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
knightly said:
I completely agree.
The rest of this post comes with a disclaimer:
Everything below is my opinion. As Clive mentioned, I do not know how you will absorb this informtion, but remember that it's an opinion only. [and it's also 3AM...]
I believe understanding this 'stuff' makes me a better filmmaker, or at least a more efficient one. It is easier for me to work in different digital mediums, export to different venues, etc. Those are less headaches and more time I can spend 'being creative.' I also shoot PAL in an NTSC country (or at least way more than NTSC anyway). Most people are a little scared by that. A while back I filmed two videos for the Philippines. Shot in PAL (my choise). They wanted NTSC copies. No problem because I know this mombo jombo (or more importantly how to retain the quality in conversion, etc.)
Some comments related to HDV:
I've seen some past posts here where people have burned their footage on DVD, no longer had the original, and wanted to know how to [rip, convert] re-edit the footage from the DVD. If I remember correctly, most people strongsly advised against doing such a thing because you would be working with compressed footage. Now most people may not notice the compression or have any issues with it. I do and it does bother me. Being a perfectionist really is a faul at times.
Imagine you want to draw and color something on a piece of paper. You can have three or four crayons. Most people would probably choose four because you have more freedom. But ultimately it depends on what you want to create. Maybe you'll create something abstract and want to use just one crayon anyway.
Clive, I'm looking forward to seeing your results.
mrde50, that 10k pricetag is not too bad for the camera considering it incluges two 8GB P2 cards. I agree here. If my project demanded more resolution, I would only consider using this or the Canon.
Surprisingly (Maybe) I completely agree with this. One of the dangers of this boom in new production technology is that their are now thousands of places in the production process where you can come to grief. HDV seems to present particular issues in post production, it's not a straight forward process. Not only that, I've also come across a lot conflicting opinions about it as a format.
I know that when we shot No Place on Panasonic DVCproHD that we had two years of post production glitches, a lot of which were connected to software issues in the early cameras not correctly marking the frames. This is one of the reasons that these days I tend to go for camera systems that have been around for a couple of years. I've done my share of beta testing new products, now I want something where there is a tried and trusted workflow. With HDV I'm not completely convinced that that is the case.
Given the choice I'd still rather shoot on DVCproHD, it's a format that I understand (not technically, but from hands on production experience). The issue here is whether HDV offers a viable production alternative for no budget indies, whether this is the next logical step from shooting dv.
On paper HDV seems ideal: a low cost, high resolution format that can be edited on a half decent home machine. Where the issues seem to be is whether as a format it can deliver. Most of the pros I talk to are very dubious, mainly due to the compression issues. Personally I think time will tell. In the meantime I'm going to carry on shooting test footage, sticking it into my editing system and seeing if I can get what I want out of it. The way it stands at the moment I'd be very nervous about laying out money to buy a HDV Camera (Of course if someone gave me one, that would be a different matter).
This thread has really given me some stuff to think about though and I'm now doing some research into compression. Having been caught out once on technical issues in post I don't want to commit another two years to a project only to be caught out in post or unhappy with the results.
Sounds like you would really like the HVX200 Clive as it shoots, DVCpro50 and DVCproHD in both 720p with variable frame rates up to 60 (like the varicam) and 1080p/i modes.
I'm not sure I agree Knightly (of course this is all my opinion and not fact). I've found that the new HDV cameras have comparable dynamic range (worse in some cases) than DV because the smaller pixels collect less light making the camera less light sensitive which also affects the signal to noise ratio.
I've seen some great stuff from HDV but I personally wouldn't choose it as a filmmaking format. I think HDV has some really good potential for low budget filmmaking. The increased resolution is priceless when it comes to a film-out type scenario. Of course there's a lot more to image quality than resolution (and often you must trade some quality for higher resolution). The HDV post production process is quite workable if you are familiar with it. It's something to research before commiting to of course. It's not too much of a problem these days.
