Press Release: HMC150, "the new DVX"

[Attic6]

Stoked on AG-HMC150, Looks like it was a good decision not to go ex1, rolling shutter is dark ages stuff. Does sony not realise that somebody out side their lab might actually wan to shoot a cop car or some bmxers being photographed...

I can only hope that it lives up to the amazing reputation that my DVX has. If i can shoot hd, edit it and abuse the camera like a dvx then i'll take 2!

Cant wait!!!!!!!

 

[BobDiaz]

Just thinking...

Just thinking...

I started to think some more about the HMC150 and jotted down some ideas. Because the list is so long, I'll just post the in parts over the next few days, rather than post a super long message...


Maximum Data Rate:

The only three higher speeds that make any sense are; 16 Mbps, 20 Mbps, and 24 Mbps.

16 Mbps would allow users to use any card without any worry about it being too slow, BUT it just doesn't seem to be that big a gain. I'll say this speed is possible, but I hope Panasonic would go higher than this. 16GB should give about 125 minutes at this rate.

20 Mbps not only does this fit the (roughly) 1.5x step size between each speed (6 Mbps, 9 Mbps, 13 Mbps), but it fits something overheard... (see quote below) 16GB should give about 100 minutes at this rate.

The real wildcard for the camcorder looks like bit rate. Current Panasonic AVCHD implementations max out at 13 megabits per second (Mbps), while Sony's go up to 15Mbps and the specification itself supports up to 24Mbps. The HMC150 will support the 13Mbps rate, plus a higher bandwidth option. Though Panasonic executives wouldn't commit to the actual maximum data rate for the HMC150, an unrelated comment during the conference alluded to achieving bit rates of approximately 20Mbps. It's unknown as to whether a new bit rate might pose software compatibility issues.

Slated to ship this fall, Panasonic has not yet determined the pricing for the HMC150. I'm going to put on my speculator hat and guess it'll go for about $6,000.

SOURCE: http://review.zdnet.com/digital-camcorders/panasonic-ag-hmc150/4505-6500_16-32857507.html

24 Mbps in a VERY competitive market, I can see Panasonic going for the maximum and sticking a knife through HDV's data rate. 16GB should give about 83 minutes at this rate. OK, I have a built in bias and want to see the highest rate possible. SO, I'll really hope that Panasonic puts the highest data rate at the maximum.


NAB is going to be a lot like Christmas...


Bob Diaz

 

[filmguy123]

It's the quality/efficiency of the compression that matters, not the data rate. The point is to get a lower data rate at better quality. HDV's data rate compared to AVCHD is apples and oranges; 24mbps may be a competitive market with HDV but it has nothing to do with AVCHD.

 

[BobDiaz]

No question that an improved CODEC is better than an older CODEC. Thus, MPEG-4 does a better job at lower bit rates than MPEG-2. So we can say that with MPEG-4, 13 MBps is roughly equal in quality to MPEG-2's 25 MBps.

This assumes that the quality and efficiency of both CODECs are very good.

In terms of potential compression noise, 20 Mbps MPEG-4 will blow 25 Mbps HDV out of the watter. However, having more bits per second (even with MPEG-4) will help help to reduce invisible compression noise which could show up when doing multi-generation layers or some other effects.

From a Marketing standpoint, saying you have 24 Mbps (MPEG-4) compared to their 25 Mbps (MPEG-2) sounds great. The bit rates are almost the same, and most know that for equal bit rates MPEG-4 is better than MPEG-2.

Now if we are shooting talking heads, it won't matter much, but for fast action,
where everything is changing so quickly, HDV's MPEG-2 can't deal with it as well as MPEG-4 can. When it comes to compression, it helps to have as much headroom as possible. So, 20 Mbps would be very good, but 24 Mbps is even better.


Bob Diaz

 

[Huy Vu]

Doesn't seem like the znet guy knows what he's talking about in that article. The HVX is DVCPROHD based, not HDV. And a price point of $6000 is ridiculous because then this camera will be more expensive than the HVX!

 

[filmguy123]

Good points Diaz. Yes, this camera might make me "ok" with editing GOP footage. Or at least shooting on it, and then transcoding to ProRes during capture. I don't mind paying for HDD space, that is cheap; and processor power would be nice to conserve. But P2 cards are flippin' expensive. And if it editing 20mbps+ AVC-HD footage looks visually identical to one's perception (unless under high scrutiny) and composites + motion tracks just dandy... well then, bring on the HMC150!!

