Just read Adam Wilt's review of the HD100 at DV.com. He gave it 4.5 stars out of 5, which is pretty damn good! But he did say a couple of things that I found curious:

1-SSE happened for him at seemingly ramdon times, but most often with heavy green content (and mentioned that human skin has lots of green content).
2-he said he found more occasions when HDV style artifacting occured in the HD100 than the Z1 and discussed the different codecs of these cameras.

Wish I could just copy and paste, but appareant that's a no-no. Anyway, I found these two statements interesting as I had heard that the SSE problem had been solved and not to worry about it. Also, I had read that if anything, JVC's short-GOP codec resulted in fewer artifacts than long-GOP codecs.
Anyway, I was just curous what people here thought of these assertions. If you want to read the review, it's free to read at DV.com and you can compare it to his review of the XL H1 (which also got 4.5 stars).

Copy and paste is of course strictly forbidden, as we respect copyright here at DV Info Net. The link is www.dv.com, registration is free.

Just scroll down a bit and it'll be there in the right collum.

Just read Adam Wilt's review of the HD100 at DV.com. He gave it 4.5 stars out of 5, which is pretty damn good! But he did say a couple of things that I found curious:

1-SSE happened for him at seemingly ramdon times, but most often with heavy green content (and mentioned that human skin has lots of green content).

2-he said he found more occasions when HDV style artifacting occured in the HD100 than the Z1 and discussed the different codecs of these cameras.


My sense of his use of the word "random" is that some have claimed SSE "NEVER appears at ..." or ALWAYS appears at ..." and my experience is there are no such 100% true statments. SSE is a product (multiplication) of probabilities AS ARE the cures. Think of it as vertical smear on one of Sony's HyperHAD cameras. You don't often see it, but DEPENDING ON MULTIPLE CONDITIONS, you might.

I did not sense he said "HDV style artifacting occured in the HD100" in the sense that fast, complex motion caused MPEG-2 blocking -- as is the case with 1080i. Rather, he found a much more subtle artifact that only happens on tiny amounts of motion. He describes its cause very well.

Copy and paste is of course strictly forbidden, as we respect copyright here at DV Info Net. The link is www.dv.com, registration is free.
Chris,

Is this the shootout that you were a part of?

The DV magazine shootout was an earlier test, before the DVInfo shootout. I also think that they may have had one of the earlier cameras, which seems to be full of bugs. Since then, JVC has released a few updates.

No, the shootout was a completely separate event which took place last weekend and focused on comparing 6 HD cameras rather than providing individual reviews. It will be written up in DV Magazine, and at DVinfo of course, but it will take awhile for Adam to analyze the substantial amount of footage generated by the tests so please be patient.

Too slow Boyd ;)

That's the question to Adam Wilt. Was his camera on the test "A'd" or was it pre "A" for split screen? Nevertheless, his findings are similar to ours and why we even got involved with the HD-100 and JVC to begin with. It's a top of the line effort and if this is the foundation for future camera's, I think JVC's ProHD(XE) is in for a great ride...

Hi Stephen,

I'm the one who arranged for all of the cameras we used last weekend. We had two of everything, two each of the HD100, XL H1, HVX200, Z1U, F350, there was even a second (and third) VariCam on site although we used only one.

I can tell you without question that both HD100s on set were definitely "A" models. In fact Nate Weaver brought along his own camera which he had just upgraded to "A" status. The other HD100 was provided by JVC (thank you Carl Hicks!) and it too had just recently come from Cypress with the "A" upgrade.

Just wanted to again point out that the forthcoming DV Magazine article from Adam Wilt about our shoot-out will not be printed for another month or two. The current article that has been mentioned here refers to the Burbank event that happened back in January. DV Info Net had nothing to do with that one. Hope this helps,

The less artifacting was the reason I went with JVC. For me to hold off on the canon is a big deal. I wish we could switch to 720 mode in it, I'd buy it tomorrow.

Still a great camera though.

I think JVC wins so far.Lets see what NAB releases. As much as I love panasonic I'm glad I waited on it. I really don't like their card system vs a focus drive.

I'd like to mention that if anybody has specific questions about how the HD100 was used/setup in either test, that they can ask me here. I was present for both tests and acting as HD100 op/consultation on both also.

I did not sense he said "HDV style artifacting occured in the HD100" in the sense that fast, complex motion caused MPEG-2 blocking -- as is the case with 1080i. Rather, he found a much more subtle artifact that only happens on tiny amounts of motion. He describes its cause very well.
Well, okay. It's something different than that. It's actually the kind of thing I had heard about here before when someone posted pics with an ocean in the bg. But it is still a product of the codec and something to consider. Now, if only that uncompressed "deck" comes out that Keith has been talking about over in "General HD / HDV Acquisition", then it won't be an issue!
But, something else that I did not mention before about the article was my confusion about the HD100's sensitivity. The review says the HD100 is about 1.5 to 2 stops less sensititive than current 1/3" SD cams, but that it get a stop back when shooting in HD mode. Perhaps I'm confusing terms here, but is this saying that the HD100 has less dynamic range than 1/3" cams like a pd170 or a dvx100b? It was my understanding that the HD100 had greater dynamic range and if anything would make a better SD cam than any of those cams b/c of the HD100's greater native resolution. Could someone please clear this up?

The review says the HD100 is about 1.5 to 2 stops less sensititive than current 1/3" SD cams, but that it get a stop back when shooting in HD mode.

The review says that the HD 100's HD sensitivity is about 1.5 to 2 stops less sensitive that most current 1/3" SD cameras, but in SD, the HD 100 recovers a full stop.

The review says the HD100 is about 1.5 to 2 stops less sensititive than current 1/3" SD cams, but that it get a stop back when shooting in HD mode. Perhaps I'm confusing terms here, but is this saying that the HD100 has less dynamic range than 1/3" cams like a pd170 or a dvx100b? It was my understanding that the HD100 had greater dynamic range and if anything would make a better SD cam than any of those cams b/c of the HD100's greater native resolution.

The HD100 is less sensitive than your average 1/3" SD cam, but so are all of the current crop of baby HD cameras. Its a function of pixel size at the 1/3" CCD level, as well as progressive scanning.

This is not to say dynamic range is less. Dynamic range refers to the range of light and dark tones the camera can capture, it's usually measured in stops.

The HD100 has slightly more dynamic range than your average SD camera not because of greater resolution, but more because of evolutionary improvements in the CCDs and DSP...something all of the current crop of affordable HD cameras can lay claim to for the most part.

I asked this on the HD100 board, but I noticed Nate was taking requests. Do you know if the HD60p on the HD100 is similar to the HD60p on the HVX200? I know that you can only achieve that through a component connection, but I love the look of the 60p on the HVX200, and was just curious how the HD60p on the HD100 looked. Thanks.

and was just curious how the HD60p on the HD100 looked. Thanks.

Looks just fine, as you'd expect. You just have to spend a lot of money and trouble to capture it.

Looks just fine, as you'd expect. You just have to spend a lot of money and trouble to capture it.
Any chance of a less expensive/less complicated method coming down the pike?

Any chance of a less expensive/less complicated method coming down the pike?


http://www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/hdu1.html

cool! Hope it happens.

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~wakeham/hdu1.html
I've heard about that, but nothing lately. Last I heard, they were having some bugs and issues that needed to be worked out.

I forgot what he though the going price would be for that. I can't wait to see some of their example captures.

The review says that the HD 100's HD sensitivity is about 1.5 to 2 stops less sensitive that most current 1/3" SD cameras, but in SD, the HD 100 recovers a full stop.
This is what happens when someone with serious dyslexia has to try to parapharase stuff rather than just copy and paste. I know. My dad and sister are lawyers and they see the point in this, but it REALLY pisses me off that you can't just quote something from another web site and just site the reference. I'm sorry, but what the hell, my old college (which would kick anyone out if he or she lied, cheated, or stold) would be satisfied with as much.
Sorry, rant over. And thank you for the correction. Hope that didn't mislead anyone.

Any chance of a less expensive/less complicated method coming down the pike?

I'm sure you're already aware of it- but if you haven't tried it out yet- the SD HDV 60p mode which you can record to and capture back from tape looks very, very good and scales up to 720p very well- and requires no special hardware to capture or work with. It's not quite seamless when compared to the native 720p footage- but it still looks better than any SD footage I've seen before from a 1/3" camera.

Just read Adam Wilt's review of the HD100 at DV.com.
Where is that article, is that the 4 cameras comparatif? I can't find any other...

Adam also did a review on the HD100, seperate from the DV Magazine's shootout.

Where is that article, is that the 4 cameras comparatif? I can't find any other...

This is the URL, but I think you probably need to register at DV.com to read the review...

http://dv.com/reviews/reviews_item.jhtml?category=Cameras&articleId=185301200

I'm registered. Thank you.

...it REALLY pisses me off that you can't just quote something from another web site and just site the reference.
I thought that was the main point of the "fair use" clause in copyright law? That you CAN copy a portion of any copyright work as long as it's specifically for discussing the work itself, and the reference is properly cited. Quoting part of an article to discuss the article falls within that right.

However, it may be that Chris is just being extra cautious and forbidding it entirely to avoid any arguments/legal disputes. I've also seen people get carried away and quote entire articles, which is definitely not allowed in "fair use."

The fair use clause is only a *defense.* I don't want to be put in a position where I have to defend myself in a court of law. It isn't a question of whether or not I would prevail; I simply prefer to avoid that situation altogether.

Content from other sites may not be copied into DV Info Net without prior permission from the source.

There are 5 countries represented on this thread.

It started in the US then went to Australia then to UK and then Portugal and finally to Canada. AFAIK it is "legal" to quote any other source as long as credit is given to the source in any country. That, however, may not be the policy of the web site (ie Chris Hurd).

Anyway, it's not big deal to get a UN and PW for the article to read.

Looks just fine, as you'd expect. You just have to spend a lot of money and trouble to capture it.

give us some sugar baby. come on, it just "looks fine"? can you elaborate please? It's an intriguing capability that doesn't get discussed much.

Chris, what I wrote above wasn't meant to be an attack on you or this site in any way. This policy seems to be the same everywhere and it was a general comment on that (and a frustration b/c I know it means I'll make more mistakes like I did).
I just wish there was some kind of ruling that the site is not responsible for what people post on it. But, we're all here to discuss video so perhaps we should just stick with that.
Anyway, sorry if I came across the wrong way.

No worries Ashley, it's all good. I wish we didn't live in such a litigious society.

I just wish there was some kind of ruling that the site is not responsible for what people post on it.

There have been lawsuits and rulings. It gets complicated and every board op should probably consult with their own attorney. I do know of one case where actively editing posts actually worked against a board owner when they failed to remove a particular post. So IF you choose to monitor / edit the posts, THEN you have to be extra cautious - which is what appears to be happening at DVinfo... and that's cool. Better safe than sorry! :-)

the article seems to suggest the sse effect, if present in your camera, is something you have to learn to accept and live with. i had the impression that jvc can fix this issue?

the article seems to suggest the sse effect, if present in your camera, is something you have to learn to accept and live with. i had the impression that jvc can fix this issue?

They can give you a firmware update or something, which makes the SSE effect less apparent, and if what I read is correct, make it practicaly invisable in most situations, however they cannot fix it completely: with high gain on and/or extreme temperatures you'll always notice...

They can give you a firmware update or something, which makes the SSE effect less apparent, and if what I read is correct, make it practicaly invisable in most situations, however they cannot fix it completely: with high gain on and/or extreme temperatures you'll always notice...

What you'll also notice with high gain is that using a lot of gain looks really, really bad on digital cameras whether there's SSE present or not. ;-)

I have my HD100 set up so it can bump up the gain as high as +6, but I don't want to see anything higher than that. I have yet to see any SSE, but I kind of don't expect to see SSE using the camera the way I'm using the camera.

BTW, I am constantly being blown away by the quality out of this camera. I was shooting an interview with an 82-year-old physicist yesterday in Pittsburgh and I was in a cramped little office at Pitt where using lights was going to be tough, so just to see how ambient light would fare I fired up the camera. IMO, it looked great. Under standard ceiling fixtures and with a window I got images that looked wonderful to me. The use of the Knee and Stretch functions kept the window from blowing out. Until I got home and looked at the footage I wasn't completely sure about the lighting, but it looked great. I was worried about flicker, but didn't experience any. Shooting at 1/48th in 24P (as opposed to 1/60th in 30P) seems to allow the camera to fare well in much lower light than that shift should allow, but I'm not complaining.

Tonight I shot a panel of coal industry people facing off with environmentalists. It was under basic house lights and also turned out great.

The only complaint I have about the rig at all is that the battery life of the DR-HD100 is really short. I seem to get a little over an hour out of it. That really blows. I need to find a workaround soon.

Hi Robert,

I'm really glad to hear of your positive results with the camera.

Regarding battery life: The small battery that the camera comes with the camera is really intended to just get you started. JVC's specialty is in building cameras, not batteries. Most users of the GY-HD100U have added a commercial battery adaptor from Anton Bauer, IDX, or PAG. These systems allow run times of 3 to 5 hours. These products are available from the JVC dealer that you bought the camera from. Of course, you can also buy several extra JVC BN-V438U batteries and accomplish the same thing - it's just more cumbersome.

Regards, Carl

Hi Robert,

I'm really glad to hear of your positive results with the camera.

Regarding battery life: The small battery that the camera comes with the camera is really intended to just get you started. JVC's specialty is in building cameras, not batteries. Most users of the GY-HD100U have added a commercial battery adaptor from Anton Bauer, IDX, or PAG. These systems allow run times of 3 to 5 hours. These products are available from the JVC dealer that you bought the camera from. Of course, you can also buy several extra JVC BN-V438U batteries and accomplish the same thing - it's just more cumbersome.

Regards, Carl

Well, I've seen JVC promotional material that says the IDX battery can also power the drive via a D-Tap connector, but I haven't been able to find a cable for the job anywhere. I emailed Focus Enhancements about it hoping they could point me in the right direction, but I never got a reply.

The camera has been a great investment for me, though. I've been very happy with the results so far and the camera handles like a "real" camera, which is a huge deal. I've never picked up a prosumer camera before this that was really usable. Or at least nothing that I'd have felt comfortable using.

Hi Robert,

Anton Bauer sells a powertap cable for the HDD units. It is called a "POWERTAP-FS4" This is what you may have seen JVC promote. They also make a mounting plate. Full info on the Anton Bauer solution is at:

http://www.antonbauer.com/Product_QR-JVC%207-14%20HDV.htm


IDX tells me that there is a company in Nashville that can make you a cable to go from the IDX power tap to the HDD units. Contact info is:

Trew Audio
Contact: Rob
Ph. 615-256-3542
Nashville, TN
e-mail Rob@trewaudio.com

Regards, Carl

Hi Robert,

Anton Bauer sells a powertap cable for the HDD units. It is called a "POWERTAP-FS4" This is what you may have seen JVC promote. They also make a mounting plate. Full info on the Anton Bauer solution is at:

http://www.antonbauer.com/Product_QR-JVC%207-14%20HDV.htm


IDX tells me that there is a company in Nashville that can make you a cable to go from the IDX power tap to the HDD units. Contact info is:

Trew Audio
Contact: Rob
Ph. 615-256-3542
Nashville, TN
e-mail Rob@trewaudio.com

Regards, Carl

Thank you for that information. I'll contact them right now. The JVC information where I saw the bit about the power tap is on the JVC Pro web site. It says:

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101584&feature_id=01

The battery bracket has a 14.8V D-Tap accessory cable which will provide power simultaneously to DR-HD100 JVC disk recorder and to a light.

Just an aside...I am constantly blown away with the quality of the camera's image when displayed on a CRT. Very SRIII. We have a Sony 14" HD CRT component in line with a Samsung LCD via HDMI and our LCD computer monitors. The Sony CRT looks stunning and filmlike compared to the LCD's, which are poor in comparison.

Dave Beaty