Bob's Tests & Comments on the HMC40

Cranky said:
The HS300 also has a built-in HDD. The 250 has no focus ring.
Click to expand...

The HS300 costs several hundred more. For an unattended cam, a focus ring is of no real consequence (nor is a better LCD). For shooting 24p or 60i (unattended and not using the cam for recording audio), I don't know how you could beat the cost effectiveness of an HS250 currently ($600 at B&H).
 
Robert M Wright said:
The HS300 costs several hundred more. For an unattended cam, a focus ring is of no real consequence (nor is a better LCD). For shooting 24p or 60i (unattended and not using the cam for recording audio), I don't know how you could beat the cost effectiveness of an HS250 currently ($600 at B&H).
Click to expand...
Modern Pana consumer camcorders do not shoot native 24p, older did.

If focus ring is not a must, then for this money I would prefer a used/refurbished Canon HF100/HF10/HF11. 17 or 24 Mbit/s depending on a model (Pana: 17 Mbit/s only), 24p and 30p (Pana: 24p only, both in 60i), larger sensor (1/3.2-in vs. 1/4-in), built-in ND filter soaks up to 4 stops of light with 1/4-stop increments, at least as good or better in low light. More cumbersome exposure control, but this is the only downside. In all other respects the Canon wins hands down.
 
Bob, any idea why your setting looks very blue/green compared to the "original" setting still you posted?

overall i'd say the sharpness is much worse, but like you said, look more like film grain and less like video noise. hopefully we'll all find the best way to use all these advanced controls to get the best low-light image possible with this camera.

cranky and robert, you guys are hi-jacking bob's thread.
 
The color shift was likely due to the fact that I was using ATW rather than use regular white balance. I did the shots somewhat late at night and I wasn't thinking...

The softer image was due to the high coring level AND the detail level being set lower. This is at best a compromise, softer image makes the grain less strong, but makes the image soft too. If I sharpen up the image, the grain also stands out more. There is no one ideal point here, and it becomes very subjective as to what looks best.


cranky and robert, you guys are hi-jacking bob's thread.
Click to expand...

Please go to this thread for camera comparisons:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1875886#post1875886

:dankk2:


Bob Diaz
 
ShugPro Digital Studio said:
...
cranky and robert, you guys are hi-jacking bob's thread.
Click to expand...

That's my fault, sorry about that! :undecided

Thanks for the input as well, I'm looking at a purchase within the next few weeks, we'll see what happens, lol. Hopefully I'll be out of my analysis paralysis...

Thanks to all for the time and effort on putting this info out there, it's what helps this community out by making us better informed! It was dvxuser that had me see the light on the HMC-150, and I'm constantly impressed with the quality of video that it produces. Now I just need to read up on technique and get out there and practice so that my shooting skills give that video quality the respect that it deserves! :D
 
Bob,

Thanks for sharing the youtube video Bob. Wasn't that an impressive collection of timelapse? You're correct, the HMC40 produces some great timelapse, just push a button and read a book.

Thanks for sharing.

Dan
 
I did get a chance to play with the time-lapse the other day ... nice. However, I want shoot something a bit better, before I post it.

I did find that with 1/2 a second exposure and +12dB gain, one can see stars in the video shot at night.

Another interesting thing is that I've set the time-code to show the current time of the shot. It NEVER occured to me that this also works in time-lapse too, except the time is the playback time, not how long you've been sitting there. I like knowing how much playback time I've recorded, so this is a plus.

While not exactly the most exciting video I've shot, I did post a video shot at TCTV (Torrance Community TV). I just went there to show the guys my new camera and it so happened that a new 60" LCD 120Hz HDTV arrived. The video shows the guys trying to get the TV out of the box. No we didn't break it, but they did do it the hard way. :) I didn't have time to put in my shotgun mic, so this is the on camera mic.

http://vimeo.com/9084341

Once they had the TV in place, guess what was the ONLY thing in the HDTV resolution they had to put on it. :D

I must admit, than on my 37" 720p HDTV, the image is great, BUT on a 60" set, WOW!!!! Their new HDTV makes the HMC40 look even better.