Doesn't seem like the znet guy knows what he's talking about in that article. The HVX is DVCPROHD based, not HDV. And a price point of $6000 is ridiculous because then this camera will be more expensive than the HVX!

Yes, true. As I learn more, read up here, listen to Barry, I begin to realize that there are a ton of very confident people who don't know what they are talking about. Even from reputable sites.

 

[filmguy123]

this camera might make me "ok" with editing GOP footage. Or at least shooting on it, and then transcoding to ProRes during capture. I don't mind paying for HDD space, that is cheap; and processor power would be nice to conserve. But P2 cards are flippin' expensive. And if it editing 20mbps+ AVC-HD footage looks visually identical to one's perception (unless under high scrutiny) and composites + motion tracks just dandy... well then, bring on the HMC150!!

Barry - would you say that is accurate?

 

[Look 1st]

Doesn't seem like the znet guy knows what he's talking about in that article. The HVX is DVCPROHD based, not HDV. And a price point of $6000 is ridiculous because then this camera will be more expensive than the HVX!

LOL, that and the
"For those of you with AG-DVX200s or other P2 HD-supporting models, the company plans to ship a 64GB version this fall, at an as-yet undetermined price."

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, this camera might make me "ok" with editing GOP footage. Or at least shooting on it, and then transcoding to ProRes during capture. I don't mind paying for HDD space, that is cheap; and processor power would be nice to conserve.

I'm no fan of long-GOP, I think anyone who's read anything I've said in the last three years could tell you that!

However, a few things are starting to bring me around to the idea that perhaps long-GOP is not "the devil." Advancements and improvements have been substantial; the 35mbps XDCAM-EX codec is pretty solid in progressive mode. I'd still rather have intraframe for many reasons, not the least of which is editing efficiency, but I'm not as concerned that EX footage will "fall apart" the way I could make HDV footage fall apart.

The second thing that's bringing me around is AVC. AVC is really quite good. 6mbps of AVC-HD can look as good as 25 megabits of HDV, if you're talking about shooting a talking head. 13 megabits of AVC-HD about matches 25mbps of AVC-HD for most shooting scenarios. 20 megabits of AVC-HD should give performance comparable to XDCAM-EX. And frankly, that's going to prove "good enough" for many shooters. Not everybody, obviously, but a lot of us.

Editing it is still going to bring the same long-GOP hassles, so if you're comfortable with transcoding to an editing codec (the way HDV guys have endorsed over these last few years) then yeah, what's not to love? But it still needs to be tested and verified. I am cautiously optimistic that the HMC150, at 20 megabits, will absolutely qualify as "the new DVX." But I would like to see it to know for sure!

The key is knowing what product is targeted towards what user, and whether the user will be able to live with the compromises inherent in every product. For the DVX customer, I think cost is a vital consideration. And for that customer, a $20 SD card beats a $900 P2 or SxS card six ways from Sunday. That's very promising. But, again, it's gotta deliver the goods; I mean, the little Aiptek camera is $199 and records 720P to cheap memory cards, but the quality can be awful; it don't matter how cheap it is to record it, if it looks awful! So a quality system recording to cheap memory -- that's what I'm hoping for. That's the right recipe for a DVX successor.

For those who need P2's codecs, reliability, infrastructure, intraframe compression, six-stream editing right off the cards, etc., there's the HVX200. But for the DVX guy looking to upgrade to HD, the prospect of high-def resolution, DVX "mojo", AVC-HD quality (if it's comparable to XDCAM-EX 35mbps, and it should be), all with cheap commodity memory cards... well, that's the camera I've been waiting for for two years now. That's what I hope they deliver!

But P2 cards are flippin' expensive.

Are they? Depends on your perspective. If you're used to paying $60 per HD tape, P2 cards at $900 (and hopefully soon to have a healthy price drop) aren't expensive at all. But if you're used to paying $3 for DV tape, yes a $900 card is expensive. And that really probably helps define whether you're an HVX or HMC customer -- if the P2 card price is prohibitive, then you're probably an HMC150 customer. If what the P2 card brings to the table is worth it to you, you're definitely an HVX200 customer.

And if it editing 20mbps+ AVC-HD footage looks visually identical to one's perception (unless under high scrutiny) and composites + motion tracks just dandy... well then, bring on the HMC150!!

