HMC150 vs HVX200a Advice?

I'm going to take the few features its lacking and the stigma associated with 4:2:0 and SD cards, and the codec and all of that over the MODEST design advantages of the 150, features and options that I rarely use. Instead I'll produce image that even a techy would be hard pressed to find a difference with, at a fraction of the energy involved.


Shooting SD media is easy.. it looks as good as the 170/200a in 720 and maybe comperable in 1080... so what's not to love.. I also would call it prudent in these economic times.
 
I didn't know much about this camera but got to compare them on a extremely large hd screen today and I have to say the HMC150 definitely looked like it had more detail and it was sharper... this kind of upsets me being that I just got a HVX200a.

I think the DVCPRO codec is hurting the detail as explained a few messages back. The color space and data rate may be higher but in filming the exact same scenes and then just watching the footage back directly, the HMC150 looked better to my eyes... which I find hard to believe with all the compression - but it was, and now that I understand that it records the full 1920 x 1080 from the pixel shifted mix - it makes sense, and perhaps the resolution is more important to the eye than the extra data in the P2 version.
 
Blackout said:
I didn't know much about this camera but got to compare them on a extremely large hd screen today and I have to say the HMC150 definitely looked like it had more detail and it was sharper... this kind of upsets me being that I just got a HVX200a.

I think the DVCPRO codec is hurting the detail as explained a few messages back. The color space and data rate may be higher but in filming the exact same scenes and then just watching the footage back directly, the HMC150 looked better to my eyes... which I find hard to believe with all the compression - but it was, and now that I understand that it records the full 1920 x 1080 from the pixel shifted mix - it makes sense, and perhaps the resolution is more important to the eye than the extra data in the P2 version.
Click to expand...
Is there anyone else having the same results as Blackout? DanHD (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=1522507&postcount=15) mentioned he compared HMC150 and HPX170's footage on a 50" plasma and HMC150 coming as "Actually, it looked softer, and more video like. And the color's were not as deep and beautiful."

So this is confusing...I've read a couple of mix reviews between the 2 camera if compared to each other (HMC150/HPX170) when it comes to "quality/colour".
 
I have not compared the 150 to the 170 but in looking at transcoded mts files I pulled from my 150, to my eyes AVCHD looks better than DVCPRO-HD.
I'm not even sure if this is a logical way to compare the two but if both cameras have the same glass and chips, I can't see how the 150 could be worst than the 170 or 200 given the AVC vs DVCPRO codec.

I think it comes down to the "extras" you'll find in the other cameras over the 150.
 
Yes, when I saw the two compared, it wasn't scientific whatsoever, but the HMC did appear softer to me, and the color space was noticeable in that it did not have those beautiful panasonic colors. But honestly, that could have just been in the settings of the camera. I tried to calibrate them to be the same, but like I said it was not scientific. I did prefer the look of the 170 though
 
DanHD said:
Yes, when I saw the two compared, it wasn't scientific whatsoever, but the HMC did appear softer to me, and the color space was noticeable in that it did not have those beautiful panasonic colors. But honestly, that could have just been in the settings of the camera. I tried to calibrate them to be the same, but like I said it was not scientific. I did prefer the look of the 170 though
Click to expand...

The colour space affects the level of colour detail/resolution rather than the actual shade/tone etc. of the colour, if that's what you meant?
 
That is weird I had exactly the opposite experience of Dan, the HMC definitely looked a little sharper and with slightly more detail in wide shots with a lot of trees, branches, tiny details. The colors looked the same.
 
I saw them compared directly as possible at DV Expo a few months ago, and everyone there--was saying that the diff between the two was next to nil. I sure couldn't see any meaningful difference one way or the other, in terms of image quality.

From that demo it seemed clear that the real differences were in features, not the image that they put out. Do you need long form recording? Need less costly media? Get the HMC. Do you want over-under cranking, variable frame rates? HPX170. That sort of thing.
 
The other real difference is how the footage is edited.

