View Full Version : Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Jacques Mersereau
August 17th, 2005, 07:57 AM
>>The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for,
>>has many green screen shots.


>Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV.
>You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2
>cameras for those shots).


I am wondering about the component analog video output on HD100.
Did the model you used have that feature and is anyone aware of
hardware that can be made to capture that signal? Could that be made
to work as a possible green screen solution?

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 08:06 AM
>>The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for,
>>has many green screen shots.


>Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV.
>You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2
>cameras for those shots).


I am wondering about the component analog video output on HD100.
Did the model you used have that feature and is anyone aware of
hardware that can be made to capture that signal? Could that be made
to work as a possible green screen solution?

Good question. I remember reading it would be uncompressed, either 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, which both would be great for greenscreen work.

Mark Grant
August 17th, 2005, 08:47 AM
It does indeed record Mpeg1 Layer II audio, but we should all realize that compression rates and bit sampling do *not* determine audio quality. Proper audio recording techniques do.

Indeed. A few weeks ago I was editing some scenes for an actor's showreel from HDV footage shot on a Z1, with audio recorded on the camera from an MKH60... it was by far the best audio of any low-budget shoot I've edited, from Hi8 up to Digibeta and DAT with 16mm film.

Having a good mike and a sound recordist who knew what they were doing easily compensated for any minor theoretical loss of sound quality in compressed recording. HDV audio just isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.

Jacques Mersereau
August 17th, 2005, 09:09 AM
Indeed. A few weeks ago I was editing some scenes for an actor's showreel from HDV footage shot on a Z1, with audio recorded on the camera from an MKH60... it was by far the best audio of any low-budget shoot I've edited, from Hi8 up to Digibeta and DAT with 16mm film.

Having a good mike and a sound recordist who knew what they were doing easily compensated for any minor theoretical loss of sound quality in compressed recording. HDV audio just isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.


Actually it ALL matters. Good audio can be ruined any number of ways.

But this is obvious.

Kevin Dooley
August 17th, 2005, 11:06 AM
Good question. I remember reading it would be uncompressed, either 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, which both would be great for greenscreen work.


Yeah, either way would work... I wouldn't want to even contemplate the computer needed to record this direct to disk... but you could easily rent a deck and record to DVCPRO HD or HDCAM or some other higher (than HDV) standard of HD.

Jacques Mersereau
August 17th, 2005, 12:12 PM
I am not sure, but I believe those HD decks take
HD-SDI and do not have analog component HD input.
When I get a chance I'll check on it.

I wish these HDV cameras had HD-SDI. One wire and
easy hook up to decks or CPU with card.

Kevin Dooley
August 17th, 2005, 12:16 PM
Even if they take only HD SDI, a simply converter will do the trick... there's plenty of them on the market now and I'm sure some are available to rent... or will be if this sort of studio/chroma key production catches on for these HDV cams...

Barry Green
August 17th, 2005, 12:35 PM
1280x720 doesn't seem a whole lot more than 960x576.
The XL2 doesn't record 960x576, it records 720x576. So you're looking at 414,720 pixels per frame, vs. 921,600. The HD frame has 2.2 times as many pixels per frame. May not sound like much when you're comparing 576 against 720, but in reality it's over twice as much.

The difference here is way smaller than the difference from 1280x720 an 1920x1080.
Well, no, it's almost exactly the same. 720P has 2.22 times as many pixels as PAL. 1920x1080 has 2.25 times as many pixels as 720P.

Besides, the thing about the HD100's HD is that is is HDV.
Oh, I hear you... trust me...
For post production, do you have the same flexibility as in DV for editing, compositing, graphics etc? How about color correction and multiple renders, how does it hold up?
If you're editing in its native codec, it falls apart instantly. HDV is a terrible format for editing and re-rendering. Which is why many/most editing solutions transcode away from HDV at the first possible instant.

Truthfully it's really only an issue if you're doing multiple renders. If you add all your effects but don't pre-render them down, you can stay in the native codec and do one final render to whatever your delivery codec is. But if you intend to be doing multiple renders, you transcode HDV over to another codec (such as CineForm) and get away from MPEG-2 as quickly as you can. MPEG-2 can't even do a dissolve without the degradation being noticeable.

How about audio. It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better.
Man does not live by specs alone. If all other things are equal, obviously uncompressed is better than compressed. But if the JVC's mic preams and other circuitry are better quality than the XL2's (and, for the price tag, they should be) then the overall quality of the audio could indeed survive any degradation introduced by the MPEG-1 Layer II audio compression. Let's look at it this way -- any cheap $299 Sharp Viewcam also records uncompressed audio -- but I'd bet cash money that the JVC will record an overall better-sounding signal than that Sharp ViewCam would. There's more to it than just specs -- the components and hardware all matter, they're all ingredients in the final recipe.

With that said, I haven't tested the JVC's audio, and haven't heard of anybody doing so either. It could be superb, it could be tragic, it could be anywhere in between. Obviously we are all expecting the audio to be a good performer, given the very nature of the camera. That doesn't mean it will be though -- it needs to be tested and verified.


Also, will the extra HDV compression be apparent in any special shooting situations? If by chance, digitally projected in a big screen, will the compression show?
Most definitely. But if going to the big screen, I think having twice as many pixels in the frame will likely do more for you. I've seen XL1 projected on the big screen (28 Days Later) and it was thoroughly outclassed by DVX/24P footage. I'm expecting that having twice as many pixels again should result in a substantially sharper picture. But -- hey, that's just expectation, I could end up disappointed...

Yes MPEG-2 compression is a factor. With the JVC, especially at 24P, it's less of a factor than in the Sony cameras. The JVC/24P solution allocates the most possible bits per pixel of any of the HDV formats, so it's less likely to encounter bit-starved compression artifacts. It can still happen, that's for darn sure. But it's less likely to happen on the JVC than on Sony cameras, under the same shooting conditions. Of course, the Sony is also delivering more pixels per frame and a whole lot more pixels per second -- there's a definite tradeoff there. But for film-style work I think the JVC is the only level of HDV that may be acceptable.

But -- again -- if you're worried about all these issues, why not just wait for the HVX? The HVX will give you a DV-style workflow (because the compression is, at heart, DV compression). It gives you 50% more luma resolution, and three times as much chroma resolution, as the HD100 can. It's 4:2:2. It has four tracks of uncompressed audio. And it's only three months away. I mean, for all the concerns you have, it seems like the HVX answers them all...

Is the HD100 native 16:9?
As others have already answered, yes -- all HD is native 16:9. If you're asking if the HD100 has a 4:3 or 16:9 CCD, I'm not sure -- I'm guessing it's 4:3, I'm pretty sure it's the same chip as in the HD1/HD10, which was 4:3 1280x960, using a 16:9 1280x720 patch for video. But that's the same thing the XL2 does -- it's a 4:3 CCD, 960x720 on chip, but it uses a 16:9 960x480 patch for 16:9 images. And that doesn't stop it from being native 16:9.

