HMC150 vs. The Cameras Getting Announced

AGMedia said:
"Pawn Stars" isn't an ideal to which to aspire in production terms.

The 150 and 200A are identical in terms of "front end" imaging. The difference is the codec and a handful of functions, including variable frame rates at 720. The experienced HMC150 guys will tell you that variable frame rates at 720 is pointless when you can shoot everything in 720/60p on an HMC150 (this statement might confuse some Final Cut Pro users).

Relative to HDSLR cameras or the footage you're seeing from the new Sony F3 -- the low light of the HMC150 is below dirt. Relative to video cameras of three years ago -- the low light of the HMC150 is competitive at the five thousand dollar price range. If low light is your major issue -- then jump into the HDSLR arena.

No. The HMC150 is sharper at 1080. That whole 720 is the "sweet spot" of the HMC150 started with Barry Green -- who later changed his mind and decided that 1080 was just as sweet.

Relative to HD style sharpness, the HMC150 is a disaster (ideal for people who don't like HD style sharpness), and regardless of the conspiracy theories about encoders adding noise to AVCCAM -- it's a noisy camera. It's a step up from the HMC40 in terms of professional controls, and it has 3 CCD sensors that lack all the current issues of CMOS sensors.

Bottom line -- for an extra two hundred bucks (at B&H) -- I can't imagine not going for the newer Canon with the BBC approved 4:2:2 codec and other features, including the ultimate in low light -- infrared.
Click to expand...

Well, I just meant that if a camera is good enough quality for national cable broadcast, it's probably adequate for my amateur needs. Yes, I shoot 720p60fps to give better speed options in post in FCP. I have a Canon 60D, but my needs are for a traditional video camera as well, and the reported 3-stops better low light of the 150 vs. the 40 seems like a pretty helpful bump up to me. Your Bottom Line comment is exactly what I've been thinking, but I was just wanting further input. And, yes, I own a DVC30 and its infared has been surprisingly useful.

Thanks for your thoughts....
 
newer Canon with the BBC approved 4:2:2 codec
Click to expand...
No such thing. Alan Roberts tested and approved XF300/305 for HD programming, but he clearly states the criteria. The camera has to have good enough imager and coder. Some cameras will get conditional approval, like AF100, where the coder is falling short. mpeg2 50Mbs is required minimum for HD programming both for BBC and Discovery (Discovery Gold), but lets be clear on that one- BBC doesn't approve just codecs, it approves cameras. By the initial reaction from Mr. Roberts doesn't look like XF100 will win the approval. Doesn't change that it is a great camera.
 
peterarcson said:
Correct me if I am mistaken, but HMC150 doesn't even have 720 native resolution on the CCD block. It tops off at 960x540. What it also lacks is LCPM sound. LCD/VF resolution was also pretty bad. As the matter of fact I bought it, used it for a day and returned it. Actually DVX footage after the uprez with InstantHD almost looked better then HMC150.


I understand not liking something overall and returning it, but HMC150s (and many Panasonics) are known for needing tweaking and re-tweaking to be at their best. Just check out two new threads of users HATING the AF100 their first week and now loving it. Also as far as footage looking better from one camera to the next is very subjective. I've viewed countless well shot clips from the XF100, the HMC150, and the A1s and so far (to my eyes) they all look great....just different. I keep hearing how camera A blows away camera B and IMO the only time I've seen this phrase actually fit is when the cameras are in totally different classes.....
Also the controls are a matter of taste as well....The HMC has 2 lens rings vs 1 on the XF. The HMC has switchable NDs vs auto only on the XF, the HMC is not as menu driven overall as the XF, some may like the XFs smaller form factor...some won't. The LCD/VF is better on the XF. The codec is better on the XF. The XF is sharper.
I do understand the love for the XF....but the HMC150 has a lot of love for it as well.
Click to expand...
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I understand not liking something overall and returning it, but HMC150s (and many Panasonics) are known for needing tweaking and re-tweaking to be at their best. Just check out two new threads of users HATING the AF100 their first week and now loving it. Also as far as footage looking better from one camera to the next is very subjective. I've viewed countless well shot clips from the XF100, the HMC150, and the A1s and so far (to my eyes) they all look great....just different. I keep hearing how camera A blows away camera B and IMO the only time I've seen this phrase actually fit is when the cameras are in totally different classes.....
Also the controls are a matter of taste as well....The HMC has 2 lens rings vs 1 on the XF. The HMC has switchable NDs vs auto only on the XF, the HMC is not as menu driven overall as the XF, some may like the XFs smaller form factor...some won't. The LCD/VF is better on the XF. The codec is better on the XF. The XF is sharper.
I do understand the love for the XF....but the HMC150 has a lot of love for it as well.
Click to expand...
First of all- I think calling a camera 960x540 an HD camera is kind of a joke at this day and age. I mean it's good as uprezed picture, but let's get real- when you look at finer detail you'll see the difference between 1080 native (like EX1) and pixel shift technology. Anyway- to me HMC150 was disappointment, mostly due to weak LCD and extremely soft picture. I understand about the need to tweak the camera, but I simply was not impressed.
There is no ideal camera, but right now it will be very hard to beat XF100 when it comes to performance vs price comparison.
 
