I have tested (still for our feature Pure) head-to-head the DVX100 and the JY-HD10u and here is my report.

The first thing concerns controllability and professionalism. As you might already know the JVC simply does not stand up against 3CCD's miniDVs and this is no exception. The DVX is probably the best miniDV and most professional yet. As we have discussed of the operational flaws of the JVC I will not discuss about it here.

The second issue concerns the chroma level and contrast. The DVX's chroma is very high and the colors are very saturated (of course you can de-saturate...) even in it's cine gama mode. The JVC displays a much less saturated image (when light levels are low especially but even in high light levels). The difference in terms of film look are clearly present because of that, the JVC wins hands out for filmic look because mainly of this slightly de-saturated look and also becaus of it's best contrasts. As you might be aware of, the miniDV displays a slightly grey black level, the JVC does not, it's blacks are indeed pretty black and this helps give a better film look.

The third issue concerns low light abilities. The both cameras seem to react pretty closely to details in low light, the main difference is in the chromatic information: The JVC loses most of the chroma in low light conditions while the DVX keeps it high. The end result is much less compression noise on the JVC than on the DVX (because most of the noise comes from the chroma because of the type of compression: for example a 4:1:1 video signal means 4 out of 4 in the luminance or black and white info witch is the most critical and is always kept at 4, the other two concern the red and blue levels witch in this case are 1 out of 4 as it is in DV and HDV, green is calculated from the red and blue levels that is why chroma produces most of the compression noise). When you combine low light grain with chroma low light artefacts you end up with a pretty messed up image. Of course, most of us provide enough light in our productions to avoid that but you have to test the limits right. The retention of details is a bit higher for very dark areas on the DVX in low light because of the lower contrast of the camera. Low light noise looks pretty equivalent on both cameras.

The fourth issue is night shots. Or if you prefer shots with objects exposed to light while others are not. Here the JVC impressively outperforms the DVX (or any miniDV I have seen so far). Much less noise (no noise in the black areas mainly because the compression engine on the HD10 loses intelligently chroma only in low light areas and in a decremental ratio witch is gentle enough not to jump from chroma on to off...) and of course because blacks look more like actual black on this camera. I have asked Chris Hurd for permission to post some clips on the DVinfo site and they should be there in the coming days and you will see what I mean, I will of course post an explanation thread on all of the clips. The chroma is better (less noisy) on the JVC as well because in part of the lower chroma ratio but also because compression is always worse on the edges between light and dark and as the JVC loses chrominance, it produces much less artefacts in these areas (but it still produces some of course).

The fifth issue is the lenses. The DVX is much wider than the JVC (at it's widest). In fact, the JVC is not very wide (about equivalent to 25-30 in 35mm) as the DVX looks more like a 14 to me. Also, the lenses in the JVC produce a green line when a bright light is directed at it (see this image: http://www.fictis.net/HD10/greenline.jpg ).

The sixth issue concerns definition (of course...). Even in down converted mode the JVC makes the DVX look slightly out of focus. It is worse in close ups. When objects are far, it is on a HD screen that you can see how much detail is lost in SD. It is not new of course but it certainly pops out immediatly.

Of course, the aim of the shootout was not to determine if HD is better than DV. It was to determine if SD was enough for our need and if HDV could suit our same needs and it does. The director is a guy who worked in advertisement for about 15 years and he worked with both the sony cine Alta and the Panasonic Varicam and he was breathless at our tests, the definition and filmic qualities of the JVC simply cast away its pathetic lack of professional features. In fact he is selling his XL1 to buy a HD10. Maybe he should wait for the next generation but you have to beat the iron while it is hot (a french proverb...;). The guys whom will take a bet on this baby will be pionneers. That is an exciting thought isn't it?....

Thanks, Eric, I feel a lot better about the camera.

heath

Good report Eric.

I hope you guys don't get the budget for the Cinealta or the Panasonic. I really want to see your movie made in the HD10!

Cheers

DBK

The vertical green line associated with bright objects is actually the CCD overloading and not a lens problem. If you shoot something bright enough (like the sun) the green line actually blows out, loses it's chroma, and becomes a fat grey line.

Jay

Interresting, I never experienced that on another CCD. thanks for the update Jay.

We point our "Hi-5" camera (on top of a building) into the sun as it sets (it's still "white," not orange or red), and we get a big line, too, but it's white. Looks like a laser beam, sort of.

heath

ps-Not sure what kind of camera it is, but it's encased in something strong, as it's outside.

