i have been looking around but can't seem to find the answer to a couple of questions i have about this camera...
* is it native 16:9?
* any comments on how it might compare to canon's xl h1, or the new xh series? (i have researched technical specs, so i am really more curious about reasons why you have gone with jvc over canon?)
* gy-hd 110 and final cut pro??

thanks. i am looking to finally make a purchase on the next week or so. i really appreciate any imput.

joe.

Hi Joe,

I have done alot of research about the entry level HD Cameras.... I am upgrading from the Canon XL1s and have personally decided on the HD110. First an answer to the native 16:9....it is, and I should also mention that its a true progressive camera, JVC didn't use some fancy way of making the footage look like true progressive, they actually use true progressive.

I should mention that i have not bought the camera yet but in a couple of weeks I will definately be making the purchase. Here are some reasons why I have decided on the HD110:

1. I have read that this camera really shines in the handling/ergonomics. Its relatively small and light, and very comfortable and makes great hand held shots.

2. The focus assist really works! And when shooting in HD focus is crucial!!

3. I like the idea of a fold out LCD (mostly for framing/composition)

4. It shoots great standard Def, and true 24p in HD.

5. because of the new realeases of the HD200/250 there are some pretty sweet deals. (namely B&H Photo are offering a pretty good deal w/the AB Battery system)

6. and finally i really like the support that JVC is offering, like having a rep (Carl Hicks from JVC) very often in these websites offering details and support! And also that they built the camera using a panel of people who actually use Cameras....so they put in the input of what they would like to see in these cameras!


I was at first quite intereested in the new XH Canon series, but in the line of work i do, i just don't think that they would be a very good camera in handheld situations. I'd have to get some expensive vest support system or something, and i've also had a look at some footage that people have been posting like George D, comparing his stuff to the stuff that Disjecta put up. I personally prefer the look of JVC's footage.

But i guess it all comes down to personal preference and matching the gear to what you do, and will be using the equipment for, In my opinion all the "affordable HD cameras", offer very professional products that can and will produce great professional quality Video, its just a matter of what is right for the Cameraman.

Hope this helps and good luck with your decision.

i have been looking around but can't seem to find the answer to a couple of questions i have about this camera...
* is it native 16:9?
Yes. The chip is native 1280x720. That means that even in DV mode, there is no cropping and stretching from a 4x3 chip - this is pure 16x9.

* any comments on how it might compare to canon's xl h1, or the new xh series? (i have researched technical specs, so i am really more curious about reasons why you have gone with jvc over canon?)
I had high hopes for the XLH1 when it was announced because of the SDI out and BNC connectors. I thought "they've upped the ante" for JVC.
I also owned a XL2 at the time and figured their 24 HDV mode would look just as good.
However, I then tested the Canon XLH1 in 24F mode next to the HD100 in 24P mode, and was disappointed in the results.
From a pure resolution standpoint the HD100 beat it hands down. My best guess is that the XLH1 scans every other line (540) when in "F" mode and then line-doubles to achieve 1080PsF. The horizontal resolution didn't seem to be as good as I would have expected either.
I'll post the lens chart comparisons.

From a user standpoint I wasn't crazy about the continuance of the XL form factor. I've used XL1 and XL2 extensively in the past and I had hoped Canon would have moved away from this form factor when they entered HDV. To each his own!

I also tested the two gamma curves and once again the HD100's knee and Cine curve allowed more dynamic range, and a more organic "film look."

The XL lens was not fun to work with. It was basically an update of Canon's earlier XL lenses, with backfocus issues and servo controlled optics that run on rails. When I bought my XL2, I bought the body only and then used Canon's manual 16x lens. As far as I know, Canon has still not released a manual XL HD lens - although with the resolution of the chip in 24F mode, the old 16x or 14x manual XL lenses will probably resolve sharp enough.
* gy-hd 110 and final cut pro??

FCP 5.1.2 is compatible with 720P24, 720P25, and 720P30 native HDV.


EDIT: As promised, I've attached a quick comparison of HD100 vs XLH1 resolution tests. The HD100 is set to Minimum detail level, and the XLH1 is on Normal Sharpness level - which seemed to match pretty closely.
This is a pixel for pixel comparison, so you will see the size difference based on 720P vs 1080i.

thank you both so much. it really does help. i am a young filmmaker, and very anxcious and excited about investing in equipment. these forums have helped so much.

thanks again.

thank you both so much. it really does help. i am a young filmmaker, and very anxcious and excited about investing in equipment. these forums have helped so much.

thanks again.

Joseph you can take a look at some stuff I shot and get an idea what the possibilities are with it. Just go to www.hd-motionpictures.com and check it out. I wouldn't work with any other camera as of now. Just gives a really impressive film look which i want.

Joseph,

To also help justify your purchase, I don't think anyone here has mentioned directly that since the two cameras use a different HDV standard...

JVC HD100
HDV1
native 1280x720 Progressive

Canon
HDV2
native 1440 x 1080 Interlace

Comparing the two is pretty much apples to oranges. As a "young filmaker" and likely wanting no part of an interlaced signal (or a simulated progressive signal as Tim already mentioned), the Canon might not be the best camera for comparisons against the JVC anyway. Only if you start shooting for broadcast and want a native interlaced camera might you look again at the Canon. We also came from Canon cameras, before the JVC.

Well one thing's no one mentioned is price. All things being equal, the Canon's probably better (the resolution is quite a bit better - due both to the camera and superior lens) IF you're shooting something like sports or live news gathering.

For narrative work (short/feature length films), it's pretty hard to beat the JVC100 for "best bang for the buck." I bought mine brand new w/IDX battery for under 6 grand. It's list right now for $5200 at B & H - $4500 used. You're looking at 9 grand (at least over at B & H right now) for the XL-H1.

So there is a substantial price difference between the two. That's a big thing, of course, but I think the fact that many more indie films are being shot on the JVC also is very important. It means others like the 'look' and that others have gone through the fire with this camera w/ a finished product. Read about Andrew Young's experience in Madagascar with one of the first produced JVC100's - you'll be amazed at how tough the camera is (he dropped in a river, dried it out over a fire and it still worked).

Of course, the best thing would be to use both and judge for yourself - but I know that's not always possible. Good luck!

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

that helps alot. this was exactly the kind of feedback i was hoping for. i am looking into B&H, and also zgc. i definitely want to stick with the sponsored carriers supported here.

thanks again.

I am also in a similar postion to Joseph.

I am about to buy the JVC HD111e.

But does anyone have any thoughts on the merits of the 111 over the 110?

I understand the only difference really is that the 111 has in & out abilities from tape whereas 110 only has out abilities? Is this correct?

Meaning with the 111 I can go back out to MiniDV tape whereas with the 110 I couldn't.

Thanks

A couple of things not mentioned: The HD100U might require handling by someone that knows what they're doing. It's not really a point and shoot camera and if you use it in auto mode you may be disapointed with results.

Consider the cool idea of exchangeable file settings, which no other camera in this price range has. This might actually help on the point above: download the 'truecolor' settings or any of the ones posted by the forum members and you're on to a better start.

Don't forget Tapeworks Texas as a possible dealer too. I never shopped from them personally but heard a lot of praise on their service.

Meaning with the 111 I can go back out to MiniDV tape whereas with the 110 I couldn't.

Thanks

I'm pretty sure you can do this with both. The 111 is just the PAL version of the 110. I may be wrong though.

A couple of things not mentioned: The HD100U might require handling by someone that knows what they're doing. It's not really a point and shoot camera and if you use it in auto mode you may be disapointed with results.

Consider the cool idea of exchangeable file settings, which no other camera in this price range has.


Good points Dave. I wonder if dealers still let the camera sit around w/o some scene files programed in - if not, it's pretty easy to do, and going through the menus let's you get a feel for how the camera's file management works. Didn't know the XL-H1 didn't have swap-able files... On multicam shoots, this is a real time saver.

I think the 'E' version of the camera has some limitations that the other (US/CANADIAN) versions don't have, but I can't exactly recall what they are - check into this. Far as dealers go, EVS is excellent as well, with nice reps.

If willing to buy used, there might be someone on this forum who wants to part w/ his camera. Be careful that any used (or new for that matter) camera has had the "A" upgrade performed - it's not just firmware, but some minor hardware as well, so it's no easily done by local shops.

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

I was having cold feet about the 110 as I'm slated and funded to pick it up (and another $10K worth of stuff as well). As you guys know... spending that kind of money will leave you with some sleepless nights.

But after reading the comments above, I'm ready to roll. B&H all the way. You guys rock!

IMPORTANT!!! Buy the IDX or Anton Bauer Battery, if you run it on the JVC Batt, it will run out in a few hours.

IMPORTANT!!! Buy the IDX or Anton Bauer Battery, if you run it on the JVC Batt, it will run out in a few hours.

You mean a few minutes.

I understand the only difference really is that the 111 has in & out abilities from tape whereas 110 only has out abilities? Is this correct?

Meaning with the 111 I can go back out to MiniDV tape whereas with the 110 I couldn't.

Thanks

That only applies to the European models. (111e vs. 110e)

There is only one American model (110u) and it has full in/out firewire capabilities.

If you live in America, you are set, but if you live in Europe, you have to pay extra for the firewire input capability. I guess there is a huge tax for devices that have digital video input capabilities, so JVC made 2 models to give people the option to save a little money and get a model without firewire input.

I too am planning to bvuy a JVC200 with a FCP MAC with external Blue Ray writer ... am full trottle confused...

- will FCP edit native HD in 720/25p or 50p also if i am able to wrtite a BD howd my clients play to view the stuff on a LCD or palsms TV...if not immdt but in future...

A couple of things not mentioned: The HD100U might require handling by someone that knows what they're doing. It's not really a point and shoot camera and if you use it in auto mode you may be disapointed with results.

Consider the cool idea of exchangeable file settings, which no other camera in this price range has. This might actually help on the point above: download the 'truecolor' settings or any of the ones posted by the forum members and you're on to a better start.

Don't forget Tapeworks Texas as a possible dealer too. I never shopped from them personally but heard a lot of praise on their service.

I think this is the first important point. I've seen work of a lot HD100 owners, but also heard a lot of complaints. Not that the quality of the camera is low, just that it is hard to handle it (being progressive etc)... So, if you're starting out, this might be a consideration. It is a very nice cam, but you need to know what you're doing. Some experience might be something you can't miss.

Secondly, the price. As stated in a lot of other threads here, the price is quite attractive. You have a true mechanical lens and true progressive full resolution CCD's for the price, but this is a camera that is sold in the professional division of JVC only. That means that any option you buy with it is a tenfold in price of the same option for the Canon (essentially a consumer/prosumer cam). Consider batteries of A/B or IDX to be €300 and up (you'll truly need them), while you can buy €30 high capacity batteries for the canon everywhere. Consider a tripod of €1000 euro, because a €200 tripod won't cut it (while that's probably fine for the canon). This goes on and on (adapters, steadicam, cases, bags, ...) - So in effect you'll be buying a camera that is better in my opinion, but also a lot more expensive.

Hi guys I was hoping to get some advice about the JVC GY HD camera.
I have recently bought one due to the lens, and being low weight[i have a bad shoulder]. I shoot weddings, promotional stuff, conferences.....
I usually use a Sony DSR 300 a great camera and very good in low light, on my first shoot I nearly had a heart attack when shooting the night do. The guy in the shop says its the same in low light as a Z1 and all the other HD cameras being 3 lux. Is this true???
I have found I need to upgrade to the 200 as the frame rate is to slow in HD,and gives a jerky picture that I dont like. Is the 200 the same in low light? Are there any tricks to make it perform better. When shooting 720 50p will this give a smooth picture?
Any help would be most appreciated. Is the Sony EX1 better in low light and does anyone use the EX1 or EX3. Thanks Any other thoughts of what camera to swop to would be appreciated.
Is the 200 the way to go.

I own 2 HD-200U cameras and love shooting at 60P but the camera is a light pig. I believe it is rated at f8@1000lux.

If you're looking for low light performance out of the box, this is not the solution for you. You can get significantly better low light performance out of it by using some of the low light specific scene files at the top of this forum in the stickies area but I don't think you're going to get terribly close to the EX series in terms of low light or wide angle performance.

Yes there's an EU tax imposed on firewire in cameras. The other big difference is shooting SD. HDV is much the same on both models but in SD the "U" version is exclusively DV NTSC whereas the "E" version exclusively DV PAL, which is kind of important!

I have a GY-HD 201E(b) and really like it. I am used to full broadcast cameras and so feel 'at home' with it and its form and weight is blissful!.
Whereas other cameras feel like disposable plastic bricks splattered with minuscule buttons, these JVC 100/ 200 cameras have a really good solid build and while not perfect, (beware costly firewire short circuits) JVC have been remarkably thoughtful about manual control placement. I think the assisted focus and eyepiece are very much better than many and JVC won me over with their apparent commitment to a basic camera form and then optional parts and compatibility with existing broadcast equipment; that really gives you some faith in them.

Is the Sony EX1 better in low light and does anyone use the EX1 or EX3. Thanks Any other thoughts of what camera to swop to would be appreciated.



I have both the JVC HD100 and an EX1 (or I should say I shoot with an EX1, my employer owns it). The EX1 is better by about 3 or 4 stops in low light. No comparison at all.

The JVC has the advantage of being a more traditional size and using controls that an ENG person would be used to.

The EX1/3 are much harder to hand hold if you do a lot of that. They have an image stabilization mode, while the JVC doesn't.

Both cameras will produce great images. The EX1/3 have much better imagers thus they produce a much higher resolution image. The JVC still produces some very nice pictures when the scene is light properly and the weaknesses of the 1/3 inch imager is hidden.

Good luck,

Daniel Weber

I just made the switch to the ex3, after I had a really bad experience shooting at night with the HD100. now, I am not afraid to go out at night with the camera anymore. which is a great feeling.

the ex3 IS hard to do hand held shoots with, although I hear its better than the ex1, you can also get shoulder mounts for both the ex1 and 3 to eliminate the problem.

the one thing you really have to think about when considering the ex series is, are you willing to go totally tapeless? being able to record to hard drive and tape at the same time was a nice perk of the HD100, but not enough to keep me around.

Thanks for the info Ian.
The low light on the jvc is a major worry to me. All my stock footage is 4;3 and shot with DVCpro 50. I have not started using widescreen but I will be doing in the future. With the EX1 i cant shoot 4:3 or can I. Is it possible to convert my stock shots {helicopter stuff} to 16;19 without it looking like its in a box.I use AVID media composer. Also can I have SD and HD on the time line and edit without problems. Do you know of any cameras that do SD HD 4;3 and 16;19 in the same price bracket as a EX1.
The JVC seemed like the best as it uses the same batteries as my sony DSR, also tapes.

EX1 is HD only. I don't know of a camera that will shoot HD 4x3. You can downconvert the HD footage to SD.

Final Cut Pro will allow the use of SD and HD footage in the same timeline. Not sure about Avid.

Daniel Weber

Yes, the Sony's do GREAT in low light. But, the JVC is a hell of a camera and I love the image. There are a lot of things to complain about with the JVC, but I think the image is spectacular and for most purposes would take it over the Sony. Oh, and I'm referring to the JVC 200u.

Here's a short compile of my recent works that i shot with the HD100 & HD200. Its a variety of projects that show how versatile this camera is.

Ted Ramasola Showreel 2 HD By Ted Ramasola On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/teddybear.aspx/assets/401a9b38f6ba4527a74ef981e3b885f1/)

The form factor didnt bother me when i was hanged on a rock face 187feet in the air to shoot rappeling people, and when you remove the mic holder and VF, its actually slim enough to place in a waterproof bag when we took it shooting white water rafting.

You'll see that in the clip.

Ted

The form factor didnt bother me when i was hanged on a rock face 187feet in the air to shoot rappeling people

Ted, I'm not sure whether I envy you or question your sanity...

By the way, BRILLIANT demo, Ted. I may need to come for a visit... soon! It's -35 Celsius here right now...

Thanks Shaun, your welcome to my Island when you decide to come.
I'll take you to that cliff and we'll try their new ZIPLINE that they just inaugurated two days ago. Its 410 meters long at 210 feet high across a deep river gorge.
They christened it "SUIC-SLIDE".

We'll test our sanity there!

I'm still thinking how to use the JVC while riding it. No kidding.

I've had a HD100U for about a year and a half, and coming from the Xl1 it had a very steep learning curve. But, once i started messing with the settings and using proper light, the camera really came to live. it definitely puts to shame to early sony cameras IMO.

I do echo some of the other issues posted about (poor low light performance, weak battery, not a "point and shoot" camera).

Well worth it though.

I've had a HD100U for about a year and a half, and coming from the Xl1 it had a very steep learning curve. But, once i started messing with the settings and using proper light, the camera really came to live. it definitely puts to shame to early sony cameras IMO.

I do echo some of the other issues posted about (poor low light performance, weak battery, not a "point and shoot" camera).

Well worth it though.

I love my camera as well. You just have to know its limits.

The battery problem can be fixed with using either the IDX, my solution, or the AB batteries. They help settle the camera better on the shoulder anyway.

Daniel Weber

Sometimes i regretted getting the JVC I admit, but then I had to edit some footage shot with my 2nd choice of camera, the Canon HDV line or maybe a Sony HDV 3 chip, and I shrug my shoulders at the footage, and I HATE handy cam size and shape with a passion. Always have. Not saying that lugging around a Panaflex or any 35mm is a picnic, but I still prefer a ENG format. In the 80's I loved moving to the small handy cams size and moved away from tube sensors to CCD's but there were trade offs. I mean they are all good cameras from the main brands, and I wish I could have a HPX500 or lets be honest a CineAlta, and yes, I wouldn't mind a cheap sony A1u to knock around either, but for where my head is at, and what I think is important to me, true 24p is it, the 24fs sometimes are convincing and most often not with double the render times that lowers my hourly income.... No I'm sticking with JVC till I need a CineAlta or HD-CAM. I think I might skip over DVCPROHD entirely unless they come out with a REAL 1080p camera and format for significantly less than a HD-CAM or CineAlta.

Or maybe I'll spend the summer working on my own documentary or narrative that I want to do, and this camera is good enough so that if it shown on a digital projector or DVD or perhaps bluray, no one is going to wonder what camera I used, only if the narrative is any good or not, and no one wonders "Ugh.... was that shot with video?"

I had a choice with an hpx500 and chose the jvcs (two! 111 and 210- and cheaper than an hpx even without any lens).
The hpx has a nice form factor. It was certainly much better in low light. But the pictures, to me, didn't look any better (I was only using the cheapish XS lens- and also tried a few 2/3" SD lenses I had). I felt it was a little soft on a wide shot- something I don't like at all. And, surprisingly, the hpx felt like a cheaper build. Very off-putting: the viewfinders (and focus "histogram") were poor. I really really wanted to like it! But the jvc pics are, when I'm shooting carefully, very nice indeed. So far no regrets.

Echo what you guys said - still one of the best images for an under $10 grand camera.

Great form factor, tough, interchangable lenses, excellent images, "prints" to $5 tapes (and not $2 grand P2 cards).

For me, only the EX-1 is real other option, but it doesn't do 1080p. For me, not worth the price of an upgrade for better light sensitivity (and few other goodies).

Nope, I'm very happy with it.

john

Sorry your wrong. The EX1 does do 1080p. It does it very well.

Daniel Weber

Not from what I've read:

Sony : PMW-EX1 (PMWEX1) : Product Overview : Other (http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=PMW-EX1&site=biz_en_EU&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&category=XDCAMCamcorders)

But hey, I'd love to be wrong!

john

1080P at 24, 25 and 30
720P at 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60

Found under Tech Specs on the link you provided.

Just to clarify for John -- the XDCAM EX camcorder family does indeed record 1080p. Specifically 1080p24, 1080p25 and 1080p30. Hope this helps,

Awesome - I got some bad info on that....

john

To be fair to Sony the PMW-EX1 is the first Sub $10,000 Sony that has interested me in a long time. But I'm a 24p fan, hence the first Sony in a while I would be interested in other than home movies. my JVC HD110 is doing fine for now and the next couple of years. Though a 17x, 13x or even a 18x would be sweet.