arrestthisman
Well-known member
Ok everyone, I hope this isn't going to sound stupid, or trivial. Maybe it's a bit motivated by emotion, but I'll simply get to the point as best as I can (which is not very good).
First let me say that Jan has ALWAYS been awesome, helpful, nice and goes above and beyond what any product manager of a large company is required to do for their customers.
But I have noticed repeatedly that she kind of slams the HMC150... and she seems to concentrate on the codec difference between the HPX170. But it seems to be in a way that really undermines the HMC150 as being unprofessional. In terms of workflow, I totally understand this, but in quality, I'm compelled to present a different point of view. This is just my observation, and I could just be sensitive because I love the camera so much. However, in case I'm on to something:
What concerns me is that I've owned an HVX200, and I now own an HMC150. Both are very different codecs and different workflows. To be honest, in terms of pure image quality, even when I fed the HVX200 a ton of light (which it eats like a horse), I was not entirely happy with the image. And it wasn't a noise issue noise because I was using B.Press, and everything to reduce it. In fact, I found when it became "too clean" I'd get very blocky saturated colors. Under high magnification I found a difference with 4:2:0 codecs. 4:2:2 native is a real advantage (for time as I'll point out); but when AVCHD 4:2:0 is moved into a 4:2:2 codec and smoothed or interpolated (or even just brought into DVCPRO HD) find it looks virtually the same, and can be pushed the same during color correction.
Keep in mind this is PROGRESSIVE ONLY. I never shoot interlaced, and there's no question that DVCPRO HD would beat the hell out of it interlaced.
There are a lot of reasons to go with the HPX170 over the HMC150, but I hope that at some point the "professional" argument will be fully articulated and maybe put into a sticky.
The biggest reason I would go with an HPX170 due to DVCPRO HD, is simply time. P2 offloads faster, can be edited natively much more easily, is "regarded" more highly by networks and therefore can be delivered directly, and does not need finesse to pull a key right away. Also, firewire is nice, I do miss that for preview and direct recording. Also a lot of people who are yes, honestly more PRO, still shoot SD or interlaced, and don't have time for a good downconversion say in shake, and need a lateral delivery. Back to P2, many companies are already setup for P2 workflow, and that alone would make the difference if I even had one client I need to "plug in" to.
For my use, though, I tend to do philanthropic work, and other things with FAR less pressing deadlines. Short films, medical photography, etc.. I have the time for transcoding. I never shoot SD. For me, the advantages of the HMC150 really outweigh those of the HPX170.
Though it's not much of a difference, the weight, though small, is nice for me. I need long, long takes, and knowing I can pickup extra media for a job at best buy is a real plus for me. I also like the look of AVCHD better. I'm being honest. It exhibits different compression artifacts, and since I almost always shoot 24p, the way it blurs when pushed in motion, lends itself to the film-like motion (though DVCPRO HD is rock solid too). So for my usage, the Long-GOP expression of this codec is wonderful to my eye. Static shots in 720p do benefit from the full raster. I use a mac for offloading and a little card reader is much better for me than a dual adapter, or a separate windows PC Card laptop. And, less real estate for source footage is nice. There's more, but anyone reading this I think gets the point.
For people like me, and there are plenty of them, it really makes more sense than the HPX170. Though, I think the HPX170 is a safer choice, because you won't miss any features. Some people may find the HMC150 doesn't integrate into their previous HVX200 workflow as well.
The thing is simply that I feel (and again this could just be insecurity, but I could point to posts that are a bit harsh) that in the DVX days panny put us right up there with the rest of their cams in terms of respect. I think the HMC150 is treated a bit second class in the current culture.
I don't think this is done as some may theorize to "protect" the more expensive line. I think they worry that someone going from HVX200 to HMC150 will not integrate into their existing workflow and jobs as well, and that would turn off customers from panny. I totally understand this.
I just think the HMC should get a little more of a nod from panny, and us. It IS a pro cam, otherwise it would be sold by the consumer division. AVCHD has advantages and shortcomings. If the HPX170 had AVC-I that would be a completely different story. They are both great codecs, very different, but both good, and I can say that having used both of them for projects.
Put it short: Broadcast guys, or filmmakers who are engrained in broadcast too, HPX170 all the way! For smaller more boutique operations, or just strictly filmmaking, the HMC150 could make more sense. The heart of the matter is simply that the quality of the image seems to be equal among the codecs, with each excelling in some areas more than others. (But both heads and tails above HDV, though I think XDCAM EX is surprisingly good... I'll still take H.264 over it any day, simply speaking from a codec standpoint.)
I just hope people aren't being turned off from the HMC150 because they think the image will be much better on the HPX170 based on the boards. Features and workflow are the difference, not quality. (IMO)
Anyway, this is my little rant, and I really hope this isn't received poorly. It's just my own little thing that may or may not be relevant to the community. I'd rather it be buried due to lack of interest on the off chance that others feel the same and would like to voice their opinions as well.
