HVX200a or HPX-170 or HMC150

So, Barry, you say the 150 and 170 will have the same sensors, and the (raw) image they record would be identical before they are compressed to their respective codecs?
 
It's my understanding that the imaging block is the same. Whether there will be any additional processing done on the 170, vs. the 150, remains to be seen. From the menus that I saw, it looks like they will likely deliver an identical uncompressed image, with the only real image differences coming from the recording formats.
 
and the imaging blocks on the 170 and 150 will be the same from the 200a, and still employing the aggressive pixel-shift?
 
hmm. if the chips are the same, then what is all the hype in the press releases about 'full raster' from the hmc150?
 
Hans Moleman said:
hmm. if the chips are the same, then what is all the hype in the press releases about 'full raster' from the hmc150?
Click to expand...

Hans, by your questions it seems you have the common misperception that there is an image uprez going on in these cameras.
 
I'm fully versed in the pixel shift technology, I'll have you know!

This is an insult. I challenge ye to a duel.

*glove slap*

But seriously, the panasonic literature had led me to believe that either the 150 or 170 would carry chips of a different photosite count or ratio than the 200, hence the reference to 'full raster' in the releases.
 
" Panasonic has a free application on there P2 Support desk site that will encode your AVC HD file to P2 HD."

Barry,

When converted to P2 HD, does the file then have 4.2.2 color space extrapolated from the 4.2.0 original images?

Duke
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Between the 200A and the 170, I'd recommend the 170 to everyone unless you have a specific need for that DV tape drive.

Between the 150 and the 170, they don't make the choice easy. It's largely the same hardware, but the features and the recording format are very different, making the pricetag and workflow very different.

Both have the same lens, same chips, same DSP, so the raw image should be very much the same. But the 170 is geared toward the professional user, recording DVCPRO-HD onto P2 cards and supplying a locking 6-pin firewire port and an HD-SDI connector. Plus the 170 does variable frame rates, and it does standard-definition too.

The 150, on the other hand, seems more set up for the event shooter, the prosumer, the wedding shooter, the budget producer, etc. Same core image, but it records onto inexpensive commodity SD cards instead of P2, and it uses HDMI instead of HD-SDI, and it doesn't offer standard-def or variable frame rates. But, it costs at least $1500 less, and its recording media is much less expensive, and it has a scalable codec so you can get extraordinarily long recording times (on a 32GB SDHC card you could actually record for 12 continuous hours).

Then it comes down to the recording format. DVCPRO-HD is an established broadcast standard. AVC-HD is the "new DV", the replacement for HDV, sort of a super-HDV. It uses very low bandwidth (6 to 24 megabits, vs. 40 to 100 megabits for DVCPRO-HD). It's also 4:2:0 color sampling, vs. the superior 4:2:2 of DVCPRO-HD. And it's long-GOP, vs. the discrete frame-based nature of DVCPRO-HD. But, on the other hand, it's an extremely efficient codec, it's the latest codec technology (H.264), and it does record full-raster images (1920x1080 and 1280x720).

On a pricetag basis, for the struggling indie filmmaker who can't really afford much at all, the HMC150 will probably be a lot more appealing. For the pro who needs the flexibility and performance of the P2/DVCPRO-HD approach, I don't think there'll be much question at all, the HPX170 will be preferred.

Long-GOP can cause serious artifacting in HDV/MPEG-2, and I would expect similar issues when using low-bitrate AVC-HD. However, since AVC-HD is so much more efficient, it might not be bad (or, it might even be perfectly fine) at the higher bitrates. We don't know yet. Sony says that 9 megabits of AVC-HD is equivalent to 25 megabits of HDV. I would expect that 24 megabits of AVC-HD should be equivalent to 35 megabits of XDCAM-EX. We simply don't know enough yet to be able to judge what the real-world performance is, but I would feel confident enough to say that 24 megabits of 720/24p will probably be exquisite with no motion artifacting. Not sure yet about 1080 mode; 1080p should be a lot more solid than 1080i (same with XDCAM EX); I bet 1080/24p will be just fine in all but perhaps the most demanding cases. But that's assuming using the highest-quality 24mbps mode; if you lower your bitrate, all bets are off. I bet you can force some nasty artifacting out of 6mbps footage!