But, aren't the PAL and NTSC the very same camera. As I understood, they both do PAL and NTSC frame rates.
No. The European version records PAL, the American version records NTSC. The European version cannot record or play back NTSC (although it does have an HDV SD-480/60P mode) and the American version cannot record or play back PAL (although it can record the HDV SD-576/50P mode). Both versions can shoot 720P at 24, 25, and 30fps.

So, maybe I could just buy a body only kit from the U.S.? Am I missing something here?
If all you want to shoot is HD, then yes you could do that. If you want to use it for standard-def DV work, you would find that the camera can't do PAL DV.

It would be interesting to know what are your grips, besides the malfunctions described in the article and which may be a pre-production model problem?
My gripes with the JVC are these:
1. HDV. I don't care for the format at all. I think it has some uses, but I think it's a half-baked format, they should have left it in the oven a little longer.
2. Dropouts. HDV dropouts are nasty. I intend to get around it by buying the DR-HD100 and I already have HDV Rack. I wouldn't shoot without at least one of those connected at all times.
3. WYSAWYG - or, What You See Ain't What You Get. You don't see the effects of MPEG-2 compression on the viewfinder or LCD, and you don't see the effects of motion smoothing either. You also won't see those effects on the analog output. The only way you know whether your footage is good or not is to rewind it and play it back from tape. If you don't do that, you may think you got a great shot, only to find out that you overdrove the MPEG-2 compression and what you have on tape is actually a blob of macroblocked compression artifacts. You just don't know until you play it back.
4. The lens. Ugh. Nasty, nasty, nasty chromatic aberration. I'm seriously considering not even getting it -- I mean, it'd be convenient for ENG shooting, but I would never want to use that on a production where you're trying to get the best image. I'm looking into having a custom mount made so I can use my Arri Bayonet-mount Zeiss 16mm camera lens, or of course the mini35. The stock lens on the JVC is unacceptable.
5. Dead pixels. Dead pixels are bad. Dead pixels are completely unacceptable to me, and every camera report I've heard of has mentioned them, and every camera I've used, and every camera I've seen footage from, has them. That's a definite quality-control issue that JVC must address or this camera may end up DOA. Dead pixels recorded in your footage are a dealbreaker.
6. Fixed Noise Pattern/Gain issues. The camera has a weird split-screen fixed noise pattern issue. It's most noticeable under gain, but can be observed at 0dB of gain as well. JVC apparently is aware of the issue and apparently has some way to fix it. They should. They better.
7. Battery life. The stock battery only lasts about 40 minutes, and the biggest heavy-duty battery they offer only lasts an hour. I'm spoiled by the 6-hour DVX and 8-hour PD150 runtimes. You can get anton-bauer batteries, yes, but those are quite expensive and very heavy.
8. Unknown issues due to JVC's rep. Let's face it, JVC doesn't have a great reputation. They've made some good products -- I think the DV500 was a great little camera, and the DV300 got blindsided by the DVX -- had the DVX not come out with 24p, the DV300 would probably have been a big hit. And the HD100 looks like it might be a smash hit, pending the resolving of QC issues. JVC cannot afford to "blow it" with this camera. If they get it right, I think they'll have a big hit on their hands. But quality must be job 1, to borrow a line from Ford.

Good point! But that night shot in the test sold me anyways. It looks great.
Yes, but that night shot was done with 440 watts of fluorescent light and 575 watts of HMI. You cannot shoot without lights. No video camera does a decent job without some lights. Lights are not optional, they are mandatory.

I don't even know which NLEs can edit 720p HDV. Can Avid Xpress HD or Vegas 6 do it?
Avid's support is not yet released, but it's coming. Vegas 6 can do it, yes. Premiere Pro can, and FCP can, and Pinnacle Liquid probably can, and I'm sure Canopus Edius can too.

Can AE handle 720p HDV?
Presumably. I don't know. But if you're exporting to AE, you'll want to do that through an intermediary codec anyway.

Regarding the 4:2:2 issue, other posters have brought up the uncompressed analog outputs. If you had some way to record that, you could obviously pull superb keys from the JVC, far superior to what you could get out of the XL2. But recording uncompressed analog HD is neither easy nor cheap. And IMX is a standard-def format.

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 03:56 PM
The XL2 doesn't record 960x576, it records 720x576. So you're looking at 414,720 pixels per frame, vs. 921,600. The HD frame has 2.2 times as many pixels per frame. May not sound like much when you're comparing 576 against 720, but in reality it's over twice as much. .

Barry, are you sure about that? 720x576 is a 4:3 frame.
On Canon’s spec sheets for the XL2 it says 960x576(PAL) and 960x480(NTSC)


Well, no, it's almost exactly the same. 720P has 2.22 times as many pixels as PAL. 1920x1080 has 2.25 times as many pixels as 720P. .

Again, I might be wrong, but it seems it is 960x576 according to Canon. In this case, it’s less of a difference. But as I said in the prior post, the difference is still there.


If you're editing in its native codec, it falls apart instantly. HDV is a terrible format for editing and re-rendering. Which is why many/most editing solutions transcode away from HDV at the first possible instant. .

Oh, ok. Sounds simple enough then.

Truthfully it's really only an issue if you're doing multiple renders. If you add all your effects but don't pre-render them down, you can stay in the native codec and do one final render to whatever your delivery codec is. But if you intend to be doing multiple renders, you transcode HDV over to another codec (such as CineForm) and get away from MPEG-2 as quickly as you can. MPEG-2 can't even do a dissolve without the degradation being noticeable. .

It seems the best thing is to convert right after you capture your footage and work out of mpeg2.


Most definitely. But if going to the big screen, I think having twice as many pixels in the frame will likely do more for you. I've seen XL1 projected on the big screen (28 Days Later) and it was thoroughly outclassed by DVX/24P footage. I'm expecting that having twice as many pixels again should result in a substantially sharper picture. But -- hey, that's just expectation, I could end up disappointed... .

Makes sense. Although the 960x576 would look extremely good. HD is HD. If the compression does not kick in, it should look way better.

Yes MPEG-2 compression is a factor. With the JVC, especially at 24P, it's less of a factor than in the Sony cameras. .

Yes, the compression on the HD100 is looking really good. None of the tests has any compression artefacts. Even after compression for the web. So, it seems JVC is doing something right with the HD100’s HDV. Maybe ProHDV will be the HDV ticket.
.

But -- again -- if you're worried about all these issues, why not just wait for the HVX? The HVX will give you a DV-style workflow (because the compression is, at heart, DV compression). It gives you 50% more luma resolution, and three times as much chroma resolution, as the HD100 can. It's 4:2:2. It has four tracks of uncompressed audio. And it's only three months away. I mean, for all the concerns you have, it seems like the HVX answers them all... .

