150 vs 170

J

Jim Simon

Veteran
2011 will be the year I finally upgrade to HD delivery. My customers are finally starting to ask for it, and I mean to deliver. But which camera to choose?

150 Advantages

1. Less expensive
2. Cheaper media
3. Full 1920 x 1080 recording
4. Two remote inputs, one for zoom/record, and one for focus/iris (handy for studio config shooting)

150 Disadvantages

1. 4:2:0 recording
2. Long GOP
3. AAC audio
4. Only 1080p/60 capture, with all recorded frame rates derived from that
5. No SD modes


170 Advantages (that matter to me)

1. 4:2:2 recording
2. I-frame only
3. WAV audio

170 Disadvantages

1. Much more expensive camera
2. VERY expensive media
3. 1280 x 1080 recording
4. Only one remote input for zoom/record. No focus/iris remote
5. Only 1080p/60 capture, with all recording derived form such


Now, the 1 and 2 disadvantages for the 170 are so large for me that the advantages of the 170 really need to be HUGE for those to be overcome. My question is for anyone familiar with the media from both cameras.

Is the 170's DVCPRO HD so far superior in image quality that it can make up for the huge difference in price? I'm not concerned with the work flow here, only the final image quality as delivered on Blu-ray. There will be some minor CC work via MB Looks and Colorista, but no green screen or other such work. My business is primarily event work - weddings, plays, recitals, sports, etc. And I will retain my trusty tape based DVC80 for SD work if need be.

So, is the 170 justified in it's severe price difference for the event shooter?
 
This is perhaps one of the most discussed topics here and in other forums, and the options always seem to come to two factors. DVCPRO or AVCHD because otherwise the two cameras are identical. I had this choice to make recently and chose the 150, and so far there has never been an instance in which I wish went with the 170. The 150 produces simply jaw dropping pictures once you have your settings in order much the same way the 170 would. Is the price difference justified? Well....yes....and....no! Yes because P2 reliability is second to none, and no because AVCHD to SD card while still very new territory, is being endorsed and choosen by more and more professionals everyday.
For the long record time events you list above the 150 seems like a really smart choice.
 
If you are primarily an event shooter get the 150. Period. If you ever need 4:2:2 intraframe recording you can rent/buy a Nanoflash or KI Pro or similar recorder.

Also, both the 150 and 170 record at native frame rates, it is not a downconvert from 60p.
 
Jim,

You need to recheck your data. Barry answered your concerns about frame rate capture. And in fact the cams will not even do 1080p/60. And indeed both cams have remote focus and iris control. It isn't a Lanc type, but has two distinct plugs; one for stop-start and zoom, and one for focus-iris. But the function is there and I use both on a regular basis.

Both cams can produce great images, so simple IQ is pretty irrelevant comparison. Between the two cams, you may want to ask yourself what you need in terms of editing for example do you mind transcoding, do you plan additional cams, will you be shooting fast action, do you need variable frame rates, will you be color grading or doing a lot of green screen, do you need HD-SDI or firewire output, do you need more than one memory card slot, do you need the most reliable media. That is a lot of do you(s).

Yes the 170 is a more expensive cam, but it has quite a few pro features if you need them.

Grant
 
Thanks for the opinions, guys. For my needs, seems the 150 may be the better choice.

One the 24p issue, this is copied and pasted form Panasonic's own brochure.

"Progressive to interlace conversion, cross conversion and down conversion all start with the 1080/60p scan. That initial 1080p native progressive scan offers the highest level of vertical resolution possible at this level of camera. Keep in mind that the camera does not record this signal but uses it as a basis for all captures."

Now maybe I misunderstood that, but it seems as if the CCD is scanning only at 60p, which is then being electronically converted after capture to whatever mode is being recorded.
 
Jim Simon said:
Thanks for the opinions, guys. For my needs, seems the 150 may be the better choice.
Click to expand...

Hey Jim, allow me the proper rendering of your statement:

"For my needs, seems the 150 may be is the better best choice and I'm buying one right now.



Glad I could help. :thumbsup:
 
Jim Simon said:
One the 24p issue, this is copied and pasted form Panasonic's own brochure.
Click to expand...
That's marketing material, and frankly it does not accurately describe what the camera actually does. Don't sweat it. The camera does it the right way. The folks who wrote the marketing material should have said "up to" 1080/60p (meaning whatever frame rate you choose, up to 60).
 
Not just in the brochure, though. This from the Panasonic web site on the 170:

"Because the HPX170 scans the initial image at a 1080p/60 and all camera processing happens at his level."

http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wc...logId=13051&itemId=280234&surfModel=AG-HPX170

That's two Panasonic sources that say these cams only capture at 1080p/60, and process all recording modes based on that. I really want you to be right, Barry. But my wallet isn't very fat. I need to KNOW before I buy. So please forgive if I ask what your source of information on this might be? (I don't consider actually using the cameras a very good "source" here, only because...well, how would you actually know? The supposed conversion happens before recording.)

Thanks for your time.
 
Jim, I'm telling you. My source of information is the engineers inside Panasonic who I spoke to at NAB when it was being introduced, plus my years of experience with them, plus having written The HVX and HPX Book and The HMC150 Book, and having those books proofread by Panasonic camera engineers for accuracy before publication. I am absolutely positively guaranteeing you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the chips are reclocked to the appropriate frame rate, and it is totally and completely NOT doing some sort of electronic interpretation of 60p down to 24p.
 
Barry_Green said:
I am absolutely positively guaranteeing you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the chips are reclocked to the appropriate frame rate, and it is totally and completely NOT doing some sort of electronic interpretation of 60p down to 24p.
Click to expand...

