Panasonic AG-HMC 150 discussion
 

I did a quick search to see if anyone had already discussed this new camera and found nothing, so I'd like to get the ball rolling.

Positives---
1/3" 3-CCD
Captures full 1080 (not uprezed from 1440)
1080 60i/50i/30p/25p/24p and 720 at 60p/50p/30p/25p/24p
2 XLR inputs with mic/line switchable
Records to SDHC cards (3hrs of 1080/24p on a 32GB card)
28mm (35mm equivalent) 13x Leica

Negatives---
$4,500 bucks

Is it even worth it? The HVX-200 P2 cam is only $700 bucks more. Yeah I know, going with P2 you have all the extra expense of the cards, yada yada. I'm just doing a quality/price comparison here though. I wander what the image quality difference is between the two? With that said, I'll throw the other Panny into the mix... the one that everyone here IS talking about... the HDC-SD100. What are the major differences there?

AG-HMC 150 ($4,500), AG-HVX200 P2 ($5,200), HDC-SD100 ($1,300)

Discuss...........

Press Release on the HMC 150-
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...02008010809224

Are you sure the sensors are full-rastor 1920x1080 pixels? I believe the cheapest and only Panasonic HD camera that has full-rastor sensors is the HPX-3000 that costs something like $45,000 without a lens.

Wacharapong

Wacharapong is right. Also HMC-150 hits 1920x1080 by pixel-shifting CCD of 960x540...

ciao!

You may want to look at the photos I took at NAB of the HMC-150:
http://web.mac.com/bobdiaz/Site/HMC150.html

Also, I have an Interview with Jan Crittenden Livingston, from Panasonic about this camera.
http://web.mac.com/bobdiaz/Site/Podc...Panasonic.html

Barry Green's interview appears here:
http://web.mac.com/bobdiaz/Site/Podc...rry_Green.html


Of what I've seen so far, the camera looks very good. The final word will come in October when the camera starts shipping, but I'll hope that it will offer the kind of images I've seen from the HVX-200.


Bob Diaz

If you consider the cost of recording memory to be part of the initial investment in a functional solid-state camera setup, then the difference between using P2 and SD cards can be dramatic. On that basis the HMC150 should be an option worth considering for any work involving continuous shooting, as opposed to short film or news takes. There will likely be a downside with the low-resolution sensor producing soft images compared to sharper HD cameras, but that hasn't seemed to bother those earning money using the HVX200. Another issue may be effective editing workflows for the heavily compressed AVCHD footage, so be aware of options there before investing in the camera.

All things considered the HMC150 is likely to be a successful product, and will show why affordable alternatives to P2 are desirable for many purposes.

I'm running an iMac, 2.4 GHz dual core and Final Cut Express 3.5.1 and tested some H.264 footage on my iMac. While the AVCHD files from the HMC-150 aren't out yet, I found several HD MPEG-4 H.264 clips to test.

1080/30p, without rendering: The system is way too slow to move around easily.

With rendering, the footage in converted into AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) and editing becomes quick and very easy.


720/25p, without rendering: While the system seems to be a bit sluggish, I can move around quick enough to set in & out points.

Like the 1080 footage, the 720 footage is easier to manage with rendering.


With AVCHD, the solutions are:

(1) Use an Intermediate Codec to edit, this allows for a lower performance system to be used. In the case of my Apple and AIC, the Intermediate Codec does not seem to reduce the final quality of the result. There may be a slight drop in quality, but it's hard to tell.

(2) Use a 4 core (or higher) system. This is the best way, but the cost savings for the camera compared to the 170 is lost in a higher cost computer. However in a few years, computing power will be much higher.



Bob Diaz

Conversion
 

Bob,

How long was the clip and how long did it take to convert to AIC?

Jon Schwartz
CA Video Productions

Great question! Because I don't understand how an extra conversion step in the workflow could possibly save time.

Converting to an intermediate (a good one) makes it much faster to move around in the video, while editing (like selecting in and out points, as Bob mentioned). A random seek in an AVC video stream can be quite slow because not only is AVC quite processor intensive to decode, a whole group of pictures must (usually) be decoded also (frames are interdependent). I don't know anything about AIC, but Cineform for example, is quite quick to decode, and the frames are all independent (seeks are basically instantaneous with any reasonably modern computer).

Robert
 

Coming strictly from a SD and slightly HDV background, I was just curious on what the conversion times are for AVCHD files. I know what machine and what codec will vary, but what are your experiences or others who can comment.

