AC130: AC130 (HMC150 replacement) with HPX370 chip set?

[eric geurts lakin]

Well I must say that I am very happy with my HMC150 (despite its softer image) and its destined to be my "B" camera at some point in the future, but in the meantime I'm getting all excited about the up and coming AC130 as a possible replacement for the HMC150... can anyone tell me if the AC130 has the same chips as the HPX370 or not? because I saw the NAB 2011 video with a lady from Panasonic mentioning "the chips" but it sounded to me like she meant that they were only on the HPX250!

 

[Mike Harvey]

If you watch the video again, Jan says that the relationship between the 130/160 and the 250 will be the same as the 170 and 150 (same basic camera with different formats and media). She even says it's basically an AVCCam HPX250. Also, the sales brochure says it's the same imagers used in p2 cameras. So yes, one could easily assume the 130/160 will have the HPX370's chips, and Jan hasn't said anything to to the contrary yet. :thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

My understanding is that the AC130/AC160 and HPX250 all have the same chipset as the HPX370.

 

[eric geurts lakin]

Well thank you very much for that Mike and Barry. The AC130 sounds like a brilliant replacement for the HMC150. The AC130 is already out for sale here in Scandinavia, its quite expensive at about 5383 dollars (but everythings expensive here)
strangely enough, the HMC150 which sells for about 5277 dollars, is only a mere 106 dollars less! (http://www.scandinavianphoto.se/product/list.aspx?sid=10100343)

 

[Jim Simon]

Man, you slap three full resolution 1/2" CCDs into the 250 body and Panasonic would have the world's greatest event camera, hands down.

And still one hell of a production camera, to boot!

 

[TheDingo]

Man, you slap three full resolution 1/2" CCDs into the 250 body and Panasonic would have the world's greatest event camera, hands down.

You would end up with a bigger and possibly clumsier body size, you would probably lose the 22x zoom range, and it would push the price up a few grand. Other than a slightly shallower DOF I don't see a lot of benefit from 1/2 inch chips.

 

[hendosan]

Man, you slap three full resolution 1/2" CCDs into the 250 body and Panasonic would have the world's greatest event camera, hands down.

And still one hell of a production camera, to boot!

You need to stop posting dumb s**t like this.

There's no way 1/2" CCD's would fit into the body, bigger chip = bigger and more expensive lens, bigger and heavier overall body. Ever bought servo lenses for a 1/2" CCD body? Not exactly affordable.

The EX1 is the camera that you want and it's pretty darn affordable, but oh no it uses the dreaded CMOS battery...

 

[Mike Harvey]

You need to stop posting dumb s**t like this.

Ummm... a bit harsh, don't you think? Whether or not it's feasible (I don't even know if there are any cameras with full-rez 1/2" CCD's on the market, or if even it's possible), do you really need to berate someone over a harmless post like his?

...but oh no it uses the dreaded CMOS battery...

CMOS is a type of imaging chip, not a battery. Pot, meet kettle :happy:

 

[AGMedia]

Man, you slap three full resolution 1/2" CCDs into the 250 body and Panasonic would have the world's greatest event camera, hands down.

And still one hell of a production camera, to boot!

I'm in favor of this statement.

Truth is -- Panasonic stuck a two year old chip set in a revised 170/150 body. Am I the only person finding it very, very difficult to be excited about this?

Meanwhile, Sony designs a real deal, full raster, video optimized APS-C ("Super 35") sensor (F3/FS100) in what may be a more advanced implementation of AVCHD that also offers 1080/60p.

Does the 130/160 even offer 1080/60p? Surely these couldn't be three to five thousand dollar AVCHD cameras that do not offer the newest AVCHD standard?

Some people respond -- "different market." But, not really. The market is changing.

I also believe Panasonic needed to step up with some innovation. Sticking a two year old chip set in a revised standard handheld body with an already obsolete implementation of AVCHD really doesn't deserve much praise from Panasonic fanboys (like me).

 

[hendosan]

Ummm... a bit harsh, don't you think? Whether or not it's feasible (I don't even know if there are any cameras with full-rez 1/2" CCD's on the market, or if even it's possible), do you really need to berate someone over a harmless post like his?



