Maybe you guys can help me here. I know a lot of you are pros
with an eye to independant film making so you are particular
about image quality for your particular application(s). But I, myself, am trying to decide which of the two JVCs would be best for my application.
See, I'm mostly interested in doing some hobby-type things for
family and friends, such as family reunions, etc. I believe it was Steve who mentioned that JVC claims to have increased edge
enhancement on the HD1U because it looks better to the average
consumer.
Now, there were a couple JVC stills on this site that a couple friends looked at -- one was an interior bed shot and the other was an outdoor beach shot -- which were purported to show the edge enhancement difference. To *our* eyes, the more enhanced HD1U looked sharper/better. But that was only a couple small pics.
My question is: Do you think the average uncle, cousin, next door neighbor, et cetera who's not in the business would overall prefer the look of the HD1U? Is there anyone here who actually prefers the HD1U look, or have heard of anyone who does?
Thanks.

The average person (non video person) wouldn't know the difference.

However, you will and that's more important in my opinion. If you are buying the HD10 for a hobby - it might not be the best choice because you'll have to do extra work just to see your labor. (Especially if you have a Mac and not Windows.) If you buy a standard DV camera - you'll be able to crank out lots of stuff.

Do you want to crank out fun footage or do you have lots of time to play? If you have lots of time...consider the HD10 seriously. If you don't and just like to turn on a camera and shoot...consider a Canon or Sony product. The models vary, but I would choose a PD150 over the HD10 for "hobby" shooting...family videos etc. If the HD10 wasn't such a time drain for setups...I would choose it.

I believe the HD10 is for people that have extra time available to take TLC and light, setup shots and also don't plan to shoot much action footage. I've shot some stuff with it...and it's beautiful when using a tripod, nice lighting.....basically, I pretend I'm using a film camera! Ok, maybe I am biased...I LOVE this HD10 for silly reasons.....it makes me feel like I'm one step beyond video and closer to a film-like experience.

If you want that experience...get the HD10. If you want to shoot all over place and always be fairly satisfied with your shots...buy a PD150. Oh, if you plan to always dump to DVD...lean more towards the HD10........so many choices!

Hope this helps and doesn't confuse.

Chris

Dave,

I thought I’d jump in here since I too am an amateur video hobbyist. I can’t directly answer your question about edge enhancement between the HD1 vs. HD10 since I haven’t seen the direct comparisons. But I do have an HD10 and will say that I find the sharpness slightly on the soft side but not unlike broadcast HDTV. I don’t know what negative attributes higher edge enhancement may induce, if any? I was aware of the reported differences before I purchased the HD10. My decision to go with the HD10 was based primarily based on the higher resolution view finder.

The other reason I jumped in here is to comment on Christopher’s reply. As a consumer/hobbyist I’ve been using this camera with just a little more care than I had in the past with DV, HI8, and SVHS etc. and am finding the results extremely satisfying. Christopher and other professionals are entirely correct in stating that taking extra time to setup shots, lighting and using tripods are highly beneficial. In fact this camera is inspiring me to do so whenever possible. But…..I’ve been finding that with the exception on using ND or polarizing filters the HD10 does as well as any consumer “point and shoot” DV camera for everyday stuff. I just returned from a vacation trip to Lake Powell in Utah. I shot about an hour and 20 minutes of video, 90+ percent handheld and full auto. No time to setup shots and lighting when you have grandkids running in three separate directions. Since almost all the scenes included water I chose to use a polarizing filter for all daylight shots. I downloaded the results last night using the included capture software (single pass with scene detection). Just started to edit and title etc. and am finding the results very, very satisfying. Far better quality than I’d ever achieved before.

I like to also note that upon my initial arrival to the marina I noticed a Japanese film crew apparently packing up from a shoot. What caught my eye was their equipment. The first thing I spotted was a massive tripod and a Cinealta Camera. The next thing I saw was an HD10 sitting next to the Cinealta.

If you are a hobbiest, you will be thrilled with the HD1 and need not spend the money on the HD10. BUT..... I suggest you might be happier with a DV only consumer camera.

I am a pro and have a total of 5 video cameras ranging from a Pro DSR300 to a PD150, HD10U and a really small DV camera that fits in my pocket.