Thank you.

Jonathan Schwartz
CA Video Productions

Recently converted a 1 hour 9 min AVCHD file from my Sony SR11 ( about 8.8G) using latest Canopus AVCHD converter to Canopus HQ intermediate in about 45 mins to a HQ file of about 45G. So total time to upload with Sony Motion Browser software and convert to HQ is about 1 hour 15mins. The Sony Motion Browser software connects the 2G files of the FAT 32 clips on the HDD of the SR11 so is necessary in the process as well as logging etc. It is not really that much slower than loading two tapes of HDV into the PC for the same time!!!

Ron Evans

Wow that's quick, it would of taken me about 5 hours to convert that file to Cineform intermediate from the Vegas timeline.

BTW, does anyone know what the Iris/Focus switch does on the HMC 150?

Probably assigns one of the functions to the front lens ring?

The Canopus Converter uses all 4 cores when converting. With just one core ( another mode that allows simultaneous conversion of a number of files) it would take 2.5 times realtime.

Ron Evans

I'm sorry, I didn't time it. ... I'll have to try it again and see how long it takes, but I won't be able to answer than one today... Too many tings to do...

Bob Diaz

After running several tests and timing it this time, I'm finding that the way the MPEG-4 H.264 file is encoded will have an impact on the time to transcode to AIC. This is only a VERY rough estimate... Keep in mind that the AVCHD files from Panasonic may be very different than this. The clips I'm testing are about 20 seconds long.

720/25p = 3.5x, That is 1 minute takes 3.5 minutes

1080/30p = 10x, That is 1 minute takes 10 minutes

The number you get is +/- 20% (Answer x 0.8 or Answer x 1.2)

With the limited files I've tested, it seems that the higher the compression, the longer the time and the lower the compression, the shorter the time.

My MAC is a 2.4 GHz dual core iMac with 2 GB of RAM.


Bob Diaz

Worth the Wait?
 

Bob,

How is the time needed for converting to an intermediate codec worthwhile. I love everything about the 150 except for this. Do you think that Apple will come up with a better workflow for AVCHD or is this just going to be the norm?

Jon Schwartz

The SR7 and SR11 that I have are only interlaced but the SR7 is 1440x1080i and the SR11 is 1920x1080i. I see no real differences in times for conversion to Canopus HQ. It takes between 45 and 50 mins for an hour of Sony AVCHD.

Ron Evans

When I play a clip in the Preview window, I can play it back without a problem, even the 1080/30p footage. There are some dropped frames, but at least I can see what the video is doing. At this point, selecting the In/Out Points is very easy, because the response of the pointer is reasonable.

However, once I drop the clip into the timeline, things slow down a bit. Now with the 720/25p footage, I can stand the delays, BUT the delays I find with the 1080/30p footage are getting in the way of being able to work properly. In the timeline, neither 1080 nor 720 can play back with audio at normal speed and the video has dropped frames.

Once something is rendered, it is converted into AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) and all the delays are gone. Now I can play back with audio and there are no delays in moving the pointer.

So rendering allows the system to respond faster and makes editing a lot easier.


In terms of work flow with the HMC-150, I don't know if importing clips allows for rendering at that point. (See below.) However, I know that a rough cut can be done on the clips in the preview window. Once the selected clips are dropped to the timeline, rendering would make sense.

Because rendering could take a while and the computer does not need my help, I would let the computer do it's thing what I do something else. After it's done, I would finish the edit...


(Below...) IF I rendered the files using Quicktime to convert them to AIC, the AIC files could be read direct to Final Cut Express and there was no need to do additional rendering. The response of the editing pointer is very good when pre-rendered.


Bob Diaz

Render Times
 

Bob,

I shoot multicamera events with anywhere from two to four cameras. The thought of having 4 cameras filming an 8 hour event and then having to ingest, convert and render the footage seems daunting. Seems to me that the advantage of using solid state goes out the window when you take all of this into account. If you are spending the same amount of time converting your footage as you would if you were importing tape, why loose the advantage of having a tape as a backup? Just curious what you see as the advantage to this set up vs. say the Canon XH-A1.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Jon Schwartz

