Is the Hvx still the HD version of the dvx?
- Thread starter weezhum
- Start date
My HMC40 now lives in the sling full time. Whenever I want a instant cam to take along, badabing, it's in the sling....sorry I said that. Actually it is true, when I want a more deliberate cam with features, the 170 goes with the full shooting kit. I am using the 40 more like a traveling handycam, and a B-cam to the 170.
Grant
Grant
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
can smoeone tell me how af100 will compare to hpx170 as it seems from what I seen hpx170 still has superior image quality to AF100. is this true? is hpx170 more powerful in terms of its codec, bitrate, chips, what have you, etc? I mean i know it's 4:2:2, is it 10bit or 8bit? is it avcintra or what?
Homunculus,
The HPX170 uses DVCProHD. The AF100 will use AVCHD. IMHO, both codecs can produce very good results. Both cams can record to external sources and different codecs, so if you really want a different codec you can do it. Though there is crossover, both cams have their place. No doubt, the AF-100 will offer a easy route to shallow DOF and the "cinematic look". The HPX will likely retain an edge in versatility, though time will tell.
Grant
The HPX170 uses DVCProHD. The AF100 will use AVCHD. IMHO, both codecs can produce very good results. Both cams can record to external sources and different codecs, so if you really want a different codec you can do it. Though there is crossover, both cams have their place. No doubt, the AF-100 will offer a easy route to shallow DOF and the "cinematic look". The HPX will likely retain an edge in versatility, though time will tell.
Grant
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
thanks grant but just pure image quality alone can you please tell me how they will compare, apart from shallow DOF, in terms of pure visual quality will AF100 be at least as good as hpx170 or a little less so?
Barry_Green
Moderator
I think most anyone looking at HPX170 vs. AF100 footage, is going to choose the AF100 footage hands down, and twice on Sunday. It's noticeably sharper and substantially cleaner. The 170's footage, coming from a smaller chip, has a grainier/grittier look to it, more like 16mm film, whereas the AF100's larger chip produces a "smoother" look, more like 35mm film.
Where the HPX170 is going to shine is in that it's immune to rolling shutter CMOS artifacts. And its better recording medium. And the functionality of its servo zoom. For example, in another thread we were talking about finding out how well the AF100 would work on the nose mount of a helicopter, and IMO the HPX170 would be a dramatically superior choice for that job. It'd be immune to jello, and the servo zoom gives you remote control capability that you wouldn't have with the AF100. The HPX170's got a 13:1 zoom lens that goes as wide as f/1.6, and there are many scenarios where that's just golden and the way to go. And it's CCD so it's immune from CMOS artifacts. And it's substantially less expensive. If those factors are important, the HPX170 is the obvious choice; I mean, all NBC owned & operated TV stations are using the HPX170 as their handheld news camera. It's frickin' great for that purpose.
For cinema purposes though, the AF100 does outshine it. It's largely an HPX170 with a large sensor and interchangeable lenses.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
barry main reason I'm actually asking is after watching your own trailer (at least I think you were involved) of Cold Calls. That was 170 wasn't it? Looked so filmic and good to me, but maybe that's the 4:2:2 colorspace I'm seeing as the colors looked deep. ... that's what I'm afraid of that AF100 will not be able to look that good 
Barry_Green
Moderator
Cold Calls was indeed an HPX170, with a Letus Ultimate. So here's what I don't get -- I produced Cold Calls. I wrote the HPX170 book. I kind of know a thing or two about the HPX170, to put it mildly. And I'm telling you the AF100 rocks the house. And yet you doubt... ah, young padawan, again -- give us a month. I'm trying to put something together. You shall see.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
sorry itw as my fault. I just read that Af100 is 4:2:2 using external recorder I thought that it was not "true" 4:2:2 just like if you use external recorder with 10bit you can record in 10bit but th bottleneck OUT of the camera is still 8bit so it's not true 10bit of info, it just somehow gives you more breathing room in post.
I thought 4:2:2 was the same that even in hd-sdi and all that the signal leaving the camera is only 4:2:0 but is recorded down with 4:2:2 space so it wouldn't be true 4:2:2 like REAL 4:2:2 10bit cameras have. But I am now reading in another thread that only 10bit is "fake" on the Af100 with an external recorder, but the HD-SDI out on AF100 DOES have true 4:2:2 colorspace, is this true? because if it IS true then you can delete this whole thread as that proves to me AF100 will be at the LEAst as good as hpx170 and most likely far better as long as one uses an external recorder. I need need confirmation whether the hd-sdi is 4:2:0 natively in af100 or actually 4:2:2 .......................
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
and honestly if af100 can produce at LEAST a good image as hpx170 with letus then i'm sold. and if the image is even BETTER? then im pre ordering asap. the problem is, what I've seen so far from the likes of Bloom videos and that other really bad short (guy with flowers on af100..) it does NOT look as good as hpx170, color and clarity just isn't there because "SOUTH" looks like it was shot on unhacked GH1 and hpx170 with letus IMO blows even hacked gh1 out of the water like a beached whale ....BUT I am hoping the unfinished af100 sensor is responsible for that so ....i still have some faith.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Don't make decisions based on faith. Look at the crews.tv stuff, or at the stuff that I will hopefully be delivering in about a month or so. Then decide.