I have to choose between the HD1 and 10 as the best camera to use for taping football games for post-game analysis. I have a couple questions...
1--Has the audio distortion problem been solved once and for all?
2--Was that problem heard in both cameras?
3--Given that I'll be distributing the games on VHS to the coaches, is it your opinion that the HD1's edge enhancement would be a plus in this case?
4--To convert to VHS from HDV, do I need a playback deck to do that or is the cable out of the camcorder sufficient?

Thanks in advance. I'll hang up and listen off the air!

<<<-- Originally posted by Lynne Whelden : I have to choose between the HD1 and 10 as the best camera to use for taping football games for post-game analysis. I have a couple questions...
1--Has the audio distortion problem been solved once and for all?>>

Yes. But it was the HD10 with a mic plugged into the XLR.

<<2--Was that problem heard in both cameras?>>

No. But the HD1 has more edge enchancement than the HD10 (my recommendation).

<<3--Given that I'll be distributing the games on VHS to the coaches, is it your opinion that the HD1's edge enhancement would be a plus in this case?>>

See above. But I would definitely NOT use the HD1. Okay, that's a bit harsh, sorry. But for just a little more money, you can get the HD10. Check out this training DVD from Darren Kelly for more. (www.hdvtraining.com)

<<4--To convert to VHS from HDV, do I need a playback deck to do that or is the cable out of the camcorder sufficient?>>

I had no problems using the VHS deck hooked up to the camera and hitting play on my NLE's timeline and using the camera as the "middle man." What kind of edit system are you using?

<<Thanks in advance. I'll hang up and listen off the air! -->>>

No sweat!

heath

For this project I'm not using any edit system nor do I have one for HDV yet. Been looking at the Solitaire system that MacroSystems is developing, however.

Just out of curiosity, why HDV for this aplication. A 4:3 cam with easy to manage manual control would probably do you better, at less money. Don't ya think?

I've got a 4:3 camera and I've worked in DV for too many years. I'm hoping the increased resolution will be a plus for watching the subtle aspects of play action. Also I'm thinking widescreen is a more pleasing and natural way to view a football game. Basically I'm looking for a legitimate excuse to buy this camera and break into the world of HD!

<<<-- Originally posted by Lynne Whelden :Also I'm thinking widescreen is a more pleasing and natural way to view a football game. Basically I'm looking for a legitimate excuse to buy this camera and break into the world of HD! -->>>

Then maybe you should consider a 16:9 HD monitor for playback.... While it's arguable that a higher rez. source will always produce a superior down-rezed product, 'chopping' the 16:9 HD clips from the HD10 (the preferred option over the HD1 IMO) to 4:3 VHS level won't yield results that are 'streets ahead' of what you're getting already.

With prices on good 76cm-86cm HDTV CRT 16:9 monitors/tv's at damn good prices you would get excellent results by connecting the cam with the supplied component cable for direct playback at 1080i on such a unit.

Check out this tripod mount for use in capturing both the wide-field view and following the ball in a narrower view...simultaneously with two cams by one cam operator.

http://www.coachcomm.com/product_accessories_video.html

Look about halfway down the page on the left for the Dual Camera Support Plate.

This is the excuse you needed to buy that second cam!!!

Wait a minute. I'm starting to get confused. I can get a letter-boxed 16:9 output from this camera (or a deck), can't I? Just because I"m putting it onto VHS doesn't mean I loose the widescreen, does it?

Lynne,

All your questions about the camera's features answered right here. (http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/tech_desc.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101394&itempath=&feature_id=02)

It IS a native 16x9 camera, in both SD and HD modes.

For more information, check out our own site, HDV Info Net. (www.hdvinfo.net)

As for editing, why are you waiting for a system that isn't out yet, when you can be cutting on both Apple (www.apple.com/powermac) with Final Cut Pro (www.apple.com/finalcutpro) and Lumiere HD (www.lumierehd.com); and PC (like Dell, etc., using Windows XP Pro) (www.dell.com) and CineForm's Aspect HD bundled with Premiere Pro (http://www.cineform.com/index.asp)?

heath

I shoot the game films for my kid's high school and started using a two camera setup halfway through last season. I want a wide and a close up view - wide for the coaching staff and close up for my end of year highlights DVD.

The dual camera support plate at "coachcomm" doesn't show you anything about how it is constructed or what it costs. Bogen makes an adapter (3269 Double Camera Support Platform) that allows you to mount two cameras to one tripod, goes for just over $50. It's very nice.

I made my own with a piece of 1/8" x 1" x 12" bar stock, some washers, nuts and bolts, all for less than $6.


One other thing. I don't understand how the increased resolution of HDV can be any benefit when you dub to VHS for the coaches. You are limited by VHS's capability, which is far below what an HDV cam can deliver.

I'm assuming this to be true...
35mm film dumped to VHS looks better than 8mm film dumped to VHS.
The sharper the original signal, the sharper the end product.
Thus an HD camera whose signal is dumped to VHS is surely going to look better than a VHS camera or a DV camera's signal put on VHS.
Or am I missing something???

Lynne,

If the original footage was captured with three cams simultaneously, one S-VHS, one DV standard definition, and one DV high definition, and all three were setup as closely as possible, you wouldn't see a difference because the long pole in the tent is the very poor VHS resolution.

Has someone actually done such a test?

A direct test isn't necessary (though I'm sure some have been done somewhere) since the physical limitations of each recording technology are known.

VHS is limted to 240 lines of resolution.
DV is about 500.
HDV is what, 720 (or is it 1080?).

VHS can't ever do better than 240 lines, no matter how good the source material you start with, so every bit of resolution above 240 lines will not be recorded on the VHS tape.

Well Mike your right to a certain point. But I am sure you would agree that a movie that originated on 35mm looks miles ahead of DV when both are down sampled to VHS. DV aliasing is still very evident, as well as lack of fine detail. You don't see aliasing when watching TV shows, but you do when you watch your DV on your TV.

if some VHS tapes are so good it doesn't depend from the source but from the way it is recorded.
A clean, nice signal recorded on a professional VHS system will give an excellent tape.
As the electronic of the VHS is limiting the signal to the bare minimum recordable, you can take any signal higher than this limit, it will show no difference.
what is often missed with DV is the poor chrominance signal that is hidden behind the luminance signal.
When you record DV to vhs, the luminance signal is decreased, so the poor chrominance quality shows up.
Conclusion: DV is not a clean and nice signal, it is partially based on an illusion (correct assumption that your brain is less detail sensitive for colors than for luminance).
A medium 4:2:2 analog signal will give better result even if it looked bad compared to a 4:2:0 (or 4:1:1) DV signal.
Some signal issued by good old hi8mm are better than DV, the problem is that the tape is not able to record and replay such quality.

By the way, the JVC cam for football is a bad idea, since progressive video at 30p is not the best for fast movement, neither the mpeg-ts encoding used.
You will get probably a better result with a 3ccd camera, and even better if it is 16:9 capable (few models currently)

Thanks for that observation. I knew I wasn't totally crazy!