HVX 200 versus 300

J

jameswmulryan

Active member
Just did a very quick test of the HVX 300 versus my two year old HVX 200 (non-A)

300 Pros:
Shoulder Form Factor
True Iris on Lens-- this is huge no more funky iris ramps
Hard Stop on focus.
Smooth zoom --again huge.
Easy focus eyepiece- - no more turning on and off focus assist while running and gunning. What a hassle this has been with the hvx200
Don't remember if the 300 has a ft/mm display in the viewfinder, this has always
been a godsend for the 200
At least one stop faster
Less Noise
AVC Intra --I shoot lots of sunsets, anticipate gradation reduction. Did not really have
an accurate look at this but AVC Intra has to be a killer codex.
Did not see skew-- I shoot all my 200 footage in 24p, so I am used to slower pans and moves. Have not tried the 300 in a very unstable environment, would suck if the 300 is unusable in a plane , helicopter, car or boat

Cons
My Macbook Pro can't edit Pro Res HQ converted from AVC Intra 100 I guess if I had an AJA HD IO rig it could?

Twice the file size of DVCPRO HD 720 24pn
Twice the transfer time.
Twice the number of P2 cards
Twice the number of drives.
Camera is too light not enough mass for really steady shoulder shooting
A tape based Varicam or Sony 900 is much more stable
No image stabilizer.
Not sure if the Fujinon lens quality equals the HVX 200. Just a gut feeling.
Feel the integrated HVX 200 optics might be designed from the ground up whereas the Fujinon is a bit questionable at this price point. I could totally be wrong on this.
Color skew issues with CMOS sensor while using ND filters on lens or ND gel on windows.

Kind of wondering about the use of CMOS versus the 170s CCD sensor. Maybe it could not do true 1080?


Conclusion:
The 300's ergonomics and AVC Intra rock and more than make up for the CMOS shortcomings and AVC Intra bandwith and storage issues.
 
I agree with all your pros. I think some of your cons aren't actually cons. Depends on what mode you were in, but...

1) The AVC-Intra 100 720/24pN files are exactly the same size as DVCPRO-HD 720/24pN files. And AVC-Intra50 files would be HALF the size of DVCPRO-HD 720/24pN files.

So for these:
2) Twice the transfer time
3) Twice the number of P2 cards, and
4) Twice the number of drives

I say "nope." Same number of drives, same transfer time, etc. Now, if you're comparing 1080/24pN against HVX 720/24pN, then yes your observations would be right, but ... why would you compare 1080 against 720? And for that matter, 1080/24pN from an HPX300 will take up 20% LESS space than 1080/24pA on an HVX. And if file size is important, you can get roughly equivalent quality by using AVC-I 50 instead of DVCPRO-HD, so actually this list could be saying "half the transfer time, half the # of P2 cards, and half the number of drives."

So, apples to apples, the 300 wins. Apples to kumquats (AVC-I 50 to DVCPRO-HD) the 300 wins big. Apples to Pineapples (1080 to 1080) the 300 still wins. It's only if you're comparing 720 against 1080 that the HVX pulls ahead, and ... that's just not a fair comparison. The 300's 1080 is going to be substantially sharper than the HVX's 720.

No image stabilizer -- yep. Wish there was, but there isn't.
Fujinon lens -- I think it's pretty darn solid for the freebie included lens. I know that I did some side-by-side shots of HPX170 vs. HPX300 and the 300 images are substantially sharper and more pleasing.

Not sure what you mean about color skew issues. Do you mean infrared issues? Because I tested it for infrared and found it to be quite immune.

As for why the CMOS vs. the 170's CCD: a principal design element of the HPX300 was that it have a full 1080p sensor, which ruled out 1/3" CCD.

As for additional "pros", there's the ability to have 3 XLR ports and two wireless receiver inputs, for five channels of input to get recorded onto 4 tracks. High-def LCD, and of course the interchangeability of the lens, plus the scan reverse function for 35mm adapter users.

As for additional "cons", there are some things that a handheld camera can do (such as autofocus) that, if you need it, you need it, and you won't get that with an ENG camera. The size and form factor could be considered a "pro" for the 170/200A, and a "con" for the 300, if you're trying to go stealthy, for example. But then again, if you're getting paid based on the size of your camera (and yes, there are clients out there like that) then there's no doubt the 300's full-size form factor will draw the bigger paycheck. But, it also means you'll need a bigger tripod, and a separate battery system (big plus on the 200/170 is that the little 5400mah batteries can drive those cameras for 3-4 hours).
 
