HMC150 vs HVX200a Advice?

R

robzila27

Member
Dear learned forum members.

I am currently shooting with an HVX200a and I am contemplating buying another camera (or 2) to add to our production arsenal. My question is concerning the positives (or problems) associated with the AVCHD workflow. I edit on Vegas 8.0c and use Raylight with much success to deal with the MXF issues.

I guess what I'm getting at is....does the added cost of not only the camera (HVX200a) and the dependency of using high priced P2 cards really pay off in the end? I am assuming Vegas can play with both types of files and unless there is a major difference in image quality, why shell out for the P2 based cameras?

If I am completely missing something, please educate me. Opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.
 
The primary reasons to go with the HVX200A over an HMC150 would include:
1) the P2 format
2) the DVCPRO-HD intraframe 4:2:2 codec
3) the variable frame rates
4) the standard-definition recording modes
5) time-lapse/intervalometer mode
6) loop recording mode

If you don't need (and don't value) those items, then the HMC150 would seem the logical choice. Just be aware that Vegas doesn't have full-fledged robust support for all HMC150 modes yet; we're hoping there'll be an update (maybe 8.0d?) to address the 720/60p issues and slow updates that Vegas exhibits with HMC150 footage.

The HMC150 also does a few things the 200A doesn't, such as HDMI output, longform recording to cheap SD cards, and an in-camera waveform monitor and vectorscope. Plus it's much lighter with better ergonomics.
 
For me, the P2 card cost is what made me bail on the HVX200.
The HVX200 is a great camera, but I felt the cost of the camera, and cards, and lack of an inexpensive offload medium, made that investment costly, while also investing in P2 medium that is difficult to find readers for (at a reasonable price..which is subjective of course)

That was more than I wanted to have in a system of that nature.

Due to not wanting to invest more in P2 cards that I would not even be able to get half price, for when I went to sell, was not something I looked forward to do.

The last laptop that read P2 cards was even more difficult to find.

After seeing and using the HMC150, I can say that for me, it only makes sense to go that route. You will save a grand, be able to get 16 gig cards for around $30 (transcend class 6), and shoot all day for less than the price of an HVX200, that only gets you started for it's entry price point.

The HVX200 may be 4:2:2 color, but to me, the HMC150 seems to have the edge in image quality once transcoded.

Both images are pixel shifted to give you 1080.
The HVX200 then scales down the image to nearly SD image size and creates the digital file.
Then when it plays back, it enlarges it back up to size of the play back device.

THe HMC150 takes the pixel shifted image and doesn't reduce it's resolution but does compress it. It plays back at the size of the playback device (should be what you rendered your file to be, so no enlargement losses).

I think the HVX200 and 170 lose some sharpness due to this downsizing and then resizing on playback, that the HMC150 doesn't have to do.

Food for thought: Take your digital SLR and take a picture, then make the image an 8x12 in photoshop. Now reduce it to a 4x5 and save the image, now when ever you show it to someone, blow it back up to 8x12. I think these cameras lose something by doing similiar.

As for color, once you transcode to a 10 bit codec, you can boost color of the image, and the difference to begin with is negligible at best.

For this reason, I would get the HMC150, where I doubt I would ever buy another of the P2 cameras, due to the scaling and the cost of the P2 cards, and readers.
 
Thanks Barry.

I am not trying to discount the attributes of the HVX200a in any manner. Most of the points you listed were reasons why I purchased the camera in the first place. I am also not trying to compare the two cameras i.e.. which one is better, etc. My quandary is, will I have major workflow or image incompatibility issues in final edits that contain footage from both cameras?

We shoot mostly open desert off-road racing and the elements can be challenging at times. I'm wondering if the HCM150 would be a good alternative to send out on course and still be able to capture the high quality image that is comparable to the HVX. My other option is to go with prosumer AVCHD SD/SDHC cameras but I am trying to stay within the same family.

Thanks in advance for you recommendations.
 
Thanks for the info Hornet.

This might be a newbie question, but... do you have to transcode AVCHD files from the HMC150 to get them to work properly in Vegas? Barry mentioned that Vegas doesn't have "full-fleged robust support" for all HMC150 modes. Maybe he / someone could elaborate on what some of the issues are.

I am running on a newer Quad Core machine with Vista 32b, Vegas 8.0c and have had no problems yet. (64b originally and 8.1 was not successful)
 
robzila27 said:
Thanks for the info Hornet.

This might be a newbie question, but... do you have to transcode AVCHD files from the HMC150 to get them to work properly in Vegas? Barry mentioned that Vegas doesn't have "full-fleged robust support" for all HMC150 modes. Maybe he / someone could elaborate on what some of the issues are.

I am running on a newer Quad Core machine with Vista 32b, Vegas 8.0c and have had no problems yet. (64b originally and 8.1 was not successful)
Click to expand...


I don't work with Vegas, so I can not say.

