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. This is kind of a big deal, because the HD100 hasn't even been delivered to U.S. dealers yet... this is very much an advanced sneak-peek kind of thing. We figured y'all would be interested in the results, so Charles has prepared a bunch of explanatory text, still images and HD video clips for you to browse through. An HDV Info Net exclusive! Here are the links:

Link to Article -- Part One: The Camera (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test1.php)
All about the HD100 / Mini35 combo and Charles' personal high-tech power modification.

Link to Article -- Part Two: The Shoot (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test2.php)
DV Info members Barry Green and Nate Weaver join in on the fun!

Link to Images -- Behind The Scenes Photos (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test3.php)
You are there! Well, virtually anyway. How it all went down.

Link to Images -- Still Frames From Video (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100mini35test4.php)
See! Shallow depth of field, and the lovely Amy Jo.

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.

Please use this thread to discuss what you find -- many thanks to Chas for putting this all together, and to Nate and Barry for giving him a big hand (our poor guy is on crutches and needed the help)! Props to Barry for assisting with the video clips, too. Enjoy,

Many thanks to Brad, Nate, Barry and Charles. I believe this is the kind of test and review many have been waiting to hear about and see for ourselves. I am once again excited about the Mini35/HD100 combo. Great camera work also. Those are some nice images. Looked like film footage to me! Thanks

Wow now thats some nice stuff from the camera. We finally get to see what the camera can really do. I recently found another site with some very nice high quality clips from the HD100 but I cannot remember where it is right now. The guy even shot a bluescreen scene and it looks very nice.

Thank you guys; this is what we all wanted to see! I'd shoot a movie with this setup...

Very nice footage. Certainly shows what this camera is capable of in the right hands.

I noticed a small circular smudge in some of the Mini 35 footage and was wondering if anyone knew what caused it. It's most noticeable in the closeup shot under the woman's left eye.

What's this, a spot on one of those prime lenses! Hey, who was the First AC on that shoot?

Shhhhhh.

I'm not a real A.C. anymore. I only play one on t.v.

I saw that the other day, actually. I'm thinking it's a speck of dust on either the front or rear glass of the Mini35. A smudge or dust on either the front or rear element of the Cooke would not focus like that....

Thanks! This is a lot to take in . . a lot of work all around . .


- Grazie

The instruments in the right hands, with the right purpose... Thanks a lot!

Luis

I'd agree with Nate, a well-defined smudge would likely have been on the front element of the Mini35 relay. I don't think either of us were keeping an eye on that with everything else going on, and since we switched back and forth to the Fujinon a few times, there was plenty of opportunity for an errant thumb to get in there.

Well heck, better an errant thumb than an errant crutch, eh? *thwack* D'oh!

Speedy recovery to you, Charles!

Wow! The CUs are simply stunning. Finally some footage that lives up to the hype.

Who cares about a smudge when it looks like this? Thumbs up.

Well this look really pro HD100 footage. Calibrated, controlled, good DP, lighting just for being some test shooting.

1- May I ask if you used any on-camera filter or post processing calibration?

2- On my NLE computer (both LCD and TV monitor) the skin tends to be quite warm and reddish: How was your WB setup / JVC skin detection mode? Or maybe this color reprodution is inherent to the camera.

3- Night shot: Any gain used? how much Watts from lighting did u have?

4- Did you try to simulate the Mini35 depth of field by moving back the camera and tele on subject with the Fujinon's? How were the results compared with the Mini35?

L.

1- May I ask if you used any on-camera filter or post processing calibration?

That's a no on both. Lens was clean...only "on camera filter" was the built in ND on some shots.

2- On my NLE computer (both LCD and TV monitor) the skin tends to be quite warm and reddish: How was your WB setup / JVC skin detection mode? Or maybe this color reprocution is inherent to the camera.

I do beleive we had the color level up a few notches, but Barry would know for sure. I know absoutely that the image looked MUCH flatter on the on-set monitor.

3- Night shot: Any gain used? how much Watts from lighting did u have?

Gain was at 0db for all shots. The key was a 4-bank Lowel Caselight, the backlight was a 575 frensel.

4- Did you try to simulate the Mini35 depth of field by moving back the camera and tele on subject with the Fujinon's?

Absolutely not. We went to great pains to match field-of-view when doing the Mini/16x comparison shots.

Good work all of you, I'm glad there is some good news about this camera!

The "walking-hands" shot is really film-like. Haven´t seen a shot with that motion and depth of field on any Z1, not even using the Mini35.

Based on this I think we could say the 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.

The exterior settings were:

Color matrix: standard
Color gain: 6

As noted, I too felt it was slightly ruddy, but I liked what this setting did with the greens. Under very controlled circumstances i.e. having video village within a blacked-out tent etc, we might have dialed down the red within the matrix, but not on this shoot. Again, I think this would easily be taken care of with color correction.

Great DP work guys! The shots are stunning. If they can lick this QC dead/stuck/hot pixel issue the camera is a sure winner in my eyes.

Pappas

Luis:

I think we should be careful in assuming based on this footage that the camera is obviously superior to other offerings; I'd like to think that if I had been given a Z1 with the Mini35 I'd have been able to make it look pretty good also. The only way to know how they compare would be to have them side by side with the same setup. I've never used the Z1 so I can't report on my thoughts--Nate, you've had plenty of time with the FX1, perhaps you can share something based on what you saw with the HD100?

HD100+Mini35 is the real revolution, forget about Z1 in my humble opinion.Hi Luis,

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.

Hi Charles,
Yes you are right, I've made my assumptions based on previous Z1+Mini35 footage.

BUT, Even though you can have the similar depth of field, the real 24P motion effect and the color rendering seems more film-like on the HD100 (without too much tweaking!), whereas the Z1 looks more "DV-Video" like and you have to go through extensive calibration and post-processing to get this feel.

Also dont forget as is stated by Chris up here, that you cannot remove the Z1 lens so it may increase image abberations / light loss when light passing through the Mini35 + Z1 lenses VS. just the Mini35 on the JVC for more direct lens-to-sensor.

L.

Gotcha Luis, good point. I had forgotten that about the 24 frame Z1 issue. Thanks for the clarification.

whereas the Z1 looks more "DV-Video" like and you have to go through extensive calibration and post-processing to get this feel.Umm... I'm not so sure about that. You've just heard an experienced cinematographer state: "I'd like to think that if I had been given a Z1 with the Mini35 I'd have been able to make it look pretty good also."

Luis, please don't try to turn this thread into a camera battle; that's not what we're about. Around here, such debates go nowhere fast and then disappear even quicker. Thanks,

Luis:

I think we should be careful in assuming based on this footage that the camera is obviously superior to other offerings; I'd like to think that if I had been given a Z1 with the Mini35 I'd have been able to make it look pretty good also. The only way to know how they compare would be to have them side by side with the same setup. I've never used the Z1 so I can't report on my thoughts--Nate, you've had plenty of time with the FX1, perhaps you can share something based on what you saw with the HD100?


Geez, Charles beat me to the post. Victor Milt, working with the Z1 and the RedRock Micro was able to obtain stunning footage. I can see how some folks like the 24p acquisition, but to say "forget the Z1...." is a little over the top. In the hands of any DP, like Charles, Victor, or the guys from the second largest computer company in the world (we can't name them), the Z1 with the Micro35 will look like 'da bomb' and impress. The HD100 is a very nice cam too, although I personally felt the demo model they had at WEVA wasn't well built. I was told the flimsy eyepiece and LCD were made to "break away" and that's why they're not as tight as other cams.
Anyway, Charles did an outstanding job, but that's what he does. No matter what camera you hand him.

Hi Chris & Douglas,

Sure, no prob. never wanted to start a battle :-)

I agree 100% with Charles, an experienced DP will get the best from any camera and there are plenty of unique examples about pushing the technology to its limits. We should also remind that its not only about getting the last drop from tech available but also is about the fine art and craft from the skilled person behind the camera.

As usual: Everything lays on the script... and the people behind.

L

Hi Guys

Great work with the HD100. I run a rental company in New Zealand and as yet there is not a mini35 available for hire here.

Can you explain to me the decision making process in using the mini35 as opposed to putting the money into a digibeta or imx camera with 2/3' lenses?
(for a normal shoot I mean, not in relation to this test)
Is it purely for the DOF effect?
I take it the DOF provided is worth the trade off in using a 1/3' camera?

I would imagine the combined cost of the mini35, camera and lens choices must make for some interesting budget vs gear considerations.

The footage really has made me consider making the investment in a mini35, which was something I was waiting for the HVX200 for.

Do you think the lack of a fixed lens has increased the performance of the mini35 on the HD100?

We have our 2nd HD100 after returning the first with two dead pixels and the split/screen shading.

The 2nd camera still has the split screen effect but not to the same degree as the first.

The other major concern with the camera is the chromatic aberration on the supplied Fujinon 16x lens. Purple fringing is chronic on the long end of this lens, left and right of frame. It is clearly visable in moving video, not just stills.

Wonderful work guys, well done.

To further hammer this point home, I've still got some XL1 (pre-XL1s, pre-Mini35) footage on my reel nestled between 35mm and 16mm footage, and I wouldn't have it there if I felt it didn't hold up from a photographic standpoint.

Can you explain to me the decision making process in using the mini35 as opposed to putting the money into a digibeta or imx camera with 2/3' lenses?
Is it purely for the DOF effect?
I take it the DOF provided is worth the trade off in using a 1/3' camera? .

Yes indeed. I do consider the trade-off to be quite heavy in using the Mini35; cost of the gear, cost of the lenses and accessories (I think for a heavy Mini35 user, it's worth buying the adaptor but still renting the cine lenses as needed), having to use a good AC, and the exposure loss which is significant with interiors or night exteriors.

However, the net result in terms of DOF (the primary reason to use a Mini; I think any other results such as contrast, grain pattern etc. are peripheral in comparison) is significant enough to justify the means. A 2/3" camera will certainly provide a better image than a bare 1/3" camera, but the depth of field improvement to me is not really enough. When shooting HD with the F900, I always wish I could throw the backgrounds out just a bit more, but I don't really believe in having to "force" the DOF by using significantly longer lenses for that reason alone.

Do you think the lack of a fixed lens has increased the performance of the mini35 on the HD100?

I feel that it must; there are a lot of elements in a fixed zoom lens vs the one in the Mini35 relay, which inevitably takes a toll on the image.

Hi Charles,
When using th Mini35 (with any camera) which lenses did you use, did you noticed any problem with any of them?

L.

Thanks Charles, that reply was invaluable.

Barry Green has posted at dvxuser a nice piece on his experience with the mini35 and the different cameras and how they shape up against each other. Makes for good reading in relation to the HD101 test.

I've used everything from old Zeiss Superspeeds to the Cooke S4's, and haven't seen any real problems yet--there were a couple of really funky lenses that I came across that vignetted a little bit (just slightly dark in the corners, not a full matte vignette) but those were quite obscure. This was my first time using the Mini35 with HD, previously I've just had it on SD cameras like the DVX and the XL1, so most optical issues were likely buried within the resolution of the system. I haven't had the chance to use anamorphics with the Mini35 but I think it would be fun--I've seen some of that footage, looks great! The oval highlights in the background, the horizontal flares--cool.

've never used the Z1 so I can't report on my thoughts--Nate, you've had plenty of time with the FX1, perhaps you can share something based on what you saw with the HD100?

There's plenty of pros and cons between the two cameras, but I'll just keep this to two things:

1-Color rendition: The FX-1, especially in low-light, always imparts what i call the "Sony DV red look"...a particular quality to the reds that to me always screams DV that doesn't exist in their higher end offerings. The DVX never gives me that look, and it seems the HD100 doesn't either. I like that plenty.

2-Resolution: I recently purchased the Dell 2405 1920x1080 monitor at work to complete a large HDV project, so over the last month I've gotten to see the FX-1 at it's best and at it's worst...the issues with resolution loss in the CF modes, MPEG compression blocking when using gain, etc. All problems become painfully visible on this monitor. It's like a microscope for HDV.

It's difficult to tell which camera has the upper hand with resolution, but I'm leaning towards the HD100. If nothing else, it's very close, and that says a lot about the FX-1 using 1080i vs the JVC's 720p...it tells me that the Sony is not using even close to all available pixels in the HDV 1080 format.

Can you explain to me the decision making process in using the mini35 as opposed to putting the money into a digibeta or imx camera with 2/3' lenses?
Well -- first, there's the mindset that says to someone "I already own the camera, so let's shoot on what I own". And that leads them to wanting to add a mini35 to get the film look from it.

On the HD100, the choice is 1/3" high-def vs. the DigiBeta/IMX choice of 2/3" but standard-def. Plus you're talking about genuine 24p, vs. interlace-only.

Basically, people want to make footage that looks like film. The two inventions that most make that possible, from a gear standpoint, are 24p and mini35. And the higher resolution of HD makes the image hold up better on the big screen. So quite obviously there's a lot of interest in all three technologies, especially when they're all used together (as in this test).

I take it the DOF provided is worth the trade off in using a 1/3' camera?
To some people, not to all. But I think a lot of people are of the mindset that all they can ever afford is a 1/3" camera, so they don't seriously entertain the idea of using an IMX or SDX or DigiBeta. So coming from that perspective, there's not really a tradeoff to them -- they're going to use 1/3" no matter what; the question becomes with-or-without-mini35.

I would imagine the combined cost of the mini35, camera and lens choices must make for some interesting budget vs gear considerations.
Oh no doubt. The mini35 is $11,000. Then you need lenses to go with that. But, that's where rental comes in! A mini35 at $250/day or so becomes downright reasonable.

Of course, you could also look at it in the context that an entire mini35+connecting kit is *less* expensive than the optional wide-angle lens for the JVC HD100...

Do you think the lack of a fixed lens has increased the performance of the mini35 on the HD100?
Definitely. If the mini35 had to shoot through the HD100's stock lens, I don't think it would hold up nearly as well. Now, keep in mind there's still a lens between the HD100 and the mini35. All cameras need a lens there. On the HD100 and the XL2, the mini35 comes supplied with a small relay lens. So it's always going to be camera/lens/mini35/35mm lens. But the small, simple relay lens is much less complex (and much less convoluted) than a multi-element zoom lens!

The 2nd camera still has the split screen effect but not to the same degree as the first.
Very interesting. Very interesting indeed. And good news -- sounds like something can indeed be done about it.

The other major concern with the camera is the chromatic aberration on the supplied Fujinon 16x lens. Purple fringing is chronic on the long end of this lens, left and right of frame. It is clearly visable in moving video, not just stills.
The chromatic aberration in the stock lens is, to me, completely unacceptable. Not happy about that at all. And yes, it's worse at full zoom, and it's not just purple fringing, you also get green fringing on the other side. And the lens breathes worse than a pervert making an obscene phone call. Resolution is quite sharp, but the aberration and breathing are very significant. Not what one would expect from a high-def lens, in my opinion.

Here's a little .wmv of what the chromatic aberration does. Look at the green and purple highlights around the light reflections in the glass, and how they change from green to purple (and shrink and grow) depending on whether focus is set to near or far:

http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/chroma-aberration.wmv

Those pinpoints/specular highlights should have been rendered as solid white. They were white lights shining on the glass. There should have been nothing green or purple about that shot.

The chromatic aberration in the stock lens is another reason why I'm more jazzed about the mini35...

Hi Charles, and the color rendering seems more film-like on the HD100 (without too much tweaking!), whereas the Z1 looks more "DV-Video" like and you have to go through extensive calibration and post-processing to get this feel. L.

Last fall as compared projected JVC HDV to Sony HDV I had the same feeling. Of course, when I reported that the Sony delivered "hi-rez DV" I was roundly criticized as "Sony bashing."

Recently I sent uncorrected JVC stills to an award winning videographer who was deciding whether to move up to HDV. She was blown away by the JVC "look" but had only 5 days before a production started and so bought a Z1.

I think Charles has provided us with HDV video that Sony buyers really need to look at. I'm not at all opposed to Sony camcorders, but I really wish they would consider providing some way of providing a "non Sony look." I understand they want their prosumer HDV camcorders to look like HDCAM so you can use them as B-roll cameras. Makes sense.

But, if you are only shooting with one HDV camcorder -- do you really want your video to have that Sony DV look? That look is what made many folks go to the DVX100. The flat look of Sony DV drove other folks to the Canon. (And, the FX1/Z1 has that same flat look.) Extra rez is great, but that isn't the critical issue of camera quality IMHO.

And, pointing-out that there are significantly different LOOKS to camcorders that goes beyond rez and fps is not starting a camera flame-war. I'm sure there are many who will look at these clips and prefer the Sony look. But, it is important that folks not assume only one brand offers REAL HD.

These are wonderful looking clips! Yes, the Red is slightly too high in some but, but with the JVC Matrix control or with CC this can be solved.

And, Charles is corrrect -- Motion Filter should not be used when shooting 24p -- assuming you know how to shoot 24fps.

The chromatic aberration in the stock lens is, to me, completely unacceptable.

It would be cool if a company like B&H would offer this camera sans the lens and maybe have the 'c' mount adapter option. There's lots of nice 'c' mount lenses out there that would most likely alleviate the the chromatic aberration problem and give you a sharper image.

The thing is, Kenn, that 16x Fuji lens is practically a freebie. If there was an "HD100 Body Only" kit, there wouldn't be all that much of a savings compared to the regular kit package price. Of course, all by itself, the Fuji lens has value. But you would not see that much of a dip in pricing if the HD100 was offered without it.

This isn't a knock at Fujinon, it's just the economics of camera packaging.

There is an HD100 body-only kit. It carries a retail of $5495, vs. the camera+lens combo at $6295. So yes, the lens is valued at around $800. Considering that the next-lowest-cost HD lens that I can think of is $12,000... well... draw your own conclusions.

I'm actually a little tempted by the body-only kit, putting that $800 savings towards a mini35! :)

Oh, and regarding the c-mount adapter, there's one coming. There was speculation that the flange distances wouldn't allow for it, but I talked with the product development manager and he said that it is coming, I think he said Optex was making it, and that it will have an optical element in it to correct for whatever flange-distance issue there is. So yes, you will be able to use c-mount movie lenses with the HD100 if you get the c-mount adapter.

Speaking of which... I wonder if I could talk Les Bosher into producing an Arri Bayonet adapter for the HD100... I've got a decent Zeiss 10-100 zoom in Arri B mount... hmmm...

There is an HD100 body-only kit. It carries a retail of $5495, vs. the camera+lens combo at $6295.Thanks Barry, I wasn't aware of that! JVC told me at DV Expo East that they probably weren't going to offer one, but I guess they changed their minds between that show and WEVA Expo. I knew I was missing out on some news by not going out to Vegas last week.

It's on their website as the GY-HD100UCH, so I'm presuming it's accurate...

Yes, as a matter of fact you can get these FOB prices delivered in Miami for the PAL-B version, DIRECTLY FROM JVC:

GY-HD101E USD 4,800.00 (Camera + 16X lens)
BR-HD50E USD 2,700.00 (HDV VTR)
TH13x3.5BRMU USD 7,900.00 (Wide angle lens w/zoom)

The body only you can get it for less than USD 4500 pulling the right knots inside JVC's...

L

Wow. That's some great footage there. I would like to congratulate everybody involved with the test. Awesome work!
It actually changed the way I look at HDV. Nothing which I have seen from the old JVC HDVs or from the Sony HDV had made me think about buying a HDV camera. I tested a Z1 when it came out, but wasn't impressed at all. But this test got me wondering if I should hold on on my XL2 purchase or better yet, just bite the bullet and buy a HD100 already. I love what I'm seeing. That night shot is just fantastic.
Without intention of starting a vs debate, could anybody involved with the test and who has sued one, comment on what are his impressions of the HD100 compared to the XL2? I was in the verge of ordering a XL2 and 35 adapter , but now, I'm thinking if I should go with the HD100. The HVX200 is out of the loop for me. I need it now. So, if anybody in the test has used a XL2, with or without a 35 adapter, I would love to know your opinions about how the 2 compare in your opinion for shooting a feature. If it would be inappropriate to post such comments here, or if Chris would rather not have them in this thread, please feel free to email them to me (michael_maier75@yahoo.com). Specially image control and low light performance. I would really appreciate it. It could help me to make an educated decision and help me to better invest my hard earned money.
The thing is, with my lack of interest on HDV, I didn't research any about it. I have no idea of post production limitations or chromakey use. But I know now I will research as much as I can. The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for, has many green screen shots. I know 4:2:0 is not the best, but I can't afford 4:2:2. Since I'm in PAL land, HDV and DV would make no difference in terms of color space.

Thanks for the great article and fantastic clips.

P.S. Hey Luis, where are you getting those prices for the PAL version? A PAL is what I need :)

P.S. Hey Luis, where are you getting those prices for the PAL version? A PAL is what I need :)

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'm in Europe.

But this test got me wondering if I should hold on on my XL2 purchase or better yet, just bite the bullet and buy a HD100 already. I love what I'm seeing. That night shot is just fantastic.
Without intention of starting a vs debate, could anybody involved with the test and who has sued one, comment on what are his impressions of the HD100 compared to the XL2?
If you're talking about comparing feature for feature, the HD100 beats the XL2 like a rented mule. It's got most everything the XL2 has, a better form factor, more professional controls, *much* better menu system, far more extensive image controls, and -- oh yeah -- it can shoot high-def. Plus it also does 480/60p, plus it can even do 576/50p.

The XL2 can shoot 480/30p, which the JVC can't. XL2 can record four channels of audio, HD100 can't. The XL2 also has the potential for autofocus and superb optical image stabilization; the HD100 doesn't have any sort of autofocus or image stabilization.

If you're talking about image performance -- well, I'm not so sure how to compare 'em. I mean, obviously the XL2 can't even offer an HD signal, so the HD100 clearly wins there. The only place you can compare them is in SD. The XL2 does a mighty fine job, for standard-def, and it's a clean signal. I haven't used the HD100 in DV mode, only in HDV mode. In HDV mode it's certainly a noisier signal than the FX1 in HDV mode, and I recall the FX1 and the XL2 being pretty comparable noise-wise. But in DV mode, maybe the HD100 is a cleaner signal -- don't know, didn't try it.

The HD100 is also $2,000 more expensive than the XL2, don't forget that. That's a lot of change. XL2 batteries probably last a lot longer than HD100 batteries too -- HD100 batteries max out at about an hour for the biggest battery.

I was in the verge of ordering a XL2 and 35 adapter , but now, I'm thinking if I should go with the HD100.
I have my gripes with the JVC, yes -- but I can't see how it won't cannibalize what's left of the XL2 market. I think XL2 sales have been slow already, and when the HD100 hits US shelves I think Canon's really going to feel the pinch.

I would love to know your opinions about how the 2 compare in your opinion for shooting a feature.
No question about it whatsoever -- if you're springing for the mini35, and you're going through the effort of making a full feature, and you're deciding between XL2 and HD100 and you won't wait for the HVX, then get the HD100 and shoot in HD. No question. Any niceties the XL2 would offer will be completely overshadowed by the ability to offer that your film was shot in high-def. High-def in and of itself is meaningless, but if all other things are equal (comparable camera, both 24p/filmlook, etc) and one of 'em is SD and the other is HD, well, HD is better. Distributors will pay more attention to an HD-originated film than they will a DV-originated film (at least until they get swamped with HDV-originated movies that are as awful as the current flood of DV-originated movies they have to sort through!)

If you're going for straight-to-DVD release, the XL2 remains a strong contender.

Specially image control and low light performance.
The HD100 has extensive, extreme image controls. As for low light performance, the XL2 isn't spectacular at that, but I expect it to be a slightly better performer than the HD100. However, it's mostly irrelevant -- adding a little light will do far, far, far more for the quality of your image than any difference between these cameras would!

However, keep this in mind -- The XL2's been out for nearly a year. It's a known quantity, a proven solution, and any issues are pretty well known. The HD100 is a complete unknown. It's been on the market for, what, a week? Already we've had QC issues -- how much do you trust your entire production to an unproven camera? If you're willing to take the risk, I think the HD100/mini35 is a far smarter choice than the XL2/mini35. But recognize that it is a risk.

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).

Hey Barry, thanks for the straight answers. I appreciate that.
Some comments.

If you're talking about comparing feature for feature, the HD100 beats the XL2 like a rented mule. It's got most everything the XL2 has, a better form factor, more professional controls, *much* better menu system, far more extensive image controls, and -- oh yeah -- it can shoot high-def. Plus it also does 480/60p, plus it can even do 576/50p.

The XL2 can shoot 480/30p, which the JVC can't. XL2 can record four channels of audio, HD100 can't. The XL2 also has the potential for autofocus and superb optical image stabilization; the HD100 doesn't have any sort of autofocus or image stabilization.



So far, the only thing which I would miss in the XL2 is the image stabilization. It's just nice to have it for some shots. I never use auto focus and 30p is pointless since I'm PAL.


If you're talking about image performance -- well, I'm not so sure how to compare 'em. I mean, obviously the XL2 can't even offer an HD signal, so the HD100 clearly wins there. The only place you can compare them is in SD. The XL2 does a mighty fine job, for standard-def, and it's a clean signal. I haven't used the HD100 in DV mode, only in HDV mode. In HDV mode it's certainly a noisier signal than the FX1 in HDV mode, and I recall the FX1 and the XL2 being pretty comparable noise-wise. But in DV mode, maybe the HD100 is a cleaner signal -- don't know, didn't try it.

Noise is a little of a a problem in low light, which the feature I want to shot has lots. Over 60% of the scenes are night externals and some internals.
About the resolution, I may be overlooking something, but in the case of HDV, where the color space in the same as PAL DV, 1280x720 doesn't seem a whole lot more than 960x576. I know it still is more. But I did a type of diagram to compare the frame sizes and it really looks quite close. The difference here is way smaller than the difference from 1208x720 an 1920x1080. Besides, the thing about the HD100's HD is that is is HDV. 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? All that is very important when shooting a feature. 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.
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?
Is the HD100 native 16:9?
So all that would have to be weighted in in the comparison.

The HD100 is also $2,000 more expensive than the XL2, don't forget that. That's a lot of change. XL2 batteries probably last a lot longer than HD100 batteries too -- HD100 batteries max out at about an hour for the biggest battery.

In PAL land, it doesn't seem to cost all that much more. The XL2 in Europe sells for 4700 euros in most places. It seems the HD100 will sell for under 6000. The only thing is that they don't seem to offer a body only kit in PAL. I would like to get the body only kit. But, aren't the PAL and NTSC the very same camera. As I understood, they both do PAL and NTSC frame rates. So, maybe I could just buy a body only kit from the U.S.? Am I missing something here?


I have my gripes with the JVC, yes –.


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?




but I can't see how it won't cannibalize what's left of the XL2 market. I think XL2 sales have been slow already, and when the HD100 hits US shelves I think Canon's really going to feel the pinch.

Yeah, if it turns out to be a real solid performer, it will definitely affect XL2 sales. But it's JVC we're talking about here. They not always hit it. Remember the DV300? It didn't sell at all. It was a good camera I heard, but it just didn't catch. The HD100 seems to be a great cam, but it's yet to prove to be as reliable as the XL2. Naturally, it's a matter of time, since it's new. But in order to really do damage to the XL2, it has to pass this test first.


No question about it whatsoever -- if you're springing for the mini35, and you're going through the effort of making a full feature, and you're deciding between XL2 and HD100 and you won't wait for the HVX, then get the HD100 and shoot in HD. No question. Any niceties the XL2 would offer will be completely overshadowed by the ability to offer that your film was shot in high-def. High-def in and of itself is meaningless, but if all other things are equal (comparable camera, both 24p/filmlook, etc) and one of 'em is SD and the other is HD, well, HD is better.

Yeah. The higher resolution is sure nice. My worries are more with the post process and reliability.

Distributors will pay more attention to an HD-originated film than they will a DV-originated film (at least until they get swamped with HDV-originated movies that are as awful as the current flood of DV-originated movies they have to sort through!)
If you're going for straight-to-DVD release, the XL2 remains a strong contender.


The film will be for DVD release only.


The HD100 has extensive, extreme image controls. As for low light performance, the XL2 isn't spectacular at that, but I expect it to be a slightly better performer than the HD100. However, it's mostly irrelevant -- adding a little light will do far, far, far more for the quality of your image than any difference between these cameras would!

Good point! But that night shot in the test sold me anyways. It looks great.


However, keep this in mind -- The XL2's been out for nearly a year. It's a known quantity, a proven solution, and any issues are pretty well known. The HD100 is a complete unknown. It's been on the market for, what, a week? Already we've had QC issues -- how much do you trust your entire production to an unproven camera? If you're willing to take the risk, I think the HD100/mini35 is a far smarter choice than the XL2/mini35. But recognize that it is a risk.

That and the post production process, which I heard is still not as easy and flexible as DV, are the main things holding me back. At least the XL2 is a proven camera and DV post production is a well known territory. I don't even know which NLEs can edit 720p HDV. Can Avid Xpress HD or Vegas 6 do it? Can AE handle 720p HDV? Those are things to consider. The resolution difference might not be all here. But if the post path would be no extra complication and it really turns out to be a solid camera, I think it's the way to go over a XL2 set up. The foreground in the images on your test looked so sharp, that it looked like a greenscreen shot. So much was the separation of the sharp foreground (the girl in front of the flowers) and the background. It's really impressive how sharp it is.


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 know. I have the option of renting a IMX camera for green screen too. I will have to run some test with the camera I end up buying and see.

Thanks for the nice conversation Barry. Really helping a lot.

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

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.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

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.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

Compare HDV audio to PCM and ATRAC... http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?id=c7ff16c5-9a4d-4660-bb4d-a1ebcaaf1463

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

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.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

Sure does Chris.

Thanks.