eric geurts lakin
Active member
Can any one tell me what the image details produced by the imagers on the HMC40 are? I know that on the HMC150 (according to Barry Green) it is 1440 x 810, but what about the HMC40 ? does anybody know? Barry??
Image detail on the HMC40
- Thread starter eric geurts lakin
- Start date
Greg Smith
Veteran
The sensors are generally said to be 1920x1080. But according to the manual, they have "approx. 2.51 million pixels" in 16:9 format, which would imply they are something like 2112x1188. So it appears they may be oversampling very slightly the full-raster HD image.
- Greg
- Greg
eric geurts lakin
Active member
Okay I see... So the HMC40 does have a full raster (1020 x 1080) image, where as the HMC150 has only a 1440 x 810 image (which to me is not full raster). Sounds to me like I should have bought the HMC40 instead of the HMC150.
eric geurts lakin
Active member
I shall certainly check those out then. Thanks.
Hendosan, for sure, the 40 has low light issues, but your statement, IMHO, seems a bit exagerated. "A little bit dark" is a relative statement and paints a pretty harsh stroke.
Except for now, the 130 and 160 don't exist in the market. Great if you can wait and spend more money. The 40 has its limitations which have been hashed out here plenty, but bang for the buck, it is still hard to beat. Andto the OP, the HMC80 is the same guts as the 40, in a different box, with a few nice upgrades like built in XLRs, firewire port, and apparently a much improved VF.
Grant
Except for now, the 130 and 160 don't exist in the market. Great if you can wait and spend more money. The 40 has its limitations which have been hashed out here plenty, but bang for the buck, it is still hard to beat. Andto the OP, the HMC80 is the same guts as the 40, in a different box, with a few nice upgrades like built in XLRs, firewire port, and apparently a much improved VF.
Grant
Thomas Smet
Veteran
You have to be careful not to compare apples to oranges. The 1440x810 of the HMC-150 is the measured resolution not the actual resolution from the chipset. The actual resolution is a bit tricky because the chipset is 960x540 pixels but it uses pixel shifting. That is why it is typically mentioned as resolving 1440x810 resolution. The HMC-40 is much higher because it's native chipset is 1920x1080. So yes the HMC-40 is much much sharper, if you have enough light. In dark environments the hmc-150 is suggested to be sharper because you don't need as much gain. extreme high gain will soften the image plus add a lot of noise which in effect takes away from the natural raw detail of a scene. Outdoors the HMC-40 will kill the HMC-150 but you have to be very careful with indoor shooting.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Thomas sums it up pretty well.
In a couple of months the AC130 should be on the market, and is supposed to have the sensitivity of the HMC150 and the sharpness of the HMC40, so it could be the best of all worlds. But that's a couple of months away.
I have both an HMC40 and an HMC150 and they're both excellent cameras. Every time I pull the HMC40 out to use it, I'm constantly impressed with just how good that little camera is, at such a low price. And the HMC150 (and its twin the HPX170) are just the most user-friendly camcorders ever made, they balance perfectly and they just hit such a sweet spot of features, performance, and price. The AC130 will probably outperform them, at the expense of it being a notably bigger camera (its 21x lens is huge!) and then if the difference between MOS and CCD is important to you, then note that the HMC150/HPX170 are pretty much the last CCD cameras standing, whereas the AC130 will be MOS.
In a couple of months the AC130 should be on the market, and is supposed to have the sensitivity of the HMC150 and the sharpness of the HMC40, so it could be the best of all worlds. But that's a couple of months away.
I have both an HMC40 and an HMC150 and they're both excellent cameras. Every time I pull the HMC40 out to use it, I'm constantly impressed with just how good that little camera is, at such a low price. And the HMC150 (and its twin the HPX170) are just the most user-friendly camcorders ever made, they balance perfectly and they just hit such a sweet spot of features, performance, and price. The AC130 will probably outperform them, at the expense of it being a notably bigger camera (its 21x lens is huge!) and then if the difference between MOS and CCD is important to you, then note that the HMC150/HPX170 are pretty much the last CCD cameras standing, whereas the AC130 will be MOS.
There are situations where I use the HMC150 with no gain and come out with a decent exposure, where I'd have to go to around +9db on the HMC40 and the sharpness really goes away. I'm not talking about inside a dark nightclub, I'm talking about daytime inside of a church that receives both ambient light and has some stage lighting.
