HD251E vs. HD110 at DVinfo.net

Tyson Perkins · October 31st, 2006, 02:17 AM

HD251E vs. HD110, what do you guys recommend in terms of quality - i mean is it worth the extra three thousand dollars to get the 250. I am shooting a film - narrative based, intending to capture the film (24p) look. I am in the final stages of my decision to purchase the 250, and i am wondering if i should be having second thoughts?

Matt Setnes · October 31st, 2006, 02:28 AM

If the film can wait, of course. Quality? i don't know, haven't read much on the new one, except for his HD-SDI out, but then of course...capturing from that means more money.

Jack Walker · October 31st, 2006, 02:30 AM

The 200 also has the new encoder. Also has the 60p that you could use for slow motion.

I think the 250 is more than $3000 more when you add the lens.

Do you need the studio features of the 250? SDI out, etc. How are you going to record?

I'm not trying to distinguish between the 250 and the 110, but am suggesting the 200 might be appropriate as your choice, that is the 110 vs. the 200.

The wide angle lens on the 110 might be a better option than the 200/250 with the stock lens. The 200 with the wide-angle lens might be ideal if you don't need the studio features of the 250 (all the features are discussed in other threads).

If you are going to use a 35mm adapter of some type (P+S?), then the 200 might still be a good choice, over the 250.

There are some with lots of experience with the 100 who can probably give you specific advice for your particular needs.

Tyson Perkins · October 31st, 2006, 02:40 AM

I dont need the studio features in the camera - it is entirely film based work.
Im going to use the stock lense with which ever camera i get, and then work my way toward the canon lense, quite expensive. So the features of the 200, in terms of just fim based purpose would be a mre substantial choice - what kind of price are they looking for with that camera, and what is its ETA?

Thanks alot for all the help guys!

Jack Walker · October 31st, 2006, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson Perkins

I am in the final stages of my decision to purchase the 250, and i am wondering if i should be having second thoughts?

If you give some specific details on how you want the film to look, some of the people who have doing one-camera narrative might have some good suggestions on which camera and other options you have.
For example, here are some questions to answer:
--what is the color look of the film, is it dark and moody or is it bright and coloful with most scenes having a lot of light.
--are you planning on using short depth of field and focus changes to a large extent (suggesting you might want to look at a 35mm adapter setup)
--are you going to encode the signal in the camera, or are you going to run the SDI to another encoder at 4:2:2
--what lens do you need... that is are you shooting in small rooms on location, essentially requiring a wide-angle solution, would the standard lens give what you need, etc.
--would the 60p be useful to you (do you want clean slow motion?)

These are just some things to consider. If you have the script it would be my suggestion to go through it and compare what you want the film to look like with what the camera will do. Ultimately there will undoubtedly be a compromise between what you see in your mind and what you can do with whatever camera you use, but the process of comparing the script to the camera will probably make your choice clear -- or at least help you come up with some specific questions you will want answers to.

Tyson Perkins · October 31st, 2006, 02:50 AM

'what is the color look of the film, is it dark and moody or is it bright and coloful with most scenes having a lot of light'

It is a bit of both - there are two films ive planned to shoot, one is moody while the is quite natural and well lit. Im not going encode - just going straight HD into my mac. The lense is not an issue to me, its more which camera i need, the 250 or the 200. I do not need great slow mo, as long as i can have the option to utilise slow-mo then i should be ok. Is the 60p really worth it?

Thank you again

Jack Walker · October 31st, 2006, 10:18 AM

Perhaps Tim Dashwood will comment. He has shot a feature with the 100 and wouild know exactly how the 200 or 250 would (or would not) offer benefits in relation to their additional cost.

My guess is that the 110/111 would give you everything you need for what you are doing -- and the additional cost of the 200 or 250 would not be apparent in the video you are making.

I'm not sure anyone knows what difference one can actually see in the video with the new super encoder or the enhanced gamma settings? Those questions will probably have to be answered when the cameras are in the field.

If you were to use the camera for multi-use on into the future, that is to shoot video of action/sports, etc. I think the 60p would be worth the extra price. However, to shoot a feature at 24p, I don't know if the 60p would be that great a benefit in relation to the additional cost. (And the 60p SD can be uprezzed effectively for a small bit and it would probable fit in fine if necessary).

Tyson Perkins · October 31st, 2006, 01:57 PM

So maybe the HD200 should just be fine - as it has the 60p and enhanced gamma features doesnt it? - what exactly are the benefits of the 250 over the 200?

Jack Walker · October 31st, 2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson Perkins

So maybe the HD200 should just be fine - as it has the 60p and enhanced gamma features doesnt it? - what exactly are the benefits of the 250 over the 200?

This thread covers just about everything:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=77184

Tyson Perkins · October 31st, 2006, 02:16 PM

Yes thank you for everything Jack, i think im going to go for the HD200 - the 60p and enhanced seems to be worth the extra investment in the future - and i wont be shooting in SD so the 250's features arent really needed

Tyson Perkins · November 1st, 2006, 01:33 AM

I have been reading various source from the internet, and it has become apparent that there in fact will be a difference in overall image quality between the 250 and 200, can anyone provide me with any insight?

Jack Walker · November 1st, 2006, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson Perkins

I have been reading various source from the internet, and it has become apparent that there in fact will be a difference in overall image quality between the 250 and 200, can anyone provide me with any insight?

I don't believe this is correct if you are using the cameras encoder. I believe the encoders are the same in both cameras.

However, if you are using the SDI out and encoding with an exterior encoder, instead of the 4:2:0 signal you can encode a 4:2:2 signal etc.

At least this is the general idea. Since the 200 probably won't be out until the end of the year or beginning of next, there is enough time to get info from early tests from the 250 when people get their hands on them, which I believe is very soon.