Perhaps the biggest question to answer (as alluded to here before) is in editing. DVCPRO-HD is extremely well-established and extremely edit-friendly. AVC-HD is extraordinarily processor-intensive, and isn't supported in very many editing applications yet. For those who are comfortable with using an intermediate-codec approach (like early HDV adopters had to) then this may not even be an issue; iMovie transcodes AVC-HD over to AIC; FCP can transcode to ProRes, and EDIUS can read the files natively or transcode to Canopus HQ codec. Vegas has some support for AVC-HD but it only really has comprehensive support for Sony camcorders; Canon and Panasonic support is hit-and-miss over there. Panasonic provides a free tool to transcode AVC-HD over to DVCPRO-HD MXF files, so any program that supports P2 editing could then edit AVC-HD footage.

The upside of AVC-HD is in tiny file sizes, which makes it easy to store on cheap memory and it doesn't take up much space on your editing system (in native mode). The downside of AVC-HD is in the editing, and if you have to transcode to another editing codec, be prepared for your files to take up huge amounts of space; ProRes is something like 170 megabits, isn't it? That means your files will grow in size by a factor of 8 to 10 times as large when transcoding.

Editing support is expected to be much stronger in the next revisions of the major editing apps (FCS3, Adobe CS4, etc). But right now, today, the editing aspect is something to research because it's not nearly as well-supported and simple as DVCPRO-HD MXF editing is.
Click to expand...

Thanks barry, this is EXACTLY what I needed to see to make my choice. Not going to be easy. The only question I have is that I have a 3 year old PowerPC G5 with 3 gigs of RAM and FCP HD 4.5. Will this cause any issues in editing in either format? I really don't want to spend another 3 grand on a computer.
 
filthrich said:
Thanks barry, this is EXACTLY what I needed to see to make my choice. Not going to be easy. The only question I have is that I have a 3 year old PowerPC G5 with 3 gigs of RAM and FCP HD 4.5. Will this cause any issues in editing in either format? I really don't want to spend another 3 grand on a computer.
Click to expand...
Your computer can handle DVCPRO-HD just fine, but your software isn't able to support P2. If you went with an HVX or HPX170, you'd have to "capture" the footage off the P2 cards using firewire, just like it was tape.

I don't know if you can upgrade your software to the latest version of FCP; I think that requires an Intel CPU doesn't it? The last version that worked on the G5 was, IINM, version 5.1.4. I don't know if you can still upgrade to that but, if you want to go with a P2 camera, you should try to upgrade to at least 5.1.4.

As for AVC-HD, FCP 4.5 won't handle that at all. You'd have to use a conversion tool (like iMovie's conversion to Apple Intermediate Codec).

Any way you slice it, you're getting pretty long in the tooth with that hardware and if you want to play with the big leagues, an upgrade is probably going to have to figure pretty highly on your list. Forget spending 3 grand though, you can get a functional "clone" system that'd probably blow away the G5 for under $700. Core 2 Duo, etc.
 
Barry_Green said:
Any way you slice it, you're getting pretty long in the tooth with that hardware and if you want to play with the big leagues, an upgrade is probably going to have to figure pretty highly on your list. Forget spending 3 grand though, you can get a functional "clone" system that'd probably blow away the G5 for under $700. Core 2 Duo, etc.
Click to expand...

What is this Clone you speak of?:) and where can I get one? $700 I could live with. as long as I can use FCP. Since that is the only NLE I have a clue about. Please let me know how to make that happen.
 
FCP HD 4.5 does not support DVCProHD

You'll need to move to FCS2. That software will run on your computer or an Intel Mac.

However, I don't believe your video card will support Color, and Motion won't run smoothly
 
David S. said:
FCP HD 4.5 does not support DVCProHD

You'll need to move to FCS2. That software will run on your computer or an Intel Mac.

However, I don't believe your video card will support Color, and Motion won't run smoothly
Click to expand...

I am screwed either way. I am really thinking about swithing over to Vegas and building a quad core PC.:crybaby: I have been reading about the mac clones, but I don't know enough about them to spend the money. And Motion does not run smoothly now. It crashes more then half the time.

THank you for the reply.
 
what a headache! why does AVC-HD even exist? its just another version of HDV. i just may go over to the darkside and buy a Sony EX3 when it comes out ;)
 
I don't think anybody is screwed.

It's just time to upgrade.

When FCP HD 4.5 was released four or five years ago, neither AVCHD nor DVCProHD to p2 cards existed.
 
Unfortunately those upgrades cost money. Therefore I am screwed. :badputer:But You are right, it is time to upgrade, I knew this day would come just not when gas is $4 a gallon. Money is tight is for a lot of us, but making movies is more important than driving anyway. :Drogar-Shock(DBG):Thanks for your help.
 
Barry,

Final Cut Pro 6.0.3 will still run on a PowerPC chip. I'm running it on my G4 17" 1.67Ghz Powerbook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top