I have uploaded some raw footage from the HMC150. You can download the MTS files here.

VonTraining.com Forum :: View topic - Download HMC150 Raw Footage (http://www.tulsaweddingvideos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=496)

Thanks for the RAW footage. I download a few and tested on Adobe Premiere CS4 using AVCHD project. Play well on my PC machine.

Thank you for these. I pulled down a couple of clips for Vegas testing. Dropped right into 8.0c and 8.1. No issues whatsoever.

My computer:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz
6GB DDR 2 RAM
Vista 64-bit

My systems Windows Experience Index rating is 5.7


In Vegas 8.0c I can scroll through this 1920x1080 footage and play at 16 - 18 fps on my preview.

Thanks for the RAW footage. I download a few and tested on Adobe Premiere CS4 using AVCHD project. Play well on my PC machine.

Hi K.C.

I had heard that CS4 handles AVCHD, but I do not have any personal experience with CS4. I'm glad the footage worked well for you.

Thank you for these. I pulled down a couple of clips for Vegas testing. Dropped right into 8.0c and 8.1. No issues whatsoever.

Hi Perrone,

You are welcome. I'm glad they worked well for you in Vegas.

My computer:

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz
6GB DDR 2 RAM
Vista 64-bit

My systems Windows Experience Index rating is 5.7


In Vegas 8.0c I can scroll through this 1920x1080 footage and play at 16 - 18 fps on my preview.

Hi Eric,

Your system is much faster than mine, but at least you can watch the files. What part of Texas are you in? We will be in Dallas in March doing a demo of the HMC150.

Hi Mark,


Im in Victoria, TX. I've played with the HMC150 at Industrial Audio and Video in Houston a few weeks ago. They had it with an HVX, JVC and Canon's. Really nice cam for the price. If I was going to buy the cam, I would buy a Quad Core machine or HDMI capture card from BlackMagic.

You don't feel like going back in time because of the slow workflow?

People that have to transcode get almost real time transfers so what benefit do they get by going solid state? I guess no tape dropouts?

Hi Eric,

Because I use Edius 4.6 and have to transcode, I do not see the time advantage of AVCHD. Since AVCHD is relatively new the NLE companies are playing catch up. It was the same way when HDV first came on the scene. There is no doubt about it, the numbers back it up, AVCHD is superior to HDV.

Setting aside AVCHD aspects of the camera, it is a dream to shoot with, does 720- 24p, 30p, 60p and 1080- 24p, 30p and 60i, and does well in low light. Additionally it does not suffer from the negative aspects of rolling shutter that comes with CMOS cameras.

Hi Eric,

Because I use Edius 4.6 and have to transcode, I do not see the time advantage of AVCHD. Since AVCHD is relatively new the NLE companies are playing catch up. It was the same way when HDV first came on the scene. There is no doubt about it, the numbers back it up, AVCHD is superior to HDV.

Setting aside AVCHD aspects of the camera, it is a dream to shoot with, does 720- 24p, 30p, 60p and 1080- 24p, 30p and 60i, and does well in low light. Additionally it does not suffer from the negative aspects of rolling shutter that comes with CMOS cameras.

Hmm.. I'd like to know more about your 'numbers'.

All the things you list above, to my knowledge, actually have nothing to do with the compression format the footage is encoded into (HDV/AVCHD) but rather the technology associated with the cameras that currently use these technologies.

- CMOS cameras that suffer from rolling shutter as you point out above do so because they use CMOS chips - not because they are AVCHD or HDV.

- There are plenty of camera models out there that record a true 24p, either 1080 or 720 that are HDV cameras.

From what I've read, HDV is still considered slightly superior in terms of image quality than is AVCHD.

Jon

Hmm.. I'd like to know more about your 'numbers'.

From what I've read, HDV is still considered slightly superior in terms of image quality than is AVCHD.

Jon

AVCHD is the successor to HDV and is superior. Here is a comparison of the codecs.