Last edited:
Thanks again Barry.
My bad Barry on the 720 versus 1080 data size. I never saw enough of a difference in the older 200 to shoot 1080.
Any more info on macbook pro editing?
Skew is wrong word. Near Red not infrared issues?
Maybe I am thinking of Sony's near red /ND issues
Have you read this article:
http://provideocoalition.com/index....en_tests_new_no_nd_ir_filter_for_ex1_ex3_f35/

Glad to hear the fujinon is sharper

Any more details on skew issues when using the 300 for non-tyler mount shoots out of helicopters, planes, boats?
 
That article references several cameras that are sensitive to the near-IR portion of the spectrum, but the HPX300 appears to be immune to that.

I don't deal with Macs, but if you're transcoding to prores you should have no problem, right? That's all an FCP issue, with little or nothing to do with the 300 or 200; if you transcoded DVCPRO-HD to ProRes HQ you'd have the same issue, right?

As for skew issues, we've got guys shooting from boats and such with the EX1, and the HPX300 (in 720p mode or 60i/60p mode) performs better for skew than the EX1. In 1080/24p mode, you'll have to manage it more and make sure you're not getting issues, but basically: if you like what you see coming from the EX1/EX3, you should be happy with what the 300 will do. As with any/all CMOS camcorders you're going to have to watch out for vibration, and if you want to minimize any CMOS issues the keys are to reduce the relative motion in the frame and to use a faster frame rate. Wide angle = less relative motion = less CMOS movement issues. Telephoto = more relative motion = more CMOS issues.
 
jameswmulryan said:
I never saw enough of a difference in the older 200 to shoot 1080.
Click to expand...
Suffice it to say that that's not going to be the case with the 300. Actually, the 720p will be noticeably sharper than the HVX's 720p, and the 1080i/p will be significantly sharper than the HVX's 1080i/p.
 
Barry:

Great news about the near IR issues.

When shooting from a plane I always use slow motion and try to shoot as wide as possible.

The thing that is fantastic about DVCPRO HD is that you can edit without going to Pro Res HD
on location. I realize that there are some pretty big problems editing in an 8 bit format with banding and image quality, that
the 1080 i/p AVC Intra to Pro Res will net big gains, but as a portable solution it becomes cumbersome with the need for larger drives, faster computers etc....
Have a feeling that a large percentage of P2 adaptors are using MacBook Pros, wish Panasonic and Apple were more in sync.
I guess you can't always have your cake and eat it too. Red users must be struggling with the same data and bandwidth overhead issues.

Seems to me the 300 is a big step up from the 200 at a very attractive price point.
 
Just to touch up on the file size issue, I could be wrong, but doesn't using AVC-I with FCP make you have to render all new files in proress, meaning that yes you are actually doubling your hard drive space needed?

One can argue that once in proress you could delete the P2 "master" files, but I dont think anyone in their right mind on a set would ever do such a thing, redunancy is worth its weight in gold.

Could someone bring more light on that subject? I still think its a very fair trade off for getting the 10bit 422 on the cards, its much nicer than 8bit for color work, we always had to capture on set with wires and computers and all that mess just to get that kind of color space. Now its on the card and life is beautiful, I think the backing up of files could be done on BlueRay disks to free up harddrives as well... I just dont know if thats the best way to backup...
 
Can anyone give an explanation or link what Pro Res HD is why I have to convert AVC-I to Pro Res HD to be able to edit it on a Mac (probably FCS does not support AVC-I yet) and if converted can a MBP just handle it or like we call it can the MPB handle it "with 2 fingers in the nose" ????
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
but doesn't using AVC-I with FCP make you have to render all new files in proress, meaning that yes you are actually doubling your hard drive space needed?
Click to expand...

Native support for AVCIntra was announced by Apple at IBC last September. It remains to be seen if this appears in the latest version of FCP, but it seems so based on what was stated at IBC.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
Can anyone give an explanation or link what Pro Res HD is why I have to convert AVC-I to Pro Res HD to be able to edit it on a Mac (probably FCS does not support AVC-I yet) and if converted can a MBP just handle it or like we call it can the MPB handle it "with 2 fingers in the nose" ????
Click to expand...

AVC-I is a very processor intense codec. To my knowledge, Apple wants you to convert to Pro-Res to keep it quicktime and operating smoothly within Final Cut. I just keep all my card images on separate drives and L&T to pro-Res what I want to use.
 
