hmc150 vs. hvx200: no clear answer.

I had my 150 stuff air everyweek for 7 weeks in a row.. first 6 were all HVX but then after that.. it was a mix with the priority going to the 150.


Even Barry.. our beloved hero and mentor said that the 150 was in a lot of ways producing better footage than the original HVX. Barry's review as well as others were what made me take the plunge and I'm happy to have done so. The 150 is the new DVX and more and more people will be catching on. I"m getting hired now by professional crews that are shooting with the 150. NOT the HVX, Not the 170, and not the EX1... but the 150. It's certainly gaining a bit of respect and even if just for longform shooting... that's fine with me.
 
It gets transfered and mixed on a multiformat timeline and delivered in whatever format the network wants and I don't think they could tell the difference in what was shot with what. I bet no one here could tell if I posted clips and people could pick. It's just marketing and fluff to call things standard. I still see networks shooting on the DVX and those first generation Sony HDs'. My buddy right now is shooting for AandE on one of those older Sony HD... so it's more about the content than ever before.
 
Okay I think you may not be understanding what I am saying.
The images are fine no question but the 150 does not have some things that other cameras used for broadcasting have.
 
That's true Hidef but users might think that they cant do anything for broadcast at all.
I was wondering the same thing for a while until I got a gig for broadcast and I knew my inner HMC 150 would kick ass.
 
Everts said:
You can definetly use this camera for broadcast.
I can't post any footy or screens sorry about that but HMC 150 footage has been aired lastnight on a european Cable Company. And probably not the first time.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. The footage is great for broadcast but I meant the media was not. I was not clear on my response.
 
150 footage looks better than the original HVX, yes. But not better than an HVX200A or 170; there they're pretty comparable. And the HVX can do lots of things the 150 can't, such as variable frame rates (36 fps slow-mo, or 44fps, or 2fps light streaks, etc). Time lapse, loop record, standard-def, 4:3, etc. Then there's P2 costs vs. SD costs, and P2's infrastructure of editing support vs. AVCHD's currently more complicated editing path. Then there's file sizes, 150 files can take up 1/5 the space of HVX/HPX170 files.

The way I sum it up is this: if money is no object, the HPX170 is equal to or better in all ways vs. the HMC150. But if money *is* an object, the HMC150 offers almost all the right stuff at a substantial discount, and the recording media is way cheaper too.
 
Said well Barry. I love that there's a choice and we are free to make it. Cheers and what new things are you up to? An HMC150 book?
 
Geez Barry.

Aren't your fingers getting tired with all the responses you've typed since your return?

Great to have you back. :)

We are so conflicted on keeping our 170 versus buying another 150 and selling the 170.

Three things need to get better:

1. Native editing on a Mac in RT;

2. AVCHD to p2 converter on a Mac;

3. AVCHD viewer on a Mac.

I also see that Neat has released a noise removal filter for AE8/9 on the Mac. Once that gets to FCP, things will look good. Or at least gooder.
 
Based on the objectives you describe -- the HPX would be a rather bad option -- and the HMC will "kick ass" for about the next two years. Furthermore, if you learn how to make an HMC "sing," (and that takes learning and practice) you'll be producing broadcast and/or film quality results.

I've now spent over two months shooting the HPX and HMC side by side -- the bottom line is that the HPX is an ideal low cost camera for the P2 workflow. If you're not locked in to the P2 workflow, buying into P2 just for the HPX is not an intelligent option.

It's possible to make lame images with an HPX in the exact same way it's possible to make lame images with the HMC. The better stuff from either camera is a matter of "art" in capture and post production. And, the better stuff from either cam is essentially indistinguishable -- except maybe by scientists at Panasonic laboratories. When was the last time your targeted audience were the scientists at the Panasonic laboratories?

Relative to a general audience, even keying is difficult to distinguish. The difference comes down to movie special effects applications -- and if you're shooting a feature film with keying for major special effects -- you probably shouldn't be using an HPX in the first place.