Here is my personal assessment of the HDV cameras on the market:
JVC HD100 - 720p at 30fps and 24fps : $5495 at B&H
I've seen some rather nice footage from this camera. It's HDV but the codec holds up better than when shooting 1080i HDV as there is a significant increase in data per pixel. The only downside is the lack of a 'reality look' which you would get from shooting 60i (normal video frame rate) as you only have 24p and 30p. The contrast range is quite decent. The standard lens, however, SUCKS. I have never seen a worse lens on a video camera in my life (well in the 3-10K range). It really drags down the usefulness of the camera. You can, of course, throw a different lens on there as it will accept 1/2" and 2/3" lenses but you will not have a wide angle capability. There is a wide angle lens available but it ccosts in the area of 12K - more than the camera itself!
----
SONY FX1 - 1080i : $3,129.99
Great deal. You don't get progressive footage but you can convert the interlaced footage to progressive in post (albeit not perfectly and with some resolution loss). If you need HD on the cheap this is absolutely the way to go. No question there. Problems? Lacks XLR inputs.
----
SONY Z1 - $ 4,900.00 : 1080i
Good camera from all reports. I've seen some nice stuff shot with this camera and 35mm adapters. Honestly, I'm not sure which I would go for in this price range - the JVC or SONY. I'm very much a fan of progressive video but the lens sucks so much on the JVC... In the end I would probably have to go with the Z1 since image quality is so very important.
----
CANON XL-H1 - $ 8,999.00 : 1080i, 1080 30f, 108024f
GREAT resolution in this sucker! Noticeably more than the Sony and JVC cameras. It suffers a bit from low exposure latitude due to it's high pixel density. Following in the XL2's footsteps it has very clean footage and the HDV codec held up alright. Problems? It doesn't shoot progressive - it shoots 'f' for 'frame'. Apparently this is somewhat similar to canon's frame movie mode on the XL1. Still, one might expect the camera to loose resolution from this method but I've been quite happy with the res I've seen come from the camera. Just goes to show that you can't base everything on specs. The major downside? The price. I'm honestly not sure who this camera is targeted at. That's a lot to pay for HDV. If I were going to pay that much I would, without doubt, spend the money on Panasonics new DVCproHD camera... Still if you need long record times you really can't beat a 60min tape (the panasonic has shorter record times as will be shown).
----
Panasonic HVX200 - $5,995.00 (base), $ 7,199.95 (2 4gig p2 cards) - 720p (variable frame rates), 1080i 30p, 24p, DVCpro50
If I were making movies I'd buy this over the Canon any day. The image quality is very impressive and the resolution is good. You get twice as much color information with this camera than you do any of the others. Gives better color gradients and is much better for visual effects and keying. This camera is just so darn versatile. It inherits many of the properties of the varicam - most notably the variable frame rates. You can't 'ramp' or move between frame rates on the fly as you can with the Varicam but you can choose between 12, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 36, 48, 60fps. Why does that matter? True slow and fast motion effects! Jan of Panasonic claims it gets 7 stops of dynamic range - identical to the DVX. This has yet to be verified by independent sources of course but looking at the footage I think the assessment is fairly accurate. P2 cards are also nice since you don't have to worry about digitizing - you simply plug 'em in and start editing. You can also delete bad takes. The downside? P2 cards. Currently these are rather expensive and have short record times. Definitely not the way to go for event work. There are some hard disk solutions out there though which will allow longer recording. These, of course, must be purchased separately. Some people love the P2 idea - others hate it for the price and record times. Still, you can get the camera itself and 2 4gig cards for less than the Canon. Clearly I like this camera. I own a DVX so I could be accused of bias but really, after viewing the footage and comparing the features, I think this is the camera to own if you are willing to spend more than 5K (I'll buy whatever works best for me and I just don't see how this can be beat for the price). You could, of course, buy the camera without any p2 cards for just under 5K and shoot DV and DVCpro50 (nice format with twice as much color information, though standard definition) if you don't mind waiting on the HD.
----
For what it's worth =)
I'm not sure I agree Knightly (of course this is all my opinion and not fact). I've found that the new HDV cameras have comparable dynamic range (worse in some cases) than DV because the smaller pixels collect less light making the camera less light sensitive which also affects the signal to noise ratio.