Love to everyone, and happy shooting!
First let me say that Jan has ALWAYS been awesome, helpful, nice and goes above and beyond what any product manager of a large company is required to do for their customers.
But I have noticed repeatedly that she kind of slams the HMC150... and she seems to concentrate on the codec difference between the HPX170. But it seems to be in a way that really undermines the HMC150 as being unprofessional. In terms of workflow, I totally understand this, but in quality, I'm compelled to present a different point of view. This is just my observation, and I could just be sensitive because I love the camera so much. However, in case I'm on to something:
What concerns me is that I've owned an HVX200, and I now own an HMC150. Both are very different codecs and different workflows. To be honest, in terms of pure image quality, even when I fed the HVX200 a ton of light (which it eats like a horse), I was not entirely happy with the image. And it wasn't a noise issue noise because I was using B.Press, and everything to reduce it. In fact, I found when it became "too clean" I'd get very blocky saturated colors. Under high magnification I found a difference with 4:2:0 codecs. 4:2:2 native is a real advantage (for time as I'll point out); but when AVCHD 4:2:0 is moved into a 4:2:2 codec and smoothed or interpolated (or even just brought into DVCPRO HD) find it looks virtually the same, and can be pushed the same during color correction.
Keep in mind this is PROGRESSIVE ONLY. I never shoot interlaced, and there's no question that DVCPRO HD would beat the hell out of it interlaced.
There are a lot of reasons to go with the HPX170 over the HMC150, but I hope that at some point the "professional" argument will be fully articulated and maybe put into a sticky.
The biggest reason I would go with an HPX170 due to DVCPRO HD, is simply time. P2 offloads faster, can be edited natively much more easily, is "regarded" more highly by networks and therefore can be delivered directly, and does not need finesse to pull a key right away. Also, firewire is nice, I do miss that for preview and direct recording. Also a lot of people who are yes, honestly more PRO, still shoot SD or interlaced, and don't have time for a good downconversion say in shake, and need a lateral delivery. Back to P2, many companies are already setup for P2 workflow, and that alone would make the difference if I even had one client I need to "plug in" to.
For my use, though, I tend to do philanthropic work, and other things with FAR less pressing deadlines. Short films, medical photography, etc.. I have the time for transcoding. I never shoot SD. For me, the advantages of the HMC150 really outweigh those of the HPX170.
Though it's not much of a difference, the weight, though small, is nice for me. I need long, long takes, and knowing I can pickup extra media for a job at best buy is a real plus for me. I also like the look of AVCHD better. I'm being honest. It exhibits different compression artifacts, and since I almost always shoot 24p, the way it blurs when pushed in motion, lends itself to the film-like motion (though DVCPRO HD is rock solid too). So for my usage, the Long-GOP expression of this codec is wonderful to my eye. Static shots in 720p do benefit from the full raster. I use a mac for offloading and a little card reader is much better for me than a dual adapter, or a separate windows PC Card laptop. And, less real estate for source footage is nice. There's more, but anyone reading this I think gets the point.
For people like me, and there are plenty of them, it really makes more sense than the HPX170. Though, I think the HPX170 is a safer choice, because you won't miss any features. Some people may find the HMC150 doesn't integrate into their previous HVX200 workflow as well.
The thing is simply that I feel (and again this could just be insecurity, but I could point to posts that are a bit harsh) that in the DVX days panny put us right up there with the rest of their cams in terms of respect. I think the HMC150 is treated a bit second class in the current culture.
I don't think this is done as some may theorize to "protect" the more expensive line. I think they worry that someone going from HVX200 to HMC150 will not integrate into their existing workflow and jobs as well, and that would turn off customers from panny. I totally understand this.
I just think the HMC should get a little more of a nod from panny, and us. It IS a pro cam, otherwise it would be sold by the consumer division. AVCHD has advantages and shortcomings. If the HPX170 had AVC-I that would be a completely different story. They are both great codecs, very different, but both good, and I can say that having used both of them for projects.
Put it short: Broadcast guys, or filmmakers who are engrained in broadcast too, HPX170 all the way! For smaller more boutique operations, or just strictly filmmaking, the HMC150 could make more sense. The heart of the matter is simply that the quality of the image seems to be equal among the codecs, with each excelling in some areas more than others. (But both heads and tails above HDV, though I think XDCAM EX is surprisingly good... I'll still take H.264 over it any day, simply speaking from a codec standpoint.)
I just hope people aren't being turned off from the HMC150 because they think the image will be much better on the HPX170 based on the boards. Features and workflow are the difference, not quality. (IMO)
Anyway, this is my little rant, and I really hope this isn't received poorly. It's just my own little thing that may or may not be relevant to the community. I'd rather it be buried due to lack of interest on the off chance that others feel the same and would like to voice their opinions as well.
Love to everyone, and happy shooting!
Last edited:
