HD10 vs. Varicam! It starts Friday! And need help...

Eric Bilodeau · November 11th, 2003, 08:42 AM

You are right of course Jeff but I still don't see the point of such a scale if it is not seen with the same screen size each time. A lot of HD is now seen on LCD screens or computer screens with pixel ratios, not line counts. Even the upconverters and digital/analog converters offer the out to SVGA/RGB/YUV option now.

Christopher Toderman · November 11th, 2003, 11:36 AM

Answer to Eric Bilodeau:

I wanted to rest my case but I have to answer this. After that, please state whatever you want. I will not get involved in this fruitless stuff. XL1 is a 3-chip camera, with the pixels offset, so it could have a full resolution of the DV format. If it does not has nothing to do with the chips. There are other problems with the JVC CCD besides not having enough pixels. It was very well explained in Video Ststems. The horizontal resolution is full 25% diminished. The deficiency is a lot worse than that of the XL1 percentagewise. The XL1 is close to the approx 500 lines of the DVX format. The JVC is way off. I have seen images from both the JVC and the Varicam. As I said, if it can be compared to anything, it is closer to the DVX in progressive, and very distant from the Varicam. Although the horizontal resolution falls at a midpoint between the two, it has too many other defficiencies compared to the DVX. Resolution is not everything. I rest my case forever on this camera. If anyone thinks that the images are similar to the Varicam, or even CineAlta, all power to you. Just relize that when you go to a stereo showroom, the dealers have a way to place the speakers and do other tricks that you choose the ones that the dealer makes most profit on. So if any tests show that this camera has an image that is similar to Varicam, buy it and enjoy it. Good luck.

Heath McKnight · November 11th, 2003, 11:38 AM

Have you really USED the camera?

Les Dit · November 11th, 2003, 01:58 PM

have you *seen* the existing DVX vs JVC clip, the one with the blond 'lady' in front of the video equipment?

The DV just plain looks out of focus when viewed against the JVC.
There is just no comparing the two. I had to do a blur 1.9 on the JVC image to get it as blurry as the DVX image.
I've shown that test clip to any number of people and the reaction is always "Wow!"

I think we should expect a lot of chatter from standard DV 3 chip users that are maybe a little annoyed that there is a new kid on the block. ( and he doesn't wear Coke bottle eye glasses !!! )
I know the JVC has it's problems, but all around it makes up for it with it's sharp image. And I'll know *I'll* be annoyed when Sony comes out with a HDV after I get my JVC !

-Les

Mark Jervis · November 11th, 2003, 02:05 PM

I'll be the first to admit defeat. I own a JVC GY-DV500 which is one of the 3 chip 1/2" DV cameras that beats the XL1, etc. and I now own 2 HD10's and they are blowing my DV500 away in most situations. I still find myself using the dv500 for low light situations and since it has a 20x lens on it I can get better reach but overall the HD10 is much better. I have done my own side by comparison and don't need anymore convincing. The previous post about diffusion on the HD10 helping is true. Try throwing a Promist .5 or 1 infront of the camera and watch the hot spots practicaly disappear, it was amazing. As everyone is saying, this isn't a Varicam but there will always be people trying to make one camera look like the other. Sometimes they are called pioneers, sometimes they are crazy. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on the issue, not to offend anyone if for some reason I have.

-Mark

Heath McKnight · November 11th, 2003, 02:08 PM

Remember, it's working around the limitations.

What angered me about the HD10, other than the controls, was that my mentality is Dogme95/Documentary/ENG style of shooting. You can't really (or shouldn't) do that. I have seen the HD10 shooting a Puddle of Mudd concert handheld and with concert lighting (ie, bad) and it looked GREAT, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I've gotten away with shooting dogme 95 on the XL-1, but when we shot on sticks with great lighting, it ALWAYS looked top knotch. And that's the same with the HD10!

heath

Graeme Nattress · November 11th, 2003, 02:10 PM

On the DVX v JVC clip (SD version) it's easy to take the DVX section and apply an un-sharp mask filter to it and make it look as sharp as the JVC. As a HD camera, the JVC has both greater resolution and appears sharper than the DVX is as a DV camera. To really compare the cameras properly we need to see what the JVC looks like without the awful sharpness. I couldn't see anything in the way of edge enhancement sharpness on the DVX clip. There's a big difference between sharpness and resolution, and I'd like to be comparing the resolution of the cameras, not the edge enhancement!