I've seen some great stuff from HDV but I personally wouldn't choose it as a filmmaking format. I think HDV has some really good potential for low budget filmmaking. The increased resolution is priceless when it comes to a film-out type scenario. Of course there's a lot more to image quality than resolution (and often you must trade some quality for higher resolution). The HDV post production process is quite workable if you are familiar with it. It's something to research before commiting to of course. It's not too much of a problem these days.
Here is my personal assessment of the HDV cameras on the market:
JVC HD100 - 720p at 30fps and 24fps : $5495 at B&H
I've seen some rather nice footage from this camera. It's HDV but the codec holds up better than when shooting 1080i HDV as there is a significant increase in data per pixel. The only downside is the lack of a 'reality look' which you would get from shooting 60i (normal video frame rate) as you only have 24p and 30p. The contrast range is quite decent. The standard lens, however, SUCKS. I have never seen a worse lens on a video camera in my life (well in the 3-10K range). It really drags down the usefulness of the camera. You can, of course, throw a different lens on there as it will accept 1/2" and 2/3" lenses but you will not have a wide angle capability. There is a wide angle lens available but it ccosts in the area of 12K - more than the camera itself!
----
SONY FX1 - 1080i : $3,129.99
Great deal. You don't get progressive footage but you can convert the interlaced footage to progressive in post (albeit not perfectly and with some resolution loss). If you need HD on the cheap this is absolutely the way to go. No question there. Problems? Lacks XLR inputs.
----
SONY Z1 - $ 4,900.00 : 1080i
Good camera from all reports. I've seen some nice stuff shot with this camera and 35mm adapters. Honestly, I'm not sure which I would go for in this price range - the JVC or SONY. I'm very much a fan of progressive video but the lens sucks so much on the JVC... In the end I would probably have to go with the Z1 since image quality is so very important.
----
CANON XL-H1 - $ 8,999.00 : 1080i, 1080 30f, 108024f
GREAT resolution in this sucker! Noticeably more than the Sony and JVC cameras. It suffers a bit from low exposure latitude due to it's high pixel density. Following in the XL2's footsteps it has very clean footage and the HDV codec held up alright. Problems? It doesn't shoot progressive - it shoots 'f' for 'frame'. Apparently this is somewhat similar to canon's frame movie mode on the XL1. Still, one might expect the camera to loose resolution from this method but I've been quite happy with the res I've seen come from the camera. Just goes to show that you can't base everything on specs. The major downside? The price. I'm honestly not sure who this camera is targeted at. That's a lot to pay for HDV. If I were going to pay that much I would, without doubt, spend the money on Panasonics new DVCproHD camera... Still if you need long record times you really can't beat a 60min tape (the panasonic has shorter record times as will be shown).
----
Panasonic HVX200 - $5,995.00 (base), $ 7,199.95 (2 4gig p2 cards) - 720p (variable frame rates), 1080i 30p, 24p, DVCpro50
If I were making movies I'd buy this over the Canon any day. The image quality is very impressive and the resolution is good. You get twice as much color information with this camera than you do any of the others. Gives better color gradients and is much better for visual effects and keying. This camera is just so darn versatile. It inherits many of the properties of the varicam - most notably the variable frame rates. You can't 'ramp' or move between frame rates on the fly as you can with the Varicam but you can choose between 12, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 30, 32, 36, 48, 60fps. Why does that matter? True slow and fast motion effects! Jan of Panasonic claims it gets 7 stops of dynamic range - identical to the DVX. This has yet to be verified by independent sources of course but looking at the footage I think the assessment is fairly accurate. P2 cards are also nice since you don't have to worry about digitizing - you simply plug 'em in and start editing. You can also delete bad takes. The downside? P2 cards. Currently these are rather expensive and have short record times. Definitely not the way to go for event work. There are some hard disk solutions out there though which will allow longer recording. These, of course, must be purchased separately. Some people love the P2 idea - others hate it for the price and record times. Still, you can get the camera itself and 2 4gig cards for less than the Canon. Clearly I like this camera. I own a DVX so I could be accused of bias but really, after viewing the footage and comparing the features, I think this is the camera to own if you are willing to spend more than 5K (I'll buy whatever works best for me and I just don't see how this can be beat for the price). You could, of course, buy the camera without any p2 cards for just under 5K and shoot DV and DVCpro50 (nice format with twice as much color information, though standard definition) if you don't mind waiting on the HD.
