XDCAM-EX vs. AVCCAM

I actually see this as a comparison of using cameras that are full res AVCHD rather than take output of the EX1 and record it to AVCHD. Yes if I had an EX1, I might be interested in doing a 4:2:2 record on AVC-Intra which is 10Bit.
 
...and only records to P2 cards - double pricey!

Sure makes the nanoflash look downright cheap - never thought I'd find myself saying that!
 
Barry_Green said:
Sometimes I wonder about people's perspective. Five grand for an HD-SDI recorder that records 10-bit AVC-Intra... that's the visual equivalent of a $250,000 HD D5 deck...
Click to expand...

I think often it's the perspective of consumers looking at (real) professional gear.

- Mikko
 
Spend just a couple grand more and get the whole dang camera (HPX300).

I just can't see spending that kind of money for what amounts to a very limited computer.
 
Robert M Wright said:
Spend just a couple grand more and get the whole dang camera (HPX300).

I just can't see spending that kind of money for what amounts to a very limited computer.
Click to expand...
Then you should just understand that you are not the target market.

It is an HD-SDI 10-bit AVC-Intra recorder. The HPX300 doesn't do what it does, the HPX300 doesn't have HD-SDI input.

You can put an HPG20 on the back of a tape-based VariCam and get a hugely improved image; upgrade your old $70,000 VariCam with a $5,000 recorder and yeah... lots of people love that.

You can plug an HPG20 into a post house and get the equivalent of a $250,000 deck for $5200.

If you don't understand this, then it's clear the product is not being marketed to you. But come on, you can't go saying it's a bad product (or that it's overpriced!) when you aren't the target market and you seem to not understand what it is and who it's for.
 
I can see the benefit of putting it on the back of the tape-based (DVCPRO HD I assume) VariCam. Of course you can get essentially the same benefit from a nanoflash (for a lot less money, especially considering media costs), unless you have to please somebody who will accept AVC-I but not XDCAM footage.

For putting it on a desktop, you really might as well build a screaming fast computer with a DeckLink HD Extreme (or something similar), that can encode AVC-I and just about anything else you like. (I'm not sure where you get an AVC codec for a PC that can do 4:2:2 color though.)
 
Hey Barry, did you get any problems with the chroma using CS4 with these 4:2:0 codecs, or did you use a different NLE to get round that problem?
 
Robert M Wright said:
I can see the benefit of putting it on the back of the tape-based (DVCPRO HD I assume) VariCam. Of course you can get essentially the same benefit from a nanoflash (for a lot less money, especially considering media costs), unless you have to please somebody who will accept AVC-I but not XDCAM footage.
Click to expand...

But the NANO is still an 8 Bit device not 10 and its ability to deal with the more sophisticated needs within Metadata, far outweigh the mere recording ability of the NANO. I think Barry said it best, if you do not understand the complexities and benefits of all of the feature set the HPG20 has to offer, you are not likely its target customer.

For putting it on a desktop, you really might as well build a screaming fast computer with a DeckLink HD Extreme (or something similar), that can encode AVC-I and just about anything else you like. (I'm not sure where you get an AVC codec for a PC that can do 4:2:2 color though.)
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is possible just yet, but being able to output and record from what is possible today, like 10 Bit HD-SDI into the HPG20 and recording the AVC-Intra is. But this is not its primary app, because P2 is not a delivery format, it is more of an acquisition one, so Hauling your computer out to record? Don't think so and the NAN doesn't do the same job.

Best,

Jan
 
Wondering if this thing can be plugged into an HMC-150? It seems not, and the Nano seems like I could do so through the HDMI port? Or is it impossible to do simultaneous recording on the 150? (I've not played around with that yet). Or maybe it's a cheaper version of a B camera, so that setup for the inevitable long running stage shot could be done while using the 150 for the closeups and cutaways? Or is it really just worth getting a second camera for that price? Sorry to be dumb about this, never thought of using something like this until this review. Thanks for doing this Barry, really interesting stuff.
 
Can't really be used on the 150 directly, because it doesn't have HDMI input. You could get an HDMI->HD-SDI box and then use it on the 150, I guess. The Nano would have direct connectivity through its HDMI.
 
I am very close to buying an AF 100 camera, and wondering if the HPG 20 recorder would be a good match when a higher quality project is needed.

Also, when shooting on location (not run & gun), would this combination be portable?
 
The HPG20 will work with it, and will definitely record higher quality. However, portability is a bit of a question, I mean, it depends on your definition of portable. The HPG20 is a self-contained unit with its own screen and battery powered, so in that aspect it certainly qualifies as portable. However, in terms of sheer bulk and size, it's longer, bigger, and heavier than the camera is. So by that measure, it's not anything like the NanoFlash. The Nano is a device that is basically a little accessory for the AF100, whereas the HPG20 is more of a field workflow station. It isn't something you'd mount to the camera on the flash shoe! I've used it, the quality is exquisite, but if you're a one-man-band run & gun situation, I wouldn't think it would be practical. In context with your question, you asked about on location and not run & gun, and in that sense yes it would be pretty much ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top