CMOS is a type of imaging chip, not a battery. Pot, meet kettle :happy:

I meant to say chip, but whatevs there's egg on my face and you got me there buddy. I'm just peeved that every time there's a new decent camera on the market, you have people out there complaining about CMOS imagers like they're the worst thing in the world. CCD's are not exactly the cat's meow either, and the sharpness and power efficiency make them a much more attractive choice for an event shooter.

I'm in favor of this statement.

Truth is -- Panasonic stuck a two year old chip set in a revised 170/150 body. Am I the only person finding it very, very difficult to be excited about this?

Meanwhile, Sony designs a real deal, full raster, video optimized APS-C ("Super 35") sensor (F3/FS100) in what may be a more advanced implementation of AVCHD that also offers 1080/60p.

Does the 130/160 even offer 1080/60p? Surely these couldn't be three to five thousand dollar AVCHD cameras that do not offer the newest AVCHD standard?

Some people respond -- "different market." But, not really. The market is changing.

I also believe Panasonic needed to step up with some innovation. Sticking a two year old chip set in a revised standard handheld body with an already obsolete implementation of AVCHD really doesn't deserve much praise from Panasonic fanboys (like me).

I'm pretty sure the 130/160 offer an overcranked VFR mode while recording in 24/25/30p, just like the AF100. Speaking of which, that camera beat the FS100 to market by several months and offers a large sensor AVCHD solution.

 

[Phil vG]

I'm pretty sure the 130/160 offer an overcranked VFR mode while recording in 24/25/30p

Only the 160

 

[AGMedia]

I'm pretty sure the 130/160 offer an overcranked VFR mode while recording in 24/25/30p, just like the AF100.

And, that is not 1080/60p that is now part of the AVCHD standard.

Speaking of which, that camera beat the FS100 to market by several months and offers a large sensor AVCHD solution.

The F3/FS100 sensor is a completely, completely different beast than the AF100. The AF100 was a variation of the GH2 sensor stuck in a camcorder body. The F3/FS100 sensor was designed "from the ground up" as an APS-C 1080p video sensor.


All of which is irrelevant to the point that Panasonic stuck a two year old chip set (or perhaps the even older, tweaked chip set of the HPX300) in a handheld body. And, you criticize a fellow who left a comment proposing that it might be a novel idea for Panasonic to actually innovate as opposed to implementing the exact same business model they used back with the HVX500.

 

[Barry_Green]

And, that is not 1080/60p that is now part of the AVCHD standard.

No, but it's also 35 megabits when in 60p, whereas the AVCHD standard is only 28mbps.

The F3/FS100 sensor is a completely, completely different beast than the AF100. The AF100 was a variation of the GH2 sensor stuck in a camcorder body. The F3/FS100 sensor was designed "from the ground up" as an APS-C 1080p video sensor.

Well, hold up there, pardner. First of all, you don't know that the AF100 is a "variation on the GH2", that's speculation. Secondly, while Sony may claim that the FS100 sensor was "designed from the ground up" as a video sensor, it delivers some seriously strong aliasing and moire artifacts that are way, way more noticeable than the AF100. Third, you can tune the cameras to look absolutely identical, especially with a tiny bit of post tweaking. So don't buy into marketing and hype, instead look at what the product actually does. I've been messing with an FS100 for a little while and I'm pretty underwhelmed with what I'm finding. Sure, it can make nice images, but so can the AF100. And the AF100 does a lot more than the FS100 in terms of features and usability. The FS100's design just screams DSLR. It's a DSLR with XLR ports on it. And hey, for a lot of people, that's exactly what they've been asking for. But for a lot of us, that isn't what we wanted at all.

All of which is irrelevant to the point that Panasonic stuck a two year old chip set (or perhaps the even older, tweaked chip set of the HPX300) in a handheld body. And, you criticize a fellow who left a comment proposing that it might be a novel idea for Panasonic to actually innovate as opposed to implementing the exact same business model they used back with the HVX500.