While all my pro cameras work regularly and do a great job, the camera that travels the most extensively is the small, JVC mini DV camera that fits in my pocket. It's been to tradeshows in Vegas and toronto, gone scubba diving off the coasts of Mexico and Hawaii and to just about every party I get myself invited to. It's seen weddings, Mexican historical locations, Christmas about 6 times and much more.

If you really are just looking for something for the family and friends, spend $1-$2K and get yourself one of these. I promise th picture quality will more than impress, the portabulity will make it a joy to use and the extra savings in money will make your wife happy. All in All a Win-Win.

These new HD cameras are the latest and greatest, but without special care and handling, they might disapoint more than please.

Good luck with your decision.

DBK

I tend to agree with Darren on the portability issue. I too bring my lower end DV camera while I travel more than my other "bigger" cameras and it provides me with surprisingly good images ( I have a Canon ZR first generation one CCD miniDV). On the other end, if you want HD your choice is limited to the two JVCs. As you pointed out you will use it for family reunions and such so I would recommend spending the less money possible so aim for the HD1. I guess from the comments here that we seem to reach pretty much an overall agreement on this but then again, it is still a choice you have to make on your own.

I also agree with Darren on the issue of portability. By coincidence, I too have a JVC pocket camera. Mine is the DVP3U (680k pixel count). I absolutely love this camera due to its size. It’s always with me and as such I’ve gotten shots that I just wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. However, when I started to create DVD’s for use on my front projector I was very disappointed at the quality. Again my camera only has a 680k CCD and perhaps the 1 megapixel CCD of the DVP7U may make all the difference. I jumped into the HD10 because my projector is HD capable but on the other hand, until I get a DVHS recorder or HD DVD becomes a reality I’m going to create SD DVD’s.

Question to Darren, Eric or anyone. I haven’t tried, but is it possible to mix the 16X9 “squeeze mode” (presumably anamorphic) of DV with the 16X9 “native mode” of HD after conversion to mpeg at the DVD creation stage? If so, I will continue to use the DV pocket cam in as a compliment to the HD cam.

Of course you can mix the two but the differences will be noticeable. Nevertheless, the format will be equivalent once transferred to DVD 720X480 16:9. Making an edit of both is not necessarily a good idea since the images will look very different (especially in definition, sharpness, edge enhancement, ect) but you could have two separate clips from each camera both in 16:9 on the same DVD without problem. You could probably mix them in some documentary cases where image quality does not need to be kept to a constant level. Remember that "untrue" 16:9 is a 16:9 part of a 3:4 image (720X360) squeezed back to 720X480 (that is when the CCD is at least of 345600 pixels, if less, the difference is even worse) so the image quality often is very low.

I've gotten email from someone who hates the HD edge enhancement and is going to take a loss selling it.

I think we are discounting the viewing device.

Most folks have their TVs and HDVTVs with Sharpness turned up. Most videofiles have Shapness at, ar near zero.

With my HD projector I want NO edge enhancement.

So, if HD1 stuff is viewd on most folks TVs, it problably will look fine. But it will be a painful shock to others.

Thanks Eric,

I thought or at least hoped this was the case. I understand the quality differences, but it does allow for some flexibility.

Thanks again,

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen :
I think we are discounting the viewing device.

Most folks have their TVs and HDVTVs with Sharpness turned up. Most videofiles have Shapness at, ar near zero.

-->>>

Steve speaks the truth! The sharpness control on the television will make so much difference that it's hard to describe. The only fair comparison is a direct apple to a direct apple (i.e., both cameras on the same television). Other than that, there is simply no way to know how the TV will be set up, and therefore no way to know how your particular settings will affect the picture.

True but than again thorough testing has to be done on the same environnement from tip to toes so it makes sense to test on the same monitor/tv/projector. Of course, every step of the way there might be losses but an oversharpened TV will not "create" visible edge enhancement in most cases, it will only harden it, make it more noticeable providing it was there in the first place, a shot without edge enhancement will not display that much differently on such a television (of course, a little 3 inch LCD with not much definition is more likely to create some of this enhancement). The more the definition of the TV, the lesser the chances of creating artefacts that where not there.

Guys, we're staring at our navels too closely again.