It's not apples to apples - for whatever reason, noise on the HMC40 doesn't look as awful as it does on the HMC150 so in some situations I could be at +18db gain on the HMC40 and it doesn't have that ugly video noise that the HMC150 has at +6db. Still, I've spent about a year with both cameras and I think the HMC150 is definitely a more flexible and user-friendly camera.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed with hendosan.
The noise on the HMC150 can get very gritty and grainy. On the HMC40, while it gets grainy, it isn't the same; adding a lot of gain to the HMC40 results in the images getting washed out in color and detail, everything gets soft & mushy as well as noisy. It's different. Probably part and parcel of one being a CCD and the other being an MOS chip.
The HMC150 is a much more sensitive camera. You have to go to about +18dB of gain on the HMC40, to match the HMC150 at 0dB.
The noise on the HMC150 can get very gritty and grainy. On the HMC40, while it gets grainy, it isn't the same; adding a lot of gain to the HMC40 results in the images getting washed out in color and detail, everything gets soft & mushy as well as noisy. It's different. Probably part and parcel of one being a CCD and the other being an MOS chip.
The HMC150 is a much more sensitive camera. You have to go to about +18dB of gain on the HMC40, to match the HMC150 at 0dB.
Robert M Wright
Well-known member
I'm really looking forward to the new AC130, but if anyone needs an AVCHD 3-1/3" chipper right now, that's capable of recording essentially the same image detail as the HMC40, there's the Sony's NX5U. At factory default settings, the HMC40 and NX5U have some pretty noticeable differences in the look of the images they record, but resolution-wise they are quite close.
Yeah, the HMC40 seems to have some built-in noise reduction that is much more aggressive than the HMC150, even at comparable scene file settings. Or maybe that's just the difference between CCD/CMOS, I wouldn't really know.
Good lighting can obscure the mushiness by fooling your eye with some contrast. I took the HMC40 to an outdoors party at night where it looked like the event planners put a 10k inside of a gigantic china ball (you could see this thing from several blocks away), and the image at +18db was pretty acceptable unless you're a pixel peeper.
Couldn't agree more with what Barry said.
I use the 40 as a B-Cam to a 170 and like them both for the right reasons. The 40, despite its shortcomings, has great IQ, is light, guerilla sized, runs forever on a battery to name a few. The 170 is always a joy to use, it just has everything you need to do a project except for the sharper IQ seen in the newer MOS cams. Never the less, the 170 images always makes me smile. Both have a place in the market. I suppose you could sub the 150 for the 170 and still be plenty happy.
Grant
Yes, indoor shooting with the HMC40 is very rough... but outdoor shooting is quite amazing...
Hear is some footage I shot outside with the AG-HMC40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p5XS3qEa1M&feature=channel_video_title
Hear is some footage I shot outside with the AG-HMC40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p5XS3qEa1M&feature=channel_video_title
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
Just looking through the forums and I honestly have to admit that I do not like cover band music , especially when it's from artist who are currently active right now. If it were from a dead artist or back in the days it would be a little better, but I just don't know.
Also after shooting with large chip cameras I must admit I really do not like the look of the Hmc40. I'm more of a Film, Red, Dslr kind of dude. I must admit though that the Panasonic Af-100 is an amazing camera.
Lets see here:
Film = very very expensive
Red = very expensive
DSLR = considerable expense to make it work like a video cam, not to mention the audio issues
AF100 = good cam at atleast 3x the price minimum when rigged
HMC40 = Install battery and memory, plug mic in, shoot full raster video, under $2000; priceless
There needs to be a little perspective here. No doubt film and red should be superior, and you'll need a large crew to achieve it. DSLR has some advantages for shallow DOF, but otherwise is a PITA. Little and cheap, HMC40 is like the little cam that can. Is it a great cinematic cam; no. Does it deliver incredible performance for the price; yes.
Grant
adamr316
Well-known member
I'd prefer a Lexus over my current vehicle. However I do like cover band music.
Greg Smith
Veteran
I think "3x" kind of does a disservice to the AF100; actually, all you need to match the HMC40 in addition to what's in the box is a usable lens, and the free 14-140 offer (still available from at least one vendor) takes care of that. It doesn't power zoom and the low light performance is compromised (not any worse than the HMC40/80, though), but it makes good images. Even if you pay full price for that lens it's only about 20% on top of the base cost of the camera. Naturally, you can spend as much as you want expanding your lens collection and accessorizing the camera beyond that ...
