HMC150 Hack possible?

HotConductor

HotConductor

Well-known member
With the advent of the GH2 hack, and before that the GH1, I have been thinking alot about a HMC150 hack. Is it possible? I am amazed that my GH2 straight out of the box produced stunningly brilliant 1080p24fps footage, which OBLITERATED my HMC150s. Seriously, the little camera looks like a toy and produces better video than the $2500+ HMC150, without any hack...

Any thoughts?
 
Why start working on a hack for a camera that's already a few years old and is on its way out?

Regarding the image quality of the GH2 vs. the HMC, it's just how technology goes. In 2 years the quality of the GH2 will be crap compared to what's available then.
 
Why...? Because many of us use the HMC150 on a daily basis, and it would be awesome to bring out its potential.

You are right about the GH2, but you could say the same about every camera out there. So what? Until the world has a new standard aside from 1080p, I don't care what camera they put out in the coming years. I'm very happy with what I have. What does that have to do with my question of whether it was possible?

A consumer cam (GH2) has better footage that the HMC150, a dedicated "HD" videocamera with CCD sensors. I would LOVE to get higher quality footage and be able to avoid rolling shutter!!!
 
What would a hack do ?

- It can't increase resolution
- Maybe improve color-space but that depends the capability of the hardware
- It could increase the bit-rate, which might make for cleaner motion and less noise ( though I think the HMC-150 noise is mostly from the sensors and not the CODEC )
 
21mbps is the highest bitrate the HMC can record at. GH2 can do 24mbps right... So wouldn't we be able to get less artifacts/compression, by upping the bitrate? Also curious if a hack would allow variable framerates...

You are right about resolution, so forth.
 
HotConductor said:
21mbps is the highest bitrate the HMC can record at. GH2 can do 24mbps right... So wouldn't we be able to get less artifacts/compression, by upping the bitrate?
Click to expand...

The HMC-150 uses AVCCAM AVCHD variable 21-24 mbps bit-rate to record in PH mode with more dedicated electronics to process the image, so I doubt there would be much change as far as artifacts go. I rarely see any artifacts with my HMC-150 footage, but I do see fairly obvious noise once the GAIN goes past +6 dB, but this is sensor noise not CODEC artifacting.

I think we will see a huge jump in image quality with the new AC-130/160 cameras coming out in a couple of months: Full raster 1080P, high sensitivity with low-noise, and a huge 22x zoom lens range.
 
I understand what you are saying... I never considered that the noise/issues would be with the sensor rather than the codec. And yes, the AC-160 looks great except for the fact that they ditched CMOS... Rolling shutter is the ONLY thing I don't like about CMOS sensors.

Thanks for the insight.
 
To me, the rolling shutter problem, is an hyped phenomenon. The fact that every known company out there is producing a CMOS camera, clearly shows that the rolling shutter is not realy a big issue as some would like it to be.
 
A consumer or even entry-level prosumer might not notice the rolling shutter. A professional is going to have tools and knowledge available to minimize rolling shutter issues.

I've owned an HMC40 for over a year now - I can handhold shots and still avoid the typical jello you find in DSLR shots. Doesn't stop flash banding and other distortions related to the speed of the rolling shutter, but the footage is freaking sharp and even at +18db gain it can look better (subjective, I know) than my HMC150 at +12db gain.

I think once people actually get their hands on the AC130/160, they're going to fall in love. The sharpness of the HMC40, along with the increased light sensitivity of a bigger chip and a longer lens, and over/undercranking on the 160.
 
HotConductor said:
I understand what you are saying... I never considered that the noise/issues would be with the sensor rather than the codec. And yes, the AC-160 looks great except for the fact that they ditched CMOS... Rolling shutter is the ONLY thing I don't like about CMOS sensors.

Thanks for the insight.
Click to expand...

You're not going to find any new cameras in the sub $10k price range without CMOS chips. They are all CMOS now, sadly.
 
The only new HD CCD models are the HMC150/HPX170 and the JVC lineup. Canon still offers the XHA1/XLH1 series, which are CCD.
 
The only manufacturer that has launched a new CCD model in the last few years is JVC; all their HM and HD series are CCD, so if there's going to be another new model introduction with CCD, it'd likely come from JVC.
 
LOl....five or ten years from now JVC will come out with the BEST CMOS cameras the world has ever seen. Unfortunately by then everyone else would have moved on to some newer technology.
 
If there was to be a hack I would just like to see things like red or blue detail assist and if possible ability to shoot onto SDXC cards.
 
The easiest "hack" would be to record out of the HDMI port to a ninja or other capture device.

In day to day use, I don't know what that adds quality wise... pulling keys (especially keys that could have used a little more light), you can clearly see stuff like color blocking with off-the-card footage.

The other plus is more robust media and no transcoding (on the Ninja, that's if you're an FCP user of course).
 
Michael Carter said:
The easiest "hack" would be to record out of the HDMI port to a ninja or other capture device.

In day to day use, I don't know what that adds quality wise... pulling keys (especially keys that could have used a little more light), you can clearly see stuff like color blocking with off-the-card footage.

The other plus is more robust media and no transcoding (on the Ninja, that's if you're an FCP user of course).
Click to expand...

If the imagers on the 150 can only create about 1440 x 810 worth of image detail, does anyone know if the Ninja improves on that by creating 1920 x 1080 of image detail ??
or would the image still be only 1440 x 810 ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top