Is the HMC still relevant?

Cinephile

Cinephile

Member
Okay I plan to make a small feature film and I'm deciding whether to get an HMC 150 or buy a new DVX200. My question is, is 1080 24p good enough or is 4K the way to go? Also what is the equivalent to a BLU Ray disc, is Blu ray 1080p or is it 4K?
 
Last edited:
I can't comment on the HMC100 or the DVX200 as I haven't used either.

Blu-ray is 1080p. Then there's also 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray. Those are two separate types of disc. You can play regular Blu-ray discs in a 4K UHD Blu-ray player, but you can't play 4K UHD Blu-ray discs in a regular Blu-ray player.

Honestly, if I were going to make a feature film today, I would do it in 4K. Shooting it in HD will look fine, but your distribution options will become more limited as the years go by. 4K is much more futureproof that way.
 
Hi. I do not know of such a camera as HMC 100. Do you mean HMC 150? Or DVX100?
I own 3 HMC150 and did own a DVX100B...
I certainly would not use the DVX for a feature film.
The HMC is relevant still for some uses certainly but its 1080p is a little weak by today's standards. 720p is great. Blu-ray supports both. But I would recommend shooting a feature in 4k in 2017 since HD could limit it in the future.
Hope that helps
 
Cinephile said:
Okay I plan to make a small feature film and I'm deciding whether to get an HMC 150 or buy a new DVX200. My question is, is 1080 24p good enough or is 4K the way to go? Also what is the equivalent to a BLU Ray disc, is Blu ray 1080p or is it 4K?
Click to expand...
Firehawk answered the question excellently.

The HMC150 was a fine camera in its day, and one of my favorites. The DVX200 is a far, far, far superior camera in nearly every imaginable way, but it is bigger and heavier than the HMC150 so if you're planning on doing primarily tripod work, it'd be fine; if you're going to be mostly handheld, the HMC150 would be a lot easier to handhold on an all day shoot.

I would recommend you also look at the UX180. It's the same size and weight (basically) as the HMC150, and it has almost all the goodness of the DVX200, and it's a little less expensive than the DVX200. The DVX200 has a bigger sensor for some shallower depth of field, it has a true manual zoom control, and it can record in VLOG-L and has 10-bit external output, so those are advantages over the UX180; the UX180 has a 20x zoom lens, which is an advantage over the DVX200's 13x. So you have some feature differences, a size/weight difference (UX180 is about 2 pounds lighter than the DVX200), and a price difference. Both the UX180 and DVX200 record 4K and UHD, and they both have bitrates for HD that are 2.5x to 8x higher than the HMC150. If recording strictly HD, the UX180's 1080p is markedly sharper than the HMC150's. The DVX200's HD is probably more like the HMC150's, but the UX180's is outstanding.

I loved the HMC150. But to put it in film terms, the HMC150 is like a good 16mm film camera, the DVX200 in comparison is more like a 35mm film camera.
 
For all of it's technical flaws compared to modern offerings, it still surprises me how well the HMC150 color science holds up. Still one of my favourite "looks" straight out of camera.
 
DBP said:
For all of it's technical flaws compared to modern offerings, it still surprises me how well the HMC150 color science holds up. Still one of my favourite "looks" straight out of camera.
Click to expand...
Yes it's nice! And I love it's global shutter CCDs.
But it's lousy LCD screen is my biggest gripe with it
 
"The DVX200's HD is probably more like the HMC150's, but the UX180's is outstanding." Barry Green

Thanks for all the great info guys! Barry, when you say DVX200 HD, are you saying the 1080p on the DVX200 is WORSE than the 1080p on the UX180? How bout when it comes to 4K between the two cameras?
 
Yes apparantly the 1080HD of the DVX200 isn't as good as the UX180. I know it may sound strange, but some cameras do the lower resolutions better than others as in some 4K cameras do HD worse than others, and in the past some 1080 cameras did 1080 good but not 720 wheras other camers did good 1080 and 720. It must have to do with processing/downsampling etc
 
Cinephile said:
Barry, when you say DVX200 HD, are you saying the 1080p on the DVX200 is WORSE than the 1080p on the UX180?
Click to expand...
The DVX200's 1080p isn't particularly crisp and it does show some aliasing effects. The UX180's 1080p is sharper and doesn't have those aliasing artifacts, so -- the 1080p on the UX180 is superior. However, if you really need super-sharp 1080p on a DVX200, you can get it by recording in DUAL CODEC mode; use UHD for the main codec and 50mbps FHD for the dual codec, and that 50mbps dual codec recording will be razor sharp crisp clean 1080p.

How bout when it comes to 4K between the two cameras?
Click to expand...
Both have excellent 4K/UHD, but the DVX200's is a little sharper because it's using a native 5K sensor, whereas the UX180 is using a native 4K sensor.
 