Giuseppe Pugliese said:
but doesn't using AVC-I with FCP make you have to render all new files in proress, meaning that yes you are actually doubling your hard drive space needed?
Click to expand...
To quote a famous joke:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: "Don't do that."

FCP's transcode workflow is not the only one. You don't have to ever transcode if you don't want to. And, hard as it seems for many people to accept, there *are* editors other than FCP in the world. Use the Calibrated MXF plug-in and edit MXF AVC-Intra files natively. Screw transcoding.

One can argue that once in proress you could delete the P2 "master" files, but I dont think anyone in their right mind on a set would ever do such a thing
Click to expand...
You are correct, such a workflow would be profoundly unwise.

I think the backing up of files could be done on BlueRay disks to free up harddrives as well... I just dont know if thats the best way to backup...
Click to expand...
BluRay discs are about the slowest, most costly, least efficient way to back up. There are tons of threads on archiving, but it all comes down to: redundant hard disks for cheap/easy, LTO3/LTO4 tape for permanent. Both are astonishingly cheaper and faster than blu-ray.
 
Cees Mutsaers said:
Can anyone give an explanation or link what Pro Res HD is why I have to convert AVC-I to Pro Res HD to be able to edit it on a Mac (probably FCS does not support AVC-I yet) and if converted can a MBP just handle it or like we call it can the MPB handle it "with 2 fingers in the nose" ????
Click to expand...
You don't "have" to convert. Apple seems to be trying to enforce a world where the only format out there are Quicktime, and the only codec is ProRes. It's a strategy that failed badly for Avid, and I don't expect it to do much better for Apple.

So don't transcode. Use the MXF plug-in and edit without transcoding. Don't double your file size. Reject the philosophy that traps you into one vendor's workflow. Or wait for the next version of FCP, which is rumored to have native AVC-Intra (because the BBC rejected FCP specifically for their refusal to incorporate AVC-I and native MXF, so it looks like they might be listening and softening up their "no new codecs" policy).
 
I wish so Barry.

AVCHD is taking off with the HMC150, but native editing remains a huge issue.

I know AVCHD is computationally different the HDV, but computers are so much more powerful than when it was possible to editing HDV natively.
 
Is it that big of an issue? EDIUS gives me about 15fps playback. Vegas, I can get about 20fps playback. Looks like I'm just one processor bump away from realtime editing with the native codec.

Of course, all the NLE manufacturers are a micrometer away from massive realtime playback, if they'd just tap into the graphics card for accelerated AVCHD decoding. Try Nero, and see what's possible. If you have an NVidia graphics card, look at the comparison of MPEG-4 encoding using Badaboom instead of Handbrake, using the graphics card makes Badaboom about 3x faster to encode.

It's all there. The pieces are all there. Someone just has to put 'em together.

And yes, while it's heavenly to have full-screen realtime playback, hey, when I started on this venture with Premiere 4.2, you couldn't even play DV back in realtime. You had to buy an additional hardware card. So there's nothing new here, and I frankly don't find 20fps that much of an impediment.
 
DLT will work, but you're talking about 40gb capacity. You couldn't even back up a 64GB card on one of those. If all you're using is 4GB or 8GB cards it's do-able.

LT3 is 10x the storage capacity per cartridge. LTO4 is 20x the storage. So 40GB of DLT is about $30, or 75 cents per gigabyte. 800GB of LTO4 is $48, or 6 cents per gigabyte. 1/12th the cost. Sure, the drive costs more, but your ongoing data storage costs will be way way way less with the LTO4. And it'll be extremely much faster to back up and restore as well. Newegg's got an LTO3 drive for under $1,000.
 
Who delivers the MXF plug-in Apple or Pana? So it converts the MXF AVC-I P2 file into a quicktime file which FCS accepts right?


Barry_Green said:
You don't "have" to convert. Apple seems to be trying to enforce a world where the only format out there are Quicktime, and the only codec is ProRes. It's a strategy that failed badly for Avid, and I don't expect it to do much better for Apple.

So don't transcode. Use the MXF plug-in and edit without transcoding. Don't double your file size. Reject the philosophy that traps you into one vendor's workflow. Or wait for the next version of FCP, which is rumored to have native AVC-Intra (because the BBC rejected FCP specifically for their refusal to incorporate AVC-I and native MXF, so it looks like they might be listening and softening up their "no new codecs" policy).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top