Can someone please tell me how the GL2 competes against the JVC HD.

Plus why exactly is "High Definition" and how can the JVC with one CCD compete and supposedly be better than a GL2 with 3 CCD's?

I'm just curious why I spent so much money on the GL2 and now there’s a low cost HD camera with a better picture.

I know nothing about HD, please be gentle. :p

From the sounds of your post, you made an excellent buying decision going with the GL-2.

Richard, try watching your miniDV footage on large screen TV.

You'll see that it does not look nearly as good as it did on 17" - 22" monitors.

This is because the footage only has 720x480 resolution, which is SD (Standard Definition) NTSC.

It was fine for most TVs a year ago, but with the current explosion of wide-screen, high definition-capable (HD) TV sets, viewers start to appreciate the difference between the footage shot in HD and SD.

This is very similar to blowing up a digital photo. Say, you have a 640x480 digital still cam. Make a picture, and print it out.

With small size, it looks OK.

Try blowing it up to 8x11, and it will fall apart.

Same with viewing of your 720x480 footage on a 1280x720 (or better) monitor.

Even downresing HD footage to SD - for example, for DVD distribution - produces MUCH, much better picture than when the original foorage was SD.

Video processing: with SD, forget zooming in. Your picture falls apart almost immediately. But have HD original, and you can zoom in (that is, if your final project will then be downres'd to SD for distribution) without a problem.

Note that you are right about 3CCD vs 1 CCD cams.

I have read a lot of opinions that 1 CCD cams can produce almost same-quality color like 3 CCD.

Maybe so - but not JVC HD10.

The darn thing introduces huge chroma noise, making image very questionable.

Shoot the same-color beige wall, or a close-up of someone's face.

Now, see these yellow-green blocks dancing on the wall/skin? To me it looks like chroma noise because of 1 CCD processing.

And it's VERY noticeable.

Luma noise is, luckily, not noticeable at all, so you can use the cam as an excellent B&W footage acquisition tool if you don't like its color noise.

On the bright side: some folks worried about MPEG2-compression artifacts introduced by the camera, especially in high-motion scenes.

There's none, so don't worry.

I did extensive comparison of this camera with an otherwise excellent Sony VX2000 (no chroma noise at all!).

Result: VX2000 does introduce motion artifacts in high-motion scenes.

HD10 does NOT, so rest assured :)

Great answer Alex.

It really is about a big wide screen experience.

Watching SD baseball I kept noticing how wide shots had fuzz for faces. With HD, the wide shots would have had full detail.

Alex, thanks for taking the time to write a long and insightful reply.

Richard, Steve - glad to be of help!

Now my question :)

Anyone had a chance to see HD10's footage on really large screen?

The largest I have is 42", but I'd be really interested in subjective reaction of the people who saw it on very large screens - from at least 50" (provided that monitor had a native resolution of at least 1280x720p) to theater-size (preferably).

Opinions? (also please note exactly what equipment was used to play/project the HD footage.)

Thanks!

I have a 65" 1080i TV. Footage looks same resolution and detail than DiscoveryHD but as pointed out the color rendition is not as real. However, I did not see any "yellow-green blocks dancing". Footage with optimal lighting might fool Discovery.

Richard, Alex, Steve and all,

Alex. I also would say that your answer is right on. It is all about resolution, which is most noticeable on a large screen. I have an Infocus model 7200 front projector. I am projecting onto a 8-foot wide screen. The projector has the “TI Mustang HD2 DLP projection system” (1280 x 780; 16:9 chip). The picture I see from my HD10 is very comparable to any cable feed HD input I receive. I also think colors are quite natural. But the bottom line is the resolution, which as Alex and Steve have stated, is all about a large screen experience. What I am experiencing is far better, on that large screen, than any previous analog or DV input. But this again is totally due to a large screen experience with HD support.

I think you are all missing the point guys. We can all tout the best apects of the HD-10, and there are many, but Richard didn't know what High Definition was nor that 1 CCD vs. 3CCD had nothing to do about resolution (no offence Richard). And you guys reflect to him that it would be a better camera to him than his GL-2.
This is not a cam for the every person. Bleeding edge technology NEVER IS! It takes effort to edit, and effort to take a quality picture. Both are relatively easy if you are competent PC user and film maker. 99% persent of cam users are not. And of that remaining 1%, half will be doing projects that would be better suited for DV.

Richard I will atempt to answer your questions
1.Can someone please tell me how the GL2 competes against the JVC HD.

A- The GL2 competes by having a DV mode that visually superior and extensive manual controlls to aid capture. The GL-2 comes from an extreemly sucsessfull camera line that includes the XL-1(s) & GL-1. The JVC has a niche market of film makers and Visual enthusests who currently own HD TV's and want to explore this new tech.