Okay, you don't like the AC130 and AC160, fine. But lots of people do. The idea of taking the beloved HMC150 and making it dramatically sharper, faster, with a much longer zoom range, more features, and able to simultaneously record to both slots, is appealing to a lot of folks. Maybe not to you, we get it. But to a lot of people, it is. Does it matter that the chipset is "two years old"? Because, A, it's not, because the 370 was introduced in April of 2010, so it's 16 months old. And B, it was the most current chipset they had when they started designing the 130 & 160! And C, what exactly would you want different? The chipset is as sharp as, and as sensitive as, the 1/2" chips of the competition. What else would you want?

Take the HMC150, give it way sharper chips, give it nearly twice the zoom range, and make it record on two slots, and charge not much more for it -- yes, that's a winning combination. Then take the same camera and give it SDI, and variable frame rates in 1080p, and NTSC/PAL switchability and call it the 160. There's excitement for that, and justifiably so. It gives you everything the Canon does, with a more advanced codec and a better lens and more features, for a lot less.

 

[HotConductor]

Amen!

 

[Vaughan Wood]

Now can we get a separate forum for them please, and we'll all be happy!
:love4:
Cheers,

Vaughan

 

[AGMedia]

Dear Mr. Green,

The real point is that you missed the entire point of my responses -- that was to offer a counter argument. Second, we all like you, we all appreciate your interaction on this forum, and we all value your perspectives. As I wrote in the initial response -- "Panasonic fanboys" like me have made business decisions based on your insights -- and that's the highest compliment.

For the sake of playing along...

No, but it's also 35 megabits when in 60p, whereas the AVCHD standard is only 28mbps.

Aren't you the one who wrote an article saying that counting megabits isn't what counts?

First of all, you don't know that the AF100 is a "variation on the GH2", that's speculation.

Speculation based on Jan Crittendon who specified that although the chips have manufacturing differences at the start, they end up essentially the same chips.

it delivers some seriously strong aliasing and moire artifacts that are way, way more noticeable than the AF100.

Pure opinion that would be disputed by very, very many people. Many of whom would point to excessive filtering going on in the AF100 that creates other issues.

I've been messing with an FS100 for a little while and I'm pretty underwhelmed with what I'm finding.

As you are the person who admitted to "expending capital" in favor of the development of the AF-100 -- no one expected you to be overwhelmed by Sony's response to the AF-100. What we expect is an article from Barry Green explaining why what we're seeing from the FS100 isn't actually what we're seeing and why the AF100 is better.

And the AF100 does a lot more than the FS100 in terms of features and usability.

Agreed. Everybody agrees. The problem with the AF100 has never been it's feature set -- the problem is that the image quality doesn't match the F3/FS100 sensor -- and that sentiment is shared by many on this forum as well as big names including Phillip Bloom and Vincent Laforet.

Okay, you don't like the AC130 and AC160, fine.

I never said that. I never implied it. I haven't tested it. It's irrelevant to my real point that was about innovation being good.

But lots of people do.

Who? Where are the reviews? Where is the sample footage? With the exception of being seen at trade shows, who, outside of Panasonic, has handled them in a production environment?

The idea of taking the beloved HMC150 and making it dramatically sharper, faster, with a much longer zoom range, more features, and able to simultaneously record to both slots, is appealing to a lot of folks.

Certainly it's appealing. I may or may not buy one of these cameras. But the market has changed, and small business folks, like me, need to decide how something like this compares to a similarly priced FS100. The same business plan Panasonic implemented with the HVX500 evokes a different reaction in the target market today than it did five years ago.

Does it matter that the chipset is "two years old"?

In a market that is changing as fast as it is today, with Vistavision and "Super 35" sensors in low end pro cameras and even consumer cameras -- a market in which we small business people need to be able to compete -- yes, it matters. Your typical "wedding videographer" who buys these cameras in the hope of making a living needs to be able to compete with these kids with their 5Dm2 and 7D cameras. He buys a camera to make a living, not because it has HDSDI out.

Take the HMC150, give it way sharper chips, give it nearly twice the zoom range, and make it record on two slots, and charge not much more for it -- yes, that's a winning combination. Then take the same camera and give it SDI, and variable frame rates in 1080p, and NTSC/PAL switchability and call it the 160. There's excitement for that, and justifiably so. It gives you everything the Canon does, with a more advanced codec and a better lens and more features, for a lot less.

