Press Release: HMC150, "the new DVX"

Thanks Barry. Jan actually confirmed that today at Cinegear. Got to see the 170 as well. Pretty nice camera, will be a hard decision between the 150 and 170 come September/October.
 
Barry_Green said:
HDMI never carries 4:4:4, that's not part of the spec (as far as I know).
Click to expand...
Really? People wouldn't have switched from VGA to DVI (same video spec as HDMI) if it wasn't pixel accurate. 4:4:4 is definitely an option in the spec at up to 16 bit color in v1.3, but that is typically only used in computers and video games. Most video (and recording devices) is 4:2:2, so I bet you are right. Do you think it will add pulldown to allow for viewable/recordable 24p? It is possible to output 24p (some bluray players do it), but few devices accept it and I'm doubting this will have it.
 
I thought that you might finds the comments by VideoMaker on the HMC-70 interesting...

...
Back in the edit suite, I simply plugged the USB cable into the camcorder and computer, and the SDHC card popped up on my desktop. I was using a Final Cut Pro system, so it required a lengthy transcode process to transfer all my AVCHD footage into the ProRes codec. It wasn't exactly the connect-and-edit simplicity it should be, but that's a problem for the editing software companies to figure out.

To judge image quality, I connected the camcorder directly to an HD video projector via HDMI. I was astounded by the image clarity and detail. The AVCHD implementation by Panasonic was superb. Even notoriously difficult-to-compress scenes, such as blank beige walls, showed no banding in the image. Wide shots of trees blowing in the wind had no discernible artifacting around the leaves. The AG-HMC70 delivered clear, vibrant and naturally-saturated images right out of the box.

Conclusion
Panasonic's AG-HMC70 is one of the most affordable shoulder-mounted, full-sized camcorders on the market. I had some concerns with its electronic menus, but its image quality and audio capabilities are top-shelf. If you're in a market where size does matter, it's definitely worth a look.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the HMC-70 is 1/4" CCDs vs. 1/3" CCDs for the HMC-150 and the maximum data rate is lower for the 70 than the 150. Still, the 70 did get good marks in terms of image quality and lack of visible artifacts.

While each camera needs to be judged on its' own, this does suggest that the HMC-150 will do very well as far as image quality and not show compression artifacts.


Bob Diaz
 
Reading this thread (especially by BobDiaz above) and thinking about the LONG GOP of the AVCHD just brought to mind our three recent HDV camera/format tests where we tested a Sony HDV camera (1/6" cmos imager), a JVC HD 100 camera, and a Canon A1 and other than the JVC looking even better than the other two for some reason (and don't know why . . isn't HDV . . HDV?) what is described in that article Bob posted is "exactly" what I said about the HDV and I'm just guessing that the Canon in particular will be cheaper camera wise PLUS one has an easy archive (especially if one has gads of miniDV tape already :o)

The downshot of our test was that other than a few really hard panning moves AND with pine needles as the object AND extreme low light grain (the latter of which is rare) the HDV looked as good as our HVX200 :o(
 
Nice find Bob, haven't seen that review anywhere (link?), but was exactly what I was hoping to see. I've only seen one other review on the 70 that wasn't very positive, but didn't give much detail and was more harsh on the body design itself (which is understandable, it def has a specific market that is small compared to the DVX/HVX).

Considering Pany's CCDs do not have the highest pixel count, I think this camera is going to be the killer 720p cam for the price. The codec potentially allows for many advantages over DVCPROHD at 720p and will probably closely match the camera's total pixel count. With half the pixels of 1080, the AVCHD codec should be that much more capable with its high bitrate. Then you have 1080 at 4:2:2 over HDMI for quality chroma keying on the cheap.

I believe there are going to be a lot of people deciding between this and the 170. From what I've found, unless you need P2 or VFR (thats the biggest loss IMO), people will realize how much cheaper this cam will be so long as they can live with transcoding or buying a monster machine and waiting for NLE support. There is no denying that native editing in DVCPROHD cannot be beat... but the smaller files, cheaper media, cheaper cam, native Bluray compatability, full raster 720p/1080p codec, HMDI, and most of the goodies from the 170 make the 150 difficult not to seriously consider.
 
What are the main differences in features between the HMC150 and the HPX170 (other than P2 capability)?
Will the HMC150 have an image flip for 35 adapters?
 
