FX1000 vs AG-HMC150, esp. in low light?
 

If anyone gets a chance to do any side-by-side comparisons of the images from these two cameras, please post your impressions!

I guess nobody has done something like that, since the fx1000 has been out for only few weeks I 'm waiting for this also. I want to buy either one But I want to see some comparasion en both cameras, hope somebody will post something soon!

I am not a Panasonic expert but isn't the low light capability of the AG-HMC150 basically the same as the HVX200a? If it is, then the FX1000/Z5 will do obviously better in low light.

I think the panasonic will be a better camera and the price tells everything. you are talking around $ 2000 dlls. diference from the fx 1000. I'm just not so sure about the quality when you record on sdhc cards comparing with hdv format vs. avchd for me is very important to have a master tape for future references with the clients but that's just me. the fx 1000 is a great camera but I think the panasonic is in a diferent level than the sony one thing that I hate about the fx 1000 is the lack of xlr inputs for people who record weddings and concerts is a must have with this louds dj's and bands you can't record a decent audio with the microphone from the camera, plus By the time you buy and xlr adapter you will be looking at the almost same price than the 150

I think you have in mind a different Panasonic model - there is about $100 difference in street price, not $2000, between the AG-HMC150 and the FX1000. Also, the FX1000 does have mic in ... just not balanced XLR.

I bought an FX1000 last week. It's an awesome camera but I really want to get out of the tape business as much as possible (I'm sick of dealing with headclogs and dropouts), so I bought an HMC150 this week. It'll be here tomorrow. Once it arrives and I've had some time to play with it I'll post my thoughts comparing the 2 cams.

My biz is 100% weddings and I'm a one man band. I plan to use both the HMC and the FX1000 together at the ceremony (in most instances the Panny will be unmanned B roll). I'll then use the Panny for all reception coverage. I hope to be able to satisfactorily match the two cams in post. If I cannot make it work, I'll sell the FX and buy another HMC.

I considered buying the Sony CF recorder along with another FX1000 but after receiving the FX last week I realized that just wouldn't work for me. Two reasons:

1) the location of the firewire port. The port is on the back of the camera. Plug a firewire cable in there and it'll stick straight out the back. It'll be far too easy for it to get bumped and break the cam's firewire port. If one could buy a very short cable with a 90 degree plug on one end, it might be okay.

2) the FX1000 has only one accessory shoe and the cam is fairly front heavy. I shoot receptions with an on-cam light that must be mounted on the accessory shoe, leaving no where to mount the CF recorder without adding some sort of dual shoe adapter. Placing the CF recorder with its battery on the front of the cam along with a light would make it far too front heavy.

I didn't think the FX1000's rolling shutter would be an issue but after viewing several clips at Vimeo this past week, I changed my mind. I know this isn't a problem for a lot of folks, but for me it's a deal breaker. Some of my best work are my first dance slomo scenes. The photogs in this neck of the woods are taking the "cast a huge net and you're bound to catch some fish" approach. They're bringing in 2-4 photographers and all of them shoot the main reception events simultaneously from different angles, almost in rapid fire mode. Add in a few guests shooting their digital cams and it's like the 4th of July. Try putting that in slomo with all of those white bars appearing randomly onscreen. No thanks!

I've been shooting with Sony cams since the VX1000 was released. I've gone thru 2 VX1k's, 2 VX2k's, and 2 VX2100's. I was excited last week when the FX1000 arrived. However, I must admit I'm even more excited about getting my hands on the HMC tomorrow.

Well, the jury is still out. Who knows, Norman, you might be more excited about the FX1000 after you get your Pana HMC. There are some frame grab comparrisons on the forum of the FX1000 vs. the VX2100 in low light under identical conditions/settings. The FX1000 looks pretty darned amazing. Good luck with your evaluation and let us know the results.

I agree that low light is mega important and in all likelihood the FX will best the HMC here. However, low light isn't everything. The ability to forego tapes using a $3400 camera is very appealing, plus no rolling shutter, and it's much less front-heavy. The HMC will most likely be used for B roll at the ceremony, typically in the rear of the sanctuary running unmanned at a fixed wide angle. I'll also use it to shoot all of the reception footage. I use an on-cam light at the reception, so low light there isn't as much of an issue.

If I can successfully match these two cameras in post, I'll have the best (and worst!) both have to offer.

This post must end... UPS is at the door!

ha, that's awesome. now that we know you have your hmc150, you are officially held responsible to give us some incredible feedback by the end of the day :D

Greg - i've searched in vain for those FX1000 vs VX2100 lowlight frame grabs on the forum.

Please could you post up a link or tell me which thread they're in ? thanks!

EDIT: It's ok, now found it!

