SONY HDR-FX1 vs JVC JYHD10U Shoot Out

Davi Dortas · December 13th, 2004, 08:18 PM

someone care to setup a tracker?

Chris Hurd · December 13th, 2004, 09:03 PM

For Hayden and Bill, thanks fore the tip, I'll be looking into that.

Davi Dortas · December 13th, 2004, 09:28 PM

Chris I not think it would be impossible to setup up a bittorrent tracker on dvinfo.net. It would certainly reduce your monthly bandwidth, especially the beating the server took with Ito's m2t clips.

I use bittorrent all the time, and it's very good to use for large gigabyte-plus files, with hash checking for intergrity. Dvinfo member population is large enough to support very fast downloading speeds. I think its a excellent idea to get bittorrrent support on this site. It will completely erase the need to have users sending out DVD demos, and make it easier to distribute DVD demos for peoples who were thinkning about it but dont cuz the costs too high and take to long to mail out all the DVDs, plus shipping costs and dealing with handling and all that sorts of stuff, which I would be very willing to sharing my work if we all have a central place to upload our bittorrent files to.

Chris Hurd · December 13th, 2004, 09:56 PM

Thanks for the input, Davi. I appreciate your comments very much. When I meet with my webmaster this week I'll definitely discuss this with him.

Mark Kubat · December 13th, 2004, 10:40 PM

Hey, these are the sorts of comparisons that everyone should be interested in seeing - if done right, it could be quite informative to understand how the cameras are limited as compared to how the HDV format itself is limited.

Bill, thanks for your efforts - I'd be interested in your "report" on this - you should probably set up an article at www.hdvinfo.net for regular reference, including still frame grabs...

Keep up the great work.

It would be interesting to see comparisons with XL2.

Chris Hurd · December 14th, 2004, 12:02 AM

Great idea, Mark. I'd be more than happy to help facilitate an article submission from Bill.

Riki Cheung · December 30th, 2004, 11:34 AM

Why isn't anybody mentioning that with the JVC you could only get 30p on HD, and with the FX1 you could get 60i on HD, I think this is very important in the HD world. Everything you shoot on HD with the JVC will always look like it is on stobe or try to have the film looks. You cannot really achieve the real HD video looks. If some of you who has Voom might know what I am talking about. There is a extreme sport channel on Voom call RUSH HD, and I've seen some programs shot on the HD10U. But you will alway notice that stobe. And when you switch to a channel like EQUATOR HD or Discovery HD, it really give you more of a real HD picture (imo), what HD should look like, OF course they probably shot most of those footages with a HDW-F900 or a AJ-HDC27. But when footage that are shot in 60i, it just capture the feel of HD better than 30P. Bottom line is that, with the JVC you only could get the film looks((more of a strobe,I think) in HD and with FX1 you could get the film looks with tweaks and the HD video 60i looks, Thats just my opinion. Lets hear yours.

Giroud Francois · December 30th, 2004, 01:01 PM

I do not think it is useful to come back on the interlaced versus progressive deathmatch.
Again the pro of progressive:
picture is clearer, sharper.
it support better fast moving pictures.
mpeg compress better on progressive.
the data stream is more steady and do not degrade as fast as on interlaced.

The pro for interlaced:
action is smoother.
technically almost every video system is usually based on interlaced. compatibilty is then more probable than with progressive..
(i guess most of us still own a good old CRT TV).

If i had to choose, i would prefer 720/30p because if needed i can easily uprez to 720/60p and get very nice picture while keeping the smooth if interlaced.
additionally 720p is easy on editing since the amount of data is smaller.
i deliberately mix here two factor (resolution 720 vs 1080) and interlaced vs progressive, because i doubt we will see soon a consumer camera offering 1080p.
so basically the choice today is 720/30p or 1080/60i.
it is a shame that sony do not made a 720/60p camera.

Kevin Dooley · December 30th, 2004, 08:44 PM

I think 60p would be *my* ideal. You get the pros of progressive + the smooth motion of interlaced. Plus, any camera that does 60p I would imagine would do 30p or 24p for when I actually want some motion blur...

Oh well--honestly, I'm just happy HD is within the reach of the masses...

Bill Piedra · December 31st, 2004, 07:07 AM

But is 60p a real HD format? What HDTV sets playback 1080p. The standards are 720p and 1080i.

Kevin Dooley · December 31st, 2004, 07:10 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra : But is 60p a real HD format? What HDTV sets playback 1080p. The standards are 720p and 1080i. -->>>

HDV itself has 60p as a standard--720p @ 60 frames. I never said I wanted 1080/60p. That would be nice of course, but if the numbers crunch out correctly, 720/60p is roughly the same amount of information as 1080/60i, so I'm cool with that...

Barry Green · December 31st, 2004, 03:20 PM

The ATSC standard defines 1080/24p, 1080/30p and 1080/60i.

It also defines 720/24p, 720/30p and 720/60p.

HDV provides for 1080/60i, 720/30p and 720/60p.

Lawrence Bansbach · December 31st, 2004, 04:35 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Davi:
I admit, not that many. But Steve would say (actually he has said, to me) that since he could get a beautiful image out of the JVC HD10, then so could everyone else. And doing so would not require his breadth of technical knowledge.
-->>>
Chris, if I remember correctly, Steve also said that he preferred some aspects of the HD10's look over the FX1's -- I believe he said that the Sony's look was colder and more like HD video, whereas the HD10's look was warmer and more filmlike (I admit that I may be oversimplifying what he said). Further, he said that in the time he'd been using the HD10, he never experienced the motion artifacts (i.e., blocking) that crop up with the FX1 when panning at certain speeds (or when objects move relative to the camera at those speeds).

In any event, I'm certain that in no way would he want anyone to think he considered the HD10 superior in all ways to the FX1/Z1, or vice versa. Each camera has its advantages and uses.

December 13th, 2004, 09:03 PM	#17
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	For Hayden and Bill, thanks fore the tip, I'll be looking into that. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 13th, 2004, 09:56 PM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Thanks for the input, Davi. I appreciate your comments very much. When I meet with my webmaster this week I'll definitely discuss this with him. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 13th, 2004, 10:40 PM	#20
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	I think it's great this is being done... Hey, these are the sorts of comparisons that everyone should be interested in seeing - if done right, it could be quite informative to understand how the cameras are limited as compared to how the HDV format itself is limited. Bill, thanks for your efforts - I'd be interested in your "report" on this - you should probably set up an article at www.hdvinfo.net for regular reference, including still frame grabs... Keep up the great work. It would be interesting to see comparisons with XL2.

December 14th, 2004, 12:02 AM	#21
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Great idea, Mark. I'd be more than happy to help facilitate an article submission from Bill. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

December 30th, 2004, 11:34 AM	#22
Riki Cheung Tourist Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 4	Comparing HD10U and FX1 Why isn't anybody mentioning that with the JVC you could only get 30p on HD, and with the FX1 you could get 60i on HD, I think this is very important in the HD world. Everything you shoot on HD with the JVC will always look like it is on stobe or try to have the film looks. You cannot really achieve the real HD video looks. If some of you who has Voom might know what I am talking about. There is a extreme sport channel on Voom call RUSH HD, and I've seen some programs shot on the HD10U. But you will alway notice that stobe. And when you switch to a channel like EQUATOR HD or Discovery HD, it really give you more of a real HD picture (imo), what HD should look like, OF course they probably shot most of those footages with a HDW-F900 or a AJ-HDC27. But when footage that are shot in 60i, it just capture the feel of HD better than 30P. Bottom line is that, with the JVC you only could get the film looks((more of a strobe,I think) in HD and with FX1 you could get the film looks with tweaks and the HD video 60i looks, Thats just my opinion. Lets hear yours.

December 13th, 2004, 08:18 PM	#16
Davi Dortas Membership Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 78	someone care to setup a tracker?

December 13th, 2004, 09:28 PM	#18
Davi Dortas Membership Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 78	Chris I not think it would be impossible to setup up a bittorrent tracker on dvinfo.net. It would certainly reduce your monthly bandwidth, especially the beating the server took with Ito's m2t clips. I use bittorrent all the time, and it's very good to use for large gigabyte-plus files, with hash checking for intergrity. Dvinfo member population is large enough to support very fast downloading speeds. I think its a excellent idea to get bittorrrent support on this site. It will completely erase the need to have users sending out DVD demos, and make it easier to distribute DVD demos for peoples who were thinkning about it but dont cuz the costs too high and take to long to mail out all the DVDs, plus shipping costs and dealing with handling and all that sorts of stuff, which I would be very willing to sharing my work if we all have a central place to upload our bittorrent files to.

December 30th, 2004, 01:01 PM	#23
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	I do not think it is useful to come back on the interlaced versus progressive deathmatch. Again the pro of progressive: picture is clearer, sharper. it support better fast moving pictures. mpeg compress better on progressive. the data stream is more steady and do not degrade as fast as on interlaced. The pro for interlaced: action is smoother. technically almost every video system is usually based on interlaced. compatibilty is then more probable than with progressive.. (i guess most of us still own a good old CRT TV). If i had to choose, i would prefer 720/30p because if needed i can easily uprez to 720/60p and get very nice picture while keeping the smooth if interlaced. additionally 720p is easy on editing since the amount of data is smaller. i deliberately mix here two factor (resolution 720 vs 1080) and interlaced vs progressive, because i doubt we will see soon a consumer camera offering 1080p. so basically the choice today is 720/30p or 1080/60i. it is a shame that sony do not made a 720/60p camera.

December 30th, 2004, 08:44 PM	#24
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	I think 60p would be my ideal. You get the pros of progressive + the smooth motion of interlaced. Plus, any camera that does 60p I would imagine would do 30p or 24p for when I actually want some motion blur... Oh well--honestly, I'm just happy HD is within the reach of the masses... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

December 31st, 2004, 07:07 AM	#25
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	But is 60p a real HD format? What HDTV sets playback 1080p. The standards are 720p and 1080i.

December 31st, 2004, 07:10 AM	#26
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra : But is 60p a real HD format? What HDTV sets playback 1080p. The standards are 720p and 1080i. -->>> HDV itself has 60p as a standard--720p @ 60 frames. I never said I wanted 1080/60p. That would be nice of course, but if the numbers crunch out correctly, 720/60p is roughly the same amount of information as 1080/60i, so I'm cool with that... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

December 31st, 2004, 03:20 PM	#27
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	The ATSC standard defines 1080/24p, 1080/30p and 1080/60i. It also defines 720/24p, 720/30p and 720/60p. HDV provides for 1080/60i, 720/30p and 720/60p.

December 31st, 2004, 04:35 PM	#28
Lawrence Bansbach Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 295	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Davi: I admit, not that many. But Steve would say (actually he has said, to me) that since he could get a beautiful image out of the JVC HD10, then so could everyone else. And doing so would not require his breadth of technical knowledge. -->>> Chris, if I remember correctly, Steve also said that he preferred some aspects of the HD10's look over the FX1's -- I believe he said that the Sony's look was colder and more like HD video, whereas the HD10's look was warmer and more filmlike (I admit that I may be oversimplifying what he said). Further, he said that in the time he'd been using the HD10, he never experienced the motion artifacts (i.e., blocking) that crop up with the FX1 when panning at certain speeds (or when objects move relative to the camera at those speeds). In any event, I'm certain that in no way would he want anyone to think he considered the HD10 superior in all ways to the FX1/Z1, or vice versa. Each camera has its advantages and uses.