Sounds very nice as you write it. Sounds like people should be excited. Does it give me everything the Canon XF305 does, like a broadcast approved camera? Will it compete with the world changing (and marketplace changing) revolution that Canon HDSLRs delivered, along with a comparable list of feature and documentary films picked up by national and international distributors?


The original point of my post was that innovation should be encouraged and the marketplace is changing, and that fellow who suggested innovation shouldn't be criticized as a "dumb sh**t" -- and I stand by that.

Getting caught up in specific counter argument points -- I maintain that the people who buy the 150 or potentially the 130/160 are small business people, like me, who need to be able to compete in a rapidly changing marketplace. The marketplace is very different than it was when the HMC150 was released, and to me it seems Panasonic stuck with the old business plan. These HMC150 owners are out there competing against kids with VistaVision and "Super 35" sensors that, relative to an HMC150 and HPX370, can "see in the dark."

All that being said -- I respectfully refer you to the opening parargraph.

No, but it's also 35 megabits when in 60p, whereas the AVCHD standard is only 28mbps.


Well, hold up there, pardner. First of all, you don't know that the AF100 is a "variation on the GH2", that's speculation. Secondly, while Sony may claim that the FS100 sensor was "designed from the ground up" as a video sensor, it delivers some seriously strong aliasing and moire artifacts that are way, way more noticeable than the AF100. Third, you can tune the cameras to look absolutely identical, especially with a tiny bit of post tweaking. So don't buy into marketing and hype, instead look at what the product actually does. I've been messing with an FS100 for a little while and I'm pretty underwhelmed with what I'm finding. Sure, it can make nice images, but so can the AF100. And the AF100 does a lot more than the FS100 in terms of features and usability. The FS100's design just screams DSLR. It's a DSLR with XLR ports on it. And hey, for a lot of people, that's exactly what they've been asking for. But for a lot of us, that isn't what we wanted at all.


Okay, you don't like the AC130 and AC160, fine. But lots of people do. The idea of taking the beloved HMC150 and making it dramatically sharper, faster, with a much longer zoom range, more features, and able to simultaneously record to both slots, is appealing to a lot of folks. Maybe not to you, we get it. But to a lot of people, it is. Does it matter that the chipset is "two years old"? Because, A, it's not, because the 370 was introduced in April of 2010, so it's 16 months old. And B, it was the most current chipset they had when they started designing the 130 & 160! And C, what exactly would you want different? The chipset is as sharp as, and as sensitive as, the 1/2" chips of the competition. What else would you want?

Take the HMC150, give it way sharper chips, give it nearly twice the zoom range, and make it record on two slots, and charge not much more for it -- yes, that's a winning combination. Then take the same camera and give it SDI, and variable frame rates in 1080p, and NTSC/PAL switchability and call it the 160. There's excitement for that, and justifiably so. It gives you everything the Canon does, with a more advanced codec and a better lens and more features, for a lot less.

 

[Barry_Green]

Aren't you the one who wrote an article saying that counting megabits isn't what counts?

Counting megabits only counts when all other things are equal. It's when comparing fundamentally different things (such as MPEG2 against MPEG4) where you can't make direct comparisons. But when comparing the same to the same, then yes the numbers are directly applicable. Example: HA mode in the AF100 is 17 megabits, PH mode is 21 megabits. PH is, definitely, better. But HDV is 25 megabits of MPEG2, and HA mode of the AF100 is superior to HDV. So when I said the AF100 does 35 megabits in 60p, that does mean that it's recording a higher-quality, less compressed version than the 28mbps of AVCHD 2.0.

Speculation based on Jan Crittendon who specified that although the chips have manufacturing differences at the start, they end up essentially the same chips.

I don't think she's ever said anything like that. I would think she would have said the exact opposite -- that while they may start out in the same silicon factory, by the time they're done they're substantially different.

Pure opinion that would be disputed by very, very many people. Many of whom would point to excessive filtering going on in the AF100 that creates other issues.