After playing with both cameras today my conclusions are the FX1000 is slightly brighter but with just a tad more grain. The HMC150 is barely darker but cleaner. Indoors, even with a fair amount of light the FX still has a little more grain than the HMC. But, the FX has better detail. Both have their strong and weak points. The FX is a far better looking piece of gear but the HMC is MUCH better balanced with better controls (like Jeff Harper, I DESPISE the menu wheel on the FX!). I compared the 2 cameras by hooking them up to my 50" Samsung 720p plasma via HDMI. With minimal tweaking in post I think they'll cut together well.

Considering that these cameras cost essentially the same, I think the HMC is a better value due to:

1) it's tapeless. Bye bye dropouts & headclogs.

2) the difference in image quality is almost nil.

3) XLR audio.

4) it's lighter.

5) no rolling shutter.

6) three year warranty.

To get XLR and tapeless with Sony you have to cough up $1700 more. The difference in image quality isn't worth it, IMO.

OK, but ... maybe should price in the more powerful computer needed for smooth editing of ACVHD?

Not really. I edit with Edius/HDStorm, so I must transcode the AVCHD files to Canopus HQ first (my system is a Q6600 quad core and isn't fast enough to edit native AVCHD). I have a couple of older PCs that aren't fast enough for HD editing but come in handy for transcoding, capturing, etc.

Copying the .mts files to the PC takes just a few minutes. Transcoding takes longer but with my workflow it will not slow me down. I'll transcode on one PC while I edit on another. Plus, the time saved by not having to capture the footage in real time almost offsets the time spent transcoding.

Right now my biggest concern is whether I should continue archiving all my raw footage or sell it for cheap to the clients. I've been saving everything since about 2000. I have a bazillion mini-DV tapes stored in boxes and I'm running out of space. From now on I'm considering just offering all of the original AVCHD files burned to a Blu-ray "data" disc, along with the 1 tape from the FX1000, to the client. I suspect I'll have a lot of clients that will initially opt for SD DVDs only but may want Blu-ray down the road.

I think this is a critical moment for some of us to decide what to buy. in my case I have owned sony cameras for long time started with the vx1000 and so on and always been very happy BUT!!!! with all this new cameras offering many formats of recordings we have to figure it out what is giong to stick in the future of video productions.
as you were saying for rigth now almost nobody ask for a bluray disc for their wedding or quinceañera( sweet 15) in my case but we have to think ahead. one thing I love about the hmc is the ability to record tapeless I think this is going to be the new era for people like me who started in this bussines since the vhs tape was the 8 wonder, and every time I needed some footage from my shootings was so easy for me to pull a tape and grab what I needed. with this new technology I think or footage will be lost forever if we are not carefull how we handle it, but I think we just need to adjust to what is new and learn to trust or new computers on archive our treasure videos isn't rigth?

Hey Juan can I email off the board? I would like to talk to you about Quinceanera's?

sure whenever you want..... this quinceañera thing has been more bussines for me than weddings this year I made around 50 quinceañeras and only few weddings

Couldn't have put it better myself Norman.
I counted up the number of flashes in my 3 min 55 wedding montage
sec track. tom hardwick on blip.tv

That's a lot of flashes being slowed down to 40% speed (whereupon they're on screen 60% longer), and if they had been partial frame exposures they wouldn't have looked nice to me. Of course I believe there would be 'no client issues', but generally clients aren't tec-savvy and nor would I expect them to be. They just want the best looking film I can make for the money.

Same with my friend shooting weddings with his EX1. No client issues. Same with my other friend shooting 4:3 weddings (!): no client issues.

The only issues are with me.

tom.

Sometimes I think we get a bit hung up on a camera's low-light ability.

In reality my Z1 is a stop and a half slower than my old VX2k, so where the VX would film in a room (say) with 2 lights on, the Z1 will
require 8 lights on.

Put it another way. The VX2k would film in this room at f/1.6 and 0dB
gain up, and the Z1 would film in the same room at f/1.6 and +9dB of
gain up. It's not the end of the world, but adding gain adds grain
and loses you sharpness and colour.

I haven't come across situations where the Z1 won't film. But then again I'm proactive, and at yesterday's wedding I found the house
manager and asked him to turn the lights up. When he rather rudely
suggested the groom hadn't instructed him to do this I smiled sweetly
and told him I'd been tasked by the groom to video the proceedings and I needed light to do this. He upped the lighting.

But in the church (wedding at 4:15pm, so dark) I filmed entirely at
+18dB gain. The couple would have cause for complaint if I shot out
of focus, if I framed badly, if I wobbled the camera or if I had poor
sound. I got all of these right, so a bit of added grain is as nothing in the overall scheme of things, agreed?

tom.

Agreed. And if in a few cases when the video ends up being watched on a CRT screen, most of the noise and the grain will simply disappear, provided that your footage is originated in one of the HD formats (most often, HDV), properly downconverted to and delivered in 4:3 or 16:9 SD.

