HMC-150 vs. Pre-owned HVX200 Advice

T

teayce

Well-known member
OK, So what I really want is an HPX-170. But its just not in the financial cards right now.

I'm mostly shooting short-form, music video, and short films - no studio stuff really. Shot on DVX100b with and without a Redrock M2.

I've got the cash to get the HMC-150 or (based on what I'm seeing in the Marketplace) a pre-owned HVX200 with a 4gb P2 card (not A).

I think I'm pretty hung up on the 4:2:2 DVCProHD vs AVCHD 4:2:0 thing... I can live without the variable framerates and SDI. Should I really be focusing this much on the Codec? And what about the posted problems with the HVX200?

So what are your thoughts? Where would you spend your money? Why?

Thanks for your help.

Troy
 
If it were me I would go with the 150 provided that I had the computer to handle the codec if editing natively. A new camera with a 3 year warranty is much better than a used one that may have been beaten to death over the past 2-3 years. AVCHD looks really good, and if you need to you can always convert it to DVCPROHD
 
Used HVXs are going for pretty cheap, so I can see the dilemma. It all depends on your budget. AVCHD is designed to be affordable. You can get a 32GB card for under $80. The HMC150's picture is going to be superior to the original HVX200s in most ways; you'll be trading 4:2:0 long-GOP against 4:2:2 intraframe, but the sensitivity increase, noise reduction, and overall more accurate image of the 150 should erase that gap for most low-budget uses. If you're working in news, no question, get the HVX and use the extensive P2 infrastructure out there. But if it's for personal projects, I'd think you might be happier with the 150, provided you work out your edit station questions beforehand.
 
Thanks for the info Tim/Barry - is there a posted minimum system requirement for AVCHD on a Mac/FCP6 platform (RAM, CPU, etc.) that you can direct me to? Or has it been determined that converting to DVCPROHD is still the best solution?
 
teayce said:
Thanks for the info Tim/Barry - is there a posted minimum system requirement for AVCHD on a Mac/FCP6 platform (RAM, CPU, etc.) that you can direct me to? Or has it been determined that converting to DVCPROHD is still the best solution?
Click to expand...

I would get the best system you can afford with at least a core 2 duo and 4 gigs of ram.

-------------------------------------------

I would try neo HD and NOT use DVCproHD as DVCproHD will down res your footage, before putting it into its container, and then stretch it back out on playback.
My results suggest that it is better to convert to a 4:2:2 full raster codec and keep it there.

The HVX200 and the 170, might be different, but the HMC150 seems to suggest it looks better keeping the full sized image and putting it into a 4:2:2 container before color correcting.
 
The original HVX doesn't have SDI anyway. The 150 has more export options with the addition of the HDMI and the component connection is way better.


After using the 150 for a month. I sold my HVX> The 150 is an all round better camera in low light, in noise, and smear. I'd say to go with the 150. you'll be happier in terms of camera... BUT it is a bit harder to work with on the post side.. and greenscreen has been the only thing that I prefered the HVX in.. but that's the one major area,


The 150 produces a very nice image without the P2 concerns.
 
Justyn said:
BUT it is a bit harder to work with on the post side.. and greenscreen has been the only thing that I prefered the HVX in.. but that's the one major area
Click to expand...

If you transcode to Cineform, do you get any advantages in dealing with greenscreen footage?
 
If you do freelance camera gigs the work flow is great because you hand the card over and bill the client.
 
I've not used cineform... but one thing would be an advantage would be to capture through the HDMI or componnent HD and bypass alot of the compression. This might be where having the intensity card would come into effect.


I think the 150 has such a solid place for production even if you have the money to buy a 170. I know that it's afforded me more flexibility in the workplace.. and ultimately I've made more money by not having to rent P2 cards, and not having to hire a P2 wrangler.


Not a single client has commented upon a quality loss in any way. In actuality many have complimented the low light ability.. and I've had more comments about there being less Fuzz in the image.. as they call it. Or sometimes grain or noise or whatever.


There's a reason that the original HVXs are cheap. For what they are going for, I'd consider buying one if you'd get it for 2k or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top