peterarcson said:
First of all- I think calling a camera 960x540 an HD camera is kind of a joke at this day and age. I mean it's good as uprezed picture, but let's get real- when you look at finer detail you'll see the difference between 1080 native (like EX1) and pixel shift technology. Anyway- to me HMC150 was disappointment, mostly due to weak LCD and extremely soft picture. I understand about the need to tweak the camera, but I simply was not impressed.
There is no ideal camera, but right now it will be very hard to beat XF100 when it comes to performance vs price comparison.
Click to expand...

Yeah...that's fair. I concede it's not the sharpest camera in the world and quite honestly the LCDs on a lot of the Panasonics need upgrading. I had a chance to get an HVX 200 for a really good price and I was pretty disappointed with the LCD myself, but the only reason I didn't buy it was the condition upon close inspection. The previous owner somehow managed to really scratch the EVF glass, crack the bottom of the camera, and it just plain looked un-cared for.
You and others have definitely given me pause in my search for a camera....I'm looking at anything from the XF100/HMC150 range up to the FS100/AF100 range. I just have an HFS200 now...and it's actually really good, so I guess I can imagine the XF 100's quality.
 
peterarcson said:
No such thing.
Click to expand...

I refer you back to what I wrote. That Canon codec was approved for full acquisition in the XF305 PAL variant by the BBC. As opposed to XDCAM EX or AVCCAM that has been approved for nothing in any camera. I did not write that the XF100 (or whatever PAL variant) had been approved for complete content acquisition by the BBC.

The codec was approved for full content acquisition by the BBC. Such thing.
 
peterarcson said:
First of all- I think calling a camera 960x540 an HD camera is kind of a joke at this day and age.
Click to expand...

Here's a post from Barry Green where he states "The HMC150 produces an image that has about 1440x810 worth of detail."

"Questions about the HMC150" thread from last year

Lots of other tidbits in Barry's post: "its twin brother the HPX170 (the exact same camera head, but a different recording format) is the main handheld camera for all NBC News stations"
 
AGMedia said:
I refer you back to what I wrote. That Canon codec was approved for full acquisition in the XF305 PAL variant by the BBC. As opposed to XDCAM EX or AVCCAM that has been approved for nothing in any camera. I did not write that the XF100 (or whatever PAL variant) had been approved for complete content acquisition by the BBC.

The codec was approved for full content acquisition by the BBC. Such thing.
Click to expand...
No, the codec was not "approved"- it simply complies with the minimum requirement for BBC broadcast. Like I stated, they don't approve codecs and cameras separate. The program has to be shot with the list of approved cameras and when delivered it has to be MPEG2 Long GOP 50Mbs minimum. So no, contrary to what you are saying there is no such thing as approved codec. There is a technical minimum requirement for delivered content, which in case of XF300/305 it barely makes it. But codec is not approved, what is being approved is the block and coder.
 
Back to the OPs original question-

The XF 100
Pros: 4:2:2 codec, sharp resolution, great image adjustments, great LCD/VF, overcranking/undercranking, Good selection of framerates @ 1080 and 720
Cons: No manual ND filter selection, limited physical controls on body and lens...more controls via menu than larger cams like XF300/A1s/HMC150, single 1/3" sensor, 10x 1.8 lens is a bit slower/less range than the HMC

The HMC150
Pros: Great Image adjustments, good selection of framerates @ 1080 and 720, 3ccds means no skew, base sensitivity of 500 iso, 1.6 13x lens , good physical controls/nd filters
Cons: Softer image, poor LCD, bigger and heavier than the other cams, 4:2:0 codec (vs the XFs 4:2:2), no in camera overcrank/undercrank (vs the XF)

The NX70
Pros: Dust proof/weather proof, can record direct to hard drive,1080 60P, wide angle lens 26mm, great LCD
Cons: Image adjustments no where near the XF and HMC, limited frame rates/resolutions - no 720p at all, single 1/2.88" sensor taken directly from consumer cams, very limited physical controls, no manual ND filters

The XA10
Pros: Costs $1000 less than the others, smaller and lighter might be of use, sharp resolution, great LCD.
Cons: Less on body controls than XF or HMC, single 1/3" sensor, image adjustments no where near XF and HMC, no manual ND filters

The XF100 and HMC150 stand out to me as the most fully featured options.
The NX70 seems to be designed for serious field/news/doc work for use in any environment- and unless you need it for this it has a limited feature set compared to the XF/HMC.
The XA10 has great features for the price, but if you have the budget it has a limited feature set compared to the XF/HMC

All of them should be able to produce great imagery...it's up to you to decide the features you value the most.
 
I think it all depends on the needs. Comparing ultra compact Xf100 with HMC 150 is kind of pointless. Much more fair would be comparing HMC-40. If you compare HMC-150 you should compare it to XF300, Sony NX5 and other cameras of similar physical size. Of course you can't cram 3 separate rings on something like HMC-40 or XF100. Personally HMC150 lacked for me the resolution, uncompressed sound, and LCD. HPX170 most likely gets by with poor imager, as the compression is not destroying picture as much as AVCCAM.
As far as electronics goes, I always try to buy newer gear and unfortunately at the moment HMC-150 is a bit behind on features. I think if you already own one, it can last for a while, but if you are just buying a brand spanking new I would buy something more up to date.
 
peterarcson said:
I think it all depends on the needs. Comparing ultra compact Xf100 with HMC 150 is kind of pointless. Much more fair would be comparing HMC-40.
Click to expand...

I agree, the XF100 is more of a small form factor camera for those that need small size ahead of ergonomics and professional controls. The 150 is more of a proper camera, like the XF300. If you want a very compact camera the XF100 looks great, but if you want a more professional type camera with better manual controls, the 150 is great for this. Personally I think that the sharpness is a bit of a red herring unless you are going to be supplying you product mainly on Blu-Ray Disc etc.

Actually the picture quality of the AVCCAM is very similar to the DVCPro HD, almost indistinguishable unless you are doing a lot of keying where the advantage of 422 make a bit of a difference.
 
TheDingo said:
The Canon XF100 looks quite interesting, but I have a couple of issues that I would want to check out before buying one:

1- How good is the color from the single-chip sensor ? ( with some of the comparisons I've seen with the older Canon XH-A1, the XF-100 looks weak in terms of color quality )

2- How flare prone is the XF-100 lens ? ( some of the XF-100 sample videos appeared to have a lot of lens flare )
Click to expand...

I work on a group XF100.

1. The color profile straight out of the box is very flat but lots of room to bring it up in post. Video C preset has more color. Do not worry about the color if you do grading in post, it will shine.

2. The lens is flare prone. Sorry, but it is. Biggest fault with the design. Can work around it easily. Not sure if it is the lens or the processing as the flares are worse on the recorded image than on the LCD.

Overall a nice camera, but one that you must dial in by using the nearly infinite image profile settings.
 
studio1972 said:
I agree, the XF100 is more of a small form factor camera for those that need small size ahead of ergonomics and professional controls. The 150 is more of a proper camera, like the XF300.
Click to expand...
I think they are both professional cameras, however designed to do different things. I think XF100 is great for situations, where even medium size of XF300 would be too much (either drawing too much attention or physically too big to carry). I think XF100 also is less intimidating for getting these hard to get interviews. But if one thinks XF100 is "do it all you" - a big mistake imo. But both are very pro cameras, my point is that HMC150 is a bit outdated at the moment, but so is A1.
 
Yeah the AC130 is looking like an HMC150 replacement to me. It has everything the HMC has, but better. Better LCD, better VF, better/longer lens, 3 lens rings, DV recording in addition to all the usual HD resolutions and framerates, 1080 60P according to the presentation....but not on the spec sheets. Full HD chips....it's looking like a very nice camera for under $4000.
 
Barry, if these new cams use the same chipset as the HPX370, and giving that they have the same lowlight sensitivity, noise, etc., how would they compare to an HMC150 in lowlight?
 
Denwa said:
Barry, if these new cams use the same chipset as the HPX370, and giving that they have the same lowlight sensitivity, noise, etc., how would they compare to an HMC150 in lowlight?
Click to expand...

By Barry's numbers the HMC150 is 500 ISO and the HPX370 is 600 ISO...so hopefully that means the new cams will share the sensitivity of the 370 and be better in low light than the HMC150. What's promising is that Jan didn't say these cams have "similar" chips or something along those lines, she said they're the same chips.
One thing Mike Harvey pointed out in another thread is that we need to know the MAX aperture of the new lens - Hopefully it's a 1.6
 
I keep wondering if the AC160 is a 4.2.0 or 4.2.2 and the bit rate. Still have no answer or maybe I missed something. Apologies if I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top