New GY-HM700 Camcorder

Yuriy Zahvoyskyy · August 25th, 2010, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Markert

Just checked the HM700 price at B&H: with 17x Fuji lens, $9,995. Ouch! That's for 1/3" CCD's.

If I can get so much more out of my 250, then perhaps I CAN wait a year or so to upgrade....only thing about this Flash thingy - it's not cheap. It's $4800. That's awfully close to what the body of the 700 will probably be... B&H needs to figure this out, but they list it with the 14x as 6995 then again as just the body for 7495. For a 2k upgrade to the XDR, you can toss in a whole video camera...

John & Jeff,
I tested out NANO FLASH with HM 700 using SDI feed , the test was recorded at 140 mbs . I was very disappointed, u can hardly see any difference comparing to the results from 35 mbs on SDHC card. I would not spend money on this device . The owner of the unit also commented that he is disappointed since he can't see any significant difference using it with EX 3 speaking about the quality, although you get a higher bit rate. I think this unit is just a matter of budget not necessarily much better quality footage.

Ryan Mast · August 25th, 2010, 08:33 PM

I did some tests recording with an AJA io box. There's a negligible quality difference for low-motion shots, but it makes a world of difference in high motion, particularly with high detail.

Dan Keaton · August 26th, 2010, 02:43 AM

Dear Yuriy,

One of our friends, Mr. Steve Phillips, requested that I respond to your post concerning the user of our nanoFlash with the HM700.

At first glance, the difference between quality 35 Mbps 4:2:0 and higher bit-rate 4:2:2 recording is not always obvious.

There is always a difference in that 4:2:2 retains more color information and this can ususally be seen, but it does depend on the scene being recorded. But, this can be fairly subtle at times.

The real difference, according to image experts, is that a higher bit-rate 4:2:2 recording holds up better in post, but this all depends on what is done in post.

The other difference is handling motion, either in the image, or camera motion, with higher bit-rates being better.

Please understand that modern cameras that record 4:2:0 at 35 Mbps can and do produce high quality images.

August 25th, 2010, 08:33 PM	#242
Ryan Mast Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 28	I did some tests recording with an AJA io box. There's a negligible quality difference for low-motion shots, but it makes a world of difference in high motion, particularly with high detail. __________________ Meteor Tower Films We make music videos, design video for live theater, and build interesting contraptions.

August 26th, 2010, 02:43 AM	#243
Dan Keaton Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Augusta Georgia Posts: 5,421	Dear Yuriy, One of our friends, Mr. Steve Phillips, requested that I respond to your post concerning the user of our nanoFlash with the HM700. At first glance, the difference between quality 35 Mbps 4:2:0 and higher bit-rate 4:2:2 recording is not always obvious. There is always a difference in that 4:2:2 retains more color information and this can ususally be seen, but it does depend on the scene being recorded. But, this can be fairly subtle at times. The real difference, according to image experts, is that a higher bit-rate 4:2:2 recording holds up better in post, but this all depends on what is done in post. The other difference is handling motion, either in the image, or camera motion, with higher bit-rates being better. Please understand that modern cameras that record 4:2:0 at 35 Mbps can and do produce high quality images. __________________ Dan Keaton Augusta Georgia