Yes, everything we shot for this article was 24p.

Does anyone know a way to convert these m2t-files to mpeg2? I tried with this program: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~balazer/HDTVtoMPEG2/index.html

It worked, except for one detail: most converters don't know how to handle ProHD (24 frames). They convert it to 60 frames/sec, so you see the shots accelerated with factor 2.5. (so this is REAL 24p :) )

I want to show these shots to a friend on his DVD-player, that's why.
Thanks in advance.

It worked, except for one detail: most converters don't know how to handle ProHD (24 frames). They convert it to 60 frames/sec, so you see the shots accelerated with factor 2.5. (so this is REAL 24p :) )


The camera records real 24P, at the camera head and to tape in the MPEG stream. They did however have to be clever how they got 24fps in a 720P format, and the method they used (repeat flags) is not read correctly by all MPEG2 decoders...

Just trying to clarify that there's no "conversion" to 60fps going on, it's just the decoder reporting what the stream is at face value rather than digging deeper into the stream and realizing it's really 23.98

Just trying to clarify that there's no "conversion" to 60fps going on, it's just the decoder reporting what the stream is at face value rather than digging deeper into the stream and realizing it's really 23.98

Allright, thanks for the info.

Could anybody tell me which lens and which f stop was used on the last clip with the woman walking by at night? Was gain on 0db?

Reading the article, I didn't see it mentioned.
Thanks.

I believe it was the 18mm wide open at T2, 0 db.

Do you mean the 27mm? I see no reference of a 18mm in the article. Just 27mm, 50mm and 100mm.
What's T2 in f-stops, F2?

Thanks Charles.

This article got lost in shuffle, so I've made it a sticky.

Good on ya... thanks Tim!

Howdy from Texas,

This past weekend, our own Charles Papert took a crack at the HD100 combined with a Mini35 image converter for a couple of days and put the combo through its paces.

Link to Video -- Downloadable HD Clips (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test5.php)
Help yourself to these m2t files, but do yourself a favor and watch 'em on an HDTV.

Well... I did download three or four of these clips and watched them in HD. Either the JVC camera is worhtless, or else there was some major problems in the upload/download, becase everything I saw at playback was jerky as hell. Frames dropped apparently by the dozen in these 10-20 second long clip.

I also saw the Canon X2 H1 footage that was shot in Japan this past summer by an early adopter... did not notice one single frame drop at playback in those.

I was playing both sets of clips using the VLC player and outputting to a 1920 x 1080 notice rez monitor. It was not a resolution or color spacing issue, however... it was that frames were dropped en messe like every 2-3 seconds, making the clips all but unwatchable!

I am curious as to what could have happened here with the JVC GY-HD100 test cips. Did anyone else also get the playback footage all chopped up, like I did?

It is so nice to have received a product DVD in the mail from Sony with some great looking 1080i footage shot with their HVR-Z1. I am not sure how many hundres of thousands of doaalrs would it cost for JVC to actually commission and pay for a product demo DVD and send it out to those hardy folks who contemplate purchasing the GY-HD100. But I think it would be well worth it.

So far, the only footage I could see shot with the JVC 720P camcorder all but convinced me to go with either the Canon or the Sony 1080i alternative.

No no, the videos run very smoothly. There has to be something with Your computer system. Maybe it is not fast enough.
The Mini35 videos look very filmic to me. The only problem is the last (at night): It shows the split screen effect.

Tthe HD100 + Mini35 is the only HDV kit that really comes closer to film shooting. Of course, as you say, the picture doesn't have the ultra-clear resolution or bandwith of the CineAlta/Varicam/Viper but the camera cost is 1/20 - 1/30 of the Cinealta and you DON'T get 20-30 times less quality!. Besides, for DVD-output / film festivals / broadcast / TV-series it rivals Digibeta for also much less money.

Even more, imagine this configuration on a real shooting with fine-tuning and careful post. HD100+Mini35 is the real revolution, forget about Z1 in my humble opinion. Buying a HD100 and the renting the Mini35 for ocassional film production would be a really good bargain! L.

Well, leave it to the inventive Germans to Frankenstein a camera using 1/2-inch video tape to 35mm film camera. What's wrong with this picture?

(A) A 1/3-inch sensor will always be a 1/3-inch inch sensor... no matter what sort of front optics will one park on it.

(B) A film camera will see reality as the film stock does, and does it naturally... whereas a video camere will always strain to give you that evasive, but much sought after "film look."

(C) Not that resolution per se is all that important, but still... here we have a camera that does 720 lines native. When you shoot on film stock (16 or 35), you can get many fold this resolution -- even up to 8000 lines, and certainly up to 4000. And by the time video gear wil get to this resolution, films stock would have far surpassed it.

(D) Money-wise, since it is so "sexy" to shoot using CineAlta and the like vs. old-fashioned film stock these days, one can actually get a 35mm film rental gear for less money per diem than a CineAlta package.

(E) 35mm film lenses were invented for 35mm film cameras. Not for 1/4-inch digital video cameras. On the other hand, our friends at P+S Technik have a right to make a living as well... ;-))

Not to be contrarian or anything, but why do so many people insist on shooting their "Citizen Kane 2" project onto a 1/4-inch video tape, and then present it on a 100-foot wide screen at Cannes or Sundance?

And so your point is what, Frank?

There are several people (myself included) that are happy with 35 mm adaptors on the front of a 5K camera. There is a loss in resolution in using it, true, but so what? It's my media, my production, and my choice. I'm into my cam with lenses, mattebox, M2 35mm adaptor for under 10k, and I can make great stuff with it for myself and for my clients.
1. I'm not experienced in 35mm production
2. Even if I was, I couldn't afford the cost of developing and converting to dig and back.
3. Myself, my clients, and most folks here are very happy with what we're getting for our buck and the access it offers us.
4. It looks great when output to film when/if that needs to be done. Most film fests today prefer HDCAM output, so that's what we work with. Most broadcasters prefer it.
5. If you're willing to put up the cash to pay for daily rental of 35mm, pay for my learning curve, pay for the transfer to dig, and pay for the transfer back to film, all for display at Cannes or Sundance, you can find my contact info by clicking my name.
Tape size has virtually nothing to do with anything. Compression might, but that's not mentioned in your post.

So, if you don't like 1/3 chips, if you don't like 35mm adaptors, if you don't like 1/4 tape, and if you can afford film; I'm wondering what your motivation is to come into the forum and blast away? I'm not a big fan of the JVC either, but the format is a good format, and the JVC certainly is no toy camera.
Have you actually EXPERIENCED a 35mm adaptor? Your inability to simply play back the m2t files tells me you don't have a system that's up to the task of even HDV, let alone HD...Why take potshots at a system you know nothing about?

To be fair, it should be pointed out that there's a Mini35 configuration for the Sony Z1 as well. The primary difference would be what Charles points out in Part One of his article, in that the image from the Mini35 has to pass through more optical elements when it's used on camcorders with built-in lenses, such as the DVX100, PD150, Z1 and so on. The advantage of the HD100 and the Canon XL series camcorders is direct access straight into their image sensor blocks... there's less glass in the optical path, and not as much light lost.

Well, that is indeed some sight on the P+S Technik site... the Mini35 squezed onto the Sony HVR-Z1's zoom lens! First I though it was some sort of an optical illusion... I mean, why would anyone purchase a camcorder with a fixed zoom lens, knowing that it has a fixed zoom lens... then purchase a pricey adopter like the P und S Mini35... then install another zoom lens front of that... and maybe spice the whole concotion with some adapters and converters.

I mean... if you MUST have a film lens on a DV camera, get one that have removable lenses like the Canon and JVC (thank you Lordy for them).

Having an extra zoom lens frankensteined onto a fixed zoomed camcorder like the Sony Z1 is plain nonsensical... talk about front-heavy ergonomics. And the result looks like the unfortunate Bride of Frankenstein indeed. A good choice for horror shoots, though. :-))

It has been my experience that most productions shooting on HD or lesser formats would have been shot on film if the budget warranted it. There are a few high-profile filmmakers like Lucas and Rodriguez who like to trumpet their preference for digital, but for the vast majority of the rest of the filmmaking world the decision is purely economic.

I myself own an Arri 2C as well as a DVX100a and Mini35; the two packages cost me roughly the same amount of money to purchase. On any given weekend I could potentially shoot a short film on both; the cost differential for the 35mm version would be thousands of dollars (stock, processing, telecine) vs maybe $50 for tapestock. When I do run film through my camera, it's on someone else's dime.

At the end of the day, it's about working within a specific budget and telling the stories you want to tell. Making an inexpensive camera system look good enough that at the very least it doesn't cheapen the material (and hopefully complements it) is a noble cause. I'm personally not hung up on the finer points of emulating the film look on video--I've always had an issue with the setup cards and settings that nominally imitate specific film stocks--but I think that given the combination of 24p and the selective focus of the Mini35 and similar systems, the stage is set for the filmmaker to be able to produce images that will satisfy the vast majority of viewers visually; if they don't consciously or subconsciously register that they are watching anything other than film (i.e. the footage doesn't look "cheap"), then you've won.

Frank, to respond to your "lens on lens" post:

I felt the same way as I had always used the Mini with the XL1/XL1s, poo-poo'ing the fixed zoom systems. Then I saw it on the DVX100a at a trade show, and realized it looked great, and bought that system thereafter.

Bottom line and the reason for the whole thing: the images. Who cares what the physical device looks like. It's still a smaller package than a 35mm camera system. Ergonomically, there are certain issues but they have nothing to do with the extended length due to the two sets of lenses, more about viewfinder placement for handheld (which I have fixed for myself by adapting the fore-mounted Canon viewfinder to the Mini35 for use with any camera, a scheme also followed by the new P+S breakout box).

You want to see awkward ergonomics and Frankenstein rigs, you should see some of the Panavised Cinealta configurations; we're talking 3-4 feet long. Try getting that sideways through a doorway.

Tape size has virtually nothing to do with anything. Compression might, but that's not mentioned in your post.

So, if you don't like 1/3 chips, if you don't like 35mm adaptors, if you don't like 1/4 tape, and if you can afford film; I'm wondering what your motivation is to come into the forum and blast away? I'm not a big fan of the JVC either, but the format is a good format, and the JVC certainly is no toy camera.
Have you actually EXPERIENCED a 35mm adaptor? Your inability to simply play back the m2t files tells me you don't have a system that's up to the task of even HDV, let alone HD...Why take potshots at a system you know nothing about?

Well, first off, thank you for your level-headed, polite response. Let's start with tape sizes. In the digital domain, we've got 1/4-inch and 1/2-inch, and that's about all we've got, unless you know of someone who wants to buy our trusted ole' Sony 9850 U-matic SP VTR.

It might be purely concidental, but my understanding is that by and large, 1/4-inch digital tape formats employ higher compession ratios than 1/2-inch formats, perhaps with the notable exception of Panasonic's DVCPro HD. Of course, I am not quite sure what video codecs have to do with camera lenses, but that's all right.

With respect to triple 1/3-inch chips, they are the way of the future and I love them to death. They are excellent for what they are, if one knows what they are for. On the other hand, I make it a point not to confuse a camcorder with a 1/3-inch chip and mount with one that uses the 2/3-inch variety. Apples to oranges, sort of.

With respect to using 35mm lens adaptors, there is nothing wrong with that. However, it is also like telling Canon that when they ship an X2 H1 with a newly designed 20x HD-grade zoom lens, they are giving the consumers an inferior lens that should be replaced a the earliest opportunity with a "real" 35mm film lens. I don't buy into that hype.

We are now debating the pros and cons of getting a pair of the JVC 720P or a Canon/Sony 1080i camcorder... and there is a D9 (Digital S) recorder/player VTR that we still use for 4:2:2 archiving. Therefore, I do not consider myself a sworn enemy of JVC Professional, as you seem to suggest.

With respect to 35mm film adaptors... no, I have not "experienced" one as of yet. My loss, I know.

With respect to playing back the videos, I was not aware that one has to have an earned Ph.D. in Computer Sciences to do so. There could have been many reasons why the JVC image looked like hell upon playback... as I mentioned, the Canon X2 H1 and the Sony HVR-Z1 looked great in comparison, w/o the bothersome dropped frames.

In my opinion, we are not yet at the era of high definition content streaming over the Intrernet... so I will check out the actual image quality of these camcorders on Monday in person. The dealer has both the JVC and the Sony units hooked up to an HD monitor, so that will prove to be most telling... until the Canon will make its grand entrance in the next few weeks...

Witrh respect of "not having a system up to HD stndards," you've lost me. We've done a project that was shot with Arrifelx film cameras and then telecined in SD to Digi Beta and in HD to DVCAM. I am not quite sure what sort of a super-system I should have had to have this done, but done it was.

Lastly, in addition to the excellent DV Info web site, I am also visiting film sites. Somehow I do not seem to detect a frenzy amongst folks using old-fashioned film cameras to have their result look more like video. On the other hand, I can now see that many videographers want to make video shoots that end up looking like film. I guess if you use a $5,000 video camera and the result does not look like it was shot on 35mm film, you have failed in your mission. Each format has its own, proper place, and just because in certain apps one uses one over the other, the person does not have to be classified a sworn enemy of video or film. The two can live together peacefully, each on doing what it was designed for and has the competitive edge in, in my opinion.

Frank, to respond to your "lens on lens" post... I felt the same way as I had always used the Mini with the XL1/XL1s, poo-poo'ing the fixed zoom systems. Then I saw it on the DVX100a at a trade show, and realized it looked great, and bought that system thereafter. Bottom line and the reason for the whole thing: the images. Who cares what the physical device looks like. It's still a smaller package than a 35mm camera system. Ergonomically, there are certain issues but they have nothing to do with the extended length due to the two sets of lenses, more about viewfinder placement for handheld (which I have fixed for myself by adapting the fore-mounted Canon viewfinder to the Mini35 for use with any camera, a scheme also followed by the new P+S breakout box).

You want to see awkward ergonomics and Frankenstein rigs, you should see some of the Panavised Cinealta configurations; we're talking 3-4 feet long. Try getting that sideways through a doorway.

Charles, than you so much for the kind explanation.

I have not used the Mini35 or similar adapters, so I am certainly not one to even voice and opinion on their pros and cons in the field. Certainly, there is freedom in the Milky Way to use a Cooke film lens on a DV camcorder and a Fujinon video lens on a 35mm Moviecam. And just from a layman's perspective, it would be so nice if Sony and Panny would finally realize that they would actually SELL MORE CAMCORDERS if they were making them with removable lenses. Kudos to Canon and JVC for deciding to take this pofessional route from the get-go.

Yes, it does look kind-a strange to see an all-in-one camcorder with an extra, large zoom or prime via an adaptor. On the other hand, seeing the results is truly believing, as you have stated. As a camerman or DP (which I am of course not), the final image is what counts, and no degree of experimentation is too little or too much.

When we shot our feature on film, I suggested to our D.P to go digital, but he had his nose turned up at that. "I wouldn't be caught dead shooting video," or something like that. That was a while back, the former stamina has now all but disappeared, fortunately. It's really no what's behind the lens what is important, but what goes on front of it.

I think Sony and to a smaller extent, Panny will have difficulty pushing their $50,000+ 2/3-inch HD camcorders once the worldwide HDV invasion launches in earnest. When the likes of National Geographic Channel are ordering the light and infinitely maneuverable JVC GY-HD100s for their nature docus, the days of the beheomth and diamond-priced bulky camera-corders may be drawing to a close. Yes, you can till tell he difference between 1920x1080 and 1440x1080, the different compression algortihms, 8-bit vs. 10-bit, color space, and the like, but the size and weight of the HDV generation will easily slay the behemoths, IMHO.

Lastly, the little Panny DVX camcorders are just fantastic (the way I hear it from everyone, not having used one in person). This is why it is so good to have this fine forum available to everyone without fear of being lynched for his/her sometimes rather uninformed opinion-- one can learn about the pros and cons of various gear and techniques w/o having to purchase one of everything and then learn the hard way what works and what does not.

Again, thanks for the clarification, Charles, about using the DVX with the adaptor and film lenses. I would love to se some of your footage! And yes, it is a God-awful sight to see the already less-than-pretty CineAlta decked out in $100,000 worth of froth. :-))

I mean, why would anyone purchase a camcorder with a fixed zoom lens, knowing that it has a fixed zoom lens...

Having an extra zoom lens frankensteined onto a fixed zoomed camcorder like the Sony Z1 is plain nonsensical...

Well, leave it to the inventive Germans to Frankenstein a camera using 1/2-inch video tape to 35mm film camera. What's wrong with this picture?

Not to be contrarian or anything, but why do so many people insist on shooting their "Citizen Kane 2" project onto a 1/4-inch video tape, and then present it on a 100-foot wide screen at Cannes or Sundance??



Frank, Personally, as an owner of several Z1's and an M2 35mm adaptor, I take your statements as fairly condescending.
You're using a lot of words to tell others how dumb they are or nonsensical they are, or just plain uneducated if they use a P+S or M2, or other 35 adaptor. Others happen to like the look. Whether you do or don't isn't really germaine. It's not *your* money anyone is spending to get the look *they* want, right?
My point about tape is, it's digital. The size of the tape doesn't determine the quality of output for the most part. We'll soon be tapeless around the world anyway, further emphasizing my point.
It's not meant to replace or match 35mm film, that's merely the lens format that folks have access to. In terms of resolution, the Z1 and a 35 adaptor don't approach the resolution of 16mm, let alone 35. Most folks know this. But the longer focal length, and the grain added by these devices, has a very nice, pleasing feel to it. You don't like it? Fine.

As far as your system goes, I can only assume that if it can't play back an m2t file without being choppy or dropping frames, then your system isn't capable of editing HD either. If I've assumed wrongly, my apologies.

As far as your Cannes/Sundance comment...maybe so many people insist on shooting in digital formats because doing so lowers the price of admission for them to such festivals. That's the whole point of independent film, isn't it?

I don't believe anyone here is an "enemy of film." I'd submit that if the majority of folks here *could* shoot film, they would. The cost of renting an Arri or Bolex isn't the only expense. The name of this forum is "DVINFO" which would represent "Digital Video Information." Therefore, coming in and trashing folks that want to make their video look as filmlike or cinematic as possible simply seems very arrogant, particularly for a new member of the community.

I'm going to have an entire music video shot on the JVC w/Mini35 posted here on the 28th.

