How does this camera or the HD250 scale against these other cameras in its range? In terms of image quality, low light performance, etc?

I don't know HVX200 compare to HD200 or HD250 but here is a link who compare HVX200 to HD100.

http://www.bluesky-web.com/HDVHVX.htm

HD-250/200/110/100 = Full Rez CCD

The others = no full rez CCD

Encoders are different as well and len's options are different (which are self evident).

Actually the XL-H1 has a higher resolution CCD, but since it's the same physical size chip as the HDxxx, the laws of physics decree that low light performance takes a hit. It's also an interlaced scan, so its 24"p" and 30"p" modes are interpolated from fields.

Until now the only really substantial thing HVX200 has on JVC was ability to shoot 60p. That's obviously not an issue anymore. In terms of picture wuality they're very similar, what really sets them apart is the form factor, which is where I believe JVC wins hands down. Shooting handheld on your shoulder beats shooting handheld literally in your hands every single time.

Actually the XL-H1 has a higher resolution CCD..
Not in relationship to it's recorded format.

You should really choose your criteria and then choose your camera.

format- 720p or 1080i
ergonomics- shoulder or handycam
lens- manual interchangeable or fixed pseudo manual

Personally- I need a manual lens and shoulder mounted camera for run and gun. There is no other choice but the JVC so the decision was easy. Format was not as important to me but with all the LCD and plasma screens as the future- I don't see why anyone would purchase an interlaced camera anymore.

I don't follow JVC stuff so much, but the HD200 isn't quite actually out in the field yet is it? If that's the case, it might be a tad early for indepth, definitive comparisons. Pending comprehensive, objective reivews and actual camera comparisons, most of the answers to the original question are really guesses.

Further info re: XL H1. It's also an interlaced scan, so its 24"p" and 30"p" modes are interpolated from fields.Actually, although most of the technicalities are still not publically known, Canon has recently stated that although the CCD is produced as an interlaced chip, they've somehow managed to design the camera so all 1080 lines are read at the same instant in time. They say it is a true progressive process, named differently.

I understand what you're saying theoretically about chip size and low light performance, but many other factors come into play, including choice of lens and image processing. I'm not sure which of these cameras would win an objectively conducted low light test (doubt that any solid tests have been published yet with the HD200 vs HVX200 vs XL H1), but in any case they're probably in the same ballpark.

I'm not an HVX200 user, but I'm pretty sure those who use it would at least add the many other frame rates it'll shoot besides the usual suspects and 60p, and give consideration to the workflow (good or bad depending on your needs and desires) of P2.

Justin, as much as I personally detest interlaced video, I suspect it is premature to dismiss it. From what I can tell, it looks like 1080i60 is what most of the HD networks require. Would I buy a camera that doesn't do a good progressive image? Personally, no. But there's a lot of market for interlaced HD out there at this point and probably will be for a good while yet. Indies probably don't care, but folks going in the HD network direction would care about the interlaced image quality.

I'm sure these will be great cameras. When DVinfo members have them in their hands and start posting facts, then we can get a better idea of how they stack up without having to speculate too much.

Not in the same price range too. HVX200 sell for around 5000$ now with a free P2 card and book. (about 1250$ return) The HD250 will be in the 8000$ depending on the lense choice.

I personally prefer the JVC HD110 better than the HVX200. So to compare the HD200 or 250 to the HVX200 is may be not appropriated.

Just for my note - are there any other cameras coming soon within the 8-14 thousand dollar range? i.e. from companies like canon or sony or even panasonic?

Sony PD-330 (XDCAM HD) is $12,000, and it really leaves all 1/3 cameras behind in terms of quality. I used to be a JVC fan, but when I saw this one... The workflow is great, 100% digital, much better than any firestore or P2 (I've used both, believe me). A pity that Adobe Premiere does not support it yet.

Sony PD-330 (XDCAM HD) is $12,000, and it really leaves all 1/3 cameras behind in terms of quality. I used to be a JVC fan, but when I saw this one... The workflow is great, 100% digital, much better than any firestore or P2 (I've used both, believe me). A pity that Adobe Premiere does not support it yet.

Bart- where did you find the PD-330 for 12K? Average quote is usually $15,500 with no lens.

Do tell.

But you have to consider the fact that a good lense for this camera costs around 6-7k

I know both cameras very well, I own a HD101 but use to work a lot with the HVX200. Image quality is very similar, the HD100 has better resolution but more colour compression. Besides the better format (DVCPRO HD) and more frame rates options, I can't find any other reason for chosing a HVX200. It looks like a brick, it's to heavy and unbalanced for handhelding, doesn't have a pro look, uses an expensive and limited media (you may use a firestore but you can't attach it to the camera because of the weight), the zoom starts too fast and is too slow at full speed, the viewfinder is too smal, doesn't have a macro ring, focusing has poor precision, the focus assist is a crap, it's hard to find a camera light for it (I've seen a SWITT one that has an adapter for using the Pana batteries, but the camera is heavy enought)... it is not an option for someone who needs a versatile camera.

I really don't like working with it, unfortunatly I have to use it 3 days a week. I feel that my work has worst results because of it's form factor.

Not in relationship to it's recorded format.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The H1's chips are 1440x1080, the same pixel-for-pixel resolution as HDV 1080i. 1440x1080 is more pixels than 1280x720.

I understand what you're saying theoretically about chip size and low light performance, but many other factors come into play, including choice of lens and image processing. I'm not sure which of these cameras would win an objectively conducted low light test (doubt that any solid tests have been published yet with the HD200 vs HVX200 vs XL H1), but in any case they're probably in the same ballpark.

It's the laws of physics. The smaller photosites in the H1 sensor collect fewer photons each. Camera processing can recover a more usable picture but at the expense of creating a higher likelihood of CCD flare and decreased shadow detail.

I can't find any other reason for chosing a HVX200 ... it is not an option for someone who needs a versatile camera.

The reasons you state are exactly why I didn't even consider using the HVX.

Well You have to Realize That the HVX200 Records uncompressed HD video... on a totally different format (P2)...the XL H1 doesnt... and it's DV or HDV

Well You have to Realize That the HVX200 Records uncompressed HD video... on a totally different format (P2)...the XL H1 doesnt... and it's DV or HDV


Hi Garrison,

The HVX200's DVCProHD mode is far from uncompressed. (This is a common misconception) It uses 100 Megabits/Sec DV-based compression. See this quote from Wikipedia:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVCPRO_HD

"DVCPRO HD, also known as DVCPRO100, uses four parallel codecs and a coded video bitrate of approximately 100 Mbit/s, depending on the format flavour. DVCPRO HD is also 4:2:2. DVCPRO HD downsamples native 720p/1080i signals to a lower resolution. 720p is downsampled from 1280x720 to 960x720, and 1080i is downsampled from 1920x1080 to 1280x1080 for 59.94i and 1440x1080 for 50i. This is a common technique, utilized in most tape-based HD formats such as HDCam and HDV. Compression ratio is approximately 6.8:1."



HDV1 from JVC does not require downsampling from 1280 x 720 to 960x720. HDV1 records the full 1280x720 frame, and it uses MPEG-2 compression instead of DV compression.


NO camcorder format currently available can record uncompressed HD that I am aware of.

It's not uncompressed HD in the HVX it uses DVCproHD which is an intraframe codec.

...the XL H1 doesnt... and it's DV or HDVClarification: Carl is correct that none of these cameras record onboard uncompressed video, since the HD-SDI data rate and storage requirements are huge. However, more and more "affordable" cameras, including the XL H1, do output uncompressed 1080i60.

I doubt there's a way to physically move tape fast enough to record a full bandwidth HDSDI stream. HDCAM SR comes close at 880 kbps, but an HDCAM SR tape is bigger than an HD100. Literally.

Carl it is true that DVCproHD can capture at 100 Megabits/Sec but that is a best case senario. Most shooters due to P2 limited storage or the nature of the type of shooter who would buy a cam like that will likely shoot at 24p. In that case DVCproHD is a mere 40 Megabits/Sec. When you consider how much more efficient HDV is over DVCproHD I don't believe it holds any advantage at all. Which is proof when comparing footage between the cams.
The misconception that it shoots uncompressed is truly hilarious. I wonder how people get these ideas?

Carl it is true that DVCproHD can capture at 100 Megabits/Sec but that is a best case senario. Most shooters due to P2 limited storage or the nature of the type of shooter who would buy a cam like that will likely shoot at 24p. In that case DVCproHD is a mere 40 Megabits/Sec. When you consider how much more efficient HDV is over DVCproHD I don't believe it holds any advantage at all. Which is proof when comparing footage between the cams.
The misconception that it (DVCPro HD) shoots uncompressed is truly hilarious. I wonder how people get these ideas?

I wonder the same thing. I have run across several people who think that DVCPro HD and even HDCam are uncompressed. Some people need to be educated in this regard.

I doubt there's a way to physically move tape fast enough to record a full bandwidth HDSDI stream. HDCAM SR comes close at 880 kbps, but an HDCAM SR tape is bigger than an HD100. Literally.

With full res uncompressed HD requiring 1.5 Gb/Sec, it will be a LONG time before on-board uncompressed HD is a reality, if ever.

With full res uncompressed HD requiring 1.5 Gb/Sec, it will be a LONG time before on-board uncompressed HD is a reality, if ever.

Well, never say never, but I'll bet when it does it will be a hard disk system like XDCAM rather than a tape format. Maybe it'll be a flash memory system a-la-P2, but prices on flash memory will have to go WAAAAY down before that goes mainstrem.

With full res uncompressed HD requiring 1.5 Gb/Sec, it will be a LONG time before on-board uncompressed HD is a reality, if ever.

No, we just have to go back to wider tapes. e.g. bring back VHS-C tapes with ME density of data like miniDVtapes and make it run a few times faster... That would open up a whole world of possibilities. Perhaps no uncompressed straight away, but something like Cinform codec?

Exactly, a lossless compressed codec is a far better idea. The only hold back for that is a lot of processing power.

Actually, there are already HD camera systems out there that will capture uncompressed HD to flash memory. For examply, the Grass Valley Viper can record uncompressed RGB 4:4:4 2K to the Venom FlashPak or FlashMag in the Arri version. The Dalsa Origin can capture to a chip capable of 4K uncompressed. However, this is in a whole new league and warrants no comparison to DVCProHD or HDV, of course. I'm not sure of the cost of a single Venom FlashPak memory unit but I'll bet it's equivalent to several HVX200 cameras.

DVCProHD does have key advantages over HDV, which have been discussed at length here many times but it is a long, long way from being an uncompressed system and - in the grand scheme of things - DVCPro HD users would be misguided to direct any snobbery towards those acquiring HDV1 on the JVC cameras because the DVCProHD advantages are off-set by many factors, including some which Carl has already mentioned.

As Carl mentions, standard HDCAM (not SR) is significantly inferior to uncompressed.

The film "The Russian Ark" was shot in 4:4:4 uncompressed video. A special hard drive system was put together in Germany for the film, allowing the recording of the entire film (one take) on the disks.

Here is a short article about the film:
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=6203

The camera used was the Sony HDW-F900. There are articles somewhere that cover in detail the technical aspects of shooting the film.

The film is found in the IMDB as "Russkiy kovcheg":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/

I always wonder why people want to campture uncompressed HD from camera's like the HVX or that price range. The performance of the encoder should match the performance of the camerahead - more so, I'd choose a better camera head over a better recording format any day: I'd rather shoot with a GY-HD100 and record it on S-VHS, rather then shooting with cell phone camcorder and capture it as uncompressed video.

Anyhow, what people need to understand is that the encoders match the performance of the heads. I've told this before: 40 Mbps for DVCPROHD is not a lot better then 20 - 25 Mbps for HDV, since the first codec needs to compress any frame by itself, where the second codec re-uses information of previous frames, i.e. the HDV codec is therefor a lot more efficient. Look at it like this: DV is also 25 Mbps compression, but each frame by itself. If you render that to an MPEG2-stream (which encodes GOPs) of 8 (!) Mbps you can get quality that is virtually the same for less then 1/3 of the data. Rendering it to 12 or 13 Mbps (1/2 of the data) would make a perfect match, perhaps it would even be bandwith overkill. Consider that when comparing DVCPROHD and HDV.

There's more (obviously) that makes it more complicated, but this is still the way to look at it in general terms. But to be fully correct you should consider that the resolution of DVCPRO is lower. That is a disadvantage in itself, but the encoder has less raw data to encode, which obviously enhances the performance of the codec. Personally I think this is an advantage for HDV/ProHD, because I don't like the upsampling in resolution. Furthermore, since it is framebased, DVCPROHD is easier to edit and to work with in general. HDV/ProHD needs an intermediate codec or it handles somewhat difficult. MPEG2 streams aren't performing well under re-encoding as well: multiple generation MPEG2 is a thing to avoid at all times (with intermediate codecs etc...)

I always wonder why people want to campture uncompressed HD from camera's like the HVX or that price range. The performance of the encoder should match the performance of the camerahead - more so, I'd choose a better camera head over a better recording format any day: I'd rather shoot with a GY-HD100 and record it on S-VHS, rather then shooting with cell phone camcorder and capture it as uncompressed video.

This is an extremely important point. Those using camera systems like the Venom are shooting to extremely high standards with huge amounts of money. The camera head and lenses those guys are using are so superior to the HVX or the HD100 series that there is little room for comparison. What I particularly like about the HD100 is that there is a sense of proportion to the whole thing. Okay, the stock lens is not so great, HDV has major limitations but the cost/performance relationship is simply amazing and all the components match each other well in terms of cost/performance. JVC don't have Panasonic's need to hamstring the low-end camcorders to protect the high-end stuff, so we get things like interchangeable lenses and pro manual control, shoulder-mount form factor etc. Okay, HDV has technical limitations but you can still create excellent pictures with it and I'd go so far as to say that many of us would not have the skills to do much better with an uncompressed D-cinema rig. As to DVCProHD, I agree that the lower resolution is a shame and that it does off-set HDV's interframe disadvantage and bit-rate to some extent but the difference in the pictures between HDV and DVCProHD is usually just academic. Nearly all the great DVCProHD footage I have seen was shot on a Varicam - far better camera, far better lens and far better operator than some of us lot!

I always wonder why people want to campture uncompressed HD from camera's like the HVX or that price range. The performance of the encoder should match the performance of the camerahead

In terms of raw image that may be true but the camera head is always better. I have worked with footage from even a HC1 where it was captured live uncompressed and as a test compared the HDV tape recorded at the same time and there was a huge difference. In a perfect setup yes HDV can look good but the real world is hardly ever perfect. I find even with using component that the uncompressed is much cleaner, has less artifacts, less banding and blocking in gradients, and finally 4:2:2 color compared to 4:2:0. With interlaced HDV the 4:2:0 is even worse.

As for DV encoded to mpeg2. It is far from perfect. A DVD encoded at 8 mbits will not look exactly the same as the DV version. Perhaps if the camera is looked down that may be the case but as soon as you add a complex scene and lots of movement the 25 mbit DV version will look much better.

HDV is basically like the DVD version of HD. It floats somewhere around like what a DVD would look like with a bitrate of 5-6 mbits. 720p HDV seems to be around what a DVD would look like with a bitrate around 7 mbits.

So uncompressed is a lot better to work with and may not be a lot better in terms of raw image detail but it can make a big difference for effects work.

I have also worked with some HDCAM footage from a blue screen shoot and I can tell you that the HDCAM format doesn't even come close to what the camera can do. HDCAM is like a really bad form of DV but at a higher resolution. It may be one of the best tape formats out there right now (huge debate on this one) but I would gladly take uncompressed from a F900 any day over HDCAM tape.

HDV is basically like the DVD version of HD. It floats somewhere around like what a DVD would look like with a bitrate of 5-6 mbits. 720p HDV seems to be around what a DVD would look like with a bitrate around 7 mbits.

Exactly my point, but you have got the numbers wrong. As I said an 8 Mbps MPEG2 has small but certain differences from an original DV25, but with half the datarate (12 to 13 Mbps) the difference would only be marginal.

720p has 2.5x the pixels of DV, so a comparable datarate for HD would be around 60 Mbps for an encoder for each frame by itself. HDV giving you 19.7 is just at 1/3, but the frames are progressive, so the MPEG2 codec does a far better job and not every other group of pixels has a different complex pattern (it isn't chaos, is it) - which also helps...

All this means that HDV 720p at about 20 Mbps would be a better trade-off then 8 Mbps would be to original DV. A far better trade-off. The difference will be marginal in most cases.

Will there be cases where the codec will underperform? sure (It can't choose the place of the I frames for one...)

Is it perfect? Of course not, no one says it is...

At the end of the day: Anthony is right in stressing my point and adding another one. The lenses and everything are in balance for the price point. Some people want to have a Ferrari-engine in a Smart - but I suppose anyone would agree that's hardly a 'balanced package'. You want to have a $1k camerahead and record it uncompressed? That's like the engine of a Smart in a gigantic road truck... The extra loading space such a truck gives you won't do you any good if your engine won't support any more load than the load that can be fitted in the original car...


I'm talking about the footage of the GY-HD101 (that I'm quite familiar with). I can't say anything about the HC1 (I haven't seen it), but it makes me wonder if you have ever seen footage of the GY-HD101? Progressive is far, far better for MPEG2 (because that uses no higher order corrections for the relationships between 2 fields) - and don't take my word for it, you should see it with your own eyes.

Will uncompressed be even better? of course. But at what cost? Not being mobile anymore for one. No easy and fluid editing anymore either. And is the difference in quality that much to justify it? No, because the format and the head and the lens are all quite very nicely balanced...

I have seen HDV footage from every camera out there right now. I am a huge fan of progressive video and if you search you will find some heated arguments between me and a few others on here that I will not mention about how progressive is better then interlaced. In fact I keep trying to point out how much better progressive 4:2:0 is compared to interlaced 4:2:0 due to the fact that the chroma has to alternate every other line. Anyways.

The way I always figured it out was that HDV1 is 2.5 larger so I divide 19 mbits by 2.5 to get somewhere around 7-8 mbits.

HDV2 on the other hand which is the first number I gave you is 4.5 larger then DV so I divide 25 mbits by 4.5 which gives about 5.5 mbits. In my opinion that is a little low considering it is interlaced.

As for uncompressed I never use uncompressed. I prefer to use an in between format that trades off between performance and quality. For example with Liquid I like to use a I frame based mpeg2 codec that uses 50 mbits for SD. This thing is 4:2:2 and looks almost exactly like the uncompressed source but is only double the size of a DV file. In fact mpeg2 I frame at 25 mbits looks a lot better then DV at 25 mbits. For me capturing through an uncompressed feed into a high quality codec is the key. There are many codecs such as Cineform Prospect that will fit on a single drive and have quality that is good enough for even Hollywood. As much as I would love to work with uncompressed HD I do think it is a waste. A great codec can give you 98% of the quality for a fraction of the bandwidth and that is good enough for me. Heck it sure beats raw HDV. I don't even mind HDV or 4:2:0 (progressive please), It is the blocky banding that kills me during keying. I use a component/SDI/hdmi source to a light compressed file mainly just to avoid that sort of a thing.

The way I always figured it out was that HDV1 is 2.5 larger so I divide 19 mbits by 2.5 to get somewhere around 7-8 mbits.

HDV2 on the other hand which is the first number I gave you is 4.5 larger then DV so I divide 25 mbits by 4.5 which gives about 5.5 mbits. In my opinion that is a little low considering it is interlaced.

19.7 divided by 2.5 gives you 8. 8 Mbps MPEG2 is pretty fine - too bad we hardly ever see it (movies are usually encoded 4-5 Mbps). Also, this 8 Mbps we'll use to encode progressive footage, which suits MPEG2 so much better, so the result is better.

Once again: 8 Mbps interlaced is fine, 12-13 Mbps interlaced is probably overkill. The sweet spot could arguably be around 10 Mbps for interlaced. I doubt 8 Mbps progressive will do any worse then 10 Mbps interlaced - you should try this with a good encoder (CCE or something).

All good things to consider.

But in answer to the second part of the threads main question...

How does this camera or the HD250 scale against these other cameras in its range? In terms of image quality, low light performance, etc?

For the 250 there is no comparison, simply because no one has produced a better camera that can do as much or as well. Again remember he was saying "for the money". Show me another camera for 10k-16K (with a good lens) that does everything the 250 can do.

As for the HD200, XL-H1 or HVX-200, it's all arguable as to how you use the camera anyway.