Apart from the fixed lens, which kind of rends the Mini35 a little pointless IMO, the HVX200 sounds great. But unfortunately, it’s not out yet. It might be end of December or even January till it hits the streets. I need it now. Also, with the prices of P2 so high, it would cost almost the double of a HD100 and you would have to carry a laptop around, which for this project won’t always work.
But a HVX200 is on my plans. If I get a HD100, I might sell it after this project and get the HVX end of next year. But now, the HVX is not practical, for the reason I mentioned.


As others have already answered, yes -- all HD is native 16:9. If you're asking if the HD100 has a 4:3 or 16:9 CCD, I'm not sure -- I'm guessing it's 4:3, I'm pretty sure it's the same chip as in the HD1/HD10, which was 4:3 1280x960, using a 16:9 1280x720 patch for video. But that's the same thing the XL2 does -- it's a 4:3 CCD, 960x720 on chip, but it uses a 16:9 960x480 patch for 16:9 images.

See, now you also say it’s 960x480. Am I missing something here? For me, a 720x576 or 720x480 was always a 4:3 frame. How can the XL2 record that in 16:9 and still be a 16:9 image?


My gripes with the JVC are these:
1. HDV. I don't care for the format at all. I think it has some uses, but I think it's a half-baked format, they should have left it in the oven a little longer.

Oh yeah. But remember HDV is a compromise. You get a resolution where the cheapest camera in the market right now capable of doing it cost 60k with a lens. But you get it for under 6k, and you can record it on under 4 bucks tapes. There are trade offs, but if wasn’t for HDV, the lower class would never be shooting HD. Even the HVX100 won’t be so practical and economical. At least not in it’s first 2 years or so. So, it’s a trade off. It always was. The difference is, that now, the HD100 seems to be making this trade off worth the trouble. That’s the way I look at it.

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 03:57 PM
2. Dropouts. HDV dropouts are nasty. I intend to get around it by buying the DR-HD100 and I already have HDV Rack. I wouldn't shoot without at least one of those connected at all times. .

That’s a good back up. But frankly, I have no complains about the footage you guys got. It looks nothing short of great.

3. WYSAWYG - or, What You See Ain't What You Get. You don't see the effects of MPEG-2 compression on the viewfinder or LCD, and you don't see the effects of motion smoothing either. You also won't see those effects on the analog output. The only way you know whether your footage is good or not is to rewind it and play it back from tape. If you don't do that, you may think you got a great shot, only to find out that you overdrove the MPEG-2 compression and what you have on tape is actually a blob of macroblocked compression artifacts. You just don't know until you play it back. .

Well, that’s bad. Maybe one could get around that by using HDV Rack for preview, since it previews after the firewire compression?


4. The lens. Ugh. Nasty, nasty, nasty chromatic aberration. I'm seriously considering not even getting it -- I mean, it'd be convenient for ENG shooting, but I would never want to use that on a production where you're trying to get the best image. I'm looking into having a custom mount made so I can use my Arri Bayonet-mount Zeiss 16mm camera lens, or of course the mini35. The stock lens on the JVC is unacceptable. .

I also don’t care for the lens. I wish I could get a PAL body only. But it seems it’s not available. But as Chris said, this lens is basically a give away. The real lens is the one that cost over 10K. But it’s better they give that one than no lens. Can you imagine if they sold only the body and you had to buy the 10k lens? Now at least you have the option of a cheaper lens for lower end stuff.


5. Dead pixels. Dead pixels are bad. Dead pixels are completely unacceptable to me, and every camera report I've heard of has mentioned them, and every camera I've used, and every camera I've seen footage from, has them. That's a definite quality-control issue that JVC must address or this camera may end up DOA. Dead pixels recorded in your footage are a dealbreaker. .

At least it might be a pre-production thing. Hopefully it will be fixed. Also it has a masking feature, doesn’t it?


6. Fixed Noise Pattern/Gain issues. The camera has a weird split-screen fixed noise pattern issue. It's most noticeable under gain, but can be observed at 0dB of gain as well. JVC apparently is aware of the issue and apparently has some way to fix it. They should. They better. .

I didn’t noticed that from that night shot you did. But hopefully it’s also a problem which will be addressed when it starts shipping.


7. Battery life. The stock battery only lasts about 40 minutes, and the biggest heavy-duty battery they offer only lasts an hour. I'm spoiled by the 6-hour DVX and 8-hour PD150 runtimes. You can get anton-bauer batteries, yes, but those are quite expensive and very heavy. .

When you mentioned before about the low time of the battery, I went to Ebay and checked the prices of them. They sell for under 10 bucks new. So one can get like 10 of them for 100 bucks. I know it’s not the same as having a single battery which lasts 6 hours, but better than nothing. There’s also the question of the charger. It would help if you got more than one. Not really a turn off for me.



8. Unknown issues due to JVC's rep. Let's face it, JVC doesn't have a great reputation. They've made some good products -- I think the DV500 was a great little camera, and the DV300 got blindsided by the DVX -- had the DVX not come out with 24p, the DV300 would probably have been a big hit. And the HD100 looks like it might be a smash hit, pending the resolving of QC issues. JVC cannot afford to "blow it" with this camera. If they get it right, I think they'll have a big hit on their hands. But quality must be job 1, to borrow a line from Ford. .

Yes. That I worry about. I have never owned a JVC camera before. I know JVC is not the most reliable, but there are lots of happy users out there. So maybe I get luck too :D



Yes, but that night shot was done with 440 watts of fluorescent light and 575 watts of HMI. You cannot shoot without lights. No video camera does a decent job without some lights. Lights are not optional, they are mandatory. .

Oh yeah, definitely.
For the cast and foreground, I have enough lights. About 4-5k in lights. But I just can’t light the whole city back ground. But the HD100 did very good at that in that night shot. The background buildings only had their own lights and they looked good and pretty visible.


Regarding the 4:2:2 issue, other posters have brought up the uncompressed analog outputs. If you had some way to record that, you could obviously pull superb keys from the JVC, far superior to what you could get out of the XL2. But recording uncompressed analog HD is neither easy nor cheap. And IMX is a standard-def format.

I had forgot IMX was SD. Because I had plans of using it for greenscreen with a XL2, I forgot the HD100 was HD.
About the uncompressed 4:2:2 recording, one of those 300 bucks Decklink should do the trick, shouldn’t it? If one can put a fast enough system together to move the video that is. Storage would be an issue if filming a whole feature that way, but for greenscreen sequences, where most likely won’t be long ones, storage shouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Chris Hurd
August 17th, 2005, 04:09 PM
Again, I might be wrong, but it seems it is 960x576 according to Canon.Yes, in PAL, or 960x480 in NTSC. But this is what happens in the camera head, not what is recorded to tape, which is another thing entirely. The numbers you're quoting are for the actual image area of the CCD block, and yes it does equal native 16:9. However it must go to tape as 720x576 (PAL) or 720x480 (NTSC) because that's the limitation of the DV format. In other words, if it wasn't that size on tape, then it wouldn't be DV. Hope that's clear,

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 04:14 PM
Ok, I see now. But then it happens to all DV25 and DV50 cameras, right? Like the SDX900 or DSR570 also only record 720x576 in PAL.