2.Plus why exactly is "High Definition" and how can the JVC with one CCD compete and supposedly be better than a GL2 with 3 CCD's?

A- High Definition or HD is the next evolution for mainstream broadcast resolution. as apposed to SD or Single Definition (DVD resolution). As for single vs. 3 CCD's, usually multiple CCD's are used for superior colour capture but JVC HD-10 1 CCD does the job quite well and even out performs many 3 CCD cams for colour quality.


3.I'm just curious why I spent so much money on the GL2 and now there’s a low cost HD camera with a better picture.

A- Do you have the HD TV and DVCR totake advantage of this increased resolution? You need a certain level of camera knowledge and experience to film with this camera. It does not offer a better "PICTURE" out of the bag. For most cases and most people a GL-2 in auto and especially manual mode, takes a better picture.

I think Richard if you were a person who needed the capabilities of this camera you would have knowen about it long befor you bought your GL-2. And I would say you will probably get a lot more use out of it.
Ken

None of us were promoting the HD10!

We simply answered his question about HD verses SD.

And yes, on a 6 foot screen it looks just like OTA HDTV.

Thanks again for all your replies.

P.S. I knew that the number of CCDs had nothing to do with the resolution. When I said image quality, I meant the whole package including colour reproduction.

When my film, shot on an XL-1 4 years ago, played off mini-DV in a 100 seat movie theatre, via a large projector (which the theatre uses for freebie kids movies on VHS and sporting events--it also serves food), the footage didn't look TOO bad. Not the greatest projector, but I thought it looked decent.

Now I'm curious about the HD10 on the same projector and screen. Something to test out...

heath

I would rather shoot with the HD10 in HD 16:9 ratio and convert it to DV with letter box than with the GL2.

Now I wouldn't say that about the XL1. Just shot a 4 camera TV show with 2 XL1s, 1 PD 150 and a GL2. Had to trash all the GL2 footage. The GL2 isn't comparable to the XL1 despite what Canon says.

Just my opinion.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with shooting HD and converting it to DV to edit and deliver (until one needs HD final product). I've been doing it for years with 35mm & 16 mm. still looks a hell of a lot better than DV.

Now as far as the HD10, the key is controling the light but it's the same for the Sony high end Cinealtas. I saw the HD10 lined up with the top HD cameras shooting a WELL LIT live scene at NAB and it was amazing. It's the reason I purchased it.

Finally, if you want to shoot without worrying about lighting then shoot with a consumer DV.

Frederic
Lumiere Media

XL-1, perfect for run-and-gun/dogme 95 shooting; HD10, dogem 95, BAD!

heath

Ken,

I don’t think we were missing the point, but I do admit your reply was the most concise and comprehensive. I agree with almost every point you made. One exception I have is that I believe that more than 1% of the video shooting public can use this camera to an advantage. The only other possible exception is that I, and some others, feel that there may be a resolution benefit even when converting to 480p DVD format. This could be applicable to SD definition displays as well as HD displays. I say this…disclaimer, disclaimer….with tongue in cheek, because I don’t have any extensive personal experience comparing higher end DV camera’s, such as the GL2 and XL1, in this regard. All I can say is that the couple of test DVD’s I’ve made from this camera (HD10) look far better then the DVD’s I’ve made from an entry level DV camera that I still use. And again this is strictly a resolution only consideration. Other than that it’s all a matter of priorities and tradeoffs. The advantage of a forum like this one is getting enough input to best understand what your own priorities and tradeoffs are and I think you outlined some very good ones in your reply.

As someone who is not a professional in this field, I see this Features & Benefits argument this way:

If “pixelvision” (fisher price?) offered the most outstanding professional features, but still offered only its basic ultra-low resolution display, who would choose it over a superior resolution picture which may require more effort to tame?

I remember early in the 90’s, when Chrysler Corp.’s advertising campaign would take on every competitor from Honda to BMW by showcasing their cars’ superior “Features” and "options".

Later, once Chrysler began to manufacture cars which stood out on their own, Chrysler’s advertising shifted its focus to the cars themselves.

This current debate comparing DV with HD sounds eerily similar. For those daring few who demand speed, the Indy 500/Formula 1 type racer is the only way to go, even if it requires more skill and effort. For those who demand comfort with plenty of features, the market offers the family mini-van.

Currently the market is in a (temporary) transition phase. In a short time, there will be numerous competitive HD models from many manufacturers, with features galore, and NO ONE will be making this comparison.

Brian

Agreed! I heartily look forward to an HDV Sony PD150 or an HDV Canon XL2, or an HDV JVC DV5000U, or especially an HDV Panasonic DVX100...

HDV Canon XL2 --- perhaps in heaven...