HMC40 - First Look

I got to thinking about shooting in low level light with the HMC40...

Assume the 1/60 of a second is the shutter speed, switching to 1/30 or even 1/15 would help bring in the equivalent of +6dB (1 stop) or +12dB (2 stops) of "gain" via the longer shutter.

Now it just won't work with anything that moves quickly, but for weddings, it might work. A shutter speed of 1/15 is like shooting at 15P and seems to be the lowest one can go without a bad strobe like effect.

I saw some footage from Europe that was shot at 25P and used a 1/12.5 shutter; while OK, it seemed a bit too strobe like.


Bob Diaz
 
I have some poor low light cameras where I have tried (even a few weeks ago) 1/15 shutter speed. I would consider it totally unusable for a paid gig.

1/30 is usable, but just barely in a 60i shoot.
 
Cranky said:
Does this mean that the 150 and the 100 have pretty much the same sensitivity? Interesting.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I tested it; the 150 needed some more gain as I remember but noise to noise the 150 blew the 100 out of the water. Especially when downconverted to SD. A 150 downconverted to SD is better than a DVX100, no questions asked, especially in 16:9.
 
I would agree, 15p is way too much. 1/30 = 30p, which many would find acceptable and it gives you another stop of sensitivity; the tradeoff being that while there is no noise added, there is substantial blur added.
 
Barry,
Have you had time to consider the applicability of your HMC150 book to the HMC40. I asked earlier in another thread, but that was before you had your HMC40. I'd like some additional information and I am hoping that your HMC150 book will serve.

Obviously there are some missing buttons; some unique behavior (iris - aperture, ND and gain); some missing capability (vector scope, scene file handling); and some additional capability (interval recording and still images) - but it still seems like a lot in common.

One particular area that I was hoping for a better discussion was Master Pedestal and that seems to be handled differently on the HMC40. If there is a mapping between the HMC40 and the HMC150, then once I know the mapping then understanding the HMC150 should be transferable.
 
Much would be applicable, but much isn't. Anything to do with workflow or the AVCCAM format or the recording formats is directly applicable, yes. And most of the scene file stuff, and the waveform, yes. Details related to the zoom, the focus ring behavior, missing info talking about the HMC40's new features like interval recording, different behavior of the focus assist and focus button, changes like the WFM button and EVF DTL being moved over to a user button, make it a bit of a stretch. I considered whether I could combine the two into a future "HMC Book" like I did with the HVX & HPX170, but I don't know if it'd get annoying to the reader, having to always spell out these minor but important differences... it may be that the HMC40 needs its own guide. I am undecided on that as of yet; if any revision happens it's months away.

So yes, if you're willing to translate from the HMC150's layout over to the HMC40's, then yes much/most of the HMC150 Book's info will directly apply. But there are a whole lot of things that are different and obviously stuff like the audio section (HMC40's external XLRs on an optional adapter) wouldn't be covered at all, as well as stuff like its still-photo capability...
 
So what's the general feeling on the hmc40? Good or bad? Buy or don't buy?
I am waiting on the sidelines here trying to figure it out.
 
Depends on your needs. For what it is, a pro camcorder with most of the HMC150's features for $1995, I think it rocks. But if it's not what you need, don't buy. So what uses would you be putting it to?
 
shreddog said:
So what's the general feeling on the hmc40? Good or bad? Buy or don't buy?
I am waiting on the sidelines here trying to figure it out.
Click to expand...

Like you, I'm on the sidelines watching closely. There are some conclusions I've come to so far:

(1) Given enough light, the image can be VERY good. It appears to be sharper than the HMC-150 and one can increase the color saturation to get the "Panasonic Look".

(2) Compared to the HMC-150, low level lighting is a bigger challenge for the HMC-40. This means with poor lighting the image is going to be very dark, have lots of noise, or strong blurring/strobe like effect due to slow shutter. (The user has to decide how to deal with it and adjust for it.)

(3) To me, both the XLR adapter (add $300) and a wide angle adapter (add $200) would be required with the HMC-40. The good news is that an extra battery may not be required for the HMC-40.


DV Expo is just 9 days away so I can't wait to get my hands on one to see and feel what it's like. I hope I'll be able to slip a memory card into the unit to shoot some video to see what the source files look like.