It's still a 4:2:0 codec, so it won't be visually lossless (but that doesn't stop a lot of the HDV or EX1 owners from being happy with what they've got). I say that if someone's happy with HDV, they should be thrilled with AVC-HD. If someone has no tolerance for HDV, they probably won't be swayed by AVC-HD.

 

[filmguy123]

I'd still rather have intraframe for many reasons, not the least of which is editing efficiency, but I'm not as concerned that EX footage will "fall apart" the way I could make HDV footage fall apart .......... if you're comfortable with transcoding to an editing codec (the way HDV guys have endorsed over these last few years) then yeah, what's not to love?

So Barry; if the cam is roughly equivalent to XDCAM-EX 35mbps codec quality *AND* footage is transcoded to ProRes, I have a few questions I wanted to clarify with you:

- Editing will be just as fast as DVCPRO-HD footage
- Editing will experience none of the long-GOP issues
- Motion tracking, keying, and effects will be just (or very near) as solid as a 4:1:1 DV codec
- The footage will have been captured to camera using long-GOP, so there might be slight traces of artificating, but this will be a minor footage issue, and not an editing issue, thanks to transcoding

So basically, all I would be dealing with is very slight artificating issues in the long-GOP codec that probably won't be a big deal for me... unless... unless what? VERY high end motion tracking? Or VERY high end keying? Will I have strong effects work results and CCing, generally speaking, just about as good as an Intra frame based DVCPRO-HD codec for most work?

 

[BobDiaz]

To bring in something said from another thread:

Hi Folks,

Have not read all the way through this as I have way too much to do this am. Barry asked me to step in and clarify what this camera is. If you think of AVCHD as the new DV then this camera (the 150) is the new DVX100. It has 24P, it is economically priced, right where long GOP recording should be. But it is a very nice camera and it records to SD cards, just like all AVCHD cameras do.

Is it the replacement for the HVXX200, clearly no. It does not do 24P in DVCPRO HD. It doesn't do variable frame rates, it does not have P2.

Now with that information, is the 150 a great little camera, I think it will be. Is it a filmmakers camera, depends on where you want to use it. Keep in mind it is the new DV camera. Any place that bought a DV camera might like one of these. So wedding guys, schools, other institutions and high school sports. Lawyers, doctors , well you get the picture it is the new DV. Nice little camera,

Hope this helps,

Jan
__________________
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems
Product Manager,
DVCPRO50/25, AG-DVX100B, AG-HVX200

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=125340&page=3
(Message #88)
Note: I added the bold print in some sections to help point out key things.

My guess is that many of you have read Jan's comments, but for those who didn't, we can see it's NOT the new HVX-200 and is placed below the HVX-200 as far as features. Thus, the price has to be lower too. My gut tells me that Panasonic is going after the market where we find the Canon A1 or the Sony V1U; the cameras priced somewhat below the HVX-200.

I find it interesting that Apple's FCE (Final Cut Express) 4.0 for $200 supports the AVCHD system. It will transcode the AVCHD file, but my personal feeling that transcoding is better than native editing. Spending $200 to have editing software for a $4,000 camera should seem reasonable to those with limited funds.


Bob Diaz

 

[filmguy123]

It will transcode the AVCHD file, but my personal feeling that transcoding is better than native editing.

Can you rephrase this statement, it sounds like you are saying two contradictory things, and I need some clarification as to what you intended to communicate.

 

[Barry_Green]

- Editing will be just as fast as DVCPRO-HD footage

I don't know; I don't use FCP. I presume that ProRes is as fast as DVCPRO-HD but I don't know that. I do know that even a base Mac G5 could handle two to three streams of DVCPRO-HD running off its internal hard disk. If that same base Mac G5 can do the same thing with ProRes, then that'd be the answer.

But you do have to factor in the time it takes to convert from AVC-HD to ProRes. That isn't going to be instantaneous!

- Editing will experience none of the long-GOP issues

I think that's the whole point of ProRes, as it's an intraframe-only codec. But again, I'm not a Mac user so someone else will have to answer definitively.

- Motion tracking, keying, and effects will be just (or very near) as solid as a 4:1:1 DV codec

Well, probably. DV is 4:1:1, AVC-HD is 4:2:0. Both systems result in storing only 25% of the total chroma, but they do so in a different pattern. If you're shooting 60i then the 4:1:1 is a more solid choice. In progressive, 4:2:0 is decent, definitely better than in progressive. Once you go to ProRes though, you're editing in a 4:2:2 color space, aren't you? So the original footage will be 4:2:0, but the composition will take place in 4:2:2, which may lead to better end results (if you're rendering out at 4:2:2).

