I saw it, I held it, I didn't have a tape nor an HD monitor (that's the great thing about working in TV news--things can happen and you're stuck at work late). Sorry about the tape/HD monitor issue.

What I liked:

Even with the bad LCD, you could see how great the quality from DV to SD to HD is! The focus and white balance was easy; the shutter/iris was easy to operate, but there are some issues I'll get to in a moment. It's small, which is a nice change from the XL-1, BetaCams, DVCPro cameras I've been lugging around for over 5 years. Nice size battery.

What I didn't like:

Switching back to DV was tough; you don't just switch it between the four things, you can only switch up and down, not to the four settings (DV, SD, HD, Memory). I'm sure I'll figure it out with the guide (didn't print it out, d'oh!). I set the iris, no problem. I went to the shutter and the image got dark again. When I flipped it off, it was a totally different, accurately exposed image. I think I can get used to it. Not enough buttons and wheels like on an XL-1, but I'll get used to it. It's very small, smaller than a GL2 or VX2000, but that's okay. I'll just get used to it not on my shoulder, use a tripod more often.

Overall:

Sorry again I didn't have the guide, an HD monitor or a tape, but here's what I thought. I put $300 down on this $3195 camera, so I like it enough to buy it.

When I get it this Friday or next Monday, I'll have an extensive review for you all.

heath
www.mpsdigital.com

Thanks for the review Heath. I will have my HD1OU in my hands tomorrow, so I will start to give it a thorough work-out. Any particular things anyone would like me to try with it I'd be happy to, (apart from chucking it in the garbage as I know a few wise-crackers might suggest!) ..and report back as I have time, just post requests here. As soon as I get my Ikegami HLDV7W back from service I will also do comparison test shoots and see how it holds up.

Cheers

Paul,

The comparison is pretty vital; I heard even hooked up to an HD monitor, the image isn't as good as when you play back from the HD tape. What I'm saying is, you won't see the full quality from the camera until playback. Oh, well...For $3200, what do ya expect (and isn't that a great price???)?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Thanks for the review Heath. I will have my HD1OU in my hands tomorrow, so I will start to give it a thorough work-out. Any particular things anyone would like me to try with it I'd be happy to, (apart from chucking it in the garbage as I know a few wise-crackers might suggest!) ..and report back as I have time, just post requests here. As soon as I get my Ikegami HLDV7W back from service I will also do comparison test shoots and see how it holds up.

Cheers -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Thanks for the review Heath. I will have my HD1OU in my hands tomorrow, so I will start to give it a thorough work-out. -->>>

Please confirm the AE system as I explained in MC 101.

If you work with an HD monitor be certain it is being fed at 720p not 1080i. You will lose some in the upconvert in the camera!

Try locking the exposure (MC 101) and panning to bright window.

Steve,

Where is the original post/link to the AE system/MC 101?

I'll probably have that camera again by Friday when I buy it.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Thanks for the review Heath. I will have my HD1OU in my hands tomorrow, so I will start to give it a thorough work-out. -->>>

Please confirm the AE system as I explained in MC 101.

If you work with an HD monitor be certain it is being fed at 720p not 1080i. You will lose some in the upconvert in the camera!

Try locking the exposure (MC 101) and panning to bright window. -->>>

Yep, my Ike probably won't be back for a week or so, but I'll try and borrow my brothers for some tests and try some different lighting in his studio as well as outdoors. My main concern is how I'll accurately focus this thing with that low-rez viewfinder, I saw a lot of hunting going on in some of the posted clips, they were obviously using auto-focus, and you have to be even more accurate with higher rez it seems to me. Steve Mullen mentioned something about peaking circuitry in it so I hope that's correct. I also might rent a small steady-cam when I get a chance. $3,200 is a great price, I paid $3,500 for mine from B&H.

Sweet. What I would do personally (and I tried it with some of the clips posted) is shoot in the "HD" mode, and then bring it into Vegas (or whatever software you use) and take it down to SD, that gives some very nice results, when I tried it.

After taxes, it's about $3400. Ah, well...Still low for what I thought it would be. Do you know about that MC 101 Steve Mullen mentioned?