The bottom line is that the HPX is an ideal low cost camera for TV stations who have already invested in the P2 workflow. For the aspiring independent film maker crowd -- the HMC is the best option for about the next two years (the "Scarlet" is the "wildcard," to my statement -- but they're now saying "Fall 2009" availability for immediate family members -- so it may be more than a year before your average space alien can get his hands on one).

The big shift will come when AVC-Intra can be written to low cost "SDHC" type cards (probably with some kind of adapter module like some are now using with Sony models), and low cost cards that write in excess of 100mb per second are less than two years away.

SO -- yes, go for the HMC, learn it well, and especially learn all you can learn about post production. Within a year you'll be producing stuff that makes the "pros" in NYC and LA fear for their professional lives -- and by the time you get out of college you'll be ready to make your fortune.

Best of luck!
 
Justyn said:
Of course people who've invested in P2 and or pushing a more expensive cam, will slight the 150 but that's not giving the cam a fair shake. I owned both for a few months and the HVX got sold. I didn't buy the 170 like I though, I bought the better bang for the buck and frankly.. the difference is so slight so why bother with the expense. As the economy and the industry at large require better values, why be saddled with 8-9 grand in start up on a HVX200a, when 4k will get you rocking on a 150 and you could buy two for the same price.
Click to expand...

Not this P2 investor.....for a startup company, or indie guy the HMC150 is a much better investment. I work for a Panny dealer in dallas, and have been able to put my hands on the HMC demo we have quite a bit. Honestly I like it better than my 2 HVX200's because I am not always looking for how much time is available on the card, and when I'm going to have to pull out the laptop to offload my card. SDHC cards make tapeless recording affordable to indie film makers, and you dont have to spend big bucks on a card reader, or on multiple duel adapters because they keep frying out. 15 bucks for an SDHC reader and you are done. This camera is a no brainer purchase for someone in the market for a high quality HD camera in the $3500-4000 price range. It smokes all of its HDV competition without even a second look.
 
AGMedia said:
Based on the objectives you describe -- the HPX would be a rather bad option -- and the HMC will "kick ass" for about the next two years. Furthermore, if you learn how to make an HMC "sing," (and that takes learning and practice) you'll be producing broadcast and/or film quality results.

I've now spent over two months shooting the HPX and HMC side by side -- the bottom line is that the HPX is an ideal low cost camera for the P2 workflow. If you're not locked in to the P2 workflow, buying into P2 just for the HPX is not an intelligent option.

It's possible to make lame images with an HPX in the exact same way it's possible to make lame images with the HMC. The better stuff from either camera is a matter of "art" in capture and post production. And, the better stuff from either cam is essentially indistinguishable -- except maybe by scientists at Panasonic laboratories. When was the last time your targeted audience were the scientists at the Panasonic laboratories?

Relative to a general audience, even keying is difficult to distinguish. The difference comes down to movie special effects applications -- and if you're shooting a feature film with keying for major special effects -- you probably shouldn't be using an HPX in the first place.

The bottom line is that the HPX is an ideal low cost camera for TV stations who have already invested in the P2 workflow. For the aspiring independent film maker crowd -- the HMC is the best option for about the next two years (the "Scarlet" is the "wildcard," to my statement -- but they're now saying "Fall 2009" availability for immediate family members -- so it may be more than a year before your average space alien can get his hands on one).

The big shift will come when AVC-Intra can be written to low cost "SDHC" type cards (probably with some kind of adapter module like some are now using with Sony models), and low cost cards that write in excess of 100mb per second are less than two years away.

SO -- yes, go for the HMC, learn it well, and especially learn all you can learn about post production. Within a year you'll be producing stuff that makes the "pros" in NYC and LA fear for their professional lives -- and by the time you get out of college you'll be ready to make your fortune.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...

I'm most interested in HMC 1080 vs. HPX 1080. What's your opinion on this? Most of the comparisons seem to be 720 vs. 720 but I really want as much detail as possible in what I will be shooting next and the extra 15% makes a big difference.
 
The sweet spot for the 150 is 720.

That being said, I don't see an appreciable difference betwee 1080 anything and 720 on the two cams. 15% difference balances out even if you can discern something depending on what it is delivered.
 
Me, I find the 1080 sharpen than 720. But I know that the 720 will be better for fast moving subject on the codec. I'll see with time.

But at this time, I shot in 1080 30p.
 
TO: markyf

I'm happy to answer your question -- but in fairness I should offer a few qualifications.

Foremost, I'm a producer -- not a tech guy. I'm a producer becoming a tech guy exclusively for the purpose of slashing production costs by previously unimaginable percentages.

THIS MEANS -- that I'm an average viewer type of person -- I don't have some marvelous, Panasonic lab tech eye for imaging formats. This also means that I may be representative of more general audiences -- as opposed to guys who have spent the past twenty years staring at video formats on monitors.

SO -- if Barry Green says I'm "wrong," I say go with Barry Green's opinion -- not mine!

To answer your question:

I'm disappointed by both the HPX170 and HMC150. That being said -- I'm less disappointed by the HPX and HMC than I am by anything with "SONY" printed on it.

To my untrained eye -- 1080 24p looks better than 720 anything on both cameras (I haven't messed with anything other than the HD formats). To my untrained eye -- I've never once seen an "artifact" on the HMC regardless of how much motion was going on. What is worse on the HMC is the "smear" during faster pans. Direct comparison is messy and difficult as I've seen grand slam HPX head shots and grand slam HMC nature shots -- and a whole bunch of muck from both. In a general sense I prefer the output of the HPX, but it's not so amazing that I'd jump to embrace all the headaches and costs of P2 over the complete lack of headaches associated with SDHC cards. In other words -- if P2 cards cost one hundred dollars -- I'd go with P2 and never look back. On the other hand, the notion of handing out five to ten thousand dollars worth of P2 cards along with a five thousand dollar camera to some kid I'm paying a few hundred bucks to film something is rather disturbing. And IF the kid comes back, then he'll say "Dude, I'm sorry, but I ran out of space."

With the above in mind -- the primary question on this end has become -- can footage from the HMC be upgraded enough in post production -- AND/OR -- can post production compensate for what's not on the HMC. So far, the answer is about 85% "Yes."

So, believe it or not, the answer to your question is above. The bottom line is that I intentionally avoided this discussion -- but when I saw in this post a high school kid about to burn his college rent/food money on "the P2 workflow," well, I just had to chime in with a response I hadn't seen offered.

Very best regards!
 
AGMedia said:
The bottom line is that I intentionally avoided this discussion -- but when I saw in this post a high school kid about to burn his college rent/food money on "the P2 workflow," well, I just had to chime in with a response I hadn't seen offered.

Very best regards!
Click to expand...

Thanks! I appreciate your opinion a lot, along with everyone else's who have posted. It's helped me significantly. I've been watching a ton of footage from the HMC, and am quickly realizing what a powerhouse it can be.

I just hope it can perform how I'd like when I want to shoot for slow motion (overcranking), because as I said before, I do a lot of music videos and action sports. Slowmo is critical. Anyone have experience with this particular aspect of it?
 
thenyfilmguy said:
I just hope it can perform how I'd like when I want to shoot for slow motion (overcranking), because as I said before, I do a lot of music videos and action sports. Slowmo is critical. Anyone have experience with this particular aspect of it?
Click to expand...

A few folks have posted that they would shoot the footage intended for slowmo in 720p/60, then dropped it into a 24p or 30p timeline with good results.

And I kinda have to concur with most of the other folks... unless this camera is going to generate a consistent revenue stream to warrant the P2 workflow, the HMC is going to be your better bet.

As far as the tape option you mentioned earlier, there is nothing that says you can't dupe the footage to tape using an cheap DV camera later. Solid state media is a lot more reliable than tape. Trust me, once you go tapeless, you'll never want to go back.
 
Having 60p (720) interpreted to 24p has worked very nicely in tests. Other than this, relative to the HMC the question goes directly to the capabilities of your post production software. The preliminary answer I've got at this time is that with the right frame blending mode in After Effects it works nicely -- but that's still preliminary. Conventional wisdom says that 1080 24p slow motion in post will be a nightmare -- and I'll be discovering if this is true for the HMC at some point in the next two weeks. So -- if you shoot in 60p at 720, yes, you'll get wonderful slo-mo. Other than that -- I don't yet know. If you're not in a rush and are interested, let me know, and I'll send you a message through this message board system with what I discover in the weeks ahead.

Again, all the best! It's a hell of an exciting time to be going off to college with either of these cams -- have fun!
 
Whoa!

High School? Let's look at the issues...what is your TOTAL budget and what do you have.

Your camera, IMHO, should be about 20% of your total equipment budget. However, if you are doing anything other than trivial, you need shooting budget also. Even if the actors and locations are free, props, transportation, food, backdrops, etc aren't.

In addition to the camera you need camera accessories (tripod, matte box, filters, hand held stabilizer/support), video editing software, script and storyboard software, editing hardware, lights, grip equipment, etc.

Then, you need perspective. What would you have bought if you were an HS student 5 years ago? An DVX-100 probably, maybe a DVX-100a, maybe not. Would you still be satisfied with that? You would have had to spend a bit to get a telephoto of note out of it.

There are other features you can add to improve your image beyond what is available in the camera. For example, you could also get a 35mm adapter like the Letus. Or Cineform software.

The HPX170 and HVX200 record in DVCProHD with 4:2:2 color space. Although there are AVCHD specs for a 4:2:2 (and even 4:4:4) color space, none currently have it. Sensors and lenses also have a way to go. However, the issue of lens quality, sensor quality, etc is very complex. This is a good way to spend an afternoon: http://media.panavision.com/ScreeningRoom/Screening_Room/Demystifying_Part1.html .

Canon and others have new HD camcorders in the $1000 range. And for that amount using a DSLR with external audio capture device (like the Zoom H4) is also a possibility.

Depending on what you are doing, will you be capturing HDMI with a Black Magic Intensity? Editing in Cineform format?

And in the end, the script will count more than any of the rest.

Now, I am here because I am intrigued by the HMC150. On a budget, among the prosumer Panasonics it is way to go on a budget. A P2 workflow will simply be too expensive and Panasonic has used their system to record AVCHD at SDHC data rates with quality close to DVProHD. Quite impressive.

However, you are probably better off buying a $1000-1500 camera...maybe even an older used camera HDV camera, focusing on the production, audio, post, light management, and planning for a new camera in 2-4 years.

My 2¢

P.S.
You can do the slowmo adequately in software. Editing, lighting, and camera position are going to be important for dramatic slow motion effects.

thenyfilmguy said:
I'm still in highschool, making this purchase to take me through all of my current productions and through college. Now I shoot mostly music videos and (action) sports, the two fields I'll most likely pursue after school as well. I'll be doing short films also, and am positive I'll need to key every now and again. I've also done some documentary work, interviews and such, but most of the mundane productions I've done (presentations, plays, etc.) have been with school, and not my cameras.


For my purposes, I'd like some nice slowmo options. Obviously I don't have a varicam budget, which is why I'm contemplating these cameras. I've used the DVX and HVX200 before, and love them both.

I know of the HPX, and the reason why I still choose the HVX over it is because of my own personal needs. With almost the same stats, the HVX still offers the tape option. When I'm shooting college productions on no budget, with no need for HD, I'm thinking I may stick with tape. However, I could be wrong. I just feel comforted by the option, as I've used miniDV or DVcam on nearly every single production I've done.

My two biggest concerns are simply:

  • cost
  • image quality
Which will give me the most bang for my buck, with not only the camera, but also the media (P2 and SD)?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top