First off, you need to know what to look for to see what edge sharpening is. I'm going to bet the average viewer, and even the average contributor to this forum won't know what they are looking at.

I've seen the two cameras side by side shooting the same test chart and the edge sharpening, while present to the naked eye to a deserning knowledgable viewer is not that big of a deal.

As a matter of fact, one of the dealers who participated in the testing couldn't see a difference.

Now, let's take it one step further. The end user will likely distribute his product how? Likely on DVD as an MPEG 2 DVD compliant file. It changes everything. At the end of the day, after it's been shot, uncompressed for editing, recompressed into a different format entirely and back to a DVD to play on grandma's 1992 TV with her new $79.00 DVD player she got from her grandkids from Costco.......

Get the picture, it won't make a difference. In many cases, it may even hit the evil VHS format, and then, well it won't matter at all what camera it was shot on. Either the HD10 or the HD1 will look the same.

IF..... on the other hand, you are going to take what you do, keep it as high a quality as you possible can, with little or no further compression. Editing it on an uncompressed capture card, and output it for use in broadcasting, or film distribution or projection in a film festival, you would want to start with as little in-camera processing as you can, and then the HD10 is the best choice for your aquisition.

I don't see a need for this user to spend the extra cash for the HD10.

Off to clean my navel out.

DBK

I think Darron's got it right.

I'm love to get hold off an HD1 and playback it and my HD10 footage on a 7-foot screen.

I don't like the viewfinder anyway, nor do I care about the XLR.

It would be nice to see how much difference there is.

Anyone in NYC?

Thanks all. Still thinking it over. After reading your replies, I decided to play around with my TV's sharpness control and compare "looks" to see what I prefer. (Yes, the sharpness level I usually watch at was maximum.) Is a TV's sharpness control similar to a camcorder's "edge enhancement"? I normally watched with the control maxed because I just figured "sharper is best", but now I'm not so sure.
With sharpness dialed back, the image appears smoother and less "videoy". I'm not used to that look but ... we'll see. (I *want* to want the cheaper model, but this almost looks better.) I'll let y'all know.
Dave
P.S. I wonder if the 10U pro model has *some* EE or if it's set to "0".

At MAX???


I run my project or at 0.

My TV at 1.

I've never seen TV calibrated at any higher than 25%. Usually 0 is the setting because on some TVs, it turns off SVM.

Which on HDTVs should always be turned off.

I'm afraid to ask what Contrast was set to?

75% is max!

And, use SMPTE pluge to set Brightness.

And, without seeing your TV I can guess you should turn down COLOR by 10% to help reduce "red push."

A thing to know about edge enhancement:

First thing, it is mostly a "capture thing", it is a bad interpretation of the border between a bright area and a dark area witch results in an undesirable dark green-blue edge line. It is a direct result of an overload of the CCD because of direct light entering through the lenses directly to the CCD. Again, edge enhancement is not present when shooting through a mini35 adapter because the light does not blast directly on the CCD. Edge enhancement can be worsened by a higher contrast on the TV but not created. Chroma noise will be more visible in a high contrast monitor too.

I believe in the case of the JVC this has nothing to do with the CCD and instead is
in-camera (software) filtering effects. Find a high-contrast transition and accentuate
it by darkening the one side and lightening the other to make it really pop. Much
like SVM. It generally sucks, but the threshold seems to be fairly okay on the HD1
from the clips I've seen (I have one clip my friend put together where its not terribly
apparent except on a sharp transition between building/sky). Still, being a purest
I was forced to shell out for the HD10. Even though im sure at somepoint someone
will figure out a way to change the incamera settings on the HD1 and make the
two identicle :)

I would say that it is a combination of both but it has to do with the CCD, not only the software. I tested the mini35 with a pd150/vx2000 adapter on the JVC HD10, though it is not made for it it worked (not perfectly) but it worked. There was NO visible edge enhancement when shooting with the device on scenes witch had some without it (mosly on shiny metal pipes). By that test it was clear that it was not a software only problem because if so there would still be edge enhancement. On the other hand, the fact that the HD1 and HD10 use the same CCD means that there is a software or hardware thing going on that differenciates the two. Maybe there is a limiter device or filter on the HD10 that diminishes the contrast ratio but it has to do with light entering directly to the CCD. This edge enhancement thing has been happening since the beginning of video. I have a hard time figuring how a technician at JVC or elsewhere would prefer that silly line over the edge over a more realistic contour and decide to boost it "because it is more pleasing".

