I ordered my HD100 and haven't received it yet, but the buyer's remorse is already setting in. Not because of the price but because of the lack of autofocus.

I've been using a SONY HC1 for over a year and have been more than ready for months to move to a 3 chip HD camera with better manual exposure controls, etc.. But my work is very much run and gun. I shoot partner-dance workshops in which I'm often in the middle of a large circle of dancers trying to capture the spontaneous demos of the instructors while they teach. The dancing is not so fast that I'm worried about the 720p30 (vs 720p60) but the instructors will at times start their dance 15-25 feet from me and then will move within 8 feet of me without warning (in which case I don't get their full bodies in the picture, but that's OK momentarily). I typically have my camera on tripod+dolly and am moving laterally around the circle all the time, although at many moments I can't always back up or move laterally quickly to get more distance because there are people too close to me. I have no control over lighting and it's not always that great (indoor, flourescent, sometimes some bright side windows).

I really want to move into progressive so the Sony Z1U is less desirable to me. And I'm not wild about what I'm reading about the Panasonic.

Any suggestions? Obviously I'll get the camera (tomorrow) and try what I can within the 7 days I have to test it out, although not in combat conditions. But will I have learned enough about how to focus with this camera to be able to make an informed decision? Thanks for any help or suggestions.

I would say that you shouldn't worry too much. I think you should be able to adjust very quickly to manual focus. I know many people who have. It's just a question of practice. Personally, there's nothing I hate more than the autofocus hunting that goes on with cameras like the Z1. Of course, the 'Push Auto' is often useful but you can get just as quick manually. Also, don't forget that the focus assist function on this camera is great for beginners and that there are many things you can do to help give you a decent depth of field. I'm using the HD100 in a run and gun situation at the moment and I've had great results.

I ordered my HD100 and haven't received it yet, but the buyer's remorse is already setting in. Not because of the price but because of the lack of autofocus.

I've been using a SONY HC1 for over a year and have been more than ready for months to move to a 3 chip HD camera with better manual exposure controls, etc.. But my work is very much run and gun. I shoot partner-dance workshops in which I'm often in the middle of a large circle of dancers trying to capture the spontaneous demos of the instructors while they teach. The dancing is not so fast that I'm worried about the 720p30 (vs 720p60) but the instructors will at times start their dance 15-25 feet from me and then will move within 8 feet of me without warning (in which case I don't get their full bodies in the picture, but that's OK momentarily). I typically have my camera on tripod+dolly and am moving laterally around the circle all the time, although at many moments I can't always back up or move laterally quickly to get more distance because there are people too close to me. I have no control over lighting and it's not always that great (indoor, flourescent, sometimes some bright side windows).

I really want to move into progressive so the Sony Z1U is less desirable to me. And I'm not wild about what I'm reading about the Panasonic.

Any suggestions? Obviously I'll get the camera (tomorrow) and try what I can within the 7 days I have to test it out, although not in combat conditions. But will I have learned enough about how to focus with this camera to be able to make an informed decision? Thanks for any help or suggestions.

I believe you must learn how to focus manually. With HD, focus is critical. I am a little surprised that auto focus does the job well for you, because of it's limitations. No pro cams have auto focus, only prosumer cams have. I have never worked with an auto focus cam, I don't think I could trust it.

I am sure you will do just fine, you need to practice, that's all.

Carl

I'm sorry, but we are talking about the JVC HD100U, right? I just got mine last week, and it not only does have AutoFocus, but Auto Iris, and even FullAuto.

Please ignore my previous post. I never tried it in auto anything, I just plunged into full manual mode. It does have auto iris though...

Hello all,
I have this camera and it does not have auto focus. It has auto zoom. If there is an auto focus on this camera, please let me know where the button is. It does have focus assist, but that's not the same thing.
However, I'm fairly new to this (or any) manual video camera, and have only shot about 10 hours worth of video with it, and I think I've started to get used to the manual focus. It takes time, but I think it's worth it in the end. It's more fun, and like a manual transmission car, it's second nature after a while.
Enjoy the manual fun.
Mike.

I ordered my HD100 and haven't received it yet, but the buyer's remorse is already setting in. Not because of the price but because of the lack of autofocus.