Also, I think any annoyment on the part of current DV users is not that technology moves along, but that in the case of the JVC (which is of course the first of it's kind and it will improve) is that the camera is a case of one step forwards (improved resolution) and two steps back (only 30p, poor controls, only 1 chip, etc.).

Remember that most criticism we have to put up with as DV users is, although pointed at the DV format, should really be directed at the camera and the user instead. DV as a format is capable of great things, and is certainly the equal, if not better than some of the old analogue broadcast formats, but is often let down by lack of care in it's operation or a poor front end. That's not the fault of the DV format!

I think every DV user would really like to see what the HDV format is capable of when coupled to a camera worthy of the higher definition format!

Graeme

Heath McKnight · November 11th, 2003, 02:19 PM

Sound cool, Mark! How about some test clips?

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Jervis : I'll be the first to admit defeat. I own a JVC GY-DV500 which is one of the 3 chip 1/2" DV cameras that beats the XL1, etc. and I now own 2 HD10's and they are blowing my DV500 away in most situations. I still find myself using the dv500 for low light situations and since it has a 20x lens on it I can get better reach but overall the HD10 is much better. I have done my own side by comparison and don't need anymore convincing. The previous post about diffusion on the HD10 helping is true. Try throwing a Promist .5 or 1 infront of the camera and watch the hot spots practicaly disappear, it was amazing. As everyone is saying, this isn't a Varicam but there will always be people trying to make one camera look like the other. Sometimes they are called pioneers, sometimes they are crazy. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on the issue, not to offend anyone if for some reason I have.

-Mark -->>>

Les Dit · November 11th, 2003, 02:21 PM

Unsharp on the SD version may help, but SD, even if it originated from scanned 65mm 15 perf IMAX film, is still blurry. For me , SD = $100 web cam look. It's true. A $100 quick cam pro will pretty much equal a DV cam on DV tape.
-Les

Eric Bilodeau · November 11th, 2003, 02:23 PM

Both JVC HDV cameras have different edge enhancement, my tests of the DVX compared to the HD10 showed less edge enhancement on the HD10 (but I had a ND filter on, so it was not the camera "as is") in most cases than on the DVX. But the HD1 has one of the worse edge enhancement ratio I have ever seen. Again, this camera is NOT AT ALL perfect, my opinion is based on tests I made, remember that the tests available (the blonde girl) are made with a HD1, they would not have shown all those edge artefacts with the HD10 (there would have been some but much less).

Mark Jervis · November 11th, 2003, 02:24 PM

I'm going out tomorrow to get some test shots around the city (old historic disctrict) and will post some side by shots in the next few days.

-Mark

Eric Bilodeau · November 11th, 2003, 02:29 PM

your posts will be very valuable since you own HD10s and the test available shows images from the HD1.

Graeme Nattress · November 11th, 2003, 02:31 PM

Les - SD does not look blurry unless you are viewing it too big. HD does not look blurry unless you're viewing it too big.

As Eric points out the HD1 suffers from some pretty severe edge enhancement that, although to some eyes makes it look sharp, to others just makes it look bad. Sharpness is no excuse or compensation for resolution.

I would certainly like to see a truer comparison of resolution between a decent DV camera (with sharpness off) and the HD10 (with sharpness off) so that we can actually compare them without being swayed by bad looking electronic edge enhancement. Perhaps another thing - I don't know if it's possible, but could a shot be recorded on an HDV camcorder and simultaneously be be recorded to a DV deck digitally, or does the down-convert not come out of the firewire port like that?

Heath McKnight · November 11th, 2003, 02:33 PM

Cool, Mark! Look forward to seeing them!

heath

Heath McKnight · November 11th, 2003, 02:35 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Les - SD does not look blurry unless you are viewing it too big. HD does not look blurry unless you're viewing it too big. -->>>

Wouldn't that hurt theatrical release (on the HD projectors we hear about)?

