Anyone know the real scoop on these new JVC cameras that are supposed to look better than the Panasonic Varicam? Someone who went the NAB show said that JVC had a side by side comparison of the 2 cameras and the JVC looked much more like film. Hope this is one step closer to a revolution that makes shooting good looking indie films more affordable than ever.
New JVC 24p cameras
- Thread starter Blade_Jones
- Start date
First of all... No. It does not look better than than either the Varicam OR the new HVX200. The camera also acquires its video in the HDV format which has its own batch of problems... JVC could have easily got it right with this camera but simply chose not to.
filmy
filmy
I thought that sounded too good to be true. Too bad Panavision isn't selling it's new proprietary HD camera. Panavision developed it with help from Sony. I wonder how much money they spend on R & D versus what Panasonic spent on R & D for the Varicam.
Blade,
The good news is that Panasonic's new HVX200 is affordable and gets the job done for less than $10K.
filmy
The good news is that Panasonic's new HVX200 is affordable and gets the job done for less than $10K.
filmy
Most reports seem to suggest that the image from the JVC was pretty good. It seems this was from an uncompressed signal output (60p) though so we don't know what it's HDV will actually look like.
No 1/3" chip camera will look better than the Varicam (2/3")
. That's the reason Panasonic can get away with selling a 1080p camera for so cheap. A 2/3" camera is many times better in terms of overall picture quality (though perhaps lower in resolution. I think we often worry about resolution too much and forget to take into account the many facts which influence the final image.
No 1/3" chip camera will look better than the Varicam (2/3")
. That's the reason Panasonic can get away with selling a 1080p camera for so cheap. A 2/3" camera is many times better in terms of overall picture quality (though perhaps lower in resolution. I think we often worry about resolution too much and forget to take into account the many facts which influence the final image.FilmJumper said:
Hey, I'm a big fan of the DVX, too. But to say that this camera (the JVC) which very few people have seen the quality of looks worse than the camera that doesn't even exist outside of a prototype mock-up is going a little far.
Let's not forget that the JVC, while limited with HDV, does offer something that makes higher end HD cameras look like higher end HD cameras - interchangable lenses. What prevents HDV from matching HD isn't just 4:2:0 or MPEG compression (which most of us will put our films through, anyway). It's the 1/3" CCD. But even if you get past that, it's what's in front of it - the lens. That's why when you buy a $100,000 F950, you can't just charge it up, and take it out. You're missing the glass! This is when you get mountains of choices, much like a serious film DP does, to craft the picture. It's unreasonable to expect a fixed lens (or sub-$10,000 lens) to make an image that rivals a CineAlta or Varicam picture.
Personally, I'm still undecided which camera to get. I bought a VX2100 too early, and still regret not getting the DVX for its impressive look. As excited as I was about the HVX at one time, along came NAB, when I heard about the JVC. I'm ready to give them both a fair chance, and not solely look at specs, but at their footage. Which is something most of us probably haven't seen yet.