150 vs 170

Yes they do but do you have the coin to buy it is the point? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(camera)



The 150 shoots lovely images as does the 170. Both are virtually the same image and I've intercut both very easily... I went for the 150 due to the price of the camera and the media. Media on the 170 will get expensive and or you'll need a p2 wrangler.. Both of them I don't need to hassell with any more...
 
Jim Simon said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yes, but not for $3k.
 
Jim Simon said:
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).
Click to expand...

Nope. Not handheld anyway. Would be nice. Until that day, I guess I'll have to keep trudging along, making gorgeous work on my HMC150.
 
Yes Jim, they do, but you started off talking about the 150 and 170.

If that is your budget range, 3-5k, no there isn't any full raster 3 CCD that I know of. CMOS cams can be had in full raster in that price range, but they will be light crippled like the HMC40 or HMC80. $12,000 or so will get you a pretty great CMOS cam (including memory and power) in the HPX-370. You mentioned wanting to shift from SD to HD, have you ever seen or worked with the footage from any of the lower end Panny HD cams? They are freeking wonderful compared to SD. Get real with your wallet if you really need what you say you want, how about $30,000 for cam with memory, power and VF. Oh, don't forget to add a lens to that, 10k minimum, but mostly up for anything to match the cam. And any cam like that isn't hand held.

Given that reality, are you considering a compromise?

Grant
 
Well, simply put, what you want doesn't exist at any price, so ... yeah, a compromise will be necessary. Which brings us back to where we are now; high-def small handheld cameras with CMOS and all it brings, or somewhat softer high-def small handheld cameras with CCD.
 
So let me understand this, you are coming from a SD business model, and want to make the transition to HD. And right out of the gate, you demand a camera that doesn't exist at any price. And coming from SD, you are absolutely certain that nothing else but a full raster CCD cam will do for your new and improved HD business model. And you want it to be priced near the 150 or 170 cams (my assumption). Nothing else will do. You are mad that your dream cam doesn't exist and that you might have to compromise and use a well proven cam like the 170 or possibly the 150. You are mad that Panna has some wonky ad copy. Good advice and suggestions are cast aside.

I am so outa this thread.
Grant
 
ggrantly said:
Hendo,

The HPX170 imager isn't native 1920x1080, but gets there via pixel shift from 960x540.
Click to expand...

Whoops, I had the 40 and 150 mixed up. My bad!

Jim, what makes you think you need I-frame and full raster recording? Have you actually looked at footage from the 170 or 150? I doubt you'd actually be disappointed working with either camera, ESPECIALLY since the image quality will blow the pants off any SD camera.
 
Jim, what makes you think you need I-frame and full raster recording?
Click to expand...
Need...maybe. Want? Definitely. Why? Well, people in this very thread report that full res CMOS and full raster recording of the HMC40 and EX1/3 are sharper. And people in other threads report better editing performance with the I-frame only DVCPRO HD codec. The problem is, the flash banding of CMOS is a full and total deal breaker for me. I MUST have a CCD camera.

Is it really so bad to want it all? (At an affordable price?) Would you yourself not opt for such a camera if it really did exist?

I doubt you'd actually be disappointed working with either camera
Click to expand...
You're probably right.

Doesn't lessen my desire for a proper hand-held HD camera, though. Here's hoping that someday, someone will make one. (Or preferably, lots of someones. Customer choice is a good thing.)
 
Last edited:
And right out of the gate, you demand a camera that doesn't exist at any price.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually. It is my opinion that there are some things in life that simply should never be compromised. You either do them right, or you do not do them at all.

Regarding cameras, full res imagers and full raster recording to an I-frame only codec are three such things. It is my opinion that ALL cameras ever made should have those three fundamental 'features', much like all cars should come with real automotive wheels and not bicycle tires.

Beyond that, the problems with CMOS are another issue. The effects of rolling shutter just look like crap. If you're shooting in an environment where you can't control the scene and flashes and/or fast pans are a necessity, any CMOS camera is just plain off the table.

And then finally we have the need for hand held models. Shoulder mounts simply won't do for a lot of situations. Granted, 20 years ago we didn't have as many hand held choices as we do now. But 20 years ago the event videography business wasn't nearly what it is today (thanks in large part to a plethora of hand held models to choose from).

So yes, I am frustrated that models I believe should exist, do not.

Having said all that, my rants are a process of discovery, frustration and venting. I always desire the ideal, but I also settle for the practical.
 
While my HMC40 is a bit sharper than my HMC150 (in daylight anyways), I don't find that it really looks any "better" (better being such a subjective term anyways). In some scenes I actually find the camera to be way too sharp and have to mess around the image in post to tone it down (especially if I'm shooting with 2 different cameras). As an event shooter, I think the 150 is just far more versatile than the 40, though there are advantages to the 40's form factor.
 
hendosan said:
I think the 150 is just far more versatile than the 40, though there are advantages to the 40's form factor.
Click to expand...

Agreed...the HMC40 makes a good 2nd camera to the HMC150, with a lower price point and smaller form factor. This makes it possible to use the HMC40 a little more covertly, or even if you just want a wide backup shot at an event. It's got a lot of the versatility of the HMC150 to a point. The HMC40 will record still images as well, which the HMC150 won't do. Never really needed this functionality myself.

The HMC80 is also quite good and in a shoulder mount camcorder. It's probably best to describe it as a shoulder mount version of the HMC40 because it shares so many of the same parts. But the HMC80 does allow you to record SD to the SDHC cards, and it has a IEEE1394 port on it if you want to still use something like OnLocation. And it is shoulder mount, which some people (not me) think is a really big deal. I guess it can "look" better to have a big giant camera when you're charging a client thousands of $$$, but I don't really care that much.

The HMC80 also matches well with the HMC150.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top