John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free.

Good article, covers the good and bad of using the JVC HD100 for blowup. I got the impression it was rocky ground without the better glass, etc., but that it also "could" be done. Nice.

John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free.
Is that the same article Andy Young was talking about a couple of weeks ago?

John Jackman has wriitten a great article about transferring HD100 video to film in the Nov issue of dv. I get it electronically in pdf, so you might be able to go to dv.com and download it. Subscription to the pdf version is free.

Pardon my ignorance but I couldnt find the link to download the Free PDF version would you kindly provide the link... Gosh i wear glass still i couldnt see the link.

Is that the same article Andy Young was talking about a couple of weeks ago?
Yes. I have the hard copy, but still can't find the pdf version. Can someone paste a link?

Just this once....
http://click.cmp.hdsmail.com/t/91581/77370824/3263333/0/

But he does wish he could have gotten his hands on the 13x.
Still, even with the stock lens, if you stay within it's limits, the filmout is great.

I recommend people subscribe to the pdf version, it's free.

Just this once....
http://click.cmp.hdsmail.com/t/91581/77370824/3263333/0/

But he does wish he could have gotten his hands on the 13x.
Still, even with the stock lens, if you stay within it's limits, the filmout is great.

I recommend people subscribe to the pdf version, it's free.

Thx for the link, how do i subscribe to the pdf version as i only get the link to paid subscription !!!

I saw it on my local magazine rack last night, but was so disappointed in the low-rez printing of the screen grab comparisons that I didn't bother buying it.

Also, after quickly glancing at the article, I found that his comparison with the Canon XLH1 was severely flawed. His conclusion that the XLH1 lens is much sharper than the stock Fuji lens at wide angles is just plain wrong. I think his issue was simply backfocus, and he didn't even mention the term.

I tested these two cameras side-by-side to determine this very same thing, and the XLH1 failed in my backfocus test - at least in automatic backfocus mode. However, the lenses do have comparable resolving power. At the time I wasn't aware that the XLH1 had a Flange Back manual function in the menus, so I couldn't manually correct it as easily as the true manual lens on the HD100.

The Canon performs well in interlaced mode (1080i) but doesn't even contend in 24F mode (540 lines) which would be the logical base of comparison for 24fps acquisition to film-out.
He does mention this in the article, but for someone flipping through this article, the comparison shots of the pond are very misleading.
It also looks like the sharpness is turned on in the Canon framegrab, and he had already mentioned that the detail was turned down on the HD100. This is also misleading in such a small photo.

Anyway, I don't mean to slag on John Jackman, but I prefer the highly controlled testing done by Adam Wilt, over definitive conclusions drawn from uncontrolled field testing. It is just maddening to read a "conclusive" statement in a respectable publication like DV.com "most of the softening appears to come from the stock lens" when it is obvious to me this is simple operator error.

Tim he only mentioned the softness when doing panoramic pans.
He also mentioned to get good looking results requires skill and patience, no matter what lens you use if going to film.

Good points Tim I agree with you I think the Hd100 could have preformed much better givin the circumstances.

Thanks for the link.
I actually enjoyed the article on the Viper which I was interested in seeing as Michael Mann and David Fincher use them. Funny to see that once the camera's have the plethora of accessories attached, any aesthetice the original camera had is soon out of the window!
Also curious as to why you would attach two camera's on top of each other??

...and not sure I understood the mention of processed 4:4:4 RGB (used by Mann) rather than colour correct in post (as per Fincher)...but that's something I'll have to read up on!
Ta for the link.

Also, after quickly glancing at the article, I found that his comparison with the Canon XLH1 was severely flawed. His conclusion that the XLH1 lens is much sharper than the stock Fuji lens at wide angles is just plain wrong. I think his issue was simply backfocus, and he didn't even mention the term.

It is just maddening to read a "conclusive" statement in a respectable publication like DV.com "most of the softening appears to come from the stock lens" when it is obvious to me this is simple operator error.

I agree that the comparision was oddly set up. Starting from the different video sources used to capture the image. It is possible that more info regarding the comparison was edited out but having read the results of Mr. Wilt's camera "shootout", I think Tim is correct.

There is another error in the article regarding HDV recording methods. While the Canon does indeed use 15 frame GOP, the JVC uses 6 frame GOP which supposedly results in better compression results.

Overall the article is a good account of one person's experience with the HD-100. The chroma-keying part was very interesting.

While I too found the comparisons to the Canon unecessary, I view the article as a complement to the existing knowledge about the HD100. His experience is probably more like the ones the rest of us will have. Nice to know you can do this even if you make a few mistakes.

If he's suggesting that that still of the "pond and trees" shot is somehow indicative of the resolving power of either the codec or the lens, he's doing everyone a disservice with this article.

It simply looks like poorly focused footage...really poorly focused - as in does he know what he's doing professionally. Whether it was back focus or operatpr error, that was just bad shooting.

I was just looking at footage last night for a new doc that was grabbed in the last of foliage and featured a bunch of wide shots and tons of similar scenes with similar natural background. Nothing looked remotely like that, and it was all late and challenging light and conditions.

And it was all shot with the stock lens.

I also read Adam Wilt's article, and his comments about the stock lens being soft at the wide end set me thinking about focus trouble I've been having.

I've had my 100 for over a year now, and I regularily get "soft footage" on shots in the mid to wide range of the stock lens. Havn't been able to find the problem. I am experienced in back focus procedure, have the good DSC Labs HD star chart, have shot with an HDCAM for two years, etc. etc.

So I set up a test, using an HD field monitor. Let the cam warm up so temp was stabilized, carefully set the back focus, (very difficult with the sloppy back focus ring), and then, after focusing on my subject at full telephoto, widened back to about 20, and found the focus isn't tracking (racking?); I could see it in my 8" HD monitor, and verified it by refocusing on the subject, even trying the star chart as a subject.

Tried it several times, to make sure I was not making an error in back focus setting. Anybody have any suggestions?

I will get with my reseller next week to try another lens, to see if mine is an anomily. But maybe there are more than one of these lenses out there with this problem. I'll re-post after that to let you know the results.

I think I'm looking forward to the 5x17 lens when it comes out.

Gary

Well, I have to agree with Tim too.
I received my HD 100A with the stock lens 2 months ago and have shot just some tests, but using many diferent focal distances and iris openings.
Surprisingly, I found very few issues with the stock lens.
I got minor CA and very sharp wide shots (despite some distortion here), even with full open iris. This U$800,00 zoom lens perform much better than the U$3000,00 professional Fujinon 20X zoom lens I had in my ex-camera GY-DV500, that presented stron contrast, colour reproduction and resolution diferences / issues along the zoom.
And I found no difficulty to focus with the stock viewfinder, for me the best and easiest to focus among the prosumer cameras I had tested - Z1, HVX200 - before opting for the HD 100.
Best regards
Ron

Here's a film transfer question:

Motion smoothing on or off?

Here's a film transfer question:

Motion smoothing on or off?

Off. (The assumption being that your trying to mimic the look of film).

Thank you. Off it goes.