Also, Jon said the image looked FANTASTIC from the HD10 on a 32 inch HDTV.

heath

November 11th, 2003, 08:42 AM	#46
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	You are right of course Jeff but I still don't see the point of such a scale if it is not seen with the same screen size each time. A lot of HD is now seen on LCD screens or computer screens with pixel ratios, not line counts. Even the upconverters and digital/analog converters offer the out to SVGA/RGB/YUV option now. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

November 11th, 2003, 11:38 AM	#48
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Have you really USED the camera? __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 11th, 2003, 02:08 PM	#51
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Remember, it's working around the limitations. What angered me about the HD10, other than the controls, was that my mentality is Dogme95/Documentary/ENG style of shooting. You can't really (or shouldn't) do that. I have seen the HD10 shooting a Puddle of Mudd concert handheld and with concert lighting (ie, bad) and it looked GREAT, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've gotten away with shooting dogme 95 on the XL-1, but when we shot on sticks with great lighting, it ALWAYS looked top knotch. And that's the same with the HD10! heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 11th, 2003, 02:10 PM	#52
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	On the DVX v JVC clip (SD version) it's easy to take the DVX section and apply an un-sharp mask filter to it and make it look as sharp as the JVC. As a HD camera, the JVC has both greater resolution and appears sharper than the DVX is as a DV camera. To really compare the cameras properly we need to see what the JVC looks like without the awful sharpness. I couldn't see anything in the way of edge enhancement sharpness on the DVX clip. There's a big difference between sharpness and resolution, and I'd like to be comparing the resolution of the cameras, not the edge enhancement! Also, I think any annoyment on the part of current DV users is not that technology moves along, but that in the case of the JVC (which is of course the first of it's kind and it will improve) is that the camera is a case of one step forwards (improved resolution) and two steps back (only 30p, poor controls, only 1 chip, etc.). Remember that most criticism we have to put up with as DV users is, although pointed at the DV format, should really be directed at the camera and the user instead. DV as a format is capable of great things, and is certainly the equal, if not better than some of the old analogue broadcast formats, but is often let down by lack of care in it's operation or a poor front end. That's not the fault of the DV format! I think every DV user would really like to see what the HDV format is capable of when coupled to a camera worthy of the higher definition format! Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

November 11th, 2003, 02:19 PM	#53
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Sound cool, Mark! How about some test clips? heath <<<-- Originally posted by Mark Jervis : I'll be the first to admit defeat. I own a JVC GY-DV500 which is one of the 3 chip 1/2" DV cameras that beats the XL1, etc. and I now own 2 HD10's and they are blowing my DV500 away in most situations. I still find myself using the dv500 for low light situations and since it has a 20x lens on it I can get better reach but overall the HD10 is much better. I have done my own side by comparison and don't need anymore convincing. The previous post about diffusion on the HD10 helping is true. Try throwing a Promist .5 or 1 infront of the camera and watch the hot spots practicaly disappear, it was amazing. As everyone is saying, this isn't a Varicam but there will always be people trying to make one camera look like the other. Sometimes they are called pioneers, sometimes they are crazy. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on the issue, not to offend anyone if for some reason I have. -Mark -->>> __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 11th, 2003, 11:36 AM	#47
Christopher Toderman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York Posts: 60	Answer to Eric Bilodeau: I wanted to rest my case but I have to answer this. After that, please state whatever you want. I will not get involved in this fruitless stuff. XL1 is a 3-chip camera, with the pixels offset, so it could have a full resolution of the DV format. If it does not has nothing to do with the chips. There are other problems with the JVC CCD besides not having enough pixels. It was very well explained in Video Ststems. The horizontal resolution is full 25% diminished. The deficiency is a lot worse than that of the XL1 percentagewise. The XL1 is close to the approx 500 lines of the DVX format. The JVC is way off. I have seen images from both the JVC and the Varicam. As I said, if it can be compared to anything, it is closer to the DVX in progressive, and very distant from the Varicam. Although the horizontal resolution falls at a midpoint between the two, it has too many other defficiencies compared to the DVX. Resolution is not everything. I rest my case forever on this camera. If anyone thinks that the images are similar to the Varicam, or even CineAlta, all power to you. Just relize that when you go to a stereo showroom, the dealers have a way to place the speakers and do other tricks that you choose the ones that the dealer makes most profit on. So if any tests show that this camera has an image that is similar to Varicam, buy it and enjoy it. Good luck.

