In December I start shooting a digital feature so I need to make up my mind this week on what camera to buy.
I figure a month of playing around with whatever camera I decide to buy should be preparation enough. It is between the HD10u and the DVX100. I am wll aware of the advantages of the DVX100 and my DP wants me to get the DVX100. But I own a high-def set and that is one of the main reasons i can't stop thinking about the HD10u.

What scares me about the HD10u is that 90% of my movie will take place outside where light will be hard to control. One of the first shots in the movie will be someone walking to their car on a city street at night. HOW will the camera handle a scene like this? Also the other factor that scares me is the chroma noise. i have seen some of the stills posted and it looks pretty bad. Will bright lights and low contrast get rid of the chroma noise? And does that mean that any high-contrast scenes are out of the question? Can the chroma noise be cut down in post with color correction? I tend to desaturate the image a little in post since it is the look that I prefer. Sorry for all the questions but like I said I need to make a decision within the next few days.

get what your DP recommends

If your final production is intended for big screen display (i.e. theater) I would strongly suggest that you and your DP go and get a blowup test done to 35mm from both cameras, then go and view both of them digitally projected, and projected on 35mm, on a full size theater screen, and see which one is more acceptable to you. I have done this with the DVX100 on a 40ft theater screen, and found it to be totally unnaceptable in terms of quality and motion artifacts, (including ghosting and pixelation), and that's why I'm now messing with the HD1OU instead. For me, ANY SD camera, including the SDX900, and my own Ikegami HL-DV7W do not have enough native resolution to hold up on a big screen. This is a subjective judgement call and I think each person needs to make this decision for themselves, different directors have different quality standards, and seeing it for yourself is the only way to do it.

Good luck with your project.

Paul, what do you mean by motion artifact? Are you referring to the telecined look that is expected in 24P mode? Are you having better luck with material shot in 60i mode? I'm projecting bunch of videos this weekend. I have done theater sized screens with materials shot with everything else(1CCD cams, VX1000s, EZ30s) and found it to scale very very well, especially if you're sitting as a member of the audience.

I can only tell you what I saw in a demo DVX100 35mm transfer and projection on a big screen, and that was very obvious blocky pixelation from lack of sufficient resolution, heavy moire effects during panning, especially in panoramic shots; and ghosting in the movement of people on screen. I saw the same footage on a small TV screen on DV tape, and it looked fantastic. My personal opinion is that the DVX100 is a great camera for small screen TV work that you want to give a pseudo "film look" with the 24p, and that it looks very sharp and clean on a small screen. But on a big screen it's a whole different story. As I said, each person needs to make their own judgement call on that, but that's my personal opinion based on a film transfer I saw done by a very experienced post house. Based on that, I would never use it for anything intended for large screen display.

Paul, Are you sure? This is what I have found: The #900 Panasonic material looks significantly better on big screen than the HD10. The DVX, in progressive, with anamorphic adapter, will project to about 15-20% smaller screen size compared to the HD10 for the same sharpness, plus the picture looks better, and there are not any of the serious problems encountered during production that the HD10 poses. I don't know what you've seen. This is what I saw. If the DP recommends DVX, then the director should use DVX. Plus the DVX shoots in 24p, a film projection speed. If the didector uses a DP that would recommend the HD10, and I personally do not know any that would do that, then the director should use HD10. If the director wants to shoot at 30 fps and then spend $20K min. for slowing the speed digitally to 24 fps, he would be a lot better off finantially shooting with rented Varicam or CineAlta, than with the HD10.

Well I've heard precisely the opposite of projected DVX footage. I've heard from people that it was difficult to differenciate between that and 16mm. However, that being said, I've never projected telecined 24P footage onto a screen that big. Perhaps the strobbiness will be more pronounced but I don't see how that can be. No doubt, the JVC will definitely look "sharper" when projected with a HD capable projector, but i think motion artifacts will also be more pronounced during pans and fast motion. I think the DVX will also be quite good considering I've projected stuff shot on much worser cams.