I also shoot multicam and have used my SR7 and SR11 with my FX1. The advantage of the SR's is not needing any tape for the whole event and cost less than a Firestore etc to attach to a HDV cam. The Sony Motion Browser software will backup to disc for file sizes that fit on a DVD9. But now I will just backup all the files to a Bluray disc. Still more expensive than tape but coming down quickly. Yes its an extra step but I wanted a cam for family use rather than lugging around the FX1 and the SR11 is much better for these tasks. For the last event it did an excellent job intercutting with the FX1 on closeups with the SR7 fixed wide. The event was 2 hours and 20 mins, used two 80mins HDV tapes in the FX1. Capture time was realtime for the HDV and about 5 hours total for the SR's to HQ. So instead of a tape based being 7 hours capture it turned out to be 7 hour and about 35 min in the end. So 35 min longer in 7 hours or so. Not really significant for me anyway in that most of the time I didn't have to do anything!!!!! As I mentioned earlier I edit with Edius 4.6 and the time to get to a HQ file for each of the cameras was not really a lot longer than using just HDV. I used to save finished projects to standard size DV tapes which are actually more expensive than 50G double layer Bluray discs!!!!!! I too like the security of tape knowing that even if I mess up a piece I can cut and splice and get the tape going again. Not possible with disc based systems. However with discs it is fairly easy to just make a few copies.

Ron Evans

This is possibly why no camera makers have adopted AVCHD at any bit rate for their professional systems so far. My guess is they have foreseen that the technologies would not likely be adequately developed on the computing systems' hardware and NLE side to allow editing to be done efficiently enough (i.e. comparably to the long-GoP HDV, VBR Mpeg2 or I-Frame only DVCPro HD etc.) on most reasonably-equipped NLE platforms. Most users of their consumer AVCHD cams who are their main target market probably don't have any ideas what we have been complaining about but they sure love what they see on their LCD TVs.

Panasonic will be the first to try but I'm afraid their scheduled launch sometime in the 2nd half of this year maybe a little to early considering the initial specs for their new cams include the yet-to-be-tried bit rates of 21-24 Mbps. The file sizes will definitely be larger and require some intermediate codecs to expand to 200-300+ Mbps, putting unprecedented strain on even today's high-end computer systems.

Looking at it purely on commercial terms, tape-based HDV, DVCPro HD or VBR Mpeg2 (for higher quality output) are perhaps more cost and definitely time-effective in most applications for several months to come until more advanced CPUs, GPUs and on-camera IPs are available.

Wacharapong

While it looks like the higher data rates convert to AIC or ProRes faster than the lower data rates, it will be another 3 months (October) before the HMC-150 comes out and we can measure the time to convert. The time one takes for conversion will depend on the speed of the computer; so faster systems have an advantage.

Because no single solution is perfect for everyone, we enter into a trade-off between different systems. For example, P2 may cost more, but is in a format (DVCPRO HD) that can be edited directly on some editing systems without conversions delays. To compare solid state recording to tape, there's a plus side and a minus side.

Plus side to solid state over tape:
Pre-record function, you don't have to burn up storage waiting for something to happen, the video captured 3 seconds before you press record is captured to the file.

No tape drop-outs.

Can mark and delete bad clips in the field, thus freeing up space.

Can mark good or important clips in the field, thus making it easier to find the right clip.

Ability to review any clip and not worry about rewinding or fast forwarding to continue recording.

It a lot easier to make a backup copy of the file than with tape. (I've had older tapes fail on me.)

It's easier to pull a single thing from solid state then with tape. (If you had to find one shot in the middle of the tape, you will have to fast forward and rewind to find the clip.)

IF working in P2, DVCPRO HD, one can start to edit right away without conversion or copying from tape to HD. (AVDHD could do that, but it would take a powerful computer to edit native. As processing power increases, in 3 to 4 years, this will not be a big issue.)

If working with P2, features like Time lapse, slow motion, and fast motion are possible.


Minus side to solid state over tape:
Saving the files requires using hard drives or optical media. (Its best to have more than a single copy of the file.)

With AVCHD, you must either use a very powerful computer OR have a delay time for transcoding.

If using P2, the cost of the cards adds up. However, the price per GB has been dropping over the years.



I'm sure there are other reasons to consider both pro and con, but I just can't think of them right now. Because there's a trade-off, depending on each person's needs, some will find AVCHD works for them, some will find that P2 works for them, and some will find that tape works for them.