I used to shoot some available light scenes with the Sony HC1E (PAL) at or next to the equivalent of full gain and downconverted the output to mix with materials shot in HDV and DV. The final high-gain video on plain SD PAL DVDs (.vob) looked very good on all my test consumer CRTs with screen sizes ranging up to 34". No clients ever complained though they did complain about other issues. The same portion of the video of course looked noticeably noisy on bigger LCD screens and some clients did not like that.

This is one of the gain issues we should be aware of with respect to the limitation of delivery and viewing standards. BTW, the FX1 or Z1 at full gain (18dB) certainly would have done a lot better.

Wacharapong

The HMC-150 and the HVX200a have exactly the same sensor block.

It will be nice to hear from Norman after he uses the two cameras a little more. For me, I got rid of the Canon XH-A1s in favor of HMC-150s. It's a nice camera.

When I was shooting weddings with film, (long time ago) I used to factor in the charge for film and give them the film. I didn't evengive them an option to not take it. I priced myself a little higher and stressed, "AND YOU GET THE NEGATIVES!" It was often a deal maker. A little more expensive off the starting line, but they got the negatives. maybe for video it would also be a bonus. Stress they get the original footage for them to play with later and take the money and run. I rarely found the follow up sales where worth too terribly much. Better to make an extra $100 or so at the gates and wash your hands. If they want you to edit more later... treat it like any other project of the footage coming to your door.

Almost everyone should give the RAW footage to the client, let them be responsible for archiving it. The client might even get some use out of it. Normans idea to give a B-R disc to the client is about the only way to do it. What would they do with the tape anyway? I have all my old XH-A1 tapes now but no way to ever get the data since the cameras are sold. Kind of the same thing.

Norman: How is the new camera ?

Not on your nelly. I don't want clients seeing the sort of mess I film as I run between locations, camera in record. I don't want them playing the tapes and coming back to me asking that so-and-so be included, and why had I edited her out anyway?

When I engage the services of a carpenter to make me a kitchen table I don't want all the offcuts, sawdust and bent screws thank you very much. I just want a finished, edited table.

tom.

HA its the way ya tell them tom.

Good point. No one wants to keep trash.

But if a contractor builds my house and there are circuit breakers, fixtures and materials left over that I paid for and I might use someday, I want to keep them in the garage. I may end up throwing them away, but at least I have them. Do you want your contractor to sneak off with your extra material?

I wouldn't include tapes either (Im tapeless anyway now):
1. A tape is no use whatsover to a client. How would they play it? They wouldn't even know what camera to play it on and would instantly destroy it in the wrong camera (done it myself).
2. I wouldn't give them any useless footage on the B-D disc as that is deleted during editing anyway.

Norm, I too have used Edius for years and love it. But I've found that it is FAR more time consuming to transcode to the Edius HQ codec than it is to upload in real time, tape-based HDV. Considering that conversion to the HQ codec takes several times real time to complete (depending on the speed of your computer), I still find tape preferable from the standpoint of speed.

You need to use the transcoder correctly. IF you drag the file over the Icon all cores are used , if you right click and select the files for conversion only one core is used, though you can transcode more than one file at a time. On my Q9450, 8G RAM I can transfer to the PC using Sony Motion Browser from my SR11 and convert to Canopus HQ in just over realtime. I don't consider it any slower than capturing tape from my FX1. Detailed instruction are included with the readme file with the transcoder. First click on the AVCHDPRE icon and set audio conversion to 2 channel or 5.1, then select the default folder for the transcoded file to be placed. Then just drag the file over the AVCHD2HQ icon. All cores will be used and it is fast.

Ron Evans

Thanks Ron, I'll give it a try. But to be honest, I still think I'd use a tape based cam for serious work. This might help if I decided to use Edius for editing my SR12/Canon HG21 footage.

Out of curiosity, are you using Edius 5? The other question I've got is have you done an A/B on a relatively large screen HDTV (not a computer monitor) between the final rendered project (assuming you're outputting as 1920X1080) and the native clips that went into the project? I'm wondering whether you take any hit in quality when using 1920X1080 footage after it's encoded with the Canopus HQ codec. I know I've tried that with HDV and saw no discernable loss, but I'm wondering if higher rez clips may be subject to some down-rezzing.

Ron, I just tried the file conversion and it still takes me 3X real time for the conversion when dragging over the icon. Granted I've only got a dual core T8300 (2.4 gig) with 4 megs of ram, but it is slow for me.