Bob Diaz
 
So, I'm looking at the footage of Vancouver Time Lapse, trying to think of a way to to build some sort of makeshift clock driven turntable to turn the camera and it hits me... There's another way.

The 1920x1080/24p Time Lapse footage is greater resolution than the 1280x720 HD and the 720x480 SD. Why not just drop the full resolution time-lapse into a 720 or SD video?

Well, FCE and other editors allow me to zoom in/out of any image. In addition, I can pan across the image. Now I can shoot a time lapse and zoom and pan within limits.

So, here's a simple 30 second test, where I did both a zoom and a pan.

http://vimeo.com/9096330


Bob Diaz
 
That's a pretty cool idea. I may try doing something like that for my son. He's got a construction business and eventually I'm going to build a website for his company that includes video. We've talked about doing some time lapse of remodeling projects (like watch a crappy window get replaced with a nice new one in 60 seconds sort of thingy), and perhaps adding some sort of motion that way might make it better somehow. I'm gonna do some head scratching...

I can't wait for springtime! I'm not real whipped on going outside and shooting a lot of footage, in Minnesota...in January! :happy:
 
The test.. HMC40 in a brightly lit playground following a two year old around.

The result... HMC40 OIS cannot withstand a force of nature. :) Ok seriously, it looks like home movies because it was shot like home movies, and I was watching her as well as filming her, but....

I begrudged every minute of time I put on a tape camera. I was a lot less inclined to just take it out and play with it. Tapes, wear and tear on moving parts and so on always had me thinking about how expensive it would be to repair. I am a lot more comforatable experimenting with this in the same way that I am with a digital camera versus a 35mm. I think that is probably the biggest thing that appeals to me about flash memory over tape (and no, not really inclined to post shakey-cam footage - everyone will have to wait until I get something better :P I know you're all waiting so anxiously, too...).
 
Need your opinion

Need your opinion

Bob,

Thanks for all of your input and reports. I am looking at replacing my aging DVC30's with a new fleet of HMC40's. Currently I film mostly live events (marching band competitions, dance recitals, band concert) where I need to get really close. I find myself constantly using the full zoom on my dvc30's and my xh-A1. So my question is, how does the digital zoom (2x) fair? Would it hold up when converting to SD DVD? Everything else about the camera seems perfect for me, so whenever you have the chance to check it out I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

Jon Schwartz
CA Video Productions
 
I don't think I've ever used digital zoom, but shooting 1080 lines at 2x digital zoom with the HMC40 should downscale to SD pretty nicely. You could always crop the image in post, to achieve the same effect, and have considerable leeway for fine tuning the framing as well.
 
Agreed, however when filming a 3-4 multicamera shoot, I don't want to have to reframe every shot especially when the person we want to spotlight changes with each shot. I know there will be resolution loss with digital zoom, but if it is negligible when downconverting to DVD then I can deal with that.
 
So my question is, how does the digital zoom (2x) fair? Would it hold up when converting to SD DVD?
Click to expand...

With the digital zoom, in the 1080 modes, a 2x zoom drops the number of pixels to 1/2 in vertical and 1/2 in the horizontal. Out source is now 960h x 540v; that's OK, but not great. The image is a bit soft.

With the digital zoom, in the 720 modes, a 2x zoom drops the number of pixels to the same 960h x 540v, but now we only have to stretch them to 1280 x 720 or 1.5 times. There is a loss in sharpness, but not by too much.

With the digital zoom, in the 480 (SD) mode, a 2x zoom has a 960h x 540v source that is dropped to a 720h x 480v destination. Because the source is higher than the destination, there's no big loss in sharpness. There would be a SLIGHT loss in sharpness, because other factors beyond pixel resolution do come into play, but it's minor.

With the 5x zoom, the resolution is 384h x 216v. This is too low even for SD video and the 10x zoom is even worse.


Bob Diaz
 
Bob,

Thanks for the info that's exactly what I wanted. Sounds like the 720p mode would be the best way to go if needed.
 
At 2x digital zoom, you'll likely wind up with more (true) color sampling info to work with in post if you record at 1080p - could work a little bit better for color grading and such. You really shouldn't lose that much actual chroma resolution, at 2x digital zoom, since it's recorded as 4:2:0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top