DVCPRO HD VS AVCHD - hvx/hpx vs ac130/ac160
- Thread starter Lindquist
- Start date
TheReverend
Well-known member
We have an AF100 and HPX170s. So AVCHD vs DVCProHD I've seen alot. Personally, I'd go with AVCHD. Better file sizes, record times, cheaper media. Looks just as good IMO.
For resolution, you have to consider sensors as well. AC130/160's have a 1920x1080p CMOS chip and AVCHD records at the same resolution. HPX170 sensor is three 960x540 sensors with pixel shift technology to "get" higher resolution. AND DVCProHD records 960x720 and stretches to 1280x720, and 1280x1080 that stretches to 1920x1080. It's kinda a no brainer that AVCHD will get you a crisper image.
Also, it's guaranteed that the AC130/160 will have better low light. CMOS versus CCD, CMOS wins low light every time.
Steve Eisen
Well-known member
You have discovered a less expensive alternative to DVCPro HD. What you have not discovered is the bit rate difference between the two.
Bottom line, DVCPro is better than AVCHD.
The question was in regard to low light. the 200a, 170, 250, 370 and 500 will yield good results in low light. You still need light to get good exposure.
Bottom line, DVCPro is better than AVCHD.
The question was in regard to low light. the 200a, 170, 250, 370 and 500 will yield good results in low light. You still need light to get good exposure.
TheReverend
Well-known member
Less expensive... I assume you are only talking about media. I'm talking about everyday use. AVCHD saves on disc space, saves time for transfers, AND saves money on media. I don't know about you, but to me time and disc space are valuable, so to be clear there is more value to AVCHD than just the media itself.
DVCPROHD is good, don't get me wrong. The bitrate is higher, but bitrate doesn't tell the only story. Personally, I find that the resolution advantages of 1920x1080 over 1280x1080, are better than the bitrate. I would argue that there isn't a "bottom line" better. They are both VERY good codecs and the HD imagery from both are fantastic and some what comparable.
(Note - DVCProHD does have 4:2:2. Though I've been able to pull better green screen keys off AVCHD 4:2:0 on the AF100 than I have off the HPX170s. Go figure.)
Lindquist
Veteran
ok thanks alot for the info guys, my main worries are that its a bigger camera and it might not fit in my bag and that my
mbp 4gb . 2.3c2d might struggle with the avchd?
also i wanna see alot more tests with 130/160/250 moire, skew, flash banding ect...
ive seen some pretty terrible ones with baddd autofocus.
i also have to decide what one i want more the 160 or 250.
since i dont need pal/ntsc switchable, or 4.2.2 10bit ect.
might end up getting 160 over 130 since it has same variable framerates as my hpx.
id love to see a side by side comparison out doors and low light
from hpx170 vs 130/160/250 (either of those)
mbp 4gb . 2.3c2d might struggle with the avchd?
also i wanna see alot more tests with 130/160/250 moire, skew, flash banding ect...
ive seen some pretty terrible ones with baddd autofocus.
i also have to decide what one i want more the 160 or 250.
since i dont need pal/ntsc switchable, or 4.2.2 10bit ect.
might end up getting 160 over 130 since it has same variable framerates as my hpx.
id love to see a side by side comparison out doors and low light
from hpx170 vs 130/160/250 (either of those)
BlitzWerkz
Active member
Also to mention cost efficiency, P2 cards are darn ex! At least for Asia region, a 64GB P2 card can cost me around SGD 1300/-. But I like P2 system better mainly our production house uses that for AVP. But having now know that AC160/130 uses CMOS, I think I have a dilemma now, caught between the P2 brothers and AC brothers 