Lame. It cannot record to two cards simultaneously, only to a card and to the "brick".
HMC150 or Sony HDR-AX2000
- Thread starter Superfresa66
- Start date
He did not compare fidelity (whatever you mean by that). He compared how well the codec holds, that is, whether or when it breaks into ugly macroblocks or mush.
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Actually the cool part is you can assign which record button works the card and have the other one record to the drive. They don't need to start/stop at the same time, so you could record constantly to the drive and just record the best shots, or make a "recap" on the card. Then when you edit just use the card for the "recap" and the drive for the long edit.
I could see this being VERY useful for wedding/event work.
At 24 Mbit/s a 32GB card fits 3 hours of footage. Do you really need to record for more than 3 hours continuously? I mean, I don't mind the "brick" as long as it is optional, but I would rather have an option of synchronous recording onto two cards for redundancy.
Galleddrim
Active member
No, I have no issues with continuous recording times on the HMC150. The thing I was nervous about is the data loss. I know it's rare, but the fact that it happens as much as it does is a cause for concern. The last thing I ever ever want to face is a disappointed and pissed off bride because I lost and hour and a half of critical footage due to card failure. With the NX5U, I'd use the brick as primary and the SD as backup.
A lot to consider . . .
One drawback on the NX5U that I saw in the manual. Switching to and from 720p60 requires a camera reboot, which means you can't flip back and forth fluidly between slo-mo and normal speed. That is sort of lame. Maybe they'll fix it in firmware at some point, but if not, then it's something that would have to be worked around. As long as bootup time is quick, it's not a big deal.
Lens is 20X, which is incredible. The wide is almost as wide as the HMC150. 29.5mm VS 28mm at 35mm equivalent. I think 1.5mm difference is nothing to lose sleep over, and the added optical zoom is a good trade off.
Yep . . . I'm nearly sold. Especially after seeing the sample footage:
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-...sets-micro-nxcam-demos-NXCAMSampleMovie.shtml
Superfresa66
Well-known member
More than i can on the HMC150... and i would find the "brick" as you call is useful
"Do you really need to record for more than 3 hours continuously? I mean, I don't mind the "brick" as long as it is optional"
I could see use for more than 3 hours recording as well... and the "brick" is optional
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
I absolutely have had to record for more than 3 hours, and having the two slots on the EX1 has made that a breeze. I even upgraded my Firestore so I could do this and have backup media.
Superfresa66
Well-known member
Agree... having a camera able to record longer than 3 hours would be a plus.
And going back to Sony's LCD's would be great... I really really find panasonic LCD on the 150 anoying!
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
Fidelity (from Merriam Webster's site) - 1 a : the quality or state of being faithful b : accuracy in details : exactness
The frame grabs that Barry included in his article were examples of "stressing" the codecs (and indeed Panasonic's AVCHD H264 encoder seemed to perform a bit better than XDCAM EX when stressed). While not offering "unstressed" frame grab comparisons, he did pretty clearly state (in so many words) that both codecs handled typical footage very well (and quite comparably):
"I then sifted through the footage, and found that by and large, most of it looked pretty much the same. As I said before, XDCAM-EX is a reasonably robust codec and it handles most situations pretty well. Through most of the scenes, there wasn't much of a difference between both codecs (except, of course, for AVCCAM taking up around half the space to do the same job, a not-insubstantial consideration). I toggled back and forth and saw that while there were minor differences here and there, for the most part there wasn't much to show them as being all that different, and they both looked very good."
As annoying as the sticky focus ring?
I can't wait for Canon to reveal their tapeless cam. With a 3.5-inch 900kpix LCD it will be in good company with Sony, and way ahead of Panasonic. Am I correct by saying that only the HPX300 has LCOS EVF and hi-res LCD?
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
Aside from Barry's testing (and conclusions), just looking at footage I've shot with an HMC40, it's real clear that Panasonics H264 encoder is producing very clean, detailed images. Looking closely at individual frames on the computer, blown up considerably, it's obvious the image fidelity is just far and away better than with HDV MPEG-2 encoding (it's not even close). The level of detail is simply stunning and artifacting is astonishingly minimal. It's not uncompressed, but visually the image fidelity appears quite reasonably close (especially played back at full speed).
Galleddrim
Active member
Hey, wait a minute . . . it comes with a shotgun mic too? Sweet!
And speaking of the "brick," it's an optional $750 item . . . but Sony is offering a $500 rebate to orders between now and March. Can't beat that.
And speaking of the "brick," it's an optional $750 item . . . but Sony is offering a $500 rebate to orders between now and March. Can't beat that.
PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Well,
A few things. XDCamEX as a codec is terrific. XDCamEX as implemented in the EX1/EX3 is very good, but could be a lot better. It's the bitrate that's troubling, not the codec. Consider that the NanoFlash uses the same codec but at a higher bitrate and there are NO complaints about its quality.
Additionally, the AVCHD cams are shooting at 24Mbps and the EX1 at 35Mbps. Not sure how Barry is calculating his halves, but the AVCVHD clocks in closer to 2/3 the size than half.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
The mic probably isn't any better than a really cheap $70 AT.
Calling that memory module a "brick" is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration. It's not exactly huge. Personally, I think SDHC cards are just plain too small to be an ideal recording medium.
close to half since its 21 mbps
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
Perhaps Barry needs new batteries in his calculator.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)(21Mbps is between 1/2 an 2/3 of 35Mbps - but that's neither here nor there - the AVCCAM H264 bitrate is significantly lower than the XDCAM EX MPEG-2 bitrate out of an EX1 or EX3.)
MadHMC150
DVXuser Sponsor
Man hard to stay up with this convo - heh
My point! Of course i was being literal by saying 'bolted down'. But yes a stabilized camera will have a ton less jello...
It has its applications - in controlled situations. I just don't film in those situations most of the time.
My point! Of course i was being literal by saying 'bolted down'. But yes a stabilized camera will have a ton less jello...
It has its applications - in controlled situations. I just don't film in those situations most of the time.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
A higher bitrate can certainly yield better quality (with either H264 or MPEG-2 compression), but to get notably better quality than AVCCAM or XDCAM EX (at 35Mbps) takes considerably higher bitrates (diminishing returns). For some purposes it makes sense to use a nanoflash, but the resulting files are much bigger.
I like the combination of image quality/small file size with AVCHD. For my purposes, it's a pretty ideal compromise (and not really much of a compromise on image quality at that).
Superfresa66
Well-known member
As annoying as the sticky focus ring?
sticky focus is only a problem on cold weather... a crappy LCD is always a problem, so yeah more annoying than sticky focus :kali: [LCD]