HMC150 HD question
 

Good evening folks,

I read on a review that the HMC150's CCD chips are 960 x 540 and they use a pixel shift arrangement to make a better image. I own a HMC150 and I went to the Panasonic website and couldn't find any information in that regard (Most likely, I didn't know how to search). I love the camera, and I was just wondering if that review is correct or not. And if so, how that translates into HD? Does those 3 chips combined make a HD image?

Thanks for the info!!

Ben Tolosa

Barry Green has some info on that.

The HMC150, HPX170 and HVX200A all use the same chip and DSP.

Effective resolution after pixelshifting is 1440 x 810.

EDIT: Here's some info. ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni...200.CCD-WP.pdf

Denny:

The imager has a 1.5 pixel horizontal and vertical offset and this makes the effective resolution 1920X1080.

Jeff

That's not what Panasonic states in that white paper. See pages 3 and 4.

960 x 540 times 1.5 = 1440 x 810

Denny, you are correct of course.

I was thinking about delivered resolution being 1920X1080.

Also, thanks for the link to the white paper. I have seen all the many discussions about the sensor by Barry Green, but never saw the white paper you linked.

Ben, I also have the HMC-150. I formerly shot using the Canon XH-A1 & JVC GR-HD1 cameras. You definately made the best choice currently available at the $3,500 price point. Don't be afraid to tweak the scene file settings. The HMC-150 is capable of great images.

Hi Denny ^_^

Thank you for your reply!

Does this means that is not a true (native) 1080 HD camera?

Thanks again!


Jeff,

Thank you, yes I feel I made the best choice for that price. I love it, it is a very 'cute' camera and it has a very beautiful image!

You also made an excellent choice ;)

Kind Regards!

Yes, it is not a native 1920x1280 sensor, even with pixel shifting but it looks pretty good regardless. Actually I don't know of any 1/3" cam with a full raster CCD chip. Most only use a vert or Hori pixel shift. I think panny is the only one with both. (good thing). (HPX300 does have full raster but it's CMOS and in another league).

Downside to a small native 1080 chip would be less light sensitivity (really evident in the HMC40 though it is also a 1/4" chip).

The HVX200A and HPX170 use the same chip as the HMC150.

The HMC is the only one that records to a 1920x1080 codec. There is some argument the slight upscaling (1440x810 to 1920x1080) done in the DSP then compressed to AVHCD PH is better than how the HVX/HP cams handle this (1280x1080 codec) though DVCProHD uses less compression and 4.2.2 color and an intraframe codec. Hard to say. Color should go to the hvx/hpx. But res looks pretty close between HMC and the others.

I would argue that the H.264 compression used by AVCHD PH is more efficient but the interframe handling of compression is not as good for movement, etc.. It would be nice to have AVC-I (intra frame version) on this cam but that ain't gonna happen, at least not till the next cams come out. I suspect that's what the next HPX170 like replacement will be.


My head hurts just thinking about it. Barry has probably done the most testing in this regard.

Ben:

The HDV codec, which most cameras in the $3,500 price range used until about the last year (when AVCHD came about), supports a maximum of 1440X1080 resolution (the PAR is 1.33). So regardless of if the sensors are pixel shifting or not in the HDV cameras, they are not full 1920X1080, as the HDV codec does not support it.

Beyond what Denny just posted, the only somewhat affordable ($6,100 - $400 rebate=$5,700) full raster 1920X1080 camera is the Sony EX-1R which uses a 1/2" sensor block. It's image quality is pretty amazing. Denny, Barry Green did a comparison of the EX-1R codec vs the AVCHD codec by using the new AVCHD recorder (same codec/rate as the HMC-150) and found the AVCHD codec to be a little better, although they were pretty close.

Despite all the sensor talk and pixel peeping we all tend to do more and more, all the current HD cameras put out a really good image when used properly (exposure & lighting). I think the biggest improvements still need to be in low light sensitivity & the reduction of noise. Every project I edit has no issue with the resolution, but there are always problems with noise & color.

I think there is a little too much focus on video camera resoluton nowdays and not enough on audio resolution. The video is only about 40% of the viewing experience and the audio is 60% of the experience. Few people seem to realize this. However, audio is at least as difficult if not more difficult than learning video, and I don't see the camera manufacturers jumping on audio anytime soon (think pro recorder features; limiters, low cut, filters, different audio resolutions, etc.).

IMO, this is a useless distinction that should be banned. Raster size has little to do with image resolution. Would you really want a Flip-esque device that has a 1920x1080 sensor or the HMC?

The raster size will determine the maximum possible resolution but there are so many other factors as to make that largely irrelevant.

Denny,

Interesting reading. I did not know. Thanks for teaching me ^_^

Kind regards!

Hi Jeff,

Again, thanks for teaching me. I really do like the EX-1R. Before I've got my HMC-150 I was between these two. Budget detoured me to the HMC-150. Otherwise, the EX-1R I believe it is 'the' camera. However, many people said the HMC-150 is almost as good, and some people think is a bit better in some shooting circumstances.

Thanks for you post!

Andy,

Well that, I did not know. I appreciate you can teach me.

Have a great 2010!