Patricia. The lack of autofocus is a desired feature for a professional camera. It 's a Good Thing(tm) and one that you'll get to appreciate in a short time.
Autofocus removes the operator from the driving seat and is highly unpredictable. What I mean with this is that the AF can "hunt" for a subject and decide to focus the wrong object.
See this post by Tim http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=437692&postcount=6

Basically, set the aperture at f4.0, go wide and set the focus at 8 feet. You should have pretty much everything in focus and not to worry except for small adjustments. Based on your previous experiences you can also run some very simple tests and mark the lens for the spots where the instructor usually comes closer to you. Practice moving the focus ring to the mark. You'll find out that it's easier that it seems and it's way faster than any AF system.

Many thanks for the reassurance and, especially, the tips for focusing in this situation, Paolo! Now i just have to put in some time practicing and hope that I can pick up the needed skills quickly.

Patricia- I have to agree, this is a great cam. It is also "a huge leap into a different pond" TM. I have had mine a week, and am blown away by the improvement in images. Sure, it is a little difficult to keep focus, but can learn that. Play away, and enjoy. It is a good thing!

Crap... now I owe Paolo 4 cents...

Not because of the price but because of the lack of autofocus.


I've used all four little HD cameras. The autofocus on them is very close to worthless. By contrast, the HD-100 is fast to focus manually. You've got the easiest run and gun camera of this bunch - that's why I chose it. If you try the HD-100 and then try something else you'll SPRINT back to your JVC.

Just take a couple days to PRACTICE focusing fast.

The JVC by far has the best Focus Assist on the cameras and it is critical for HD work. I hate Auto-Focus personally.

The JVC by far has the best Focus Assist on the cameras and it is critical for HD work. I hate Auto-Focus personally.
Right! I completely forgot to mention the FA. I started playing with Peaking too and I find it very valuable for verifying the focus. These two tools make focusing much simpler.
BTW, Patricia, when you get the camera spend the necessary time to set the backfocus as explained in the manual. Also, check the backfocus each time you move the camera. Failing to do that might result in "soft" images. Backfocus problems are hard to spot using the display or the viewfinder but they will "hit" you in post. This is true of all HD cameras, not just the HD100.

Focusing 1/3" chips is a piece of cake. I've seen high school students who've never touched a camera in their lives manage to handle focusing very well even at full tele and a wide-open iris. It's really not a big deal, and you'll soon come to appreciate the benefits of full control over the plane of focus.

Also, check the backfocus each time you move the camera. Failing to do that might result in "soft" images.

each time u move the camera? I thot we need to check only when switching lenses - is it not true?

each time u move the camera? I thot we need to check only when switching lenses - is it not true?
Every time you move it. I don't mean lifting it by the handle and move it a couple of feet away to a new setup. You put it in the bag, drive somewhere for a wedding/video/etc, take it out, set it up, check the back focus.
You'll be glad you did it.

Every time you move it. I don't mean lifting it by the handle and move it a couple of feet away to a new setup. You put it in the bag, drive somewhere for a wedding/video/etc, take it out, set it up, check the back focus.
You'll be glad you did it.

I check by locations...Once I didn't tighten the nob enough, but I noticed it before shooting.

Patricia,

I have to agree, you will come to love the fact that this camera does not autofocus.

In many situations a camera that has auto focus (and suddenly tries to focus on something other than the primary subject) screams to the audience that this is not a pro operator.

This camera is awesome, you will love it.

Tom

I am waiting to get mine too and I am a little worried about the lack of noob features. Not really AF since I never use it but I am a little worried about the lack of optical stabilization.

It will be interesting to see what my footage will look like.

Jonathan,

In my experience you will want to do as much as you can on sticks.

The only thing that I ever wish for with this camera is a wider lens.

Tom

Yes, I will miss a wider lens. The JVC wide-angle adapter is coming in the box with my camera tomorrow but it looks like it's only a marginal improvement. Every little bit helps though.

Yes, I will miss a wider lens. The JVC wide-angle adapter is coming in the box with my camera tomorrow but it looks like it's only a marginal improvement. Every little bit helps though.
Is that the fujinon one? I am going to have to wait till next month to pick up a couple of those since I already spent my load on Marshall monitors and senn mics. This cam is a bottomless pit.

I'm trying to find a wider lens to rent for a shoot, but having no luck - yet.

Tom

Jonathan, I meant the following:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=OrderDetail.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=jvwcv82sc&image.x=0&image.y=0

BTW, Patricia, I was talking with Jonathan Ames and he mentioned that we will be addressing this issue, together with others, in a future episode of "2nd unit". It's all about the story that you want to tell. Sometimes it's better to let go the safety net and experiment, even when it means that you can ruin your footage. You'll soon find that a little of risk goes a long way to improve your art.

Patricia,

I have to agree, you will come to love the fact that this camera does not autofocus.

In many situations a camera that has auto focus (and suddenly tries to focus on something other than the primary subject) screams to the audience that this is not a pro operator.

Using AF incorrectly screams "not a pro" just as much as seeing out of fous shots or watching an operator touch-up focus during a shot.

No one who knows how to use AF, leaves AF ON DURING a shot. You use it momemtarily to get focus at the same time you frame so the subject is in the center.

Exactly the same way one zooms in fully onto the subject to get exact focus and then zooms back out and reframes.

The difference is AF can do this far more accurately than a human can and far faster.

Moreover, AF offers the OPTION of leaving it ON if you want. I'd bet on it over any human operator trying to SEE focus on a low-rez LCD in the bright sun. Or, looking into the low-rez VH with Varifocal glasses in the bright sun. Not everybody is 18. :)

AF is perfect for HD because it can use the huge number of pixels in the three CCDs -- while your eye depends on the relatively small number of pixels in the LCD and VF. It wins, you lose.

Likewise, AF doesn't get distracted by sweat pouring into your eyes. Or bugs crawling down your neck. It works in milliseconds while you work in seconds.

And, if you want to focus manually you can do so because the lens, except for the moment of using AF, is always in Manual.

I will admit it doesn't have the same feel. But, speed and accuracy seems more important to me.

Thanks for your comments, Steve. I'm glad to know that it's not just noobs that feel that AF is a desirable button on the camera, even if only used sparingly. So what do you do with the HD100 under the conditions you mention when you don't have AF?

Using AF incorrectly screams "not a pro" just as much as seeing out of fous shots or watching an operator touch-up focus during a shot.

No one who knows how to use AF, leaves AF ON DURING a shot. You use it momemtarily to get focus at the same time you frame so the subject is in the center.

Exactly the same way one zooms in fully onto the subject to get exact focus and then zooms back out and reframes.

The difference is AF can do this far more accurately than a human can and far faster.


So are you saying that the HD100 SHOULD have an autofocus button, like the FX1 and I assume the Z1?

though steve can obviously speak for himself, i don't think he is saying that, just that AF can be a useful tool.

there are so many levels to being a "professional" that i think this conventional wisdom that AF is somehow unprofessional is more snobbery than actual...i use AF all the time, because i do a lot of outdoors, wildlife, and adventure sports footage. i have some lenses which have no AF feature (35mm lenses mounted to an XL2 do not permit AF) and some which do. do i feel less professional when i use AF? no. it's just another tool, useful in some situations, especially run-and-gun, where speed is essential and tracking an unpredictable motion path may be exceptionally challenging for manual focusing (as in, "hey, where'd that kayaker go???"). my "unprofessional" AF-tracked footage works just fine at the level of producing corporate video. if they pay you for it, it's professional. unless there is a servo issue with how the lighting shifts in the footage, no one can tell the difference.

it's not how it gets in the camera that even matters, it is how it is used in the editor, then output to a product that they either pay you for, or not. the only "professional" technique is the one that someone is willing to pay you to use.....

Thanks for your comments, Steve. I'm glad to know that it's not just noobs that feel that AF is a desirable button on the camera, even if only used sparingly. So what do you do with the HD100 under the conditions you mention when you don't have AF?


I'm praying for an HD10 replacement with 24p and 60p and AF.

Yes, that would be a 720p Z1, but much smaller. Like the HVX.

For the HD100 a good tripod will take a lot of the strain out of shooting. When one's back is hurting it's hard to take the time to focus and expose. But, as I said I'm not 18. :)

Jonathan,

In my experience you will want to do as much as you can on sticks.

The only thing that I ever wish for with this camera is a wider lens.

Tom


Preach on Brother - the cool thing/bad thing about Hi-Def is that it 'sees' everything - including all the little shakes and bumps. And because the camera w/battery is so heavy, you won't want to lug it around for very long.

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

The difference is AF can do this far more accurately than a human can and far faster.

Thank you Steve for pointing out why AF can be a useful feature, and hence a valuable tool when used correctly. Personally I wouldn't consider the HD100U for live events because it lacks AF, but clearly this is a matter of personal preference for many.

For the original poster I would have recommended the FX1 or Z1U as a good complement to the HC1 you have already, and I'd encourage you to think about that during the time you have to make a decision about keeping the JVC camera. I've found the autofocus on the FX1 and Z1U to be quite good in most situations, and of course you can turn it off any time you want a specific focusing effect. So if you find other reasons you're not comfortable with the JVC and decide to send it back anyway, then I'd say to think about the Sony cameras as your next choice. If you do keep the JVC, enjoy it and don't worry yourself too much about "what if."

the cool thing/bad thing about Hi-Def is that it 'sees' everything - including all the little shakes and bumps.

It's funny to see so much concern about this when the resolution we're talking about is still far short of reality, and for photographs would be considered unacceptably blurry. It's only by contrast to SD video that HD reveals things we're not used to seeing, and it's only because we're squeamish (or vain) that anyone cares. But until people get used to HD image quality it may help to assure them that we can reduce the level of detail when necessary to hide blemishes, and for now most video is still delivered in SD anyway.

Thousands of people around the world shoot live events in HD with 2/3" chips that are twice as hard to focus. Lack of AF is a non-issue.

Thousands of people around the world shoot live events in HD with 2/3" chips that are twice as hard to focus. Lack of AF is a non-issue.

That's very true. I especially admire the NFL Films cameramen that shoot on 16mm (even harder then 2/3") and who I hear pull their own focus. Now that's some serious skill.

Although new technology is helping with focusing in HD. Fujinon has their Precision Focus Assist system built into some lenses that uses two CCDs and contrast detection to achieve focus or give guidance for focus. The camera operator uses a trackball to position the focus area on the desired spot and he/she can either get guidance information or have the lens focus on that spot. They're suppose to have a few of these PF lenses at CineGear so I'm anxious to check them out.

http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/pf.shtml
http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadcasting_fujinons_precision_focus/

That's very true. I especially admire the NFL Films cameramen that shoot on 16mm (even harder then 2/3") and who I hear pull their own focus. Now that's some serious skill.

That's correct, you can't drag a focus puller around with you when you're shooting handheld. What impresses me more, though, is how tight these people shoot and still manage to follow the action. Filling the screen with the ball on passes. I can do it, but I have to start wide and zoom into the ball. These guys can stay tight all the way from quarterback to receiver. Incredible. One of the photogs at a local news station used to work for NFL Films, I run into him all the time at sporting events. Great guy, great shooter. He's given me some great tips, like keeping both eyes open and learning how your viewfinder picture correlates to the real world picture.

About Fuji's PF lenses, what I'm worried about is the lens letting less light through. Not a problem for brightly lit sports arenas, but focusing isn't much of a problem there either. In low-light situations the PF might take away too much light.

It's funny to see so much concern about this when the resolution we're talking about is still far short of reality, and for photographs would be considered unacceptably blurry. It's only by contrast to SD video that HD reveals things we're not used to seeing, and it's only because we're squeamish (or vain) that anyone cares. But until people get used to HD image quality it may help to assure them that we can reduce the level of detail when necessary to hide blemishes, and for now most video is still delivered in SD anyway. I wanted to add to this point bcause it's an inportant issue. With all due respect and those who know me know that I mean that sincerely, the purpose of this board and why a number of us take the time to post our best answers and experience no matter how long our production days are is to improve everyone's skills, knowledge and ability to the piont that we are able to use the technology afforded us by our investment in the JVC100HD. I believe the best way to address this issue and evidence our own mastery of the medium thus instilling even more confidence in our cliets is to educate ourselves in the art of diffusion and filtration.

The HD100's capabilities are there for us to use; it's why we invest this much money in an entry-level HD unit. Once we understand the depth of the images it is capable of producing, it is then imcumbent upon us to learn how to employ the menu items to make our subject look their best first by controlling the image before it hits the sensors and then via output. And part of that educaton is the employment and use of a matte box and filtration system of our choice for those of us who can afford such things or screw-on filters at the very least for far less investment dollars. We are currently negotiating with Tiffin to bring to the board, through 2nd-Unit.tv, a comprehensive look at filtration along with price reductions and specials for 2nd Unit and DVInfo members through AbelCine Tech. While I agree with much of what has been written here on this particular post, I disagree with alot of it as well. Our art is not about auto-anything. It is about learning how to get what we see in our mind onto to the big-, small- and micro-screen exactly as we see it in all it's perfection. And that means taking full and complete control of our cameras and our environments.

The underlying issue is that we have individually invested between $6k and $10k for our systems that are, by their very nature, High Definition. Irrespective of what is available for distribution at this time, we should be looking to record in the highest format the camera is capable of, employing then other technologies like filtration to control the HD imaging on an as-needed, case-specific basis. We can then archive it and provide it to our clients in that format for future transfer to HD capable media when the battles for distribution supremacy are over.

We don't typically have this problem in broadcast because we have broadcast specs defining the format we have to deliver on both for both video and audio material. Sometimes its 720p and others its 1080i with all their individual idiosyncricies and specifications. Heck, sometines its D5. What I try to do is provide as much information as I can on how to achieve the highest level of quality possible to members of this board and it is becasue of that I believe that we need to stop looking for auto-focus or auto-anything. I've had the pleasure of working with a number of the people on this board over the past 6-months and I can tell you, they didn't get as good as they are by flipping to full auto. And, again, I say this with all due respect to all who post here. I join alot of other people here who give of their time freely to help wean people from the auto world because was are artists, not autocrats.

Is the lack image stablisation an issue?

Your opinions would be most welcome...

Thanks

Andrew

Image stabilization is always an issue but the fact of the mater is that the form of stabilization found in most camcorders is not sufficient for quality images, especially in HD. Stabilization occurs in one of two ways; optical and mechanical. Mechanical or "hardware stabilization" produces the best results using a mechanical gyro to detect movements in the lens and compensate for it. We use this type of stasbilization when shooting aerials and ground cover shots from the airplane/helo and ORV respectively, employing a neat little device made by Kenyon Labs http://www.ken-lab.com/stabilizers.html. Taylor Wigton turned us onto this great company and we've been hooked ever since. For camcorders, binoculars and the like, however, image stabilization occurs via a liquid- or gel-based prism mounted in front of the lens. This bladder bends the light so that the image falls on a fixed point on the CCD. This type of electronic or "software" image stabilization is less expensive, available on digital camcorders and is far less desirable because you place yet another interger between the image and sensor, this time liquid and so dibilitating to the image. Thus it's not the best of solutions where quality images are concerned. Thus, if you're looking for quality images, a mechanical stabilization unit is the only way to go for quality pictures. The subject gets alot more complex but I hope this overview helps.

It's only by contrast to SD video that HD reveals things we're not used to seeing, and it's only because we're squeamish (or vain) that anyone cares.


Well that's exactly the point. Most, if not all, of the users of JVC100 are people who have made the jump from a standard def camera to Hi def.

Some of us started out on film, then went to SD, now to HD. I'll tell you one thing now - this camera can 'see' things much crisper than any 16mm film I ever shot or saw.

The small bumps that were totally acceptable when I shot with a Bolex or a Canon XL-1 would be unacceptable on the JVC - that's not a knock - it's a compliment.

A second factor is that SD rules for now - but not for very much longer. Those shakes will show up quite well on a 60' hi def screen.

A third factor is that some of us DO expect to see some of their work on a big screen where, again, every little bump is magnified.

It's not just vanity - people do care. Handheld camera work is a sure sign of indy film making - something I try to stay away from. I want my stuff to look as 'Hollywood' as possible. When we looked at the dailies, my crew felt the same as I did.

Point this sucker on sticks or prepare for vertigo. Same as a 35mm camera.

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Hey now, lets be fair here! There is a whole breed of TV that is defined by shakey hand held video. It's every bit as valid as the vertigo rack focus. It all depends on how you want to convey your vision. It conveys realism and urgancy, where as the silk smooth pans, dollies, and crane moves create a more etheral feel.

I'm sorry, but we are talking about the JVC HD100U, right? I just got mine last week, and it not only does have AutoFocus, but Auto Iris, and even FullAuto.

I'm not a great fan of this feature but I had no idea the HD100 had this function. It's good news I suppose. better to have it than not to have it.

From the Texas Shootout:
http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064

"Scenes #38-#43 - Round-robin Handheld

We took the cameras outside and had each operator handhold each camera while shooting a martial artist practicing fighting-staff moves, so we could compare handling, image stability, and ease of focusing.

As might be expected, the shoulder-mounted HD100 and XL H1 gave the most stable images, with the JVC capturing the smoothest moves despite its lack of image stabilization. The HVR-Z1 did very well for a handheld. Sony's excellent optical Steadyshot soaked up whatever tremors the operators imparted to the camera. The HVX fell behind the others--its weight and off-center handgrip clearly reduced everyone's ability to handhold it smoothly. Panasonic's optical image stabilization is less aggressive than Canon's and Sony's, and it appears to operate over a smaller angular deflection, so it was less effective in removing handheld jitters."

---

See this thread, which discusses some of the same issues: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=70016

Brian- The camera really doesn't have those feature, only in my imagination. It does have auto iris though.