Decisions -- JVC HD100 or Panasonic HVX200?

[Steve Benner]

The HDV editing hasn't really bothered my so much as of yet, aside from the workflow. I edit on Mac, and know that the FCP update will fix the 720/24P problem, but I really want to switch to AVID in the next year. Avid Xpress Pro does not support it yet, and as far as I know the Media Composer Software can Edit it, but not capture (I am not sure on this).

I do plan on storing the files to either my Powerbook when I shoot and eventually I will buy a P2 Store. The HVX can also offload clips to a self powered Hard Drive. I would store the files on my external Hard Drive.

The JVC is a awesome camera, I just don't think it is perfect for me, thats all. I really think I need a more Compact camera.

[Robert Lane]

Indeed, Diogo's assesment is right on the money:

The HVX currently is not an ideal platform for anything uncoordinated or unplanned, nor for long-form recording. There are those that use them for those scenarios, but they're also creating workarounds for the shortcomings the HVX creates in those situations.

The HD100, H1 and Z1 are all better suited to event, run-and-gun or longform recording.

The HVX is optimized for movie production (where crews are used to 11 minute film loads), commercial spots, or anything in which any single clip/scene doesn't last more than a few minutes each and where having an external monitor such as the Marshall doesn't impede production workflow.

In any case it still goes back to the original concept of choosing a system; find the one that matches your production/output needs, then consider what workarounds you will need to create for your own personal workflow/shooting style.

[David Saraceno]

With two 8 gb cards and two 4 gb cards we get an hour of 720/24pn.

Without downloading.

But that's about $3500 in tape equivalent. But reusuable

[Stephan Ahonen]

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

Jason, yes the HD100 did take some getting use to in regards to focusing, but now I find it anoying to use hand helds. :)

I have to agree 125% here. As far as I'm concerned full manual is the only way to shoot, simply because I get better results much faster than relying on automatic, without any annoying "hunting" except when I'm having a bad day.

[Robert Lane]

Originally Posted by David Saraceno

With two 8 gb cards and two 4 gb cards we get an hour of 720/24pn.

Without downloading.

But that's about $3500 in tape equivalent. But reusuable

That's what you'd call a budget busting workaround! (laughs)

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Benner

The HDV editing hasn't really bothered my so much as of yet, aside from the workflow.

I do plan on storing the files to either my Powerbook when I shoot and eventually I will buy a P2 Store. The HVX can also offload clips to a self powered Hard Drive. I would store the files on my external Hard Drive.

I really think I need a more Compact camera.

I completely agree on the need for JVC to release a 24p/60p compact camera with "one-touch" AF. There are many applications where weight, size, and "looking like a tourist" are critically important. And, with HD, AF can focus faster and more accurately than a human can using the built in VF or LCD or FA. Moreover, relatively few really are going to buy extra lenses. So, I agree completely with you on this. The HVX is a sweeit camera!

My concern is your claim that you want to work "without having to capture." Clearly, if you don't buy enough P2 cards to hold ALL your shooting, you must capture to something. Now you say you will be copying to your laptop. That's "capturing."

But for fun, do the calculations for an 80 minute movie with a 5:1 shooting ratio. (Also, try 10:1.) How many 8GB P2 cards do you need? What's their cost? The USB adaptor holds 5 cards. How many adaptors do you need? What's their cost? Can you connect these ALL to a computer at the same time?

Now compute the HD disk space you need to hold the same amount of 24p HDV. Remember, with Auto-shot detect, you don't have to do any logging during capture! Just copy the tape to HD just like you'll be doing with P2!

Bluntly put, there is no P2 workflow that works without "capture" unless you are shooting news.

Moreover, if you go read my HDV@Work newsletter from last month -- you'll learn that HDV is less compressed than DVCPRO HD "24N" and that 4:2:0 is symmetric color sampling -- very different that DV.

Lastly, why on earth do you want to move to Avid? And, yes it looks like JVC put enough pressure on Apple to get them to lie about 24p "coming soon." But Apple will do so ASAP. In the meantime, I'm beginning to like Liquid equally at only $500. It runs on a MacBookPro.

So I'd keep your HD100 and buy a MBP.

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

I feel the HVX has a better factory lens (no choices, you get what you got) and produces less CA, etc.,

I'd disagree. Having owned both cameras and ending up keeping the HD-100 I can tell you I got CA on the HVX200 when zoomed out past 50 and wide open.

That's the exact same scenario you get CA on the HD-100. Except the HD-100 opens up to 1.4 and zooms to 88 - which allows you to create much shallower DOF - but also amplifies CA due to increased bokeh among other things.

If you zoom back to 40 and shoot at F4 you get images that the HVX simply can't match.

In the end I chose to go with the camera the worked better on the set and changed my post to Premiere and Cineform to allow me to use the better camera. That pretty much sucked because I had a G5 and Final Cut.

The big thing was I really hated shooting the HVX. The HVX is harder to focus and P2 turned out to be more of a overall pain than the HD-100. The JVC also has less noise, is a better low light performer and has better resolution.

I just batch capture the entire HD-100 tape when I get home and I've still got an archive on tape. At that point you're right where you'd be after a P2 ingest except it took an extra half hour. You still need to name all your clips and log them either way. OK - on the panasonic you can grab "that one clip" and just import it. That's cool, but once you buy a hard drive recorder even that advantage goes away. And check out all the HVXer's that are now talking about using Cineform because it's a better codec.

I was just sitting over at a friend's house watching a HD-100 stock lens feature shot by some college students without much experience. We were only watching in SD, but we just kept commenting on how great it looked. He shoots the F-900 a lot and was convinced he'd shoot his next movie on a HD-100.

Oh - and if you want a Micro35, the F1.4 on the HD-100 is really handy. The HVX noise really shows up in the Bokeh.

For the moment, if you're a Final Cut editor the HVX is much easier to deal with. But if you don't have a monitor and extra lighting on set you're going to have to live with that out of focus noisy footage forever. J/K ;-)

Both cameras have produced great stuff. Anyone who commits to one or the other WILL get great stuff by shooting to the camera's strengths and end up happy.

[Daniel Patton]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

Both cameras have produced great stuff. Anyone who commits to one or the other WILL get great stuff by shooting to the camera's strengths and end up happy.

"Shooting to the camera strengths" I think is the key. I could not agree more. I don't think everyone will be a strong shooter with the HD100, for those people maybe the HVX is key. Although I'm not a good example of that HVX user, I can honestly say that I had to work at being a better shooting with the JVC just the same.

I will agree to disagree on the lens however. I prefer the color reproduction of the HVX over the HD100 and I have found it produce less CA, although perhaps at an optimal setting. I found less color fringing overall on the HVX and I like that. It's still a trade off as the HD100 gives me far more to work with in post with it's detail and overall latitude / color, and as an editor first, I need that more than just straight color reproduction.

On every other account I could not agree more. The chroma noise of the HVX has me shooting more with the HD100 in low light, it looks cleaner when worked in the right hands.

We are also an Adobe post house with AE/PPro, so 720/24P works now and works very well with Cineform. In some ways it's sad how the Mac community thumbs their nose at PPro, but in other ways it's good for us while they struggle with a solid work flow. =P

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

I found less color fringing overall on the HVX and I like that.

I think the HVX specular highlights were consistently better than the HD-100 but I like the skin tones and roll off into overexposed skin tones better on the HD-100. More than anything I want people to look good and the HD-100 has been great for that. The HD-100 just feels like it has a little more dynamic range too. I'm sure you've tried dialing in Paulo's True Color settings, right?

I'm not sure what you're referring to as color fringing though. I don't like the sharpening any higher than minimum on the JVC because of the sharpening fringing that shows up. Is that what you're talking about? I'm going to experiment with sharpening off and add it in post one of these days.

I will have to admit this finally though - for all the pixel analyzing I've done it's pretty obvious that it's all about the content. Your average viewer isn't going to notice any of this stuff. I think you could point right to the CA or lens breathing or video noise and they'd go "Ssshh... I want to watch this" if something cool was happening.

[Jon Fairhurst]

You can't really look at the P2 cards as equavalent to tape. They're part of the camera system, like a tripod, battery or lens adapter.

Tapes are consumables. P2 cards are not.

Today, hard drives are the new tape.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

I think the HVX specular highlights were consistently better than the HD-100 but I like the skin tones and roll off into overexposed skin tones better on the HD-100. More than anything I want people to look good and the HD-100 has been great for that.

When the first generation JVC's were bashed by the Sony VX2000 folks, the one thing that we owners kept loving was the WAY the color highlights looked. They looked like film, not video. When a saw the FX1/Z1 video for the first time I could not believe how it looked like no more than Sony DV with more detail.

I think the way a camera handles highlights is a key to real quality. Color reproduction is another. In this Panasonic has, IMHO, beat Sony for years. And, I'm sure the HVX is no different.

[Steve Benner]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I completely agree on the need for JVC to release a 24p/60p compact camera with "one-touch" AF. There are many applications where weight, size, and "looking like a tourist" are critically important. And, with HD, AF can focus faster and more accurately than a human can using the built in VF or LCD or FA. Moreover, relatively few really are going to buy extra lenses. So, I agree completely with you on this. The HVX is a sweeit camera!

My concern is your claim that you want to work "without having to capture." Clearly, if you don't buy enough P2 cards to hold ALL your shooting, you must capture to something. Now you say you will be copying to your laptop. That's "capturing."

But for fun, do the calculations for an 80 minute movie with a 5:1 shooting ratio. (Also, try 10:1.) How many 8GB P2 cards do you need? What's their cost? The USB adaptor holds 5 cards. How many adaptors do you need? What's their cost? Can you connect these ALL to a computer at the same time?

Now compute the HD disk space you need to hold the same amount of 24p HDV. Remember, with Auto-shot detect, you don't have to do any logging during capture! Just copy the tape to HD just like you'll be doing with P2!

Bluntly put, there is no P2 workflow that works without "capture" unless you are shooting news.

Moreover, if you go read my HDV@Work newsletter from last month -- you'll learn that HDV is less compressed than DVCPRO HD "24N" and that 4:2:0 is symmetric color sampling -- very different that DV.

Lastly, why on earth do you want to move to Avid? And, yes it looks like JVC put enough pressure on Apple to get them to lie about 24p "coming soon." But Apple will do so ASAP. In the meantime, I'm beginning to like Liquid equally at only $500. It runs on a MacBookPro.

So I'd keep your HD100 and buy a MBP.

When I say without Capture, I meant Injesting without having to sit through the tape, but you are technically correct, but I should have been more specific.

Well I may be coming back around after last night. I shot a quick Pitch for that FX thing, and shooting wise, the footage came out great. I also had many takes, and the Shot Detect worked fine.

I will post more a little later.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Steve Benner

When I say without Capture, I meant Injesting without having to sit through the tape, but you are technically correct, but I should have been more specific.

Well I may be coming back around after last night. I shot a quick Pitch for that FX thing, and shooting wise, the footage came out great. I also had many takes, and the Shot Detect worked fine.

I will post more a little later.

You were right about what you wrote about XpressPro though. With Media Composer "software only" coming out I'd expect you'd select that over XpressPro any day of the week. However, I use both Media Composer Adrenalin and Liquid in the workflows around here and for ProHD, Liquid 7.1 is the way to go currently. MCA will injest the m2t's as you wrote but will not capture them.

Camera specific comments: The HD-100 is as stable as a Betacam and as familiar in it's layout.

You wrote that you're in school. Are you using Bolex to create your film projects? what is your major?

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

You can't really look at the P2 cards as equavalent to tape. They're part of the camera system, like a tripod, battery or lens adapter.

Tapes are consumables. P2 cards are not.

Today, hard drives are the new tape.

Yes... not considering that for the price of a P2 you get thousands of hours on tapes! And there's always the risk of damaging hard drives... I lost all data from my PC a few times, fortunatly I have backups. I just can't imagine storing all my footage on a hard drive, I prefer keeping the originals on tapes.

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I completely agree on the need for JVC to release a 24p/60p compact camera with "one-touch" AF. There are many applications where weight, size, and "looking like a tourist" are critically important. And, with HD, AF can focus faster and more accurately than a human can using the built in VF or LCD or FA. Moreover, relatively few really are going to buy extra lenses. So, I agree completely with you on this. The HVX is a sweeit camera!

You won't certainly look like a tourist with a HVX, wheight and size aren't it's better characteristics...

I've posted this before on the HVX board:

I have experience with both cameras. Not considering frame rates and image aspects because everything have been discussed already, I'm posting my experience in the field.

There are a few things that I really don't like about the HVX:
- It's too heavy and unbalanced for a hand held camera;
- The autofocus isn't accurate and manually it's much worst than the HD100;
- The iris isn't also as good as a manual lens for making corrections;
- The zoom is too slow at full speed (slower then the DVX) and starts too fast, the one from the HD100 could be faster but it's much more progressive;
- The view finder is to small and the focus assist on the HD100 is much better;
- The P2 cards are too limited and expensive, you have to carry a laptop around with an external hard drive for backups. The firestone is a solution, but you'll need more batteries and you can't attach it to the camera when hand helding. Beleive me... you'll miss tapes.
- The HD100 works better under low light.

The HVX isn't versatile, I wouldn't use it for uncontroled situations like weddings or sports. In my opinion, for what you need the HD100 is the right choice.