You know what I think, I think that this person looking for advice should trust their own judgement, not any of ours, or some DP, but trust their own eyes. I've have told you what the tests I saw showed to me, and I don't think that anyone else in the audience would have disagreed with what I'm saying. The transfers I saw were perfomed by Monaco Labs in San Francisco, and were shown to a large group at the Metreon Cinema in SF at MacWorld in January of this year, they also displayed transfered footage from several Sony 60i cameras, many of which looked far superior to the DVX100 to me.
I would just urge Louis to go and get the tests done and judge for himself before wasting a lot of hard earned money based on dubious advice . Many people proclaim themselves to be "experts" on the internet, and many give advice which is slanted by their own personal agendas and bias, which is normal and understandable. I am not an expert on cinematography or anything else, and I don't think that anyone giving advice on this forum is an expert on the HD1OU, none of us have had that much time with the camera. So my best advice is to trust your own judgement and eyes.

Good luck

Louis Grimaldo wrote:

"What scares me about the HD10u is that 90% of my movie will take place outside where light will be hard to control. One of the first shots in the movie will be someone walking to their car on a city street at night. HOW will the camera handle a scene like this? Also the other factor that scares me is the chroma noise. i have seen some of the stills posted and it looks pretty bad. Will bright lights and low contrast get rid of the chroma noise? And does that mean that any high-contrast scenes are out of the question? Can the chroma noise be cut down in post with color correction? I tend to desaturate the image a little in post since it is the look that I prefer. Sorry for all the questions but like I said I need to make a decision within the next few days."

Can you tell me why you do not look at sequences instead of stills to make a choice on a video format? Some footage (namely from Paul Mogg and me and even some other) have been posted in this very forum, some showing night scenes by the way.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14422
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11460

After you took (with your DP) a look at these sequences (not still, it is not very usefull since you plan on shooting a film, not a photo fiction I guess), ideally with a good HD monitor, you might have a better idea. Of course, de-saturation will most definitely not worsen your image, since the artefacting of this camera comes from Chroma (as most cameras...). As for outdoor shooting, the HD10 performed very well outside with enough light (sunlight... of course).

My experience head to head with both camera, in a test for a feature, has been described in an older thread. Though the DVX is a far superior camera in the way it is made and handled, it was discarded by the production in regards to definition because the image quality could be equivalent when the HD10 is used well. Here is the link to the thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14379

Of course, if you want to make a wise decision, you should test both (better to invest a little in a test before shooting).

Thanks Eric for the clips but i could not download those clips. i have seen some footage and was impressed but all the recent talk about chroma noise has me worried.

I have seen plenty of footage from the DVX100 and i am impressed. It is simply a more forgiving camera. I do not have a real experienced DP so that is why i am wary of using the HD10u. The first feature I shot was on a VX2000 and i was very unhappy with the harsh video look. So I want a camera that will give me more of a filmlook which the DVX100 is great at. But my worry is that when I take it to film festivals and the video gets projected on a large screen. DV resolution does not cut it. That is the one area where i know the HD10u will blow away the DVX 100. And I truly believe that it is in film festivals where one truly can make his mark.
i just rented "28 days later" and i love the high contrast scenes in it and i am not sure if the HD10u is such a good camera for high contrast. The bottom line is that i am going to have to rent a HD10u for a day and shoot some footage myself.
This is really the only site where people can talk about this camera objectively. Go to Dv.com or Indieclub.com and talk about this camera and they think you're the antiChrist.

Why couldn't you download the clips?

You should be aware that chroma noise is also apparent with the DVX, as with other DV cameras (but not the yellowish/greenish chroma shifts inherent to the HD10). DV is not an artefact free format, 4:1:1 compression is huge, as is the 4:2:0 scheme of the HD10. In comparative tests, with decent lighting, they both display about the same amount of chroma related noise (blocky chroma noise coming from the compression) in the blues and reds. If you want much less noise go for 4:2:2 like DVCPRO 50 (for SD), or DVCPRO HD (for HD).