<<<The DVX is much wider than the JVC (at it's widest). In fact, the JVC is not very wide (about equivalent to 25-30 in 35mm) as the DVX looks more like a 14 to me. ->>>

The DVX specs call the wide angle equivalent in a 35mm format a 32.5mm; the JVC is a bit more sneaky, listing different lens ranges for the different modes as follows:

40.3mm ~ 403mm in HD mode
55mm ~ 550mm in SD mode
67.8mm_ ~_ 678mm in DV mode
37.1mm ~ 371mm in memory mode

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Nemeth : The vertical green line associated with bright objects is actually the CCD overloading and not a lens problem. If you shoot something bright enough (like the sun) the green line actually blows out, loses it's chroma, and becomes a fat grey line.

Jay -->>>

Vertical streakes are a serious problem except on expensive cameras that are almost free of it.

The DVX100 has a nasty problem. Shoot a yellow stoplight at night. You get a yellow rectangle slightly larger than the stoplight box. Shoot green and you get a green rectangle. I included a pix in my DVX100 Guide.

Eric Blodeau wrote:

"JVC displays a much less saturated image (when light levels are low especially but even in high light levels)... JVC wins hands out for filmic look because mainly of this slightly de-saturated look...
less compression noise on the JVC than on the DVX (because most of the noise comes from the chroma..."

This is simply preposterous. It's tantamount to saying a plastic Radio Shack microphone is better than a studio Sennheiser because it captures audio at such a low volume that you can't hear the noise in the signal.

If your idea of fim-look is an inability to capture Nature's color, I hope you will stay out of film-making.

I've seen recent posts complaining about the high levels of chroma noise in the camera--which is just what I expected from the product concept. It's cheap and easy to manufacture imaging chips with a lot of noise, and it prevents the product from cannabilizing higher-end products. Welcome to VHS for the 21st century.

Mitch Gould wrote:

"I've seen recent posts complaining about the high levels of chroma noise in the camera--which is just what I expected from the product concept. It's cheap and easy to manufacture imaging chips with a lot of noise, and it prevents the product from cannabilizing higher-end products. Welcome to VHS for the 21st century."

Chroma noise is about equivalent to miniDV, it is indeed annoying but not impossible to work around. It is a tool, not at all perfect but still usable if you are willing to work around it's weeknesses. Not all of the indie film makers have access to Varicams and Cine Alta. Much less do they have access to a HD post production system. This tool is for them. I would not try to sell that to a person able to work with the best, it is not at all equivalent. No need to be agressive, I believe most people on the forum agree on that.

Mitch Gould wrote:

"If your idea of fim-look is an inability to capture Nature's color, I hope you will stay out of film-making."

It was once said to me that film making consists in an interpretation of reality, there are as many of them as there are film makers. I believe it is what makes film making so special, this investment of the film maker. It is about a point of view, not a perfect reproduction.

Eric wrote:

"Chroma noise is about equivalent to miniDV"
It's finally time for us to begin asking: "Yes, but whose miniDV?" A $329 palmheld from Sharp or a $20,000+ flagship from the likes of Sony? Chroma noise varies widely across the format, as chip sizes and signal processors vary widely.

Eric wrote:

"Not all of the indie film makers have access to Varicams and Cine Alta."
We are not going to allow this straw man to be dragged out time again and again. I challenge you to quote anything anyone has said that proves your contention that customers are actually expecting the camera to measure up to those standards. No. here's the reality: people are comparing the HD10 to the similarly-priced DX100 or XL1S--and finding that it falls needlessly short.

Mitch, here is my question to you: Have you tried the HD10?, have you compared it to miniDV's. DV25 has a compression ratio of 4:1:1 so whatever the camera you use there will be chroma artefacts but they can be controlled in some situations. Needless to say, DV25 does not react extremely well to low light conditions. of course a palmhead will display horrible artefacts and some DV25 cameras are better. You don't have to use the camera very much to notice the similitudes between DV25 and HDV in terms of artefacting. Equivalent does not mean it is the same.

One other thing fascinates me: How come a person not interrested in a technology wastes so much of his time on something he does not intend to use himself... I do not post on forums regarding material that do not interrest me, I have better things to do. If people want to do films with a VHS camera I'm fine with that, I would never do that but I don't see the point in trying to make people embrace my vision of it. I am trying to be constructive by pointing out strenghts and weaknesses I experienced, of course I will put a bit of my appreciation or depreciation into it, I guess it is normal.

Eric wrote:

"How come a person not interrested in a technology wastes so much of his time on something he does not intend to use himself"

This is quite a fair and reasonable question.

Here is the answer: with the announcement of several industry players signing on the HDV format, the HD10 isn't just a product. It's also a prototype for the next generation of prosumer cameras.

It's reasonable to expect that the licencees will try to differentiate their models by improving on one or another aspect of the prototype.

Many people have complained about the problems with manual control. Others have complained about the noise. These are two separate issues. I can imagine models in which one--or the other--or both--of these design issues are addressed.

I can imagine turning cartwheels during production in an effort to compensate for exposure and focus controls, but I can't imagine resigning myself to shooting only black-and-white footage with the camera.

My message to HDV licencees is: give us the same camera at the same price or higher, but with usable color.

Isn't that reasonable?

It is indeed reasonable. There will be improvements for sure. I believe the problem will still be the low bitrate though. Colors are usable depending on your needs. With a controlled environnement or outside when there is enough light, artefacts are almost not present just like in DV.

We can expect good products from Canon and Sony in the years to come but with a 19Mbits/s bitrate and a 4:1:1 (some even said 4:2:0?) compression, the format will never be as good in terms of chroma artefacts as a 4:2:2 Varicam 720p system as DV25 4:1:1 cannot compete with DV50 4:2:2 in artefacting. I guess everybody agrees on that.

I was under the impression that this camera used 4:2:0?


Mitch-"No. here's the reality: people are comparing the HD10 to the similarly-priced DX100 or XL1S--and finding that it falls needlessly short."

For what application? Run and gun, sure. Controlled environment, not a chance!
Every DV to HDV comparison where the actual cameras were tested almost completely favor the JVC. Its weaknesses are noted but they don't hold back its overpowering strengths.
ken

Yes, the 4:2:0 is a bit tricky, but I doubt it is the case since compression seems to be equally visible on the blue and red channels, this should not be the case on a 4:2:0 since the blue would be much more artefacted and the red a lot less. I still think it is closer to 4:1:1, maybe not exactly but close.

As for the comparison with miniDVs, you indeed have to test it to see that advantages seem to be on JVC's side for the image but certainly not for the ease of use and pro features. I personnaly will shoot HDV for my next productions, definition is important to me and quality is surprisingly good. I simply cannot go back to DV now that I have seen HDV even for SD production.

Here is a good link on the subject. It seems that 4:2:0 is very common for mpeg2.

http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.jhtml;jsessionid=YFA20VZZYTXQ0QSNDBCSKHY?category=Technical+Difficulties&LookupId=/xml/feature/2003/wilt0603

I am a little confussed by all this. As I understand the second and third values are lumanice and chroma not blue and red. Can you help clarify?
Also I am really interested in this cams abillity to do blue-screen. What does all this mean in regards to this cam performing this function?

Take a look at this article: http://203.94.147.64/supportView.asp?view=3 witch explains the numerology of compression. But I just read about the 4:2:0 on another article. 4:2:0 is not as the other a Y:Cr:Cb reference, it is a intuitive notation on witch the chroma is half-luma spread in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. It is the pal equivalent of 4:1:1 because of PAL's better horizontal resolution than DV. it seems that this sampling is more subject to degradation by multiple generations than the 4:1:1 sampling. DVDs use this sample as well. So I suppose this means that the JVC indeed is 4:2:0...

It is supposed to be better in progressive than in interlaced, guess that is why they chose it for HDV. It really looks equivalent to 4:1:1 DV head to head.

As for blue screening, I did do green screening tests on the JVC and it looks very good. Definition of couse is a major gain over DV. Artefacting looks less problematic than in DV but still is present. I suspect Blue screening to be equally efficient. But there are still many tests to be done on that field.

Ken, If I remember correctly you asked me about green screen the last time am I right? If so I think you will find the JVC interresting on that point, I have not tested deartefacting with Magic Bullet but I will.

I and another fellow will be testing the keying for this camera very soon.

I'll report back.

Cheers

DBK

Thanks guys. I look forward to it.
I am interested to finding out if the lack of manual controlls durning shooting, translates to removal problems in post. Also do you find a particular screen colour works best for keying with this cam?
ken

Welol, We'll try and do both!

DBK

Re: color saturation. All I know is I shot footage in my 1920s era bathroom of blue-green tile, orange rug, multi-colored towels using only the light coming in from the medium-sized window and from what I saw the colors popped out like an MGM musical from the 50s. It's no VHS for the new millennium. You can talk bit rates all you want but the proof is in the pudding.

A rather elegant way to make your point Betsy. This indeed is no VHS, it is a 21st century toy indeed. And colors look good, real good under a decent light. My images (EBil_V1.m2t and EBil_V3.m2t available at http://static.dvinfo.net/ericb/[/url) are a good proof of how interresting reddish colors can look in this camera despite the compression and all. They where taken without any added light other than the sun and it looks very good. Another shot from Mike Eby (with the HD1) show a very beautiful and quite colorful flower at this adress: [url]http://www.advancedcomputerdesigns.com/hd1demo.m2t. If you can post a clip, I'd like to see that 1920s era bathroom of yours from the Beast's eye.

