HPX200A more $$ than HMC-150 ??

[rtmst3k]

I'm looking for a 2nd camera for shooting 2-camera setups on independent films - I've had some success with the HMC-150 in single-camera efforts, but was shopping on the
B & H website and saw that the HVX200A is over $1000 more than an HMC-150. When the 150 was announced, it was my understanding that the HVX200A only had one advantage over the 150, and that was the higher speed codec and P2 support. However, during my discussions with Panasonic reps at HD Forum, the difference between these two cameras (150 and 200) would be negligible.

So why is the HVX200a so much more than the HMC-150 if the eventual picture quality out of post-production would be negligible ??

Thanks!!
Randy

 

[Barry_Green]

Whatever panasonic reps you're talking to at HD Forum clearly don't know what they're talking about.

The HVX200A does many things the HMC150 doesn't. First and foremost would be intraframe recording at 4:2:2 onto P2 cards, but also things like 36 variable frame rates for slow-motion and fast-motion effects, the ability to record standard-def in addition to HD, and the presence of the DV tape drive. You can stream HD video from an HVX200 into a computer for live monitoring and capture, etc.

The HMC150 is a great camera, no doubt, but it doesn't do everything its bigger brothers (the HPX170 and HVX200A) do. There are good reasons why it's less expensive.

 

[rtmst3k]

Whatever panasonic reps you're talking to at HD Forum clearly don't know what they're talking about.

The HVX200A does many things the HMC150 doesn't. First and foremost would be intraframe recording at 4:2:2 onto P2 cards, but also things like 36 variable frame rates for slow-motion and fast-motion effects, the ability to record standard-def in addition to HD, and the presence of the DV tape drive. You can stream HD video from an HVX200 into a computer for live monitoring and capture, etc.

The HMC150 is a great camera, no doubt, but it doesn't do everything its bigger brothers (the HPX170 and HVX200A) do. There are good reasons why it's less expensive.

I understand the 200a has more features, and as I said, I do appreciate the better codec.

I think the folks at the HD Forum took my use-case into consideration, which was 720/24p recording and no need for variable frame-rates. And there was some group consensus at the forum that the 150 would probably have better low-light performance than the 200a. They suggested the HPX 170 would have comparable low-light performance to the 150.

I guess I should have rephrased my question - I do respect the need for charging for more features on the 200a, so I understand the price difference. What I am curious about is overall picture quality at 720/24p and possibly 1080/24p out of post-production between the 150 and 200a. If I were to intercut the two, would it be noticeable? The majority of my narrative shoots have been 20% outdoors and 80% indoors with complete control over lighting, including some low-light situations.

For a 2nd camera, I would like to upgrade to a more capable camera in the 5K to 8K range, but I would still need to intercut footage between this new camera and a couple of 150s.


Thanks again,
Randy

 

[Robert M Wright]

They are very, very different, but I don't know that DVCPRO HD is a better codec than the H264 AVCHD (AVCCAM) codec in the 150. Comparing the two is not simple at all, but on the whole and in a very general sense, it's my impression that overall image quality is reasonably comparable between the two. There is however, a huge difference in the cost of the media for recording them, making the ownership cost difference between an HMC150 and an HVX200A much greater than just the difference in camera price. The difference in recording media costs, in terms of dollars per minute of recording time, is well in excess of an order of magnitude. There are also differences as far as long term storage for source footage, and in editing performance. The DVCPRO HD footage will require just a tad less than 5x as much space to store, but is a whale of a lot less taxing on CPUs than AVCHD, for editing natively. DVCPRO HD is also widely accepted by broadcasters, whereas AVCHD simply is not. It really is an apples/oranges thing, with both formats having formidable (and quite different) strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not sure why there would be any notable difference in low light performance between the HMC150, HVX200A or HPX170, since they share a common imaging block (unless I am mistaken). Perhaps there is some other difference I am unaware of (different glass maybe?).

I've never intercut footage from the 150 and 200A (nor even ever handled either cam myself, although I have an HMC40 which records using the same codec as the HMC150), but have to think there could be noticeable differences, not so much because of differences in quality, as due to other factors. For 1080 line footage, the HVX records 1280x1080 frames with 4:2:2 color and the HMC150 records 1920x1080 frames with 4:2:0 color. (For 720 line footage it's 960x720 at 4:2:2 vs 1280x720 at 4:2:0.) I really don't know, but have got to think that might easily give footage from the two cams a noticeably different look when cut together, even if overall image quality is quite comparable.

Since you've said you have complete control over lighting, I'd strongly suggest that you take a real hard look at the HMC40. The bigger cams (that you are considering) do have some features not found in the HMC40, but one thing the 40 can do that the bigger cams can't, is deliver a noticeably more detailed image when shooting 1080 line footage in ideal lighting, and the HMC40 does offer quite respectable manual control (certainly not a consumer level camcorder in that regard at all). The HMC40 is not however, by any stretch of the imagination, a low light cam (but gain is very clean, and the 40 is not entirely useless in marginally less than utterly ideal light either, although it seems to get portrayed as such at times).

If you go with an HPX300 (or maybe an EX1/3) as your 2nd cam (in that 5k-8k neighborhood), you might find that the footage matches a bit better with that from the HMC40, than with that from the 150/170/200A, particularly in regard to luminance image detail.