Wait -- you're saying the aliasing in the FS100 is "opinion"? It isn't. It's clearly observable. I can demonstrate it if you'd like. And yes, there are those who would say the AF100's filtering does create other issues too.

As you are the person who admitted to "expending capital" in favor of the development of the AF-100 -- no one expected you to be overwhelmed by Sony's response to the AF-100. What we expect is an article from Barry Green explaining why what we're seeing from the FS100 isn't actually what we're seeing and why the AF100 is better.

Well, I'm not sure how to take that. Actually, I probably am pretty sure what you meant, and if so, I'm disappointed. My articles demonstrate exactly what is happening, period. I back up every test with documentation on how it was done. There's no massaging of data going on. And what I don't like about the FS100 is the design decisions. I'm not talking about the footage, although I don't care for the aliasing I see in it, other than that they look pretty much identical. I just really don't like working with it, it's really a DSLR with some XLR ports on it. And I don't like DSLRs. So yes, in that aspect, no, you shouldn't be surprised.

The problem with the AF100 has never been it's feature set -- the problem is that the image quality doesn't match the F3/FS100 sensor -- and that sentiment is shared by many on this forum as well as big names including Phillip Bloom and Vincent Laforet.

Well, see, now you're getting to the point of subjective opinion. Because objectively, they look basically identical. I've shot them side by side, and come out with footage that I dare anyone to tell apart. I'm not telling you what to think, and I'm not really interested in the opinions of folks who don't run their own tests, I'm interested in evaluating what these products actually do. The science of it, not the popular opinion of it. And in the science of it, the FS100 has one and only one advantage -- ISO. Other than that, they're pretty much identical, and the AF100 has an advantage in aliasing and in complete immunity to rainbow moire, which the Sony exhibits. And in my mind that pretty much cancels out and leaves them on par with each other. Which is basically what I would expect, seeing as they are priced comparably.

Bloom and Laforet were telling us just how wonderful DSLR imagery was, and I was the guy who was saying "y'know, these things actually produce some really technically bad video." It's taken three years for people to come around, but especially after the SCCE, I think a lot of folks are seeing now, what I saw then. And it's not that anything has changed in the DSLR, it's the same as it always was. It's just that I saw how they sucked long before other people did. And I stuck to my opinion and got nearly hounded off my own forum for it. But here we are three years later and now even Philip Bloom says that the 5D causes "aliasing hell" and he says "I love the image off my 5D, and I hate the image off my 5D; aliasing and moire are the bane of my existence."

So if popular opinion leaders want to tell people what to think, and folks want to rush to them and believe what they're told, well, hey, that's human nature. As for me, I'll continue to delve into what these things actually DO, and report on that.

Who? Where are the reviews? Where is the sample footage? With the exception of being seen at trade shows, who, outside of Panasonic, has handled them in a production environment?

The people I'm referring to are the users here in this forum who have expressed excitement about these new products. I don't know of any reviews or anyone having used them in a production environment. I was referring to the optimism that's been expressed here, optimism which you for some reason have taken umbrage with, which -- in my response, I was trying to say that if folks are optimistic about it, and it does what they want, then let them be optimistic about it. Why try to rain on their parade? Why try to preemptively sink the ship?

and small business folks, like me, need to decide how something like this compares to a similarly priced FS100

Having seen both, I would find it difficult to imagine two products that differ more in their approach to the task. If you need what an AC160 does, an FS100 would never be on your shopping list. And if an FS100 does what you want, I can't see why you'd be shopping for a 1/3" camera. They may be priced comparably, but they're not aimed at the same customer whatsoever.

In a market that is changing as fast as it is today, with Vistavision and "Super 35" sensors in low end pro cameras and even consumer cameras -- a market in which we small business people need to be able to compete -- yes, it matters. Your typical "wedding videographer" who buys these cameras in the hope of making a living needs to be able to compete with these kids with their 5Dm2 and 7D cameras. He buys a camera to make a living, not because it has HDSDI out.

Well, if your viewpoint is that you need to compete with kids with 7D's, then this is obviously not the camera for you.

The original point of my post was that innovation should be encouraged and the marketplace is changing, and that fellow who suggested innovation shouldn't be criticized as a "dumb sh**t" -- and I stand by that.

