Hello, well, i asked this question before, but now i have read more and more, about this cams, and i need to really ask the questions cause i am about to buy one of them.

So,

If you pick a JY-HD10U, you can reduce the original HD video to DV, and you get awesome footage, really low noise, and excellent video density.

With DVX, well, we all know it really well, 24p, and 3ccds, and lots of movies and spots that can backup the camera.

i personally dont like the XL1s, as i see it, it is now an old camera, which in a time it was the "wow", and it is still for some users, but i think for what many people have put, price vs performance and pro options, the dvx100 and JY-HD10U are way better.


So, lets open the fight again...

I am willing to use it to produce a tv motorsport show, tv spots, music videos, short films.

Not even thinking to make a blowup, but i have magic bullet if i want to make 24p process.

I heard that tv show Top Gear used the DVX100, and now they are using HD cameras... anyone know more about it ?

So if we dont get into large discusion, let put it simple

If yo have the same choice, what do you buy DVX100, or JY-HD10U, and why ?

I would just go with the camera you feel is best. Personally, I like the HD10 for image quality, but the DVX100 for color quality and the 24p/60i feature.

heath

For me, and anyone that has seen HDV video, the ' wow thats so clear ' factor goes to the JVC.

If i use a JY-HD10U and want to make a blow up, the quality will be superior to the dvx100 ? also i noticed that he JY-HD10U is better than the JVC GR-HD1U, it has lower noise, isnt that correct ?

Not meaning to be rude or anything, but this 'round two' is not needed. Try looking at some of the previous threads on the JVC vs 3chip cameras for all the details and issues.
Also, spinning a scratched up CD in from of a JVC may not be as effective as on a low res SD camera, you will really see any focus dropoff, etc :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : Not meaning to be rude or
Also, spinning a scratched up CD in from of a JVC may not be as effective as on a low res SD camera, you will really see any focus dropoff, etc :) -->>>



Its not rude dude... but, about the scratched cd you mean about the Agus35 ? :(

BTW sorry for this thread, i found many advanced comparations about this 2 cameras with even videos at full res to compare. Now i will read some more.

Agus. Did any of your comparisons talk about editing the formats? I've been trying to work out why people would want to go the consumer HD route when they are getting MPG2 compression, providing more lossy compression that DV (Correct right?) and also harder editing with all the I/B/P frames and things.

Would like to read the opinion of someone knowledgable.

Cheers
Aaron

Aaron,

There are a lot of people, myself included, who see the potential (and initial flaws) in the HD10, but like mini-dv, we feel it may be staying around for a while. (And hopefully NOT like DIVX, the disposable DVD solution that went out like the dodo bird. ;-))

I know you're just trying to help out in a decision of the HD10 vs. DVX100, but please remember there are a lot of people who like this camera, and understand people are choosing the HDV route because it offers quite a lot, including true 16:9 and a great image.

Thanks,

heath

For Agus Casse,

So, lets open the fight again...

Sorry, but that's something we don't do here at DV Info Net. Our standing rule has been, if you choose not to use a particular camera, that is your own business. But please don't enter an area devoted to users of that cam and try to tell them what's wrong with it, or why yours is better, etc. That's not cool.

It is both inappropriate and unfair to compare these two camcorders. They are intended for entirely separate markets; entirely different sets of users. The DVX100 is from Panasonic's professional broadcast video division and is intended to be at the higher end of compact 3CCD standard definition camcorders, with a feature set perfectly suited for independant filmmakers.

The JVC camcorders are at the forefront of an entirely new format, consumer high definition. JVC has stated many times that the original concept for these cameras was to allow the adopters of their D-VHS home theater equipment a way to shoot home video in a high-def native 16x9 format.

Those who choose the JVC HD camcorders are very much on the wave of "the next big thing" in affordable home-and-semi-pro video. Choose the right tool for the right job. You can't expect to ask for a comparison between a small pickup truck and an alternative-energy commuter car. They are two very different kinds of automobiles. Likewise, the DVX100 and the JVC pieces are two very different kinds of camcorders.

By the way, congratulations on starting the single largest discussion thread we've ever had here on DV Info Net, over in the Film Look forum. That's quite an achievement.

Aaron,

True MPEG2 compresses more than DV, yet that doesn't automatically mean it is more lossy. For example 25Mbit DV is lower quality than 25Mbit MPEG2 for the same resolution. 25Mbit MPEG2 in SD would have compression quality more like that of DVCPro-50. This is because MPEG2 is more efficient at exploiting redundancy than the intra-frame compression of DV. PAL users of the GR-PD1 get this benefit when shooting in the 720x576x25p MPEG mode.

If you normalize MPEG2 to I frame bit rates (6GOP - IBBPBB - using the typical average that the P is half the size of an I and B is half that of a P.)

NTSC DV - 0.833Mb/s per frame.
PAL DV - 1Mb/s per frame
DVC-Pro NTSC - 1.666Mb/s per frame.
GR-PD1 (25p mode) - 1.92Mb/s per frame
GR-PD1 (50p mode) - 0.96Mb/s per frame
JY-HD10U (30p mode) - 1.6Mb/s per frame
Varicam - 1.666Mb/s per frame. (in all modes -- 24, 30 or 60p.)

By this analysis HD10U has compression artifacts (theoretically) closest to that of Varicam. This seems to fly to a face of experience, yet HDV can match Varicam quality if CCD noise (which hurts compression) is cleaned up. Expect a 3CCD HDV cam to be very competitive with Varicam.