Frank, all of it may seem silly, the Mini35 and such, but when used right you can get some great stuff out of it.

it would be so nice if Sony and Panny would finally realize that they would actually SELL MORE CAMCORDERS if they were making them with removable lenses.
To a certain group, sure. Overall? Not a chance.

The fixed-lens PD150 outsold the interchangeable-lens Canon XL1 by a margin of, what -- wild guess, 4 to 1? Considering the bulk purchases by the BBC etc. it's probably more like 10 to 1, but I'll just guess 4 to 1 to be on the safe side.

Head to head, month to month, the fixed-lens DVX outsold the Canon XL2 by a margin of at least 6 to 1, and probably closer to 10 to 1 according to the stores I called to spot-check.

The interchangeable-lens AJ-D200, which was the the first 1/3" camera with an interchangeable lens, probably didn't sell nearly as many as the fixed-lens DSR250. Don't know that for sure, but I used and rented the 250 many times, and I don't think I ever saw an AJ-D200 or 215 in the field.

So while interchangeable lenses are definitely better than not, and I really really wish all cameras had 'em, I don't think it's fair to say that adding interchangeability is a path to guarantee greater sales.

Adding to Barry's statistics above, realize that the *majority* of Canon XL series owners never changed lenses on those cameras, they simply shot with the lens that came with it. For every ten automatic stock XL lenses, there's maybe one 3x wide and one 16x manual.

why do so many people insist on shooting their "Citizen Kane 2" project onto a 1/4-inch video tape, and then present it on a 100-foot wide screen at Cannes or Sundance?Because it's remarkably affordable. Money is no longer a limitation in this realm; now it's down to talent and content... as it should be.

To a certain group, sure. Overall? Not a chance.
The fixed-lens PD150 outsold the interchangeable-lens Canon XL1 by a margin of, what -- wild guess, 4 to 1? Considering the bulk purchases by the BBC etc. it's probably more like 10 to 1, but I'll just guess 4 to 1 to be on the safe side.
Head to head, month to month, the fixed-lens DVX outsold the Canon XL2 by a margin of at least 6 to 1, and probably closer to 10 to 1 according to the stores I called to spot-check.
The interchangeable-lens AJ-D200, which was the the first 1/3" camera with an interchangeable lens, probably didn't sell nearly as many as the fixed-lens DSR250. Don't know that for sure, but I used and rented the 250 many times, and I don't think I ever saw an AJ-D200 or 215 in the field.
So while interchangeable lenses are definitely better than not, and I really really wish all cameras had 'em, I don't think it's fair to say that adding interchangeability is a path to guarantee greater sales.

Yeah, that's all true. But the reason is price and price alone. Most people always go for the cheaper stuff.


Adding to Barry's statistics above, realize that the *majority* of Canon XL series owners never changed lenses on those cameras, they simply shot with the lens that came with it. For every ten automatic stock XL lenses, there's maybe one 3x wide and one 16x manual.


But what they really paid for and the reason they chose going with a interchangeable lens camera is that if they ever need it, the option is there. They don't have to saw their lens off in order to change it :)

But it's not only that, it's also the quality of the lens itself and the ease of use. To use a pull focus, matte box or any other accessories is much easier and more precise with a lens like the Fujinon on the HD100 than any of the built-in ones. And you can't beat the ability to always get to the same focus point with the fully mechanical focus control.

Yeah, you're right, but if you mention that, somebody always come with the excuse that the manual controls on the built in lenses are good enough, precise enough, have got a lot better, bla,bla,bla.(I don’t think so and can’t stand them.) So I don't even waste my time making this point anymore. But I completely agree with you.

There's a big difference between an interchangeable "real" lens and the interchangeable lenses used on the XL series. They're just like the fixed electronic lenses, except they come off. Granted, you can buy a "real" lens for those cameras, but few really have.

The whole electronic lens thing is one reason why if I had to have only one camera, it would be very difficult to choose one with an electronic lens, whether it was interchangeable or fixed. The JVC is quite attractive to me simply because it uses a "real" lens. If I had one, it's doubtful I'd ever switch lenses because the only other one available is the wide angle that costs more than the camera. If they had a package deal with that nice wide angle lens for $2K or $3K more, then that camera would jump off the dealer's shelf and into my bag.

I've been using the same lens for about 15 years, an ancient Nikkor ED 8.5-127 I bought new (for $9K) for a BVW300 when the BVW300 was revolutionary. I still use it on the DSR500. I believe I took it off the old 300 twice when a 5.9mm wide angle was available for me to use, and once so far for the same reason on the DSR500. For me, it's not so much the interchangeability that is an issue--rather, it's the control you only get with a manual lens.

