I used to see posts on Craig's List all the time for JVC100U Camera OPs/DPs, and now, 9 times out of 10, they are only looking for people with a HVX 200.

Have any of you guys noticed this trend in your markets?

To me, it seems the resounding popularity of the DVX has made the laymen think the HVX is the holy grail of HD, which it is not.

I used to see posts on Craig's List all the time for JVC100U Camera OPs/DPs, and now, 9 times out of 10, they are only looking for people with a HVX 200.

Have any of you guys noticed this trend in your markets?

To me, it seems the resounding popularity of the DVX has made the laymen think the HVX is the holy grail of HD, which it is not.


Too true. I notice this a lot. For some reason a lot of Indie film guys swear by the DVX/HVX as if everything else was just "video." It seems like it has some sort of force field of coolness or otherness that bends the minds of the film crowd towards its will.

To put it simply:
The HVX is to video cameras what the iPod is to MP3 players.
It might not be the best, but you feel like you got to have one.

No I completely disagree, I work for Panavision Australia and one of our sister companies rent out the HVX along with the HD101, and the ratio of rentals to models is predictable, the HD101 gets rented out 3 times more than the HVX, I should know because this week I had to settle with the Z1p because the HD101's were booked out, and we have several. They even asked me to sublease mine because they wanted more Hd100s.

I agree with both of you.
I think that the general public, if they want to make a film, likes the word HVX.
The people who do the renting are usually DP's (or advized by)...who the JVC works.

Though I must say the HVX 4:2:2 is super sweet

The HVX was the beneficiary of an incredible amount of pre release hype and buzz. The JVC was released earlier and suffered some setbacks because of reports of split screen effect and because so many people were chomping at he bit for the HVX.

Also, the HVX shoots DVCPro, which is a well-established format. I'm not trying to get into which is better, just suggesting that people like to stick to trusted workflows. Having said that, in the UK the DVX/HVX thing is not nearly so strong and most professionals stick to Sony.

I used to see posts on Craig's List all the time for JVC100U Camera OPs/DPs, and now, 9 times out of 10, they are only looking for people with a HVX 200.

Have any of you guys noticed this trend in your markets?

To me, it seems the resounding popularity of the DVX has made the laymen think the HVX is the holy grail of HD, which it is not.
You're right.
I think this is simply the legacy of the DVX100, and not an indication of the quality or popularity of any of the HD cameras in the $4000 - $8000 price range.

If you are a short film director and you are looking for "film look" for free, then it would be pretty easy to find someone with a DVX100 willing to rent it in exchange for a producer credit. The next logical step up for a producer/director who does limited research is the HVX. "The HVX200 is just a DV100B that shoots HD, right? I know how to shoot good looking stuff with the DVX, so I'm sure I can handle the HVX!"

I run into directors all the time who have worked with me and the DVX100 and start talking about how great the HVX will be to shoot with, but don't truly realize what workflow is involved with P2. Usually after I explain the various options (including XDCAM and HDCAM,) HDV is almost always the format of choice for filmmakers with very low budgets.
BTW, short film director/producers who post on Craigslist almost always have much less budget than they claim they do!

I used to see posts on Craig's List all the time for JVC100U Camera OPs/DPs, and now, 9 times out of 10, they are only looking for people with a HVX 200.

Have any of you guys noticed this trend in your markets?

To me, it seems the resounding popularity of the DVX has made the laymen think the HVX is the holy grail of HD, which it is not.

"If I only had a Ferrari, I would be rich"

That's how people think; their film will be more successful if shot on a HVX. Or if it had guns, or yuppies, or zombies, whatever.

I've purposely shot test footage for free just to show some producers that the HD-100 is perfect for their needs.

Who knows, in ten years people might be doing the same thinking with JVC cameras when Panasonic comes out with something better.

Regardless of "trends" and "sales" I had the option to buy any HD camera under 10k this year. I looked at everything......and bought the jvc hd 100. I like the way the footage looks. Some people might not like the noisy film look of the camera. but I do. Also it was the only camera available that I could shoot from my shoulder. I didn't like the way the cannon balanced and the jvc was way cheaper, and again, imho, looks better, (cooler) than the cannon.
So there you go, my 2 cents.....
Jon

Regardless of "trends" and "sales" I had the option to buy any HD camera under 10k this year. I looked at everything......and bought the jvc hd 100. I like the way the footage looks. Some people might not like the noisy film look of the camera. but I do. Also it was the only camera available that I could shoot from my shoulder. I didn't like the way the cannon balanced and the jvc was way cheaper, and again, imho, looks better, (cooler) than the cannon.
So there you go, my 2 cents.....
Jon
I totally agree with you Jon. The reason I chose the JVC over the HVX is because I think the JVC's 24p footage looks way better; it's more filmic IMHO, the colors are more reminiscent of 35mm film than those from the HVX. I'm not fond of the greenish-vynil-leathery colors you get from the HVX .

I had the HVX200 for a few months, and as soon as Apple came out with the FCP 5.1.2 update, I bought the JVC HD-110 and the DT-HD100.

I find the image quality to be equal and the form factor of the HD100 is far superior for controlling the camera.

I don't know how people can do follow focus with iris adjustment while recording on the HVX200. I guess all their scenes are perfectly evenly lit and they have a focus puller/assistant.

And, after one all day shoot where we went thru all 9 of our P2 cards and still had to reformat/archive/copy in the field for a 10th and 11th - never again!

So, my HVX200 is now posted on Craigslist for sale. Pass it along to all those indie film directors!

regards,

bt

Oh yeah, the manual lens.......... you just can't screw up a shot with an auto lens. That means that yes, all your shots will be in focus and the exposure will be ok, but it also means you will never learn how to use a camera and you will never get any happy mistakes along the way.
Jon

PS I'm not saying the other cameras are no good, they just aren't what I like or need, I'm a filmmaker, I like the JVC. If I were rich I would have a bunch of different cameras...but as I said I'm a filmmaker.....lol

Personally I find that this is more of a case of "this is a catchphrase I know" with so called "directors" or "producers" (because they know little else about filmmaking in general). Just like "24P", as in they interview a DP and ask "do you shoot 24P?" which is in itself a stupid question (I have been asked) like that's a make or break defining moment for them to make a decision on one DP or another. It usually comes from inexperienced "filmmakers" who know lingo like 24P! HVX200! DVX100! and they have no idea what they're talking about. I have seen many relatively expensive feature films (!) that hired DP's based on equipment they owned (HVX200) that look total crap. In my opinion the producers deserve what they bargained for. Reap what you saw. These films look so bad they will NEVER get distribution (just like the other 500,578 independent feature films out there) - that is even without considering acting, direction, story, entertainment value... I just giggle... :-)

you just can't screw up a shot with an auto lens. That means that yes, all your shots will be in focus and the exposure will be ok,

Have to disagree there. Autofocus tends to hunt, and autoexposure does very badly on scenes with an excess of highlights or shadows.

Well, I've always been partial to the JVC, I guess you could say that I fell in love at first sight when it was introduced at NAB '05. The image quality was just amazing and the 24p demo footage was simply stunning. When I saw the HVX200 at NAB '06, not so much. The Canon XLH1 footage was impressive though, I remember. But I've always liked the JVC cameras, even the ol' HD10U, just something about their cameras is really spot on.

However, if I were to choose today, I'd still have to choose the HVX200 for the 4:2:2 color space and variable frame rates alone, I'm planning to do a lot of greenscreen and other special effects work with my films, so every little bit helps.

(But oops! Looks like I went elsewhere with my camera choice *cough*look at sig*cough*) ;)

Yeah sure that's a given, but not if you don't have a manual lens, then it's as good as it gets...

Have to disagree there. Autofocus tends to hunt, and autoexposure does very badly on scenes with an excess of highlights or shadows.

However, if I were to choose today, I'd still have to choose the HVX200 for the 4:2:2 color space and variable frame rates alone, I'm planning to do a lot of greenscreen and other special effects work with my films, so every little bit helps.

(But oops! Looks like I went elsewhere with my camera choice *cough*look at sig*cough*) ;)


In doing greenscreen work with the HVX you may find that you lose as much as you gain. For that 4:2:2 and gain in chroma... you lose overall pixel resolution compared to the JVC. The HVX will be softer with less actual edge detail, so unless you like pulling soft edge keys keep looking. I believe that it's in fact that same "soft" image that the HVX user base likes so much about the camera. The HVX does have that soft pleasing look but at the cost of detail. We have used both cameras enough to know better than to run the HVX and trust DVCPro alone to pull a perfect key. Buy a JVC with SDI and then see if you still prefer the HVX for keying.

Peace!

Red however should be another story.

It's mostly a better promotion of their products for Panasonic again JVC. Here in Canada (Mtl), JVC is poorly represented. On the internet site of JVC (Canada), there is no way you can see any information of the new model HD200 or HD250. If you call the PRO-HD authorized Canadian dealers, they can't tell you anything about them either. At one of the dealer, they even told me they were re-thinking about selling the JVC products by lack of service. It's not that way they will compete again Panasonic.

But I still prefer a camera like the HD100 or HD200 for manuel lenses, workflow, ergonomic and quality.

Its the DVX/HVX religion.

The DVX had and still has an awesome following because of the price/quality ratio, and the fact that so many indie films are/were shot using it.

Staying true to human nature, most DVX users will buy HVX's becasue they are practically upgrade DVX's. Why change a good thing? I almost gave in and bought a HVX because when I was researching (can surfing the internet relentlessly when at work be counted as research!?! ;-)) which camera to buy I immediately noticed how big and loyal a following the DVX had. So I thought I'd buy the HVX. Afterall its cool to be in the VX club. I even joined the DVX user forum!!

What put me off was the fixed semi-manual lens, etc. The picture quality is entirely subjective.

I make films with my HD100. They will not win awards. But I like the way they look. I like the fact that the HD100 causes me to take my time. Focusing. Exposing. Zooming manually. Adjusting. Pre-planning. If I have auto exposure and auto focus I rush things and feel out of control. I just love the 'pro' character of the HD100.

It all boils down to the manual lens. It is a different way of shooting. Even without knowing the picture quality of the HVX, that was no option to me because of the form factor and servo lens. I have spent to many hours with the XL1 and XL2 to be able to endure any more servo lens operation...

... (can surfing the internet relentlessly when at work be counted as research!?! ;-))

Yes, more than valid, damn smart in fact. ;)

It all boils down to the manual lens...

Interesting subject, and one that pertains to several other cameras, so I'm inclined to chime in. I almost purchased an HVX, and smartly so, decided to hold off and rent one from a local vendor.

It's not just a lens issue, it's the entire workflow from start to finish. There's a certain amount of effort to get footage into your edit bay. Where the HVX seems the most practical approach in theory, but in practice it was very frustrating. Even for our short form production, I found the timing of many takes entirely dictated by the swapping of those P2 cards, etc. Sure you could swap midstream, but every swap effected the shot/framing/concentration of the crew and performers. Tranfers were not one-to-one in speed. Many times we wound up waiting for a card to be available. This level of frustration was affecting both the actors and agitating the shoot. Since we dragged out a workstation to dub the media, we simple gave in and captured directly to an Array via firewire.

My next camera has HD-SDI out.

Interesting subject, and one that pertains to several other cameras, so I'm inclined to chime in. I almost purchased an HVX, and smartly so, decided to hold off and rent one from a local vendor.

It's not just a lens issue, it's the entire workflow from start to finish. There's a certain amount of effort to get footage into your edit bay. Where the HVX seems the most practical approach in theory, but in practice it was very frustrating. Even for our short form production, I found the timing of many takes entirely dictated by the swapping of those P2 cards, etc. Sure you could swap midstream, but every swap effected the shot/framing/concentration of the crew and performers. Tranfers were not one-to-one in speed. Many times we wound up waiting for a card to be available. This level of frustration was affecting both the actors and agitating the shoot. Since we dragged out a workstation to dub the media, we simple gave in and captured directly to an Array via firewire.

My next camera has HD-SDI out.

I can believe that's frustrating. It's hard keeping those actors focussed :-)

Anyway, in defense of the P2 / HVX: This should be temporary. As soon as P2 cards are out with huge storage capacity (and a modest price) this shouldn't be a problem anymore. But how long is that going to take and won't there be better camcorders by then?

Editing solutions (or lack thereof) become very big to people who already have the camera(s) and are trying to do the work...

From what people are saying, directors wanting to hire someone don't seem to be thinking in those terms. Footage from the HVX and P2 cards, while being vastly more expensive and needing almost immediate downloading and storage, do seem to have an easier time editing. There have been far more reported problems getting 24p to edit properly from footage shot on the JVC - and a much longer wait to get them.

That said, the image itself is on the whole better on the JVC. More resolution. Interchangable lens. An almost infinate palate of changable recipes, form factor, etc.

HVX, for some, will be better - from their previous use of the DVX, to the 4:2:2 colorspace. But in almost every shootout, the JVC wins. The debate has always been, in my mind and many others, whether the JVC or the Canon HL-1 is a better choice (if it had true 24p it clearly would be - but it doesn't), not if the HVX is.

As much as I like the JVC100, in my own mind its days are numbered - as are the HVX and Canon HL-1. If RED (or Sony) can truly produce a 4K camera for under $20 grand, there can be little reason to justify buying a $10k camera. Clearly there is yet another threshold of technology about to be broken.

The JVC' 100 has sold well over 10,000 units. There is a new generation of video cameras that may surpass even 35 mm film in quality coming down the pipe. There is no more thunder to steal. In terms of getting work, just show 'em what the JVC can do - it's still the best bang for the buck....
For now.

john
evilgeniuesentertainment.com

Thing is, there really isn't an apples to apples in this equation. Each camera seems to fill in for the weak spots on the other. For example, 4:2:0 HDV is far less post-friendly than 4:2:2 DVCproHD. However, as anyone who has worked with P2 will tell you, the workflow is much trickier than JVC's. Producer's who don't factor this into the mix upfront tend to find out the hard way later on.

And as noted, the 200 generates that icky green cast, whereas the sensor on the JVC seems to be technically superior in just about every way. (I just did a shoot where we shot on both the 100 and 200, and I was much happier with the JVC's image.)

And then there are the lenses. Nothing, in my opinion, makes a bigger difference to picture quality than good glass. A $40k box of Ziess Super-Speed primes on a decent day rate is unparalleled. The JVC, with its bayonet mount, gives you better access to the world of high-end optics.

My real beef is with HDV. But I'm also moving towards a tapeless workflow, which renders the in-camera record features irrelevant. In this scenario, the JVC is the clear winner, as it produces a better signal overall (the sensor actually operates at 4:2:2 - it's the HDV encoder that resamples at 4:2:0.)

So yes, I tend to agree with the folks who say that, if you know what you're doing, the JVC is the better bet. Of course, these tend not to be the people who staff their shows from Craigslist...

JVC and Panasonic are the same company don`t you know? Matshushita, which operates the Panasonic and JVC brands?
HVX is the only cam out there which can record in variable framerates up to 60p in 720p under 6k. Sure you have to rent or buy a $150 shoulder support for it.

But as we can see even from the discussion here Matshushita still owns us.

Damn, my first PC was too manufactured by Matshushita 20 years ago.

Think,
T

Wile ultimately owned by the same corporate entity, the companies are totally seperately run, with a completely seperate corporate command structure. If your logic were valid, then one of the two cameras wouldn't exist at all (although I do admit it's pretty odd sales tactic).

In terms of slo-mo, it is a feature that while nice, it's rarely a deciding factor. I suppose if everything else was equal....

I'd think that both brands, while still selling units, have already reached their peak in terms of sales. At this point, the future seems to be pointing towards RED or Sony. Perhaps if/when Canon puts out the "XL-3" - ie - a 24p HD camera....

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Interestingly enough I didn't see any mention to the half-backed resolution issue with the HVX. The camera doesn't really record at full resolution, it works with a horizontal resolution of 960 pixels instead of 1280. While the JVC gives you the option to capture at 4:2:2, the Panasonic camera limits your real resolution. That is in addition to the flawed, IMHO, workflow inherent with the P2 card. We, at "2nd Unit", are shooting a feature called "El Papel" and we use the Sony F-350 for that. To me the blue-ray DVD storage system is the real answer to the tapeless dilemma. Sony really nailed it and what we need now is just a 2-inch DVD format that can be used for smaller cameras like the HD-100. The workflow with the XDCAM is simply ideal. The flaw in the P2 are so glaring that is amazing it was approved in the first place. While tape defintely adds a lot of time to digitize your footage, compared to P2, the cost and inconvenience of backing up 2 times your footage nulls, for all practical purposes, the advantage that you think you get from the P2. I said 2 times because you first need to grab the footage from the P2 card. Then you immediately need to back it up to another disk before you start editing. If something happens to your original clips you have no backup from P2 or tape. So an immediate backup is vital. Remember that hard disks fail. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". While two disks going bad at the same time is an unlikely event, I've seen situations where both the original data and the backup were gone. Of course di disadvantage o creating a backup is that you need to keep it updated and well organized. In my experience not many people can do that. In the reality of a production schedule and the need to create dailies this backup cycle creates a roadblock. After you back up to another dsk/raid you then need to back up to a static storage of some kind, like a batch of DVDs. Not only this requires special software and adds to the overall cost of the P2 ownership, it also takes an incredible amount of time. You could use tape backup but you still have to run through that phase.
Not having an archiving solution built-in in the camera is a serious drawback, IMHO.

Yeah, the "But they'll be huge capacity P2 cards available soon at small cost" arguments are wearing pretty thin right about now, aren't they?

If they were cheap enough to use, then throw into a drawer (or whatever), fine. But they still cost what, a grand a gig? The idea might have been good but the ability to mass produce these cards just isn't there.

Neither, seemingling, is the demand. I don't hear anyone saying normal flashcards are a thing of the past for any other application other than some Panasonic gear - there is simply no mass market appeal to them (at least not at that price range).

And you are right on about organization - after an 18 hour shoot in some freezing outdoor local, organization is no one's strong point. Heck, most people I know in the biz are the exact opposite or organized - me included.

Paolo, what your take on RED and similar cameras? Should people wait, or get the most out of the existing tech?

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Paolo, what your take on RED and similar cameras? Should people wait, or get the most out of the existing tech?

Thanks John.
In addition to all the valid arguments brought by everybody, I just thought that a 40GB ipod costs less then a 8GB P2 card. Looks like it would have been wise for Panasonic to simply make an interface for the iPod :)
Anyway, about RED I have a word that I borrow from the software industry: vaporware.
I was just amazed that people lined up to give to somebody money for nothing. RED has two main issues: it's not there, it's never been there and it's a totally unknown entity without pedigree. OK, those are basically 3 issues.
RED is a new company. As such we don't have any track record about customer service, technical support, financial strenght. Nothing. Do you want to gamble your next movie on that? I don't. Maybe RED will be the best player in the market and it will give a run for their money to Sony, Canon, JVC etc. I don't think so but it will take a few years before that can happen. During those years I plan on shooting a few movies and I'll use one of the HD solutions already in the market.
Second, the technology has not being tested. I'm not gonna give my hard earned money for a technology that has no foundation in the industry, has no concrete or even announced support from the likes of Adobe, Apple or Avid.
Third, JVC, Sony, Panasonic and Canon have been around. Sony is supplier for Panavision and others. There is a lot of weight in that. The industry doesn't embrace something quickly unless it comes from a trusted source. The Genesis camera is the pivoting point where traditional cinematographers are finally testing the new waters of HD. Because it comes from Panavision. RED... that's a totally unknown entity. When you are on a set of even a small production the tension is very high and carreers are made of ruined based on the ability to perform and deliver on time. As a cinematographer it's crucial that I can count on the support of not only the company but a network of dealers and rental houses that can help me when something goes wrong. There is so much more to this profession than just the technical specs. I wish RED the best luck, for now I'm gonna work with JVC and Sony for my projects.

I am relatively new to the photography side having always been "talent." As you might imagine, I have a lot of work friends who shoot professionally for local and network news crews.

The work I do is mostly documentary stuff with a news feel so 24p isn't super important.

The form factor (ENG feel of this camera) is the most important reason I think this camera is superior for the price.

The pro cam-techs I work with look at it and marvel at how small it is (compared to what they use). One of my photographers even suggested we use it on a news story for the station. (In fact the HD110 is layed out very similarly to the Panasonic AJ-SPX800 and the Sony Betacam SX units that we use at my "real" job).

So yes, the form factor is a big thing with this camera. If and when you "graduate" to more expensive gear, you'll have very little trouble making the adjustment. (Heck isn't white balance the same place on every camera?)

I agree with the poster who said, if I were rich I'd have several different cameras....but this camera is a good one to start with.

I wish RED the best luck, for now I'm gonna work with JVC and Sony for my projects.


Thanks for responding Paolo. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out... But even if RED does not deliver in the end, I do think that they've opened up a lot of people's eyes with their concepts - including Sony, et al.

So, if I'm taking your advice properly, you'd advise owners of the JVC (or HVX/Canon) to stand pat and learn to get the max out of the equipment. Also for prospective new buyers to take the plunge now.

If so, I still think JVC's got the best deal for the money. But, it all depends on your needs...

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

So, if I'm taking your advice properly, you'd advise owners of the JVC (or HVX/Canon) to stand pat and learn to get the max out of the equipment. Also for prospective new buyers to take the plunge now.

Yes, the more you know the camera the better. The advantage of digital cameras, like the HD100, is the amount of control that they give you. It's important to have a solid foundation in digital technology and compression concepts. With that you can then address the feaures of a specific camera and use them to obtan gthe best images. For example, then HD100 has a remarkable amount of control in the color matrix. That's how I was able to develop TrueColor. Why we should work with a given configuration is something that you need to realize on your own when you "grok" the basics of digital compression. For example, once you know how HDV works you know that you better avoid it for editing even when the NLE provides support for it. I use HDV editing only for the first cut of the footage. Once I'm getting to the point of applying effects and color correction I switch to uncompressed.

Regarding buying a camera I can only say this: if you need one today then buy one today. If you can wait then wait but be aware that there will be always a better product annouced. You can't play that game, you'll end up always waiting while other people are out there shooting. There is nothing like getting the experience. Nothing else. There are today some very nice cameras in the sub-$10,000 range. Get the one that fits your project and get out and shoot :)
Take care.

For example, once you know how HDV works you know that you better avoid it for editing even when the NLE provides support for it. I use HDV editing only for the first cut of the footage. Once I'm getting to the point of applying effects and color correction I switch to uncompressed.
Paolo, everytime you start talking my hunger for picking your brain gets the best of me. Tell us, how much uncompressed footage have you found yourself editing. Using what NLE? Have you edited 24p from the HD100? What was the workflow? In other words, after you have your 24p footage, what was next step towards editing? How do you make it editable since there's no support for 24pHDV? I know you've probably answered this before, but I've yet to have a clear idea how to go about editing 24p from my HD100, which is why early on, I decided to avoid it altogether. But I'm dying to use it. BTW, I work with AvidXpress Pro HD. Thank you Paolo.

Tell us, how much uncompressed footage have you found yourself editing. Using what NLE? Have you edited 24p from the HD100? What was the workflow? How do you make it editable since there's no support for 24pHDV?
Hi Jaadgy.
There are three scenarios: a) you ingest HDV footage (24 or 30fps, it doesn't matter) in HDV. b) You ingest HDV footage that you convert to uncompressed before the NLE. c) You ingest uncompressed footage via component out.

I'll leave option c) out for now.
With option a) you can use FCP, for example, and take your 24fps footage and acquire it directly. FCP has issues, as we write, with the HD100 and with long clips but short ones seem to work. If you can get the HDV footage out of the HD100 then you can immediately edit it in FCP in HDV format. This gives you the ability to edit without rendering, a nice option. Also, I use this method with the Sony XDCAM, I grab the clips via FW and get them inside FCP where I start cuttin right away. See below for more on the second part of this operation.

If the footage cannot be ingested via the editor then I use DVHCap or HDVxDV to grab long pieces of tape from the HD100. That's how I edit the episodes for "2nd Unit". Since at this point I have a file that I have to convert to QT anyway I convert it in AIC. This gives me the advantage of not using HDV and it takes approximately the same amount of time than to render it later, something that I do anyway. I use MPEG Streamclip (Universal binary)
in batch mode. Be sure to set the frame rate at 23.976 or you'll get clips set at 59.97fps.

When editing HDV footage I only do the rough cut in that format. Exporting, sound sweetening, keying is not right done in HDV. So, after I have a fairly stable cut I switch the compressor setting in my FCP sequence to either use AIC or Uncompressed. I let FCP render the sequence, prettyy fast operaion anyway, and then apply my color correction and other effects.
The advantage of using AIC is that I can select a sequwnce and use "Send to Soundtrack" and it will take a few seconds because FCP doesn't have to recompress the GOPs. Same for when I export to other formats. I export using "Current Settings", this generates a QT reference file because all the rendered clips are in AIC format so there is no recompression. I can get 30 minutes of footage exported in a matter of seconds and then drop that movie into Compressor for generating the MPEG files for the DVD or for Web delivery.
Remember, any compression system that uses temporal compression should be avoided. It's not that HDV is bad. Any codec that works in that way is not a good option for extensive editing. This is because when you cut in the middle of a GOP the NLE has to backtrack, find the reference frame and then calculate the current frame based on the "deltas". Whe exporting footage there is no other option but to recompress your clips in order to generate new GOPs. You cannot cut in the middle of the GOP and output it without rebuilding it. Rebuilding means re-compressing. This means that even though an NLE, any NLE, can claim that it edits in natve mode, that doesn't mean that your output will not require re-compression. It's simply impossible. That's why you are better off by rendering into a an uncompressed format and then output that format. Not only that will be much fast but it will help you preserve the quality of your footage.

For this reason your choice of NLE is crucial. FCP allows you to basically set the input and output format of each sequence. You can have HDV for inout and AIC for outout (rendering). Without that option you have no control over your footage. Or better you don't control the final rendering and thus the final quality of it.

Hope this helps.

Paolo, You have no idea how helpful that was. Your posts are usually a "must print" to me and this one's no exception. Moltissime grazie.

I've shot with the JVC H100 and the Panasonic HVX200 as well editing footage from both, and I'll say, this H100 vs. HVX200 argument can go on forever because they are fundamentally different cameras with different design trade-offs. The designers of each camera had different priorities in terms of lens, form-factor, format, etc.

When I'm shooting handleld ENG/news style, I find the "almost like a pro lens" of the JVC is easier to focus and adjust zoom and iris on the fly, and given that I've shot a lot with the larger pro cameras in the past, the familiarty and ergonomics of the pro-camcorder style are a plus.

But on the other hand I like the smaller size of the HVX200 for other types of shooting, especially stealthy, out of the way, cinema-verite style shooting, where I have the camera up and down and all over the place but rarely on my shoulder. Here the smaller, more compact camera is a plus. And then the HVX has the spot meter. I love that feature. And the variable frame rates, that's something I consider essential. I used to have to rent a Varicam to get it, now the HVX offers it at a low price.

When it comes to robustness of the camera and the ease of editing, the HVX and the DVCPRO HD format wins. Both the JVC camera and the HDV tape format are fragile. The JVCs I've shot with have been in the shop several times and I've got one eaten HDV tape to prove that tape sucks. On the other hand semiconductor memory is very stable and reliable and P2 ingest is fast and efficient, the cost of the cards notwithstanding. And before you start going on about the cost of P2, please do a lifecycle spreadsheet analysis of cost before you slam P2. Compared to Sony Digital Master tape, if you do alot of shooting, the cost of the tape becomes an issue when you're shooting hundreds of tapes a year.

So they are both really good cameras, I like them both. I shot with an HVX200 for six months and where I'm working now we have two JVC H100s and a Sony XDCAM HD,every camera has strengths, and every camera has weaknesses.

These discussions would be more interesting and productive if we looked at the relative streangth and weakness of each camera in the context of a particular application. For example: Multi-camera capture of an event: JVC wins over HVX hands down. Tape is more practical in these situations. Quick shoot and ingest of footage that's ready to go in a format without MPEG-2 tomfoolery, the HVX wins. In terms of ergonomics, that's all so personal. And what about the related issue of MPEG-2 vs. DVCPRO HD? To edit HDV on a Mac I need at a minimum of a Dual Processor 2.0GHz or better G5 machine. To edit DVCPRO HD, a single processor G5 is just fine. If I use AIC I lose timecode, which I care about, other's don't.

It's all about the context of a specific application whether something is better or not. Compared on their own, they are simply two different cameras, like two soda pops, Pepsi or Coke?

Non c'e di che', just rimember me when you'll be king :)

Tim Dashwood writes, "HDV is almost always the format of choice for filmmakers with very low budgets."

Even I, a great fan of the HVX200 and DVX100, would agree with that. HDV is an excellent choice when the budget is tight. Yes, there, I said it (I've been accused by some as being an HVX apologist, which I neither confirm nor deny).

My most recent film, Remembering John Marshall (http://kino-eye.com/rjm/) (a documentary currently screening at festivals and in March at Anthology Film Archives in New York) was made on a very tight budget, and as co-producer and co-editor I decided we'd shot with the Sony HVR-Z1U (if I was doing it now, I might choose the HVR-V1U for its 24P feature). The budget was tight and even the HVX200 and H100 were out of the question.

And in the end, the content/subject is much more important than the camera choice. The similarities among all of the under $10,000 HD cameras is greater than their differences. Any of these cameras could have been used to shoot the film and the actual differences between the cameras in the end a minor point. And I say that as someone who used to focus on cinematography but now I'm focused more on producing and editing.

When editing HDV footage I only do the rough cut in that format. Exporting, sound sweetening, keying is not right done in HDV. So, after I have a fairly stable cut I switch the compressor setting in my FCP sequence to either use AIC or Uncompressed. I let FCP render the sequence, prettyy fast operaion anyway, and then apply my color correction and other effects.


Paolo

First of all thanks for this post. Its very helpful.

When you say "I let FCP render the sequence" do you mean you render the timeline, or do you mean you export a movie and then import this back in to FCP for CC and other effects.

Regards


Andrew

Paolo Ciccone wrote, "When editing HDV footage I only do the rough cut in that format," one of the problems in working with Final Cut Pro is that any media in a format other than the sequence setting has to be rendered to the video format of the sequence. For the video news magazine I edit (I only edit some of the stories but I end up doing the final assembly, color correct, and sound mix), we've started mixing footage from both Sony XDCAM HD and JVC H100 HDV, so I've found it easiest to edit using a DVCPRO HD timeline.

I'm not worried about the slight loss of resolution (and hope to stay out of the XDCAM HD vs. DVCPRO HD vs HDV-1 vs. HDV-2 debate), as the speed gains in post are worth it to me, the additional render time on every edit with HDV costs time and this work is done on a tight deadline. The first time I do the assembly I do have render time (but not that long since I'm using a Mac Pro) but then any changes I make are rendered much faster than if I was working in HDV. Doing it this way I still maintain the original camera media in their native format of Sony's MPEG-2 and JVC's HDV in the event we lose media and I have to recapture from tape.

David, it would be intesrting to know the difference in rendering time between using AIC or DVCPRO. Wihout having tried it I would expect AIC to be slightly faster because it requires less computation. The other argument in favor of AIC /Uncompressed is that it requires the least amount of transcoding. DVCPRO, or any other format will basically transcode our footage with not only loss in resolution but also, possibly, color definition and increase of image noise.

If RED (or Sony) can truly produce a 4K camera for under $20 grand, there can be little reason to justify buying a $10k camera. Clearly there is yet another threshold of technology about to be broken.

What's odd is that there seems to be a large price gap between entry-level HD cameras costing about $3-6K and anything better starting at around $25-30K (with lens and accessories). I wish someone would develop a "better" HD camera for around $10K, and I might prefer to have two of those than one super camera for twice the price...

David, it would be intesrting to know the difference in rendering time between using AIC or DVCPRO [...] I could run a test on the master of the last show, AIC vs. DVCPRO HD. Let me try that and I'll report back.

[...] I would expect AIC to be slightly faster because it requires less computation. The other argument in favor of AIC /Uncompressed is that it requires the least amount of transcoding [...] In the ideal best of all possible worlds I'd choose to master in uncompressed 4:2:2 HD, however, we're limited in the amount of space we have on our RAIDs.

Compared to Sony Digital Master tape, if you do alot of shooting, the cost of the tape becomes an issue when you're shooting hundreds of tapes a year.

As opposed to the cost of all the hard drives you'll have to buy to archive your P2 footage?

As opposed to the cost of all the hard drives you'll have to buy to archive your P2 footage?Sorry, but there's no contest. The cost of all the hard drives you'll have to buy to archive your P2 footage is significantly less than the cost would be to archive your P2 footage on DVCPRO HD tape.

To put it another way, the cost of P2 memory plus the cost of archiving to hard disk storage is less than the cost of acquisition of the same amount of video with DVCPRO HD tape. P2 is the least expensive way to acquire in the DVCPRO HD format. There are a variety of archival options for P2, and most of them beat the cost of DVCPRO HD tape.

David, it would be intesrting to know the difference in rendering time between using AIC or DVCPRO [...] OK, I ran an unscientific yet practical test last night on the latest sequence I've assembled (an episode of ZigZag (http://web.mit.edu/zigzag/)), it's a 6:25 show with a mix of H100 HDV footage and Sony XDCAM HD footage along with some upscaled DV footage with several lower-thirds, several motion effects and transitions, and some reframes. Here's the render time for the whole sequence starting from scratch (deleting all of the render media and re-rendering the whole thing). This was done on a Mac Pro 2 x 3GHz Dual Core Intel Xeon machine and Final Cut Pro 5.1.2 w/ 4 GB Memory with source files and render files stored on a XServe RAID:

Apple Intermediate Codec 720/30p Sequence: 16 minutes

DVCPRO HD 720/30p Sequence: 15 minutes

So basically the render time is the same for all practical purposes.

I did not measure the time it would have taken to render the whole project using an HDV 720/30p sequence, it took about 12 minutes to do the first minute of the program, I did not have the patience to let it finish, this is the reason I choose to master using DVCPRO HD, using an intra-frame codec is much faster to work with than an inter-frame codec like MPEG-2, even on a fast machine. Since I work on a deadline, and speed improvement helps me make the deadline with less stress and I get more creative work done in the time available.

Now this test is a worst-case scenario, as we're using a format for the sequence which does not match any of the source formats. This is just the final mastering phase. Edting is usually done in the native format of the majority of the source material.

But the point is clear and generalizable: it's much faster to work with an intra-frame codec (e.g. DVCPRO HD) than a inter-frame codec (e.g. MPEG-2) in an editing scenario. Now if I had some specialized hardware acceleration, the story would be different.

I personally think that DVCPRO HD looks better than AIC, resolution issues notwithstanding. Image quality is a complex mix of several factors including color depth, resolution, scan, frame rate, compression artifacts, characteristics of the original material, viewing device, viewing context, etc.

Hey David, thank you for running this test. Now we know more about performance of these codecs and people can make decisions based on their own preferences while the time is now a factor anymore.

Thanks again.

Hey David, thank you for running this test. Now we know more about performance of these codecs and people can make decisions based on their own preferences while the time is now a factor anymore.

Thanks again.

Happy to do it.

I think the ultimate HD workflow if you have the storage and fast CPU is to capture from HDV direct to a component intra-frame format with very little or no compression. This would allow you to mix and match source formats with no extra render time in your sequence.

Getting back to the topic of the JVC camera, since that's the topic of this thread, you can use the JVC BR-HD50 deck analog component outputs as the input to something like the Kona LH/LHe or Kona 3 card. This way you can ingest video from the JVC-H100 into Final Cut Pro as uncompressed video and avoid working the 4:2:0 color environment and having to wait for MPEG-2 renders. This also facilicates mixing and matching of HD from various sournces and use a 10 bit 4:2:2 intermediate format. It also gives you a clean and simply way to get 24p footage into the Mac. Of course this method eats up lots of storage. Here's a PDF document describing the process: JVC HDV and Sony HDV Workflow with Final Cut Pro 5 (http://www.aja.com/pdf/support/AJA_whitepaper_HDV.pdf) (from the AJA web site ("www.aja.com)). This is what we've set up for some captures.

about RED I have a word that I borrow from the software industry: vaporware.Paolo... you can perceive RED to be anything you want. And, although we have shown 4k and REDCODE footage to many, the camera is not done. We have made our schedule known from the beginning and are on target (as of now). The only downside to the reservation holders is getting their deposit back... unless you think I would risk my entire reputation to fraud. The upside is that they will have the camera and the skeptics won't. If and when you decide if RED is worthy of your project, there will be a handful of rental houses with the camera. But I understand the waiting lists are beginning there. As for shooting a project, David Stump has already stated (after working with our prototype) that he will shoot a feature as soon as he gets one in his hands. Vaporware has many meanings. If you are using the term to imply that the RED ONE is not on the market, you are correct. If you are implying that it will not happen, I take exception. But you can mark my words that reservation holders are not at risk.

Jim