And nobody disagrees with you. Other than you totally ignoring that when it comes to innovation, Panasonic was out with the AF100 a full six or seven months before Sony had their FS100. How is that not innovation? They were first, and first by a long way. If you want innovation in large-chip cameras, that's what they offer. If you want innovation in small-chip fixed-lens cameras, well -- I mean, what more do you want? They boosted the sharpness, they boosted the sensitivity, they added variable frame rates and SDI, they came out with a class-leading lens, and on the 250, they're producing the only 10-bit handheld camera in the world... I mean, I really don't get your point. Are you saying that they should have made a 1/3" fixed-lens camera that isn't, in fact, a 1/3" fixed-lens camera? Or are you just mad that they made the AC160 at all, when you would rather that they expended efforts on some totally unrelated product (one that would have been more suitable to your particular needs?) Sorry but I'm just not following you. The 160 (and 130) are made for a specific customer. If that's not you, then -- why isn't that okay? Look elsewhere. If you want a large-chip video camera, something to compete with the FS100, then why aren't you looking at the AF100 instead of the 160/130?

The marketplace is very different than it was when the HMC150 was released, and to me it seems Panasonic stuck with the old business plan. These HMC150 owners are out there competing against kids with VistaVision and "Super 35" sensors that, relative to an HMC150 and HPX370, can "see in the dark."

Well, maybe we're getting to the bottom of this then. Are you thinking that your viewpoint, and your needs, represent the whole marketplace? Because obviously those who make the products disagree with you. They still sell lots and lots of HPX370s to news stations, for example. News stations are not in any way in competition with kids with 7Ds that can "see in the dark". The 160, 130, and 250 are designed to be versatile, flexible, all-purpose camcorders that serve a wide variety of purposes. They're not intended to be shallow-DOF cinema cameras, and they're certainly not intended to compete with DSLRs for the same customer. They're made for the person for whom a DSLR is a completely unsuitable choice.

Almost everything you've referred to is related to sensor size. Repeated references to Super35, Vistavision, 7Ds, 5Ds, FS100, etc... So I wonder, is your argument that the AC160/AC130 are "not innovative" because they don't have large chips? Because it sounds to me like what you wish they would have built is the rumored Canon large-sensor XLH2 or something like that. But -- they already have that, they have the AF100. The point of these is that they're NOT that. They're fixed-lens camcorders with a massive zoom range, powered servo zoom, autofocus, all those things that large-chip cameras don't have. That's why there's still a niche in the marketplace for a product like this. Now, you may be arguing that that particular niche is small and shrinking; Panasonic's market research has obviously convinced them (and Canon, and Sony) that there's a market for fixed-lens smaller-chip cameras, or they wouldn't have spent the dollars and R&D time in making the XF100/105, XF300/305, EX1/3, and now AC160/130/HPX250. And the marketplace will have its say, they'll either find customers or they won't.

 

[studio1972]

Totally agree with Barry on this. There are plenty of people who still use 1/3" chip camcorders, personally I use a HMC151 as well as a 550D and use each camera for whichever situation suits it best. For most situations the 151 is the better choice, and although the AF100 and FS100 address some of the issues of the DSLRs, many problems remain such as:

Handling - still not as good as a 1/3" camcorder

Zoom range - without changing lenses

Servo Zoom

Control of Iris (depending on the lens)

Lack of NDs (AF100 excluded)

Sometimes you want more DoF than a large chip can provide

Lack of image stabilisation (depending on lens)

Cost of buying a decent set of lenses

One thing I'd be interested in re the 130/160 is how much more sensitive the sensors are compared to the 151, this would be a big selling point to me, the 151 is pretty good in low light but a stop or two of extra low light performance would be a big bonus.

 

[Vaughan Wood]

Actually Barry,

Our Spring, (your Fall) is only weeks away and there has been absolutely no news about these cameras since the first announcement.

Even the Panasonic brochure is still 'Preliminary'. Are they still on track (after the Japan disaster?). Have you heard anything?


Thanks,

Vaughan

 

[Barry_Green]

From what I understand they are on track to deliver on time. HPX250 in September, AC160/130 in October.