HVX201 vs HPX171 vs HMC151 ???

N

new_dvx_user

Member
I'm a DVX100B user and I want an upgrade. But what to buy? Go for the HVX201, the HPX171 or the new HMC151?

1. Do all 3 have the same kind of "scene files" as the DVX? What are the differences?
2. All three have the same progressive modes?
3. I'll be using it mainly for short narratives, using: 1 ext mic / boom, mattebox and stabilizer / tripod. The lower priced and light HMC151 sounds interesting, but is it the right upgrade for me?
4. Is that editing issue solved yet, regarding the HMC151 AVCCAM footage and FCP?
 
Last edited:
1. Six default scene files for each cam and they can be changed or others downloaded

2. 150 is a nice cam; the others have superior color space

3. There isn't an editing issue with FCP and AVCHD. You transcode to either AIC or pro res.
 
David S. said:
1. Six default scene files for each cam and they can be changed or others downloaded

2. 150 is a nice cam; the others have superior color space

3. There isn't an editing issue with FCP and AVCHD. You transcode to either AIC or pro res.
Click to expand...

For me transcoding is an editing issue and is the one thing that is holding me back from getting an HMC150. One of the selling points of going tapeless for me is speeding up my turn around time by not having to log footage in real time. Until the transcode step is taken out of the mix that selling point is null.
 
ctb1010 said:
For me transcoding is an editing issue and is the one thing that is holding me back from getting an HMC150. One of the selling points of going tapeless for me is speeding up my turn around time by not having to log footage in real time. Until the transcode step is taken out of the mix that selling point is null.
Click to expand...

It depends on your work flow... I (and I use CS4 on a PC with the DVCProHD transcoder, but the concept is close enough) simply load all the footage I want transcoded and do it over night, or when I'm going off to do something else. And honestly, unless you have a super slow computer, transcoding is still going to be faster than real time.
 
Last edited:
For greatest ease of use and flexibility I'd go with the HPX.

I've never dealt with the workflow of the HMC, but I can tell you now, being a user of the HVX, that I'd be totally thrown by it...I'm spoiled.

With my current setup when I'm experimenting I don't even have to throw footage onto a harddrive...I just throw the P2 card in my laptop and start editing. Now that's instant gratification!

Of course on normal projects I have to dump footage somewhere, but even then I'm usually dumping while shooting, so once I break or we wrap for the day it's usually a small transfer and BAM I'm runnin' dailies, editing, and generally havin' sunshine come out of my ears, lol.
 
I don't anticipate that transcoding will be taken out of the mix at least as far as FCP is concerned.

That should then eliminate the 150.
 
For a lot of people with laptops, and by lot I mean most, playing back AVC-HD in real time might not be possible. ProRes can play on almost anything, which is why transcoding is a valid workflow. I agree that not having to transcode would be nice, but it does have its benefits.
 
new_dvx_user said:
1. Do all 3 have the same kind of "scene files" as the DVX? What are the differences?
Click to expand...
Yes, they all use mostly the exact same menu items. There are some differences in degree (for example, the HVX200 master pedestal goes from -15 to +15, the HPX170 and HMC150 go from -100 to +100). The 150 and 170 have DRS, the 200 doesn't. The 150 doesn't have variable frame rates, the 170 and 200 do.

2. All three have the same progressive modes?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the 150 doesn't do standard-def, the others do. And the 150 records 1080/24p as straight no-pulldown 24p, the others use 24pA or 24p 3:2 modes, exactly like the DVX does.

3. I'll be using it mainly for short narratives, using: 1 ext mic / boom, mattebox and stabilizer / tripod. The lower priced and light HMC151 sounds interesting, but is it the right upgrade for me?
Click to expand...
Only if you want a cam that beats the pants off the DVX100 in every possible way and still operates like a DVX and doesn't cost much. If you also want to add variable frame rates and intraframe recording and HD-SDI and time lapse, look at the 170 instead.

4. Is that editing issue solved yet, regarding the HMC151 AVCCAM footage and FCP?
Click to expand...
FCP will always and forever require file conversions.
 
