HMC150 vs SI2k vs Viper - does make sence?

Peter Wayne

Peter Wayne

Member
don't know how correct I am on this topic. just had a thought in mind.

how good is HMC150 in making a theatrical film?
since many cameras who shot films, i am talking about si2k which has res of 2048x1152 which is close to 1080p and thomson viper which is true 1080p.

these two cams are used for slumdog millionaire and zodiac respectively.
and even genesis has final output in 1080p which is used in more than 20 hollywood biggies.

now the question is the compression. is the quality of avchd in hmc150 really capable of giving filmout after editing? and can uncompressed output could compete with the viper or genesis?

does this topic really makes sence or is it something like.... - "what?, are you crazy?"
 
Yes ,....it's good enough to make a film.


The question should be is one a good enough storyteller to make a film that will hold the audience attention for more than a 60 minutes ? ( or just 1 :) )

Crank 2 was shot on hdv cameras the canon xha1, its no slumdog but it's a film.
Get a good story , good actors , good setting ,......and so on.
Blair Witch project part 1 ofcourse ...ring any bells.

Goodluck.
 
I did some tests with the HPX170 (which is similar to the HMC150 CCD, lense and feature wise) and found that it creates scaling artifacts in X. I will talk about it in detail in a future post.

If the HMC150 is similar to the HPX170 in terms of quality of the output, this scaling artifact could then hinder your final product's look, especially on a theater screen.

The Panavision Genesis technically has a 5760 X 2160 CCD. The CCD's width is close to the width of film.
The Viper technically has a 1920 X 4320 CCD.
The HMC150 has three 960 X 540 native CCDs.

The price of these camera ranges between 4k and about fifty times that, depending on the lenses you use ;)

So to answer your question: The HMC150 does not even compare with the above cameras - yes, you crazy man - but you could still make a movie with it.
 
For good and bad, the camera is only a small part as people have said on this forum.. time after time, and it really is the content that is king. Celebration, which is one of my favorite films was shot on a singlechip DV cam... albeit, for aethetic reasons it fit what was going on, but it worked and it worked very well.


People end up heralding or putting down cameras for something lacking in them. If you shot something great on a cell phone, people would watch it. The crappy look of Clerks didn't hurt that film from getting to be quite big.


A craftsman uses the tools that he has... some tend to blame the tools on the final out-put and maybe there's a bit of merit in that... but its more in terms of what the filmmaker does between the framelines.


I say, screw the nay sayers and shoot your stuff on whatever you can afford and make it as signifigant as you can...
 
You cannot compare a HMC150 and a Viper or a Genesis or an F35.

They aren't even close to the same league. The high end digital cinema systems offer unique system customization. Something you can't get in prosumer cameras.

Image isn't just resolution.
 
If the DVX (SD!) got as much recognition as it did (Sundance, the OSCARS) I will say that you can make a movie and have it do very, very well at every level there is in the game.

It will never compete with the above cameras though.
 
And it won't ever be as big a pain in the ass. The crew on Miami Vice that I know hated shooting on whatever it was that they did. I think the Viper. Just was a lot to deal with and not without its share of bugs.. Kind of similar to another recent camera revolution.. one in which you might have to start and stop the camera quite a few times for it to finally stay on.. and maybe not even record when you think it is.. but people will struggle through things if the footage looks killer.
 
"Open Water" was shot on SD MiniDV Sony cameras so I don't see why the HD 150 couldn't be used.
It is about content in the end.

Do you really think that this is a FAIR comparison however?
Seems a little misplaced...
Crazy in fact.
 
Last edited:
Look man. the main deal here is:

1)The quality of the cameras and new technologies (such as HD, 2k, DV, etc..) It mesaures because of its comparison to 35mm and s16mm. And the main problem there is that they are going to say for a long time that the best quality for a film to look good is the film himself. Now. That makes a problem when it comes to talk about digital cinema. Because you have to transfer the digital to film. and thats when you lose quality or either you amplify the digital media and it looks bad...But the truth is that if you reproduce your digital movie in a digital projector. Its going to look fine...Of course you get better quality on film. lattitude. colours. etc, But you have to ask yourself if your project can exist without that luxury, if your answer is yes. I wouldnt care making a movie with either DV or HD, etc. Now. if you are planing into transfer the tape. I would suggest something from DVCPROHD and avobe...


2) If the quality of the realization (I mean good audio, photogrphy, acting, script. etc) Are good. the public wouldnt give a s"#$t and they will enjoy the movie just how it is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top