The focus was pretty easy and dead-on, esp. in HD mode. I'm sure in two or three years, I'll buy a bigger, cheaper, better HD camera, but for now, this is perfect.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Yep, my Ike probably won't be back for a week or so, but I'll try and borrow my brothers for some tests and try some different lighting in his studio as well as outdoors. My main concern is how I'll accurately focus this thing with that low-rez viewfinder, I saw a lot of hunting going on in some of the posted clips, they were obviously using auto-focus, and you have to be even more accurate with higher rez it seems to me. Steve Mullen mentioned something about peaking circuitry in it so I hope that's correct. I also might rent a small steady-cam when I get a chance. $3,200 is a great price, I paid $3,500 for mine from B&H. -->>>

If it does the job, it shure beats $120,000 for a complete Varicam editing system! I guess I'll know soon enough how good it is.

One thing I'd REALLY be interested in knowing about this camera is how downconverted material looks. After all, distirbution is still going to be on NTSC DVD for most of us. 1280 x 720 downscaled to 720 x 480 should look pretty good. Maybe even could make panavision-wide movies (2.35:1) with it.

I don't think it will be that good, but close. The varicam is a 1 million pixel camera that records and not in 1080i, whereas the HD10 is a 840,000 pixels camera. Not bad...

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : If it does the job, it shure beats $120,000 for a complete Varicam editing system! I guess I'll know soon enough how good it is. -->>>

Heath, it's not only the pixels, brotha!

On the samples I've seen from the JVC "HD" camera, they all still had that 1CCD JVC look, that I can't really describe, but ALL 1CCD JVC cameras have it. I don't know if it's the bad dynamic range or what...

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : Heath, it's not only the pixels, brotha!

On the samples I've seen from the JVC "HD" camera, they all still had that 1CCD JVC look, that I can't really describe, but ALL 1CCD JVC cameras have it. I don't know if it's the bad dynamic range or what... -->>>

Hmmm, interesting. I'll have to track down a one ccd JVC camera and see what's up!

heath

Yeah, I think someone mentioned that this camera had a good dynamic range, in another post, I think they were just making up hype or something, because on the samples I seen it looked like dynamic range isn't good at all, on top of that, CNET's review also states that.

"Unfortunately, the color subtlety and latitude--the ability to handle a range of brightness without blowing out highlights or losing shadow detail--aren't nearly as impressive as the resolution. In fact, they're inferior to what's available from similarly priced standard-definition cameras. Why? Any competing SD camera will likely have a three-chip imaging system, which handles the nuances of color and brightness substantially better than the JVC's single chip. Another weakness: The HD1 delivers a fairly marginal performance in low light. It's important to realize that, when it comes to image quality, resolution isn't the whole picture."

http://reviews.cnet.com/JVC_GR_HD1/4505-6500_7-20817405-5.html?tag=review

The HD10 is different, but can be color corrected in FCP, After Effects, etc. Thanks to my friend for pointing this out to me.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : Yeah, I think someone mentioned that this camera had a good dynamic range, in another post, I think they were just making up hype or something, because on the samples I seen it looked like dynamic range isn't good at all, on top of that, CNET's review also states that.

"Unfortunately, the color subtlety and latitude--the ability to handle a range of brightness without blowing out highlights or losing shadow detail--aren't nearly as impressive as the resolution. In fact, they're inferior to what's available from similarly priced standard-definition cameras. Why? Any competing SD camera will likely have a three-chip imaging system, which handles the nuances of color and brightness substantially better than the JVC's single chip. Another weakness: The HD1 delivers a fairly marginal performance in low light. It's important to realize that, when it comes to image quality, resolution isn't the whole picture."

http://reviews.cnet.com/JVC_GR_HD1/4505-6500_7-20817405-5.html?tag=review -->>>

MC 101 is on our site.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10892

I wrote it so those testing could try it out right. Hopefully, I'm right.

But it won't affect me because there is no reason to set speed and iris at the same time. It's a leftover from our analog past.

One must be able set speed. From then on one increases and decreases exposure (bias).

Heath, in order to activate DV or memory mode, from the top or bottom position of the switch, just slide sideways.

Buying this cam without seeing it first on an HDTV is not wise IMO. If you want to see raw video at its best, you must connect to the firewire port (not the video port). However, the delay is very prominent.

Two lingering issues on the HD1 in Japanese message boards.

1. Para-para video = (Too) jerky motion when panning. Victor Japan is too clever to produce demos that show very very very minimal and slow panning, but mostly no panning at all (subject may or may be moving though).

2. Time lag (approx. 1 sec.) between the moment you take the shot and when it appears on the monitor. HD mode only.

Please check this out and comment. Many thanks.

Good points, which is why I'm happy someone else is doing an even BIGGER review!

The one second delay reminds me of editing DVCPro deck to deck, and the delay on the two monitors is one second.

I will probably go back down there tomorrow with an HDTV and re-check it.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Allan Rejoso : Heath, in order to activate DV or memory mode, from the top or bottom position of the switch, just slide sideways.

Buying this cam without seeing it first on an HDTV is not wise IMO. If you want to see raw video at its best, you must connect to the firewire port (not the video port). However, the delay is very prominent.

Two lingering issues on the HD1 in Japanese message boards.

1. Para-para video = (Too) jerky motion when panning. Victor Japan is too clever to produce demos that show very very very minimal and slow panning, but mostly no panning at all (subject may or may be moving though).

2. Time lag (approx. 1 sec.) between the moment you take the shot and when it appears on the monitor. HD mode only.

Please check this out and comment. Many thanks. -->>>

can you guys tell me if this thing looks as good as film, res-wise when you downconvert to SD progressive scan for DVD etc? how good does it look? can someone post a DV clip of downconverted HD? when are you guys going to do some QUALITY LIT tests for us all to see? I wana know! I got cash and am going to get a new camera should it be the dvx100(really like it) or the HD? I do alot of 30sec spots some docs and other stuff when needed

-Obin Olson
www.dv3productions.com

why? what about doing work and POST on a 1280x720 image? is that not a DREAM for a lowbudget guy like myself? i dont really get ads and gigs that have HUGE budgets much at all and I HATE DV looks like HELL even when you light it and all, still low res DV I would even LOVE dvcpro50 but that cost way more then this HD cam....ideas?

You can't make up for poor color range and exposure with color correction. You can help it, but not cure it.

And some DV cameras are amazing. I used a Sony PD-150 once to videotape a stage play and the colors are so amazingly good - I think the video looks better than the live performance!

I don't know, to me, the DVX100 is just a better all around camera. It would be nice to work with a higher resolution image though, ecspecially reducing it.

Heck, I'm pretty pleased with what I can do with my $400 Panasonic and Vegas 4. Here's a couple sample frames, since i'm bored.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/212104/stoned3.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/212104/brickwall.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/212104/sidewalk.jpg
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/212104/hairy.jpg

Peter - Exactly, and the DVX100 has a very good dynamic range, unlike what i've possibly seen in the samples from this JVC, and plus like I already mentioned, all 1CCD JVC cameras just don't have the dynamic range.

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : The HD10 is different, but can be color corrected in FCP, After Effects, etc. Thanks to my friend for pointing this out to me.

Bingo. Can you color correct this footage... or can't you?

For some months now, this has been my most serious concern about this camera. From the few samples I've seem, one risks, on the one hand, getting low color saturation, while on the other, getting as much chroma noise as VHS. And who invented VHS but none other than JVC? Do I detect a pattern here?

We'd better be prepared for the chance that from a product management perspective, the HD10 will turn out to have been deliberately crippled enough to make it a VHS camcorder for the HD generation.

If that's the case, how will you filter the chroma noise enough to make it feasible to globally increase saturation? Will you be able to get the quality you need by using VDub and MarcFD's Chroma Noise Reducer v2....?

I'll be as interested as anyone to see the first reports about picture quality from folks here on the board...

>>I got cash and am going to get a new camera should it be the dvx100(really like it) or the HD?<<

Unless you are in with the "I must be the first one to test thing" crowd, the DVX 100 is your safest bet. And keep in mind that the "I must be the first one to test thing" crowd already own a camera like the DVX 100 anyway.

I keep following this discussion and I still haven't made up my mind as to whether I should purchase this camera.... Anyway, I'm very interested, even with its apparent shortcomings that I have seen so far (poor color range, artifacting and noise from the MPEG2 over-compression, sharp edges, etc..). But for the type of work I do, this camera my just be the ticket.

The majority of my work is animation and 3D, I only work with video part of the time -- the video always gets combined with computer generated imagery. To be able to work with a camera that has native 16:9 support as well 1280x720p output would be a joy to say the least.

Most of my work is delivered on DVD. Being able to create and work in 720p and then down-res for DVD delivery should give much better results than what I'm getting now.

I do currently use a Canon XL1s and I love the camera, but I'm curious to see what kind of final output I can get when using the HD1/HD10U

Now this leaves me with the main dilemma I face now. First of all, I can't seem to get any complete answer as to exactly what the HD10U offers over the HD1. I do know that the HD10U has the microphone mount and XLR jacks. I do know that the HD10U also generates color bars. Does the HD1 do color bars? This ability isn't much of a concern to me, but I'm curious. What else is different between the two models (if anything)? I've poured over both product manual PDFs and it seems that other than what I have listed, there is no difference. Mostly, I just want to confirm that the picture quality between the two is the same. I'm willing to bet it is... In fact, I'm willing to bet both cameras use the same firmware and operate the same other than the audio setup on the HD10U.

Of the dealsers here that have the camera, two have it set up, but one had it bolted down and wouldn't let me do anything with it other than rotate the cam and watch through the viewfinder as I scanned the rest of the cameras on sale. The other would let me play with it a bit in the store, but didn't have any HDTV sets to connect it to. I can't find any dealer in my area that will let me demo one of these units... Two places will rent, but since they'd have to pull a brand new unit for rental, they would have to charge me some insane rates - I could rent it for a few days or buy it for $700 more. :-/ Too bad, I would love to connect this thing to a native 1280x720p Samsung DLP set and see what it looks like.

There's a few sites I've been able to dig up online that have footage from the HD1. But it has either been sized down or recompressed, none of it is actual MPEG2 right frome the camera. I would love to get my hands on a clip or two pulled straight from the camera and see what I would be getting. If Heath or anyone else who could upload something like this could do so, that would really help a lot of us. I'd host it on my web server if a place to upload is needed.

...Anyway, just sitting here in my own confusion, trying to decide what I want to do.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : >>I got cash and am going to get a new camera should it be the dvx100(really like it) or the HD?<<

Unless you are in with the "I must be the first one to test thing" crowd, the DVX 100 is your safest bet. And keep in mind that the "I must be the first one to test thing" crowd already own a camera like the DVX 100 anyway. -->>>

My buddy says the 24p in the DVX100 is junk, loses so much quality it's not worth using. He owns four of them because they make so much money in NYC, but he tries to shoot in 30 fps for clients.

heath

I would just go to a seller and demo the camera, like I did. That's really your best bet! The HD10 has better picture quality, from what I've heard. Plus, the HD10 is listing $300 LESS than the HD1, for some reason.

As soon as I get the camera, I'll post clips up.

heath

ps-Golden, Colorado, eh? I have family in Denver and the mountains (I'm from Denver originally). Hope the weather is cooler and less humid than Florida!

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Kilgroe : I keep following this discussion and I still haven't made up my mind as to whether I should purchase this camera.... Anyway, I'm very interested, even with its apparent shortcomings that I have seen so far (poor color range, artifacting and noise from the MPEG2 over-compression, sharp edges, etc..). But for the type of work I do, this camera my just be the ticket.

>> My buddy says the 24p in the DVX100 is junk, loses so much quality it's not worth using. He owns four of them because they make so much money in NYC, but he tries to shoot in 30 fps for clients.<<

How can 24p be junk??? And how does 24p loose quality??? What people forget is that 24p is meant for film transfer, and that is when it shines. 24p isn't anymore Junky then it is on a Cine Alta or a Vari-Cam. If you shoot in 30p kiss a theatrical release good bye, as well as any PAL markets.

Heath wrote:
<<<<The HD10 is different>>>

Is this something you noticed Heath or is this from JVC that the HD10 is different then the consumer version as to picture quality is concerned?

Michael Pappas

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : Heath wrote:
<<<<The HD10 is different>>>

Is this something you noticed Heath or is this from JVC that the HD10 is different then the consumer version as to picture quality is concerned?

Michael Pappas -->>>

I read it here, from someone who saw both cameras.

heath

People have been shooting on 30 p and transfering to PAL and film with no problems. I'm one of those people when I transferred my film to PAL so an alternative band in England could see it. No problems at all. And the Blair Witch Project was 30 fps, too going to film (and pal on video release). No problems there.

Have you seen the DVX 100 in 24P mode? It isn't pretty; the Cinealta and Varicam look almost the same in 24P as 30fps. On an HD monitor. I liken the DVX 100 in 24 P mode almost to an XL-1 going into 16:9 mode (not as bad as the 16:9 mode, btw). Since the XL-1 isn't 16:9 native (ie, chips are too small), the image sucks. It looks out of focus, yellowed slightly; etc. Obviously the DVX100 doesn't look that bad, but it isn't great, either.

heath

<<-- How can 24p be junk??? And how does 24p loose quality??? What people forget is that 24p is meant for film transfer, and that is when it shines. 24p isn't anymore Junky then it is on a Cine Alta or a Vari-Cam. If you shoot in 30p kiss a theatrical release good bye, as well as any PAL markets. -->>>

Heath Wrote:

<<<<Have you seen the DVX 100 in 24P mode? It isn't pretty; the Cinealta and Varicam look almost the same in 24P as 30fps. On an HD monitor. I liken the DVX 100 in 24 P mode almost to an XL-1 going into 16:9 mode (not as bad as the 16:9 mode, btw). >>>

Being a DVX100 owner I'm curious why you say the 24P is worse then 30P in picture quality. If we take a single frame from 24p and the same material from 30p and compare the quality of those single frames they have the same picture quality. When I go into 16x9 in the XL1 the image gets blurry do to processes and it's oblivious of that. But what do you see with 30P vs. the 24P from the DVX100.

I myself think the industry should go to 30P, I worked with showscan 13yrs ago and fell in love with 65mm at 60fps. It was not good for drama because it felt like live video, just the sharpest video you ever saw. Then I worked with Iwerks at 30fps at that same time. This I felt would work for drama. I believe one can take 30P to 24fps film; it’s a mater of the right formula and frame blends to do so. Many people have told me it can’t be done, but I believe otherwise.




Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
http://www.pbase.com/PappasArts9
http://www.pbase.com/PappasArts1
www.PappasArts.com
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
__________________

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I would just go to a seller and demo the camera, like I did. That's really your best bet! The HD10 has better picture quality, from what I've heard. Plus, the HD10 is listing $300 LESS than the HD1, for some reason. -->>>

Less? Really? Actually, that would explain a few things I have had happen the past couple days. A few vendors quoted me $2995 for the HD1 and then the instant they get them in stock, they refuse to honor their quotes. One of them still will because I'm a regular customer, but I think I'm going to get the HD10U. I did find a shop that will let me demo the HD1, but it will still cost me and they won't be carrying the HD10U. I think I'm going to just order the HD10U from B&H as they have it for $3495 (out of stock, but will honor that if I order now). I can always return it and swallow a restocking fee, which sadly will cost me less than taking the HD1 for a demo from the local place... They charge rental rates. I just can't find any place here that will work with me.. Getting very frustrated. When I bought my XL1s I didn't have this trouble and got a demo bought it all local. Weird.

<<<-- As soon as I get the camera, I'll post clips up. -->>>

Cool.

<<<-- ps-Golden, Colorado, eh? I have family in Denver and the mountains (I'm from Denver originally). Hope the weather is cooler and less humid than Florida! -->>>

We have been so hot and dry the last couple years, but this year is a nice change. Lots of rain (for here anyway) this spring and it's been quite humid (for here anyway). Been about 85 degrees the past week or so on average with cool nights. Humid, but not anywhere near as humid as Florida.

This was what I saw from my friend. Maybe it wasn't shot well, it's what he sent me, and I saw a slight less quality.

In my original post, I shouldn't have recalled that the DVX100 went from 30 fps to 24p was like going from 4:3 to 16:9 in the XL-1. The quality loss was less (from what I saw) in a DVX100 than the XL-1 analogy.

I'll see if I can borrow one and hook it up to a vectorscope.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : Heath Wrote:


Being a DVX100 owner I'm curious why you say the 24P is worse then 30P in picture quality. If we take a single frame from 24p and the same material from 30p and compare the quality of those single frames they have the same picture quality. When I go into 16x9 in the XL1 the image gets blurry do to processes and it's oblivious of that. But what do you see with 30P vs. the 24P from the DVX100.

That sucks, man! Changing their quotes! I swear, video vendors can be really slimey.

I understand your recent snow storm out there was the worst in 100 years! I was living there for the Blizzard of 82, and I remember (even though I was 6 years old) how bad that was!

<<-- A few vendors quoted me $2995 for the HD1 and then the instant they get them in stock, they refuse to honor their quotes. One of them still will because I'm a regular customer, but I think I'm going to get the HD10U

We have been so hot and dry the last couple years, but this year is a nice change. Lots of rain (for here anyway) this spring and it's been quite humid (for here anyway). Been about 85 degrees the past week or so on average with cool nights. Humid, but not anywhere near as humid as Florida. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : That sucks, man! Changing their quotes! I swear, video vendors can be really slimey. -->>>

Yeah, slimy for sure. I guess it helps me know who I will continue to buy from in the future.

<<<-- I understand your recent snow storm out there was the worst in 100 years! I was living there for the Blizzard of 82, and I remember (even though I was 6 years old) how bad that was! -->>>

Hehe.. I was 7 when that happened. Yeah, the recent big storm was pretty big. It was probably the worst storm ever in terms of incapacitating people and businesses in this area. But that was mostly due to us not having a storm like this in so long and so many people having moved to the state not expecting something like this. Not to mention that with weather over the past several years being very mild, the budgets for snowplows and snow removal had dwindled. Most people here just were not prepared. A lot of us who've lived here all our lives usually know that this happens every now and then. The storm itself wasn't really any worse than the 82 blizzard. The snow wasn't quite as deep and didn't affect as large of an area (freaky storm that came in from the east and didn't even snow in the mountains). But it was very heavy and wet, it was almost a giant slush storm.

Huh? There's a difference between the HD1U and the HD10U? What differnces would this be? I can't seem to find it anywhere...

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Kilgroe : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight :

Yeah, slimy for sure. I guess it helps me know who I will continue to buy from in the future.

I've dealt with people like that; they're out of business now, thanks to the Karma Police. heh heh...

Another thing is the extremely limited first shipment of the HD10s for the sporadic pricings and availability. The thing is, the price on my camera changed when I bought it, up five bucks. Go figure...

<<<-- it was almost a giant slush storm. -->>>

Snow sucks. I was out in Colorado in Oct. 2000, and it was 85 degrees every day, then one weekend it snowed all over. That was cool, because it melted by Monday. :-) I hate the cold, man! Then again, it gets pretty hot and humid in Florida, so I guess So Cal is the place I'd like to be! But Colorado in the summer is one of my favorite places in the world to be.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : Huh? There's a difference between the HD1U and the HD10U? What differnces would this be? I can't seem to find it anywhere... -->>>

The Pro group had Japan make a number of mods to the HD1. Color bars and audio level indicators. I'm also fairly certain they had the edge enhancement turned way down which will also lower noise which in turn will improve encoding quality.

I will check on this ASAP.

I also am working to get mic sensitivity.

>>People have been shooting on 30 p and transfering to PAL and film with no problems. I'm one of those people when I transferred my film to PAL so an alternative band in England could see it. No problems at all. And the Blair Witch Project was 30 fps, too going to film (and pal on video release). No problems there.<<

I hope you are not confusing 60i with 30p, are you? I think you are, you are wrong here, because there were NO lowcost 30p cameras out when the Blair Witch was made. Don't confuse 60i with 30p, cause those are 2 different animals when going to PAL or Film. And every transfer house I have talked to said that 30p to 24p would create serious motion problems.

Glenn,

They didn't shoot Blair Witch on DV, they shot it on cheap Hi-8. 30 FPS only.

And I shot with an XL-1 and posted on my FCP system and back to a gv-D300 Sony mini-dv deck. I went to Pal with no problems.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : >>

I hope you are not confusing 60i with 30p, are you? I think you are, you are wrong here, because there were NO lowcost 30p cameras out when the Blair Witch was made. Don't confuse 60i with 30p, cause those are 2 different animals when going to PAL or Film. And every transfer house I have talked to said that 30p to 24p would create serious motion problems. -->>>

>>They didn't shoot Blair Witch on DV, they shot it on cheap Hi-8. 30 FPS only.

And I shot with an XL-1 and posted on my FCP system and back to a gv-D300 Sony mini-dv deck. I went to Pal with no problems.<<

That's my point. NONE of these cameras do 30p, they do 60i. 60i is fine for transferring to PAL and Film, but not 30p. The only low cost cameras that currently do 30p or the DVX 100 and this JVC HD Cam. You're confusing 30p with 60i.

Explain to me (and us) the differences between 30fps and 30p, please. 60i and 30fps is the same?

Also, My XL-1 to Pal, again, was no problem.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : >>They didn't shoot Blair Witch on DV, they shot it on cheap Hi-8. 30 FPS only.

And I shot with an XL-1 and posted on my FCP system and back to a gv-D300 Sony mini-dv deck. I went to Pal with no problems.<<

That's my point. NONE of these cameras do 30p, they do 60i. 60i is fine for transferring to PAL and Film, but not 30p. The only low cost cameras that currently do 30p or the DVX 100 and this JVC HD Cam. You're confusing 30p with 60i. -->>>

The 30fps you are talking about is actually 60 interlaced fields meshed together (and 50 interlaced fields for Pal.) Yes, when it is all said and done, 60 interlaced fields does play at 30fps (29.97, actually, I think), but this is not the same as 30 progressive frames per second, which is LITERALLY 30 “snapshots” per second, not simply 60 interlaced fields meshed together. The transfer houses can work with 60 interlaced fields (or 50 interlaced fields) to convert them to 24 fps, but they can not do this with 30p, at least not without problems.

Here are two different links to two different quotes, from two DV to Film transfer houses.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10670

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dvfilmtransfers/message/148

If you need to know even more details, then give them a call.

So shooting on the HD10 is 30p?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : The 30fps you are talking about is actually 60 interlaced fields meshed together (and 50 interlaced fields for Pal.) Yes, when it is all said and done, 60 interlaced fields does play at 30fps (29.97, actually, I think), but this is not the same as 30 progressive frames per second, which is LITERALLY 30 “snapshots” per second, not simply 60 interlaced fields meshed together. The transfer houses can work with 60 interlaced fields (or 50 interlaced fields) to convert them to 24 fps, but they can not do this with 30p, at least not without problems.

Here are two different links to two different quotes, from two DV to Film transfer houses.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10670

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dvfilmtransfers/message/148

If you need to know even more details, then give them a call. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : So shooting on the HD10 is 30p? -->>>

Yes, in 720p HD mode. The HD1/HD10 have 3 shooting modes. The first is DV (regular NTSC) which is 29.97 frames per second. Each frame is composed of 2 interlaced fields - hence 60i (interlaced), this is not 30p. The next mode is SD 480p (progressive), but here's the kicker... It's 60p! So no interlaced fields, but full image frames running at 60fps. Then the last is it's 720p mode, which is 30 full frames per second, not interlaced.

And to address what Glenn wrote...

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : The 30fps you are talking about is actually 60 interlaced fields meshed together (and 50 interlaced fields for Pal.) Yes, when it is all said and done, 60 interlaced fields does play at 30fps (29.97, actually, I think), but this is not the same as 30 progressive frames per second, which is LITERALLY 30 “snapshots” per second, not simply 60 interlaced fields meshed together. The transfer houses can work with 60 interlaced fields (or 50 interlaced fields) to convert them to 24 fps, but they can not do this with 30p, at least not without problems. -->>>

For the most part, this is true. However it is possible to go from 30p to 24p with a few tricks. Simply dropping frames to achieve 24p gets real ugly as the transfer houses say. But I've done a couple 30p to 24p transfers by first interpolating the 30p footage to 60i by interpolating or tweening one field and combining motion blur. Results were fair and could be acceptable in certain situations. For our use, it worked, but we were converting animation frames that were rendered out at 30p instead of 60i and we didn't have time to re-render several minutes of animation (about 2 weeks of processing time on our network for this particular project). Depending on the video in question, it could work, or it could be a disaster.

I can understand the transfer houses' point of view of not wanting to do it though. In most cases, such a conversion would take a lot of time and still look like crap and they don't want to deal with it.

Which brings me to this: I don't plan on transferring either XL-1 or HD10 footage to film. As I stated in another thread, I only want to shoot my no-budget films with the camera (and freelance stuff on all three modes). I will shoot my next film, 9:04 AM, on my buddy's CineAlta. Because we are going to film with that movie.

heath