Barry_Green said:
if you really need super-sharp 1080p on a DVX200, you can get it by recording in DUAL CODEC mode; use UHD for the main codec and 50mbps FHD for the dual codec, and that 50mbps dual codec recording will be razor sharp crisp clean 1080p.
Click to expand...

Barry, are you saying that by using DUAL CODEC mode and recording on two cards - one UHD and the other 50mbps FHD - that the content on the card with the FHD will be sharper than just recording FHD without the DUAL CODEC? Not sure I grasp the reason. Sounds quirky and how did you ever figure that out. Maybe I am missing something. Is that in your book? Thanks
 
I shot plenty on the HMC back in the day but you couldn't pay me to shoot on one now... Can't think of any reason to bring back that ancient camera that wasn't great to begin with. So many better options now.
 
Design Media Consultants said:
Barry, are you saying that by using DUAL CODEC mode and recording on two cards - one UHD and the other 50mbps FHD - that the content on the card with the FHD will be sharper than just recording FHD without the DUAL CODEC?
Click to expand...
Yes, notably sharper.

Not sure I grasp the reason.
Click to expand...
It's because the dual codec recording is made from a direct resize of the UHD frame. Generally in 1080p mode, the camera scans the chip differently, using pixel mixing which lets it get a wider field of view and faster scan rates, at the expense of some picture softening and some aliasing; other bonuses include the ability to use i.Zoom and the hybrid optical image stabilizer. When using UHD in dual codec, the field of view is slightly narrower and the frame rate is limited to 29.97 maximum and the hybrid image stabilizer and i.Zoom are not available.

So there are reasons to use the native 1080p mode, but the bonuses it gives are offset by the fact that it's not quite as sharp and has some more aliasing. On the other hand, if you don't need 59.94p or 50p frame rates, and you're not going to use Hybrid OIS or the iZoom, then you can use the dual codec recording and the FHD that's recorded is pristine footage made from a scaled-down UHD sample off the sensor.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, notably sharper.


It's because the dual codec recording is made from a direct resize of the UHD frame. Generally in 1080p mode, the camera scans the chip differently, using pixel mixing which lets it get a wider field of view and faster scan rates, at the expense of some picture softening and some aliasing; other bonuses include the ability to use i.Zoom and the hybrid optical image stabilizer. When using UHD in dual codec, the field of view is slightly narrower and the frame rate is limited to 29.97 maximum and the hybrid image stabilizer and i.Zoom are not available.

So there are reasons to use the native 1080p mode, but the bonuses it gives are offset by the fact that it's not quite as sharp and has some more aliasing. On the other hand, if you don't need 59.94p or 50p frame rates, and you're not going to use Hybrid OIS or the iZoom, then you can use the dual codec recording and the FHD that's recorded is pristine footage made from a scaled-down UHD sample off the sensor.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Wow, some days my head gets overwhelmed. Good info. Thank you!
 
I love my 150s, but after using the UX-180 for a few days, the 150s seem "toy like" to me.
Hmmm, I might do a comparison, just to see the progress of the 180 vs the 150.
 
Digital Frank said:
I love my 150s, but after using the UX-180 for a few days, the 150s seem "toy like" to me.
Hmmm, I might do a comparison, just to see the progress of the 180 vs the 150.
Click to expand...
Could you possibly do a test to see if the latency of the LCD and also hdmi out are close between those two cameras? Over in another thread we've been trying to determine if the UX180 has more delay than the HMC150, making it harder to follow fast moving subjects. Many are complaining about the 180
 
I should be able to... What would be the best method to measure the delay?
Simply shoot a video showing the scene and LCD?

From my observations so far, the 180s delay is greater than the 150s from scene to LCD.
(Maybe that is why the 150s LCD has such low in resolution, less processing, less delay)
 
Some people were shooting a digital clock counter (even on a phone) with the camera and showing it on another camera so we could see how many frames it was delayed. Ill have to search for the thread again as I forgot exactly where it is. Barry and someone else I believe had some results from the 180 but no one so far had both the 150 and 180 to test together
 
But to put it in film terms, the HMC150 is like a good 16mm film camera, the DVX200 in comparison is more like a 35mm film camera.
Click to expand...

Hi Barry,

where would you place the UX180 in that comparison? A bit in the middle?
I understand that it doesnt have as shallow DoF as the DVX200 but more than the HMC150, right?

Thanks
 
Yes, the UX180 is an excellent upgrade to the HMC150 in all ways. It's the same basic size and weight, same excellent handling, but with shallower DOF and ultrasharp images. It's my favorite handheld camera they've made since the HMC150/HPX170 nine years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top