That doesn't mean a guy can't shoot good stuff with an electronic lens camera. I use a DSR250 also and have used other 1/3" chip prosumer cameras. It's just a lot more difficult to be 100% sure all the time under all conditions with an electronic lens. And for run and gun situations, it's really difficult. It's sort of ironic, one reason I got the DSR250 was for run and gun work, because of its light weight, long battery life and optical stabilization. However, in most quick and dirty situations, I go for the DSR500 because of the above reasons.

If the JVC HDV camera turns out to be decent, it may be way ahead of all the other cameras in its category simply because it uses a "real" lens.

But that's just my opinion. Other's often prefer the electronic lenses.

I'm usually the one that comes in with that response, that the stock lenses are much better now than they were before. I try not to waste my time making this point anymore either, except to say that if you haven't used one of the newer ones, you really don't know what you're missing.

For example. It's much easier and much more precise to pull a rack focus movement with the stock 20x HD auto lens on the XL H1 than it is with a Fujinon full manual lens. Reasons why: the auto lens offers repeatable focus position preset movements, and has a built-in tape measure in the form of a focus distance readout.

For example I can change focus from 4.3 meters to 10.2 meters and repeat that move all day long. I can repeat a focal length change much the same way. There's no question whatsoever that this procedure is faster and more accurate than doing it manually. Plus, the auto lens doesn't "breathe" the way the Fuji does. The primary drawback is that the focal plane change may not happen slow enough for some folks. If you prefer a slow rack focus, that is best done with a manual lens by an experienced focus puller.

The point is that there's a choice. There is no "one correct way" anymore. If you prefer to do it the manual way, that option is there. If you prefer to program it in, that option is there as well.

this procedure is faster and more accurate than doing it manually.Unless of course you're using a follow focus rig on that manual lens, and then *that* would be a faster method. Just add $500 to the price of the lens, unless somebody knows of an available FF for less than that.

i know its been a while since the last time someone talked about the footage that is in the start of this fourm but i have one large question that i hope the person who posted thos m2t files could tell me....

i would love to know if these files are "untouched" raw footage, or was this stuff dumped into and editing program, tweaked (color correction, gama corection. ect..) , and then out put to a m2t file...

Im new to this site, but i read these all the time... i plan on shooting quite a large shoot in about 8-9 months and I dont have the hd100u to test yet so im looking to see what it can really do.

Posted files were untouched.

wow that is great nate!! i really do like your work by the way, the new music video you have on your site is great, and i heard you shot that with the hd100u and the mini 35... if you dont mind me asking i would like to know if the lights in that video where "cranked up" and then in post you pushed the gama, contrast, and brightness down to make everything dark...

or is it more of what you see is basicly what it looked like in the viewfinder... im still a little worried about the infomus split screen problem because quite frankly jvc already said it is what it is...

In your work i did NOT even see one little hint of it.. its just great looking! I am shooting a feature film with this camera (in about 8 months or so) and basicly i want my end results for the darker shoots to look like that last video you did... any and all pointers would be amazing :-)

"You're using a lot of words to tell others how dumb they are or nonsensical they are, or just plain uneducated if they use a P+S or M2, or other 35 adaptor."

Could very well be "guilty as charge." Apparently, many folks using DV cameras day in and year out are not remembering that they are using DV cameras. Not film cameras.

Yes, I may be old fashioned, but I come from an era when film cameras were using lenses made for film cameras, and TV/video cameras were using... well... lenses specifically made for TV/video cameras. Wasn't that long ago, either.

I can't imagine what the underlying tenet is of pasting a film lens front of a fixed zoom lens (Panny, Sony). I can't think of any, except for desired image distortion.

Theres is also the issue of "price equilibrium." Just as it usually makes not much sense twisting a $500 lens onto an Arriflex 535 film camera, one wold think that similar discrepancy prevails when fitting a $50,000 lens to a $5,000 camcorder. Yes, you can do it, but why would you want to?

For "special effects", anything goes: use a pinhole lens on a 65mm film camera, if that is the effect you want. What I was talking of initially was to purchase a video camera only to junk its lens immediately and "upconvert" it to that coveted "film look." We should keep in mind that most episodic TV shows and even daytime soaps still use 35mm Panavisions to acquire the footage.

"My point about tape is, it's digital. The size of the tape doesn't determine the quality of output for the most part. We'll soon be tapeless around the world anyway, further emphasizing my point."

Tape can indeed be digital. Or analog, as is the case with Beta SP, U-Matic, S-VHS, for example. Leaving these for the moment, the highest quality 1/4-inch tape format I am aware of is Panassonic's 100 MB/sec DVCPRO HD. And the only reason this 1/4-inch tape can do high-def is because it is running at quad speed in both the camera and the VTR.

On the other hand, Sony has a 1/2-inch tape format that can do 4:4:4 color sampling (HDCAM SR). So, I respectfully disagree about the lack of correlation between tape size (1/4-inch or 1/2-inch) and picture quality. It seems to me that more zeors and ones can be put onto a 1/2-inch tape than to a 1/2-inch tape, even if the compression algorithms are identical.

This "soon be tapeless" world is just around the cornet, coming in a few decades. There is the famous issue of "American Cinematographer" from 1966, in which a group of ASC camera gurus collectively predicted that by 1976, all film projects and television shows will be using electronic cameras only. That certainly did not happen.

"It's not meant to replace or match 35mm film, that's merely the lens format that folks have access to."

I understand.

"In terms of resolution, the Z1 and a 35 adaptor don't approach the resolution of 16mm, let alone 35. Most folks know this. But the longer focal length, and the grain added by these devices, has a very nice, pleasing feel to it."

Again, I was talking more in abstract terms, not as a practitioner. I take your word and those of others fully on this. Just so I am understanding the premise here, using the film optics on a DV camera is not meant to "imitate" film rez, but to enhance a certain feel and atmosphere?

"As far as your Cannes/Sundance comment...maybe so many people insist on shooting in digital formats because doing so lowers the price of admission for them to such festivals. That's the whole point of independent film, isn't it?"

Well... here is another can of worms. My personal feeling is that there is a good reason why we have "barriers of entry" to an industry and set prices of admission. I would propose that we as a colletive audience would be somewhat better off if only one-tenth of the feature films would get made. Of course, regardeless of the number of films that do get made, the process or natural attirition will eliminate the nogoodniks from the gems. And, as we have seen time and again, you can make world fame with a film that had a $5,000 prods budget, and you can make a huge stink bomb for $200 million.

With repect to the technical quality of films at Sundance and Cannes, I attended both in the past and can tell you that I have yet to see a technically unacceptable film shown. I think those would get axed at the early stages. If you have a blow-up or up-rez in which the image would be sub-par, well, it won't get shown at the premiere festivals.

"I don't believe anyone here is an "enemy of film." I'd submit that if the majority of folks here *could* shoot film, they would. The cost of renting an Arri or Bolex isn't the only expense. The name of this forum is "DVINFO" which would represent "Digital Video Information." Therefore, coming in and trashing folks that want to make their video look as filmlike or cinematic as possible simply seems very arrogant, particularly for a new member of the community."

Well, up until right now, I don't believe anyone was "trashing" anyone else. I guess you confused me here at the end, though: why is it exactly that people get a DV camera and then want to make the shot footage look just like film? I thought I got it. But now, I believe I just don't get it. Oh, well. I butt out. :~)

why is it exactly that people get a DV camera and then want to make the shot footage look just like film? I thought I got it. But now, I believe I just don't get it. Oh, well. I butt out. :~)


I would submit exactly that; you don't get it.

You are welcome to your point of view, of course. And you've had your say in expressing that point of view. However, the majority of those that use DV, HDV, or other formats are after a look that doesn't look like straight video if they're independent film makers, documentarians, or shooting for television. And even if they weren't looking for a non-video look, but bottom line is that folks are looking for whatever works for them to make their visual media look different than anyone else, or at least different in some way. It's called "individualism" or "creativity." And it's all part of the digital democracy that brings everyone the ability to express their art in whatever look, fashion, or form they wish, in virtually every display technology. DV cameras don't have to shoot media that looks like DV. Anymore than folks that have shot remarkable films using the Fisher Price Pixelvision cameras needed to be limited by that substandard technology either.

Bottom line? Too many people get caught up in too many labels, specs, technical BS, and propaganda instead of making great media. If it looks good to the artist, then that's all that matters.

Right?

Frank:

Although "netiquette" appears to give a pass to spelling and grammatical errors, I sense you are in the group that stresses accuracy when making a point (me too), so you may want to proofread your posts a bit more; such statements as "It seems to me that more zeors and ones can be put onto a 1/2-inch tape than to a 1/2-inch tape" obviously make it a bit hard to get one's point across accurately.

There's a lot of things to respond to but I'll have to restrict myself to just a few. The statement about the $500 lens on the 535 vs the $50K on the DV camera: one would be done for degradation, the other for enhancement. It wouldn't be logical to spend many tens of thousands of dollars purchasing a complete cine lens set for one's DV camera perhaps, but there's nothing illogical about renting them for a shoot. Many in the DV world abhor renting as they see it as throwing money away, although that's the way films have been made for years prior.

While I personally have access to 35mm and 16mm gear, I choose not to have to beg, borrow and steal short ends and processing/telecine time to make projects that I think are just as well served by well-shot DV, especially when the Mini35 is used. And of course it's now possible to purchase a lower-end version of this concept and use modified still lenses to achieve the same effect (now all we have to do is convince many of the practitioners that just because you can provide shallow focus, you don't have to shove it in the viewer's face for every shot, but that's another story...).

