170 gives me. With its stock lens I can use it for green screen, event coverage, shooting stock footage... and when I want something more "cinematic" I throw on a 35mm adapter and with the low light capability of the 170 and I am damn happy.

I will invite "Michael Carter" to this post however to comment on green screening with the 150, as I know he has been testing it on his own with successful results.

[Mike Harvey]

Richter, since you're a rental house looking at renting this camera out... can I just say, as an HMC150 owner, it is an absolute pain in the rear to find additional HMCs to rent. Because of the price point, everyone who wants one owns one so no rental houses around here carries them. But I can't justify buying two, and the HPX won't often work since when I need to rent, I'm either shooting a conference or a wedding or something and P2 cards just don't have space for the shear volume of footage I shoot (and offloading isn't usually an option).

You probably wouldn't be able rent these out for as much as your HPX170s, but I would bet that if you bought one for rent, you would be able to still turn a profit. Around here, when I can find a private party willing to rent, the HMC150 goes for $250 - $300. The HPX at the local rental houses tends to go for $300 or a little over for a comparison.

[Gary Huff]

I will invite "Michael Carter" to this post however to comment on green screening with the 150, as I know he has been testing it on his own with successful results.

I think the software is to the point where you can key from just about anything (with varying results of course...some are far better for an eventual YouTube video than a Blu-ray release), but I do love the ease and cleanness of pulling keys from the 170 footage.

[ullanta]

Keying is a tradeoff between the two cameras... The HPX has the 4:2:2 color space, but the HMC records at higher resolution. Depending what you're keying, either might have an advantage.

[Richter Video Equipment]

Wow, thanks for the information guys. This is exactly what I wanted to know. One more question though. If a user had a consumer grade editing system like liquid, pinical, or even worse, nero or windows video editor, is there anyway to edit from either camera on those systems without buying more converters? A lot of my customers are amateurs. The dvx100 was great because they could just fire wire out into any consumer program. I think you can do the same with the 170 and avoid the codec issue all together. Can you do that with the 150? is there any other way to edit on consumer editing systems without live digitizing? I would imagine the 170 would be better for consumers with regular desktop computers and not dedicated editors.

Thanks,
Cody

[Michael Carter]

I will invite "Michael Carter" to this post however to comment on green screening with the 150, as I know he has been testing it on his own with successful results.

I've done a broadcast spot with lots of green screen, and I'm in the middle of a music video that will be 100% keyed, both with the 150.

With the 150, I'm finding the following issues:

Exposure is just critical - you need to be as bright and hot as you can be without clipping; once an area gets shadowy/murky, the sort of macro-blocking compression stuff goes through the roof.

There's a fair amount of aliasing, even with sharpness way down; you see it at areas of color contrast - like white skin against a green screen. You'll need to be doing a lot of holdout mattes and tweaking; I did a shot yesterday with 6 roto masks and three layers of footage.

Anything you can do to "Stylize" a shot - blur, smoke, light wrap - can really help.

The camera just doesn't hold hair detail really well; keying at 1080, and then dropping those clips onto a 720 plate and scaling down seems to give good results though. I'm generally editing all this stuff at 720.

Two things that really helped me - one was creating the backgrounds and bringing 8x10 photo prints as lighting reference (I just send TIFFs to the camera store for glossies); and any shots with perspective, I got some static cling material, traced the outlines of the scene, and stuck them on my Marshall monitor to align the camera. that's a sweet trick!

I imagine a 2K film scan or maybe Red footage would be slicker - but this beats the hell out of keying DV or DSLR footage, that's for sure. The footage grades quite well, too.

Some grabs:

This is "on top of a plane", with clouds/mist rushing by and a shaky motion blur - didn't really need to tweak it insanely, with the vibrating shakiness it's fine in motion:
33976

This one was hard - floor was a painted seamless merged onto a PSD file - this is a rough comp that will be prettied up...
33977

Straight key - I made a lot of these environments before the shoot and had color prints handy for lighting reference - that's a huge help in post.
33978

More shaky-misty stuff - floor was chroma green seamless, shadows held up very very well and look great in motion:
33979

Here's what happens when you're a bit dark - kind of globby hair detail - keep in mind these grabs are from MPEG Streamclip on a Mac, so you get that awful quicktime darkening - the footage seems less grainy and has more pop in AE and final output:
33980

With more light, you get a bit more detail:
33981

Here's using some motivated light wrap to make the key easier:
33982

[starcentral]

Michael, as I expected, excellent post! What is your hunch with what someone mentioned regarding resolution of the HMC vs. the color space of the HPX. If cost was not a factor, which would you choose?