Until AVCHD can be edited natively, it will be less attractive for many
 
AVCHD *can* be edited natively. Just not with FCP due to FCP's own limitations. But they'll get there; next version it's supposed to support it.
 
But it also requires an AVCHD native capable editor and some serious horsepower.

For example, apart from the fact that Premiere CS4.0.1 does not support 720p for the 150, it seriously bogs down on a eight core MacPro.

I know some Win boxes work, but doesn't it get pricey?
 
Blackout said:
That is weird I had exactly the opposite experience of Dan, the HMC definitely looked a little sharper and with slightly more detail in wide shots with a lot of trees, branches, tiny details. The colors looked the same.
Click to expand...

What are you guys comparing, though? 720 vs. 720 Barry says the 150 might take it. 1080 vs. 1080 he gives it to the 170. Please specify as it makes a big difference to some of us.
 
I know some Win boxes work, but doesn't it get pricey?
Click to expand...
Well, there's a difference between being able to edit it, and being able to edit full-screen full-frame-rate. For example, an $800 dual-core laptop and $215 EDIUS NEO will edit footage at about 12-15 fps. If you want full-screen full-frame-rate, that will of course cost more. A desktop should be faster and cheaper.

On that same laptop, DVCPRO-HD footage can easily be handled full-screen full-frame-rate (but requires the more expensive EDIUS 5 rather than NEO).

There are other editors that handle the footage natively, such as Pinnacle and Ulead, but Neo is the lowest-cost professional-type editor that handles it natively and with good enough performance to actually be able to cut something. On a quad-core you might get realtime performance, I don't know.
 
AVCHD is not a distribution format as of yet anyway.

So we capture on AVCHD and distribute on various flavors.

Ergo the question becomes what is the best intermediary to transcode to and edit in?
 
David S. said:
But it also requires an AVCHD native capable editor and some serious horsepower.

I know some Win boxes work, but doesn't it get pricey?
Click to expand...

I have a win laptop core 2 duo 8100 processor with 4 gig ram, 256 dedicated video ram. I have no problems editing on Premiere Pro CS4 AVCHD native footage (it is not full screen in preview as I only have a 13.3 screen, but is full frame rate, scrub and playback).

It works better in CS3 when transcoded to any cineform file (cineform container is the same at given file size- neo would be no different than aspect or prospect at 1280x720 at 8 bit, obviously 10 bit would be larger) Neo scene can give you smooth editing for $129 on most core 2 duo systems with 4 gig ram on Windows XP.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
AVCHD is not a distribution format as of yet anyway.

So we capture on AVCHD and distribute on various flavors.

Ergo the question becomes what is the best intermediary to transcode to and edit in?
Click to expand...

As of right now, I'm planning on getting Cineform Neo Scene (will also remove pulldown on my HV30). Vegas doesn't handle DVCPro natively, so thats not an option for me.

Another option is proxy editing with Vaast Gearshift. I've heard good things about it.
 
on a DVCPRO 50 timeline.. that's then broadcast on the local channel... the HMC150 holds its own compared to both the 170 and 200a footage that's intercut. It actually does look a bit sharper to my eyes.. or maybe just a slightly different overall look. It's also so much faster and cleaner than the original HVX.. that it beats that one hands down.


The only disadvantage I've found has been in the chroma key capability. It's not bad.. just not as forgiving as P2
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
AVCHD is not a distribution format as of yet anyway.
Click to expand...
Maybe not technically, but it's more of a distribution format than, well, just about any other form of HD distribution. AVC-HD on an SD card or burned to a regular DVD-R will play on just about any blu-ray player or PS3, won't it?
 
I, as well, would like to hear what people recommend for transcoding AVCHD. I edit in Vegas 8.0c, Vista 32b, with a new Intel Quad Core, 4gb ram, etc...I have heard it handles native files, but do you get better performance, i.e.. frame rate, preview if you transcode to something else?

Very curious.
 
Barry, is there anyone writting an application to write back to SD cards. Kind of like a quicktime in, panny SD card formatted out? It would be great to be able to write back edited material and have it play on plasmas and such...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top