ullanta, what was that orchestra scene shot with?
HMC150 questions answered...
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
ullanta, what was that orchestra scene shot with?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Haven't decided that yet. It's a great 720p camera, and it does do 1080p and 1080i, but the image doesn't get a whole lot sharper or more detailed in 1080p/1080i mode over 720. I think the image is cleaner in 720. If someone had an absolute need for 1080, I'd be totally comfortable using the 150, but if you have your choice of one or the other, I'd lean towards 720.
Yes, it goes full-screen magnification. And yes, it does so when recording as well; you can toggle in/out of that mode while recording or paused.
It all crashes Vegas, I have 8.0b. I can run the Canopus converter and then bring those files into Vegas, but I can't directly import the PH mode files into Vegas.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's no macroblocking in the skies AT ALL in the original footage. Don't know what the converters are doing to the footage, but in the original it's cleaner than scrubbing bubbles.
ullanta
Veteran
I dunno! It's a random picture from the web that has the rough framing and proportion of orchestra to background that I was looking for!
-B
Barry_Green
Moderator
I was the biggest Vegas cheerleader on earth back in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. It was and is still the most powerful, easiest, friendliest, and just plain "coolest" editor out there.
But after Sony bought it, things changed. Odd things. Things like: instead of being the first to support all the new camcorders, like they always were, they instead just *didn't* support certain formats. For example, after the HVX came out, there was no support from Sony for it. They did, however, add the ability to output files directly to a Playstation Portable (like anyone was really waiting for that). They added support for the Canon 24F mode, then (apparently) they took it away in Vegas 8 -- the boards were littered with posts asking "hey, what happened, why doesn't my Canon work anymore?" Then they announced support for AVC-HD, with a disclaimer that specifically says "AVC-HD support for footage from Sony camcorders." They added MXF support, or so they say. But if you read the fine print, it says "MXF support from Sony camcorders." Sony, of course, uses a different type of MXF file than everyone else.
I do not like this trend. I love the Vegas program, but I don't like where it's headed (or where it seems to be headed). I've exchanged many e-mails with Dave Hill; heck, Vegas used to distribute part of one of our short films as the demo footage for DVD Architect. I have been a longtime vocal supporter of the program; when the DVX100 hit Vegas was *the* editor we all cheered here at DVXUser.
I am not intending to "smear" or "slander" anyone here. I'm simply pointing out my over five years of experience with the program, from version 4.0 to 8.0b, and based on extensive experience with it, and with watching how the trend of the company's priorities have changed, and how they will do anything and everything to support Sony products while specifically mentioning how they did not support other products (as witnessed by their introductions of AVC-HD and MXF support) I stand by my statement that I wouldn't hold my breath that they'd rush to support any new camcorder or format from any manufacturer. They may indeed get to it, they have no problem with seeing Vegas working with the other products, but unless the new camera or recording format is a Sony format or product it's reasonable to assume that it's not going to be their first priority. They have a limited pool of development resources, and if the choice has to be made to either support XDCAM-EX or the PHU-60K or the HMC150, which way do you think they'll lean? Historically, since the acquisition by Sony, they have always prioritized their development efforts to support any and all Sony products (which I eventually recognized as reasonable from the perspective that -- if they don't support it, who will? Obviously Sony's own editor should support every product that they make.) For products or formats from other manufacturers, clearly and obviously they do not rank as high on the priority list.
Vegas' attitude has appeared to be that other companies are responsible for supporting other manufacturer's gear. They welcome Cineform or Raylight or Panasonic or Canon writing software and plug-ins for Vegas. Which is reasonable, I guess, but -- again, it only underscores my point that I don't expect them to rush to support the HMC150.
If you see evidence to the contrary, I'd love to be informed of it. You call what Dave Hill wrote "an offer right there to help" but if you read it again, you may very well see that instead it's saying "we may or may not support other manufacturers formats ourselves; if other manufacturers want their products to work with our software, they should call us and write the plug-ins for us." Which is fine, I guess, but no matter how you slice it the corporate master will have an influence on their development plans, which he alludes to when he says "True, anything that requires development and support funding of course is a business decision." The meaning of which I read as, "should we take this development time and spend these development dollars to support someone else's product, or is there some Sony product that we could support instead which would help our overall company mission and purpose?"
Again, from their perspective, perfectly reasonable. But is it in your best interest? I much prefer the approach of an Adobe or Canopus, NLE companies who have no other tie and no other responsibility than to the end user. Same reason I'm not a big fan of Apple's FCP -- FCP takes the approach of isolating the user and making itself and all your footage proprietary and making FCP the center of the editor's universe, and it runs only on Macs, which means that FCP exists to sell Mac hardware (a fact that I think pretty much everyone acknowledges). I don't like that "company town" approach. I'd rather see the NLE exist to be the best editor it can be for the user, and not be used as a tool to further the parent company's hardware business, but that's just my take on it.