My thought on this is that they probably needed a filter (physical) to attenuate the overload of the CCD. That meant getting the price of the device up by a few hundred bucks so they decided to create two versions of the camera knowing that it might be a deal breaker for consumer not interrested in a more professional image (to most people 3499$ sounds closer to 3000$ than 4000$ but 3999$ sound like 4000$ and goes over that price with taxes). If they don't care about the edge enhancement why bother, but they knew pros would pretty much care about it and they could not make it a consumer only toy, it's too expensive. I mean why create two models with a 500$ difference at the same time? to attract two type of users? If so the differences would have been more noticeable (better handling, manual controls, etc...) and the price difference would have been greater. I would not be surprised if someone found out that there is a piece or two that is on the HD10 and not on the HD1 (internally of course). If it could have been taken care of in the consumer model (without boosting the price) there would probably not have been a prosumer model released, there would have been one model that would have pleased both the consumers and the pros.

While I cant say for sure, I would bet it has nothing to do with hardware. They did it for the same reason that virtually every television on the planet has scanning velocity modulation heavily enabled. Because the average consumer wants to see a "sharp" image. Heavy edge transitions please the average viewer. What your doing with the filters is reducing apparent contrast, which is causing the software filter to not trigger. Edge enhancement algorithms look for sharp edges and stretch those even further. If you reduce them before it gets to the software you "solve" the problem. Of course you've softened your entire image to avoid the filter. Better to have the software features disabled in the first place :)

Yes, people want to see a sharp image but again there is a difference between a sharp edge and an edge enhancement, if you sharpen the image from a DVD of a movie that was shot in 35mm for example, you will not create the edge enhancement, even when cranked to the max. Of course an image already polluted will be worsened...

Anyway, it's only my 2 cents, but I think if it was software there would not have been two models.

The most important question. Is enhancement done on the component output or is it recorded to the tape? I have GR-HD1 and when filming white airplane with shadows from some parts at sunny day, the enhancement is visible on a computer. After editing and dumping to 40000 it is visible on a HDTV also.

Can the enhancement be changed by a slight modification using a special remote?

I would be even willing to change a single board in the camera to avoid annoying artifacts. Have experience. I replaced an optical block in my camera ($300), but after gluing the optical stabilizer lens in place. Now I don't have vibrations in freefall when skydiving. Before when I hit the sun in freefall I had a green vertical line looking like a snake. Now it is straight like suppose to be! :-) The optical stabilizer is supported by a large spring that transforms vibration from a tripod to the stabilizing lens with all negative effects on image stability even when stabilizer is off. A very poor construction that is vulnerable to gravitational and inertial forces.
Andre

Unfortunately it is recorded onto tape. it is very difficult to efficiently (even impossible) to get rid of those enhancements without sacrificing the image in the process. Even admitting one could do that, it would certainly not be perfect.

I want tol learn more / is the P+S Technik going to make an jy-hd10u/e adapter for the mini35 anytime soon?

Could you please expand on this subject please:
Eric Bilodeau:
"I tested the mini35 with a pd150/vx2000 adapter on the JVC HD10, though it is not made for it it worked (not perfectly) but it worked."

..explain more how did you get it to work??

The adapter of the PD150 unlike the adapter of the XL1 is a converter made to fit in front of the lenses (the one for the XL1 is made to fit in front of the CCD without lenses). The size of the cameras (PD-150, VX2000 and HD10) are close so I figured I might check out how it could work. I heard of plans from PS+technik for the JVC (unoficial sources) but the process is long (it is not even finished for the DVX100) and I encountered a slight problem in the process: As the adapter is not made for the HD10, the precise distance and focal lenght is not right so it has to be adjusted manually. Adjustment for this system is quite tricky so as the HD10 is of very high def compared to the miniDVs, the screen was visible when the iris of the 35mm prime lens was under f2 under normal light conditions, the only concluding tests where with a lot of light (outside) where the screen was not visible in most f stops. Also, the screw base (or camera stand?) of the mini35 is a little too low and to the right so an adapter had to be "homemade" to fit it. Other than that, it could work.