Louis,

You mentioned that you are looking to take your film to festivals when completed. I know that Sundance and some of the bigger festivals offer HD projection, and I'd suggest doing a little research to see just how many festivals you could submit to that would offer HD projection. I guess that you could try to convert HD10U footage to 24 fps for transfer to film, but so far everyone trying this has posted unsatisfactory results. Thus I imagine HD projection would be preferred, not to mention it would be cheaper also if you decide to go with the HD10U.

The seven major studios will be releasing their report on HD Cinema in March and I imagine it will create an increase in HD projectors across the nation. So there is the possiblity that we could see an increase in HD popularity at film festivals also.

As someone that also considers film festivals to be the best route I will be interested to hear any news you come across on this subject. Good luck with your film which ever camera you choose!

Brad

A lot of film festivals offer Hd projection and i can only imagine that it is going to grow. I start shooting in December, shooting will be done on the weekends so I am looking to finish shooting in March of 2004. Another 6 months to a year before it is ready for primetime. So I am looking at March of 2005 when i start to submit to film festivals. My feeling is that Hd projection will be more prevelant. Which is another reason why i keep coming back to the HD10u.

Louis,

I am a cinematographer who also does HD work with the CineAlta f900 and the Panasonic Varicam. I recently DP'd a short project for a friend which will probably run the festival circuit.

This was a no-budget project, and his choices for camera were the Sony DVW700 DigiBeta camera, the Panasonic DVX100, or the JVC GR-HD1. The DigiBeta and DVX100 were available through friends at no charge, and I bought the HD1 to play around with and shoot some tests. I really had no preference which camera we used because they all have their good and bad points. We set up a scene in a studio and lined the cameras up side by side. Tests were done for contrast, resolution, color rendition, and motion.

The director chose the JVC.

I was glad he chose the little HD camera because it gave me the chance to really see what it was capable of. However, it is a painfull process with the lack of manual controls, bad reaction to highlights blowing out, etc.

And these are my opinions on the good/bad points of the cameras:

DigiBeta:

Pros - Real lens with repeatable focus marks, Less DOF due to 2/3" pickups, Clean Audio with manual controls, virtually no compression artifacts.

Cons - tapestock expensive for no-budget project, not as sharp as JVC

DVX100:

Pros - 24p for possible print to film, real audio connectors with manual control, CineGamma gives smooth texture to picture, repeatable focus and manual zoom, 16:9 possible with anamorphic adapter

Cons - Not as sharp as JVC

JVC:

Pros - Sharper than the other two cameras, 30p has film-like feel

Cons - Not easy to print to film (not even sure it can be done well at any price), no full manual exposure control, can not let any part of picture be overexposed, chroma noise can be an issue with highly saturated scenes, audio is only automatic and has a "canned" sound to it, focus and zoom rings are useless, and several other problems which have been covered ad infinitum on the forum.

Bottom line, the JVC can be a great looking camera WHEN everything is right on. And don't worry about exterior day, it looks great. Exterior night at the 1/30 shutter has about the same sensitivity as 5279 but with less latitude. Watch out for car headlights spiking green and loss of color in stoplights and other bright / colorful lights.

The JVC has gotten a bad rap because a lot of people don't have the patience to squeeze the great images out of it. That combined with some really bad footage submitted to Networks and others has not helped. If your DP does film, he will know what filters to use when and how to light to get the best out of this camera.

Jay

If you shoot with the HD10 you can forget about going to Film or the PAL market.

Very interresting Jay. You used the GR-HD1? The HD1 has much more edge enhancement than the HD10 from my experience. As for the 30p to 24 or 25, let's not throw the towel yet, I am making (and some other people) tests for 30p to 24p transfers witch (for the moment), show pretty surprising results. Next step is transfer to 35mm.

I am very pleased by Jay's report. Most of the time people bitch the camera without having used it. I know I can do a film with this camera, but then again I extensively tested it. And an important point that Jay Nemeth added:
"The JVC has gotten a bad rap because a lot of people don't have the patience to squeeze the great images out of it. That combined with some really bad footage submitted to Networks and others has not helped. If your DP does film, he will know what filters to use when and how to light to get the best out of this camera."
I support this 200% and I would add that that incredible results can be gotten out of this camera with patience, an intelligent approach and an open mind. This camera is a little trickier than most DVs but can give you a hell of an image when used properly.