My workflow has been to take AVCHD files and transcode them via core codec into cineform file. The resulting file edits like DV on both my old 1.6 gig processor laptop as well as my newer Sony SZ750 core 2 duo 7100 processor.
Using the Core codec to open the file first, an automated process, allows you to transcode about 2 to 3 times faster than real time.

I was editing on Premiere pro CS3 the first time i did AVCHD.
(worked best)

Now have Premiere Pro CS4
and it doesn't work as well.
I had to disable the Main concept codec to allow the core codec to be used to edit
straight AVCHD as well as Cineform files, otherwise Premiere would crash on cineform footage.

Premiere Pro cs4 wants to ONLY use Main concept codec, which doesn't seem to work so well on cineform files, once diasbling main concept codec, and allowing core or cineform to be used, it works in Premiere Pro CS4.

On Cs3, you don't have to do that, as it allows other codecs to be used for these file types.

Not sure if Core codec will allow you to use it for native AVCHD editing, in Vegas,
but I also have that installed and have never had a performance issue with any computer since the 1.6 processor in editing AVCHD (although I usually don't edit straight AVCHD, and when I was doing that, I downconverted them to 1280x720 due to not needing full 1080p for the project I was working on).
 
Green Hornet said:
The HVX200 then scales down the image to nearly SD image size and creates the digital file.
Click to expand...
A lot of what you said I can agree with, but this bit? "nearly SD image size"? How is 1280x1080 (1.4 million pixels) anywhere near the same size as 720x480 (350k pixels)? It's 4x as large!

Even in 720p mode, it's 960x720, which is twice the size of SD, and twice the frame rate, so you're still getting 4x as much resolution as SD (twice the spatial and twice the temporal).

I think the HVX200 and 170 lose some sharpness due to this downsizing and then resizing on playback, that the HMC150 doesn't have to do.
Click to expand...
This is true, especially in 720p mode. Which is why I always favor 1080 mode on an HVX or HPX170.

Food for thought: Take your digital SLR and take a picture, then make the image an 8x12 in photoshop. Now reduce it to a 4x5 and save the image, now when ever you show it to someone, blow it back up to 8x12. I think these cameras lose something by doing similiar.
Click to expand...
Except that your allegory is extremely exaggerated. Instead, take your 8x12 photo, and reduce it to 8x8, and then restore it to 8x12. That's more like what DVCPRO-HD does. Going to 4x5 would be an exceptionally exaggerated interpretation of it.

I know you're using an extreme to illustrate the point, but someone somewhere on the internet is going to read this and actually believe it, and it'd be nice if they understood what was actually happening instead of a huge distortion of it. DVCPRO-HD is doing the exact same thing as every other contemporary HD recording format such as HDCAM, XDCAM-HD, and HDV.
 
robzila27 said:
Thanks for the info Hornet.

This might be a newbie question, but... do you have to transcode AVCHD files from the HMC150 to get them to work properly in Vegas? Barry mentioned that Vegas doesn't have "full-fleged robust support" for all HMC150 modes. Maybe he / someone could elaborate on what some of the issues are.

I am running on a newer Quad Core machine with Vista 32b, Vegas 8.0c and have had no problems yet. (64b originally and 8.1 was not successful)
Click to expand...

Sorry to chime in here, but I do work on Vegas and no, if you are running an Intel Quad Core set up and Vegas 8.0c, you shouldn't have to transcode at all. I edited a short this morning that was native with no problem. Now, with in certian situations, the final frames of a clip can sometimes cause a freeze, but am I just on a Core 2 Duo... so I save often when going native- you shouldn't have any problem with a quad core. Other than that, it's great.
 
Barry_Green said:
A lot of what you said I can agree with, but this bit? "nearly SD image size"? How is 1280x1080 (1.4 million pixels) anywhere near the same size as 720x480 (350k pixels)? It's 4x as large!

Even in 720p mode, it's 960x720, which is twice the size of SD, and twice the frame rate, so you're still getting 4x as much resolution as SD (twice the spatial and twice the temporal).


This is true, especially in 720p mode. Which is why I always favor 1080 mode on an HVX or HPX170.


Except that your allegory is extremely exaggerated. Instead, take your 8x12 photo, and reduce it to 8x8, and then restore it to 8x12. That's more like what DVCPRO-HD does. Going to 4x5 would be an exceptionally exaggerated interpretation of it.

I know you're using an extreme to illustrate the point, but someone somewhere on the internet is going to read this and actually believe it, and it'd be nice if they understood what was actually happening instead of a huge distortion of it. DVCPRO-HD is doing the exact same thing as every other contemporary HD recording format such as HDCAM, XDCAM-HD, and HDV.
Click to expand...



Okay it is fair to say, that I may have exagerated to make a point, but the concept to explain it was just a means to do so.

I can see your point about others taking what I posted as an exact translation which could be interpreted to mean it sucks, when I wouldn't say any of the Panasonic footage sucks. In fact, it can be quite good.

My reference to the 960x720 being nearly SD, may be pushing the meaning of "nearly".

If you had an old computer monitor that displayed an 800x600 image,
not one person in a million would call that an HD image.