----
For what it's worth =)
this is a great comparison, now how much would you need for a computer system to be used with each of these camera to take full advantages of their resolutions? and what are the 'issues' one would encounter during post? I'm also right now doing a lot of research on these and I almost in certain planning to go with the hvx200 but I'm in a position where I'm am afraid that the cost in post production would actually rack up the cost... when budget is a 'concern' for all of us.
Last edited:
Thanks Shaw
This information is really useful.
You're probably right about the Panasonic HVX 200 (In that it's a good candidate for me) I'm a massive fan of DVCPro50 and I'd rather shoot that than HDV any day of the week.
I'm going to put that to the top of my test list. I was little surprised about your take on the JVC's lens, because I'd been told the oposite. However, I think it maybe that the people I was talking to had opted to put a different lens on the camera and that the advantage of that camera was that it would take a variety of broadcast lenses.
Anyhow, I'll take a close look at the optics when I set my tests up. Ta
This information is really useful.
You're probably right about the Panasonic HVX 200 (In that it's a good candidate for me) I'm a massive fan of DVCPro50 and I'd rather shoot that than HDV any day of the week.
I'm going to put that to the top of my test list. I was little surprised about your take on the JVC's lens, because I'd been told the oposite. However, I think it maybe that the people I was talking to had opted to put a different lens on the camera and that the advantage of that camera was that it would take a variety of broadcast lenses.
Anyhow, I'll take a close look at the optics when I set my tests up. Ta
Glad it was of some use Clive. I can't claim to have used the camera in person so I may be off in my assessment. I should probably clarify that by 'suck' I'm refering to aberration and not it's manual capabilities (for which it is definitely far superior to a built in lens). I've viewed online mt2 files though and the lens is really heavy on chromatic aberration. Especially as you go near the long end of the lens. Granted, having a true broadcast style lens is great (fous, zoom, etc). Definitely give it a try. I know several people who are quite happy with the JVC and have learned to get around its limitations. Exchangable lenses are great when you can afford to rent good glass!
All of these HD(V) cameras show more chromatic aberration than their SD counterparts due to tighter tolerances required for an HD lens (especially chip chip so small). This seems to vary from lens to lens. The Canon lens is super sharp. I was very impressed. It showed aberration at the long end as do all these cameras but it wasn't too bad. I pick on the JVC merely because the lens has so much aberration - it's not something that can be easily ignored (well at least to my eyes anyway).
Definitely try them out! Don't take my word for any of this! You may find issues that bug you which I did not point out and the things I did may not bother you at all.
mdifilm: It's hard to say. Here's what I do know though:
DVCproHD:
- each frame is compressed individually
- 100mb/s stream when shooting 720p60 or 1080i60
- 40mb/s when shooting 24p
- It has been around for a while now so most places should be willing to accept and work with DVCpro(HD).
- It's going to take a whole lot more room to store and edit than HDV. Definitely something to very seriously consider before making the jump.
- Right now Apple and Avid are the only NLE's (I am aware of) which is currently providing support for DVCproHD as it previously only high end cameras shot in the format (and thus wasn't a format used by 'prosumers' etc). I imagine this will increase as companies release new versions of current software. The only real concern is for those who use Vegas. Since it was acquired by Sony, there's a good chance they won't support Panasonic's format. I think they would be shooting themselves in the foot but Sony seems to do that with surprising frequency when it comes to inter-operability.
HDV
- Most NLE's support native editing of HDV footage now. Off the top of my head I know that Premiere 1.5.1 and Vegas 6 both can edit HDV without issue.
- Takes no more room on your hard drive than DV!
- Editing the native mt2 file is a bad idea as it's very processor intensive (has to reconstruct frames on the fly from a sequence of recorded image changes). Of course this isn't really an issue now that so many NLE's support the format by using an intermediate codec instead of editing the native file.
