HMC40 sharper than HMC-150

R

rtmst3k

Member
Hi All,

I was speaking to a Panasonic person at the HD Forum in LA awhile back regarding dvxuser traffic that was indicating the HMC40 had a sharper, better image than the HMC-150. He seemed to balk at that suggestion and started in with a plethora of technical reasons why this can't happen. He said something about the different types of settings on the HMC-150 default to a bit softer, cinematic "film look", but went on to say that given apples to apples comparison of lighting situations, the HMC 150 imager should always be able to best the HMC40.

But I keep seeing messages about the HMC40 being sharper - with the HMC40's 1/4" imagers it seems like the HMC 150 would always be able to produce a better image.

Why would the HMC40 be able to produce a sharper image than a 150?

Thanks,
Randy
 
Its got a CMOS sensor.... so it's going to be sharper but for that level of sharpness there are trade offs. It won't handle motion as well, it might exhibit the dreaded rolling shutter, and its not nearly as good in low-light since it's 1/4 inch. Another detractor is the lack of a manual lens...

It's a great cam though for the money and that's why I'm considered it.. primarily for a 2nd cam on sit down intereviews...
 
If you're in bright daylight conditions, the HMC40 can, will, and does produce a significantly sharper image than the HMC150 is capable of.

If you're in anything other than bright daylight, the HMC150 always exceeds what the HMC40 is capable of.

The HMC40 has 4x as many pixels as the HMC150. That makes it potentially sharper; but the HMC150 is about 8x more sensitive to light, as a result. So if you're in the bright sunlight, all those pixels come to bear, and yes, the HMC40 is quite a bit sharper. But if you're indoors, the HMC40 has to start using gain, whereas the HMC150 is running at its sweet spot.
 
HMC40 sharper than HMC-150

From what I'm inferring, if the 1/4 sensors on the HMC40 produce more pixels, then CMOS inherently has more pixels per square unit of area than CCD. Is this correct? I understand (and have experienced) the rolling shutter issues associated with CMOS imagers, but I didn't know that they are denser in pixels than CCD technology (if my inference is correct)

Thanks guys!
Randy
 
HMC40 sharper than HMC-150

rtmst3k said:
From what I'm inferring, if the 1/4 sensors on the HMC40 produce more pixels, then CMOS inherently has more pixels per square unit of area than CCD. Is this correct? I understand (and have experienced) the rolling shutter issues associated with CMOS imagers, but I didn't know that they are denser in pixels than CCD technology (if my inference is correct)

Thanks guys!
Randy
Click to expand...

I forgot to ask, I'm assuming this means that the HPX 300 ALWAYS produces a sharper image than the HMC40 - I've seen samples the HPX 300, and it's the only camera I've seen (including the HPX-170, and the Sony EX-1) that "seems" to produce a nicer image than my HMC-150.

Randy
 
rtmst3k said:
From what I'm inferring, if the 1/4 sensors on the HMC40 produce more pixels, then CMOS inherently has more pixels per square unit of area than CCD. Is this correct?
Click to expand...
No, but there's a difference in heat generation between the two technologies. You can have the exact same physical pixel count, but the amount of heat generated is a lot higher on a CCD than on a CMOS, so as a practical matter you don't usually have the pixels packed so densely on a CCD as you do on CMOS.

However, the more pixels you pack into a given area, the smaller each must be, and while that does help with resolution, it hurts in other ways (such as dynamic range, noise, and sensitivity). There are many factors that go into making an overall image, and making a pleasing image, and resolution is only one of those factors (and, it has been effectively argued, it's probably the least important of the factors).
 
rtmst3k said:
I forgot to ask, I'm assuming this means that the HPX 300 ALWAYS produces a sharper image than the HMC40 - I've seen samples the HPX 300, and it's the only camera I've seen (including the HPX-170, and the Sony EX-1) that "seems" to produce a nicer image than my HMC-150.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you just proved my point. The HPX300 is sharper than your HMC150, but you generally prefer the image off your 150, right? Because resolution is only one factor! The other things all count too.

Will a 300 be necessarily sharper than an HMC40? It should be, but don't expect night-and-day differences in sharpness (unless, of course, you're comparing night footage against day footage, because the larger chips in the HPX300 will of course outperform the smaller chips in the HMC40!)
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, I think you just proved my point. The HPX300 is sharper than your HMC150, but you generally prefer the image off your 150, right? Because resolution is only one factor! The other things all count too.

Will a 300 be necessarily sharper than an HMC40? It should be, but don't expect night-and-day differences in sharpness (unless, of course, you're comparing night footage against day footage, because the larger chips in the HPX300 will of course outperform the smaller chips in the HMC40!)
Click to expand...

Yes, I guess I am proving your point a bit...I was all set to upgrade to the HPX 300 after talking with Panasonic reps at the HD Forum, but my local pro-cam dealer let me come in and test with it a bit. While it does have more professional codecs than my 150, it's just not that much better. For my ultra/no-budget film work, the 150 just looks great across a wide variety of studio and location lighting situations. I really like the HPX 300 AVC intraframe codec alot more than AVCHD, but I'm still not completely sold yet because the final output from FCP 7 still looks pretty doggone good from the 150.

Thanks everyone for the replies
Randy
 
Barry_Green said:
If you're in anything other than bright daylight, the HMC150 always exceeds what the HMC40 is capable of.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I've shot with the HMC40 indoors with a little gain and got some nicely detailed, good looking images. Yeah, in a living room at night, with a couple shaded 60 watt table lamps, the HMC40 isn't going to hold up very well at all (will pretty much fall apart), but get in a typical office environment, add a little gain, and it can do quite well. I shot some test footage at a physician friend's office a few weeks back, and got some pretty sharp, clean images - and it isn't the best lit office I've ever seen either (not awful, but not hardly great either). I think I was shooting with about 8dB gain, if I recall correctly. I don't really know for sure how it would compare with shooting the same footage using a 150 (never handled one), but I can't imagine it would look much worse in comparison (if at all). I do have an XH-A1 though, and I'm pretty sure it would not have produced better results under those circumstances.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, I think you just proved my point. The HPX300 is sharper than your HMC150, but you generally prefer the image off your 150, right? Because resolution is only one factor! The other things all count too.

Will a 300 be necessarily sharper than an HMC40? It should be, but don't expect night-and-day differences in sharpness (unless, of course, you're comparing night footage against day footage, because the larger chips in the HPX300 will of course outperform the smaller chips in the HMC40!)
Click to expand...

Hi Barry. You've got some good points about the HMC40. I own both the HMC40 and the HMC150. As you might know, I just bought the 150 but have as yet to burn any footage from it yet and judge for myself how it compares to footage from my 40. If I'm not impressed I'm going to be a little angry that I didn't research the 150 more before I bought it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top