What assignment best fits the HD10?

[Mitch Gould]

At this point, perhaps those of you using the HD10 have enough shooting experience to be able to imagine the "ideal" assignment for the camera.

Industrial videos, for instance, strike me as potentially a more controlled shooting environment, with a more stereotypical set of requirements.

So I see these applications as less demanding than an indie film. Perhaps most of the people curious about this product want to project something on a huge screen, but I'm more curious about its suitability for promotional or educational video, TV commercials, and publishing to optical disc. I guess this is what people are actually referring to, in concrete terms. when they toss off the abbreviation "SD."

Given the camera's drawbacks, do you think it offers any advantages over the DVX100 when the destination is SD?

[Joseph George]

The only advantage this camera has is the high resolution and I can see its only application as that for digital cinema production -- the lowest level -- like student type. In cinema you need the high resolution more than anywhere else to be able to project to a large screen. This advantage will outweigh the problem that your DVDs of the same movie will look poor. Also when Blu-ray HD DVD will become available, the JVC shot image will look better on them than SD image converted to HD.

Industrial videos are distributed in standard definition and the image from the camera looks inferior to other good cameras in this resolution, plus you can't control the camera easily during production.

Blu-ray HD DVD is around the corner as a new major format. HDTV sales are picking up. Corporate videos will benefit from HD more than industrial ones.

Unless you want to make the lowest cost movies, and you need the camera now, wait for NAB 2004 to get a camera which will have excellent image, excellent controls, will be MPEG2 HD, and its image will look great in SD too.

[Steve Mullen]

The intended market is non-broadcast (private) cinema (large plasma and projector). By intended I mean "where one can make money."

If you are serving this market then you can afford to get started now (the camcorder is a small amount the investment in HD) with the JVC.

Where will these folks want video shot? Since they want HD -- the locations will be those that have impact or where the subject matter needs detail.

In this kind of shooting you will be carefully selecting location and light if outdoors. If indoors, you will be lighting carefully and choosing the background.

So, those most likely to pay for HD will be wanting shots that the JVC can best capture. Paul indicates that these shots can look great. And, when projected large, they will look better than DV.

A friend said it well when he said "35mm slide shows with motion." The SUBJECT becomes the point -- not the clever camera work or editing.

This type of production greatly simplifies editing too!

Once you ask the question who will pay you to deliver a High Impact short video -- you'll see that so many of the concerns voiced about the camera become moot.

This is not the camera to shoot docs or indies (where you don't have time or skill to control lighting). Likewise, it's not for going to film. The DVX100 is far better for these apps.

[Joseph George]

This is my opinion. The camera is difficult to control, slow to work with, unimpressive to a client; image quality, except the higher resolution is subpar to any Digital8 image. The image can be blown as much as DVCPRO50 in progressive mode. DVCPRO50 can be used for low-end indie production. So can the HD10. In the lowest end cinema production the biggest drawback was always the low resolution of the DV format.

If you can assume that CineAlta is about equal to 35 mm, DVCPRO50 lies somewhere between Super 8 and 16mm. So does this camera. Of course some claim that CineAlta looks better than 35 mm and DVCPRO50 in progressive is equal to 16 mm. Some claim even more, but all this is exaggeration.

Because of the required tedious work with this camera, I still believe that the perfect place for it is indie production.

There is this thing that you need 24 fps for film and the DVX is a better choice. I disagree. Film transfer is extremely expensive. If you're planning to spend 10's of thousands for transfer to film, then you should have enough $ to rent CineAlta, which is available everywhere and because of that, with a little search you can rent it for as low price as Varicam.

If your budget is exceptionally low, you do not want to transfer to film. You want to go for digital projection at Landmark Theaters, in all major US markets. They accept both 30p and 24p for distribution. The JVC will give you significantly better image on a big screen than the DVX (in progressive with the best anamorphic adapter), so the JVC is the way to go.

As to use the camera to land a job where you'll shoot for HD distribution, I don't think that it would work. Reason? Even when you shoot for SD resolution you need to impress the client with a decent camera. Now, a client who is using $15K screens instead of $300 screens will laugh at you if you come in with the HD10. And when he asks around, what do you think that the pros will tell him? They'll tell him that the camera is a piece of junk and their camera, which is a lot bigger, is a lot better.

Again -- low-end indie film production -- maybe some unknown bands and porno. This is the market.

[Paul Mogg]

Joseph, I wouldn't belittle this camera so much as to say that it's only good for filming "some unknown bands or porno" I think that film students will love this camera as a learning (and low-end pproduction) tool, I think it's the best thing they've got right now actually, and I bet that some of them will do some great things on it.
I'm hoping I can convice a local film lab to do a 35mm blowup of some of my footage from this cam, and also I'm going to try and get a local Landmark to project some native 720p from it, just to see how it looks. But my feeling is that it will look somewhere in between 16mm and 35 mm in terms of grain, mainly because of the compression artifacts. In terms of color and motion, I really don't know how it will look on a big screen, certainly looks film-like on a smaller screen, but it will need color correction to saturate the colors more. Again, having seen projected 35mm blowups of DV footage, I would not use an SD camera to do anything destined for the large screen, as you clearly see the lack of detail inherent in the DV 720*480 format, this is why I don't underdstand why they're hocking the SDX900 for this puropse. You need the HD resolutions to get anything close to the detail of film, and this JVC camera has that going for it.

all the best

[Raymond Krystof]

Hi everyone,

My name is Ray Krystof and I’m a new member. I stumbled across this site while I was looking for any and all information I could find on the GR HD1 and JY HD10. First off, I would like to thank everyone for his or her contributions. I am considering purchasing this camera, probably the HD10 and have been following this topic line for a couple of weeks and wanted to get involved. I am a home video enthusiast/hobbyist that has always been on the forefront of anything new. My first portable camera was a JVC unit that weighed about 20 pounds tethered to a shoulder camera that weighted about 12 pounds. The battery was probably bigger than my current DV camera, which is the JVC GR-DVP3. I… think I just heard an audible gasp from a reader out there. But my point is that I have home video from a time period that not too many other people do. The reason I decided to get involved in this forum is that my usage of the camera would probably be very different than most of you that are considering using the camera in for professional applications. That’s why I’m responding to this thread first.

I believe that this camera is aimed straight at the consumer market. Even the JVC site for this product leads me to believe that. Yes it has statements like “the features most requested by professionals” and the HD10 is blatantly referred to as the professional model. But as a consumer I’m very used to many diverse products being called “professional” or “Industrial Strength. There are other parts of this product site that make statements like “I already have an HDTV home theater system, so it makes sense to also have a camcorder that will shoot movies that look good on that system,” People like myself, that could be called upscale video enthusiasts or prosumers. I don’t yet have HDTV in my home, which I realize contradicts my previous statement about being on the forefront. I do have an older multi-sync front projector that I think will accept at least ED and maybe SD signals. I’m getting an HD receiver for it from my cable company next week. I was in awe when I first installed a line doubler and even more so when I hooked up my DVD player to it using the progressive output. I have seen good HDTV and find the impact as startling as when color was first introduced. Yes I’m that old. I believe there are quite a few people out there that have spent 2,000 to 8,000 dollars for HDTV sets and would like to start using HD for their home videos as well. I realize that many of you are critical of the HD1 and HD10 because of its lack of professional features. Many of you believe that since the camera is HD and costs as much as it does that it should be a professional product. Well I think it would be great if it could find a niche in that market but for me I just want a home movie camera that will look better than what I have done so far.

Well I’m going to stop now. I realize that I’m writing an editorial more than just a reply to a thread. However, if I do purchase the HD10 I would like to continue to input my impressions to the group. I know I’ve benefited greatly from reading about concerns and issues about the product just because it flagged things for me to consider and think about.

My thanks,

[Heath McKnight]

I already wrote a tiny 2 page, no dialogue script to shoot with the camera. Mostly dimly lit interiors and some exteriors both night and day (with available light). Should be interesting and fun. If this camera works well, maybe I can put a 35 mm lens on it (somehow) and shoot higher end stuff. They do it with an XL-1, and most said THAT couldn't be done.

heath