Panasonic AVCCAM (http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/avccam-features.asp)

All the newer cameras have HDMI outputs which is uncompressed 4:2:2 color space output right off the sensor block processor. Recording the HDMI would actually be the way to go when the new portable HDMI recorder is available.

Hmm.. I'd like to know more about your 'numbers'.

All the things you list above, to my knowledge, actually have nothing to do with the compression format the footage is encoded into (HDV/AVCHD) but rather the technology associated with the cameras that currently use these technologies.

- CMOS cameras that suffer from rolling shutter as you point out above do so because they use CMOS chips - not because they are AVCHD or HDV.

- There are plenty of camera models out there that record a true 24p, either 1080 or 720 that are HDV cameras.

From what I've read, HDV is still considered slightly superior in terms of image quality than is AVCHD.

Jon

Hi Jon

Yes you are correct. That is why is said "AVCHD aside". When talking about the HMC150 there are two main areas. One, the format, AVCHD, and two, the camera itself.

Again you are correct, CMOS determines the side affects of rolling shutter and not AVCHD or HDV. The HMC150 does not suffer from the side affects of rolling shutter because it uses CCDs and not CMOS.

As far as HDV being superior to AVCHD, I have not read that. Perhaps when the only AVCHD camers were consumer based cameras with a low bit rate setting that may have been true. But now that the HMC150 records in the PH mode at 21 Mbps with a max VBR of 24Mbps, AVCHD in the higher mode (PH) is superior to HDV, even though HDV records at 25 Mbps. AVCHD is Mpeg4. HDV is Mpeg2.

What I read from Sony's information on AVCHD is this. "The quality of AVCHD recording in the 9 Mbps mode is roughly equivelant to HDV recording." Well since AVCHD can record in 21 Mbps, it seems that according to Sony, AVCHD is superior to HDV.

I also learned the following information from the same Sony PDF. Mpeg 2 compression operates in blocks of 16 x 16 pixels. Mpeg 4 compression operated is blocks of 4 x 4 pixels. If you think of the screen as a jigsaw puzzle, Mpeg 2 sees about 6000 pieces and Mpeg 4 sees about 100,000 pieces.

I'm not an engineer, but all of those numbers from Sony seem to support what I saw in the video on the Panasonic site comparing HDV to AVCHD.

Mark,

Your points are compelling and appear to be 100% accurate. I watched the video on Panasonics website and if you are telling me Sony is publishing information that backs that video up, it would appear what I've been reading around in general forums is in fact bad information (most likely the result of people speaking about topics of which they do not know) so I thank you for pointing this out.

I know people have complained about the performance aspects of AVCHD on the timeline (any editor), I would imagine using Cineform's Neo Scene and converting AVCHD into 10-bit 1920x1080 .avi files would solve this issue and probably be a better place to edit from anyway.

Does anybody agree or disagree with this?

Jon

Update:

Mark, I downloaded your files, downloaded the Neo Scene trial and transcoded your AVCHD files into the Cineform .avi's as I had suggested in the prior post.

Results are incredible and super smooth playback inside Vegas 8.0c. Files are native 1920x1080,29.97fps,60i files. I trust you shot this footage at 60i?

Jon

I would like to see a FireStore that records directly via HDMI with an edit friendly codec.

Does anybody know if HDMI transfers keep their TC, UB, etc ?

Hi Jon

I also learned the following information from the same Sony PDF. Mpeg 2 compression operates in blocks of 16 x 16 pixels. Mpeg 4 compression operated is blocks of 4 x 4 pixels. If you think of the screen as a jigsaw puzzle, Mpeg 2 sees about 6000 pieces and Mpeg 4 sees about 100,000 pieces.

I'm not an engineer, but all of those numbers from Sony seem to support what I saw in the video on the Panasonic site comparing HDV to AVCHD.

Panasonic also states in their literature that these characteristics give AVCHD an advantage in handling motion more cleanly than MPEG2 can. I can state that when shooting sports work, (720/60p) the HMC handles motion better than my HDV cam, so I'm a believer.
I think it's a great cam, and chose it first for its codec, second for its low light ability. No regrets.

