Can someone please post your clips from the HD1?

Michael Pappas · June 28th, 2003, 07:16 PM

No it was not a bad decision. The DVX100 is a very good SDTV camera which I own too. The HD10 will require a lot more attention from the user to obtain very good results. The DVX-100 still needs attention, but has more controls to shape the image in camera. Ofcourse the HD10 has more pixels, which translates into more resolution, which I want since SDdv has hit it limits for me, I need more res. More will be known over the next few months as more users spring up. So in the meantime use your DVX100 to enhance your craft and if down the line the HD10 will work, sell the DVX100 to get it.

Check out my site that shows sample pics and tests of the JVC HD camera:
http://www.Pbase.com/PappasArts9

Michael Pappas
http://www.Pbase.com/arrfilms

<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : jsut bought a dvx100 was that a bad decision? it is not here yet and I could sell it ASAP as New before I open the box, I would LOVE to have somthing BETTER res then 640x480 but is this the thing? I shoot lots of tv spots with budgets from $1500-$10,000 in SD, would I have a good tool to SELL on a bigger budget spot with the HDcam? or is it to crappy for that? what is the use for it? can you produce stuff for DiscoveryHD and sell it really easy right now because they dont' have much to put on that channel yet? what is the deal? how can this camera make me more money ans well as get me a better pic quality?
thanks guys and PLEASEEEEE set some footage on a FTP for us all!! -->>>

Rodger Marjama · June 28th, 2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Thanks Chris, tell me how many clips you'd like, as I don't want to overwhelm your site, I kept the clips pretty short ( about 8 secs each).

Thanks again.

Paul,

I can host about 2 gb of bandwidth per day for awhile if it helps. I know Chris is out of town and may be a little hurd... ah, hard ;>) for him to setup until he gets back. I can setup a temp FTP anytime. Let me know if its needed.

-Rodger

Yang Wen · June 28th, 2003, 09:57 PM

Nah, the DVX100 is a very smart buy(Under $3000 currently!!). The HD1 I think we can all agree has many flaws associated with it. It is hardly the ideal camera, well neither are other $3000 cams but this one has many critical flaws associated with it. The JVC miniDV-HD cams is not in the same league as the DVX100 and the likes... The JVC is great if you own a nice HDTV set and shot family vacations and hook up your camera to the TV to watch them. Simple editing can be done but at the cost of loosing frame-accuracy. For us who make money doing video, the HD1 I think is a good buy if you can afford to get a secondary camera or have the $$ to buy a new piece of technology to play with. It'll be very hard to fit the camera in any sort of project because how will the client see your HD-res video? And we all know how bad it is in SD mode. I think if you wait out for another 3 or 4 years, we're going to see a real usable prosumer "money-making" HD format and HD cameras that will become everyone's 1st choice cam.

Robert Jackson · June 29th, 2003, 09:43 AM

I saw this yesterday. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here yet:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20030514/zooma108.htm

Looks pretty nice to me, even though it's not full-resolution.

-Rob (long-time lurker, first-time poster...heh...)

Yang Wen · June 29th, 2003, 11:38 AM

The problem with the videos and frames I've seen from this camera is that although each frame definitely has more pixel count than any SD format, it does not look better than many other $3000 SD cams. Lemme clarify what I mean, if you crop a 720x480 image from a HD frame from the JVC cam, and think of it as an image from a NTSC video, its quality is right on par with $600 1-chip miniDV cams. I feel the JVC MPEG2 HD format allows much more pixels per frame but its CCD+optics in real-life can't really amount to enough data to make good use of these pixels. This is clearly a case where added resolution doesn't add much benefits.

Obin Olson · June 29th, 2003, 03:28 PM

this is soo true, looks like a high res 1ccd 450$ wallmart minidv camera and the compression is WORSE then DV! I think this thing totaly SUCKS and I bet sony will come out with a WAY WAY better cam, EVEN if they use 1ccd I KNOW you can get GREAT images outa it just look at 1ccd STILL cameras ! they look totaly AWESOME!

Robert Jackson · June 29th, 2003, 06:10 PM

While I agree that comparing a 720x480 segment of one of these frame captures and comparing it to a comparable frame from an XL-1 or DVX-100 isn't going to convince anyone to switch to the JVC, I think that kind of misses the point.

When I downloaded those clips I was expecting to see some really ugly compression artifacting. I ended up impressed at how smooth it all seemed, especially the scene of the duck on the water where the sunlight was sparkling off the water. I assumed that when that much movement was present in the entire frame that things would get really blocky because of the extreme compression, but it looked acceptable to me.

Personally, I think the extra resolution and the wide aspect ratio is the juice here. Yep, it isn't as impressive an image taken in 720x480 chunks as high-end Mini-DV cameras, but nothing else close to its price can capture at 1280x720 progressive and that extra resolution may not mean much to some people, but Mini-DV looks so blocky to me that it's really refreshing to see something capturing at an acceptable resolution.

I agree that the JVC seems a little half-baked and that a lot of its design is flaky, but I'd use it tomorrow if I had a student film to shoot and I'd just deal with the flaws. Hopefully we'll see more HD offerings from the majors by the time the next CES rolls around. I can hardly wait to hear the first news about other new HD cameras, but until then you've really got to hand it to JVC for getting something on the market. It's far from perfect, but it sure isn't as bad as everyone seems to think, IMO.

Sorry to be so long-winded, BTW. I've just been reading these threads for a while and it seems like the common theme among a lot of people is to knock the JVC for what it doesn't do and ignore what it does do.

-Rob

Obin Olson · June 29th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Rob i can see your the type that sticks up for the under dog, that is fine but I would never use this camera as a professional shooting rig for making money with It's not even close to good enough unless you use what you shoot without any color work in post. I guess you could use it for DOC work and it would be fine as the story is key above all .....still it looks like a highress 1ccd cheapo cam, I think they should have just put it in a small consumer box and sold it that way for say $1500, beats all other consumer cams out hands down....I do wish I could use it but the quality is just not in it to use like that;(

Robert Jackson · June 29th, 2003, 07:18 PM

I'm curious about what aspect of the image is so unusuable? The compression is acceptable, which was the biggest problem I was expecting. The color rendition isn't bad. I realize the bar has been raised a lot in the past few years, but there's nothing about those images that seems "not even close to good enough" to use in a production to my eye. So be specific, if you can. What about those images is unacceptable for production work?

It's not the images that the camera delivers that I see being problematic. It's the actual camera in use that's likely to be a problem. It seems almost impossible to adapt to a follow focus setup, the manual zoom is in all likelihood unusable and the image stabilization is apparently problematic. Those are all real considerations if you don't have time or the inclination to work around them. The images themselves, though, seem very acceptable and at that resolution and with minor color correction they should provide really stunning results, IMO.

-Rob

Paul Mogg · June 29th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Robert, I can't agree with you more, these guys are really clutching at straws trying to put down this camera in any way possible. What a ridiculous argument, that if you took one small section of the HD1's picture it wouldn't look any better than a $600 DV cam! Can't they think of anything better than that to dis it with? Now if they were to talk about the zoom or focus controls on this camera as not being good, I'd definately agree with them.
Oh well, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.
I've been using this camera for a couple of weeks now, and I don't know of any other DV cam that can produce such quality pictures as I'm seeing, and that's the bottom line.

Raymond Krystof · June 29th, 2003, 08:07 PM

Paul,

I'm glad to read your bottom line.

"I've been using this camera for a couple of weeks now, and I don't know of any other DV cam that can produce such quality pictures as I'm seeing, and that's the bottom line."

As a consumer I intend to use this camera for personal use. If I feel that my current DV footage looks 60% as good as broadcast NTSC than I'll be more that pleased if the HD10 footage looks 60% as good as broadcast HDTV.

Yang Wen · June 29th, 2003, 08:45 PM

Paul, when i see HD or hear HD, expected the clarity and full color dynamic range usually associated with it, grant that was with large pro cams with huge CCDs. Maybe there will eventually be consumer HD cams with HD frame sizes but none of the dynamic range, sharpness, and color fidelity. Perhaps this JVC is the first one of such bred of cameras. Before samples from the JVC came out on the web, i was expecting a very sharp picture and good color to go with it. However what I saw was a large HD frame that let you see more things in a shot but without additional details, rather a loss of detail in many examples. My NTSC crop example is perfectly valid in directly comparing how capable this camera really is at capturing good images. As the image dimension increase, there are naturally more pixels, so theoretically, more details should be captured, but not so in this case. To tell you the truth, if the camera captured beautiful images, even in auto mode, I can care less about the control flaws.

Michael Pappas · June 29th, 2003, 08:48 PM

I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look.

Robert Jackson · June 29th, 2003, 08:57 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Yang Wen : Before samples from the JVC came out on the web, i was expecting a very sharp picture and good color to go with it. However what I saw was a large HD frame that let you see more things in a shot but without additional details, rather a loss of detail in many examples. -->>>

Try to remember that you can frame pretty much exactly the same shot with either standard Mini-DV rigs or the JVC. While it's true that you're seeing a bigger picture when you see frame captures from the JVC, try to keep in mind that they aren't going to a larger display at the end of the day. The image is bigger, not to "see more things in a shot" but because the camera is capturing additional detail. That additional detail, when shown on a monitor or projected, will equate to more detail, not the picture getting bigger. I think this is a case where you're going to have to see a full-screen image of the same subject matter from both the JVC and a regular Mini-DV rig before the difference in detail becomes apparent to you.

Robert Jackson · June 29th, 2003, 09:00 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look. -->>>

I really look forward to seeing this, Michael. Have you shot any test footage to deliberately cause compression artifacting? I'd love to see some worst-case footage just to see what happens.

BTW, sorry to register and post so much on the first day, but I find the prospect of shooting student films with HD pretty exciting.

-Rob

June 28th, 2003, 07:16 PM	#16
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Re: like totaly I wnat some FOOTAGE! No it was not a bad decision. The DVX100 is a very good SDTV camera which I own too. The HD10 will require a lot more attention from the user to obtain very good results. The DVX-100 still needs attention, but has more controls to shape the image in camera. Ofcourse the HD10 has more pixels, which translates into more resolution, which I want since SDdv has hit it limits for me, I need more res. More will be known over the next few months as more users spring up. So in the meantime use your DVX100 to enhance your craft and if down the line the HD10 will work, sell the DVX100 to get it. Check out my site that shows sample pics and tests of the JVC HD camera: http://www.Pbase.com/PappasArts9 Michael Pappas http://www.Pbase.com/arrfilms <<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : jsut bought a dvx100 was that a bad decision? it is not here yet and I could sell it ASAP as New before I open the box, I would LOVE to have somthing BETTER res then 640x480 but is this the thing? I shoot lots of tv spots with budgets from $1500-$10,000 in SD, would I have a good tool to SELL on a bigger budget spot with the HDcam? or is it to crappy for that? what is the use for it? can you produce stuff for DiscoveryHD and sell it really easy right now because they dont' have much to put on that channel yet? what is the deal? how can this camera make me more money ans well as get me a better pic quality? thanks guys and PLEASEEEEE set some footage on a FTP for us all!! -->>>

June 29th, 2003, 09:43 AM	#19
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	Footage I saw this yesterday. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here yet: http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20030514/zooma108.htm Looks pretty nice to me, even though it's not full-resolution. -Rob (long-time lurker, first-time poster...heh...)

June 29th, 2003, 07:28 PM	#25
Paul Mogg Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco CA Posts: 386	Robert, I can't agree with you more, these guys are really clutching at straws trying to put down this camera in any way possible. What a ridiculous argument, that if you took one small section of the HD1's picture it wouldn't look any better than a $600 DV cam! Can't they think of anything better than that to dis it with? Now if they were to talk about the zoom or focus controls on this camera as not being good, I'd definately agree with them. Oh well, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. I've been using this camera for a couple of weeks now, and I don't know of any other DV cam that can produce such quality pictures as I'm seeing, and that's the bottom line. __________________ Paul

June 29th, 2003, 08:07 PM	#26
Raymond Krystof Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Clarita, California Posts: 97	Paul, I'm glad to read your bottom line. "I've been using this camera for a couple of weeks now, and I don't know of any other DV cam that can produce such quality pictures as I'm seeing, and that's the bottom line." As a consumer I intend to use this camera for personal use. If I feel that my current DV footage looks 60% as good as broadcast NTSC than I'll be more that pleased if the HD10 footage looks 60% as good as broadcast HDTV. __________________ Ray

June 28th, 2003, 09:57 PM	#18
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Nah, the DVX100 is a very smart buy(Under $3000 currently!!). The HD1 I think we can all agree has many flaws associated with it. It is hardly the ideal camera, well neither are other $3000 cams but this one has many critical flaws associated with it. The JVC miniDV-HD cams is not in the same league as the DVX100 and the likes... The JVC is great if you own a nice HDTV set and shot family vacations and hook up your camera to the TV to watch them. Simple editing can be done but at the cost of loosing frame-accuracy. For us who make money doing video, the HD1 I think is a good buy if you can afford to get a secondary camera or have the $$ to buy a new piece of technology to play with. It'll be very hard to fit the camera in any sort of project because how will the client see your HD-res video? And we all know how bad it is in SD mode. I think if you wait out for another 3 or 4 years, we're going to see a real usable prosumer "money-making" HD format and HD cameras that will become everyone's 1st choice cam.

June 29th, 2003, 11:38 AM	#20
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	The problem with the videos and frames I've seen from this camera is that although each frame definitely has more pixel count than any SD format, it does not look better than many other $3000 SD cams. Lemme clarify what I mean, if you crop a 720x480 image from a HD frame from the JVC cam, and think of it as an image from a NTSC video, its quality is right on par with $600 1-chip miniDV cams. I feel the JVC MPEG2 HD format allows much more pixels per frame but its CCD+optics in real-life can't really amount to enough data to make good use of these pixels. This is clearly a case where added resolution doesn't add much benefits.

June 29th, 2003, 03:28 PM	#21
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	this is soo true, looks like a high res 1ccd 450$ wallmart minidv camera and the compression is WORSE then DV! I think this thing totaly SUCKS and I bet sony will come out with a WAY WAY better cam, EVEN if they use 1ccd I KNOW you can get GREAT images outa it just look at 1ccd STILL cameras ! they look totaly AWESOME!

June 29th, 2003, 06:10 PM	#22
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	While I agree that comparing a 720x480 segment of one of these frame captures and comparing it to a comparable frame from an XL-1 or DVX-100 isn't going to convince anyone to switch to the JVC, I think that kind of misses the point. When I downloaded those clips I was expecting to see some really ugly compression artifacting. I ended up impressed at how smooth it all seemed, especially the scene of the duck on the water where the sunlight was sparkling off the water. I assumed that when that much movement was present in the entire frame that things would get really blocky because of the extreme compression, but it looked acceptable to me. Personally, I think the extra resolution and the wide aspect ratio is the juice here. Yep, it isn't as impressive an image taken in 720x480 chunks as high-end Mini-DV cameras, but nothing else close to its price can capture at 1280x720 progressive and that extra resolution may not mean much to some people, but Mini-DV looks so blocky to me that it's really refreshing to see something capturing at an acceptable resolution. I agree that the JVC seems a little half-baked and that a lot of its design is flaky, but I'd use it tomorrow if I had a student film to shoot and I'd just deal with the flaws. Hopefully we'll see more HD offerings from the majors by the time the next CES rolls around. I can hardly wait to hear the first news about other new HD cameras, but until then you've really got to hand it to JVC for getting something on the market. It's far from perfect, but it sure isn't as bad as everyone seems to think, IMO. Sorry to be so long-winded, BTW. I've just been reading these threads for a while and it seems like the common theme among a lot of people is to knock the JVC for what it doesn't do and ignore what it does do. -Rob