I did not had the pPD150 adapter for very long though, we where testing the mini35 gizmo on a XL1 for the DOP (of a production I am technical consultant on) and I had this "hunch" that a PD150 adapter might just fit with the HD10. The PAs made a few calls and we had an adapter coming to the office on the next day but as we had one day left of tests, I pretty much made it over an afternoon. So tests are preliminary. Actually, as we have access to a varicam, tests for the HD10 have been suspended so I should not push it further for the moment. The only remaining scheduled test is for 35mm blowup of some early test footage.

If anybody has access to a mini35 with a PD150 adapter and a HD10, it might be interresting to see how it ends up...

Steve, to answer your question as to what the TV contrast was set at: 75%.
Like I was saying before, I had the sharpening set at max because I had assumed that "a sharp picture is best". And like
I said, I started messing around with the sharpness --0%, 50%,
100% -- trying to dial in the best-looking picture. Seeing as I
was also playing with the sharpness to aide in the decision regarding a large purchase, I kept "experimanting" for a while,
flipping through different stations. Well, the wife came in and sat down to watch some TV, as I kept fiddling. After a while she said to me "Enough already, would you just leave it at 0%". I asked her why, and she said "Cuz it looks a lot better that way". I would have to agree with her. Damn, but I *want* to like the cheaper cam better.

Dave, you need to go get yourself a copy of the DVD "Digital Video Essentials". It has tons of test patterns and the like for assisting in the proper set up and calibration of a TV. Its a must for anyone who does anything with video (or really its a must for everyone who watches TV, but I digress).

According to JVC tech support, both cameras process images similarly.

This is not so in my experience (and no, this isn't a monitor issue - the edge enhancement shows throughout the whole process from tape to editing to SD downconversion on DVD. See a partial fix below).

I owned both cameras (and kept HD10). Bottom line:

HD1: notoriuos edge enhancement to the extent that the image looks unnatural, all lines around the objects - car moldings, box edges, power line wires, you name it - are so busy looking, they "dance". Workaround: in post, blur the Green channel. In AE 5.5 I found that setting 2 provides acceptable compromise between the overall picture resolution and getting rid of the ugly oversharpened edges.

HD10: no edge enhancement, period. Overall picture looks a tad softer, but very natural.

Another issue, though: signal drop-outs! Please see a new thread about it. Thank you.

Good to see that you confirmed what I experienced Alex (I did not play a lot with the HD1 so it is good to have opinions of a guy who had both).

Here's an interesting page on edge enhancement, with 8x10 color glossy photographs with pictures, arrows and a paragraph on back of each one, describing what each one was.

http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm

Edge enhancement seems to be a 1D or 2D high shelf filter, which boosts high frequencies above a certain frequency. Amplifying high frequency information boosts rapid changes, so edges look sharper and high frequency noise is more prominent.

Alex wrote:

>>>Workaround: in post, blur the Green channel. In AE 5.5 I found that setting 2 provides acceptable compromise between the overall picture resolution and getting rid of the ugly oversharpened edges.>>>>

Question: If you shoot in B&W mode (4:4:4:4?) or separate out the colors in post, does this negate Edge Enhancement as a concern?

If so, does this mean that for B&W, there is little difference between the HD1 and HD10u?

Brian

Did you find that the edge enhancement is in vertical direction only? In an interlaced TV it is easier to make enhancement horizontally with a delay line in a camera. I found nothing like this in GR-HD1. This why this effect is so annoying. We are not used to this :-) . I bet that it is done in software. It is easier for a progressive scan.

According to JVC the HD10 was tuned -- meaning EE reduced -- on the HD10.

And if you read Widescreen Review's interview with JVC, it is clear they feel consumers do not see a sharp image without EE. Same theory as SVA on TVs.

The problem with EE will not highly visible in stills. It increases aliasing which shows up in moving images.

But, I'm at a loss to see the point of the debate. It's bad. And it's present in the HD1. Don't try to save money. And I would not fantisize about altering HD1s.

I think Steve nailed it, don't bother hoping the problem could be fixed, if you don't want EE, buy the HD10.