[Michael Carter]

Thanks - and I'm seriously thinking I'll choose the Atomos Ninja. I'm not that familiar with the HPX, but as a mac user, the Ninja sounds like the best of both worlds. If I've gotten then far without 422, could be a great fix.

[Richter Video Equipment]

If a user had a consumer grade editing system like liquid, pinical, or even worse, nero or windows video editor, is there anyway to edit from either camera on those systems without buying more converters? A lot of my customers are amateurs. The dvx100 was great because they could just fire wire out into any consumer program. I think you can do the same with the 170 and avoid the codec issue all together. Can you do that with the 150? is there any other way to edit on consumer editing systems without live digitizing? I would imagine the 170 would be better for consumers with regular desktop computers and not dedicated editors.

Thanks,
COdy

BUMP? Anyone?
Thanks

[Barry_Green]

Pinnacle and Liquid and Nero Vision should all work natively with AVCHD. I don't think any of those will work with DVCPRO-HD.

You can't firewire out anything other than DV into a consumer editor; consumer editors don't understand DVCPRO50 or DVCPRO-HD.

And there is no firewire on an HMC150.

[surfrx]

Well I would say the 170 is going to win with overall creative options.

I cant be sure as I dont have the editiing systems you mention but I always read that DVCPROHD can be edited on most consumer computers sold in the last 10 years
( which may be a little exagerated ) as barry states software does have hurdles with DVCPROHD

I would say if you are a rental house then perhaps consider taking the 150 on

-1st reason not many rental houses offer the 150 as previously mentioned so you may
get a new target group or clients

-2nd perhaps there may be a price difference between renting the 150 vs the 170 enabling you to be available to wider range of clients

-3rd AVCHD seems to be more universally compatible with the low end editing software

the above is just food for thought as you mentioned you already carry the 170. I dont think anyone can easily tell you which side to choose so your are going to have to jump in sometime.
Lastly the AC130 or 160 sounds like a good option if one can wait that alone would diminish SOME of the strong points of the 170

Full Raster
although AVCHD
variable frame rates
plus 21x lens stomps on the 170 or 150 13x lens
hdmi out no hd sdi
still 4.2.0 though

well I am hoping to get a vid up here intercut of both but need some time , but dont delay for that.... good luck in the hunt for your white rhino

also barry's points above I was unaware of

[Richter Video Equipment]

Thanks for the info Barry & SurFrx. I need a few more cams since some week-ends I'm fully booked. With my new website coming online any day now (slow web developers), I don't want to be sold out all the time. I think the 150 would be a better choice since I already have a few 170's and my consumer users want something better then a the dvx100. If the AVCHD is more widely accepted on the consumer level that is a huge bonus for it to.

Thanks

[ullanta]

I cant be sure as I dont have the editiing systems you mention but I always read that DVCPROHD can be edited on most consumer computers sold in the last 10 years
( which may be a little exagerated ) as barry states software does have hurdles with DVCPROHD


This confusion relates to two factors - one is processing power, one is software support.

AVCHD, as a heavily compressed long-GOP format, takes a LOT of processing power to work with; a recent fairly high-end machine is needed to make the process pleasant. However, consumer SOFTWARE does tend to support AVCHD.; and it has its origins as a consumer format.

DVCProHD, as a less-efficiently-compressed intraframe format takes much less power to work with, so even fairly old middlin' computers can do a decent job with it. But it has its origins as a professional format, and is not supported by most (or any?) consumer-level software.

[Richter Video Equipment]

To bad the 170 cant do both AVCHD and dvcprohd. My editor practically idles during editing. I need to give it more work lol.