3 questions about the HD10 at DVinfo.net

Graham Jones · January 18th, 2004, 01:13 AM

I'm seriously considering buying the JY HD-10U despite the fact that it's NTSC when in SD - I find the HD on a palmheld too seductive, especially for the non intrusive type of film I want to shoot...

Three questions

1. A guy from JVC let me have a look at the camera the other day and I asked about Mini DV tapes - any types I shouldn't use, or whatever. He acknowledged that all types worked but warned me strictly against Sony Mini DV 'with the red stripe'. Posters on this forum seem to be fine with Sony Mini DV tapes!

2. JVC seem open and honest about the camera. I appreciate this, but find it a little confusing when they say:

'Would 3 CCDs be superior to 1 CCD? For absolute picture quality, yes. But there are practical trade-offs. 3 CCDs would provide superior accuracy of color reproduction, and would provide superior resolution for same density of CCD. However, the 3 CCD camera would be larger, heavier and draw more power which requires a larger battery. The 3 CCD camera would also cost more. '

Wouldn't it cost less? Or would the 3 Chips cameras selling everywhere that cost less not be so good, not be the subject of their little comparison? Would the picture quality actually be better? Wouldn't HD just be better?! It seems a vague statement, but perhaps it's my understanding that's vague

3. If I only want to shoot atmos, but atmos is important, is the implanted mic sufficient? How bad is it?

Thanks for the friendly forum - and thanks Heath for advising me to re-post my message here

Jon Fordham · January 18th, 2004, 04:46 PM

Graham,

Since you mention that you desire shooting a "film", then I encourage you read my reviews. Specifically the most recent regarding shooting Heath's short film "Release Me".

Now regarding your questions:

I have never had any problem using Sony's MiniDV tape stock. In fact, I never use anything else. However, I do use the Sony EX stock and not the PR stock. I come from a video background and recall the days when tape stock was actually tested and rated. Videography magazine published a test report a while back on MiniDV tape stocks. Of the MiniDV tape stocks they tested, the Sony EX stock had a higher coercity and rentivity rating. They praised the EX over the others. I suspect that JVC probrably wants you to use their stock as it means more money in their pocket. There were some issues a few years ago where people were having problems switching between different manufacturers stock. Aparently the type of lubrication used in the different stocks caused some problems when mixed. Having said all that, I have on occasion used various stock from different manufacturers and not experienced problems. The only stock I ever had a problem with was Maxell.

I think your confusion about 3 CCD's may be in comparing 3 CCD MiniDV cameras. The CCD's are just the image pickup device. And for optimum color accuracy and reproduction, 3 CCD's would be superior. JVC's reasons they list for not using 3 CCD's are suspect, though true. I don't find the reasons they mention drawbacks so much as simple facts of using a 3 CCD system to get the highest quality results. Yes, the picture quality from 3 CCD's would be better than the picture quality from 1 CCD. Remember, HD is nothing more than a video recording format. It's not a magic potion. It requires the same components as all other quality video devices. Would you expect a Sony HDCAM VTR to deliver a superior image if you plugged a VHS camcorder into it? No. Just because you're recording HD, doesn't mean you don't need a quality camera.

I have not in any way tested the audio of this camera since I work strictly as a Cinematographer.

Jon

Graham Jones · January 19th, 2004, 12:07 AM

Thanks Jon. Let me just get this straight. What JVC meant was:

if you had a HD10 with 3 CCDs it would of course be superior in terms of 'absolute picture quality' than the HD10 we do have, which has 1 CCD

NOT:

a typical DV palmheld with 3CCDs would, in terms of 'absolute picture quality' beat the HD10...

Graham

Paul St. Denis · January 19th, 2004, 02:39 AM

Here is my take on what JVC is saying.
Take a 720x480 area of the HD10's 1280x720 picture and compare it to the 720x480 full frame of a good quality 3CCD camera, the 3 CCD will have better color representation.

What has been debated on this board is the question of the quality of a 3CCD compared to a frame from the HD10 scaled down to DV size, "downsampled".

It is harder to do the comparison because of the different aspect ratio of the two images.

David Kennett · January 19th, 2004, 08:42 AM

This discussion reminds me of a debate years ago about the relative merits of belt drive turntables vs. direct drive. To me, the difinitive "solution" came when someone pointed out that the quality of design and implementation are more important. There are some cheap 3-chip cameras out that are outperformed by single-chippers.

I agree with the majority of posts that the HD10 has very good colorimetry, only adequate sensitivity, better resolution than ANY DV camera, and does not handle highlights very well (looks like a star filter all the time).

Graham Jones · January 19th, 2004, 10:47 AM

Thanks for all these helpful responses! I think it was just that I was taking the statement in isolation. I thought they were saying 3 CCD cameras were automatically better than the HD10 because it only had 1 CCD. I suppose the number of CCDs are only part of the plot...

I find DV cams provide very dull images, but that the HD10 in HD mode excites me much more.

Graham

Jon Fordham · January 19th, 2004, 11:13 AM

>>Thanks Jon. Let me just get this straight. What JVC meant was:
if you had a HD10 with 3 CCDs it would of course be superior in terms of 'absolute picture quality' than the HD10 we do have, which has 1 CCD
NOT:
a typical DV palmheld with 3CCDs would, in terms of 'absolute picture quality' beat the HD10...<<

You're welcome Graham. And yes, that's what JVC is getting at. Though, be careful about your wording. Phrases such as 'absolute picture quality' are subjective. Not to mention that 3CCD "Handycam" style camcorders range from cheap 1/6" models to pricy 1/3" models with profesional features. So I don't exactly know what a typical 3CCD camcorder is to you.

As I have mentioned in my reviews, I personally feel that SOME 3CCD DV camcorders outperform the HD10 in many areas. So please be careful about what you expect from the HD10. Especially if your application is filmmaking. If not used in a VERY controlled after MUCH experimintation, your imagery will look like very sharp home video.

Heath McKnight · January 19th, 2004, 11:51 AM

Jon is right; he had the HD10 for two months before we shot RELEASE ME, and it shows: we have some great stuff.

heath

January 18th, 2004, 01:13 AM	#1
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	3 questions about the HD10 I'm seriously considering buying the JY HD-10U despite the fact that it's NTSC when in SD - I find the HD on a palmheld too seductive, especially for the non intrusive type of film I want to shoot... Three questions 1. A guy from JVC let me have a look at the camera the other day and I asked about Mini DV tapes - any types I shouldn't use, or whatever. He acknowledged that all types worked but warned me strictly against Sony Mini DV 'with the red stripe'. Posters on this forum seem to be fine with Sony Mini DV tapes! 2. JVC seem open and honest about the camera. I appreciate this, but find it a little confusing when they say: 'Would 3 CCDs be superior to 1 CCD? For absolute picture quality, yes. But there are practical trade-offs. 3 CCDs would provide superior accuracy of color reproduction, and would provide superior resolution for same density of CCD. However, the 3 CCD camera would be larger, heavier and draw more power which requires a larger battery. The 3 CCD camera would also cost more. ' Wouldn't it cost less? Or would the 3 Chips cameras selling everywhere that cost less not be so good, not be the subject of their little comparison? Would the picture quality actually be better? Wouldn't HD just be better?! It seems a vague statement, but perhaps it's my understanding that's vague 3. If I only want to shoot atmos, but atmos is important, is the implanted mic sufficient? How bad is it? Thanks for the friendly forum - and thanks Heath for advising me to re-post my message here

January 19th, 2004, 08:42 AM	#5
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	This discussion reminds me of a debate years ago about the relative merits of belt drive turntables vs. direct drive. To me, the difinitive "solution" came when someone pointed out that the quality of design and implementation are more important. There are some cheap 3-chip cameras out that are outperformed by single-chippers. I agree with the majority of posts that the HD10 has very good colorimetry, only adequate sensitivity, better resolution than ANY DV camera, and does not handle highlights very well (looks like a star filter all the time). __________________ Dave

January 19th, 2004, 11:51 AM	#8
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Jon is right; he had the HD10 for two months before we shot RELEASE ME, and it shows: we have some great stuff. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 18th, 2004, 04:46 PM	#2
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Graham, Since you mention that you desire shooting a "film", then I encourage you read my reviews. Specifically the most recent regarding shooting Heath's short film "Release Me". Now regarding your questions: I have never had any problem using Sony's MiniDV tape stock. In fact, I never use anything else. However, I do use the Sony EX stock and not the PR stock. I come from a video background and recall the days when tape stock was actually tested and rated. Videography magazine published a test report a while back on MiniDV tape stocks. Of the MiniDV tape stocks they tested, the Sony EX stock had a higher coercity and rentivity rating. They praised the EX over the others. I suspect that JVC probrably wants you to use their stock as it means more money in their pocket. There were some issues a few years ago where people were having problems switching between different manufacturers stock. Aparently the type of lubrication used in the different stocks caused some problems when mixed. Having said all that, I have on occasion used various stock from different manufacturers and not experienced problems. The only stock I ever had a problem with was Maxell. I think your confusion about 3 CCD's may be in comparing 3 CCD MiniDV cameras. The CCD's are just the image pickup device. And for optimum color accuracy and reproduction, 3 CCD's would be superior. JVC's reasons they list for not using 3 CCD's are suspect, though true. I don't find the reasons they mention drawbacks so much as simple facts of using a 3 CCD system to get the highest quality results. Yes, the picture quality from 3 CCD's would be better than the picture quality from 1 CCD. Remember, HD is nothing more than a video recording format. It's not a magic potion. It requires the same components as all other quality video devices. Would you expect a Sony HDCAM VTR to deliver a superior image if you plugged a VHS camcorder into it? No. Just because you're recording HD, doesn't mean you don't need a quality camera. I have not in any way tested the audio of this camera since I work strictly as a Cinematographer. Jon

January 19th, 2004, 12:07 AM	#3
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	Thanks Jon. Let me just get this straight. What JVC meant was: if you had a HD10 with 3 CCDs it would of course be superior in terms of 'absolute picture quality' than the HD10 we do have, which has 1 CCD NOT: a typical DV palmheld with 3CCDs would, in terms of 'absolute picture quality' beat the HD10... Graham

January 19th, 2004, 02:39 AM	#4
Paul St. Denis Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Stony Brook NY Posts: 169	Here is my take on what JVC is saying. Take a 720x480 area of the HD10's 1280x720 picture and compare it to the 720x480 full frame of a good quality 3CCD camera, the 3 CCD will have better color representation. What has been debated on this board is the question of the quality of a 3CCD compared to a frame from the HD10 scaled down to DV size, "downsampled". It is harder to do the comparison because of the different aspect ratio of the two images.

January 19th, 2004, 10:47 AM	#6
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	Thanks for all these helpful responses! I think it was just that I was taking the statement in isolation. I thought they were saying 3 CCD cameras were automatically better than the HD10 because it only had 1 CCD. I suppose the number of CCDs are only part of the plot... I find DV cams provide very dull images, but that the HD10 in HD mode excites me much more. Graham

January 19th, 2004, 11:13 AM	#7
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	>>Thanks Jon. Let me just get this straight. What JVC meant was: if you had a HD10 with 3 CCDs it would of course be superior in terms of 'absolute picture quality' than the HD10 we do have, which has 1 CCD NOT: a typical DV palmheld with 3CCDs would, in terms of 'absolute picture quality' beat the HD10...<< You're welcome Graham. And yes, that's what JVC is getting at. Though, be careful about your wording. Phrases such as 'absolute picture quality' are subjective. Not to mention that 3CCD "Handycam" style camcorders range from cheap 1/6" models to pricy 1/3" models with profesional features. So I don't exactly know what a typical 3CCD camcorder is to you. As I have mentioned in my reviews, I personally feel that SOME 3CCD DV camcorders outperform the HD10 in many areas. So please be careful about what you expect from the HD10. Especially if your application is filmmaking. If not used in a VERY controlled after MUCH experimintation, your imagery will look like very sharp home video.