The HQ codec transcodes the SR11 AVCHD to 1920 x1080 so it stays at the 1920x1080 it was shot at. Downrez does occur at output as the timeline is a HDV timeline and output is HDV. For most projects we use two FX1's and the SR11 for the fixed full stage shot. I have the copy of V5 but have not upgraded yet as I have a couple of projects I want to finish before doing the upgrade. Currently I use Edius 4.61. I use multicam to mix these three tracks the SR11 in HQ and the two FX1 tracks native HDV. I tend to apply a small amount of sharping filter ( 10 to 15 on the scale) to all the tracks as I think this improves the encodes later. Final output is HDV encoded with SpeedEncoder. I then take this into Vegas Pro 8 to do final audio mixing and set markers with names before letting Vegas encode to MPEG2 VBR as needed to fit disc for Bluray and authoring with DVD Architect 5. I usually get TMPGenc 4 Express to do the SD encode from the master HDV file, but use the AC3 from the Vegas encode, substitute files in Architect to get the SD DVD version with same menus etc as the Bluray version. As expected the Bluray version is virtually identical to the original and actually the SD played back from my PS3 and upscaled over HDMI to my 42" 1080P Panasonic Plasma is also really good though is 30P which can destroy some of the smooth motion of the interlaced source. ( you can tell I am not a fan of slow frame rates!!!). I think there is some loss of sparkle in the AVCHD through all the encoding etc compared to viewing from the SR11 HDMI directly on the Plasma but I do not think this is significant more me being really picky about quality. My wife and friends can't tell the difference !!!! The detail and deep colours are so startling to most compared to SD that any differences between versions is lost on them!!!
For single track AVCHD editing I prefer Vegas Pro8 to Edius. One can edit native on the timeline which makes life a lot easier. So for family stuff either from my daughters SR7 or my SR11 its usually Vegas.

Ron Evans

That is slow. Did you check to see if both cores were being used? About what it would take( I think it was 2.5 times) with a single core before I figured out the drag over icon routine. I encoded 1hour and 3 min file in about 40 mins on my Q9450 quad core two days ago. Transfer time from SR11 to PC using Motion Browser was about 20 mins. So total was close to realtime. I make sure source file is on one hard drive and transcoded file goes to another hard drive so that hard drives are not the bottleneck.

Ron

Ron, I rechecked and it's closer to 2X RT with both cores @ 100%.

As to the 'loss of sparkle', it doesn't surprise me given the number of encodes, decodes. But this would bug me no end since I'm always trying to extract the last drop of picture quality from these things. I think on my 60" 1080p plasma, the loss might be a bit more than a loss of sparkle.

Ken. I have to accept that playing AVCHD from the camera is better than going through many encode decode cycles eventually then playing as MPEG2 at about 4 or 22Mbps depending on whether it is SD or Bluray. Neither compares to the original at average of 16Mbps from the camera. However if one hasn't seen the original it is still a beautiful picture. For most people the difference is not noticable and compared to normal DVD's or cable television its wonderful!!!!! I will look forward to more AVCHD cams in the future. Would love Sony to make an AVCHD version of the FX1000/Z5 with hard drive instead of tape etc just like the SR11 I have. I am also sure that it will not be long before the NLE's have better smart rendering etc to maintain quality if there is only cuts involved. Should be a good year coming up. Now if only we could get some nice deinterlacing to smooth 60P in the displays it would be great.

Ron Evans

I am not understanding something here....how can there be a loss of "sparkle", when all conversions are done digitally? You are just recording a bunch of 0's and 1's, right?

Now if this were an analogue process, or an analogue step was introduced, it would make sense. But not when the whole chain is digital, or did I miss something?

Steve, that generally happens when you transcode from one codec to another to allow the editing program to handle the clips more easily. The transcoding process is what causes a bit of a hit in quality.

I think Ken is correct. The playback from the SR11 to the Panasonic Plasma is vibrant. Blacks are inky black and whites are bright white. From the cameras directly to the Panasonic plasma the SR11 is better than the FX1 of the same scene if there is enough light. If I look at this in my Edius editing programs waveform monitor the range is clearly illegal for the SR11!!!! White is sometimes almost 120, blacks are right at 0. Colour has higher saturation than the FX1. So when I mix this with the FX1 video i have to balance this off a little, boosting the FX1 colour and toning down the SR11 a little. Output to HDV then playback or output to legal mpeg2 this range is not there and it thus appears to not sparkle as it once did. This by the way is with xvcolor turned off. I imagine the difference may be even more startling between an xvcolor playback and one that is then compressed to normal color range.
Clearly I would like to have this range in a camera of the FX1 quality/controls. Hence my desire for an AVCHD version of the Z5 since I think the AVCHD codec is a better codec than HDV and would allow capture at 1920x1080 square pixels. Would be nice if it were also 60P to add to the wish list!!! I wonder if the FX1000/Z5 HDMI output is from the sensors at 1920 x1080 P60??

Ron Evans