November 11th, 2003, 01:58 PM	#49
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	have you seen the existing DVX vs JVC clip, the one with the blond 'lady' in front of the video equipment? The DV just plain looks out of focus when viewed against the JVC. There is just no comparing the two. I had to do a blur 1.9 on the JVC image to get it as blurry as the DVX image. I've shown that test clip to any number of people and the reaction is always "Wow!" I think we should expect a lot of chatter from standard DV 3 chip users that are maybe a little annoyed that there is a new kid on the block. ( and he doesn't wear Coke bottle eye glasses !!! ) I know the JVC has it's problems, but all around it makes up for it with it's sharp image. And I'll know I'll be annoyed when Sony comes out with a HDV after I get my JVC ! -Les

November 11th, 2003, 02:05 PM	#50
Mark Jervis Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Savannah, GA Posts: 66	I'll be the first to admit defeat. I own a JVC GY-DV500 which is one of the 3 chip 1/2" DV cameras that beats the XL1, etc. and I now own 2 HD10's and they are blowing my DV500 away in most situations. I still find myself using the dv500 for low light situations and since it has a 20x lens on it I can get better reach but overall the HD10 is much better. I have done my own side by comparison and don't need anymore convincing. The previous post about diffusion on the HD10 helping is true. Try throwing a Promist .5 or 1 infront of the camera and watch the hot spots practicaly disappear, it was amazing. As everyone is saying, this isn't a Varicam but there will always be people trying to make one camera look like the other. Sometimes they are called pioneers, sometimes they are crazy. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on the issue, not to offend anyone if for some reason I have. -Mark

November 11th, 2003, 02:21 PM	#54
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	Unsharp on the SD version may help, but SD, even if it originated from scanned 65mm 15 perf IMAX film, is still blurry. For me , SD = $100 web cam look. It's true. A $100 quick cam pro will pretty much equal a DV cam on DV tape. -Les

November 11th, 2003, 02:23 PM	#55
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Both JVC HDV cameras have different edge enhancement, my tests of the DVX compared to the HD10 showed less edge enhancement on the HD10 (but I had a ND filter on, so it was not the camera "as is") in most cases than on the DVX. But the HD1 has one of the worse edge enhancement ratio I have ever seen. Again, this camera is NOT AT ALL perfect, my opinion is based on tests I made, remember that the tests available (the blonde girl) are made with a HD1, they would not have shown all those edge artefacts with the HD10 (there would have been some but much less). __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

November 11th, 2003, 02:24 PM	#56
Mark Jervis Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Savannah, GA Posts: 66	I'm going out tomorrow to get some test shots around the city (old historic disctrict) and will post some side by shots in the next few days. -Mark

November 11th, 2003, 02:29 PM	#57
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	your posts will be very valuable since you own HD10s and the test available shows images from the HD1. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

November 11th, 2003, 02:31 PM	#58
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Les - SD does not look blurry unless you are viewing it too big. HD does not look blurry unless you're viewing it too big. As Eric points out the HD1 suffers from some pretty severe edge enhancement that, although to some eyes makes it look sharp, to others just makes it look bad. Sharpness is no excuse or compensation for resolution. I would certainly like to see a truer comparison of resolution between a decent DV camera (with sharpness off) and the HD10 (with sharpness off) so that we can actually compare them without being swayed by bad looking electronic edge enhancement. Perhaps another thing - I don't know if it's possible, but could a shot be recorded on an HDV camcorder and simultaneously be be recorded to a DV deck digitally, or does the down-convert not come out of the firewire port like that? __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

November 11th, 2003, 02:33 PM	#59
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Cool, Mark! Look forward to seeing them! heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 11th, 2003, 02:35 PM	#60
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	<<<-- Originally posted by Graeme Nattress : Les - SD does not look blurry unless you are viewing it too big. HD does not look blurry unless you're viewing it too big. -->>> Wouldn't that hurt theatrical release (on the HD projectors we hear about)? Also, Jon said the image looked FANTASTIC from the HD10 on a 32 inch HDTV. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog