Hmc150 vs ex1

Hidef1080 said:
Buck, can you point me to a link for those HD requirements?
Click to expand...

Hola Hidef1080, I don't have the various sites saved, I just found them through Google or other people's links/experiences. I basically go to each HD broadcaster, such as Discovery, Nat'l Geo, HDNet, Outdoor Channel, Travel Channel, etc., and try to find their spec sheets/submission pages. Some of them aren't posted or accessed easily, it takes some digging. I need to keep them all in a "Faves" folder for easy access, I apologize for not having immediate links.
 
amrrahmy said:
no it's the combinition of both that makes the hmc cooler,
yes but it only affects the clipped part which gives the hmc an advantage when in cine gamma.

daylight public places goes to hmc for that,
and ex can take on a set for the quality difference,

at the end after all the comparisons hmc beats ex1 when trying to make a film.
Click to expand...


what the hell are you saying?
 
ex1 image quality is far Superior to the hmc-150, but the hmc has a slight advantage in low light, and in non localized large public areas in daylight, and no rolling shutter problems and costs half as much. so for film hmc is better than ex1.or 2hmc is better than one ex1.and some dark sarcastic tones of humor were thrown in there for the understanding of the combination of settings that makes hmc slightly better than the ex1 in daylight.
 
...but the hmc has a slight advantage in low light, and in non localized large public areas in daylight...
Click to expand...

So the EX1 might have a slight advantage when shooting in daylight on private property (both localized and non-localized)... whereas the HMC really shines in the public areas (assuming the public area is large and, of course, non-localized).

I got ya. :)
 
another piece of very bad humor,

yes, what i meant was exactly that, if it's prescriptively large area of viewing like in a large public place for example, on a daylight shoot, with different light sensitivity measurements throughout the image recorded, hmc would provide a wider latitude compared to ex1, but if it's the exact same frame or location privately labeled it would be a different story.....

or a daylight shoot indoor with a significant exterior light source
 
Not to sound like a doubting Thomas, but where are you specifically getting your information that the HMC has this extra latitude compared to other cameras? This would be a wonderful technological breakthrough in both still cameras and video cameras... I may have missed it? Being able to save highlites from being blown while retaining 'foreground' shadow detail on an image with a wide range of lighting is beyond most current chip manufacturers.
 
there is a limit obviously to maintaining the clipped areas, it's not magical, but it's significantly better than anything i have seen, and it's very fast at doing it, you can see some examples, i think i saw car headlamps going on an afternoon shot that would have been impossible to get with ex1 without clipping, and it did it flawlessly, so not only that it would correct the clipped part to merge nicely with the rest of the picture, it's also very fast.

at the end it's just better than the ex1, it's not like the image can achieve something that film can get easily, it's just better compared to the ex1.
 
new nikon and canon dslr have a similar features by the way, although not as intrusive just because the sensor is already too sensitive in those cameras.
 
not to confuse you the dslrs use it differently, not for the scene i described, they smooth one part only, so they smooth only the shadow area while in high iso for example, they use while trying to lower the noise in low light.
 
This HMC150 is exciting. Curious on SPECUALTIONS here. In a word: RENT-ABILITY.

I have had clients request the EX1. It's an established acquisition platform to producers. The HMC on the other hand is maybe less known and maybe more cumbersome to edit with (because of perceptions of AVCHD)? Now I cannot afford the Sony and personally don't care for its ergonomics. So I've got my eyes on the HMC. Plus I'm a touch loyal to Panasonic ever since they brought the DVX to all of us guerrilla types. Not to say one can't pitch the HMC to a turnkey client but for freightrain shows these days the EX1 has more promise as a rental. Yes? No? I believe this echoes Buck's point.

But do you think with time the "big boys" may make room for the HMC. I think Justyn mentioned seeing the HMC getting rentals in place of HVXs and such. Interesting. What sorts of projects were those?

I wonder how the specs will adapt to the exploding use of internet distribution (HULU and such).

Also, someone mentioned the advantages of the extra coin after purchase of the HMC and I wanted to add another to the list besides camera support gear - a DOF adapter kit for example could diversify your system significantly. Which brings up a question. I believe the EX1 has a flip option but does the HMC? I'm researching DOF also but don't want to stray discussion to that on this thread. Just wondering about the flip option.