Eric,

I didn't see where you made the final decision. Was this the HD10U over the DVX100?

Thanks,

Brian

They had a deal over the Varicam so they used it. But they would have chosen the HD10 over the DVX mostly because of definition. The feature has already been shot and is in post production.

I personally find 4:1:1 easier to work with than 4:2:0 because it's easier to upsample the 4:1:1 to something better, whereas it's pretty hard to get 4:2:0 look nicer than what it starts at (it can be improved a bit, but not too much). However, both are recording the same amount of information - 1 chroma sample per 4 luminance samples, but think of it as 4:1:1 has the 4 luminance samples in a row, and 4:2:0 has the 4 luminance samples in a square.

Graeme

agreed, but then 4:2:0 is more problematic in interlace than progressive.
I am sure good progressive 4:2:0 filters could be done.

the OP said "The fourth issue is night shots. Or if you prefer shots with objects exposed to light while others are not. Here the JVC impressively outperforms the DVX (or any miniDV I have seen so far)."

what mode does the DVX run? a huge difference if the dvx runs in progressive mode(no gain). if the dvx run in 60i, it simply blows hd10 away, and any other cheapo DV i have beat the hd10 in low light. even my trv 27 has a better low light than the hd10(in DV mode, auto).
i know it because i have both dvx100 and hd10.

Diu - I would say that most here only care about comparing progressive modes. What another cam does in interlaced mode is of little concern. As well, we aren't interested in what this cam does in it's DV mode. How it performs in its HDV modes is where its at.
Ken

what we care is what we see, not the format.
hd only means higher resolution.
it is not magic.

Yes I agree, our tests where in progressive mode without gain increase but then again, it is comparing two progressive images that matters for us. The low light performances are somewhat difficult to quantify since the HD10 loses saturation beyond some point. But there is no doubt that the blacks are much darker, less greyish in the HD10 (unless I assume, you adjust the blacks manually on the DVX!)

i own neither camera ...

"the JVC wins hands out for filmic look because mainly of this slightly de-saturated look and also becaus of it's best contrasts. As you might be aware of, the miniDV displays a slightly grey black level, the JVC does not, it's blacks are indeed pretty black and this helps give a better film look."

guess it comes down to presonal preference as i find the JVC too contrasty. it has a much smaller tonal range then dvx 100.

now what this about slightly grey BLACKS ?? hummm
if the camera is set up properly the blacks are black under RGB 601mapping.

i'm not sure how you did the test ... what exactly you tested ..

now could the BLACK difference be somewhere in ?? the JVC is mpeg so i believe that falls under RGB mapping ?? and the DVX falls under RGB 601 mapping ? so black in mpeg would be 0 rgb and black under 601 mapping would be 16rgb .. if looking at images on NTSC monitor you might need to view each under different set ups ?? ..in oher words when switching between the 2 camera's you might need to change the black level on the monitor for each camera ?? somewhere analog came into the picture ?? so does the JVC add or not add set up on D/A out .. does the DVX add or not add set up on D/Aout ? were clips rendered out to new clip ? and if they were did stills come from it ( and was the NLE/codec rgb 601 mapping or rgb mapping ? )

i know you used experience persons etc but that doesn't tell me anything .. i'd rather here/see how they did the TEST.. i have not tested this camera or DVX in any studio test. but if i was to i would tell you what, how i did it and show you the results .. then you could duplicate the test and either come up with same results or not ...

Yes, the filmic look was our personal preferences I agree. As for the black, you should download my sample clips on this forum to see what I mean http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14422 . I personaly never experienced such good blacks on miniDV (exept when the camera was manually adjusted, and the camera was the XL1s, I did not try manual on the DVX100).

in the US NTSC use to have a STANDARD ( set up) .. then digital came upon us ( no set up ) then sombody started gave digital a option for set up .. these days one camera may add set up another may not .. playback deck may or maynot add it ... so one is not sure what happens along the way .. then a NLE may or may not add it , a codec may work in RGB or RGB 601 .. then if you view a clip that rendered with 601 mapping and view it on a NLE that uses RGB the clip will NOT look the same ...

i believe computer monitors are RGB 0-255 ( zero being black)
a NTSC 601 clip is RGB 16-235 ( 16 being Black)
so a mpeg clip with black at 0rgb is going to look black when compared to a clip with black at 16rgb

here's a little black level info from JVC

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/prodv/clips/blacksetup/JVC_DEMO.swf

Don, that is a cute little instructional demo (and valuable), however the levels they are talking about is digital luma (Y) levels, not RGB levels.

In a YUV or YCrCb color system it is the Y value that ranges from 16 to 235 (16 being black.) When you convert YUV to RGB, the full range of 0 to 255 RGB values are used.