Eric, at the same time, I think it's important to keep pressure on JVC so they fix the # 1 problem of the camera - which is, introduce separate and independent controls for shutter and aperture.

I'm afraid that if we keep saying that the camera is useable as is, then JVC (and other manufacturers who have their HD cams in the pipeline for soon-to-come releases) will take it as a license to keep the ridiculous semi-automatic exposure approach in place.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin :
I'm afraid that if we keep saying that the camera is useable as is, then JVC (and other manufacturers who have their HD cams in the pipeline for soon-to-come releases) will take it as a license to keep the ridiculous semi-automatic exposure approach in place. -->>>

I don't think we need fear that Alex. JVC Professional Division wanted manual controls from the get go, they just didn't have time to get it inthe pipeline.

I'm sure we will see changes to version 2 of the JVC cameras and that the other manufacturers will also provide more manual controls. Maybe not on the consumer priced versions, but on the prosumer or professional models.

Until then we have filters matte boxes and more.

Cheers

Pro division wanted it but did not have the time? They took out edge enhancement, which is no brainer, and snapped on different mic jack and viewfinder. These were the biggest improvements. It took them several months to do so from the original HD1 release in Japan? Maybe there is another reason why they have not provided better controls. Maybe it would cut into sales of their and Panasonic's pro SD gear. JVC is owned by Matsushita (Panasonic).

Christopher, you're right on this one.

If Sony could artificially lessen the sound quality of its otherwise superb SD miniDV VX2000 cam, so just to prevent its competition with their $25,000 SD cams, then I'm more than sure that JVC also keeps HD10's features on a short leash to prevent it becoming "too good".

But at least they must introduce features that are STANDARD in this market segment, which is fully manual/independent shutter and aperture control, built-in ND filters, and 70/100 zebra taht is a necessity given the cam's low latitude in particular.

Louis, I was able to download my clips from the DVI forum so you should be able to download them now. I guess those from Paul as well.

Thanks Eric.
I just ordered Darren Kelly's JumpStart guide. As I stated earlier my DP is uncomfortable with using this camera. We will both watch the Jumpstart guide DVD to see if we are comfortable working within the limitations of this camera. From what I understand Neutral density filters are a must. Can anyone recommend a decent matte box?

Louis,

I'm a full time staff member for a very large film festival. Here's my advice.

1st make a good film, most I see, are not. 80% of the films we receive are shot on DV. They are submitted from all over the world. IF done right, w/ care I've been fooled several times (thinking it was shot on film) looking at them on the small screen. On the big screens they still look better than the one's where no care to the "look" of the film was taken. Filmmaking is truly a process. The audience will adapt to the look of DV on the screen. At the same time, yes, HD will be much closer to film.

As of now, with most films being done on DV the majority of films are screened on Beta (a DOWNCONVERSION) I know of no other festivals who have DV decks to screen films short or full length. Some now use DVD screeners, as they are digital and maintain quality better than the analog Beta. For next years upcoming festival we are considering screening in HD. The deciding factor is submissions. If filmmakers are shooting on HD, we should screen on HD. Especially features. Take this into serious consideration… the last festival, features shot on HD were still screened on Beta. If you have a good film, the audience will still love you, the distributors will still buy it. Even if it’s shot like crap, they’ll give you money to go re-shoot it the right way. MOST will not afford the telecine to film, as prints are very expensive an not needed unless you have distributors backing you, or you four wall it.

I shot a short on the HD10 and it looks STUNNING. No less. Ext. day, ext. night look good. I could have never attained these results with DV.

Chroma is somewhat fixable in post, BUT (and this ties in with your comment on saturation) the HD10 footage is pretty de-saturated raw. I do notice that a .avi file vs. a mpeg file look very different. The MPEG seems to retain or expose MUCH more color than any other file format I’ve seen it in. I have no idea why, it’s just what I’ve seen rendering content myself.