DammitJanet said:
What are the main differences in features between the HMC150 and the HPX170 (other than P2 capability)?
Will the HMC150 have an image flip for 35 adapters?
Click to expand...
We don't know a lot about the HMC150 yet. What we do know is:

1) 170 has HD-SDI, 150 has HDMI
2) 170 has firewire streaming, 150 doesn't
3) 170 has variable frame rates, 150 doesn't
4) 170 uses DVCPRO-HD, 150 uses AVC-HD
5) 170 does standard-def, I don't think the 150 does (not 100% sure)
6) 170 uses P2, 150 uses SDHC
7) 150 should be at least $1500 less expensive

They look to be largely the same hardware, same imaging blocks, etc. The 150 is slightly smaller (its handle is about 1/2" shorter, for example). They both look to have noticeably improved imaging over the HVX200.
 
I've also been wondering the same thing... 170 vs. 150. It's getting close to the time to put a deposit down if I'm going to get one hot of the press.

Barry... You put HDMI on the same line as HD-SDI. I am a little confused. Is HDMI for recording uncompressed?

And obviously this is hard to answer, but for those of us who aren't videographers and don't care much about extreme recording times, but hope to one day have our work blown up to film, would you think the 150 at 24mbps would provide an image in the same ballpark as the 170 (or I suppose the 200A)?
 
HDMI and HD-SDI are both uncompressed video signal transport protocols. They're usually used for monitoring, not recording. You could record off of them both if you had the appropriate equipment.

As for 24mbps vs. DVCPRO-HD, that remains to be tested. I suspect that it'll be pretty close.
 
mcsmooth said:
Nice find Bob, haven't seen that review anywhere (link?), but was exactly what I was hoping to see. I've only seen one other review on the 70 that wasn't very positive, but didn't give much detail and was more harsh on the body design itself (which is understandable, it def has a specific market that is small compared to the DVX/HVX).
...
Click to expand...

The review of the HMC-70 is found at:
http://www.videomaker.com/article/1..._content=enews_2008_06_2&utm_campaign=traffic


150 vs. 170:

My guess is that by the end of the year there is going to be a lot of talk on this forum about the differences between the 150 vs. the 170. If we are talking feature, the 170 wins, but as far as cost, the 150 wins.

No one can say for sure, but I'll guess that as far as image quality, it may be hard to tell the difference, given that they both have the same CCDs and lens. The only real difference is the compression. I'm guessing that the bit rate for both is high enough, such that compression noise is not going to be a factor for image quality.


Editing may be the biggest issue between the 2 cameras. While I can't test the files for the MHC-150, I've tried to simulate what it would be like by using other MPEG-4 H.264 HD files. I'm using an iMac, dual core, 2..4 GHz with FCE (Final Cut Express).

At 1080/30p, without rendering, moving through the video to find in/out points is possible, BUT the performance is VERY sluggish. Beyond the simple tests, I would hate to edit this way, it's just too hard. HOWEVER, once I render the files into AIC (Apple Intermedic Codec), the responce is quick and editing is a breeze. There has to be a slight amount of loss due to the extra step of conversion, but I'm not able to see any difference.

At 720/25p, without rendering to AIC moving through the video to find in/out points is a lot easier than 1080/30p, but is still a bit slugish. If I had to, I could live with it. Like the 1080/30p video, once rendered to AIC, editing is a breeze.


In reading messages from other forums, most are saying that to edit AVCHD native, you need at least a quad-core computer and an 8-core would be even better. What this all suggests for editing AVCHD is:

(1) Transcoding to an editing Codec, like AIC or Prores allows us to edit using a less powerful computer. There has to be a slight drop in image quality due to the extra generation, but this difference is hard to spot.

(2) Editing in Native mode requires real processing power, al least a quad-core. In another 3 to 4 years, we can expect to see increased processing power. So, this is not going to be a real issue 3 to 4 years from now with new computers.


With the 170, a strong case can be made that the DVCPRO HD files are already in a format that's editing friendly. Thus, one does not a lot of processing power to edit native, nor do you have to transcode in order to edit.

With the way SDHC memory prices are going, in another 4 years or so, it starts to become cost effective to just record your footage to an SDHC card and buy a fresh card for another job. Assuming you purchase quality cards, flash memory storage could have a storage life of 40 or more years. This could be an argument for the 150.



Bob Diaz
 
Well, that sheds some light, gentlemen, thank you.

I'm still running FCP6 on a 17" Powerbook G4, so AIC or ProRes are more than fine with me. Most of my final output will be for SD anyway, so if there's no visible drop in quality I'm cool with that. At this point, the 150 appeals more to me as cost is an issue (that extra $1500 will go toward a 35 adapter/lens). However, a few more concerns come up.