Alex.Mitchell said:
For a lot of people with laptops, and by lot I mean most, playing back AVC-HD in real time might not be possible.
Click to expand...
AVCHD in realtime pretty much requires graphics card acceleration. If you have an accelerator and an appropriate nVidia or ATI graphics card, then it's easy. If you don't have those things, it's not gonna happen, at least at the current CPU technology level.
 
Yeah, we are on the same track. I don't like to call it converting, because it doesn't change the video data, it just repacks it into a different container. MXF -> MOV with the same AVCIntra video data in both.

I fought the battle of "container" versus "codec" along time ago, and I'm picky about my wordings :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
Point being, every other editor lets you edit your tapeless footage immediately.*

Apple purposely prevents that. Whether through transcoding (AVCHD) or rewrapping (AVC-Intra, XDCAM-EX, DVCPRO-HD) they enforce a workflow which prevents you from using the original footage as it was shot.

I well recognize that many FCP users don't have a problem with that, although I'm pretty sure there's a large percentage of them that don't even know there's another (and, inarguably, "better") way. But the point is that Apple has chosen a different path, one that may or may not have impact or consequences on any given individual editor's workflow, so it should be noted.

*with the understanding that Avid and SpeedEdit don't yet support AVCHD natively, and SpeedEdit and CS4 don't yet support AVC-Intra natively, but Avid supports DVCPRO-HD and AVC-Intra natively and SpeedEdit and CS4 both support DVCPRO-HD natively and CS4 supports AVCHD natively and has demonstrated AVC-Intra support working natively. And by "natively" I mean in the original format, from the camera-original files, edited immediately off the original media. No file conversions necessary, no format conversions necessary, you can shoot 12 hours of AVCHD on a 32GB card and then plug that card into the computer and edit it immediately right from the card. Apple's approach prevents you from ever being able to execute such a workflow.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Point being, every other editor lets you edit your tapeless footage immediately.*

Apple purposely prevents that. Whether through transcoding (AVCHD) or rewrapping (AVC-Intra, XDCAM-EX, DVCPRO-HD) they enforce a workflow which prevents you from using the original footage as it was shot.

I well recognize that many FCP users don't have a problem with that, although I'm pretty sure there's a large percentage of them that don't even know there's another (and, inarguably, "better") way. But the point is that Apple has chosen a different path, one that may or may not have impact or consequences on any given individual editor's workflow, so it should be noted.

*with the understanding that Avid and SpeedEdit don't yet support AVCHD natively, and SpeedEdit and CS4 don't yet support AVC-Intra natively, but Avid supports DVCPRO-HD and AVC-Intra natively and SpeedEdit and CS4 both support DVCPRO-HD natively and CS4 supports AVCHD natively and has demonstrated AVC-Intra support working natively. And by "natively" I mean in the original format, from the camera-original files, edited immediately off the original media. No file conversions necessary, no format conversions necessary, you can shoot 12 hours of AVCHD on a 32GB card and then plug that card into the computer and edit it immediately right from the card. Apple's approach prevents you from ever being able to execute such a workflow.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in that it is a different path, and would be better without rewrapping... for sure. Every week, I have to "rewrap" a weekly podcast video from QT m4v to mp4. I hate Apple's proprietary containers that complicate things.

However, you say FCP "prevents you from using the original footage as it was shot." That seems highly inaccurate to me in that the footage doesn't change at all, unless it is transcoded. Rewrapping or "ingestion" doesn't have any affect on the footage itself.

Unless I'm mistaken....
 
What he means is that you can't use the footage as it was intended to be used by the camera manufacturer -- straight off the card, no duplication, no waiting for rewrapping -- slide the card out of the camera, into your computer, and you're editing within seconds of shooting, not waiting for it to transfer. (Not that it's the ONLY way it was intended to be used, but it's one of the advantages of the system that's not being utilized.)

The whole point of the MXF format is that it be universal, used by everything, no conforming it to work with various tools -- they all (should) use the exact same files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top