Panasonic AG-AC160A or AG-HPX170

D

DanPerezFilms

New member
Hello, all. This is my first post here. I currently own two GH2 cameras and am looking to purchase a traditional video camera for those times when I need maximum flexibility in my shooting (documentary). I had my eye set on the Panasonic AG-AC160A but a friend of mine swears by his HVX and P2 workflow. For the price of the AG-AC160A, I can purchase the AG-HPX170 and two 64GB P2 cards. My question is, does the HPX with its P2 workflow hold any advantage over the 160A and its AVCHD/SD card workflow?
Thanks, in advance...
 
The HPX170 should be quite a bit less expensive, but in general it's an older camera and doesn't do quite as much as the newer camera does. It does have some advantages: the HPX170 is about the perfect size and shape, it's quite a bit smaller than the AC160, and it's pretty much a perfect handheld camera, and its P2 recording media is the most bulletproof indestructible heavy duty reliable recording media ever made. Plus its shorter lens helps it autofocus better/quicker.

Other than that, there's not a lot of advantages to the older camera. The AC160 benefits from newer technology, produces sharper/crisper footage, and can record a lot more of that footage on a less expensive memory card. It does slow-mo in 1080p instead of the HPX170's 720p, and in general the footage will be cleaner, smoother, and crisper. The HPX170 uses CCD chips, which means it will be completely immune to any "rolling shutter" artifcats; the AC160 uses MOS chips, which means rolling shutter is present, although really quite well controlled.

Now, in editing, yes the HPX170's P2 workflow is more established, faster, quicker turnaround, every major NLE supports it (including, believe it or not, Sony Vegas 12!) and it cuts like butter. AVCHD editing is still a tad more complex and really needs an NLE with a CUDA accelerated graphics card to be able to do realtime or realtime-ish editing.

The HPX170 is one of the all time greats, perhaps the best do-it-all camcorder Panasonic ever produced; it's just getting a little long in the tooth as compared to the newest technology, but it still performs well.
 
Barry,
Thanks for the in-depth reply - much appreciated. One of my concerns with shooting with the GH2 and SD cards (I use Sandisk Extreme 45mbs) is that I occasionally get glitches like the ones in the following video (it's only a few seconds long) https://vimeo.com/52465762. Is this a DSLR issue, an AVCHD issue or an SD card issue? They sometimes occur during a critical shot. Can this sort of thing be eliminated using P2 cards? If so, I might just go with the HPX170.
Thanks again...
 
The video's private so I can't see it, but I can almost predict what it is, search "glitch" and you'll read lots about it, it's not an issue with the camera, it's an issue with copying the footage to a computer (and almost always, to a Mac, and usually on an MBP).

Play the footage back from the SD card in-camera and see if the glitch is still there, I'll bet it isn't.
 
Barry,
Thanks, again. You're right about the glitch. Just read several posts about this mysterious glitch. It appears to happen when files are transferred to a computer hard drive (which is pretty much unavoidable). I use a PC running Premiere CS6. Some people believe it's a compression issue with AVCHD. So, would the DVCPRO HD format used by the HPX170 be more reliable due to the lower compression? I've never used P2 cards but I know you have. Have you ever encountered any glitches on P2 footage transferred to a computer?
Thanks, again, for the replies...
 
Dan Perez Films

I am selling my gently used HVX200 which also records on P2 and standard mini dv (only SD for mini dv)
Let me know if your are interested. Private Message me and we can discuss more details.

Thanks,
Ben
 
DanPerezFilms said:
Some people believe it's a compression issue with AVCHD.
Click to expand...
It most definitely is not anything to do with the compression format. It's an error when copying the data over.

The reason it manifests itself so visibly is because ANY error in a compressed data block will screw up the uncompression process. And in AVCHD, each frame is dependent on the other frames (within a group of 12 to 15 frames) so if one gets messed up, all 12 or 15 will be messed up.

That's why it's extremely helpful to have a data-verified copy, so you know the footage was copied successfully.


So, would the DVCPRO HD format used by the HPX170 be more reliable due to the lower compression?
Click to expand...
Well, sort of yes and no. No, because it has nothing to do with the compression, as far as whether the glitch happens or not. It's a data copying issue, so any data copied is subject to being glitched. But yes, the impact of the glitch will be less on a P2 system, because P2 is intraframe only, and so any glitch in any one frame won't have any bearing on any other frames.

