Which one is better ? Panasonic AG-DVX100 OR JVC GR-HD1 at DVinfo.net

Agus Casse · October 19th, 2003, 11:15 PM

Well, what do you think, ?

HD or 24pMini DV, i am about to produce a motorsport show, which is similar to the concept of top Gear, and i am thinking to buy a new camera, what do you think?

Which one has better image quality ?

Price vs Value ?

Sound Quality?

Put your opinions, and let reach for some conclusions....

Barry Green · October 19th, 2003, 11:51 PM

That's like asking, which is better: a fork or a spoon? All depends on what you're going to do with it.

If you plan on delivering your product in high-def, the JVC's the only way to go.

If you're delivering on standard-def, the DVX100 is a far superior camera in so many ways... but it ain't high-def.

The JVC is a consumer video camera with a high-definition mode.

The DVX100 has better audio, better picture adjustment, better controllability, better everything. The only advantage the JVC has is that it's extremely high resolution -- so high resolution that, in side-by-side test shoots, it makes the DVX look like it's out of focus. The DVX produces a picture that is superior in color fidelity, noise, latitude, basically the DVX is substantially better in all ways -- except resolution, where the JVC just kills it.

If you can live with standard-def, the DVX is the obvious choice. If you decide you absolutely have to have high-def, then the question becomes: what is your timetable? If you need high-def TODAY, again the JVC is the only game in town. If you can wait three or six months, do yourself a favor and wait, since Sony, Canon, and Sharp are all supposedly developing HDV cameras as well, and it would be nice to have a choice. But then again, they may not announce anything for six months, or a year, or two years -- who knows?

Agus Casse · October 19th, 2003, 11:54 PM

How about if i just need it to make a tv show... ? doesnt Hd will give me better video quality ? or DVX will do it better ?

Ted Springer · October 20th, 2003, 03:04 AM

Do current editing apps allow the transfer of HD through firewire and back, just like DV? Also the HD format they are using is some form of MPEG, is it not? I hear that MPEG is not a good format to edit with since each frame is not actually independent, like DV.

For your case Agus I'd go with the DVX100, especially if it's "just" a TV show. :)

Agus Casse · October 20th, 2003, 03:48 AM

i just read the dv.com article about the HD cameras vs the DV ones... pretty interesting.. still seens like all prefers the DVX100 ... must be an amazing camera... i want one :)

Alex Raskin · October 20th, 2003, 07:49 AM

I think Barry nailed it pretty good.

Agus, DV.com is (surprisingly) very low key on HD.

SD miniDV folks normally hang out there.

Thus practically none of them actually have HD10 cams, and their opinions are more theoretical than practical.

To my knowledge, dvinfo.net's forum on HD cams is the most active and informative by far at this time.

Brian Mitchell Warshawsky · October 20th, 2003, 10:32 AM

This may not be much of a factor for TV distribution, but another factor to consider is the native 16:9.

If the DVX100 had native 16:9, all bets are off.

Brian

Barry Green · October 20th, 2003, 11:01 AM

It does, if you add the anamorphic adapter...

John Hudson · October 20th, 2003, 11:04 AM

Sigh.

All this talk about High Definition. Too bad no one can afford a t.v. that supports it. (At least I can't).

HD looks fabulous. But for years now, all we here is "HD, HD, HD". HAs anyone seen what an HD tv goes for? What good is it shotting in HD if no one is going to watch it in HD?

It's Monday! Good morning!

Agus Casse · October 20th, 2003, 11:24 AM

Good morning ! here in Guatemala Central America !

Alex Raskin · October 20th, 2003, 11:28 AM

John, even if your end-game is SD distribution, then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD.

Without going into lengthy arguments, tried and true: AMAZING!

I made some test footage using great SD camera Sony VX200, and HD JVC JY-HD10.

Then I created a DVD with both segments (Hd one being down-rez'd in TMPGENC, of course, down to 720x480 from 1280x720.)

The segment originated with HD cam beats the SD one hands down when viewed on *any* TV (well, given that DVD is inherently SD, then HDTV is not even required in this case.)

Try it and see for yourself, you'll become a believer too.

Or ask David Newman, who has some great theoretical explanation for this phenomenon, as well as being a practical proponent of using HD source even for the final SD material.

Brian Mitchell Warshawsky · October 20th, 2003, 12:55 PM

Alex wrote:

>>>then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD.

If you are going to down-rez, is it still necessary to perform the edit in HD?

Wouldn't the native HD footage still be superior if you down-rez first, then edit as SD in say, Premiere 6?

Brian

Alex Raskin · October 20th, 2003, 01:59 PM

I don't think it will be the same.

There was a long discussion on some other forum regarding this, and finally the consensus was that if you feed the MPEG2 encoder (last step before your output to DVD) with the high-res pixels, then the quality is better.

Plus, if you edit in HD, you always have your material in HD format for the future HD releases.

Yang Wen · October 20th, 2003, 07:58 PM

If you gotta go through the process of downrezing all your HD content, you should add into your equation the extra needed to do that step.

David Newman · October 20th, 2003, 10:16 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Brian Mitchell Warshawsky : Alex wrote:
>>>then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD.
If you are going to down-rez, is it still necessary to perform the edit in HD?
Wouldn't the native HD footage still be superior if you down-rez first, then edit as SD in say, Premiere 6?
Brian -->>>

Alex is correct, it isn't the same for a several of reasons. First if you down res. (for editing) and you recompresses, you will throw a lot of data away (and not just through compression.) 4:2:0 in HD (the color space of HDV MPEG2) is nearly equivalent to 4:4:4 at SD resolutions. If you compress into common everyday DV (to make you editing easy) you will through away 4X the color information as DV is 4:1:1. The only way to preserve the beauty of the down res. is to use uncompressed 4:4:4 (too few are likely to do that.)

Next, many of your editing operations are effected but resolution. Clearly titles, any wipes or PiP motions would all be computed at the SD res. rather than the superior HD. It possible to see the difference even after the final DVD output.

Finally there are operations that can only be done on HD data before you down res. to SD. If you every need to zoom into a HD frame, correct a camera position, or camera rotation, these operations can done without resolution loss if performed BEFORE the down convert. HD has so much headroom. CineForm's Aspect HD includes a real-time Pan Zoom Rotation tool for this very purpose.

Once you edit in HD there is no way you would want to edit in SD again.

October 19th, 2003, 11:15 PM	#1
Agus Casse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Guatemala Posts: 322	Which one is better ? Panasonic AG-DVX100 OR JVC GR-HD1 Well, what do you think, ? HD or 24pMini DV, i am about to produce a motorsport show, which is similar to the concept of top Gear, and i am thinking to buy a new camera, what do you think? Which one has better image quality ? Price vs Value ? Sound Quality? Put your opinions, and let reach for some conclusions....

October 19th, 2003, 11:51 PM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	That's like asking, which is better: a fork or a spoon? All depends on what you're going to do with it. If you plan on delivering your product in high-def, the JVC's the only way to go. If you're delivering on standard-def, the DVX100 is a far superior camera in so many ways... but it ain't high-def. The JVC is a consumer video camera with a high-definition mode. The DVX100 has better audio, better picture adjustment, better controllability, better everything. The only advantage the JVC has is that it's extremely high resolution -- so high resolution that, in side-by-side test shoots, it makes the DVX look like it's out of focus. The DVX produces a picture that is superior in color fidelity, noise, latitude, basically the DVX is substantially better in all ways -- except resolution, where the JVC just kills it. If you can live with standard-def, the DVX is the obvious choice. If you decide you absolutely have to have high-def, then the question becomes: what is your timetable? If you need high-def TODAY, again the JVC is the only game in town. If you can wait three or six months, do yourself a favor and wait, since Sony, Canon, and Sharp are all supposedly developing HDV cameras as well, and it would be nice to have a choice. But then again, they may not announce anything for six months, or a year, or two years -- who knows?

October 19th, 2003, 11:54 PM	#3
Agus Casse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Guatemala Posts: 322	How about if i just need it to make a tv show... ? doesnt Hd will give me better video quality ? or DVX will do it better ?

October 20th, 2003, 03:04 AM	#4
Ted Springer Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Glendale CA Posts: 328	Do current editing apps allow the transfer of HD through firewire and back, just like DV? Also the HD format they are using is some form of MPEG, is it not? I hear that MPEG is not a good format to edit with since each frame is not actually independent, like DV. For your case Agus I'd go with the DVX100, especially if it's "just" a TV show. :)

October 20th, 2003, 03:48 AM	#5
Agus Casse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Guatemala Posts: 322	i just read the dv.com article about the HD cameras vs the DV ones... pretty interesting.. still seens like all prefers the DVX100 ... must be an amazing camera... i want one :)

October 20th, 2003, 07:49 AM	#6
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	I think Barry nailed it pretty good. Agus, DV.com is (surprisingly) very low key on HD. SD miniDV folks normally hang out there. Thus practically none of them actually have HD10 cams, and their opinions are more theoretical than practical. To my knowledge, dvinfo.net's forum on HD cams is the most active and informative by far at this time.

October 20th, 2003, 10:32 AM	#7
Brian Mitchell Warshawsky Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bay Area Posts: 216	This may not be much of a factor for TV distribution, but another factor to consider is the native 16:9. If the DVX100 had native 16:9, all bets are off. Brian

October 20th, 2003, 11:01 AM	#8
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It does, if you add the anamorphic adapter...

October 20th, 2003, 11:04 AM	#9
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Sigh. All this talk about High Definition. Too bad no one can afford a t.v. that supports it. (At least I can't). HD looks fabulous. But for years now, all we here is "HD, HD, HD". HAs anyone seen what an HD tv goes for? What good is it shotting in HD if no one is going to watch it in HD? It's Monday! Good morning!

October 20th, 2003, 11:24 AM	#10
Agus Casse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Guatemala Posts: 322	Good morning ! here in Guatemala Central America !

October 20th, 2003, 11:28 AM	#11
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	John, even if your end-game is SD distribution, then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD. Without going into lengthy arguments, tried and true: AMAZING! I made some test footage using great SD camera Sony VX200, and HD JVC JY-HD10. Then I created a DVD with both segments (Hd one being down-rez'd in TMPGENC, of course, down to 720x480 from 1280x720.) The segment originated with HD cam beats the SD one hands down when viewed on any TV (well, given that DVD is inherently SD, then HDTV is not even required in this case.) Try it and see for yourself, you'll become a believer too. Or ask David Newman, who has some great theoretical explanation for this phenomenon, as well as being a practical proponent of using HD source even for the final SD material.

October 20th, 2003, 12:55 PM	#12
Brian Mitchell Warshawsky Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bay Area Posts: 216	Alex wrote: >>>then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD. If you are going to down-rez, is it still necessary to perform the edit in HD? Wouldn't the native HD footage still be superior if you down-rez first, then edit as SD in say, Premiere 6? Brian

October 20th, 2003, 01:59 PM	#13
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	I don't think it will be the same. There was a long discussion on some other forum regarding this, and finally the consensus was that if you feed the MPEG2 encoder (last step before your output to DVD) with the high-res pixels, then the quality is better. Plus, if you edit in HD, you always have your material in HD format for the future HD releases.

October 20th, 2003, 07:58 PM	#14
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	If you gotta go through the process of downrezing all your HD content, you should add into your equation the extra needed to do that step.

October 20th, 2003, 10:16 PM	#15
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	<<<-- Originally posted by Brian Mitchell Warshawsky : Alex wrote: >>>then still acquire and edit your video in HD, then down-rez the result down to SD. If you are going to down-rez, is it still necessary to perform the edit in HD? Wouldn't the native HD footage still be superior if you down-rez first, then edit as SD in say, Premiere 6? Brian -->>> Alex is correct, it isn't the same for a several of reasons. First if you down res. (for editing) and you recompresses, you will throw a lot of data away (and not just through compression.) 4:2:0 in HD (the color space of HDV MPEG2) is nearly equivalent to 4:4:4 at SD resolutions. If you compress into common everyday DV (to make you editing easy) you will through away 4X the color information as DV is 4:1:1. The only way to preserve the beauty of the down res. is to use uncompressed 4:4:4 (too few are likely to do that.) Next, many of your editing operations are effected but resolution. Clearly titles, any wipes or PiP motions would all be computed at the SD res. rather than the superior HD. It possible to see the difference even after the final DVD output. Finally there are operations that can only be done on HD data before you down res. to SD. If you every need to zoom into a HD frame, correct a camera position, or camera rotation, these operations can done without resolution loss if performed BEFORE the down convert. HD has so much headroom. CineForm's Aspect HD includes a real-time Pan Zoom Rotation tool for this very purpose. Once you edit in HD there is no way you would want to edit in SD again.