June 29th, 2003, 07:01 PM	#23
Obin Olson Trustee Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wilmington NC Posts: 1,414	Rob i can see your the type that sticks up for the under dog, that is fine but I would never use this camera as a professional shooting rig for making money with It's not even close to good enough unless you use what you shoot without any color work in post. I guess you could use it for DOC work and it would be fine as the story is key above all .....still it looks like a highress 1ccd cheapo cam, I think they should have just put it in a small consumer box and sold it that way for say $1500, beats all other consumer cams out hands down....I do wish I could use it but the quality is just not in it to use like that;(

June 29th, 2003, 07:18 PM	#24
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	I'm curious about what aspect of the image is so unusuable? The compression is acceptable, which was the biggest problem I was expecting. The color rendition isn't bad. I realize the bar has been raised a lot in the past few years, but there's nothing about those images that seems "not even close to good enough" to use in a production to my eye. So be specific, if you can. What about those images is unacceptable for production work? It's not the images that the camera delivers that I see being problematic. It's the actual camera in use that's likely to be a problem. It seems almost impossible to adapt to a follow focus setup, the manual zoom is in all likelihood unusable and the image stabilization is apparently problematic. Those are all real considerations if you don't have time or the inclination to work around them. The images themselves, though, seem very acceptable and at that resolution and with minor color correction they should provide really stunning results, IMO. -Rob

June 29th, 2003, 08:45 PM	#27
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Paul, when i see HD or hear HD, expected the clarity and full color dynamic range usually associated with it, grant that was with large pro cams with huge CCDs. Maybe there will eventually be consumer HD cams with HD frame sizes but none of the dynamic range, sharpness, and color fidelity. Perhaps this JVC is the first one of such bred of cameras. Before samples from the JVC came out on the web, i was expecting a very sharp picture and good color to go with it. However what I saw was a large HD frame that let you see more things in a shot but without additional details, rather a loss of detail in many examples. My NTSC crop example is perfectly valid in directly comparing how capable this camera really is at capturing good images. As the image dimension increase, there are naturally more pixels, so theoretically, more details should be captured, but not so in this case. To tell you the truth, if the camera captured beautiful images, even in auto mode, I can care less about the control flaws.

June 29th, 2003, 08:48 PM	#28
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look.

June 29th, 2003, 08:57 PM	#29
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	<<<-- Originally posted by Yang Wen : Before samples from the JVC came out on the web, i was expecting a very sharp picture and good color to go with it. However what I saw was a large HD frame that let you see more things in a shot but without additional details, rather a loss of detail in many examples. -->>> Try to remember that you can frame pretty much exactly the same shot with either standard Mini-DV rigs or the JVC. While it's true that you're seeing a bigger picture when you see frame captures from the JVC, try to keep in mind that they aren't going to a larger display at the end of the day. The image is bigger, not to "see more things in a shot" but because the camera is capturing additional detail. That additional detail, when shown on a monitor or projected, will equate to more detail, not the picture getting bigger. I think this is a case where you're going to have to see a full-screen image of the same subject matter from both the JVC and a regular Mini-DV rig before the difference in detail becomes apparent to you.

June 29th, 2003, 09:00 PM	#30
Robert Jackson Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 390	<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look. -->>> I really look forward to seeing this, Michael. Have you shot any test footage to deliberately cause compression artifacting? I'd love to see some worst-case footage just to see what happens. BTW, sorry to register and post so much on the first day, but I find the prospect of shooting student films with HD pretty exciting. -Rob