"We should keep in mind that most episodic TV shows and even daytime soaps still use 35mm Panavisions to acquire the footage." Many episodic shows, yes; although there are quite a few shot on 16mm and HD. Sitcoms are probably half and half film and HD. Daytime soaps, all video as far as I know (I'm not an afficiando but I believe this to be the case).

If you have a blow-up or up-rez in which the image would be sub-par, well, it won't get shown at the premiere festivals.

While I agree with your sentiment there have been exceptions. NBT (Never Been Thawed) was shot on 2 Hi 8 (yeah, not even miniDV) cameras and not only was it shown in Santa Monica but got rave reviews and packed the house. It also got distribution and will be in your local NetFlix in a few days. Story still is king. But it better be one helluva story if you're telling it on Hi8.

Regarding the 35mm adapters. They emulate the shallow DOF feel of film. They harm the resolution and everyone should know it, but they look better than straight video for dramatic narrative or music videos to me.

For Nature Channel or the Super Bowl gimme straight HD over anything else.

If I could shoot film I wouln't shoot film. I'd shoot a Genesis... which is digital but takes 35mm Cinema lenses and has great resolution and quite a bit of latitude. Welcome to the future. :-)
http://www.panavision.com/in_frame_detail.php?spotid=9&langid=1&typeid=1

It's cheaper to produce on DV.
It takes less time to produce on DV
It takes less resources to produce it on DV.

Now that it is so incredibly cheap to produce DV there are 102 channels of trash for my family to watch on TV. The techology certainly hasn't increased the amount of great storytellers.

The techology certainly hasn't increased the amount of great storytellers.

Maybe not quite yet. But I believe it will in the next 5-10 years.

Are there more good websites now than 8 years ago?

There currently is an enormous amount of new and truly amazing artwork and photography due to the digital revolution. But in the beginning there was a lot of trash and you could have made the same statement about layout/design etc. back in those days.

There are also a lot of musicians creating cool stuff they probably would not have started 20 years ago due to digital audio workstations plummeting in price compared to traditional gear.

Right now do you hear more people talking about pixels or archetypes and emotions? I think that's because the techies get the hardware first. Most may never become good storytellers because they aren't obsessed with story as much as they are specs. Until we get obsessed with story we will fail to tell good ones.

Robert Rodriguez says everybody has 10 bad movies in them... so go make them and get them out of the way. I think that's what's happening right now. The DV revolution folks are just getting their chops down... and are starting to understand why it's so tough for even Hollywood to tell great stories.

(disclaimer - the ratio of "GOOD" to total efforts might be worse than ever in the future, but the total number of "GOOD" will rise IMHO)

Maybe not quite yet. But I believe it will in the next 5-10 years.

Robert Rodriguez says everybody has 10 bad movies in them...

Did he get a 3fer1 with SpyKids3d?

HD lenses are ground differently than SD lenses. I can see the difference in SD. Our 100 does not look as clean (stairstepping) as the 5100 with a 20X Fujinon. Even if I were to place the adaptor on our 100, the 1/2 inch lens still would not equal the proper type of glass.

LOU
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..

What mode were you guys shooting in? BTW, great stuff!!!!!! I have had my HD-100 for a while now and while I've produced acceptable results nothing quite compares to yours with the mini-35. I have attached still Nikon lens which give a little better image but when I shoot 24p it is very jumpy. Did you shoot in HDV 24p?

Is it just me or did anyone else notice the slightly ghosted image of the girl's arm on the night shot (way back at the beginning of this thread). I've been looking for someone to mention it, but no one seems to see it. I don't think it's just my decoder either because I've seen similar trail effects on other HD-100 produced material. - Like the codec doesn't refresh fast enough.

I'm seriously thinking of getting this camera because it produces very beautiful & filmic images, but just want to make sure I know what type of codec I'm buying into. My Sony FX1 would never ghost like that. -Produce compression artifacts, sure, but not ghost. Here's a screen shot of what I'm seeing:

http://video.terpstar.com/extra/JVC-HD-100_Capture.jpg

You can see it by going through frame-by-frame or in HD playback as well. For some reason, it's not really visible in SD playback.

Has no one else seen this?

-Chad

Hi Michael, where are u from? I'm getting those prices from an official dealer in Argentina, they are only for buying from Argentina but shipped to Miami as well.

They are FOB, without freight costs or any customs taxes, so that would bring the price to the USD 6000-6500 point many have talked about here.

L.

Hey Luis, I am from Argentina as well. What's that dealer? (If you can, please contact me via email, vrljicak@gmail.com)
I am wondering if its worth it spending more in the 111E PAL version if i am not wanting to shoot PAL DV. Is there any reason I should consider the PAL version other than DV 576i?