I've heard from another forum that the quality of MPEG-2 video is inferior to the DV codec. I'm considering both cameras and I'm a bit confused as to how a High Def camera would yield a inferior picture to a DV Camcorder.

I'm guessing that it's a matter of pixels vs compression, but who wins in the end?

Steve

and here's what Jan Crittendon had to say, excerpted... (I hope it's okay to quote this helpful gentleman)

"Take in, all that the other guys have said about this camera, single chip, small camera, lack of interchangeable lens, and then listen to this. Uncompressed 8 bit HD recording is 994 Mbs. This little camera records 19.2Mbs on a DV tape. What this means is that there is a whole lot of compreesion going on.

First there has to be prefiltering to get the signal small enough to make it look good like HD, but then not so much to make it too soft. Then apply MPEG2 to get a GOP that allows you to get such a reduction. This means that you can only edit at the beginning and end of the long GOP. It is HD but it is a consumer HD. Perfect for taking movies of the kids, but for production purposes, unusable. You can edit on the frame you want, and when you uncompress it to reall HD for real program production, you don't get the signal back, it is not like a zip file."

I hope that's cool that I quoted him - if not please edit.

alex

Quoting Jan is just fine however it should be succintly noted that she is not a gentleman but a very intelligent and knowledgeable (not to mention somewhat fetching) woman of the very first order. Hope this helps,

even better, forgive my sexist attitude~

alex

Dvx100 Vs New Jvc10 Hd CamOne is MPEG2 HD, one is miniDV---though both use 1's and 0's.

PS: I've never known any man called Jan. Hope this helps. :)

It's not really a matter of pixels vs. compression, per se.

It's a matter of latitude, picture control, motion sampling, gamma curves, black stretch, knee, sharpening, etc.

The HD1/HD10 is capable of dramatically sharper pictures than the DVX will ever be capable of. But, as a CAMERA, the DVX100 is leaps and bounds ahead of the JVC.

Using the JVC is an excercise in frustration. The edge enhancement can be severe, and if you're not extremely careful with shutter speed, it can introduce disturbing motion artifacts into your video (I don't know quite how to explain it, but it's like the camera hits a point where the MPEG compression just can't handle it anymore so the picture falls apart -- but jacking up the shutter speed one notch will let the camera gain control again). You can't control shutter speed and aperture at the same time. And it has exceptionally narrow latitude.

But, its resolution and sharpness blows the DVX (and all DV cameras) into the weeds.

So, when JVC introduces a revamped version, like an HDV version of the DV5000U, or when Sony or Canon introduce prosumer versions of HDV, they will definitely be something to consider seriously. HDV can look really good, but the HD1/HD10 is not the right package for it.

From what I gather, and I don’t own either camera by the way, it all depends on what your intent is. If screening your work in a fairly big theater (via digital projection, and NOT film) is critical to you, then the HD10 just might be worth a look. But if you are staying strictly on the small screen (DVD, Cable, etc.) the DVX 100 is the better way to go.

It appears no consensus exists.

We have a mix between: "It is HD but it is a consumer HD. Perfect for taking movies of the kids, but for production purposes, unusable." and the polar opposite: "its resolution and sharpness blows the DVX (and all DV cameras) into the weeds".

I know the new JVC HD10 hasn't been out long enough but it's seems people are leaning toward the Panasonic DVX100 for film making (i.e. 'shoot on tape, project on film' projects)

Does anyone have real world experience with the downsides of the Panasonic? I know there's no true 16 X 9 (it's just an electronic matte) and that auto focus is disabled in 24p mode - anything else significant? How are the blacks, for example?

Many thanks for all involved in this forum. It's incredibly helpful as independent film makers continue to erode the strangle hold over-budgeted films have had on this industry for so long.

Steve

According to Jan, it sounds like the opposite would be the case.
bear in mind the jvc is a 1ccd cam squeezing all that digital info onto minidv compressed in mpeg2. It even takes up a sound channel in HD mode, so you only get 1 channel sound. Regarding resolution, isn't mpeg2 about 720x576? More than the pal version of dvx100, but not by leaps and bounds. Only works going in to camera, not going out. (Not like a zip file) You can play HD1/HD10 straight from the camera only though.
I've heard from this board and on 2-pop that the dvx100 on digital projection yeilds very impressive results. (though i cannot say i have seen it myself)

check it out yerself.
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101394&feature_id=01

call me biased ;p

>>Regarding resolution, isn't mpeg2 about 720x576?<<

mpeg2 is not set at 720x576

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/P...00307/03-0704E/

>>Only works going in to camera, not going out.<<

I'm not too sure what you're talking about here (maybe the 1080i option?), but the 720p option does go out of the camera, hence DVHS and the MPEG PC editor.

Steve, why don't you download some HD10 clips from here:

http://homepage.mac.com/bradleyvance/

And then make your own conclusion. (You may need to download this plug in to view them: http://www.elecard.com/download/)

Barry makes excellent points. I had a look at the JVC because of the limitations in 16:9 and downloaded a dozen or so clips and several screengrabs. Our local Best Buy does not have one, so I could shoot with it myself, but the problems with this cam outweigh it's usefulness.

In addition to the points cited so far:

First, for going out to film:

(1) The extremely poor latitude (even in low light clips), the camera blows out whites and crushes blacks. It's extremely unsuited to uncontrolled or dynamic/low key lighting.

(2) Progressive is only 30p, no 24p. Going 30p to 24p produces plenty of motion artifacts that are less then pleasing, especially with camera motion

(3) The artifacts, both edge and otherwise, are excessive, and the poorly designed shutter/exposure control seems to make things worse. Those artifacts will look truly bad blown up to film and the post time and effort to attempt repairs would be prohibitive. Plus the high compression would either dictate losing even more quality by staying MPEG or very expensive if you upconverted to HD and posted in HD.

The big jump is resolution is exciting, but it's just like the cheap huge megapixel cams. Lots of pixels don't necessarily make an image better, just bigger. And compressing the crap out of it never improves the image.

That's the secret behind 24p in the DVX100. Only 24 frames image capture. Faster renders, less compression loss, no interlaced artifacting. That to my eye improves the image more than just throwing extra pixels.

There's no question it's an inferior DV Cam. I was nearly beaten to an inch of my life by asking for DV footage from the cam. If the DV footage from it looked fantastic, we would have heard about it by now.

No doubt the JVC HD camera has major limitations, but most of the users in the JVC HD forum say they are relatively happy with it. I suppose the only sure shot way to know if one should buy it is to see it in person (on an HDTV screen.)

I realize they are "relatively happy" but it seems DVX100 owners are more satisfied overall. Plus, if you don't already own a HD Monitor, it's as expensive as the camera, on average. And if you go Pro, much more expensive.

Finally, since the cam tends to only produce positive reviews on HD monitors, that's a really limited audience and will be for some time.

Still seems like it's a birthday camera for HD TV owners, even though JVC has a "pro" model.

Search the www.2-pop.com Panasonic AG-DVX100 Camera forum for "DVX100 vs. JVC HD1 shootout"
Patrick

It's not HD, it's HDV.

Sounds so familiar. :)