It could be argued that an 800x600 image is close enough to 960x720 to say they were nearly the same.

If you were a salesman in a television store and were selling telivisions that displayed a 960x720 image, how many sales do you think you would have over sets displaying 1920x1080?

When someone asks advice of one camera that displays full image, over one that is 960x720, I think it is ok to make the comparisons I made.

All that being said,
I think the Panasonic cameras make very good images.
When the final footage is in it's end format, I feel the HMC150 comes out on top.

For a long time, I didn't want to believe that the 150 and it's compression, and low price could be as good as it is.

Mr Green, you pointed that out to me, and made me look closer.
Now I feel as though I can get more out of the 150 than the other two, and save thousands, but i digress.

I don't feel bad about my comparisons (although slightly exagerated to make a point), but the way some copy and paste what one says, it is clear that perhaps I should point out the slight exageration in making my point.
 
Barry_Green said:
The primary reasons to go with the HVX200A over an HMC150 would include:
1) the P2 format
2) the DVCPRO-HD intraframe 4:2:2 codec
3) the variable frame rates
4) the standard-definition recording modes
5) time-lapse/intervalometer mode
6) loop recording mode
Click to expand...

all valid points, but i must point out that some of those points are not AS important as they seem, and definately not worth the 2,000-3,000 extra dollars.

1. the P2 format can also be seen as a major DOWNSIDE and not an advantage. a 16GB P2 card is $800. a 16GB card for HMC is $30. you do the math. P2 is a ridiculous format and will not last. SD cards are the future, unless of course something even cheaper and better comes along soon.


3. HMC DOES have variable frame rates (although not quite as many) you can shoot perfect slomo by shooting in 60 fps and then importing that into a 24p timeline.

4. not enough people care about that to make it a valid point this day and age.

5. HVX timelapse is not good timelapse because it doesn't control exposure during each frame (one of the main points of true timelapse) it creates "blips" and it looks like any other regular footage that is sped up in the NLE. people who care enough about timelapse to spend an extra $3,000 on the HVX might as well buy a real intervolometer for their DSLR and get true timelapse.
 
Dr. I agree with you on price... BUT, P2 is rock solid and you can edit that stuff on much much older and slower systems. It's also a bit easier to key for green-screen and it's built like a tank compared to an SD card.


I also agree on the other points. Especially the timelapse option. I gave that up because I could just pick up an intervelometer and I'm off and running. I wouldn't mind a new high res cam as well.
 
I've seen the HMC and HPX170 (nearly identical to 200a) On a 50" pioneer plasma television.

My friend owns the HMC, and I own the 170. We tried to match the settings as best we could.

And honestly, I don't think the HMC is sharper at all.

Actually, it looked softer, and more video like. And the color's were not as deep and beautiful.

I prefer the 200a and 170 over the HMC anyday. More professional cameras with more professional features.
 
green hornet, I know you're all for the HMC and all that, but, have you seen them side by side?

If you have, post some footage
 
DanHD said:
green hornet, I know you're all for the HMC and all that, but, have you seen them side by side?

If you have, post some footage
Click to expand...


I am not saying the HMC150 has a better image than the 170,
I am saying that if I started from not having any camera, I would spend the money on the HMC150, get 4 transcend SDHC cards at $30 each, and three large batteries.

Instead of spending

$5,299 on the HPX170
getting 4 16 gig P2 cards @ $799 each
and 4 large batteies.


The difference , if any the HPX170 has over the HMC150 was never noticed by me.

Not only that, I would still need an offload solution for the P2 card (assuming i was just getting into the whole non-linear editing thing). I is difficult to find a modern laptop with a P2 slot.


That is more of what I was saying about picking the HMC150 over the HPX170

Once you take the HMC150 footage into a 10 bit codec and grading, all differences between the two are no more.



Whats wrong with the quality of these hmc150 clips:

http://vimeo.com/2067495

http://vimeo.com/2824779

http://vimeo.com/2384547




.
 
Last edited:
DanHD said:
I've seen the HMC and HPX170 (nearly identical to 200a) On a 50" pioneer plasma television.

My friend owns the HMC, and I own the 170. We tried to match the settings as best we could.

And honestly, I don't think the HMC is sharper at all.

Actually, it looked softer, and more video like. And the color's were not as deep and beautiful.

I prefer the 200a and 170 over the HMC anyday. More professional cameras with more professional features.
Click to expand...
Can you post some comparison footage/stills between the HMC150 and the HPX170? I mean they do have the same CCD and hardware, it's just the codec. I would really like to know how better is HMC170 over HMC150 in terms of quality(resolution/colours). Im sure Im not the only one who wants to know the difference between the two.

Thanks!
 
Hi all.
Does Final Cut Pro 6.0 support HMC 151 ?
Then, do you think an iMac G5 1.9 Ghz - 1.5 Ram could process HMC footage?
Anyone is experienced about that?
thanx
 
FCP 6.0.4 transcodes to prores. It does not treat AVCHD footage natively.

There is a rumored upgrade that it will. We'll see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top