HD1U and HC-1 both $2000- so which?
 

I hate posting VS. type posts- but seeing that we "prosumers" are on the cutting edge- seeing as to both the HD1 and HC-1 are around $2000- what are the main differences and features one should look for in comparing these 2 HDV cameras?
My gut reaction says the HD1U is a good buy at $2000 as they were more expensive and represent a good deal at this price point- however- the Sony HC1 seems to be the new cost leader in HDV and represents some great features as well......so if you guys had $2000 to spend on an HDV camera- which would you buy and why?

(Thanks for the posts in advance- I'm sure many people are pondering this same question)

I own an HD1, and have always felt this camera performs very well under good lighting. I think the way people address this camera is unfair, but it does have its flaws.

Having watched footage of the HC1, I have to say that it looks better than anything I've seen on the HD1. Mostly the color reproduction is much better. Sony seems to really take advantage of the CMOS sensor, and in my opinion, it looks very similar to 3 CCD cameras. I didn't notice almost any chroma noise, unlike in the HD1.

However the HC1 is 1080i, whereas the HD1 is 720p. Personally I prefer progressive mode, but you might feel different about it.

If you don't mind interlaced, I'd suggest you should go with the HC1 since it has newer technology and better color reproduction.

Yeah I sorta agree- the HD1 get's attacked allot- it was designed to be the first HDV consumer camera and does produce nice footage as many attest to.
I'm surprised that you felt the HC1 produces better footage- buyt since I haven't seen footage from either- I'll take your word for it. I guess I'll look at the HC1 but I don't like the "typical camcorder" look of it- I prefer the design of the HD1.....but if the HC1 video is better- I'll have to consider the Sony for purchase.

Well yes the JVC HDV camcorder does get attacked a lot but the fact is that the footage it produces is far better than the standard definition footage that the major networks got away with for this years Indy 500 and this years Miss Universe contest as well as President Bush's state of the Union speech.


The fact is that the JVC camcorder is a progressive scan HD camcorder which is perfect for the Internet because most computers are progressive scan as well as most flat panel displays. Deinterlacing flat out doesnt work very well and usually produces footage with that doctored look. The Sony FX1 does have a psuedo progressive CF30 mode that looks nice on computer displays but the smaller HC1 may not have that feature. For fast action sports interlaced footage looks horrible if compressed to the 19.78 megabit per secound broadcast bandwidth but the greater 26 megabit bandwidth of HDV may help compensate.

On the otherhand most television networks are 1080i so if you have a good 1080i display like a cathode ray television you can take advantage of 1080i higher resolution. Also the Sony camera shoots at 60 half frames per secound rather than the 30 full frames per secound of the JVC. However if the JVC shot at 60 frames per secound it would look sharper than the Sony 1080i.

Chalk up another pro for the HD1U!

Steve,

It's been said before, but worth repeating - the edge enhancement on the HD-1 is a bit overstated. Most prefer the HD10 picture. The warranty is a full year parts AND labor, and you deal with JVC professional - a definite plus.

Hope this isn't a foolish question but: is it correct to assume the video produced by the JVC's have less resolution and is visually discernible on a 65" HDTV set? I have a 1080i 65" Mitsubishi Medallion TV set (just regular consumer grade HDTV set) and am wondering if the resolution loss would be disappointing when compared to the image the Sony's capture.

Many posters here have stated that the 720p capture of the HD10/1 is slightly higher in detail then the FX/Z1, despite of the 1 ccd design. One has to consider that the Sony offerings have 960x1080 resolution pixel shifted to 1440x1080 in an interlaced format. That said the HC-1 is not expected to achieve the level of the FX-1. Regardless I am very encouraged by Sony's use of a CMOS sensor and hope the tech continues forward.
Of course Sony has followed JVC's lead and have crippled their 1chip cam as well, preventing full manual controll. Must be a marketing hand-shake in there I guess!

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions....
from what I understand the JVC's use progressive 720p vs Sony's interlaced video making the JVC a better choice for viewing on computer monitors and LCD's.....the JVC seems more prone to highlight clipping and lacks manual controls of both aperature and shutter (at the same time).....the Sony has touch-screen features which I prefer not to use but is a newer generation of camera and is getting very good reviews.......to me they're both sub $2000 HDV cameras I'd like to purchase- but only one goes home with me......

does anyone have both cameras? Any last words?

What I think is going on with Sony is that Sony is a very professional company. But professionals are really the problem because profesionals are not interested in delivering a higher quality product if that product will not sell but rather they are interested in gaining the greatest market share. With 1080i Sony can claim that its products offer higher resolution than 720p. So the consumer will choose 1080i because of the bigger numbers. But 1080i only produces higher resolution on static resolution charts. Video is all about its ability to handle motion so the sharpest video will of course be 720p especially if it can be captured at 60 frames per secound. But the customer does not want the sharpest video but rather they want the bigger numbers so they psychologically will feel better.

"and lacks manual controls of both aperature and shutter (at the same time)."

Exact same situation with the Sony cam.

so was there a definitive answer?
 

what is the conclusion out there- i have heard mumblings both ways on this thread so far.

There never will be a conclusion. Everyone has there own preferences. That's why were hammering out the pro's and con's of each.

Tom James came up with a good perspective on the situation. From what I'm gathering the JVC is actually the better camera in terms of video quality (not withstanding the nit picks on the cameras actual setup).....it seems 720p would be better for most users as many of us will deliver content on the forthcoming HD DVD's for viewing on computer LCD's as well as web clips, video content on cd-rom and of course for HDTV's etc.... from various posts I've read many agree the JVC will actually capture MORE detail (resolution) than the interlaced video the Sony HC1 (and possibly the FX1 ??) but the higher 1080i "spec" is a selling point for many consumers. Too bad the JVC doesn't allow full manual control- but all in all- I think I'm going to go with the JVC and just get the extended Mack warranty to cover the camera, for $1899 it's actually cheaper than many high-end mini DV cameras of which I've owned and wasn't impressed with the final video on my Mitsubishi 65" HDTV- hopefully the JVC will impress me.
So for me it's a JVC, a nd filter, spare batt and Mack warranty and i'm onto HDV on the Mac with FCP!~

That makes sense, now that i think about it.

Steve- I would recomend Steve Mullens HD1/10 shooting guide. It will really help you with the leaning curve. Good luck.

Exact same situation with the Sony cam!!!
 

Your quite correct! The Sony manual clearly states that Shutter-speed can NOT be set unless the camera is AE mode! That because, like the JVC, the camera works in "shutter-priority" mode. The HDC1's iris cannot close beyond f4.8 because of the nature of the CMOS chip. Therfore, it must be free to zap up the shutter-speed to get a proper exposure!

I find it ironic that Sony users who bashed the JVC HDV camcorders are quite silent about about the same limitations in the HC1!

What if you don't want the shutter-speed to increase too much? The solution is an ND filter.

Gee whiz, that's the same solution we use on our JVC cameras to force the shutter-speed down to 1/60th or less!

Adding an ND filter to the HC1 is a pain -- as it is with the HD1/HD10. So both are a pain to shoot with when you move in and out of lighting conditions.

But at least we get great images (not a Sony DV look) that are progresive with a resolution almost equal to the FX1/Z1! And, we get 2X more streams/effects when we edit.

I see no reason to sell my JVC.

However, if you a point-and-shoot video person, you'll be happier (until you edit) shooting with the HC1 in AE. (Where with both cameras you can adjust and lock exposure.) But, if you want film-like results, you'll get more from the JVCs.

By the way, although I see the HD1 EE I doubt many viewers will -- so the HD1 is a bargin.

I'm finding that selecting a HDV camera wont get me the "perfect" solution, and will involve sacrifices no matter what:

~If I go the JVC route- I get progressive 720 which is great for virtually every application- unlike interlaced which looks good on TV sets but not ideal for LCD's, monitors, plasma's etc- the downside to JVC's are thier cameras don't feature full manual controls, often needing ND filters etc to achieve the desired look/exposure- unless I go the HD100 route (which isn't completely out of the question- but is a bit expensive for my hobby use- purchase pending~~)
Another JVC benefit is that most NLE's and computers are having better results editing progressive HDV as opposed to interlaced which requires more pc/Mac computing power (I have the best Mac currently available- so power isn't really a point for me at the moment- but progressive needs less computing power and is a definite plus right now.)
Progressive also lends itself well to the current distribution/archive capabilities and downsamples nicely for current DVD standards......HD-DVD's or forthcoming Blue-Ray will be able to play the progressive footage perfectly. And Progressive also can be made to look more "filmic" allot easier than interlaced video- just another progressive plus to the JVC implimentation of the HDV spec!

~If I go the Sony route, I'm stuck with interlaced video. But- the Sony's are more feature intensive- work better as "run & gun" and "automatic" cameras than the JVC's and allow for allot more manual control- not to mention a better build quality and a newer technology- the cameras on a whole are just better units (better displays etc.) I'm finding the FX-1 to be the most alluring considering it's price-point and feature-set....I just really hate the interlaced video only!!!! The Sony would likely allow me to capture scenes and footage just the way I'd want to at the expense of NLE difficulties in editing.........no matter what choice we make as buyers we'll have to weigh the advantges/disadvantages and select those we're ready to accept or reject.

The JVC HD100 is the best solution for me and probably most of the HDV shooters on these forums but at the cost and cons of the unit presently. It has a spectacular form factor and bristles with HDV technology no other camera has at it's price-point. There are posts already stating it's video looks very similar to the current HD10U and hasn't impressed everyone as thoroughly as they had hoped- highlight clipping and a green cast to shaded areas have already been observed- although some feel these shortcomings are a result of the lens bundled with the camera....all in all it's still the camera to beat (IMHO.)

So it's either the JVC HD100 or Sony FX-1.......$5,500 and get the best camera for my purposes or $3,200 and accept the interlaced video and deal with it in post...........decisions, decisions.....I'll let you guys know which way I go when IT happens.

(Note: I may just find a used HD10U or HD1 and experiment a bit- just another possibility, but I prefer new....the HC1 is out of the question for me- I wont accept interlaced video and it's hassels with NLE's for it's feature-set at $2000- I'd prefer a 10U at $2000 or less, even if it's used!)

Thanks for reading my mumblings- thoughts and comments appreciated.

I stopped following the HD10 awhile ago, but I thought people said you couldn't get acceptable 24p from 30p (if that matters to you).

FWIW, The Z1 can give you 480/30p and 576/25p but only through its component output, not firewire. The A1E does 576/25p and the A1U does 480/30p. AFAIK, the FX1 doesn't do component video downconversion. Looks like there's a component > firewire capture box now from ADS for about $160: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49270

Of course these options will only give you standard definition. You could use something like DVFilm Maker with the Sony HDV cameras to create 24p or 30 in post, at the expense of render time.

Boyd,
for me personally, 24P from 30P isn't an issue- I doubt if anything I'd ever do would ever get transferred to film....30P is fine for my uses.

I didn't know that about the Z1- and I think it's awesome that it has that capability- but I insist in Firewire transafer for NLE use, I don't want to have to buy additional cards or converters to get the footage into the Mac. The Z1 is basically a "pro" version of the FX-1 and shoots video pretty much the same way- so I didn't really consider the Z1 for purchase. If I'm going to spend $5000 or so- the HD100 would be my choice-but the Z1 does have that impressive component out- nice to know!

More render time just plain s__ks! Progressive is definitely the way to go in my opinion.......the FX1 stays alive in my book because of it's feature Vs. price.....it also looks killer (just a personal liking) but I like the looks of the HD100 even more- but it might attract too much attention at times.

These are interesting times for HDV buyers/owners- I think allot is going to happen with HDV in the next few years.....if the software and computers can make workflows that allow editing as easily as DV (like Apple says) then HDV will be the next consumer video hit!

Yes, the chips, lens and primary controls are all the same. There are a lot of nice upgrades on the Z1, but it's hard to beat the FX1's price. However there's one Z1 feature that is often glossed over: it shoots PAL and NTSC in addition to HDV. I need to work with PAL from time to time, and that's the real reason I got the Z1, not the HDV capability.

The JVC does look cool, but some of the negative comments being posted are a little worrisome. But I think it's much too early to rush to judgement on a new model.

Yeah- I'm keeping an eye on the comments on the HD100 myself- I'm waiting to see what a user with a non-standard lens has to say.

Steve,

I pretty much agree with your disertation on HDV. I have not noticed the green cast you mention on my 2 year old HD10. I have always thought Sony always had just a little better picture that comparable camers. I think they blew it on 1080i only. One other factor - the JVC data stream is completely compatable with broadcast TS, and can be firewire copied to D-VHS.

ANY HDV option is better than standard DV IMHO.

Well then you'll probably not be happy to learn that FCP 5 doesn't seem to be capable of editing footage from the HD100 without a third party solution...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49136

David, can the JVC D-VHS copy HD video from the FX1? How about the new HD-DVD JVC recorder- will that be able to copy content from the FX1?

Boyd, you gotta be kidding, do they not use Firewire to output their HDV signal?

They use firewire, but evidently FCP 5 can't properly interpret JVC's data format which is different from Sony's. Or at least that's what I'm reading over at Apple's FCP forum.

Other forums are reporting an FCP upgrade coming shortly to rectify the JVC issue, whether this is true or not is anyones guess!

The FX1 has been out for over a year and only recently I've started seeing clips that are really impressive.

I'm expecting the same to be true for the HD100U, not to mention it has a much wider range of manual controls.

Something no-one has mentioned (perhaps because it is so obvious?) is that in HD mode the HD1 is 30p, which is not at all ideal for high-motion run-and-gun shooting.

Steve,

It seems like I've seen a post somewhere saying it wouldn't work, but I would like to see something conclusive. I did discover something interesting awhille back. I could copy (firewire) an off-air D-VHS recording to HD10, but the HD10 decoder could not decode it (incompatable format message on flip-out screen). However, it would record it anyway - and dub back to the JVC30k D-VHS.

I have found out the hard way that specific combinations must be tested. There are several acceptable TS formats, but it's entirely possible to have something wrong - or marginal - that will not work with some hardware. Same way with DVDs - there's a lot of flexibility, but don't go outside the parameters.

Some people have been sucessfull with dubbing sony HDV footage to D-VHS but you have to lower the bit rate to 19.7 megabits per secound for it to work good.

Well I picked up an FX1 from B&H...haven't tried anything yet- except for a battery charge. I really did not want to go with interlaced video- but since I had bad luck with the JVC's "Component Video cable" and had to return the GRHD1 -I really had no choice but the FX1....would have loved to have gotten the JVC HD1000 but it's outta my price range (just a hobbyist.)

PS- I really didn't like the $399 look of the HC1- it looks too "consumer- low end" for my tastes and would likely be a hard sell sometime down the road- so the HC1 wasn't an option. I know it produces 90% of the video quality the FX1 captures- but it's form factor was just too "plain" for me.