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 04:37 PM
Something that just occurred to me. If one needs to convert HDV to another codec to finish it, what will be the deliver or distribution format?
You just convert it back to HDV? I think this would degrade the signal.

You dump it on DVD? Doesn't make much sense to use HD and then throw it back on DVD, does it?

You make a DVCPRO-HD dub?

The best way to keep the quality and resolution up, would be dumping it on HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD I think. Or if you need to project it, do it straight from a laptop in full HD resolution. But I think you would have to convert it to uncompressed quicktime or something first.
Very confusing path. But if going back to HDV is the worse idea, maybe I should not waste my money in getting a HD101E (which is the PAL version which has DV IN & OUT and cost like 500 more). I should just get a HD100E, which is the PAL version which has DV OUT only.

Barry Green
August 17th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Barry, are you sure about that? 720x576 is a 4:3 frame.
On Canon’s spec sheets for the XL2 it says 960x576(PAL) and 960x480(NTSC)
That's the pixels on the chip. That's not what gets recorded. A PAL DV frame is *ALWAYS* 720x576, regardless of whether it's 4:3 or 16:9.

The pixels aren't square. The 960x576 gets sampled into a 720x576 frame.

You can never have PAL DV at any resolution other than 720x576; it just doesn't exist.

Again, I might be wrong, but it seems it is 960x576 according to Canon. In this case, it’s less of a difference. But as I said in the prior post, the difference is still there.
960x576 on the chip, 720x576 on the recorded frame. HD 720p is still over twice as many pixels, per frame, as PAL DV is.

Yes, the compression on the HD100 is looking really good. None of the tests has any compression artefacts. Even after compression for the web.
It definitely can happen. It just seems less likely with the JVC, because it allocates more compression bits per pixel, and especially in the 24P mode since there are 6 fewer frames per second, but the bitrate stays the same.

Apart from the fixed lens, which kind of rends the Mini35 a little pointless IMO, the HVX200 sounds great.
Again, I must disagree. The DVX had a fixed lens, and the XL1 had interchangeable -- but the mini35 on the XL1 spanked, IMO, the mini35 on the XL2. The rest of the imaging chain was plenty strong enough to overcome any limitation caused by shooting through the Leica lens vs. shooting through the XL1's relay lens. I expect that similar results may be possible: shooting 1080/24p on the HVX with 4:2:2 color will probably (not guaranteed, but probably) far outweigh any disadvantage caused by shooting through its onboard lens. Of course a removable lens would even make it better still, but based on my experience with the DVX/mini35, I think I'm on safe ground here.

See, now you also say it’s 960x480. Am I missing something here? For me, a 720x576 or 720x480 was always a 4:3 frame. How can the XL2 record that in 16:9 and still be a 16:9 image?
The 960x576 gets sampled off the CCD into a 720x576 grid. All DV, whether 4:3 or 16:9, uses the same grid (720x480 NTSC, 720x576 PAL). The difference is not in the # of pixels, it's in the shape of them (DV pixels are never square).

Barry Green
August 17th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Something that just occurred to me. If one needs to convert HDV to another codec to finish it, what will be the deliver or distribution format?
You just convert it back to HDV? I think this would degrade the signal.

You dump it on DVD? Doesn't make much sense to use HD and then throw it back on DVD, does it?

You make a DVCPRO-HD dub?
Welcome to the wonderful world of HD distribution. In other words, there isn't really any good way to distribute HD content.

If you wanted to distribute on HDV tape, that would limit you to the maybe 100 people in the world who have some sort of HDV gear that could play 24p HDV (which would be the HD100 or BR50 deck, as nothing else will play it).

If you wanted to distribute on DVCPRO-HD tape, well... there's probably only about a thousand of those decks out there, and very few are in end customer hands.

If you wanted to distribute on HDCAM, there are none in customer hands, only at larger production companies.

You could think about distributing on D-VHS, there's probably a thousand of those in the US. Versus something like a hundred million DVD players and three hundred million VHS decks...

So, basically, tape is a pointless method for distribution. I think everyone's looking at five years in the future when blu-ray or HD-DVD might have some market penetration -- probably 10%, maybe as much as 20% of households may have one or the other.

Which is why everyone looks at distributing on DVD. DVD may be standard-def only, but at least it's a universal format that everyone has. Your potential market is more like a billion or two billion people, vs. the 1,000 with D-VHS decks.

Right now if you want to distribute high-def, there are really only two ways: through broadcast (which still rules out the 93% of the US who don't have HDTVs, or the 99.99% of European customers who don't have HDTVs), or through authoring a Windows Media 9 or Windows Media 10 HD .wmv file, and expecting your customers to play back the product on their computer.

Mark Grant
August 17th, 2005, 05:19 PM
If you don't do that, you may think you got a great shot, only to find out that you overdrove the MPEG-2 compression and what you have on tape is actually a blob of macroblocked compression artifacts. You just don't know until you play it back.

I don't see the issue with MPEG-2 artifacts. Sure, I'd prefer to be recording uncompressed HD, but unless you're shooting for a video-to-film transfer, at the end of the day your footage is almost certainly going to be shown after compression to MPEG-2 on some HD DVD format or a digital broadcast.

So it's all very well to shoot uncompressed or low-compression HD and avoid MPEG-2 compression artifacts... but if you shoot footage that would have caused MPEG-2 artifacts if you'd shot in HDV, you'll see very similar MPEG-2 artifacts when you watch your footage on a TV in its final format. So where's the benefit?

I've seen some really bad artifacting on broadcast HD using MPEG-2, when the show was shot on HDCAM or a similar high-end HD system: I'm sure the DoP and editor loved the footage they shot and edited, with trendy fast pans and three-frame cuts... but it looked like poop in broadcast MPEG-2.

So you're right: what you see in the HDV viewfinder is not what you'll see when you watch the tape. But what you see in the viewfinder on a more expensive HD camera is not what the viewer will see when it's broadcast or played from DVD either... and that's what really matters. Either way you need to be aware of the problems and avoid them by not shooting or editing in such a way that you'll cause such artifacts.

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Barry, sorry for the confusion about the XL2 pixels. I saw my mistake when Chris pointed it out. I knew it was just too good to be true.

About the HVX200, as I said, it's a great camera and it's on my plans for the near future. It's just not out yet and I would like to wait till P2 prices get more practical. Maybe by end of next year I will buy one. Then I can just sell the HD100.