Have you ever encountered any glitches on P2 footage transferred to a computer?
Click to expand...
That's where we first started hearing about it. I've never had a glitch of any type, but we have had dozens reports (almost exclusively from Mac users, so I'm surprised to hear you're a Windows user encountering it). So yes, it can also happen when copying P2 data -- or SxS, or AVCHD, or anything. Copying huge blocks of data, some systems will occasionally short out on a byte here or there. It's exceptionally rare, I mean, consider there's something like 150,000 or 200,000 P2 users out there, and we've only heard of maybe a two or three dozen reports of errors over the last 8 years, so it's not like this is some big problem, it's something that affects extremely few people -- but it does happen.

With either system, all I can really say is: if you're encountering the issue, your best line of defense is to use a data-verifying copy program. That should exterminate any possibility of encountering any glitch.
 
Barry,
Thanks, again, for your attention. Not sure if you made my decision any easier as both seem to be terrific cameras ;)
I'm leaning towards the AC160A as it appears it might be more compatible with my GH2 as well as the NTSC/PAL option & 60p. I'll post here again after I've made my final decision.
Your feedback was much appreciated...
 
OK, so after all that back and forth, here's what happened. I was looking only at Panasonic HD cams because I have two DVX100s and six batteries, which I thought I could use on the AG-AC160A. I come to find out that the DVX batteries won't work on the 160A. I'd never even considered another HD cam brand because of the whole battery thing. Make a long story short - I purchased the Canon XF100. Why? Broadcast quality MPEG-2 4:2:2 50Mbps Codec and the size. It's just bigger than a consumer HD cam. I can fit the camera AND my two GH2s into my Kata backpack. Great for solo shoots or when I have to travel. For the work I do, mostly corporate videos and doc films, it'll do just fine.

The 160A had more zoom (XF100 only has 10x zoom but I've been using the DVX for the past 6 years with the same zoom), arguably better in low light (that's what my GH2s are for anyway), but it was much bigger than the XF100. As for image quality, I've seen videos from both cams and to my eyes, there really isn't any difference. As for price, big difference. The Panasonic costs about $1500 more than the Canon. With the extra $$$, I picked up a varizoom remote controler, wide angle lens, extra battery, and three HQ CF cards (still had about $300 to spare).


Thanks, again, for your replies. I'll have some footage up soon...
 
HPX-170 Conundrum - 5D III

HPX-170 Conundrum - 5D III

Barry_Green said:
The HPX170 should be quite a bit less expensive, but in general it's an older camera and doesn't do quite as much as the newer camera does. It does have some advantages: the HPX170 is about the perfect size and shape, it's quite a bit smaller than the AC160, and it's pretty much a perfect handheld camera, and its P2 recording media is the most bulletproof indestructible heavy duty reliable recording media ever made. Plus its shorter lens helps it autofocus better/quicker.

Other than that, there's not a lot of advantages to the older camera. The AC160 benefits from newer technology, produces sharper/crisper footage, and can record a lot more of that footage on a less expensive memory card. It does slow-mo in 1080p instead of the HPX170's 720p, and in general the footage will be cleaner, smoother, and crisper. The HPX170 uses CCD chips, which means it will be completely immune to any "rolling shutter" artifcats; the AC160 uses MOS chips, which means rolling shutter is present, although really quite well controlled.

......

The HPX170 is one of the all time greats, perhaps the best do-it-all camcorder Panasonic ever produced; it's just getting a little long in the tooth as compared to the newest technology, but it still performs well.
Click to expand...

I have read nearly every one of Barry's/Mark Williams's/Kevin Railsback's HPX170 posts, regarding my question of whether the HPX170's relative current image quality/viability is sufficient for indie documentary work. Does it still stand up? I have asked prof'l production people I know personally, but the HPX170 is so far out of the current prof'l prod'n loop, that none of them seem to know/remember what it can/can't do image quality-wise - or they "only know about RED, ARRI, yada, yada, yada..."