Mark,

Your points are compelling and appear to be 100% accurate. I watched the video on Panasonics website and if you are telling me Sony is publishing information that backs that video up, it would appear what I've been reading around in general forums is in fact bad information (most likely the result of people speaking about topics of which they do not know) so I thank you for pointing this out.

I know people have complained about the performance aspects of AVCHD on the timeline (any editor), I would imagine using Cineform's Neo Scene and converting AVCHD into 10-bit 1920x1080 .avi files would solve this issue and probably be a better place to edit from anyway.

Does anybody agree or disagree with this?

Jon

Jon:

I was surprised myself at the amount of people on DVinfo (and the SCS Vegas forum) who are so against AVCHD they are blinded to the facts. Chris H. usually steps in with fact when misinformation goes too far.

I also think the reports of slow AVCHD editing are a little over exaggerated too. I have been editing projects natively in Vegas 8.0c since October 2008 on Q6600 and Q9650 based machines with no problems on 1080i and 720P30 projects. This is in comparison to the HDV off a XH-A1. The slowest process I have found is running a deshaker script on 1080i AVCHD material. That gives 6 to 8 FPS speed. You can also edit mixed native HDV and AVCHD projects (HMC-150 & XH-A1) off the Vagas timeline with no problem.

If handling 720P60 and some AVCHD performance enhancements are included in Vegas 8.0d, it will a great native AVCHD editing experience IMO.

So, I don't think transcoding to another format is needed now or especially in the future ( unless your hardware platform is lacking).

Panasonic also states in their literature that these characteristics give AVCHD an advantage in handling motion more cleanly than MPEG2 can. I can state that when shooting sports work, (720/60p) the HMC handles motion better than my HDV cam, so I'm a believer.
I think it's a great cam, and chose it first for its codec, second for its low light ability. No regrets.

One huge plus I have seen on my video is the reduced shimmer/strobing when you do a pan. I don't shoot sports, but the strobing I used to get on some HDV pans was very distracting.

I think the AVCHD video is just a little smoother and easier on the eye to watch.

Yes Jeff, I agree with you 100% on that. It (AVCHD) does look smoother and definately does better on panning.

Update:

Mark, I downloaded your files, downloaded the Neo Scene trial and transcoded your AVCHD files into the Cineform .avi's as I had suggested in the prior post.

Results are incredible and super smooth playback inside Vegas 8.0c. Files are native 1920x1080,29.97fps,60i files. I trust you shot this footage at 60i?

Jon

Hi Jon,

I'm glad the files worked with Neo. The footage was a mix. The reception with pink accent lighting was shot in 30p. The other footage has an audible identification.

I would like to see a FireStore that records directly via HDMI with an edit friendly codec.

Does anybody know if HDMI transfers keep their TC, UB, etc ?

Hi Eric,

That would be quite a useful device. I hope the manufacturers are listening.

Hi Eric,

That would be quite a useful device. I hope the manufacturers are listening.

Do you mean like this?



CineForm - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm)

Hi Jeff,

Yes, exactly. I would love to test one of those with the HMC150. I wonder how long until it will come to market?

Mark,

Do you know the directory structure the downloaded files came from?

I have downloaded them and tried to import using the "Log and Transfer" in FCP 6.0.5, but it does not recognize the mts files.

I have read that I can download a few programs that will transcode for me, but I wanted to try it in FCP alone.

Thanks for your help

I had to actually rename the files with an .mts extension on my windows box. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Jon

Jon,

I gave that a shot on the Mac. . .still can't see the files.

I can see them, but they are grayed out. I cannot select them.

Mark,

Do you know the directory structure the downloaded files came from?

I have downloaded them and tried to import using the "Log and Transfer" in FCP 6.0.5, but it does not recognize the mts files.

I have read that I can download a few programs that will transcode for me, but I wanted to try it in FCP alone.

Thanks for your help

Hi Brian,

I'm not sure what you mean by "directory structure". As far as I know, FCP will need the files transcoded first.

Mark,

Yes, you are correct about Final Cut Pro needing to transcode the mts files first.

I downloaded the files, saved them to the harddrive in their own folder. When I got to transcode them in FCP through Log & Transfer, the files are grated out and I cannot select anything. The error message states something to the effect of "not the original directory structure".

It is my understanding with FCP, if you don't transcode directly out of the camera, you need to copy the files from the card in the exact file structure they were recoded in. I was just curious if you knew what that structure was before you put them up for us to download?

I am just trying to get a pulse on how long the transcoding process takes with FCP and how the files perform after transcoded with my Intel Mac.

Thanks for putting the files up for testing.

Mark,



...I downloaded the files, saved them to the harddrive in their own folder. When I got to transcode them in FCP through Log & Transfer, the files are grated out and I cannot select anything. The error message states something to the effect of "not the original directory structure".

It is my understanding with FCP, if you don't transcode directly out of the camera, you need to copy the files from the card in the exact file structure they were recoded in. I was just curious if you knew what that structure was before you put them up for us to download?

I am just trying to get a pulse on how long the transcoding process takes with FCP and how the files perform after transcoded with my Intel Mac...



Hi Brian,

The clips were taken from different cards over the course of 3-4 shoots. I'm not sure how to upload the entire card structure, as it is complex. There is an AVCHDTN folder, and a BDMV folder. Within the BDMV folder is the CLIPINF folder, PLAYLIST folder and STREAM folder. The MTS files are within the STREAM folder.

Has anyone been able to transode the files I uploaded, on a mac?

We are in the middle of transferring our 4 websites to a new server. Once that is complete I can see about uploading the entire file structure, but I don't have it from the footage I posted. I can shoot one minute of footage, and upload that. Then you will know how long it takes to transode per minute.

on an 8 core mac pro 3.2 with 8GB of RAM, transcoding was roughly 30 seconds per minute of footage once the AVCHD was transferred to the RAID system.

Do you mean like this?



CineForm - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm)

I like that idea but would like to see one unit without a screen to bring costs down. A lot of people already have monitors to focus and compose so the screen can be an extra useless expense for some people. It can record to USB and CF at the same time, GREAT!

We have moved the raw files to a different site. I don't know how to edit my original post so I am listing the link here.

VonTraining.net Forum :: View topic - Download HMC150 Raw Footage (http://www.vontraining.net/viewtopic.php?t=496)

Mark,

Thank you for this and your timing could not have been better.
I just built a machine last month in anticipation of buying an HMC150 and you gave me the opportunity to test it out.

The files play perfectly in Vegas 8.1.

My system: AMD Phenom X4 9850 with 8GB Ram running Win7 64 bit beta

BTW, my new camera should arrive next Wednesday.

Bob T.

Hi Bob,

You are welcome. It seems that most Vegas users are very happy with AVCHD. Have fun with your new camera on Wednesday!

Has anyone using a Mac and FCP 6.05 been able to import or log & transfer Mark's raw files? I am not able to, and I just checked and my Final Cut is up to date. I really am interested in this camera, but want to try out some test footage 1st before discounting it. I looked around and can't find any other sources of raw HMC150 output other that what our kind friend Mark has put up.

Thanks.

Has anyone using a Mac and FCP 6.05 been able to import or log & transfer Mark's raw files? I am not able to, and I just checked and my Final Cut is up to date. I really am interested in this camera, but want to try out some test footage 1st before discounting it. I looked around and can't find any other sources of raw HMC150 output other that what our kind friend Mark has put up.

Thanks.

Hey Mike, I'm in the same boat you are. I did find this on the Panasonic website. ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/AVCCAM_EditSol.pdf

I'll be getting one of these cameras next week. I'll be looking for FCP 6.0.5 to edit the footage. Downloaded the *.MTS samples here. No luck in getting them to play in MPEG StreamClip or FCP 6.0.5 - Just picked up a copy for Premiere CS3 and will try working with that tonight. Looking to download and try Panasonic's transcoder. No luck, link no longer works.