Bob Diaz

Think that depends on the workaround solutions there are, look at this article: http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/view...nalId=kb403297
The Blackmagic Intensity Pro card's seem to offer real good value at low cost with real-time capture and giving Premiere Cs3 an easier format to edit.
At least, that's what I understand from it, I"m still looking for more user experiences but if this card has the potential they are saying, I don't see any reason why not to work with AVCHD.

I don't see why AVCHD would require anything different for an editing intermediate than HDV, which works fine when converted to an intraframe codec at ~80-100 Mbps. Given how large and cheap hard drives have gotten, this isn't a big deal for anything short of hundreds of hours of footage - and even then it wouldn't be a huge problem.

As far as tape versus solid state is concerned, that will only be fully resolved when good video cameras use memory which is cheap enough to buy in bulk without taking out a loan, and the corresponding editing process is painless. Panasonic could solve that today by shipping an affordable camera using AVC-intra on SD memory cards, but they don't seem to be inclined to do that. Or Sony could start approving standard SSD cards for basic recording on the EX1, but they don't seem to be in a hurry to do that either.

I'd say Bob nailed it with his comment that we have a series of trade-offs now with different resulting preferences for different users. His list of pluses and minuses are a bit biased toward his preference, but suffice it to say that solid state memory has some workflow advantages while tape is still a good medium for many circumstances. And most tape-based cameras can now be used with a hard drive recorder to get some of the advantages of solid-state recording, but in a less convenient form factor.

I'll be the first to admit that I have a bias toward solid state recording and the HMC-150.

I guess I should have added to the list of the plus for tape is it's a proven technology. I should have also spent more time thinking about other things that are a plus for tape...


I'll try to attach photos of the copy of the early specification sheet from Panasonic on the HMC-150. I only scanned in the key parts...


Bob Diaz

I really like what I see out of those specs. Here's some food for thought:

32GB of 21Mbps AVCHD storage (SDHC class 6 card) will cost you $430
32GB of P2 storage will cost you $1500

1920 x 1080 and 1280 x 720 take up the same amount of space on the card according to the chart. Why is this?

It shoots 29.97p and 23.98p (native) which is good, but I don't see 29.97i listed. Does this mean no 1080i? Or does it mean 1080i but only at 59.94? I'm confused. Not that I'm a huge fan of 1080i, but some people might want to mix and match with their 1080i HDV cams and this would make it easier.

Overall, this thing seems impressive on the surface. I can't wait to see some footage from it, especially in low light since I do weddings. I've been hoping this is the camera I've been waiting for, in the price range I need it to be in. I can't afford an EX1 or camera in that range.

I can understand 1920x1080/30p and 1280x720/60p taking up about the same amount of space on the card, but you would think that 1280x720/30p and 1280x720/24p would take up less space.

Either:

(1) This is just a mistake on the early flier for the HMC-150.
.......OR
(2) Both 1280x720/30p and 1280x720/24p have much lower compression ratios than 1920x1080/30p.

IF it's case 2, then the 1280x720/30p (& 24p) have a higher bit rate than the JVC's HDV video (19 Mbps). In that case, the compression noise would be a lot lower than HDV.


If you look closely at the specification, every mode has to be at the maximum data rate, except the 1080/60i. See Recording Format. The 1080/60i can be at the maximum data rate, but can also be lower. Not that I'd ever want to record at a lower data rate.

DV Expo West comes to the LA area in early November and I can't wait to check out the HMC-150. It should be shipping by them, so this will be the final product and not hte prototype.


Bob Diaz

Bob - I broadly agree with the pros and cons you mention, but doesn't that all make the case for a dual approach the stronger? Maybe sometimes you CAN have cake and eat it?

The obvious example is the Sony Z7 - tape AND/OR solid state? (And cheap Compact Flash at that.) But it doesn't end there, in the pro market the PDW700 is going to have an SxS add-on option (OK, that's disc and solid state, but......), and such as the Firestore make a dual harddrive/tape option viable for other tape cameras.

And solid state doesn't uniquely equal P2 any more. SxS is the obvious competitor, but CF is being used more and more in recording from the Z7 to the XDR - the latter proving you don't need P2 or SxS for very high quality. And SD in the consumer sector. As regards one of your solid-state cons (cost) I agree when Kevin says:
What a shame the HVX170 isn't AVC-I 50 with SD cards.

