HPX250: HPX250 vs. AC160a???

G

Gunson

New member
I've seen some brief discussions on this topic, and I do realize they are different cameras, but I am still curious as to which is the better cam. I was leaning strongly towards the HPX250, from previously owning the HVX-200B, but the 1080/60p on the AC160a is very enticing. I should note that I shoot action sports. Thanks in advance.
 
The HPX250 uses the better recording media, the better codec, 10-bit recordings, and has more variable frame rates. But its 60p is only in 720.

The AC160 uses cheaper media, records a lot more footage to that media, and does 60p in both 1080 and 720.

As far as image quality goes, they're comparable, but the HPX250 does use a different type of DRS, and different knees, which leads to a more uniform rolloff to white, vs. the chroma clipping that is more visible in the AC lineup.

As to which is "better", that's a question only you can answer. One or the other will certainly be more suitable for your intended uses.
 
If you already have P2 cards fr previous 1/3" cams fr Panasonic, it's easier to stick w/ the same P2 format.

I'm biased toward more investing expensive gear vs cheaper one simply because generally, more costly gear has its valid reasons and very rightly so in many real world scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Barry! I decided to go with the AC160 for the 1080 60p. However, now that I have the camera, I have noticed and read briefly that 1080 60p is not recognized in FCP. Are there any previous posts about this problem. I can seem to find any.
In Log and Transfer it recognizes that there are clips, but will not display any images or let me capture. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Barry_Green said:
The HPX250 uses the better recording media, the better codec, 10-bit recordings, and has more variable frame rates. But its 60p is only in 720.

The AC160 uses cheaper media, records a lot more footage to that media, and does 60p in both 1080 and 720.

As far as image quality goes, they're comparable, but the HPX250 does use a different type of DRS, and different knees, which leads to a more uniform rolloff to white, vs. the chroma clipping that is more visible in the AC lineup.

As to which is "better", that's a question only you can answer. One or the other will certainly be more suitable for your intended uses.
Click to expand...


Glad you answered this. When I look at the comparable images on Slashcam it appears as if the 160 has an almost greenish tint or filter to it. Whereas the 250 looks like the same image only with the green filter removed.

They have the same lens and sensors and yet the images seem to be different and the 250 seems to manage low light better

Barry, do you think you give some added insight on why the images appear to be so different

http://camcorder-test.slashcam.com/...n-u-id-i-208-u-name-i-Panasonic-AG-AC160.html

VS

http://camcorder-test.slashcam.com/...-u-id-i-207-u-name-i-Panasonic-AG-HPX250.html

Shouldn't the images be almost identical ?

Can you maybe explain what 'DRS' is as well as what 'Chroma clipping' is and how it affects the image. Also what do you mean by 'different knees' ?

Thanks
 
When properly administered, the images can be made to be almost identical, yes. I don't know what those people did, or what settings they used, or how they white balanced, or any of a million other variables. But I can guarantee you that you can make them look practically identical in most scene file settings, if you know what you're doing and make sure to do everything right.

DRS is the dynamic range stretching feature, which works very differently between those two cameras. Chroma clipping is the scenario where you're overexposing your video signal, and one or more of the three color channels (red, green, and blue) get pushed into being overexposed and therefore they "clip" -- and that changes the balance between red, green, and blue, and that means that your extremely bright highlights can start to shift colors. In skin it usually manifests itself as the super-hot skintones turning yellowish. As for the knee, the knee is what clamps down on overexposed or near-overexposed tones in the picture, to try to roll them off to gradually transition to overexposure. The two cameras' knee functions operate differently, leading to different-looking images.

There's a lot more to a camera than just the sensors and lenses, there's everything behind them too (all the processing). That processing is not the same between these two cameras, and therefore it's possible that the images will not be the same, in scenarios where the camera processes the images differently.
 
Barry_Green said:
When properly administered, the images can be made to be almost identical, yes. I don't know what those people did, or what settings they used, or how they white balanced, or any of a million other variables. But I can guarantee you that you can make them look practically identical in most scene file settings, if you know what you're doing and make sure to do everything right.

DRS is the dynamic range stretching feature, which works very differently between those two cameras. Chroma clipping is the scenario where you're overexposing your video signal, and one or more of the three color channels (red, green, and blue) get pushed into being overexposed and therefore they "clip" -- and that changes the balance between red, green, and blue, and that means that your extremely bright highlights can start to shift colors. In skin it usually manifests itself as the super-hot skintones turning yellowish. As for the knee, the knee is what clamps down on overexposed or near-overexposed tones in the picture, to try to roll them off to gradually transition to overexposure. The two cameras' knee functions operate differently, leading to different-looking images.

There's a lot more to a camera than just the sensors and lenses, there's everything behind them too (all the processing). That processing is not the same between these two cameras, and therefore it's possible that the images will not be the same, in scenarios where the camera processes the images differently.
Click to expand...