PC Workflow White Paper: (Windows Only)

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/green_avccam_combined.pdf


Adobe's AVCHD Support Page: (For Reference)

AVCHD support in Premiere Pro CS3 and Premiere Elements 4 (http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb403297)

Hope to find a reasonable solution to editing with FCP 6.0.5 that doesn't take all night transcoding footage.

I found out in the mac forum (dvi forum) that FCP will not log and transfer the mts files without the whole directory structure intact from the SD cards. There are other files in that structure that it needs at the same time. That is why Mark's files aren't working for us with Final Cut. I think you wlll be fine once you have the camera (as far as this goes), but from what I gather, will need to transode to Pro Res.

BTW, this is not stopping me from getting this camera (or likely two of them) for use in weddings. If it were not for the rolling shutter deal, I would be all over the Sony Z5.

I wish that CMOS did not have that issue. I like what those CMOS cams produce otherwise, more so than the HMC150 from what I can tell. Oh well. I won't be one bit surprised that a year or two from now, this will all be solved.

Thanks Mark for the files!

They seem to work fine on my Vegas 8.0c Q6600 machine.
I am curious, though, as to why, when they are placed on the Vegas timeline, the file properties say that they are MPEG-2 rather than MPEG-4. Anyone know why this is?

Dale

Hi Dale,

You are welcome. I don't use Vegas, so I don't have an anwer for you, sorry.

Thanks for the footage! Just for fun I tried it out on my dev box - an old Dell for testing new Adobe products before i put it on my real computer -

Dell - XP SP3
Pentium 4 3.4GHz
2 GB RAM

and surprise! It can't handle it. But it was nice to see actual footage inside Premiere CS4, which seems to handle it well - the processor just isn't up to the task.

I'm trying to decide right now between Xh-A1 and the HMC150 so this was a real help. This gives me reason to finally reformat my prod machine (quadcore) and move CS4 to it.

From my perspective - the most attractive thing about the HMC150 over the cannon is the lens. I don't know much about that kind of thing, but it sounds like the Panny is nice and wide right out of the box.

Hi Jason,

You are welcome. The only advantages I see that the XH-A1 has over the HMC150 is for videographers who must have tape and the 20x zoom lens

When comparing the XH-A1 to the HMC150, the HMC150 is the clear winner in light weight, low light performance, wider lens, better LCD, better manual focus aides, better manual zoom, better audio controls, better recording format, better warranty, and the list goes on.

Thanks again. Moved CS4 to my production rig:

Dell Precision
QuadroFX3500
Intel Xeon Quad @ 3.7GHz
3GB RAM

This rig handled the video just fine - with the CPU peaking at around 61% on all cores during playback on Premiere's timeline. Can't wait to play around with the new Prem and After Effects. Thanks for the advice, I'm confident now that this Panasonic is the way to go - amazing camera - can't wait to get my hands on one.

Hi Jason,

You are welcome. The only advantages I see that the XH-A1 has over the HMC150 is for videographers who must have tape and the 20x zoom lens

When comparing the XH-A1 to the HMC150, the HMC150 is the clear winner in light weight, low light performance, wider lens, better LCD, better manual focus aides, better manual zoom, better audio controls, better recording format, better warranty, and the list goes on.

Mark, I appreciate you posting the files. I have a XH A1 and I was concerned about the big drop in sensor resolution from the A1 and the file conversion issues. I am currently using the Sony MRC1 with my Canon for tapeless.

After some issues figuring out which or your files were interlaced and which frame rate, I sucessfully converted them to HDV using TMPGEnc 4.0. My Matrox RT.X2 could then edit them in real time while displaying them on a Samsung HD monitor via Component. The alternative would have been capturing via the Component out of the camera into the HD component input of the RT.X2. Much more hassle.

The glasses with the bubbles were sharp enough (when you were in focus) to convince me that the HMC150 would work for me.

Now the accessories issues. I just found out that I will need a new $300 lens controller since the HMC150 doesn't use LANC.