Not all editors require the footage to be converted. EDIUS Broadcast and EDIUS Neo can play AVC-HD files directly, as can editors like Ulead and Pinnacle Studio. Now, that doesn't make them efficient; AVC-HD is extremely processor intensive, so until CPUs catch up it's likely that you'd actually want to convert the files. But it's not an absolute requirement, unless you're using an editor like FCP or Premiere Pro CS3 which don't have native AVC-HD file playback.

On a dual-core 2.4GHz system, EDIUS plays native AVC-HD files at about 12fps (my guess, not a scientific calculation!)

It instructs the system as to whether you want the lens focus ring to control focus, or to control the iris. If you're using autofocus, or you are in a situation where you can lock the focus down, then you could put the switch to IRIS and then have a big smooth iris ring.

The switch will probably prove quite popular with 35mm adapter owners because when you put the switch in IRIS position, it totally disables the focus ring as a focus ring. So once you focus on the ground glass of your 35mm adapter, you could then "lock" that focus by putting the FOCUS/IRIS switch into IRIS position and that way you'll never accidentally "bump" the focus position.

1920x1080x60i takes up the same bandwidth as 1280x720x60p. 720p has twice the motion resolution of 1080i. 1080i has twice the spatial resolution, but half the motion resolution, so the net result is that they both produce a comparable high-def image and they both take up the same amount of space.

At slower frame rates (720/24p vs. 1080/24p) that's where 1080 has an advantage, because it has more spatial resolution. But at equivalent bitrates, that should mean that the 720p version will be substantially less compressed than the 1080 version.

There is no such thing as 29.97i. All the camera manufacturers and the broadcasters refer to the frame rates as 24p(23.98p), 30p (29.97p), and 60i(59.94i). I know Avid calls 60i "30i", but I don't think any camera manufacturer or broadcast organization uses that terminology. If you ever see "29.97i" or "30i", just translate it in your head to "60i". It's all the same thing.

It'll have the same low-light sensitivity as the HVX200A, so if you can arrange to play with one of those you can get a good idea of what the sensitivity and noise characteristics will be like.

Strictly, Avid have got it right, and other organisations are slowly changing round. (Very slowly in some cases.) The nomenclature was officially changed a few years ago such that the number should always refer to frame rate (hence 25i, 30i), and not "frame rate if progressive, field rate if interlaced" (50i,60i). See http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/...editorial.html (Third paragraph.)
I can see the logic behind it, whether the change was worth the hassle is another thing. But strictly, 25i, 30i are now the official terminology, and are being used more and more.

Soon to Come
 

Barry,

Thank you for all of your information, it is very helpful. With Apple now having 8 core processors on the mac pro do you see FCP and panasonic owkring together to be able to edit AVCHD natively any time soon?

Jon Schwartz

The only problem is that the camera frame rate is 60 frames per second for interlace it just records fields instead of full progressive frames. This leads to some software deinterlacing to 30P which results in judder from what was a smooth interlace video. Deinterlacing should be to 60p to match the camera frame rate. So I think the approach was wrong. Confusing frames being two fields doesn't mean that two consecutive fields belong the same frame hence 30 frames a second!!!! Leaving at 60i correctly identifies the camera frame rate and the recording process. The confusion leads to people thinking that the recording rate is 30 frames per second . It isn't. It is 60 frames a second with half the information missing!!! Hence 60i.

Ron Evans

B&H says $3,500 when it's released in September.

Might be good-bye to my xh-a1

I am new to all of this but I am in the market for a HD camcorder for a feature-length documentary. Still undecided about whether to get the HMC 150 (no tapes is clearly the future, and my computing power is up to processing AVCHD; Mac Pro), the Canon XH-A1 (tapes, huh? ... a camcorder a lot of people seem to like due to its wide angle lens, excellent lens, and good low-light performance), or the Sony Z1U (tempting because you can do hard drive recording which seems to streamline the process compared to the XH-A1).

Any advice what camcorder I should get?? (HMC 150, XH-A1, or Z1U)??

Thanks!

Not sure if I understand why you'd dump your XH-A1. Other than no tapes, what's the benefit of the HMC 150?

I know A1's have a huge following but, the HMC150 tested very well. Basically the HMC owns everything short of the EX1 in low light, image quality, and handling. And reportedly it's only in 1080i that the EX1 has an advantage over the HMC in low light.

-DS

Thanks, Darren.

I understand the excitement about the HMC and I am tempted to wait a few weeks and get one myself. However, the verdict is still pending how people will like it in a real-life situation (so far all reviews are rather preliminary) and how it will integrate into a non-linear editing system.