For my work at least, the HMC40 would need the XLR add-on to be minimally usable.
And with any camera, you're going to need a decent tripod, not to mention microphones, lights, spare batteries, chargers, cables, cases and all the rest.
I own an AF100 and a HMC80 and they're largely compatible, but different, cameras for somewhat different purposes. No question that if I'm called out to shoot a breaking event on short notice, it's the HMC80 I'm going to pick up, but the AF is lovely for more planned stuff, even though I don't have mine rigged out very extravagantly.
- Greg
OK, you can get a HMC40 with audio adapter for right at $2000. The AF100 with the 14x140 is what $4700? So it isn't 3x, but it is more than 2x.
Hey Greg, How do you like the VF on the HMC80? Have you used a HMC40? For me, the VF and flipout are the biggest drawbacks on the 40, more than the low light issues. I keep thinking the 80, with a significant improvement in the VF could be a cam I could embrace.
Grant
Hey Greg, How do you like the VF on the HMC80? Have you used a HMC40? For me, the VF and flipout are the biggest drawbacks on the 40, more than the low light issues. I keep thinking the 80, with a significant improvement in the VF could be a cam I could embrace.
Grant
Greg Smith
Veteran
Ok, I misunderstood -- I thought you meant the cost of getting the AF100 to work was 3 times the base price of the camera body alone, i.e. that it needed $10,000 worth of accessories to be usable, and that's really not true. Compared to the HMC40, yeah, it's a lot more expensive, and in the "usable pixels per buck" race, the HMC40 is certainly the winner. I thought long and hard about that when I decided to buy my AF100. I owned the HMC first but wanted a second camera for some kinds of event coverage; I could have bought another HMC80 or HMC40, but thought the better low light capability on the AF would be useful a lot of the time, and as a bonus, the ability to use a lot of different lenses and the LPCM audio would add some new dimensions to my work. It wasn't the "cinema look" per se I was going for; in fact, I find tight DOF to be a pain at least as often as it's valuable. And of course you give up servo zoom and, for the most part, the ability to hand-hold the camera. But it has worked out well and I have a variety of choices now in how I want to approach a particular subject. The camera I really want would be an HPX370 with an SD slot ... as if.
I have not used the HMC40 personally, so anything I'd say about the monitor would just be repeating hearsay from here, but my understanding is that the HMC80 screen is better. The downside being that there's only one, compared to having the separate EVF at the back end. I do find the HMC80 setup to be perfectly practical -- flip the magnifier down to use it at the eye, or up to use it like a regular side-mounted LCD. And the adjustable angle and hood around it makes it somewhat more usable in daylight than a conventional LCD on the side of the camera. What I do kind of miss from the SD cameras I had previously (a pair of JVC DV5000's) was that on those, I could set up a clear and unobstructed viewfinder display and put all the text information (time code, battery and tape time remaining, audio level meters, etc.) on the LCD on the side of the camera so the info was accessible but didn't compete for my attention composing the shot. I don't think any of the Panasonics really do that even if they do have separate EVFs; I know it isn't possible on my AF100.
I continue to be amazed at just how good the pictures are from my HMC80, and you're absolutely right, in terms of bang for the buck you just about can't beat either of these little cameras.
- Greg
I have not used the HMC40 personally, so anything I'd say about the monitor would just be repeating hearsay from here, but my understanding is that the HMC80 screen is better. The downside being that there's only one, compared to having the separate EVF at the back end. I do find the HMC80 setup to be perfectly practical -- flip the magnifier down to use it at the eye, or up to use it like a regular side-mounted LCD. And the adjustable angle and hood around it makes it somewhat more usable in daylight than a conventional LCD on the side of the camera. What I do kind of miss from the SD cameras I had previously (a pair of JVC DV5000's) was that on those, I could set up a clear and unobstructed viewfinder display and put all the text information (time code, battery and tape time remaining, audio level meters, etc.) on the LCD on the side of the camera so the info was accessible but didn't compete for my attention composing the shot. I don't think any of the Panasonics really do that even if they do have separate EVFs; I know it isn't possible on my AF100.
I continue to be amazed at just how good the pictures are from my HMC80, and you're absolutely right, in terms of bang for the buck you just about can't beat either of these little cameras.
- Greg
Last edited: