HVX170 vs AF100 - You're kidding right?

Kindredmachine

Kindredmachine

Well-known member
I see the comparison comments often coming up for these two cameras which has me a touch baffled. Correct me if I'm wrong but the HVX shoots in only 1920x525 (with pixel shifting?) or something to that affect while the AF is a full 1920x1080 raster? I would think based purely on resolution alone, the image produced by the AF would be far superior. And though the HVX shoots 100mb/s to P2 I would think that many plan on utilizing the AF with a nanoflash to capture at higher bit rates with 4:2:2 color? So comparing apples to apples, can someone provide a true comparison of these two units? I guess I'm just looking for confirmation that the AF is indeed as good a all of the hype we've heard over the last few months; especially with all of the DSLR comparisons.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you understand pixel shifting. You really don't loose resolution doing that. There is a slight resolution hit due to the DVCHD codec tho. I would take the HVX200a or HPX170 hands down over any of the EX cameras and so would most people. I personally will always take 422 color space over full raster anyday. I will be using the Nanoflash almost always with my AF100 to get 422 out of it. It is a bummer I wont be able to use it for overcranking tho. I would think getting 422, full raster, and a shallow DoF would make the AF100 come out on top, but only with the Nano or similar device.
 
Whether or not something makes a camera "better" depends entirely on what you are shooting and what your specific needs are.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Whether or not something makes a camera "better" depends entirely on what you are shooting and what your specific needs are.
Click to expand...

This is true for the most part, but full raster and 422 are a hard thing to beat. The only reason to go the HVX/HPX route is if you have a low budget, need a servo zoom, or need deep focus.
 
Benjamin Eckstein said:
That's a bold and unsubstantiated statement.
Click to expand...

Ok true, I should have said here in Minnesota we all prefer Panasonic's 422 high bitrate i-frame codec over Sony's 420 full raster low bitrate long GOP codec. Here in Minnesota Panasonic cameras are easily 10 to 1 over Sony cameras in availability. Sony cameras have a bad wrap here. Most the work I do are on some sort of Panasonic camera.
 
Kindredmachine said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the HVX shoots in only 1920x525 (with pixel shifting?)
Click to expand...

Well, you are wrong about this. The AG-HVX200A or the HPX170 uses spatial offset(pixel shift) to enhance the native resolution of their chip set to perform as if they were a 1.1 million pixel imager. The DVCPRO HD codec records 1080 X1280 in 60 Hz. This is a subsampled recording that is required to make the best recording that the DVCPRO HD codec can make. A full raster recording, 1920 X 1080, can look as good, and care should be given to edit the AVCHD in an intermediate codec that gives it the ability to be used as an I-frame codec. Also note that the undercrank and overcrank is in 1080 on the AF100 and in 720P on the DVCPRO HD models. I hope this helps.

Best,

Jan
 
My definition of "better" is more features, less drawbacks, ability to make more money from it, image quality, etc. I own or have many camera's readily available to me at all times so I can use the best camera for the job at hand. I have a RED MX, HPX170, GH1(3), and GoPro Hero HD. Plus I am getting the Af100 and the F3. I also have 5D's, 7D's, 1D's, HVX200's, HPX300's, HPX500's, etc available to me via deals I've made with local owners. I would bet money the AF100 will make me more money this year and fit the bill better than an other camera I own or easily have available to me. To me that means "better".
 
Last edited:
Brian@202020 said:
This is true for the most part, but full raster and 422 are a hard thing to beat. The only reason to go the HVX/HPX route is if you have a low budget, need a servo zoom, or need deep focus.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the HPX-170 is 4:2:2 straight out of the camera, no external recorder required. And it also offers 10-bit output, versus the AF-100s 8-bit output.
 
Stephen Mick said:
Don't forget that the HPX-170 is 4:2:2 straight out of the camera, no external recorder required. And it also offers 10-bit output, versus the AF-100s 8-bit output.
Click to expand...

True and false. Yes this is true about not needing an external recorder, and no this is false about the HPX170 having a 10-bit output. It's 8-bit just like the AF100. I believe the only camera under $10,000 to have 10-bit out the HDSDI is the EX1.
 
Brian@202020 said:
I would bet money the AF100 will make me more money this year and fit the bill better than an other camera I own or have easily have available to me. To me that means "better".
Click to expand...

Well it depends how much more you're gonna charge for an F3 : )
 
Brian@202020 said:
I would take the HVX200a or HPX170 hands down over any of the EX cameras and so would most people.
Click to expand...

Benjamin Eckstein said:
That's a bold and unsubstantiated statement.
Click to expand...

That on the other hand is an understatement.

the EX-cams beat the Panasonics in sensitivity and resolution by a class. And the EX codec to me seems at least as robust as the DVCPro codec. Not even talking about years of ridiculous pricing of P2 media and the enormous drivespace needed to work in DVCproHD.

Can´t wait to use a cam with SD cards shooting at 24mbps.....
 
alpi69 said:
That on the other hand is an understatement.

the EX-cams beat the Panasonics in sensitivity and resolution by a class. And the EX codec to me seems at least as robust as the DVCPro codec. Not even talking about years of ridiculous pricing of P2 media and the enormous drivespace needed to work in DVCproHD.

Can´t wait to use a cam with SD cards shooting at 24mbps.....
Click to expand...

Hey I'm not completely knocking them, the hardware is great, In fact I use an EX3 on a reality show I shoot from time to time because you can record so much to a card. That said there are about 10 cameras I would choose before any of the EX cameras if I had the choice and a DVX100 is one of them. There has been several times where people questioned me about the Sony codec on set and every time I immediately show them how easily the codec fails. I hear the AVCCAM codec is much better even tho it's a lower bitrate. I can't wait to test it out, but I will be recording to an external device most of the time I'm sure.
 
Brian@202020 said:
Hey I'm not completely knocking them, the hardware is great, In fact I use an EX3 on a reality show I shoot from time to time because you can record so much to a card. That said there are about 10 cameras I would choose before any of the EX cameras if I had the choice and a DVX100 is one of them. There has been several times where people questioned me about the Sony codec on set and every time I immediately show them how easily the codec fails. I hear the AVCCAM codec is much better even tho it's a lower bitrate. I can't wait to test it out, but I will be recording to an external device most of the time I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Clearly some people just work with different needs and requirements. When I bought my EX-1 it was, in my opinion, a clear step above the current HVX on the market. It is the best camera I have owned (I use occasionally, but don't buy more expensive cameras) and I still use it a ton and it's made me a lot of money. I have had very little issues with the codec and have shot for broadcast, web, docs, corporate, commercials, etc. with it. Other edit houses that I've worked with haven't questioned the codec. But again, clearly some people need something better at times.

I was going to get a nano for the AF-100, but it seems that many are saying it's at least as good as XDCAM EX onboard, so that is fine with me 90% of the time. Otherwise, I'll rent one I guess.
 
Brian@202020 said:
The only reason to go the HVX/HPX route is if you have a low budget, need a servo zoom, or need deep focus.
Click to expand...
Or if you need to record standard-def, or if you need to integrate into an existing P2 workflow, or if you need 4:2:2 color, or if you need an ideally ergonomic handheld design, or if you need live firewire streaming, or if you need to match another HPX170, or if you need analog component output, or if you need skew-free CCD sensors, or if you need ... lots of things.

The 170 and the AF100 are very different products aimed at very different customers. They both have substantial advantages over each other. For many folks, the 170 would definitely be the better choice vs. the AF100 for them. For
the filmmaker/commercial producer/narrative shooter, the AF100 is obviously the superior choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top