So, since I'm not going back to HDV, I will buy the HD100E which has DV out only. Or do you see any situations where I could need the DV in for HDV? For SD, I have a DV deck.

I see the point about HD distribuition.
But what would be the best format to master for video projection? Windows Media 10 HD? Since DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM would require the rental of a deck, Windows Media 10 HD seems like the only affordable alternative.

I was also thinking about monitoring HD. Unless using the HDV Rack, which might not be sharp enough for HD focus, I think one would need a HD monitor to work with the HD100? Or could you just monitor it out of the SD video out?
I think a HD-SD converter for a monitor is very expensive, isn't it? Might be one more hidden cost of shooting HD. Even if it's HDV.

Also, on your opinion, what type of system would be needed to record the uncompressed HD for greenscreen? As I said, storage wouldn't be that much of a problem, since it would only be the green screen shots.

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 05:33 PM
I don't see the issue with MPEG-2 artifacts. Sure, I'd prefer to be recording uncompressed HD, but unless you're shooting for a video-to-film transfer, at the end of the day your footage is almost certainly going to be shown after compression to MPEG-2 on some HD DVD format or a digital broadcast.

So it's all very well to shoot uncompressed or low-compression HD and avoid MPEG-2 compression artifacts... but if you shoot footage that would have caused MPEG-2 artifacts if you'd shot in HDV, you'll see very similar MPEG-2 artifacts when you watch your footage on a TV in its final format. So where's the benefit?

I've seen some really bad artifacting on broadcast HD using MPEG-2, when the show was shot on HDCAM or a similar high-end HD system: I'm sure the DoP and editor loved the footage they shot and edited, with trendy fast pans and three-frame cuts... but it looked like poop in broadcast MPEG-2.

So you're right: what you see in the HDV viewfinder is not what you'll see when you watch the tape. But what you see in the viewfinder on a more expensive HD camera is not what the viewer will see when it's broadcast or played from DVD either... and that's what really matters. Either way you need to be aware of the problems and avoid them by not shooting or editing in such a way that you'll cause such artifacts.


Interesting.

Anybody cares to elaborate what would be the No's No's when trying to avoid compression artifacts while shooting HDV?

Stephen van Vuuren
August 17th, 2005, 05:35 PM
Great job on the footage all involved and very nice article. I admit to being finally impressed by HDV footage - perhaps my bias to 24p progressive is showing :) Plus, I can't say I cared for motion smoothing at any frame rate. It was also good to see images well exposed and composed - easier to see strengths and weaknesses. Though I don't have true HDTV monitoring on a CRT or plasma, it does look noticeably sharper than my DVX100a on my JVC TM-H150CGU.

It does seem JVC has improved MPEG motion artifact issues - perhaps also only having 24 frames helps? It would be interesting to see that tested.

However, if the clips labelled A-Flowerbed-xxxxx, to my eye the Fujinon looks sharper than the Mini35 - is that a focus issue, ground glass or something else? Noticing especially edges of her shirt/hair etc.

But, I have to say while the footage looks nice, the glass and CCD issues make it a difficult purchase for me. The Fujinon glass appears to be a a get what you pay for and appears to be more marketing than good value. JVC wanted a price point to make the camera seem like it's a sub-$10,000 cam, but clearly that is not really the case. You need to add quality glass for professional or indie work and that pushes it right up.

Hopefully, the will update the package with a decent lens option and keep the price at around $7-8K. The body-only option I think is the way to go and hopefully lens adaptors will start appearing. Then it becomes a much more compelling option.

I would have expected Canon XL series quality glass at least. Also, CCD quality issues are still an unknown variable. For Mini35 Rig users, perhaps it's a good setup, but for those looking for a complete setup well under $10K, I have to say it falls a little short of my needs and budget range.

However, the best HDV thus far to my eye. Unless you must shoot interlaced, the Sony's HDV seem much less well-suited for delivering filmic images.

Chris Hurd
August 17th, 2005, 05:47 PM
Anybody cares to elaborate what would be the No's No's when trying to avoid compression artifacts while shooting HDV?Hi Michael,

That's really a topic for a separate thread. Could you please post this question in our HDV Acquisition Equipment forum? The link is: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=62

Michael Maier
August 17th, 2005, 05:52 PM
No problem Chris. Just wanted to avoid starting new threads. But you are right. This question calls for a new one.

Chris Hurd
August 19th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Just as an FYI here, for anybody who is interested in this thread, we have a similar discussion in our P+S Technik forum... I might merge the two threads together... might not... but here it is in case you missed it:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49410

Tommy James
August 19th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Actually I would have to disagree with Barry Green. If you are a wedding videographer and are getting 1500 bucks to shoot a wedding in high definition you can very well afford to bundle a free D-VHS deck with the package. Steven Gotz gives a free high definition AVel Link Player whenever he shoots a wedding and gets paid handsomely for his services. You guys have to learn to think outside of the box.

Luis Reggiardo
August 19th, 2005, 10:25 PM
Forgotten... I've talked about the "A-R-Walking Hands" video, just play it out to a SD TV screen and it will look as a DVD transfered from 16/35mm film. It doesn't just have the "look", it goes beyond that... c'mon take a look at it on a regular SD TV. At least this camera would be great for DVD-oriented productions.

L

Barry Green
August 20th, 2005, 01:27 AM
Actually I would have to disagree with Barry Green. If you are a wedding videographer and are getting 1500 bucks to shoot a wedding in high definition you can very well afford to bundle a free D-VHS deck with the package. Steven Gotz gives a free high definition AVel Link Player whenever he shoots a wedding and gets paid handsomely for his services. You guys have to learn to think outside of the box.
I talked to wedding videographers who are shooting standard-def weddings, on 1/3" cameras, and getting $3500 per wedding. And are booked every weekend.

$1500 for a wedding would be way too cheap. And handing out a $250 Linkplayer? May work for the actual client, but what about the 10 or 50 copies of the DVD they order? Are you going to hand out $250 Linkplayers with every copy? Sorry, that model makes no sense whatsoever. May work for a one-off where you're doing a corporate video for someone who doesn't even have any sort of high-def playback system, but for something where people order tens or even hundreds of copies, it's entirely impractical.

The only practical means of high-def distribution, right now, remains WMV-HD encoded to a computer.

Kevin Dooley
August 20th, 2005, 06:31 AM
My only connection with wedding videography is some shooting I do freelance... I never have dealt with a client and delivering a final copy, etc., but I would think that Avel play is a great idea for the copy for the bride and groom. For all the other copies they order, deliver in SD DVD--unless someone wants to order an Avel player and an HD copy. Just make them additional items on the order form. If someone wants it, fine. If no one does, they don't order it...