Bob Diaz
 
I shoot snowmobiling and other snowsports. Lost of action, lots of extra bright white scenes. http://www.roopsofhazard.com/teasers.html Had an HMC 150 last winter. LOVED IT! Sold it, cause i love new stuff, and would be happier with a slightly smaller package (hmc40 maybe?).
The 3mos cmos stuff kind of scares me a bit. Love the timelapse options, the 60p action etc.
Anyone think the hmc40 will be reduced in price slightly in a month or so?
Need a cam by October...
 
Cranky said:
Barry, I've seen some posts saying that the XLR adapter that comes with the HMC40 may be inferior to third-party products like Beachtek or Juicedlink. Do you have an opinion on that?
Click to expand...
Haven't used the Juicedlink or the XLR adapter. Hadn't really planned on getting either... I think Jack bought a Beachtek to use with his GH1, maybe I could borrow that off him...
 
BobDiaz said:
(1) Given enough light, the image can be VERY good. It appears to be sharper than the HMC-150 and one can increase the color saturation to get the "Panasonic Look".
Click to expand...
Agreed. The footage, in adequate light, is outstanding.

(2) Compared to the HMC-150, low level lighting is a bigger challenge for the HMC-40.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's a much bigger challenge. 3 stops is a lot.

(3) To me, both the XLR adapter (add $300) and a wide angle adapter (add $200) would be required with the HMC-40.
Click to expand...
The wide angle on the lens simply isn't wide at all. The HMC150's wide-angle slays. You'd need a .7x wide-angle adapter on the HMC40 to match the wide-angle field of view of the HMC150.

The good news is that an extra battery may not be required for the HMC-40.
Click to expand...
Depending on how much you shoot, this may be true; the stock battery seems like it's good for about 2.5 hours.
 
Cranky said:
Barry, I've seen some posts saying that the XLR adapter that comes with the HMC40 may be inferior to third-party products like Beachtek or Juicedlink. Do you have an opinion on that? Are you planning to compare sound quality from the XMC40 and the HMC150? Have you got the 40 with the XLR?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=183229
Click to expand...

I used the Rode Videomic yesterday with the HMC40. Only looked quickly at the footage but it seems to have done well. If this is the case I might think twice about getting the XLR adapter and mic.

EDIT: Here is a quick video of a friend telling about her car http://www.speedandmotion.com/pages/videos/pinkelise.html. I think the Videomic picked them up pretty good.
 
Last edited:
shphotovideo said:
I used the Rode Videomic yesterday with the HMC40. Only looked quickly at the footage but it seems to have done well. If this is the case I might think twice about getting the XLR adapter and mic.
Click to expand...
What about moving the mic 20 meters away from the camera? 50 meters away? On another hand, I shot a live guitar performance in a club with the Canon HF100 and the ATR-25 mic connected via 15 ft cable to a regular 3.5mm jack. To my ears, it worked out pretty well for a bootleg. I ensured that the mic cable crossed AC cables at the right angle; before I did that I WAS getting very noticeable noise.

It seems to me that for on-camera use and for short distance off-camera use XLR mics are a bit overrated. I think one can get away with a consumer 3.5mm setup. Am I not getting something here?
 
Last edited:
Cranky,

Yes, one can use the 3.5mm jack and a stereo mike connected to it and it should work OK, but it will be an unbalanced system. The longer the cable, the greater the risk of picking up hum, BUT if your system works for you, great!!!

All the better quality mikes use an XLR connection, because the connection is balanced and has a better resistance to picking up hum. It's NOT 100% bullet proof and one has to use care when laying down the cable, but it does offer better hum protection. The XLR system can offer phantom power, which some of the mikes do need to operate.

I've used 1/4", 1/8", and XLR; to me the XLR is a more solid connection, but that's my feeling. If cost is an issue and you are pushing to be able to afford a system with this camera (like me), 3.5mm jack connections will work.


Bob Diaz
 
Bob,
What you say makes perfect sense. For myself at this time I have no need for long cable runs (mic will stay on the camera). Also my footage is for the Internet where I doubt one would be able to tell much of a difference between a XLR mic and the Rode Videomic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top