Today I was able to screen a test of the same subject matter on both the HD100 and the HVX200 output to 35mm film. My reaction is that both of these cameras are equally credible tools to use for eventual filmout. I was able to notice what appeared to be slightly higher resolution on the JVC, but the HVX produced a very pleasing picture overall. Basically, unless the two cameras were split screened I think it would be hard to find a "quality" difference sufficient enough to choose one over the other (and I do intend to split screen them at some point). I would be happy to work with either of these cameras and would base my pick on other features such as design, ergonomics, optics and workflow.

The test included two other elements that were more remarkable to me. One was the HVX in MiniDV mode (24PA to tape). This was some of the best looking miniDV I have seen. The client wanted to know if he could switch to mini DV in case he ran out of P2 storage while shooting a run and gun doc overseas. While I would not relish being in that situation, I think this is a viable backup. The other element was an F900 in 24P. Not surprisingly, it looked best of all. The better optics were particularly noticeable. But it was startling just how close the other two came, given the price difference. Pretty remarkable what you can do for less than 10K these days. (The JVC was not tested on DV mode).

Why do many associate less detail as being more filmic?
I think there is some confusion between detail and resolution. The HD100 has more resolution than the HVX200 and that can be seen when comparing the two side by side. However, the HD100 also has more detail, a.k.a. edge enhancement, in it's default configuration than the HVX - way too high in my opinion, which is partly why the HVX tends to look more "filmic" out of the box. (It's unfortunate that it's called detail in the menu because increasing it does not add detail, just edge enhancement). This is not a good thing when you are after an organic "film look" because it makes edges look artificial and skin tones look plastic.

So how do you get that organic look? Certainly not by lowering resolution. Turn detail way down or off. You can always add it in post, but you cannot take it away once it's there.

However, the HD100 also has more detail, a.k.a. edge enhancement, in it's default configuration than the HVX - way too high in my opinion, which is partly why the HVX tends to look more "filmic" out of the box. (It's unfortunate that it's called detail in the menu because increasing it does not add detail, just edge enhancement). This is not a good thing when you are after an organic "film look" because it makes edges look artificial and skin tones look plastic.


Andrew,
You missed my point.
I was referring to IMAGE detail, not the artificial edge enhancement "detail" circuit.

I have yet to see one image from the HVX200 that shows more image detail than the HD100.

As far as artificial edge enhancement, the HD100 allows you to actually turn it OFF. This is not true for the HVX200.

Tim I hope you don't mind but I split Andrew's post and Steven's reply out of the "HD100 vs. HVX200" thread. It seemed to me that the filmout topic is important enough to stand on its own and deserves separate attention.

Looks good Chris. This topic is of particular interest to me with the film I'm shooting right now.

My reaction is that both of these cameras are equally credible tools to use for eventual filmout. I was able to notice what appeared to be slightly higher resolution on the JVC, but the HVX produced a very pleasing picture overall.
...
I would be happy to work with either of these cameras and would base my pick on other features such as design, ergonomics, optics and workflow.


Great news to me. I'm now pretty convinced that the HD-100 is for me and most of that decision is based on the design & workflow. From seeing recent tests and user's posts, the picture quaity is very close and that was probably my biggest draw to the HVX. Having the 60p option in SD on the HD-100 satisfies the one other tie-breaker that the HVX had in it's favor. I just wish I had $2000 and four-five months extra to put towards the HD200, but that just isn't the case. :-( Oh, well. Still a great camera.

Andrew,
You missed my point.
I was referring to IMAGE detail, not the artificial edge enhancement "detail" circuit.
Sorry about that, Steven. When I went back I realized that it was not your post but another that made me feel there was confusion between detail (resolution) and detail (enhancement). Here it is:
The HVX doesn't have as many pixels, which makes it look softer. If you like that look, you can always turn the detail setting on the HD100 down. I'd rather begin with more detail and turn it down than not have enough when I want it.
Of course, you can't turn down resolution by turning down the detail circuit, only enhancement. I just grabbed the wrong quote when I took yours.

I haven't bought my HD100 yet, so I'm not entirely familiar with it, but most cameras I use (mostly the "big guys" running into sports broadcasting trucks) allow you to set detail to a negative number to reduce actual effective resolution.

Sorry - Double post - please see below.

Dear Andrew,

I was looking at all of the mini HD cams before I made my purchase.

A few things that swayed my decision.

1. You and your filmout demonstration in Chicago (I flew in from Detroit).

2. Everything that I saw from the HVX looked too soft.

3. Interchangeable lenses on the HD100.

4. Ergonomics, the HD100 really feels like a 16mm camera on my shoulder and support equipment. I couldn't imagine trying to shoot with the HVX, it appears front heavy, with no shoulder support whatsoever.

Thanks for all of your efforts.

Tom Chaney

www.tomchaney.com

By the way, I worked with Du-Art in the 90's on a blowup of a 16mm film I shot and produced called MOSQUITO. I hope to work with you and your team again soon, on my new project, Take 2.