Video quality of HMC150 vs. real 1080p camera?

L

lifepo4

Well-known member
There are many websites where they compared video quality of HVX200 vs. Sony, Canon and JVC HDV cameras, and it is well known in video community that both HVX200/HMC150 use pixel shifting to achieve HD quality, but images are soft when compared to 1440x1080 or JVC's 1280x720, NOT to mention video from those cameras with 2/3 inch, 1920x1080 CCD sensors.

Are there any website where someone have uploaded real 1080p(or 1080i) video taken from HMC150, HDV, AVCProHD and SONY's highly acclaimed CineAlta? (not those from Vimeo) I want to download the file and play on my Western Digital Media Player, I am curious to see the miniscule difference.

Thanks in advance and god bless all!

Shoufeng
 
lifepo4 said:
it is well known in video community that both HVX200/HMC150 use pixel shifting to achieve HD quality, but images are soft when compared to 1440x1080 or JVC's 1280x720, NOT to mention video from those cameras with 2/3 inch, 1920x1080 CCD sensors.
Click to expand...

Hi Shoufeng,

It depends on which "video community" you are talking about. If you are talking about this community, or the DVinfo.net forums, you'll find plenty who have both an HMC and an XH-A1, but few who would trade in the HMC if they had to exchange one of them. Unfortunately, most of the concerns about Pixel Shift are based solely on pixel count numbers, and not on actual performance. They also disregard the size of the pixels (a very important factor), going only on quantity. I've encountered this from folks over on the HV20.com forum, but they are die hard Canon fans (which I must admit, I am also, they just don't make a camera in the $3500 range that can compete with the HMC). But none of those people own an HMC (or HVX/HPX) and few if any have actually tried one. Most are also comparing to earlier implementations of the HVX200, not the new one with much improved sensors. But the bottom line is that unless you are working in perfect light, the pixels on 1/3" 1080 sensors are too small to provide adequate low light sensitivity and the performance drops off too fast.

I myself own a Canon HV30 (along with the HMC150), which is similar in "sharpness" to the XH-A1, assuming adequate light. The HMC is close in sharpness (but not quite) in any light, but pulls away dramatically as soon as light begins to dim. The footage in good light can be cut together quite nicely. In low light it becomes more difficult because of the noise and softness in the HV30's footage. Both are sharper than anything I've seen from JVC's 1280x720.

I understand your concerns and I went through the similar issues. I also remember buying a still digital camera years ago because I wanted an inexpensive camera and its advertised resolution was much higher than my Olympus 3030, which I had bought years earlier. When I got home, I found that the pictures were almost unuseable due to the amount of noise and grain from the low quality sensors. This is when I got the picture (pun intended) that resolution was only one, and certainly not the most important factor in determining picture or video quality.

But regarding your question, here is a very good comparison alongside some other high end cameras:

http://vimeo.com/2437826
 
Much respect DaFireMedic.:thumbup:
We do sometimes forget that it's much more than a numbers game.

I've seen a few of these camera "round ups" and for some reason I always like the look of the 200's better. I had heard of the "Panny Mojo" or Panny look but I didn't really think that much about it until I started to see side by sides.

They all look good to me [not so much the D90 and the Canon 5D however] but the 200's and 170's get me for some reason.

It's clear to me that these mid range cameras can more than hold their own when the people behind the camera have the skills.
 
Twin Lakes said:
I just recorded this piano video and uploaded it to Google. Surprisingly, it appears in 4:3 aspect ratio. The relatively still video runs 4.59 mins, time enough to examine the mp4 quality. Technical details scroll at the beginning.

Cheers,
John : :)

Here is the URL: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2854458662052218717
Click to expand...

yuk, (no offense as I'm sure the raw footage looks great) but no one should judge the footage of this (or any) camera by watching web compressed video. Even the better ones like exposureroom.com don't do them justice. Download the raw .mts files and watch them through VLC player.

Panna's philosophy is better color and low light capability through less (but larger pixels). Sony may be sharper when scrutinized up close, but when the average viewer sits approx 6-8 ft from the screen the video resolution between the cameras becomes almost a wash (as percieved by the viewer). When Fuji crams 12MP into a small chip $150 still camera, do you think its going to look better than a Nikon D60 SLR with only 10MP? Reolution numbers don't mean much to a client, they want to see the final product.

I put my 150 up next to a Sony V1U infront of a res chart, and the Sony was a sharper yes... until I cut the lights in half. The 150 kepts is sharpness as the Sony took a hit. This was sitting 1 ft away from a 1080p HD LCD, sitting back on the couch, it was hard to noitce at all. The Sony's noise was also very "chroma" as opposed to the 150 which was very "luma" (fine and film grain-like).

So keep this in mind, percieved resolution becomes more equal when viewed at an average viewers distance, BUT average color and low light noise can be seen at almost any distance. Sonys and Canons may have bragging rights re: pixels numbers, but Panna has them beat when it comes to color, noise, and rendering motion.

If you want the best in both, your talking about much more expensive cameras. In this price range- you have to make a decision on what is important to you. My 2 pennys.
 
Last edited:
Well..it goes to show that there are compromises no matter what camera you own. In the end it's up to you to pick your own poison (so to speak). I was one of those guys who used to harp on the pixel shift technology because to me the numbers were more important. But in the end it's the final picture that counts. I wish I could afford an HMC150. I really like what I see from that cam over the HVX200 (not necessarily the more updated HVX though). With that cam it's more of that "Panny-Look" in regards to its colors "straight-out-of-the-box." I think one day camcorders will graduate to the low light high pixel (huge sensor) performance of the Canon 5D Mark II. The perfect combination would be that capability in the body of the HMC150 (IMO).
 
DaFireMedic, thanks for your post, I agree HMC150 is a very good compromise between low light performance, dynamic range, resolution and cost. I have seen Panasonic's explanation why they choose 960x540 progressive sensor, just like what you said.

What I am most interested is what is the difference between 1080p from pixel shift technology and real 1080p sensor (2/3 inch, not the consumer 1/3inch 1920*1080 CMOS, most people here may never owned such expensive cameras, which usually cost >50K). I know both SONY and Canon claim FULLHD for their HDV (1440x1080) camcorder, that is just nonsense.

I will use my HDV camera outdoors when I require sharpness, other than that, I will always prefer HMC150. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top