- HDV comes in so many varieties. For instance, JVC uses a different variant of HDV than does Sony so if you buy an HDV deck there is no guarantee it will be of use to other HDV capable cameras.
Since I haven't editing both on my personal PC I can't comment on RAM and processor requirements. Generally, I think, most newer computers should be able to handle either format. Especially if you do an 'offline' edit first in standard def.
All of these HD(V) cameras show more chromatic aberration than their SD counterparts due to tighter tolerances required for an HD lens (especially chip chip so small). This seems to vary from lens to lens. The Canon lens is super sharp. I was very impressed. It showed aberration at the long end as do all these cameras but it wasn't too bad. I pick on the JVC merely because the lens has so much aberration - it's not something that can be easily ignored (well at least to my eyes anyway).
Definitely try them out! Don't take my word for any of this! You may find issues that bug you which I did not point out and the things I did may not bother you at all.
mdifilm: It's hard to say. Here's what I do know though:
DVCproHD:
- each frame is compressed individually
- 100mb/s stream when shooting 720p60 or 1080i60
- 40mb/s when shooting 24p
- It has been around for a while now so most places should be willing to accept and work with DVCpro(HD).
- It's going to take a whole lot more room to store and edit than HDV. Definitely something to very seriously consider before making the jump.
- Right now Apple and Avid are the only NLE's (I am aware of) which is currently providing support for DVCproHD as it previously only high end cameras shot in the format (and thus wasn't a format used by 'prosumers' etc). I imagine this will increase as companies release new versions of current software. The only real concern is for those who use Vegas. Since it was acquired by Sony, there's a good chance they won't support Panasonic's format. I think they would be shooting themselves in the foot but Sony seems to do that with surprising frequency when it comes to inter-operability.
HDV
- Most NLE's support native editing of HDV footage now. Off the top of my head I know that Premiere 1.5.1 and Vegas 6 both can edit HDV without issue.
- Takes no more room on your hard drive than DV!
- Editing the native mt2 file is a bad idea as it's very processor intensive (has to reconstruct frames on the fly from a sequence of recorded image changes). Of course this isn't really an issue now that so many NLE's support the format by using an intermediate codec instead of editing the native file.
- HDV comes in so many varieties. For instance, JVC uses a different variant of HDV than does Sony so if you buy an HDV deck there is no guarantee it will be of use to other HDV capable cameras.
Since I haven't editing both on my personal PC I can't comment on RAM and processor requirements. Generally, I think, most newer computers should be able to handle either format. Especially if you do an 'offline' edit first in standard def.
For what it's worth I've worked with both DVCproHD and DVCpro50, and visually, even when it was projected to cinema size I've got to say they both looked great, but for the kind of look I prefer, I think I like DVCpro50 best.
Post production costs defiantely make a massive leap up when you start getting into DVCproHD.
Personally I think that anyone looking at these cameras should defiantely look at any camera that allows you to shoot DVCpro50. It would be a serious alternative to HDV. I've used the foramt sucessfully, it's a tried and tested format and the end results are stunning. It's a much more filmic format than digibeta and if you bang it up 1080i HD in post you end up with a film that very few people would ever know was shot on standard def.
If you are going to shoot on it I'd invest in a good matte box, plenty of ND and black promist filters.
Thanks for the heads up on the JVC lens, I'll check that out when I get my hands on one. I tend to use the long end of the lens a lot, so that would defiantely be an issue for me. However, with the possibility of cheap acess to DVCpro50 I'm not sure that HDV is a format that I'm as that interested in as I was a few weeks ago.
Post production costs defiantely make a massive leap up when you start getting into DVCproHD.
Personally I think that anyone looking at these cameras should defiantely look at any camera that allows you to shoot DVCpro50. It would be a serious alternative to HDV. I've used the foramt sucessfully, it's a tried and tested format and the end results are stunning. It's a much more filmic format than digibeta and if you bang it up 1080i HD in post you end up with a film that very few people would ever know was shot on standard def.
If you are going to shoot on it I'd invest in a good matte box, plenty of ND and black promist filters.
Thanks for the heads up on the JVC lens, I'll check that out when I get my hands on one. I tend to use the long end of the lens a lot, so that would defiantely be an issue for me. However, with the possibility of cheap acess to DVCpro50 I'm not sure that HDV is a format that I'm as that interested in as I was a few weeks ago.
Thanks to Shaw and Clive, both are very informative I think I have a 'decision' made. depending on the script/breakdown/and distribution sellable chance, it will come down to either HD (with Pan hvx200) or using any camera that shoots DVCpro50 + 16mm reversal film stock that I still have in my fridge...
Thank you to Aaron for bringing all the facts together on one page. I was a little more abstract with the crayons...Not very helpful 
. I was talking about DV and HDV anyway.
I didn't bring DVCPro in the conversation because the original topic was about JVC/HDV, but I think it's pretty obvious from my posts that I'm not an advocate of HDV.
Anyway, unlike Aaron, I am not biased toward the HVX. I never owned a Panasonic camera, but the HVX impressed me from the moment it was announced.
Btw, another nice feature of P2 media is that you can simply insert it into your laptop's Type II PC Card slot and transfer the footage. Carrying a laptop around may be a cheaper alternative than buying multiple P2 cards.
Final Cut Pro 5 already has the option to import P2 media into your project.
. I was talking about DV and HDV anyway. I didn't bring DVCPro in the conversation because the original topic was about JVC/HDV, but I think it's pretty obvious from my posts that I'm not an advocate of HDV.
Anyway, unlike Aaron, I am not biased toward the HVX. I never owned a Panasonic camera, but the HVX impressed me from the moment it was announced.
Btw, another nice feature of P2 media is that you can simply insert it into your laptop's Type II PC Card slot and transfer the footage. Carrying a laptop around may be a cheaper alternative than buying multiple P2 cards.
Final Cut Pro 5 already has the option to import P2 media into your project.
Shaw, where is your review for the $1500 HC1 or $3000 A1?
I just shot with the HC1 and I liken it to shooting with 50-100ASA film. I threw two 2 650w tungsten lights about 8 feet from the subject with a 3rd 650w about 15 feet away as a kicker for two tight interior scenes for daylight to get it to 0db f1.8 . For anyone thinking "dear god!" - well thats how movies are made out there. Otherwise, the picture quality was quite incredible. I will be able to post some full rez shots tomorrow. Its not perfect but its worth every cent for that camera. It is SO pleasurable to not be seeing standard def. There's just so much more there.
I just shot with the HC1 and I liken it to shooting with 50-100ASA film. I threw two 2 650w tungsten lights about 8 feet from the subject with a 3rd 650w about 15 feet away as a kicker for two tight interior scenes for daylight to get it to 0db f1.8 . For anyone thinking "dear god!" - well thats how movies are made out there. Otherwise, the picture quality was quite incredible. I will be able to post some full rez shots tomorrow. Its not perfect but its worth every cent for that camera. It is SO pleasurable to not be seeing standard def. There's just so much more there.
Last edited:
Actually this is the only thing that bothers me about this camera. I can't quite get my head around the workflow issue.
If I was shooting on tape, I'd shoot the tape, digitise in for my offline edit, edit and then online (for which I'd need my original tapes.)
With the footage going directly onto a hard drive at full res wouldn't that mean I'm commited doing my primary cut online and wouldn't that also mean, especially with a chunky format like DVCpro50, that the process would be quite slow?
The other thing I'm not sure about is loosing the security of having camera masters to come back to. Having had computer data dissapear on a number of occassions the thought of only having my footage from a feature on a hardrive doesn't sit well with me. Any thoughts?
I thinking I might need to hire a deck and back up the footage onto tape.
Excellent point there! My apologies! I don't know much about either camera as I have not held or seen footage from either. So take my review as limited in scope. =) I'm definitely interested in seeing some screengrabs and/or footage when you have some available. There's also a new consumer camera ($700 USD?) that was recently announced. Apparently it records 720p in MPEG4 to SD cards. Might be an interesting option for those who can't or don't want to spend a lot on a 'prosumer' camera.
