HMC150 vs Hvx200
- Thread starter Dvx Kid
- Start date
AlpineSteez
Active member
HVX original vs. HMC150? HMC150 for sure.
Anomie
Well-known member
They (the rest of this forum) know a lot more than I do about this, so it's kind of stupid that I am answering. But from one newer dude to another:
HVX is more 'pro'. The media it writes to is the P2 card. Those are costly but very reliable (but if you're doing something big with it, it's cheaper than tape and safer than SDHC). The HMC uses de AVCHD codec (that's apparently not realy professional) and writes to SDHC cards (cheap, pretty-but-not-completely reliable).
HMC is what you'd want if you were you and me. The HVX is something you'd drool at.
At least that's what I think.
Jasper
HVX is more 'pro'. The media it writes to is the P2 card. Those are costly but very reliable (but if you're doing something big with it, it's cheaper than tape and safer than SDHC). The HMC uses de AVCHD codec (that's apparently not realy professional) and writes to SDHC cards (cheap, pretty-but-not-completely reliable).
HMC is what you'd want if you were you and me. The HVX is something you'd drool at.
At least that's what I think.
Jasper
Anomie
Well-known member
Because the HVX is much more expensive: the secondhand ones on ebay are still sold for quite a lot of money. The HMC is less expensive. Secondhand on ebay they can't be very old, so they have lost some value. Pure coincidence made you search/look at them at the point that they are in the same pricerange. The first has lost more value but was more expensive, the second was cheaper but has lost less value as it isn't that old. (That's the same answer twice in one answer I think, but okay...)
Does this make any sense?
Does this make any sense?
Roberto Suarez
Active member
Also FCP can read p2 files native, and p2 files can be 100mbs and 4:2:2.
Native gives you no "generation loss", 100mbs gives you almost no artifact, and 4:2:2 gives you better color compresion (great for green screen and pure palette: big-fat reds, blues, etc)
Native gives you no "generation loss", 100mbs gives you almost no artifact, and 4:2:2 gives you better color compresion (great for green screen and pure palette: big-fat reds, blues, etc)
If you're comparing the HVX-200 to the HMC-150--HMC-150 wins flat out. It has a faster lens and is sharper.
HVX-200A vs. HMC-150....tougher to call. Depends what you're doing and what you need. Picture quality, they're both pretty similar that the average person probably couldn't tel the difference between the two of them.
The biggest separating factor is recording media and codec. Plus, the HMC-150 can't record SD footage, doesn't have variable framerates (it has 60p, but no intervelometer functionality), and doesn't have a 4-2-2 color space.
You need to decide what you want and what works best for you. If you don't need the tape deck of the HVX, I'd suggest going with the HPX-170.
blondie.
Active member
This, all of this. I was waiting for someone to finally say this. To be honest, I'm making a similar decision and researched it for a long time, finally coming to the conclusion that AVCHD scared me and that I'd rather go into P2 - hence the HVX, but NOT the HVX200p - if you're going to get an HVX, it better be the 200a. The 200a came out around the same time as the HMC/HPX, and is MUCH less grainy than the original HVX200. I can link you to some articles about it if you want.
If you're young and you can't afford the P2 media, just go for the HMC (assuming your computer can handle AVCHD). The real differences between the two as I see them are this:
HMC: No tape deck, no SD recording, AVCHD, 4:2:0 color sampling, SDHC cards
HVX: Tape deck, SD recording, DVCProHD, 4:2:2 color sampling, P2 cards
Its checks and balances homie, gotta figure out what will work best for you.
Barry_Green
Moderator
But it doesn't do variable frame rates, it doesn't record 4:2:2, and it doesn't record standard-def, and it doesn't have a DV tape drive; the HVX has all those. So you can't just declare one or the other the winner, only the prospective purchaser can do that, after evaluating his own needs.
As far as raw image quality goes, I would give the HMC150 the edge over the HVX200, even considering the 4:2:2, because the HMC150's a lot cleaner and brighter and has better color accuracy.
But against the 200A, that's a different story, and once again it comes down to the features differences.
True, Barry. Sorry for jumping the gun.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hey, no prob, and thanks for weighing in, I'm just saying it's not easy to keep everyone's perspective in mind when making a response; I know I've made declarations before when only considering the USA/NTSC market and all our PAL friends are like "hey, wait..."
So, yeah, no worries, I'm just pointing out that every user's needs are what they have to make the decision on, and sometimes people need things that we would just never consider important.
For example, here's another one I just thought of -- the HVX does time-lapse/intervalometer recording, and the HMC150 doesn't. If that was crucial to the O.P.'s needs, then that makes the HVX the choice, even if the HMC is less expensive and brighter, etc.
So, yeah, no worries, I'm just pointing out that every user's needs are what they have to make the decision on, and sometimes people need things that we would just never consider important.
For example, here's another one I just thought of -- the HVX does time-lapse/intervalometer recording, and the HMC150 doesn't. If that was crucial to the O.P.'s needs, then that makes the HVX the choice, even if the HMC is less expensive and brighter, etc.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Time lapse... when you film a long event a frame every once in a while, but it plays back really quickly, like when they show a building being built in two minutes, but in fact the camera was running for six months. Or it's used for flowers opening up, or clouds moving across the sky, or traffic patterns, stuff like that.
Anomie
Well-known member
There are three ways of making a timelaps, Dvx Kid. Intervalrecording (and speeding that up till a smooth motion appears (I had a DVX doing interval recording on a the entrance and the square in front of a Courthouse for 39 hours. Gave me a clip that would take something like 3 minutes to play. Cut it back to 00:00-24:00 so I had one complete day and made that play at 400% speed. left me with a nice 40 seconds.)
The second way would be taking stills (that's like 1 frame instead of 0.5 second like the above) in the same interval way. Kind of stop-motion thing. The DVX can't do that (at least mine doesn't)
The third way you know. It's how Aron Schultz (Aschu) made his 6.5 hour Timelaps on the DVX!. That's continuous recording and playing it back at high speed.
Back to the HVX/HMC thing: HVX has the option of intervalrecording. The HMC hasn't got that. Neither of them do the stills approach and every camera can do the continuous recording thing, until the storage runs out of disc/tape/card-space.
Jasper
The second way would be taking stills (that's like 1 frame instead of 0.5 second like the above) in the same interval way. Kind of stop-motion thing. The DVX can't do that (at least mine doesn't)
The third way you know. It's how Aron Schultz (Aschu) made his 6.5 hour Timelaps on the DVX!. That's continuous recording and playing it back at high speed.
Back to the HVX/HMC thing: HVX has the option of intervalrecording. The HMC hasn't got that. Neither of them do the stills approach and every camera can do the continuous recording thing, until the storage runs out of disc/tape/card-space.
Jasper