That is a great explanation, thanks. You have helped me get a little closer to making my final decision, cheers.
 
I've been tempted to get me some of that 10-bit AVC-Intra 100 goodness.

I like using my AC130/160 cameras. I really do. But I'm not crazy about AVCHD. It works fine for doing events and shows, but when I use the AC160 for anything else, I'm left just kind of...disappointed. When I shoot training and product videos, I like having the option to make lots of adjustments in the image - being able to say "sure, we can do that" when the client asks to make the product more colorful, or to accent a particular feature. In the past, I feel like the 24mbps has betrayed me a bit, even recording uncompressed out (8-bit Hyperdeck). It seems like the information I need in the image just...isn't there.

Tonight I saw the price of the HPX250 has become feasible for me to jump into P2 cameras. I don't really care that much about having "matching" 130/160 cams. The events I do that need two cameras aren't high-end enough to necessitate that amount of nitpicking. That is to say, a AC160/HPX250 combo would be more than fine. As I said before, I like using the ACs, I just wish they had more to offer. By selling the 130/160 and acquiring a HPX250 and maybe a AC90 as a B-cam, I could nearly break even and still have a combo for event work. Barry put up some nice shots from that little guy.

Now, perhaps the grass is greener on the other side, so my question to the community is whether or not it's really worth it. Immediate need would be for product demos on superwhite, outdoor program shooting, and any other smaller budget training and corporate work. Am I going to see the difference? What bothers me the most is the clipped whites in the AVCHD. If I can even get a little bit back in the highs and lows with a smoother gradation, it would be worth it. That and the option to really make things punchy and saturated if I felt the need.

Talk me out of it, or into it, as you see fit...
 
All I can say is that I pre-ordered the HPX250 the first day it was up on B&H. The price is lower now, but I have never regretted getting it early. Although I typically blend it with AVCHD media, I can tell that there is much more depth to the 10 bit media.
 
I shoot with a 250 knowing that the 10 bit information is there if needed. Once you have bought a few P2 cards the pain becomes worth it. BTW should be getting the release of the new P2 SD cards at half the price (I am told) soon.
 
I would not change what I use now that I have had it. I dont have a 130/160 so I cant talk to the points directly. I now shoot in almost 720 AVC 100 or 1080 AVC 100. I tried AVC 50 which works fine for a quick long event that I dont need to color grade and going straight to DVD. I have noticed AVC 100 looks better on my preview monitor (cant tell once it goes to DVD) and I have more wiggle room with grading. I also use the waveform monitor always so I dont clip. If anything I shoot under a few stops at it always looks crisp, if I use auto iris I have it set to -2. Besides the AVC 100 the 4 channels of audio are great even though 2 are onboard camera, having 2 extra is perfect for interviews or field work! Now you could buy a Samurai and capture 10bit out on a 160 or Ninja on a 130. Then you must carry an external device with cables and when moving around it could be worrisome could just be me. The 250 does have its quarks like any other camera so is the grass greener on the other side, only you can deiced (but the camera is a very fine camera IMHO). I also think the 90 as B cam is great I am also looking at that for outdoor and well lit work.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
... the HPX250 does use a different type of DRS, and different knees, which leads to a more uniform rolloff to white, vs. the chroma clipping that is more visible in the AC lineup.
Click to expand...

How gradual is the gamma curve in the 250? In the highlights offcourse:) Where does it put middle grey and how hard is the knee?
 
The highlight rolloff in the HPX250 is better than any Panasonic ever has, and the HPX250 allows the use of manual knee even when using the cine gammas...
 
Barry_Green said:
The highlight rolloff in the HPX250 is better than any Panasonic ever has, and the HPX250 allows the use of manual knee even when using the cine gammas...
Click to expand...

Totally agree with Barry re: best Panasonic palmcorder(and HPX500) for highlight handling. Not better than a P2 Varicam, but close. Having knee control in Cine gammas is great. So much quieter and more light sensitive as well--especially in PAP 1 3D NR setting vs. PAP 2 default.
 
Barry_Green said:
The knee is applicable in all gammas, modes, recording formats, frequencies, etc at all times on the HPX250.
Click to expand...

Dino said:
Totally agree with Barry re: best Panasonic palmcorder(and HPX500) for highlight handling. Not better than a P2 Varicam, but close. Having knee control in Cine gammas is great. So much quieter and more light sensitive as well--especially in PAP 1 3D NR setting vs. PAP 2 default.
Click to expand...

Sounds great. DR is still around 10 stops right? It's just the highlights that clip smoother right? And there is no chroma clipping?

Dino said:
Totally agree with Barry re: best Panasonic palmcorder(and HPX500) for highlight handling. Not better than a P2 Varicam, but close.
Click to expand...

Meaning close to FILM REC or close to a rec709 gamma on the Varicam?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top