- The footage will have been captured to camera using long-GOP, so there might be slight traces of artificating, but this will be a minor footage issue, and not an editing issue, thanks to transcoding

Well, this is the hope. On HDV, I wouldn't call it "slight traces" or "minor footage issue", I'd call it "anywhere from minor to moderate to catastrophic" depending on the shot we're talking about. With AVC-HD, it *should* be better, especially at 20 to 24 megabits. But nobody's ever produced 20+ megabit AVC-HD; the best we've ever seen is 17 megabits, and even then that was interlaced (and it's much more efficient to encode in progressive than it is to encode in interlaced!) So we don't know, we're still presuming.

After transcoding to an interframe codec, all GOP issues disappear, but the footage will look no better than the original.

So basically, all I would be dealing with is very slight artificating issues in the long-GOP codec that probably won't be a big deal for me... unless... unless what? VERY high end motion tracking? Or VERY high end keying? Will I have strong effects work results and CCing, generally speaking, just about as good as an Intra frame based DVCPRO-HD codec for most work?

You're asking questions that we can't answer yet. In theory it sounds solid, but funny things can happen on the journey from theory to reality.

 

[Barry_Green]

if the cam is roughly equivalent to XDCAM-EX 35mbps codec quality

Let's be very very clear here: I'm talking only about the recorded format, not the camera head! 1/3" chips on a modern ~$3500 product is not going to deliver the same image as 1/2" chips on a modern ~$6500 product.

Codec to codec, yes, I do think they could be very competitive. Meaning, if you recorded internal on an EX1 to XDCAM-EX 35mbps, and simultaneously you recorded on an external recorder box from the HD-SDI into AVC-HD at 20 megabits, yes I do expect that they would deliver comparable recordings (pending seeing the actual results, of course, but in THEORY they should be about the same!)

But I do not expect the raw camera head to deliver the same image. One product is twice the price of the other, and by all rights it should deliver a better image. In fact, if it *doesn't* deliver a better image, Sony is screwed, so -- don't expect the same image. But the recording format, yes, that should be comparable. SHOULD BE.

 

[SPZ]

And we still are a month away from NAB. There are still some cards to be pulled by Panasonic... The "New Varicam" should be one, and we are all hoping the "New HVX" to be the other...

Everything, including the HMC 150 highest bitrates and recording modes, should be revealed next month...

And don't forget the "Scarlett"...

 

[Kholi]

I'm still STILL wonderin' about this "new" CCD thing. How much can 1/3" CCD technology be improved upon?

Could it have been just the word "new" thrown in as a general "the camera is new" thing?

No worries SPZ, at least it's a few weeks less the wait for NAB. =B About a month on the nose and we get to know what's up all around.

 

[SPZ]

Kholi, lets hope the noise the fellow dvxusers have been making over here on how to improve the HVX results in a good surprise at NAB..

 

[BobDiaz]

I said, " It will transcode the AVCHD file, but my personal feeling that transcoding is better than native editing."

Can you rephrase this statement, it sounds like you are saying two contradictory things, and I need some clarification as to what you intended to communicate.

Sorry, bad wording there.

With Apple's Final Cut Express:

The AVCHD file is converted (transcoded) into an Apple format for editing.

Yes the conversion takes time, but once done, the editing should be faster than trying to edit in native AVCHD format. (See note below.) Also the Apple format should be able to handle multi-generation effects better than staying in AVCHD.


Note below: When editing in native AVCHD format, almost everything you do requires the file to be uncompressed, modified and re-compressed. The re-compression is what really can slow down the editing process, because it take time to re-compress using software.


Now every time we re-compress a video, additional compression noise is added to the video. Depending on the compression system used, the noise level could be anywhere from minor to major.

In the case of high compression formats, like AVCHD, each re-compression will add a lot more compression noise than say Apple's editing format.



I hope that clears up a few things,

Bob Diaz

 

[Barry_Green]

Recompression only happens when you export a file, or "render down". Normal timeline editing shouldn't be experiencing recompression.

 

[steviestefan]

Finally i think am getting what will be fairly good for shooting in and out of Africa, did i really see something like 50Hz/59.94Hz switchable?