If I am wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me, but I believe the encoder and other electronics of the 200 and 250 are identical for what they do the same.

In my opinion the lens makes a lot more difference in the picture quality than any difference between the 200 and 250 for 24p feature style shooting.

Tim Dashwood · November 1st, 2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

Perhaps Tim Dashwood will comment. He has shot a feature with the 100 and wouild know exactly how the 200 or 250 would (or would not) offer benefits in relation to their additional cost.

I haven't actually had either the 200 or 250 in my hands yet, but what catches my attention is the new gamma curve control. The HD100 was good, but it looks like the additional gamma control will close the gap even more between the HD200/250 and Panasonic Varicam.

The 60P function as used for over-cranking will be another great film-like tool to add to the arsenal.

I am excited by the prospect of the 16mm PL adapter JVC showed at NAB. The image inversion function will make working with footage acquired this way very simple.

The addition of BNC connectors will prevent accidental dis-connects from the monitor.

Oystein Loland · November 2nd, 2006, 07:02 AM

I have ordered 3 of the 251 for studio use + 3 Fujinon HTS18X4,2BRM. I will lay my hands on the first one on wednesday but are allowed to cancel the order if I'm not pleased though.

We will feed our new HD-SDI vision mixer with these and I'm really looking forward to it. It's really great with the HD-SDI out for us.

October 31st, 2006, 02:17 AM	#1
Tyson Perkins Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: sydney, australia Posts: 221	HD251E vs. HD110 HD251E vs. HD110, what do you guys recommend in terms of quality - i mean is it worth the extra three thousand dollars to get the 250. I am shooting a film - narrative based, intending to capture the film (24p) look. I am in the final stages of my decision to purchase the 250, and i am wondering if i should be having second thoughts?

October 31st, 2006, 02:28 AM	#2
Matt Setnes Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 114	If the film can wait, of course. Quality? i don't know, haven't read much on the new one, except for his HD-SDI out, but then of course...capturing from that means more money.

October 31st, 2006, 02:30 AM	#3
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	The 200 also has the new encoder. Also has the 60p that you could use for slow motion. I think the 250 is more than $3000 more when you add the lens. Do you need the studio features of the 250? SDI out, etc. How are you going to record? I'm not trying to distinguish between the 250 and the 110, but am suggesting the 200 might be appropriate as your choice, that is the 110 vs. the 200. The wide angle lens on the 110 might be a better option than the 200/250 with the stock lens. The 200 with the wide-angle lens might be ideal if you don't need the studio features of the 250 (all the features are discussed in other threads). If you are going to use a 35mm adapter of some type (P+S?), then the 200 might still be a good choice, over the 250. There are some with lots of experience with the 100 who can probably give you specific advice for your particular needs.

October 31st, 2006, 02:40 AM	#4
Tyson Perkins Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: sydney, australia Posts: 221	I dont need the studio features in the camera - it is entirely film based work. Im going to use the stock lense with which ever camera i get, and then work my way toward the canon lense, quite expensive. So the features of the 200, in terms of just fim based purpose would be a mre substantial choice - what kind of price are they looking for with that camera, and what is its ETA? Thanks alot for all the help guys!

October 31st, 2006, 02:50 AM	#6
Tyson Perkins Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: sydney, australia Posts: 221	'what is the color look of the film, is it dark and moody or is it bright and coloful with most scenes having a lot of light' It is a bit of both - there are two films ive planned to shoot, one is moody while the is quite natural and well lit. Im not going encode - just going straight HD into my mac. The lense is not an issue to me, its more which camera i need, the 250 or the 200. I do not need great slow mo, as long as i can have the option to utilise slow-mo then i should be ok. Is the 60p really worth it? Thank you again

October 31st, 2006, 10:18 AM	#7
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	Perhaps Tim Dashwood will comment. He has shot a feature with the 100 and wouild know exactly how the 200 or 250 would (or would not) offer benefits in relation to their additional cost. My guess is that the 110/111 would give you everything you need for what you are doing -- and the additional cost of the 200 or 250 would not be apparent in the video you are making. I'm not sure anyone knows what difference one can actually see in the video with the new super encoder or the enhanced gamma settings? Those questions will probably have to be answered when the cameras are in the field. If you were to use the camera for multi-use on into the future, that is to shoot video of action/sports, etc. I think the 60p would be worth the extra price. However, to shoot a feature at 24p, I don't know if the 60p would be that great a benefit in relation to the additional cost. (And the 60p SD can be uprezzed effectively for a small bit and it would probable fit in fine if necessary).

October 31st, 2006, 01:57 PM	#8
Tyson Perkins Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: sydney, australia Posts: 221	So maybe the HD200 should just be fine - as it has the 60p and enhanced gamma features doesnt it? - what exactly are the benefits of the 250 over the 200?

October 31st, 2006, 02:16 PM	#10
Tyson Perkins Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: sydney, australia Posts: 221	Yes thank you for everything Jack, i think im going to go for the HD200 - the 60p and enhanced seems to be worth the extra investment in the future - and i wont be shooting in SD so the 250's features arent really needed

November 1st, 2006, 01:33 AM	#11
Tyson Perkins Major Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: sydney, australia Posts: 221	I have been reading various source from the internet, and it has become apparent that there in fact will be a difference in overall image quality between the 250 and 200, can anyone provide me with any insight?

November 2nd, 2006, 07:02 AM	#14
Oystein Loland Tourist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Kvinesdal Norway Posts: 1	I have ordered 3 of the 251 for studio use + 3 Fujinon HTS18X4,2BRM. I will lay my hands on the first one on wednesday but are allowed to cancel the order if I'm not pleased though. We will feed our new HD-SDI vision mixer with these and I'm really looking forward to it. It's really great with the HD-SDI out for us.