Looking for any advice on the JVC HD 100/101. We're considering getting two for our next film so if ANYONE has used them let me know!
JVC HD-100/101 ... any one used one?
- Thread starter mr-modern-life
- Start date
Its 720p and although it is a very nice picture I wasn't overly impressed. There are many who agree with me.
Ive got probably 10 raw m2t's from the camera and as I said, it is nice but not overly so.
Also it has this Split Screen Effect (SSE) where the top half of the image shows brighter in the display than the bottom half. I haven't been paying close enough attention to whether this has been fixed or not, since I have no real interest in 720p (although it is certainly better than Standard Def).
Ive got probably 10 raw m2t's from the camera and as I said, it is nice but not overly so.
Also it has this Split Screen Effect (SSE) where the top half of the image shows brighter in the display than the bottom half. I haven't been paying close enough attention to whether this has been fixed or not, since I have no real interest in 720p (although it is certainly better than Standard Def).
I've been trying to get hold of one to run some test shots in comparison with the Sony. I'm trying to decide between the two for future projects.
I don't have a problem with 720p. The Panasonic Varicam shoots on 720 and the picture is astounding.
Where the JVC scores for me is it has better optics than the Sony and it's also built to shoulder mount properly like a full broadast camera. Those are both big pluses for me.
I don't have a problem with 720p. The Panasonic Varicam shoots on 720 and the picture is astounding.
Where the JVC scores for me is it has better optics than the Sony and it's also built to shoulder mount properly like a full broadast camera. Those are both big pluses for me.
I hear a major advantage of the JVC is the blow up to film. Then again I'm a producer not a tech wiz and thats why I asked yoiu guys!
Yep, we shot 24p for exactly that reason, with the Panasonic variable frame rate DVCproHD. Expensive camera.
I think the idea of using HDV for cinema work is dubious at best. HDV is a TV format. If it was me I'd not buy a camera for cinema work I'd hire and either go with the Pansonic HD or their standard def DVCPro50, which will also shoot 24p and is stunning.
Last edited:
If you know for sure that you’ll be going to a film print (not “would like to if needed”) then my suggestion would be to rent a true HD camera like the Vericam, the Viper or the F900.mr-modern-life said:
I’ve used the HD100. Nice camera. HDV isn’t up to professional standards yet so I wouldn’t buy. Not yet. I suspect that affordable, better HDV is right around the corner.
I've been working with HD for over four years now and I'm only just starting to get a handle on it.
The industry is going through some complex changes, the boundaries between professional and home formats is getting blurred. The boundaries between TV and cinema formats is even more complicated.
Basically you have lots of choices and a lot of the decisions will be made on how you want to make the film, what you want it to look like and how you want to do your post production.
If you use a JVC HD101E, then you're going to get a camera that has a good lens on it, that shoulder mounts and best of all you can then (with a little help from Lumiere) firewire into your FCP and edit yourself. So, camera under £5000, you can do your own editing .. cheap HD option. OK it's HDV, OK it's 720i .. these aren't ideal cinema camera choices (but hell neither is the XL1 ... and that's been done)
With the Sony Z. You get 1080i (higher resolution, therefore potentially better image), again you can firewire or use the relatively cheap sony HDV deck. So again cheap camera, DIY post production. On the down side it doesn't shoulder mount, and the optics aren't as good as the JVC.
If cinema is your primary goal and you are looking to have a resonable budget (£60,000 + providing you defer all cast and crew payments). If this is the case then instead of buying you'll need to move up to rentals.
This give you a wide choice of cameras .. The Panasonic varicam, which is full HD 720i, but with professional optics and chips. This camera will shoot 24fps which helps when doing film transfers. It will also shoot progressive scan, which also helps with a filmic look. The other advantage of this camera is that Panasonic have ironed out the all the software bugs in it, so it's rock solid. I used it when the technology was still being developed and I reckon I added a year onto the production time because of this.
You could also look at the Sony CineAlta, which is a beast and probably the best HD camera currently available. It's the professional film makers HD camera of choice.
With these or any of the other choices your post production costs are going to go through the roof. HD decks cost in the region of £500 a day to hire. This proabably means doing a tape tranfer of all your tapes from HD to SD so you can cut your movie offline. Tape transfers from HD to Digibeta are going to run in the region of £12,000 for a feature.
When you've finished your offline you'll need to do your online in a professional editing suite, which is going to be very, very expensive. If you get it for under £500 a day you'll be doing well. That's without deck hire, so in reality you're looking at £1000 a day. More if you hire in a colourist.
Other choices you could look at is to side step HD all together and look at something like DigiBeta or Panasonic's DVCpro50 cameras. Again fully professional cameras, great optics and with the DVCPro50 I know you can do cinema scale work. I've used that camera succesfully and unless you're a camera geek you'd be hard pressed to tell it from HD.
I find these HD discussions a little funny. I don't know if it's because they are repetative...
I think the first step anyone should take before trying to understand these cameras is to educate themselves on the HDV format. To understand HDV (I mean to really know what is going on behind the scenes) you have to understand video compression. When you finish that, you should be able to define: video sampling rate, different kind of frames (I, B....), GOP size, structure, bidirectional prediction, muti-pass encoding, VBR, and MANY more concepts which I won't list. When you can recite those definitions off the top of your head (and understand what they mean), then you'll know what HDV can and cannot do.
At the same time, I recommend against trying to undestand all that because it's not only quite an undertaking but you might be a little discouraged when you learn about some of those limitations in a realtime environment. So you might as well go and make your 'video' instead.
This is a complex topic so I will stop here before make things more confusing. I know some people on the board (Shaw) know exactly what I'm talking about.