Well said, David!

heath

David, thanks for that. I'm not too clued up on MPG2, but I get the gist of what you're saying I think. One question is that the JY-HD10u comes out at 1.6Mb/s, but I thought that with regular miniDV (which is how these things are stored right?) it needs to stay under or on 25Mb/s. I'm knew this, so if you know a good sight that can give me the info, I'd appreciated it.

In no way am I claiming that HDV is "crap" - in fact when I heard about it I was and am really excited and interested to see what it can do from a lowbudget filmmaker's/docco maker's points of view - I'm just curious to find out more. More about the quality, and of course the obvious editing hassles that normally come with editing MPG2 video.


Thanks
Aaron

Aaron,

the per frame bit rate is the average of the I-frames size. In the case of 25Mbit/s NTSC DV, the per frame size is 25/30 = 0.833Mbits. The HD10U uses a 19.2Mb/s transport stream; through some different math to cater for B & P MPEG compression, the I-frame normalized bit rate can be approven to be (approximately) (19.2 / 30) x 2.5 = 1.6Mb/s. Another away to describe this -- the HD10U has any effective I-frame only bit rate of 19.2 x 2.5 = 48Mb/s.

Tech Note: I'm ignoring overhead in both transport streams and DV bit packing.

Everybody keeps harping on "editing hassles"... there aren't any, really. I mean, sure, we're on the bleeding edge of technology, but -- I can capture a file using the included utility, slap it on the Vegas timeline, edit to my heart's content (on any frame, adding whatever effects or transitions I want), and render it out to a new mpg file, which can then be output to tape (although I haven't done that part yet).

What's the big deal? You don't have to know anything about IBP or GOP or any of that -- the editing program takes care of all of it. You don't have to know any more about that than you would about the DCT structure of DV -- which is to say, you don't have to know anything, you just pop the file in the editor and edit.

Now, a caveat is, using this method you don't ever get completely lossless data copy from unrendered/unchanged GOP's, etc. Every frame gets recompressed during the big file output. But I'm sure enterprising software developers (like CineForm) will solve that. In a couple months' time, especially after NAB, the only people worried about "editing hassles" will be those who have never tried the existing tools.

I think Chris is right, these beauties are 2 diferent animals.

So, what do you think about this, for a motorsport tv show, correcting the color noise in post.

In the DVX100, i will get the best quality for tv production, right ?

In the HD10U? do i get good HD quality, but even better video in a TV ?

does the DVC80 will be a smarter decision than the two of this babies, if it is only be used for tv production ?

Damn, today the big monster local channel of the country, said that they wanted my tv show, but i need to improve video quality, and have a new camera, sooo what do you think ?

Agus,

You really have to think to yourself what's the best. If they want your show, you may have to buy which ever camera best suits your need. If you depend on us, you'll never get a definitive answer.

You've read the pros and cons of both cameras, but the ultimate decision is up to you. I certainly hope you've read reviews by doing searches online for them, right? Just type HD10 Review or DVX100 Review into google.com and you're set.

Again, the decision is ultimately up to you.

Good luck!

heath

Barry, good to hear that there's no problems. I was going by other MPG2 streams I've pulled into Vegas. Thumbnails take along time to show. Playback start time is delayed. The whole system, with what I tried was not responsive at all. If it's different with HD10U footage then great!

Aaron

Aaron,

It is not easier with HDV, decoding and editing MPEG is aways a CPU Load. It is harder infact than your previous MPEG experiences because the resolution is now higher. Barry is correct you can edit in Vegas, if you have enough CPU power the single streams should be smooth and the transitions will not stutter too much. It is because MPEG is so inefficient for editing that CineForm has a different approach. We have two products for making HD (and HDV) editing easier. Connect HD accelerates Vegas for up to 3 times improvement in editing speed and preview performance over MPEG editing ($499.) Aspect HD for true real-time editing under Adobe Premiere which a performance 6-8 times faster than Adobe running uncompressed or HUFFYUV ($1200.) Check out cineform.com for details.

If you've read some of my other posts, you realize that I'm probably the only person alive that actually EDITS with the KDDI-JVC software. That program appears to edit in native m2t format. It is possible to display a strip which identifies each frame type. When you look at rendered edits, you usually find shortened GOPs around edits (and other effects). It is not necessary to have full 6 frame GOPs, since a header in each sets the parameter for that GOP. By taking this approach, it is not necessary to re-render every group in your show. This makes things much faster. My rendering time is just a little longer than real time with my P3-900 (with minimal effects). Thats for M2T - MPG2 NTSC is about 10 times as long - ugh!

I keep looking for a GOOD program that does native M2T editing. That would seem to me to be the best approach to maintain efficiency and quality - same advantantages as native DV editing.

For what this is worth, I have a DVD from ProMax that puts the DVX100 side by side with a Sony PD150. I think the purpose of the disc is to show how much more "filmic" the DVX100 is when used in a studio setting.

To my eyes when playing back the DVD on a progressive scan player into my HD system, I thought the Sony actually looked better. The colors had a much richer saturation. Having said that - neither camera is anamorphic 16/9. They had simply letterboxed the footage to make it look "like" widescreen. Also both cameras had all the usual SD resolution jaggies, especially smearing around reds.

I have footage from both the JVC GRD-1 and HD10U that was not shot in a professional setting, that totally blows away both of these cams.