Chris Hurd
August 20th, 2005, 11:19 AM
If you are a wedding videographer and are getting 1500 bucks to shoot a wedding in high definition you can very well afford to bundle a free D-VHS deck with the package.Absolutely false. Do not pretend to understand the wedding video market unless you've done it yourself (and yes, I have). What you propose is fine for the corporate / industrial sector, but not the wedding market, at least not at the low-end range of $1500, at least certainly not "for free." I can see offering it at cost, but then you're turning a $1500 invoice into an $1800 one. Not all wedding customers would be agreeable to that, especially not if they're down at the $1500 range to begin with.

Tommy James
August 20th, 2005, 11:47 AM
Well I suppose $3500 could very well indeed be the going rate in the Las Vegas area. And it is true that wedding videographers can get away with shooting in standard definition and that providing a free D-VHS deck would indeed cut into potential profits. However one must remember that the church is not a marketplace and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits. I am not saying that a wedding videographer should not be very well paid for his work however I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.

Barry Green
August 20th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Again, I must completely disagree. First, the videographers charging $3500 weren't from Vegas, they were from California, but that's beside the point.

Giving away a $250 piece of equipment doesn't amount to "10 percent of his profits". It amounts to more like 50%! There are a lot of costs involved. $1500 for a wedding is way too cheap, first of all, because it's just too much work. But second there are a lot of fixed costs that go into that. It's not like if you charge $1500 for the wedding, that that's $1500 of profit... not by any stretch. Profit is what you get to keep after all the bills are paid (and your labor is one of the bills). Profit is what you get to build your business up with, etc. Some wedding videographers work all week, between prepping for the job, dealing with contracts, the actual shoot, then editing, then changes/revisions, etc... $1500 would leave pretty much no profit margin, and certainly not enough that you'd have to a) pay off your new high-def equipment, and b) hand out $250 worth of hardware. Not a reasonable business model at all.

Chris said it right -- offer it as an option if you want, and mark it up as such. But if someone's trying to skate by on a cheapo $1500 wedding price, there is practically no profit margin. Once you subtract out business costs and labor costs and equipment costs and taxes -- man, that would be a rough living. Unless there's no editing, I guess. If all you had to do was show up, shoot, and hand over the tapes -- then $1500 would be fine. A nice living, actually. But no way would I want to do a typical wedding job for $1500 -- way too much expense, stress, and cost!

Well I suppose $3500 could very well indeed be the going rate in the Las Vegas area. And it is true that wedding videographers can get away with shooting in standard definition and that providing a free D-VHS deck would indeed cut into potential profits. However one must remember that the church is not a marketplace and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits. I am not saying that a wedding videographer should not be very well paid for his work however I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.

Chris Hurd
August 20th, 2005, 03:05 PM
However one must remember that the church is not a marketplaceActually when it comes to video, it's an enormous marketplace... One trip to NRB (see the www.nrb.org site for National Religious Broadcasters, which is the largest of any number of conventions and associations centered around the church /video market) will bear this fact out immediately.

and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits.Artistic reasons have nothing to do with it. The decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done in order to meet customer demand for it, where it exists. There is nothing at all "artistic" about HD. Choice of format does not determine what is or isn't art, and shooting in high definition does not automatically create art. Poorly shot video in HD is just as bad as poorly shot video in standard definition, except wider and sharper, and just as unwatchable.

I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.Sorry, but a $300 D-VHS player amounts to much, much more than ten percent of the profit from a $1500 wedding. In fact there's not much profit at all on a $1500 wedding.

Tommy, it's clear that you have a lot to learn about the wedding video business, so please visit the DV Info Net forum that we already have that's dedicated to Wedding & Event videography. There you'll find a lot of folks who are actively pursuing wedding and event vfideo either as a primary business or as a sideline hobby, and I think your understanding of that market will benefit greatly from browsing the discussions from that forum.

Meanwhile, we've drifted far enough off topic here, so let's please get back to those matters which specifically concern the HD100 and the Mini35. Thanks in advance,

Joe Carney
August 21st, 2005, 02:37 AM
First, to get back on track...I'm grateful for Chas, Barry and Nate for conducting this test. Unfortunately it's led me to some other questions.

One of the reasons I was interested in the camera was it's relative affordability in terms of camera, equipment and computer costs. Now it seems the included lense is almost unusable and there requires considerble expense to make the hd100 able to produce quality video.. (ps teknik plus rented 35mm lenses, or the 13x 12K dollar lense) which in fact makes it more expensive than the upcoming Pana and far more expensive then the Z1. At least as far as using it straight out of the box. Had the above mentioned been options instead of requirements I wouldn't be bothered at all.

Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

Nate Weaver
August 21st, 2005, 03:28 AM
Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

I'm very aware that my comments can be construed as cheerleading, but rest assured I'm trying to be fair and balanced when I say that:

I'm not nearly as bummed out by the 16x as Barry. I absolutely knew that for Fuji to make a lens that passed X amount of lines, and be included at the price it's selling at, there were going to be compromises.

Optics are one of the few things that haven't been following the same light-speed advances in electronics as for quality/price. Great glass costs a lot, and I suspect it will for a long time to come.

Before I spent time with the camera on the test, I was really dissapointed by the clips on the web, in addition to reservations I already had about the build quality. I seriously was considering cancelling my order.

Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.

Michael Maier
August 21st, 2005, 05:06 AM
First, to get back on track...I'm grateful for Chas, Barry and Nate for conducting this test. Unfortunately it's led me to some other questions.

One of the reasons I was interested in the camera was it's relative affordability in terms of camera, equipment and computer costs. Now it seems the included lense is almost unusable and there requires considerble expense to make the hd100 able to produce quality video.. (ps teknik plus rented 35mm lenses, or the 13x 12K dollar lense) which in fact makes it more expensive than the upcoming Pana and far more expensive then the Z1. At least as far as using it straight out of the box. Had the above mentioned been options instead of requirements I wouldn't be bothered at all.

Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

Joe, just think about it. Before the HD100, if you wanted to shoot 720 24p, your only option was the Varicam. Now how much does it cost? How much for a lens alone? One thing people seem to forget when judging the HD100 and the HVX200 is that their are made to meet a price point. Some times, I have the impression people just expect JVC and Panasonic to give them Varicam's and Cinealta's for XL2 prices. That's not happening. We are not that far yet. There will be the day we will have it. But not yet. I think the fact we can now shoot HD for "under" 10,000 is just so great. I remember in 1997, when the XL1 came out with the frame movie mode, how excited independent filmmakers were. Just some short 7 years ago. Compare the HD100 with the XL1. I know video is not going as fast as the computer industry, but then again, what is? The fact you can grab an affordable digital camera today, and produce a movie which will rival 16mm quality is just great. 10 years ago, that was not possible. Video was just not on pair and 16mm cost way more even today. Specially back then. Think about it. I think we are just getting to spoiled. :)

Another thing people seem to forget and I'm not specially talking about you, is that HD is not DV. Even HDV is not DV. HD production comes at a cost. It's not just the camera. I see some people complaining that it doesn't matter the camera is cheaper, but he can't afford the rest of the gear (like decks, monitors, NLE) anyways. But they say that in a way which sounds like they are blaming JVC and Panasonic for it. It's just not right. HD has got cheaper and simpler. But it’s not DV cheap and simple. If one wants to get into HD, he needs to be willing to pay the price for it. If one wants more quality, he needs to pay more. ;)

Coming back to the HD100, it seems there is nothing out there right now in it's price range, which offers better performance. Even with the stock lens. Which to be honest, is not what I'm worried about. As Nate said, I was also expecting that for that price, the lens would have compromises. If JVC can workout the other problems, like the split screen etc, I'll be a happy boy. The lens, as said many times here, is just a give away. Now which one would you prefer? The HD100 selling for the price it does now, with a less than optimal lens, or the HD100 selling for $800 less(which seems to be the price difference without lens) without the lens, and the only option you had was the over 10,000 lenses? The idea is to give you a cheaper option. You don’t have to go for it. You can also go for the better lens. But that is gonna cost you. But what is not happening is Fujinon giving away top notch HD lenses for the cost of beans(remember that the cheapest HD lens before the HD100 was around 15,000, so 800 bucks is dirty cheap and 10,000 is already cheaper). It’s just a compromise.

Yes, if you add the optional lens the HD100 will cost more than a HVX200 with 2 P2 cards. But, and that’s a big but, you will have a true HD lens, which most likely the HVX200 will never offer in that price range, for the same reasons JVC didn’t. The difference is that with the HVX200, you are stuck with it.

Now, I’m not saying the HD100 is a better camera, because it’s impossible to say either way now. The HVX200 is 4 months away. All we know now is that the HVX200 will record in a superior codec. That doesn’t make it better. Yes, it will record 1080p, but will the CCDs be native 1080? If it will upsample, you might as well upsample the HD100 too. It will have more frame rates which is great. Really is. Only the Varicam can do that. But the DVCPRO-HD codec and variable frame rates won’t make it superior if the images are not. It has great chances of being the best sub 10k camera. But right now, it’s just that, chances. We already know the lens won’t be a top notch HD lens. For that price, you can’t ask that from Panasonic. We already know it will have compromises. You can’t expect Panasonic too offer a Varicam for $6,000.

So, all I’m saying is, to ditch the HD100 because it doesn’t come with a top notch HD lens, and comparing the price of the HD100 plus a real HD lens with the HVX200, a handheld, fixed lens camera, is not really apples to apples. It’s like complaining a DSR370 with a good Fujinon lens is more expensive than a DSR250. Or to be more fair, complain a Panasonic D215 with a good fuji lens cost more than a DSR250 or XL1.

The final point is, all those cameras are made to meet a price point. The HD100 offers the option to use basically any lens you want, probably the option of using a different viewfinder, the flexibility of not being obligated to bring a computer to the set to record, the flexibility of not being obligated to buy and store dozens of HDDs and just buy cheap and practical DV tape instead, but records to a more compressed codec. Which quite frankly has surprised me with it’s great performance, to the point of not making much difference anymore. A solid proof that specs alone doesn’t make a camera.
The HVX200 offers a less compressed codec, superior colour space, variable frame rates. (not considering 1080p yet, since we don’t know if it will be native or upsampled). But it’s a handheld camera, meaning fixed lens and viewfinder. Meaning it is what it is. You can’t improve it. You don’t even have the option.

Which will perform better is yet to be seen. The HVX200 sure has the edge in the paper. In the paper is the key word here.

Bottom line is. Affordable HD, at this point in time, doesn’t exist without compromises. One needs to pick the compromises which better suits his needs. ;)

Chris Basmas
August 21st, 2005, 09:54 AM
I'd like to see a test between the stock 1/3" lens and a quality 1/2" lens with the adaptor. This distinction between HD and SD lenses bothers me..

Bill Pryor
August 21st, 2005, 12:22 PM
I'd assume that using a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" chip camera would result in the 1/2" lens operating as if it were a longer focal length lens. Not as much difference as between a 35mm lens and a 1/3" chip camera, but still a magnification factor.

I'm thinking about renting this camera for a day once it's available at our local dealer. My main interest is in seeing if its 720p is as good as Sony's 1080i. Professionally-shot footage I've seen from the Z1 looks great, much better than I expected for 1/3" chips.

Stephen van Vuuren
August 21st, 2005, 12:36 PM
. I remember in 1997, when the XL1 came out with the frame movie mode, how excited independent filmmakers were. Just some short 7 years ago. Compare the HD100 with the XL1.

That is an interesting comparison. I was one of the indie filmmakers excited about the XL1 and frame movie mode. I bought the XL1 and all three lenses in 1999 but ended up selling in 2002. The XL glass choices were unsatisfactory, frame mode looked shockingly soft on film festival sized screens and the XL1s was a letdown as unless you were a sports/nature shooter, the XL series was not a good price-performance buy.

I sold my XL1 kit, I bought a DVX100 instead. Then came the XL2 but despite 24p and native 16:9, lens choices got no better. I bought a DVX100a instead.

My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lens - what's the point of the waste? Especially at HD resolutions, cheap glass is a killer for many shooters. Why not develop simple 8X or 10x lens for release with the camera and price the cam at $7-9K?

I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices and they solve the CCD issues (which should be much easier than the lens stuff), it looks like a nice mount for the mini35 but others like me will sit tight for awhile and see how the HVX turns out and if Sony decides to join the 24p camp.

Michael Maier
August 21st, 2005, 03:02 PM
That is an interesting comparison.

It was really an exemple of how far we have come in a short 7 years. From the bad frame movie mode to true 720 24p.
Not really a comparison with the XL1.

My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lens - what's the point of the waste?


Stephen, I'm sure there are many who care and think different from you. I'm sure many are glad they can have a HD camera for under 6k.


Especially at HD resolutions, cheap glass is a killer for many shooters. Why not develop simple 8X or 10x lens for release with the camera and price the cam at $7-9K?

As said many times, the cheaper HD lens before the HD100 was 15K! JVC is selling a HD lens for 10K and giving a lower end HD lens with the camera all for under 6k(street will probably be lower). When the cheaper HD lens cost 15K, expecting Fujinon to make a HD lens for 3K is not really realistic. SD lenses cost more than that. I think it might be a case of being spoiled by the times, like I mentioned before. No matter what the companies do, people always want more. As I said in my prior post, I'm sure many prefer the camera coming with a giveaway lens for under 6k, than to buy the camera for 5k without lens and have to buy the 10k optional lens. Because a 7-9k HD camera with a good HD lens is not realistic in today's reality, when the cheapest HD lens we have cost 15k alone.