I suppose if you really want to shoot HDV, rent the camera and do a test shoot. Then analyze the footage. Remember the video is compressed so what you see while recording is not what you get. Which brings another topic to mind:
When testing one of these cameras, do the following:
Point at something like a tree against sky. Everything may look great ("Wow. What high resolution!"). But if you look closely, especially if you color correct you'll start seeying mosquito noise. There's another term I forgot... Now pan/tilt the camera around slowly and see what happens. Also see what happens after you stop.
Ok, I'll stop now.
I think the first step anyone should take before trying to understand these cameras is to educate themselves on the HDV format. To understand HDV (I mean to really know what is going on behind the scenes) you have to understand video compression. When you finish that, you should be able to define: video sampling rate, different kind of frames (I, B....), GOP size, structure, bidirectional prediction, muti-pass encoding, VBR, and MANY more concepts which I won't list. When you can recite those definitions off the top of your head (and understand what they mean), then you'll know what HDV can and cannot do.
At the same time, I recommend against trying to undestand all that because it's not only quite an undertaking but you might be a little discouraged when you learn about some of those limitations in a realtime environment. So you might as well go and make your 'video' instead.
This is a complex topic so I will stop here before make things more confusing. I know some people on the board (Shaw) know exactly what I'm talking about.
I suppose if you really want to shoot HDV, rent the camera and do a test shoot. Then analyze the footage. Remember the video is compressed so what you see while recording is not what you get. Which brings another topic to mind:
When testing one of these cameras, do the following:
Point at something like a tree against sky. Everything may look great ("Wow. What high resolution!"). But if you look closely, especially if you color correct you'll start seeying mosquito noise. There's another term I forgot... Now pan/tilt the camera around slowly and see what happens. Also see what happens after you stop.
Ok, I'll stop now.
This is smartest thing anyone has said so far.
If anyone is interested define mosquito noise
or a description in more depth
lots of techno jargon about mosquito noise
Could you clarify your position because I can't quite see your point. There has always beeen a lot of rumour floating around the indie community about HDV's difficulties, but no one ever really lays out what the creative limitations are in layman's terms. You obviously have a great deal of technical information and a high level of understanding. Most film makers don't; personally I've always been more interested in what happens in front of the lens, not behind it. I think the reason that there are so many discussion about these topics is that there are a lot of film makers who aren't interested in the finer technical details, only in what the camera will and won't do creatively.
Now with your technical knowledge you could provide us less technical film makers with that information easily. I personally would appreciate it, because although I'm quite happy to go away and learn about compression if I have to, I'd rather work on my next script. After all aren't these boards for sharing information and experience with each other?
Last edited:
Clive makes a fair point. I asked the question because i wanted advice. I am a producer and within my budgetary limitations I want to know the best HDV camera I can get. I'm not a technical person so I will defer technical questions to others. I have been recommended this camera and just wanted to get a general consensus. Much like others I'd rther be making teh film that learning about compression or other technical issues.
Consult your DP.mr-modern-life said:
As for my 'understanding compression' comment:
I am the kind of person that likes to know how things work. I suggested that you guys try and get an understanding of video compression because it helps you understand the digital medium that you are working with. That knowledge will also be applied to future technologies so it's a good investment.
Obviously that's not the most timely efficient way to approach HDV.
For that, I honestly suggest testing out the camera. That does not have to cost money. Take a tape and go to an equipment rental shop and take the camera for a spin. All places I've rented from let me play with the equipment. I've run around back lots with Steadycams strapped to my body. Then analyze the footage. More importantly work with color correction/filters that you plan to use in your film and see how they look.
DV is extremely compressed, HDV, many times more. Color correction and compositing is much more difficult because you have less 'space' to work in.
Other than that, I cannot answer your particular question about the JVC because I have never used it.
I also am a kind of want to know everything kind of guy, but I don't think you need to understand the chemistry behind emulsion to be able to shoot good stuff, it just takes playing time with the format. Any format can get you good results if you work within it's limitations. I'm curious to see how you feel the compression format affects the image in HDV and/or ways to overcome these deficiencies/work within their strengths.
HDV is a little better than DV in regards to contrast range, mostly due to the pixel density, but the same rules apply...whites and reds are bad, under-expose slightly, color balance often, use a circular polarizer. Above and beyond that, anything goes...you'd be shocked how little definable information the human brain needs to be able to figure out the rest of the picture. Play with the camera before you buy one. Check return policies and excercise it if it's not what you're looking for.
HDV is a little better than DV in regards to contrast range, mostly due to the pixel density, but the same rules apply...whites and reds are bad, under-expose slightly, color balance often, use a circular polarizer. Above and beyond that, anything goes...you'd be shocked how little definable information the human brain needs to be able to figure out the rest of the picture. Play with the camera before you buy one. Check return policies and excercise it if it's not what you're looking for.
One of the interesting things about people is that they absorb information in different ways. I've never found technical knowledge a good route into any creative process. I have to see use and see stuff in action to understand it.
The comments you made about compression make compete sense to me though, it stands to reason that more information onto the same tape is going to need much higher compression.
I completely agree that trying a camera out is the only way to go. I'm intending to arange a demo with this camera some time next year, I'll let people know how it goes.
Have you considered the Panasonic AG-HVX200K? It supports
1080 / 60i, 30p, 24p
720 / 60p, 30p, 24p
480 / 60i, 30p, 24p
For a filmout, this is the one I'd rent. At $10K, I wouldn't be buying it.
1080 / 60i, 30p, 24p
720 / 60p, 30p, 24p
480 / 60i, 30p, 24p
For a filmout, this is the one I'd rent. At $10K, I wouldn't be buying it.