High contrast is still possible, just don’t have High contrast on an actors faces, use depth. And be sure to light it.

SL, how did you edit your short shot with Hd10?

Software-wise, what NLE etc?

Thanks.

Sure Alex,

Capture with the supplied utility. I used Vegas 4.0d. to edit. On a dell 650 ws w/ dual 2G Xeons, raid 0, u320 scsi. It's still not real time but I get about 18-20 fps playback. Which is acceptable (1 stream will play perfect at full rez w/ no filters). I did lots of testing before I got the camera and after, shooting converting files, rendering, etc. just to see what I was in store for.

Even w/ over 500Gigs I don't have enough room for uncompressing the HD. Even though the drives handle it nicely. I would advise anyone editing to Buy Vegas at this time. It's by far the most powerful low cost solution. Edit the m2t files directly in vegas or use a script to batch render all your files to some further compressed format of your choice (vegas has sites that you can download all kinds of scripts). Once done just replace source files w/ the m2t files and render your master. In full HD, with no further loss.

Every other post house we talked to would edit (converted) DV files then if you wanted HD you would have to upconvert back. No Bueno. Vegas has a strong community, I find the forums answer all kinds of questions rapidly. And the interface while taking a second to get use to, is blazingly fast to edit in. Most people I know only use Avid, some FCP, when they see how fast I can edit in VV there jaws hit the floor. Then they ask where can they get it. www.sonicfoundry.com

Good Luck.

Thanks SL.

Is it necessary to have Vegas+DVD version, or Vegas 4.0 will do as well?

Some folks insist that only Vegas+DVD release is capable of m2t handling.

I have no idea, I have +DVD the extra money's not wasted anyway.

"From what I understand Neutral density filters are a must. Can anyone recommend a decent matte box?"

century optics matte box..that what we're ordering. It fits and was recommended by a JVC rep.

Lisa, I have 5 different ND filters for this camera. Each is about $20-$40 for the excellent quality B+W brand.

Are you planning on spending $200 on EACH 4x4 filter for your matte box?

I almost forgot. If your in a scene w/ high contrast try using the blc button on the cam. It's a little overlooked button in a strange place to the left of focus dial. It makes a difference. Sometimes the results are very pleasing. I think it uses a different compression to achieve better contrast ratios. Good Luck.

Alex we have the same B + W filters as well for ND. They do the job very well. The matte box gives the advantage of quickly changing the ND filters on the fly and taking a look as the image on the monitor as well as adding some other effects. We find that as the lighting changes we have to always change the ND filter...pain in arse... Otherwise we get those oh so lovely blown whites. This is mostly a convience thing, with the ability to add other filters as we see fit. If you have all the time you need to set up shots, unscrew the lens, etc, then the matte box is overkill. But the guy posting was looking for a matte box, so I just commented that we are getting the century optics brand.

We sometimes do medical imaging and we need to very quickly get the shot. You can't hold up someone's intestine and say, hey, can you wait while I change my ND filter...

brrrr... graphic details... and this graphics is no video... :)

but seriously, I didn't get your point.

are you saying that you got inexpensive 4x4 filters? how inexpensive?

or are you saying that you are ready to pay $800 for the matte box and another $2000 for the ND and other filters?

You can get some kits of schneider filters for under $2-3K. But basically, yes, we're going to put down some cash for the filters as well.

I think I confused you by saying we have the B + W filters, but also are ordering the matte box and 4x4 filters. We are using the B + W filters to see which ND filters 4x, 8x, etc, that we actually need in our given situation before ordering the schneider filters (since they are so expensive). That is the reason we use the B + W filters for now. If we can justify the cost of the matte box and filters, the hospital will pay the costs.

I am not aware of other matte box options besides the century optics, if you are aware of a cheaper option of equal quality please let me know.

I'm out of my depth here, but looks like Chrosziel (German-made) and Cinevision(?) from Canada are popular ones. They have optional handles that attach to the matte box's support rods, btw.

Latter seems to be cheaper than former.

I haven't done much research on the subject though, sorry - still working with my B+W screw-on filters.