Right thats the Sanyo, I have a friend going to CES where Sanyo is supposed to be launching it. Its Mpeg4 which is obviously more efficient (see DiVX and H.264) but as we know codec doesnt mean everything... as can be seen as the difference between a $300 1/6" mini-dv and a dvx100. Further, Sanyo has the JVC type rep of delivering a product without a huge regard for overall quality. The quoted retail price is $800 though... it could be yet another entry level into HD... and SD doesnt irk me as much as P2 does. SD has been around for awhile now in widespread fashion and in 1GB-4GB sizes is relatively inexpensive.
As far as the HC1 goes, sorry for saying I would have caps today. Im so busy with my film and other projects I completely forgot to grab frames to show here (my producer needs me to send the HC1 back tomorrow so I had to download the rest of my tapes today so he can take it to costa rica)... I will do so tomorrow.
The end result I can promise is it doesnt matter what HDV or HD camera you choose, it is NOT film, and never will be, even with 35mm adapters on the end. The quality of the HVx or XLH.. is it worth it? prelim reports look like it is. But whether you shoot with the HC1 or the HVX, there is quite simply no comparison with a DVX. Its like the difference between a scoopic s8 vs a k3 shooting 16. The dvx footage looks wonderful on a TV but when it comes to projection or an HDTV, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. I have reviewed all of my footage and I still find myself looking at details that I just know wouldnt be there in SD. Not to mention the increased res and native 16:9 ratio gives more more of a traditional filmic quality comparatively.
I'm telling everyone (not you really shaw, you know what I'm saying), there is simply no comparison. Its comparing apples to oranges. Sure you can say hey this apple vs. that apple, I like this one more, but you cant compare an apple to an orange. Its a total different step, its the difference between 8mm and 16mm, or 16mm and 35mm. The difference between the world's best hi-8 camcorder and a decent mini-dv. I don't know how else to express it other than I absolutely cannot feature myself shooting a serious project on SD unless it calls for it explicitly.
As far as the HC1 goes, sorry for saying I would have caps today. Im so busy with my film and other projects I completely forgot to grab frames to show here (my producer needs me to send the HC1 back tomorrow so I had to download the rest of my tapes today so he can take it to costa rica)... I will do so tomorrow.
The end result I can promise is it doesnt matter what HDV or HD camera you choose, it is NOT film, and never will be, even with 35mm adapters on the end. The quality of the HVx or XLH.. is it worth it? prelim reports look like it is. But whether you shoot with the HC1 or the HVX, there is quite simply no comparison with a DVX. Its like the difference between a scoopic s8 vs a k3 shooting 16. The dvx footage looks wonderful on a TV but when it comes to projection or an HDTV, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. I have reviewed all of my footage and I still find myself looking at details that I just know wouldnt be there in SD. Not to mention the increased res and native 16:9 ratio gives more more of a traditional filmic quality comparatively.
I'm telling everyone (not you really shaw, you know what I'm saying), there is simply no comparison. Its comparing apples to oranges. Sure you can say hey this apple vs. that apple, I like this one more, but you cant compare an apple to an orange. Its a total different step, its the difference between 8mm and 16mm, or 16mm and 35mm. The difference between the world's best hi-8 camcorder and a decent mini-dv. I don't know how else to express it other than I absolutely cannot feature myself shooting a serious project on SD unless it calls for it explicitly.
You can now see some HC1 ungraded footage in my FLOG which you can get to in the link.
Getting back to the original topic although my feelings are you cannot go wrong really no matter which HD camera you choose, I would say simply because the HVX or the XLH offer the most quality & tweaking, they would be the best we're looking at right now of the lot. The Z1 would come in third, for the only reason that it doesnt quite have the same punch Im seeing from m2t's from the other cameras.
Getting back to the original topic although my feelings are you cannot go wrong really no matter which HD camera you choose, I would say simply because the HVX or the XLH offer the most quality & tweaking, they would be the best we're looking at right now of the lot. The Z1 would come in third, for the only reason that it doesnt quite have the same punch Im seeing from m2t's from the other cameras.
mr-modern-life said:
I own a HD1. I just looked this one up. not the same camera
also, must edit. the m2t format doesnt load in my vegas. But if I change the format name to mpg. It loads fine.
Last edited: