I got my camera yesterday, here in Los Angeles. I was very lucky because the numbers available are very small, but keep in mind I had a good chunk of money down on it in March! I'm not going to say which dealer I got it at because he definitely does NOT have enough to go around.

I myself am very satisfied with the things I was concerned about:

1-Chromatic Aberration on the 16x: It's there, but only jumps out on the long end of the lens. I only use long focal lengths for the odd occasion, so I'm not concerned in the slightest. I consider something like this par for the course when all preceeding lenses marketed as "HD" come in north of $10K. If this was the tradeoff so the lens was the right price, and passed the necessary resolution to the chips, then I say they made the right choice.

2-Dead pixels: I have no dead pixels, but some that spend more time on than off while being noisy in 18+ gain. I don't plan on ever shooting more than +6 gain, so again I'm not worried.

3-The "Split": For those of you just tuning in, there's an issue with two halves of the image being SLIGHTLY different brightnesses/colors while in +18 gain. I've seen some cameras where I didn't notice it until it was pointed out to me. Mine has it also, but again, it's a high gain issue and I'm not concerned. Keep in mind it's non existant at lower gains, unless you get a microscope out. At 0 gain. it's not there even with a microscope.

After spending 3 fat paragraphs talking about what's not-quite-right, I'd like to try to give this some balance...overall, I'm VERY VERY happy with my purchase. I can't say enough good things about the build quality or the ergonomics, or how nice it is to be shooting with a camera set up for a professional at the $6k mark.

I expect this camera to really clean up, especially for people still delivering in SD...shooting HDV 24P and then downconverting is almost as good as doing the same thing with an F900, and that's awesome.

Thanks, Nate, glad to hear that you finally have it in your hands! Please keep us advised... and if you shoot anything that you'd like to share, just let me know and I'll make some server space available to you. Much appreciated,

So let me ask you some questions if you don't mind.

Since having the camera and obviously having shot with it:

1)How are you planning on or how are you monitoring in the field?

2)I just bought a Sachtler DV4 set of sticks...is that going to be adequate or would you suggest some different camera support items?

3)Are you using the Firestore or just tape? If not did you purchase the deck...and if so...are they planning on it being compatible with other HDV formats now or in the future?

4)I am also getting the Libec zoom controller for mine...do you have one...or have a suggestion on that?

Thanks for you input and help.

Chromatic Aberration on the 16x: It's there, but only jumps out on the long end of the lens. I only use long focal lengths for the odd occasion, so I'm not concerned in the slightest.

I'm glad you mentioned this obvious point. For years many of us complained that cameras were being shipped with long lenses when most of us shoot in close quarters and need wide. I really can't think of many times -- except to control DOF -- when I'm going to shoot zoomed in. So the whole CR issue seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Moreover, those of us old enough to have watched the very first color broadcast and visit studios -- we know efforts were made to prevent tiny specular details. If one is shooting a "movie" your DP should be smart enough to ask for work to be done on the set.


Dead pixels: I have no dead pixels, but some that spend more time on than off while being noisy in 18+ gain. I don't plan on ever shooting more than +6 gain, so again I'm not worried.

THt worries me. I found in a bright room, I needed +18dB gain with a Z1. Looks like natural lighting may not be enough for shooting with either camcorder.

3-The "Split": For those of you just tuning in, there's an issue with two halves of the image being SLIGHTLY different brightnesses/colors while in +18 gain.

Is this on the LCD/VF or is it recorded?

Great report!

Hey Nate, congrats on the new camera! Glad they are starting to go out now.

About the split screen, is it not present at all at 0 and 6+gain or is it still there if you really look close? In this case, do you think it would show up on a film out or if digitaly projected in a 15ft or so big screen?

You lost me on the pixel remark. What you mean?

Thanks Nate.

Quick questions about the split screen issue.

1. Is the split exactly in the middle of the image right at the 640 pixel mark?

2. Is the color brightness difference consistant every time per gain setting or does it shift over time?

The reason I ask is because I can write a pluign or filter for NLE's that will adjust the left half to match the right half based on certain gain levels. I can also make a plugin that will mask any dead pixels. Or I can bundle everything as one JVC HD100 plugin for a quick automatic fix.

Wedding videographers who like to shoot with no lights (not me) will need as much of the gain as they can get so this may be an issue for them. A JVC filter plugin to use during editing might be an easy way to fix any of the current issues.

1)How are you planning on or how are you monitoring in the field?

I've done pretty well in the past just making a point to learn how the LCD reacts in different conditions and drawing experience from multiple camera LCD/CRT comparisons.

In other words, for many things, I probably won't be. If I get in a pinch I might bring an NTSC monitor.

2)I just bought a Sachtler DV4 set of sticks...is that going to be adequate or would you suggest some different camera support items?

DV4 might be a little light, but I'd think it'd work.

3)Are you using the Firestore or just tape? If not did you purchase the deck...and if so...are they planning on it being compatible with other HDV formats now or in the future?

Just tape for now. I plan on a Firestore later.

Quick questions about the split screen issue.

1. Is the split exactly in the middle of the image right at the 640 pixel mark?

2. Is the color brightness difference consistant every time per gain setting or does it shift over time?

The reason I ask is because I can write a pluign or filter for NLE's that will adjust the left half to match the right half based on certain gain levels. I can also make a plugin that will mask any dead pixels. Or I can bundle everything as one JVC HD100 plugin for a quick automatic fix.

Wedding videographers who like to shoot with no lights (not me) will need as much of the gain as they can get so this may be an issue for them. A JVC filter plugin to use during editing might be an easy way to fix any of the current issues.

THAT would be very, very interesting indeed, especially if the user can assign himself which pixel to replace by the average of the neighbours.

Would always be handy if you come home after a shoot and a dead pixel has turned up on the (important) footage. By the way: it is not unusual to loose some pixels as the CCD block ages. You can be unlucky and have one right in the middle of your screen after 1 year.

Obviously you can send something like that in, but you could notice it after taking very important footage...

(By the way, your name sounds very dutch or belgian...? I'm from Belgium too...)

About the split screen, is it not present at all at 0 and 6+gain or is it still there if you really look close? In this case, do you think it would show up on a film out or if digitaly projected in a 15ft or so big screen?

It's not there at 0 or 6. Maybe the tiniest bit at 9. Maybe. I mean, at this point we're talking about me with my nose to the monitor squinting.

You lost me on the pixel remark. What you mean?

Ok, so in 18+ gain/iris closed you're looking basically a screen full of blinking christmas lights, looking for one that's on and not blinking. I was trying to say that there were SOME pixels spending much more time in the "on" state than the "off". Not a dead pixel, but one that's exhibiting a small amount of the same condition that causes dead pixels. Make sense?

18+ gain is only shooting Bigfoot as he runs through your backyard anyway. Or maybe I'd put it as "18 gain looks so crappy anyway I'm not gonna split hairs as to HOW crappy it is".

Quick questions about the split screen issue.

1. Is the split exactly in the middle of the image right at the 640 pixel mark?

I would bet. I heard somewhere it's the result of two image processors working in parallel on the same frame, and one being out of calibration to the other. Sounds feasible to me.

2. Is the color brightness difference consistant every time per gain setting or does it shift over time?

Don't know, haven't observed it for more than a few seconds at a time. I'd bet it's static over time, but varies in balance between cameras.

The reason I ask is because I can write a pluign or filter for NLE's that will adjust the left half to match the right half based on certain gain levels. I can also make a plugin that will mask any dead pixels. Or I can bundle everything as one JVC HD100 plugin for a quick automatic fix.

Based on what I've seen, that might be the ticket for the times you HAD to go for the gain. I personally have set my GAIN H for a roof of +9. If I want more I'm gonna have stop what I'm doing and go in a menu to get it.

Is this on the LCD/VF or is it recorded?


I was curious about the same thing. Can someone answer this? I believe that it is recorded.

Dan Brown

The split-screen effect is recorded. It is not a viewfinder/LCD thing, it's something in the processing of the image and it shows up on tape, on the analog outputs, and in the vf/lcd.

Thanks for the explanation Nate.
Are you going to invest on a firestore for the camera, or you think the ProHD is safe enough? Talking about drop outs.
Also, what's your opinion on HDV tapes? You think one should only use the sony HDV or JVC ProHD (I would think they are the same, since JVC normally doesn't make tapes) or good ol' fuji mini-Dv is just as good?
The whole HDV drop out issue kind of reminds me of DV early days, where Betacam and Digibeta users used to say DV was not good because it had too many drop outs. Funny thing is in more than 4 years using DV, I never had a single drop out.

Does anybody know where I can find info on the hard drive option for the HD100 and does anybody know how much it will cost?

THt worries me. I found in a bright room, I needed +18dB gain with a Z1. Looks like natural lighting may not be enough for shooting with either camcorder.


Steve, with all due respect this doesn't match my experience with the Z1 at all shooting in a normally lit room. Since the day I use +18db for anything except surveillance video will be long in coming, I would have made a lot of negative noise - more than would have been visible in the picture.

Steve, with all due respect this doesn't match my experience with the Z1 at all shooting in a normally lit room. Since the day I use +18db for anything except surveillance video will be long in coming, I would have made a lot of negative noise - more than would have been visible in the picture.

John,
Sounds like your Z1 experiences are similar to mine, and to many others here regarding gain. Maybe if you had an ND filter on in a bright room, you'd need gain, but the cam will let you know you've got it on.
You can get to about +12 with the Z1 without experiencing horrid noise, and if you turn sharpening down to around 8, you can get even more clean image, and additionally, adding black stretch if you've got a bright light in there somewhere, will clean it up even more. The demo footage that was shot at the Bellagio was simply over the top, going from straight and slightly noisy black with zero lighting to managing the extreme bright whites of the lights and fountains, while still giving a great set of red and blue images, and showing detail on the hotel marquee (unlit) itself.

Michael, to comment on your question re: tape...BASF had a demo of HDV tape at their booth, and clearly demonstrated a better image due to higher grade tape. Why? Because there is a better signal to noise ratio in the higher grades (+4 in the Sony tape, which is likely made by BASF) and higher signal to noise, coupled with HDV's better error correction, means the decoder is doing less work. I never would have believed it, had I not seen the diff. I'm pretty sure the way they'd set up their demo was doing a firewire to firewire transfer. I'd imagine that the JVC would enjoy the same benefits of better grade tape. It might be interesting to compare Charles/Nate/Barry's taped footage with the DVRack HD looking at scopes or on an HD/SDI monitor to see if there are any differences.

" and higher signal to noise, coupled with HDV's better error correction, means the decoder is doing less work. I never would have believed it, had I not seen the diff."

I would like to see that to believe it, from what I gather the better tape has better "Carrier" signal to noise ratio, not better signal to noise ratio like one would think in term of camera head, or analog recording, did they advertised better picture quality for real?

It's a better carrier signal, advertised/marketed as S/N ratio.
Sony wasn't claiming anything with the tape at NAB, but BASF was showing both cheap tape and high grade tape, and you could definitely see a difference. Nothing that you could place a finger on, just a difference.
My initial impression was that it was snake oil, similar to Monster or other high end cables. But you could indeed see a difference. Why? I don't know. After all, it is just 1's and 0's. If it's readable at all, it's identical to what the cam put there.

sony's claims run to error reduction of 90%, better carrier (which they term signal to noise) by +4dB, 50% fewer dropouts, and dual layers of magnetic material. The only other claim I've seen/heard Sony make is that because it's 16:9 vs 4:3, the additional information increases the margin for error to tape. Therefore, the new tape formula reduces risk by a substantial amount.

It's a better carrier signal, advertised/marketed as S/N ratio.
Sony wasn't claiming anything with the tape at NAB, but BASF was showing both cheap tape and high grade tape, and you could definitely see a difference.

But there's a difference between cheap DV tape vs HDV tape and good DV tape vs HDV tape IMO.

...has anyone else seen prices to rent the GYHD100 or BRHD50 yet?


DVX's go for about $200 here in Los Angeles, so I've heard rumblings of $325-350 for the HD100.

I know I've seen the DVX go for much less than that in smaller markets, though.

Better tape, better technology? The analogue days are over. It is all marketing.

Any idea why I know this for certain? I'm a master in physics, and my field of expertise is image compression....

Better tape yields fewer dropouts. which means, fewer artefacts. Richer colours? finer detail? All-round better image quality? Nonsense.

Especially with the MPEG2. One could imagine that there would be very, very tine drop-outs, just altering a few pixels, and therefor lesser video-quality, but since it is MPEG2, the video is either right (no artefact), or either wrong (seriously visible artefact). Due to the digital concept and the MPEG2 compression, there's nothing inbetween.

Better tape yields lower noise in the Image? Nonsense....
Better colour-reproduction? Nonsense...
Finer focus? Nonsense...

I would go for the better tape, but for the right reasons: lower possibility on a drop-out...

Exactly. In Analog it made a difference, in digital it *cannot* make a difference, other than dropout performance.

Werner,

Thanks for putting a cork in the S/N theories.

I guess we don't "NEED to Know" the differences between analog and digital.

Werner,

Thanks for putting a cork in the S/N theories.

I guess we don't "NEED to Know" the differences between analog and digital.

No problem - any time... :-)

Steve, with all due respect this doesn't match my experience with the Z1 at all shooting in a normally lit room.

All of the 3CCD DV camcorders tend to require +6dB to +9dB in about 500W of light, so given that we KNOW the the Z1 is several stops less sensitive, +12dB to +18dB seemed just about what I would expect.

Thankfully, the noise was not too bad. But, the camera clearly is not great in low-light -- as every review has noted.

And, that's what I found.

...which is in line with the general difference between SD and HD. Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember that even CineAlta is slower than say DigiBeta or the BVW400/600 line of cameras. Nature of bigger chips...

It's not the nature of bigger chips, it's the nature of smaller pixels. The CineAlta's chips are about the same size as the BVW600's, but they have something like 4x as many pixels on them. Those pixels are, therefore, about 1/4 the size of the pixels on the 600.

The smaller the pixels, the less light sensitivity.

All HD cameras are going to be less sensitive (i.e., slower) than a comparable-CCD, comparable-technology SD camera, because the SD camera is going to have much bigger pixels. All these 1/3" CCD HD/HDV cameras are going to be slower than their SD counterparts.

Thanks Barry, that's what I meant. Bigger as in more dense...thanks for the clarification.

It's just the amount of photons that can reach te CCD's.... if you lower the framerate, the CCDs are more sensitive as well (slower shutter tto - of course...)

All of the 3CCD DV camcorders tend to require +6dB to +9dB in about 500W of light, so given that we KNOW the the Z1 is several stops less sensitive, +12dB to +18dB seemed just about what I would expect.


Again with all due respect, Steve, I do not agree with any of those figures. What 3CCD cams? How are you determining exposure?

I'd have to say from my experience that John would be right. My small light kit is a 1K Rifa, a 750W Fresnel and a 250W tota... and with just the fresnel and a reflector I can easily get my XL1s to expose somewhere between f4 and f8 (depending on subjects, contrast range, etc.).

...lens, distance of the light from the subject, type of room, colour of paint on walls, etc., etc. Here we are in a very non-scientific waters.

However, I would (together with most I am sure) like to get a sense of the difference between the HD100 and say PD150 or something most of us are familiar. Some time back I shot some comparison test between the Z1U and my SONY DSR-500 with 20x Fujinon and in daylight under most conditions the speed difference was around 1-1.5 stops at 0 dB. At night it went up to as much as 2 stops. In that test shoot I didn't focus on light sensitivity and therefore don't have the exact numbers but from what I remember, in the mid-range (F5.6-F11) the difference was a tad less and in open wide the Z1U dropped down even more.

Not sure if this makes too much sense but that was my experience. Then again, the exposure latitude is slightly different between those two cameras and so is the sensitivity of their zebra patterns, which might be enough to account for the .5 stop difference.