Another factor that is significant for a shooter that wants flexibility is the record times available with the HMC. It opens that shooter to a lot more types of marketplaces such as legal video and weddings and at times certain situations in docs need this as well (specially with solid state where downloads become prohibitive). This, from what I understand is a difference even though the EX1 can use SDHC cards, because of the AVCHD (is this a codec? don't know how to refer to that). With all the turmoil in the American marketplace these days - options are good to have.

I've been a DP on a feature doc this year shooting with the EX1 and it does make a pretty picture but even more than that, the stock lens on this camera is so sweet, nice action with the focus and zoom rings and the LCD is spectacular! So no dis to the EX 1.

Another question: can anyone confirm or deny that the aesthetics of 720p in the HMC are more pleasing than 1080p? Because I have read this several times on other forums and a client mentioned it as well and I'm just wondering if there is any reason this could be the case.

I have to say - when I saw a thread comparing these two cameras I was pleasantly surprised considering the price difference. Almost astonished actually because on paper these two cameras are apples and oranges. The chips (CMOS vs CCD, 1/3 vs 1/2), the glass (fujinon vs leica), the codecs and the price alone. Then there is the results and the judge of those results.

I'd say that the fact that this thread exists at all and has been going on for so long may be a good case that the HMC 150 is by far the winner if you are judging ONLY on BANG FOR YOUR BUCK.

One last thing. I've been a member for a while and have used my access just as a voyeour. My apologies - I'll make an effort to contribute to discussion as much as I feel worthy to do because these threads have been invaluable to me and mine over the years. Thanks to all of you and hope you have an awesome turn of the year!!
 
Last edited:
I agree with amrrahmy that xdcam is an accepted HD standard, however if you get the results you want from the hmc then go for that. Also you can convert the footage from the 150 to DVCPRO which is also an HD standard.
 
DVCpro HD is interesting, would a broadcaster accept the footage from the hmc, even if they don't accept avchd if you convert it to dvchd pro?
 
ilauzirika said:
DVCpro HD is interesting, would a broadcaster accept the footage from the hmc, even if they don't accept avchd if you convert it to dvchd pro?
Click to expand...


You can convert it to RED or film, but it's still no better than when it started. If it's good enough when it starts, then it is no matter what you convert it to.
 
PerroneFord said:
You can convert it to RED or film, but it's still no better than when it started. If it's good enough when it starts, then it is no matter what you convert it to.
Click to expand...
true true, but if you can get he same results with a hpx170 and a hmc150, but they only accept the footage from the hpx because it is dvcpro hd, would they accept the footage from the hmc if you converted it?

I'm not talking about quality but the container of the video....
 
Why saddle it with a 1280x1080 downconvert when it stated life at 1920x1080 (or 960x540x2). Hand them a disk with the footage with a 4:2:2, i-frame, full raster file of your choosing. I'm liking the Avid DNxHD more and more every day. But there are plenty others out there.
 
I think what switched me over completely to Panasonic HVX/HPX/HMC cams is this film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwoIv3pMo-g&fmt=22

Done with an HVX200/Redrock rig (probably the noisiest rig ever).
And even with these conditions with the proper lighting he managed to produce a beautiful film.
Image is stunning!
I watched tons of EX1 footage and shot with it myself and have yet to find a video that achieved this kind of look.
Sure, the EX1 is A LOT sharper and MUCH CLEANER and WAY BETTER in low light, but for some reason it still has that video-look and the HVX/HPX/HMC has something a lot more like film.
EX1 is a versatile camera fit for almost anything and would be far better than any panasonic for HD TV work.
But if features, shorts or SD video is my main goal than the panasonic is a better choice for making it look a lot more like film.

I would really like it if someone could explain why is it this way, what makes the panasonic image look that much different?

BTW: if I had the budget for an HPX170 P2 workflow, I would choose the EX1... simply because I believe that a good Film-Like image can be produced with this camera but not really sure how... It is a better camera overall...
 
lirany said:
...it look a lot more like film.

I would really like it if someone could explain why is it this way, what makes the panasonic image look that much different?
Click to expand...

I don't know but this could be a factor (certainly not the only one)
My friend told me that he has to boost the reds a lot in post with his EX1. He suspects it has something to do with the way that CMOS sees color different than CCD. Panasonic is warmer Sony is greener?

But there's more to it than that. Panasonic started the 24P and got it right the first time. And there's more to it than that. I just don't know what it is. Shutter technology is important for aesthetics. No accounting for taste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top