Barry, with your contacts in Panasonic are you able to get them to update their erronous statements as pointed out by Jim and yourself? It's not good for Panasonic to under-sell their products by publishing incorrect information.

Regards.
 
davdav said:
Barry, with your contacts in Panasonic are you able to get them to update their erronous statements as pointed out by Jim and yourself? It's not good for Panasonic to under-sell their products by publishing incorrect information.
Click to expand...
I've been debating that point with them since the HVX200 first came out, over five years ago. The people who write the marketing materials apparently like it the way it is.
 
Tell them it almost cost therm a sale (which you saved with the correct information). See if that changes their mind.
 
Jim,

I'm not quite sure what your point is by threatening Panny about the minutia of a sales brochure. Ya they should fix it, but what is really important here? I have owned three Pannacams, the DVX100a, HPX170, and HMC40 for your reference. I could really give a crap how the cams produce the image; what I know is the Panna cameras produce a great image in capable hands, IMHO. Isn't that what matters? They have lots of features which could always be improved. There are lots of folks who like Sony because they have a different look, pound for pound; sharper or maybe a less noisy image. Panna has more saturated colors and a filmic look that many call the Panny mojo. There isn't really a right or wrong here, just what you prefer. Workflow and form factor are probably the next most important considerations; choose your codec and workflow, recording media, and form factor. But in the big picture, all these cams work, and within their feature set and price range will do some great work for you given some skill. Would you really not buy a cam that produced super IQ if it captured in 60p and converted to something else within the cam....who cares if it looks great? The Panny CCD cams in this price range aren't full raster, but they produce a great image. Oh no, there is another problem to fret over, but damn, the CMOS cams have issues too. What to do??? In the case of the the HPX-170 vs HMC-150 issue, both cams can produce similar and professionally viable images, they just get there in different ways. If you want sharper IQ or more features or some other techno-superior feature, and want to spend more money, look at an HPX-300 or a Sony EX series. But there are issues with those cams too, so think about a 3100 instead.....now we are talkin'.

Grant
 
Hendo,

The HPX170 imager isn't native 1920x1080, but gets there via pixel shift from 960x540. This gets to the point of my post. And my point was, I don't care as long as I get a great image. This whole imager thing got beat to death years ago when the HVX200 came out and is irrelevant to the extent that the IQ is good. That is why I brought it up, that it isn't important if you like the IQ.

However, the native full raster CMOS imager cams like a HMC40, HPX-370, or Sony CMOS cams are a bit sharper than the lower end Panny CCD models like the 170 and 150. Having both the HMC40 and HPX170, it was pretty surprising to see that the HMC was slightly sharper at half the price. Of course, the HPX is a superior cam in so many other ways, there really is no comparison, but on pure IQ where codec isn't an issue, it is pretty dang sharp.

Per Jan C. Quote:

" The AG-HVX200A or the HPX170 uses spatial offset(pixel shift) to enhance the native resolution of their chip set to perform as if they were a 1.1 million pixel imager. The DVCPRO HD codec records 1080 X1280 in 60 Hz. This is a subsampled recording that is required to make the best recording that the DVCPRO HD codec can make."

Of course the HMC150 records to AVCHD, which is a different animal, but if it is using the same imager as the HPX170, it cant be native full raster 1920x1080 at the imager. Am I wrong or lacking in understanding on this?

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
Hendo,

The HPX170 imager isn't native 1920x1080, but gets there via pixel shift from 960x540. This gets to the point of my post. And my point was, I don't care as long as I get a great image. This whole imager thing got beat to death years ago when the HVX200 came out and is irrelevant to the extent that the IQ is good. That is why I brought it up, that it isn't important if you like the IQ.

However, the native full raster CMOS imager cams like a HMC40, HPX-370, or Sony CMOS cams are a bit sharper than the lower end Panny CCD models like the 170 and 150. Having both the HMC40 and HPX170, it was pretty surprising to see that the HMC was slightly sharper at half the price. Of course, the HPX is a superior cam in so many other ways, there really is no comparison, but on pure IQ where codec isn't an issue, it is pretty dang sharp.

Per Jan C. Quote:

" The AG-HVX200A or the HPX170 uses spatial offset(pixel shift) to enhance the native resolution of their chip set to perform as if they were a 1.1 million pixel imager. The DVCPRO HD codec records 1080 X1280 in 60 Hz. This is a subsampled recording that is required to make the best recording that the DVCPRO HD codec can make."

Of course the HMC150 records to AVCHD, which is a different animal, but if it is using the same imager as the HPX170, it cant be native full raster 1920x1080 at the imager. Am I wrong or lacking in understanding on this?

Grant
Click to expand...


You're right, the 150 has the same pixel shifting system as the 170. If I recall from what Barry has said, they resolve around a 1400 x 800 resolution, or something in that neighbourhood.
 
ggrantly said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is by threatening Panny about the minutia of a sales brochure.
Click to expand...

The point is that people do make purchasing decisions based on information. If that information is incorrect and it causes the loss of a sale, it is in the company's best interest to correct it.

I came here and got the correct info. How many like me did not and bought a Canon, Sony or JVC instead?
 
ggrantly said:
The HPX170 imager isn't native 1920x1080, but gets there via pixel shift from 960x540.
Click to expand...

Damn! This is getting very frustrating.

Does ANYONE make a proper handheld HD video camera? I mean with full resolution CCDs, recording the full raster in an I-frame only codec? How freakin' hard can it be to make a high-def camera the right way?!

Seriously, I'm actually asking. Does anyone make a handheld camera with 3 full resolution CCDs, recording the full raster to an I-frame only codec (in camera).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top