My humble review of the HMC150

A1 1080i and HMC150 1080i footage work on the timeline fine and create the same size picture. HDV 1440 uses non-square pixels to create a 1920 X1080 actual image size.

I have authored several A1 & HMC dual camera projects in HD, NTSC DV & NTSC DV widescreen and they technically work and look fine. I use Sony Vegas 8.0c.

You are in a dilemma, I wouldn't buy another A1 right now because an A2 is bound to be coming very soon. However, using two different cameras, batteries and media is a pain too.
Click to expand...

Hello,

I have some questions regarding your text:

1. How does Sony Vegas handle AVCHD files? Smoother than HDV or not?
2. How does it compare the Canon A1 vs the HMC-150 in terms of picture quality and flexibility?
3. With HMC-150 720/50p mode, is it possible to shot high quality slow motion footage?
4. I have been told that Panasonic gives you a software that transcodes your AVCHD files to DVCPRO-HD, is that true? How fast is the transcoding ? How much faster is the editing process ? Do you recommend that workflow: shot AVCHD, transcode to DVCPROHD, and edit DVCPRO-HD ?

Thanks for your help!
 
I have some questions regarding your text:

1. How does Sony Vegas handle AVCHD files? Smoother than HDV or not?
It handles it just as well but is slower to render to other HD formats. There is obviously no smart render. You can mix HDV & AVCHD clips on the timeline with no problem too.

2. How does it compare the Canon A1 vs the HMC-150 in terms of picture quality and flexibility?
They are different but roughly equivalent. See some of my other posts.

3. With HMC-150 720/50p mode, is it possible to shot high quality slow motion footage?
I haven't tried, not sure if mine will do 50P.

4. I have been told that Panasonic gives you a software that transcodes your AVCHD files to DVCPRO-HD, is that true? How fast is the transcoding ? How much faster is the editing process ? Do you recommend that workflow: shot AVCHD, transcode to DVCPROHD, and edit DVCPRO-HD ?
There is a free downloadable software. Im not sure why you would do this step. With Vegas 8.0c I just add to the timeline and edit natively. No problem.
 
Excellent thread......I'm still torn between a new Canon 5D Mark II or HMC150....I'm just looking for the cleanest, sharpest video and it's between those 2 I'm considering.
Thanks to all whom posted- excellent info.
 
jeff9329 said:
You are in a dilemma, I wouldn't buy another A1 right now because an A2 is bound to be coming very soon. However, using two different cameras, batteries and media is a pain too.
Click to expand...

I don't know... unless you have some hard information... of all the prosumer camera manufacturers, Canon tends to have the least-frequent product updates, by far. I'd expect the A1 to be around, unmodified, for a long time. I don't think it'll be losing value any time soon.

I mean, look at the GL2! Or, look at a timeline of camera introductions from Panasonic, JVC, Sony, and Canon, and see the frequency of updates/replacements!
 
Canon HDV products have been eclipsed by the EX1 and HMC, so it's time to upgrade to AVCHD and maybe 1/2" ccd's to get an edge.
 
accelv said:
Canon HDV products have been eclipsed by the EX1 and HMC, so it's time to upgrade to AVCHD and maybe 1/2" ccd's to get an edge.
Click to expand...

Actually I think ALL HDV cameras have been surpassed by higher bitrate AVCHD.

I'll take 1/2 chips but only if the price is right.:thumbup:
 
HMC-150 specific questions

HMC-150 specific questions

1. How does Sony Vegas handle AVCHD files? Smoother than HDV or not?
It handles it just as well but is slower to render to other HD formats. There is obviously no smart render. You can mix HDV & AVCHD clips on the timeline with no problem too.
Click to expand...

Slower than what? Slower than HDV ?

3. With HMC-150 720/50p mode, is it possible to shot high quality slow motion footage?
I haven't tried, not sure if mine will do 50P.
Click to expand...

PAL version does 720/50p whereas NTSC version does 720/60p I guess. I just wanted to know if shotting at 50p/60p we can get REAL 50% slow motion. If so, what are the advantages of the variable frame rate of the HPX171 over the HMC-150 ? Why would someone shot 42p or 21p for example?

4
. I have been told that Panasonic gives you a software that transcodes your AVCHD files to DVCPRO-HD, is that true? How fast is the transcoding ? How much faster is the editing process ? Do you recommend that workflow: shot AVCHD, transcode to DVCPROHD, and edit DVCPRO-HD ?
There is a free downloadable software. Im not sure why you would do this step. With Vegas 8.0c I just add to the timeline and edit natively. No problem.
Click to expand...

Edit natively= no quality loss, as long as you simply do straight cuts. Every single transition would need to be decompressed, rendered, and compressed again, so picture will degrade.
Go to an intermediate format: DVCPROHD or better yet, cineform or prores422. You would end with much bigger files, but editing should be smoother and you will not loose quality. All of that is in theory. Could someone confirm these workflow steps in a real world scenario?

Thanks !
 
I am using the HMC-150 with Edius 5 and transcoding into Canopus HQ with the fine quality setting.

Image is great.

Files size - about 65GB per hour of footage (720p60)

Takes some time, but the transcoder is multithreaded, so four files are done at the same time on my dual-core.

The files edit like DV once transocded...
 
ullanta said:
I don't know... unless you have some hard information... of all the prosumer camera manufacturers, Canon tends to have the least-frequent product updates, by far. I'd expect the A1 to be around, unmodified, for a long time. I don't think it'll be losing value any time soon.

I mean, look at the GL2! Or, look at a timeline of camera introductions from Panasonic, JVC, Sony, and Canon, and see the frequency of updates/replacements!
Click to expand...

Canon certainly does move extremely slowly with the video line. They were 2 years behind everyone else with the introduction of a HDV camera (A1=Nov 2006 vs JVC HD1=June 2004). Kinda strange Canons digital camera line is just the opposite with a 6 to 9 and 12 month at the longest product cycle.

The A1 is now 2 years old. A lot has happened in those two years. For Canon to wait another full year or especially 2 would be crazy IMO. By the April 2009 NAB, at the latest, I bet the A1 successor will be announced. I wasn't willing to wait that long. And no, I don't have any hard information.

Also, the GL2 timeline has nothing to do with the modern HD camera variants timeline. DV camera development is over and has been for a few years. The GL2 was long in the tooth 2 years ago and is archaic by todays standards. It's still a great DV camera, but there will never be a GL3. Im not sure why anyone would ever buy a DV camera that is not native widescreen anymore.
 
mitteg said:
PAL version does 720/50p whereas NTSC version does 720/60p I guess. I just wanted to know if shotting at 50p/60p we can get REAL 50% slow motion. If so, what are the advantages of the variable frame rate of the HPX171 over the HMC-150 ? Why would someone shot 42p or 21p for example?
Click to expand...
Of course you can, the formulas should work for any camera that does 50/60p. DVCPROHD does variable framerates a little different and allows for all those extra settings. Why would you want other framerates? Maybe you don't want to do 40/50% slow motion, maybe you just want to slow it down or speed it up a tiny bit. Although they don't get used as much as the highest framerates (for slowmo) by most users, they are just more creative options you have to use.

Edit natively= no quality loss, as long as you simply do straight cuts. Every single transition would need to be decompressed, rendered, and compressed again, so picture will degrade.
Go to an intermediate format: DVCPROHD or better yet, cineform or prores422. You would end with much bigger files, but editing should be smoother and you will not loose quality. All of that is in theory. Could someone confirm these workflow steps in a real world scenario?
Click to expand...
As soon as you have transcoded to any format other than uncompressed, you have already lost quality. With a solid intra-frame codec like you mention, you would not lose further quality when doing straight cuts and only have minimal degradation with modification to the pictures.

Native does only mean that you are starting with the original pictures, not necessarily ending with them. You would need to re-encode or transcode the final output. Results may vary (many variables in play), but I wouldn't say final quality is certainly going to be better or worse than using the initial transcode method. Smooth/quick editing will be more difficult to do natively for now though. Figure you have 2 workflows to choose from and most people without a proper hardware/software setup will need to transcode first.

The exception to the above would be a program that can natively edit and will also "smart render" final output. This would allow the exact same quality output with the exception of a few frames near each transition (figure no more than a second on each side of cuts can have degradation). This is ideal when you want to simply cut up footage and be done with it. Then you have all the good source material in one spot for further editing down the road.

Are there any programs that can do this properly yet? I've been trying a bunch of the consumer software that have been touting native AVCHD editing for a while but none so far will smart render (if they even recognize the files). I've heard Nero Vision can, haven't heard or tried if HMC footage will work yet. If you have to re-encode anyway, native editing loses most of its purpose while making editing a pain.
 
jeff9329 said:
Also, the GL2 timeline has nothing to do with the modern HD camera variants timeline. DV camera development is over and has been for a few years.
Click to expand...

That's not the point... compare the GL line to other manufacturers DV lines. The HD stuff has been similar. Canon always maintains a VERY small prosumer product line, and the products tend to live very long lives.

Finally... with Canon's prosumer dept. not being very into "change for change's sake" - what needs to change in the A1? It's still a great value, and among the top choices for prosumer cameras. It has a long lifetime left, ESPECIALLY if the market is moving towards solid-state; those with an investment in a tape-based workflow will keep buying them for a long time. Further, there are HD and solid-state accessories fr a tapeless workflow with these; such alternative (e.g., tape/HD) solutions (at a reasonable price/convenience) don't exist for todays solid state cameras....

Seriously, what needs to change in the A1 to make it a better product?
 
Well, Canon could improve the A1 by putting native-progressive CCDs into instead of interlaced CCDs. It's been proved in some shootouts that the 24f Canon uses in the XL-H1 and XH-A1 loses vertical resolution compared to other native-progressive chip cameras. It doesn't mean it becomes bad resolution, just that they could improve visual quality.

They could also improve low-light sensivity too while they're at it, since most new cameras are more light-sensitive with amazingly lower noise than before.

I personally hope they drop the HDV codec and move on to the new, much more promising AVCHD codec. Tape-based might be great for some, but for most, tapeless will be the way to go.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Gabriel Berube said:
Well, Canon could improve the A1 by putting native-progressive CCDs into instead of interlaced CCDs. It's been proved in some shootouts that the 24f Canon uses in the XL-H1 and XH-A1 loses vertical resolution compared to other native-progressive chip cameras. It doesn't mean it becomes bad resolution, just that they could improve visual quality.

They could also improve low-light sensivity too while they're at it, since most new cameras are more light-sensitive with amazingly lower noise than before.

I personally hope they drop the HDV codec and move on to the new, much more promising AVCHD codec. Tape-based might be great for some, but for most, tapeless will be the way to go.

Just my 2 cents...
Click to expand...

You have hit upon an area that has bugged me about Canon, the use of interlaced chips in the camera. If they changed to a 30/24 Progressive (25 Progressive in Europe...), chip this would be a real improvement to the camera.

Bob Diaz
 
Hmmm.... depends on Canon's target market. But yeah, that would be an improvement for some... though not if it reduces the quality of the "mainstream" interlaced footage (like on the HVX).

Anyway, my point is... read through these threads, and other forums. Frequently, addressing tapeless workflow issues, people say something like "I'd rather just grab an A1 and have (some benefit of tape)". I'm nopt commenting on the overall tape/tapeless workflow (I'm pretty tapeless) - but when the comparison is made these days, the tape camera is almost always an A1. It's the epitome of the Prosumer HDV camera world... and that means it's still got legs.
 
Last edited:
BobDiaz said:
If they changed to a 30/24 Progressive (25 Progressive in Europe...), chip this would be a real improvement to the camera.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It would be a change. You wouldn't get something for nothing. If Canon changed to a true progressive chip, all other things being equal, the very first thing that would happen is that you'd see a 1-stop drop in sensitivity, and a doubling of the amount of noise in the image. Are you sure everyone would classify that as an improvement?

The only way Canon got acceptable performance out of such a densely-pixel-packed chip was to use interlaced mode. Interlace scanning results in an increase in sensitivity and a decrease in noise. Without that interlace scan system, the A1 would be a very different performer.

Each of the manufacturers chose a compromise to get their priorities accomplished. There is a tradeoff involved in all manufacturing decisions. For Canon, the marketing advantage of "1440x1080" was too strong to ignore, so they went with it - even if it meant having to use interlaced chips and a "24F" scan system.

For Panasonic, the color and gamma and the variable frame rates were most important, and that meant a progressive chip was mandatory. So they had to employ a lower pixel count and spatial offset to accomplish satisfactory noise and sensitivity.

For JVC, "native 720p" was their clarion call, they wanted to have "native resolution". Fine, except it's impossible, so they had to actually divide their chip in half because you can't have a million pixels on a CCD and read it off at 60fps without starting a fire. So dividing the chip up was a clever solution, but it also meant having the dreaded split-screen side effect.

For Sony, they didn't care about progressive scan so they went with an interlaced, spatial-offset chip in the FX1/Z1. It resulted in great-looking 60i, but lousy progressive.

So now Sony's new approach is CMOS. Their new mantra is "FULL HD" so they have to cram as many pixels as possible on a chip, which is impossible with a CCD at this small size, so that forces them to CMOS. And the tradeoff there is sensitivity and rolling shutter. With the EX1 they had to go to 1/2" chip size to get the sensitivity up.

There is no free lunch. People who clamor for the Panasonic to use "native res" chips don't necessarily seem to understand that the only way to get there would be to go CMOS. You cannot have a 1920x1080 progressive-scan CCD in 1/3". It's impossible.

So, pick your compromise. Look at the results. Decide what your priorities are, and understand that there's no free lunch and no simple solution.
 
Hi Berry,

I guess I should have defined the parameters of this hypothetical camera....

First we know that the 1/3" CCD of the JVC camera would generate too much heat by trying to read all of the 1280 x 720 pixels in 1/60 of a second: 1280 x 720 x 60 FPS = 55,296,000 pixels per second. Thus, the number of pixels have to be split in 1/2 with a left side and a right side: 27,648,000 pixels per second.

The Canon A1 & H1 read 1440 x 540 pixels in 1/60 of a second: 1440 x 540 x 60 = 46,656,000 pixels per second. I'm guessing that this must be the upper limit for a 1/3" CCD, because the JVC could not do it with a single A/D converter.

Now with my hypothetical 30P or 24P Canon, it would need to read 1440 x 1080 pixels in 1/30 (or 1/24) of a second: 1440 x 1080 x 30 = 46,656,000 pixels per second. 1440 x 1080 x 24 = 37,324,800 pixels per second. Both are within the A1's & H1's upper limit for pixels per second.

It's tempting to think of of CCDs with 1440 x 540 and a vertical offset of the green chip. Yes, a loss in vertical resolution, but a gain of 1 F Stop...

As ullanta had pointed out, this hypothetical camera would be outside the parameters of the A1's market. Very true, but would now start to attract the low end film market.


I'm sorry, but I've gone WAY off topic of A Humble Review Of The HMC-150.


Bob Diaz
 
BobDiaz said:
It's tempting to think of of CCDs with 1440 x 540 and a vertical offset of the green chip. Yes, a loss in vertical resolution, but a gain of 1 F Stop...
Click to expand...
Which is why Sony did that, but in the other direction. They did 960x1080 with a horizontal offset of the green. Vertical res is more important than horizontal res; almost all HD compression codecs (up until now) have had no qualms about pre-filtering down the horizontal, but they always stored the full vertical. HDCAM, HDV, DVCPRO-HD, early AVC-HD, and 720p AVC-Intra all pre-filter the horizontal but record the full vertical.

So 1440x540 + spatial offset probably wouldn't happen, but similar numbers are gotten from 960x1080 + spatial offset, and that's what Sony did for the FX1/Z1.
 
jeff9329 said:
The HMC is pretty good in low light. Better sensitivity (seems like 1 stop) and less noise than the XH-A1. Because of this, I wouldn't try to use low light A1 shots cut with HMC150 shots. There is too much difference, the A1 noise pattern becomes very obvious and the picture appears darker. It took a week to match presets to get the cameras looking very close to each other in good light. Basically, you have to tone down the HMC150 dramatically to match the flat look of the XH-A1.

Im selling the A1s quickly before an A2 comes out and destroys their value. Im going to get a second HMC150, A1 matching is too much trouble.

Note: the XH-A1 is still a very fine camera and beats the HMC150 in a few areas, like the onboard mics. Those onboard A1 mics have been very useful for an ambient or backup track. When a tapeless A2 with an improved sensor block comes out, I may switch back to Canon.
Click to expand...

Mind sharing the scene file for the 150 and/or the preset file for the A1?

Thanks :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top