I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices and they solve the CCD issues (which should be much easier than the lens stuff), it looks like a nice mount for the mini35 but others like me will sit tight for awhile and see how the HVX turns out and if Sony decides to join the 24p camp.

The CCDs will sure be solved as will also the achromatic aberration on future lenses.

Stephen van Vuuren
August 21st, 2005, 03:07 PM
Stephen, I'm sure there are many who care and think different from you. I'm sure many are glad they can have a HD camera for under 6k.

I'm sure that's true, but my point is that I don't think I'm alone and they have limited their market by not working harder to make a more reasonable glass option available.

Michael Maier
August 21st, 2005, 03:13 PM
I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices...

I'm sure that's true, but my point is that I don't think I'm alone and they have limited their market by not working harder to make a more reasonable glass option available.

You don't need an adapter for more lens options. The JVC is exchangable mount. That already gives you options. You can't buy a cheaper HD lens than the 13x JVC is offering for the HD100 anyways. They are not limiting their market. They give you options. You can buy the body only if you want. You can buy the optional 13x. You don't have to go with the 16x if you don't want. Limiting is a fixed lens camera, where you are stuck with the lens forever. But anyways, adapters will sure follow.

Stephen van Vuuren
August 21st, 2005, 03:40 PM
You don't need an adapter for more lens options.

I aware of that - my error. To clarify, I meant adaptor for 16mm cine lenses and other lenses that can be found in the $2000 - $ 4000 range. I tend to think quality 16mm glass will do just fine for HDV.

Michael Maier
August 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM
I aware of that - my error. To clarify, I meant adaptor for 16mm cine lenses and other lenses that can be found in the $2000 - $ 4000 range. I tend to think quality 16mm glass will do just fine for HDV.


I see. You can be sure adapters will follow.
Watch Optex website. They have a huge selection of adapters available for broadcast, film and the XL series. I'm sure they will come up with something. ;)

Joe Carney
August 21st, 2005, 04:33 PM
>>Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.<<

Thanks Nate, so you feel you can make quality video within the limits of the camera, as is with all cameras.

Michael, I'm aware of the tremendous drop in cost compared to existing HD, but since it's not the only game in town (never was) it's fare to compare cost issues with other brands like Panasonic and Sony.

My issue was not having to upgrade to SCSI raid drives, the latest greatest CPU, motherboard...but using this camera to get another year out of my existing equipment, plus not having to get a 35mm adaptor to make it useful. If the 16x can work for at least awhile, other adaptors like the micro35 will be out at far less cost the the ps teknik. Then renting glass becomes an affordable , even attractive option. I suppose renting the JVC 13x could be an option too....

Chris Hurd
August 21st, 2005, 04:52 PM
My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lensYou have the option of buying the body-only kit without that lens.

Stephen van Vuuren
August 21st, 2005, 07:24 PM
You have the option of buying the body-only kit without that lens.

I understand, but just like the XL2 failing to ship with a new lens choice (like a nice 5X true manual lens with OIS), I feel the JVC did not make enough effort to have something else than the very expensive 13X wide available (which I don't think it is even for sale right now).

I realize true HD lenses cost big bucks, but for 720p HDV JVC could have worked with someone (Optex etc.) to have a reasonable sub $5000 option available.

Sure, it looks great with mini35 and great glass, but if you don't have it you have to deal with pretty ugly chromatic abberation until other lens choices are available. That's my beef right now.

I'm hoping to be proven wrong as I think Panasonic has a big engineering challenge with the lens and CCDs on the HVX200 delivering quality 1080p and I don't think Sony is near to releasing 24p (or any true progressive scan) cams under $10k.

I love my DVX100a but I really want native 16:9 and resolution greater than DV since 90% of my work screens on 30ft screens in film festivals.

Chris Hurd
August 21st, 2005, 08:04 PM
just like the XL2 failing to ship with a new lens choiceDrifting off-topic again, but the XL2 *did* ship with a new lens choice; the L-series 20x with focus & zoom presets. Unfortunately it wasn't the lens you wanted though.

Stephen van Vuuren
August 21st, 2005, 08:15 PM
Drifting off-topic again, but the XL2 *did* ship with a new lens choice; the L-series 20x with focus & zoom presets. Unfortunately it wasn't the lens you wanted though.

I guess the 20x was a "new" lens but I saw it just as the latest revision of the standard XL series lenses with a little more telephoto. But I haven't used it, so what I do I know :)

Michael Maier
August 21st, 2005, 08:33 PM
Stephen, the whole point is that JVC already cut 5,000 off the cheapest HD lens available which cost 15K. The 13x is rumored to cost 10K. 5,000 is already a great drop in price. Just look around. There are SD lenses which cost much more. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=369393&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation)

I'm mean, we can all wish as much as we want. I wish Panasonic would sell the Varicam for 20k, I wish Sony would release a HDCAM 1/2" exchangable lens 1080p camera for 10k with lens, but that's not realistic right now.
The thing is glass is not only expensive, but hard to make and engineer. Asking a true HD lens for 5,000, which is a price range where most SD lenses are selling these days, is just not realistic. That's the problem with your approach.

Check this lenses. They are 1/2" SD lenses. Not even 2/3". They all cost over 5,000. Some well over:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=252985&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=252987&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183589&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=287637&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Asking for a 5,000 top HD lens in this day and age is just asking too much. I think a 10k HD lens is already very cheap. I remember not long ago, HD lenses costing 4 times as much.

Stephen van Vuuren
August 21st, 2005, 08:41 PM
Stephen, the whole point is that JVC already cut 5,000 off the cheapest HD lens available which cost 15K.

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.

e.g. Make it 10x rather than 16x and increase the price by a $1500.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.

Michael Maier
August 21st, 2005, 08:49 PM
I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.

e.g. Make it 10x rather than 16x and increase the price by a $1500.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.


Look at this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=247813&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=327794&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=389571&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Now how do you expect a HD lens for 5k? You say Optex. Well, they can't do miracles I'm afraid. If Fuji can't, a smaller company sure can't.

The issues you talk about will be worked out. If not in the first bash of cameras, the second. I don't see how they wouldn't. But besides the chromatic aberrations, the lens seems to be fine for it's price. if all you have against it is the chromatic aberrations, then you will be alright after they work it out. But honestly, that's not how your posts come across.
Now you are saying you just would like it be slightly better and slightly more expensive. Well, you know, they can't make one lens grade for each person based on what they want to pay vs the quality they expect. The very botom line is, the HD100 is here and offer 720p. If you don't like it, wait for the HVX200. We will see if it's fixed lens is any better. if it's not, buy a Varicam or Cinealta. If you can't afford them, well, there's only SD left for you then. if you prefer SD than the HD100, go for it ;-)

Chris Basmas
August 21st, 2005, 10:04 PM
I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.