So, in summary: I love Vegas. I fervently wish that they hadn't been bought by Sony. I keep my Vegas subscription current (and upgraded to 8.0b). I have been frustrated and disappointed with the way things have gone since the Sony acquisition. I still want to believe that it will be a universal editor. But am I optimistic that they will be first out of the gate with comprehensive support? No I am not, and I think history validates my concerns with that. Am I optimistic that they will highly prioritize comprehensive support for other manufacturers' products? No, not really. Only for Sony products. If I was an EX1 user, I'd trumpet Vegas loudly as far and away the best choice. But for those who want to use alternate manufacturers' equipment, I recommend doing thorough research before committing to that platform. They may indeed get around to supporting other manufacturers' formats, but we're running on about 8 years of DVCPRO-HD and they've never supported it, DVCPRO50 has been around for I don't know how long and they never created a codec for it (instead requiring you use the Matrox codec), P2's been around for four years and they ignored it entirely (instead relying on Cineform and DVFilm). As long as other companies will provide support, I guess it'll remain relevant. But what if Raylight doesn't make an AVC-HD version for PH mode? Then what? All I'm saying is that I am not optimistic based on the trends I've seen develop with them before. I do fervently hope to be proven wrong in that assessment.
Last edited:
impressive creations
Active member
Log and Transfer or HDMI
Log and Transfer or HDMI
So, what is the difference between 4:4:0 color and 4:4:2? So HDMI can go to Nano Flash or DXR? Is that something we should think about?
But my main question is this.. IF fcp one day supports AVCHD natively or we do the log and transfer now, will going through an Intensity card via HDMI be better quality in the long run? I know we would have to capture real time, but will it make a difference??..
THanks
Log and Transfer or HDMI
Granted they took away HD-SDI, but they added HDMI which, for a lower-end unit, is probably the more appropriate connector anyway. It's still a fully uncompressed digital 4:2:2 signal, like HD-SDI, but it works with televisions and the Intensity and other gear that's priced more appropriately for a camera of this price range. And with HDMI that means that you could use the XDR or NanoFlash, even though it starts to become questionable as to why you'd even want to, since you can record directly to dime-store SD cards as-is.)
So, what is the difference between 4:4:0 color and 4:4:2? So HDMI can go to Nano Flash or DXR? Is that something we should think about?
But my main question is this.. IF fcp one day supports AVCHD natively or we do the log and transfer now, will going through an Intensity card via HDMI be better quality in the long run? I know we would have to capture real time, but will it make a difference??..
THanks
Last edited:
grey-apple
Active member
nobody know the european distribution date of hmc-150?
joe 1008
Veteran
Barry
The HMC150 with the Letus Ultimate, is that a serious combination or is it just overkill?
I mean, if you were on a budget and you wanted to get the best for your money, would you prefer the HMC150 with Letus Ultimate (about 8.000K) or the HVX200a with the Letus Extreme(close to 7.000K)
By the way, any news of a PAL/NTSC upgrade?
The HMC150 with the Letus Ultimate, is that a serious combination or is it just overkill?
I mean, if you were on a budget and you wanted to get the best for your money, would you prefer the HMC150 with Letus Ultimate (about 8.000K) or the HVX200a with the Letus Extreme(close to 7.000K)
By the way, any news of a PAL/NTSC upgrade?
Bassman2003
Veteran
Barry, thanks again for your help.
Here are a couple of questions:
Does it have 4:3 markers in the viewfinder?
I own a PD 170 & a VX-2000 which I use for weddings.
After using the HMC-150, would you hesitate for a minute to sell the PD-170's for two HMC-150s?
Even if I still deliver on DVD.
Thanks
Here are a couple of questions:
Does it have 4:3 markers in the viewfinder?
I own a PD 170 & a VX-2000 which I use for weddings.
After using the HMC-150, would you hesitate for a minute to sell the PD-170's for two HMC-150s?
Even if I still deliver on DVD.
Thanks
Last edited:
That's a good question Bassman2003.
I film concerts with two canon XL2 and one canon GL1 and I'm thinking of getting two HMC151 and one SD-9, but my endproduct will be DVD for the next maybe two years.
And I think I have to invest around 1000,- in my computer for better performance. That's why I'm thinking about just getting another XL2 and wait.
I film concerts with two canon XL2 and one canon GL1 and I'm thinking of getting two HMC151 and one SD-9, but my endproduct will be DVD for the next maybe two years.
And I think I have to invest around 1000,- in my computer for better performance. That's why I'm thinking about just getting another XL2 and wait.
There are issues with low light with the 150, which I don't believe you have with the 2000.
BobDiaz
The Professor
I downloaded and looked at the resolution charts from VideoMaker. Before I comment on the charts, let me say that the numbers are only good as a rough guide and are really only meaningful when other cameras are tested and measured using the same system.
720p:
Depending on how one defines as resolving the lines...