1) If I end up going with the 150 and it doesn't support firewire, do I just use a card reader to get my footage off the camera or will a USB 2.0 cable be able to do that as well?

2) I use ScopeBox for monitoring a lot of times, and I'm pretty sure it can only accept video through FireWire. Will I be able to use it with the 150?

3) The 150 would be sort of useless for me without an image flip built in, and why Panasonic wouldn't include one at this point would boggle my mind, so here's hoping.

Anyway, that's where I stand at this point.
 
I'll answer what I do know...

(1) Either use the USB connection from the camera OR a third party card reader to get the files into your system. Whatever is easier...

(2) Good news/bad news... Good news: the HMC-150 has a built in vector scope function AND waveform monitor. (Very sweet!) Bad news as for outputting video, as far as I know it's only component, composite (converted to SD), and HDMI are the only video outputs.

(3) No official word on image flip yet. The camera is still in the final stages of development, so we won't know until October when it come out.


Best Wishes,

Bob Diaz
 
Hi Bob.

Thanks so much for sharing with us your research and knowledge. I was curious on how long it takes to convert the avchd to prores or something similar? I know it depends of what computer, but is there any rough number you might have that we can use as a guide?

thanks a lot?
 
After running several tests and timing it this time, I'm finding that the way the MPEG-4 H.264 file is encoded will have an impact on the time to transcode to AIC. This is only a VERY rough estimate... Keep in mind that the AVCHD files from Panasonic may be very different than this. The clips I'm testing are about 20 seconds long.

720/25p = 3.5x, That is 1 minute takes 3.5 minutes

1080/30p = 10x, That is 1 minute takes 10 minutes

The number you get is +/- 20% (Answer x 0.8 or Answer x 1.2)

With the limited files I've tested, it seems that the higher the compression, the longer the time and the lower the compression, the shorter the time.

My MAC is a 2.4 GHz dual core iMac with 2 GB of RAM.


Bob Diaz
 
Here are some photos with the source file on the left and the end result on the right. The images are cropped from the 1080 or 720 footage and are NOT reduced in size. To get the effect of seeing this on a full sized screen, you would need to move from your computer monitor about 3 to 4 feet.

The first image comes from Philip Bloom's work; my source file was his edited result. This is the 720/25 footage, 3.7Mbps.

PB_720.png



The next 2 images are from the Samsung SC-HMX20c Consumer HD Camera; single chip 0.55". This is the 1080/30p footage; about 14 to 15Mbps.

BB_1080.png


FG_1080.png


As you can see there is a slight difference in the images, but it appears to be mostly changes in brightness. However, I'm not seeing any real increase in compression artifacts due to the extra generations of compression.


Bob Diaz
 
To my eyes, the white flower petals actually have softer edges after the compression. Other than that it does appear to be brightness that separates the two.
 
drdimento,

No, nor would I expect them to be. The point was NOT to show the quality of MPEG-4 H.264, but to show that the AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) does not cause any increase in the compression noise or make the image look worse.

Keep in mind that the data rates for all the examples (3.7 Mbps and 14 -15 Mbps) are way below the HVX-150's 21/24 Mbps rate. If you look closely at the baseball shot, you can see a trail to the left of the blue helmet.

A few other factors come into play here:

(1) This is a static image, thus the compression noise stands out. When I play the baseball footage, I can't see the pattern to the left of the helmet. In a moving image it's very hard to see this noise, because it's a changing pattern.

I have a hallway clip that has very strong image sensor noise. The noise eats up bandwidth and increases compression noise. In a freeze frame, it's easy to spot the noise, but when played, the compression noise is also hidden.

(2) If you scale your computer monitor to match that of a 60" screen, you need to move back to around 3 to 4 feet from your computer screen to match the viewing angle of a 60" screen. The average person sits about 9 feet from their TV. SO, if you sit very close to the 60" screen, you'll be able to spot more problems in the image.

(3) You are looking for the noise patterns, because that's what this test is about: Does the extra compression steps add to the noise?

When I go to the movies, when I look for the grain pattern in the image at some point in the movie and I can see it. Everyone else doesn't know to look for that pattern and they never see it.



Once the HMC-150 comes out, we can do the real comparisons; until then we are limited to trying to simulate what things would be like.

Bob Diaz
 
A couple little questions I probably should know the answer to.

Will the thread size be the same? That will greatly affect when I purchase a 35mm adapter.

Will the weight be roughly the same? Also affects whether I have to throw down for a new tripod or not. How much does the LEX weight again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top