Regards,

I seriously doubt the lower light sensitivity of an HMC40 (relative to an HMC150) has even nearly as much to do with the higher pixel count, as it simply has to do with the considerable size difference of the chip(s). Surface area is the relevant measure of chip size. When you think 1/3" vs 1/4", it just doesn't seem (intuitively) like a really big difference, but take a moment to calculate the actual difference, in terms of surface area size, and it is quite large. The ratio easily exceeds 2:1.

I've got an HMC40, and while it's a given that the HMC150 is undoubtedly more sensitive to light, for a 1/4" three chipper the HMC40 is no slouch (and the images it produces are indeed tack sharp - probably much closer to an EX1, than an HMC150, in that regard).

Even if that chip was 1/3" it would probably still be a at least a stop or two less sensitive.

You know, if that were true, you would think an HMC150 should be roughly as sensitive to light as an EX1, which it clearly isn't.

Seems we are really all just guessing about this stuff. I'd be real interested in finding out what the hard facts are about pixel count and it's relationship to overall imaging chip light sensitivity (or if there really even is any, for that matter). I've done some Google searching, and can't seem to find any real information on that though. Does anyone know of any solid reference material about the relationship between pixel count and light sensitivity? (A white paper or something?)

This is probably the worse example I can come up with but I’ll post it anyway.
If you put 2 boxes outside with a different size hole in each box, the one with the bigger hole will get more light inside.
MOS/CMOS are obviously made differently than CCD.

Barry has some info somewhere on this and I go by what he says.

... checking the ISO rating of both cameras @0 dB using an old fashioned light meter would give an impression of the respective sensitivities of both cameras. Anyone has the means to do it?

Erich

Except that it is. HMC150 is 500 ISO, the EX1 is 400 in 1080p, 500 in 720p. The only area where the EX1 clearly excels in sensitivity is in 1080i, they use actual interlaced scanning and gain a stop of performance, so 1080i performance is 800 ISO.

Of the HMC40 against the HMC150, or the HMC150 against the EX1, or ?

HMC40 clocks in at about 64 ISO. HMC150 is 500 ISO at the same settings, making it about 3 stops more sensitive.

HMC150 is about the same as the EX1 in most modes, but in 1080i mode the EX1 is about 2/3 stop more sensitive.

Ben, IMO, when you take all the info provided in this thread and others into account, it's apparent that all the cameras have compromises, and like some of us already agreed, the HMC-150 is the best compromise out there for the time being. As soon as it is bested, I will be the first to move on, but we are not there yet.

I just shot some reallly low light footage on the HMC-150 over the weekend. With a year and a half of HMC-150 shooting and PP experience, I am getting just outstanding results. So in low light, the HMC-150 can really perform.

Happy shooting.

It's all relative. When looking at getting either an HMC150 or an HMC40, opting for the 150 compromises over a grand (in greenbacks) and up to as much as about 200 lines of resolution. If you shoot entirely in controlled lighting environments, and deliver projects on Blu-Ray, that's a notable compromise.

On the other hand, if you opt for the 40, you compromise light sensitivity, on the order of about 3 stops. If you make your living shooting weddings, and deliver projects on DVD, that's a whale of a compromise.

There is no single, best compromise.

Robert, I totally agree.

The game is not completely about cost, but that is a huge driving factor. In my case I need 2 to 4 of whatever camera Im using, so the purchase and depreciation (and media) costs are multiplied and affect my decisions in a big way.

Another important area to consider is ergonomics. The 40 wasn't out (or was just out) when I bought the 150 so I can't comment there.

But I went from a PD170 to an HV20 and just couldn't deal. The thing is so small, just breathing makes the image shake! The zoom is pretty much worthless while recording.

So I felt I needed to go back to the larger form factor. I see the 40 looks pretty much like a smaller 150 but something's got to give to get that size (and $) difference.

The HMC40 is small, but not HV20 like small. Btw, one of the slickest things I like about the HV20, is being able to lock down that zoom speed to super-slow - a feature I would love to see with the bigger cams! I prefer having that consistant and slow speed, to having a variable speed zoom. I never zip-zoom - hate it. I find that constant slow zoom speed on the HV20 is almost perfect for my purposes. (I've never changed it, or even been tempted to, since first setting it when I got the cam).

Anyway, about the HMC40, it's well designed. I find it quite nice for control. It's got a focus/zoom ring (selectable with a real button) and aperture/gain combined on a wheel (which I actually like better than having separate controls for each - it's easy and fast to set). WB is on a button too (works decent - pretty quick and easy to use too). So you do have the stuff you really need the most often, right there handy on a ring and real buttons and wheels, even though most the rest of the stuff is in menus, using a touch screen. I don't like touch screens, but as touch screens go, I've got to say this is pretty well thought out (for the most part). It's a bigger cam than the little dinky consumer cams, but of course there isn't enough real estate there to put as many buttons and switches on it as an HMC150 (or similar), so obviously more things have to be in menus. On the whole, they clearly did think it out well though, so it's not nearly as awful as it certainly could be (and is with some consumer cams). The HMC40 is also well balanced in the hand, and quite comfortable to hold - and way less tiring to shot with for awhile, than a bigger, heavier cam.