500 lines Conservative
600 lines if you want to allow for some aliasing
700 lines if any hint of lines comes through
1080p:
600 lines Conservative, but with a very slight amount of aliasing
700 lines if you want to allow for some aliasing
800 lines if any hint of lines comes through
It looks like going from 720p to 1080p gives you about 100 more lines, but the chart is not detailed enough to be 100% sure. It might be interesting to see how the camera compares to the HVX-200. Either it's going to be the same or just a tad better.
The resolution is about where I would expect it to be, close to the HVX-200. In the case of the HMC-150, low light performance, rich colors, and good dynamic range are key points to the camera's image quality.
Bob Diaz
720p:
Depending on how one defines as resolving the lines...
500 lines Conservative
600 lines if you want to allow for some aliasing
700 lines if any hint of lines comes through
1080p:
600 lines Conservative, but with a very slight amount of aliasing
700 lines if you want to allow for some aliasing
800 lines if any hint of lines comes through
It looks like going from 720p to 1080p gives you about 100 more lines, but the chart is not detailed enough to be 100% sure. It might be interesting to see how the camera compares to the HVX-200. Either it's going to be the same or just a tad better.
The resolution is about where I would expect it to be, close to the HVX-200. In the case of the HMC-150, low light performance, rich colors, and good dynamic range are key points to the camera's image quality.
Bob Diaz
Barry_Green
Moderator
Not sure what you're asking; are you asking 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2? The numbers you posted don't correspond.
If you want to read about the differences in color sampling systems, try this article. If you want the quick answer, 4:2:2 has twice as much color information as 4:2:0.
The Nano Flash was, IIRC, intended to be an HDMI-enabled digital memory recorder, a cheaper version of the Convergent Designs XDR. Same company, cheaper product ($2,000 vs. $5,000, I think). HDMI is a digital uncompressed video transport connection, comparable to HD-SDI for that purpose.
As to whether it's something to think about or not, I think the actual likelihood of someone using a NanoFlash or something like that with a 150 is probably a lot lower than it would be for someone using an EX1, since one of the main attractions to the XDR is that it records on cheap CompactFlash cards instead of the $900 SxS cards. But the 150 already records on cheap(er) SD cards, so that particular benefit may not be a purchase decision. HDMI is nice because it allows you to do live uncompressed video streaming to, say, a BlackMagic Intensity Pro capture card.
For live capture, perhaps. For footage that's already been recorded, no.
Barry_Green
Moderator
A $4500 accessory on a $3500 camera is always going to rate as "overkill" in my book.
I'd go with the HPX170 over the HVX200A any day, unless you absolutely must have tape.
But 150/ultimate vs. 170/extreme? Hmmm. The Extreme is really good, and in context with the camera price it makes more sense (a $1200 accessory for a $5200 camera). Plus you're more likely to land more jobs with a 170 than you will with a 150, or at least it seems like that'll be the way it goes. But the Ultimate is very nice. I don't know that you get 3x the performance from it vs. the Extreme, obviously, but it's slick and sweet. I would probably, if forced to make that choice, go with 170+Extreme over 150+Ultimate. Saving $1,000, getting the more powerful camera, and getting an adapter that's priced right as an accessory, seems to make sense... but... well, I guess it's where your priorities lie. No doubt the Ultimate is a noticeable step up above the Extreme.
From what I understand it's probably not going to happen.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, at your choice you can have either 4:3 or 16:9 markers.
Depends on what you want to deliver. The 150 is 10x the camera the PD170/VX2000 ever were. But, those are standard-def cameras and the 150 is a high-def-only camera. Sensitivity will probably still be in favor of the PD170/VX2000. Sharpness and grain are going to be way in the 150's favor, especially (way especially) if you want to do 16:9.
But if all you're doing is delivering on standard-def DVD, and your clients are happy with what you're giving them now, why upgrade? If you want to start offering HD weddings then yes, by all means, no waiting and no hesitation I'd say plunge into some 150's. But if you're doing well at what you're doing now, why change?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Resolution charts are only useful when they're framed properly. Are those the full-frame shots, or extractions? If those are full-frame, then they're useless because they weren't framed up right.
I've got some shots of that exact same chart, one in 1080p and one in 720p, I'll dig around and see if I can find 'em.
BobDiaz
The Professor
Barry,
As for the resolution charts, because the image size is large, 1280x720 and 1920x1080, I cropped the image from the full sized image, to show the most important information. Looking at the alignment marks, they were very close to the marks, but were rotated slightly.
I'd be interested in seeing how the HMC-150's resolution compares to the HVX-200's resolution. My guess is that it should be about the same or slightly better.
Bob Diaz
As for the resolution charts, because the image size is large, 1280x720 and 1920x1080, I cropped the image from the full sized image, to show the most important information. Looking at the alignment marks, they were very close to the marks, but were rotated slightly.
I'd be interested in seeing how the HMC-150's resolution compares to the HVX-200's resolution. My guess is that it should be about the same or slightly better.
Bob Diaz
