HMC150 and HMC40

D

drdimento

Well-known member
We are exploring building a third production unit and thought we might take a chance at digital solid state recording and are looking at Panny's HMC150/HMC40 and JVC units and wanted to get some thoughts.

First, low light is a consideration because about a 1/3 to 1/2 of this units production will be wedding and event and thus often shooting under low to medium low light and would use 2 HMC150's for the mains and 1 HMC40 for the B roll.

Secondly, the remaining footage would be broadcast TV shows, commercials, and some documentary and independent movie work.

Would love to hear some comments on how these two cameras match up in image quality and any other thoughts or limitations we might experience or even comparisons relative to our current other operating units (see below) . . AND . . thanks in advance to those who respond.

NOTE: Our other two units configurations are: 2 Canon XH-A1's for mains; Canon HV30 for B roll; and editing on either Avid Liquid Pro, FCS3, MC, or maybe Edius (the latter two currently under evaluation.)
 
Cranky said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=182865
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Had actually seen the review of the HMC40 camera by Barry but as always I'm really looking for field folks using the respectively cameras everyday who can respond how they feel this will work for the environments suggested and have never really been a fan of company reviewers opinions, I like the actual field users opinions. But alas, thanks for the link and will serve well those who are also like me trying to discern the match up of the 1/3 CCD's vs 1/4 CMOS's.
 
Barry isn't a "company reviewer."

I have had both of the cams. Also own a 170, and have reviewed a 300

The HMC40 in good light is sharper than the 150 no doubt due to a full raster capture, et al.

Ask some specific questions and I'll try to respond, and trust what Barry Green tells you as well.
 
David S. said:
Barry isn't a "company reviewer." . . . The HMC40 in good light is sharper than the 150 no doubt due to a full raster capture, et al. Ask some specific questions and I'll try to respond, and trust what Barry Green tells you as well.
Click to expand...

Whoops. Didn't know about the Barry thing. Pretty much my general area of concern is that both cameras record for the most part the same image in brightness and clarity for our broadcast and event productions. That is, if the 40 requires a significant greater quantity of light than the 150 then this would be nice to know as currently the HV30 requires at least a couple f stops more than the XH-A1's for the same image, let alone some tweaking but in the end we get the same picture.

Also, will the files be the exact same format without any differences like we experienced with the DVX100b, HVX200 and HVX200A where each had a slight deviant that resulted in us having to recode all of them when recording to miniDV and using those clips in multicam set ups. That is, the DVX100B's would cut with each other without recoding but when cut with either of the 200's . . or . . the 200's cut with each other all clips would have to be fused to remove whatever little mod there was in the format to tape.

BTW, thanks so much for your kind input and offer to help in this decision making process.
 
drdimento said:
Pretty much my general area of concern is that both cameras record for the most part the same image in brightness and clarity for our broadcast and event productions.
Click to expand...
The 150 is ~600 lines, no jello, no flash banding. The 40 is ~800 lines with potential jello and flash banding. I would not call it the same.

drdimento said:
That is, if the 40 requires a significant greater quantity of light than the 150 then this would be nice to know
Click to expand...
What do you mean, "if"? Have you read the article? About 3 stops difference compared to the 150. Judging by different accounts and reviews and cross-comparing data, it seems that the 40 has about the same sensitivity as the HV30.

drdimento said:
Also, will the files be the exact same format without any differences
Click to expand...
Same AVCHD bitrates and framerates as on the 150, but codecs improve with time, so I would not be surprised if there is difference in encoding of the same material when compared byte by byte.
 
Cranky said:
. . . About 3 stops difference compared to the 150. Judging by different accounts and reviews and cross-comparing data, it seems that the 40 has about the same sensitivity as the HV30. . . .
Click to expand...

Ouch. We're not a 100% with that same kind of light activity difference in our current arrangement AND of course the ccd/cmos issue but while we've tweaked to cover the distance on the latter, the former is much more cumbersome and on some events just made decisions at the onset to just rent an A1 to cover that discrepancy.

Cranky said:
. . .Same AVCHD bitrates and framerates as on the 150, but codecs improve with time, so I would not be surprised if there is difference in encoding of the same material when compared byte by byte.
Click to expand...

Ouch, once again this could be an issue. Sounding more and more like this combo isn't going to cut the trick.

Thanks again for the regarded friendly info.
 
Last edited:
Our needs have changed since the 150.

150 didn't match our 170 when going to SD DVD.

We only use the 40 in well lit situations, among other things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top