I understand that camera technology becomes obsolete FAST. We have a pile of out-dated Camcorders which were the "lastest-best-handiest" prof'l/prosumer cams at the time - I'm trying not to add the HPX170 to my useless pile by holding onto it too long. Bought the HPX170 new in 2009. Never, ever, used it except to test shoot some time-lapse clouds through a picture window, once, on one day! Haha! We like to have our own personal reasonably up-to-date camera(s) on-hand for certain spur of the moment shorts/docu projects. We use rented/prod'n ARRIs/REDs for prof'l work. Also own a 5D III for pics and some personal/indie video. I know its strengths/shortcomings well, even with the new firmware update "clean HDMI out" and the new ML hack/firmware.

All my indie work is with my mate/director. On our little indie projects, I am the tech; his background is as a film guy, not techie at all, and he is not a "fiend for pixels". We shoot in light-controlled environments; most shots are well-prepped (he is a 30-yr. veteran music vid/docu/feature director). Realistically, should I "can" the HPX170, or hold onto it for a scheduled small docu project, which needs to look "good enough" on 1080HD TV or for festival entry?

BTW, he loves the HPX170's light/handy form factor, as well as its "look" in member Mark Williams's "Appalachian Spring" and other posted videos. I don't want to sell this 170 just to have buy another camera - which will surely also be "obsolete" in 18 mos. -- IF the 170's image quality will hold up sufficiently for the present.

Thanks very much for indulging my long post. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
 
Lisa, any of the cameras you mentioned will produce decent images with some practice. It is not so much the camera as the skill of the person behind it that produces good results. I just happen to use the HPX170 and for the web and DVD projects it is more than adequate and will be for years to come. I recently thought about selling my HPX170 to try a Panasonic GH3 which is a whole different form factor but decided against it when I discovered I could only get about $1700 for my HPX. I decided to hang on to it and if it breaks or otherwise malfunctions and warranty won't cover it then I have other alternatives.
 
As an owner of a 170, I'd like to chime in on this thread hijack. I think a lot of the answer is where you want to distribute the footage. For the web, corporate, or even documentary work, I think the 170 still cuts ice. If the documentary content is solid, no one will care about the pixels given up to the latest and greatest. So on a limited budget, the 170 is still relevant. If I had big bucks, I'd probably trade up, and it may be worth it if you are going somewhere big with your doc. But for a "complete" cam for quick and dirty on the cheap, the 170 is still a great cam. If I did trade up, I'd prefer to stay with a Panny I-frame codec = P2.

Grant
 
And I should say that I fully understand that the HPX170 is certainly never going be as sharp as a 5D or a CMOS/cinema camera; and that the instructions from Barry's book regarding settings for detail/coring; shutter speed/angle; focal length, iris, etc., must be observed to maximize cine-like image quality.
 
Thats kinda messed up considering how soft everyone says the 5d is compared to most hdcams (at least they said that about the m2 due to its line skipping technology, not sure about the m3)
 
Mark Williams and ggrantly - thank you so much for your response. Since we have never shot/edited anything with/from the 170, I have no idea what its capabilities really are. You never know a camera until you have produced a piece with it - shooting through grading and encoding!

And ggrantly, my mate also always says that if someone knows what they are doing, they can make any camera look good. As to trading-up, I don't want to buy another camera until I have a project that demands more than my cameras on hand can accomplish, and the length/budget of the project doesn't justify a lengthy rental.

We shot one project in SD, spent some dough on it, back just before HD became de rigueur; and when we finally got the issues worked-out and the piece edited, the quality was not good enough for anything but the web - and barely that. I don't want a repeat of that situtation - and 4K TV is still way down the road from a practical standpoint. So, I figured some of you guys who are very familiar with the HPX170 could fill me in, and I appreciate it.
 
I don't own a 5d3, but folks don't shoot with it because it is the sharpest cam, they like the look and especially the shallow DOF and or low light capability. You can't do that as easily with a 170, but shallow DOF can still be done on a more limited basis with the 170. But DOF aside, the 170 is a better doc camera in every functional aspect except for low light imho. Before I said the 5d3 was sharper than a 170, I'd want to see some side by side. Considering you have a 170, and don't know what it is capable of, spend a little time and see if you really do like it......how else could you know? Certainly not by reading posts from the choir. Do make sure to spend the time to tune your scene files; the stock ones are pretty sucky and shouldn't be used to judge the cam. It is A good cam, and you own it, and you don't want to spend money right?

Grant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top