HD100/200 user satisfaction

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by David Liu

Great personal reviews guys..

I do understand the HVX much difference is due to the P2 workflow and size, how bout the A1, it records on tape, small and seem to be only lacking in 50p option.

Anyone up to comment on the HD110 to Canon's XHA1?

I'd sum it up like so, more or less the same picture quality.
The Canon is cheaper, but the JVC has the more ergonomic pro design and the ability to use different lenses.

[Daniel Weber]

I have shot with both and like the HD110 better. The A1 is good for low profile shooting, but I am not happy with the ergonomics of the A1. I much prefer a Sony Z1 or JVC HD110.

I think that it matters on your shooting style.

Both cameras can produce good images.

Daniel Weber

[Alan Ortiz]

Ive got to agree with Daniel. Ive used the XH-G1 for several projects and for handheld work I don't really like the way its balanced. Its not as heavy or bulky as the HVX but its longer than you would expect too. Put these cams on sticks and these issues disappear, but being able to get rock solid images from my shoulder cant be beat. Between the XH-A1 or the HD110, I would say to go with the 110 for that reason alone.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Alan Ortiz

Between the XH-A1 or the HD110, I would say to go with the 110 for that reason alone.

Agreed. Seems like small thing, but good run and gun capability opens up so many options...

[Jeffrey Butler]

I love the lens. The 17x, anyway, but not so much anyX, more the manual style. You need another camera, however. My HD250 just can't fill as many rolls as a smaller, high quality camera can. Shooting in a car, shooting an on the road doc from cramped quarters - not strong suits of the HD250.

That said, I am more than fine with 720p; am surprised at how good it scales up (like, for instance with Smoothcam); want a second camera anyway; love feeling/shooting/looking like a "pro"; have minor complaints that I would with any other camera; got a good deal on it; and have finally come to the other side of the "oh crap, I need image stabilization; I wish I'd gotten 2x A1s, this thing is huge."

.02

[Adam Letch]

on size issues, especially when shooting in vehicles, in my mates landcruiser I could shoot from one side of the cabin to the other from passenger seat, but this camera is long, in a chopper I had to sit the camera on my lap because on the shoulder it would have hit the pilot in the head, mind you it was a RU22, about the smallest chopper you can fly at 400kg. Image stabilization would be good for any vehicle shooting.
But for solid performance and useability, and expandability, and with the DRDH100 Reliability it's a great camera, mind you all rigged up with 95wh battery, DRDH100, NTG2, Chrosziel MB, it's like at least 10KG's. Oh that a 3rd party would make a better EVF with at least 50 more lines, and a better shoulder pad with more of a deeper/plush curve so it hugs the shoulder more for all day shoulder shooting. (Which at least you can do with this camera like with weddings etc!)

[Robert Adams]

... aside from all of the above (FCP probs, poor low-light capability, viewfinder/monitor issues, need at least a wide angle adaptor - I use a RedEye - etc); I have a couple of minor gripes:

1: - the XLR plugs should be 90 degree L type plugs; as spec the camera mic XLR and my Sennheiser radio mic XLR stick out too far, catch on clothing, get bashed, generally make a nuisance of themselves. An easy fix, of course, but therefore one that JVC could make at the factory.

2: - the carrying strap mounts are in the wrong place. Esp the rear mount. I have a V-lock battery system, so sling the string from there. The factory sling mount is on the rear of the carrying handle which is all wrong.

Otherwise though, a cracking little camera, with Fab ergonomics, and feels and works like a proper 50k camera most of the time for a tenth of the price. Mine's been in cyclones in Mozambique, in firefights in Mogadishu, in riots in Pakistan, up close and personal with rhinos in Zimbabwe; and it just keeps on rolling.

Cool kit.

[Damon Mentzer]

Hello all! Ive got 2 Hd110u's, based my whole new studio around them after careful research. One drawback that I didnt know in advance, but couldnt have afforded to rectify....and am not technically advanced to test on my own though I'm trying...
I believe that the 250 is the only model capable of outputting uncompressed HD signal via HDMI. I may be mistaken, and that the 200 does as well, but on the 100 and 110 by the time the feed is coming out the firewire its compressed into HDV. The JVC Pro HD page tech specs say it doesnt output 24 to component while recording. So any 24p work would have to go to HDV, meaning it gets compressed to Mpeg2. I have monitored via a small lcd screen via component while recording 24p, but it may bhave been converting it, i couldnt tell.
Ive been meaning to test the live firewire feed via Adobe On Location, but been busy. Ill get on it. I know it works, and that I get audio and video signal, and can test waveform and vectorscope from what the cameras getting, but I dont know what actual framerate or resolution Im getting via firewire
That issue aside, this cam has gotten compliments from all the DP's and editors I have talked to here in Spokane, Very flexible in formats, and all the control you need.
I do have questions about its white balancing though. Ive gotten it to read 3200 with a red tone via presets, and 3200 with a blue tone when doing the auto balance. This may be from my inexperience with White Balancing

Last thing. Ive seen posts about the split screen and actually saw it on one of my cams, dont remember testing the other at the time. In my case it was due to low lighting, and as soon as I get light to a pro level, that picture is fine. But check your cam as soon as you get it, under both conditions. You shouldnt need to over-light to get rid of this effect, but it IS true that these cams NEED light. DONT USE GAIN. Ive seen others post it, and tested myself. adding more than 3 db in gain will add visible noise to the image.

[Jerry Jesion]

I received my 110 about a month ago. Up till now I have been using it DV outdoors (sunlight) and with studio lighting. The results were very good. I then used it at an event in a large hall with incandescent lighting along with my trusty PD170 and a Panny DVX100B. In my opinion there was plenty of available light. I must admit that I was somewhat disappointed with the 110. As opposed to the other cameras I had to open the lens all the way to get a decent exposure (0 db gain). Of course this led to a lot of CA. I do a lot of event work and am somewhat dissatisfied with the low light performance of the 110. I am worried that when I shoot stage performances that may be somewhat dark that I will have to use gain to get a decent exposure. Other than that I really love the camera. All the controls are in the right spots and it is a shoulder mount.

I must admit that the image was much crisper than either the Sony or Panny tho......

Regards,
Jerry

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

I have to say something, and this is my opinion but... Every single thing (aside from the SSE problem) that people have complained about this camera, are all the things that a REAL camera is. This is a filmmaker camera, and i think a while ago in another post i said something similar.

people complain about its size, being to big or heavy... people complain about no auto focus... people complain about no built in steady shot... people complain about its low light problems... ALL of these issues are on REAL cameras! Its what makes shooting what it is.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but it is for me annoying to hear people complain about buying a camera to shoot indi-films and shorts and complain about these issues. The people who are complaining about these issues have obviously not watch DVD extras and behind the sceans of any movie they own, because if they did they would notice the tons of gear behind the cameras sometimes just to hold them up. The reason why films look like they do and "feel" like they do is because of all the issues you are complaining about. Dont knock it because you dont know how to use it properly or cant handle the weight... Do you know how much a sony F900 weighs without batteries ??

I have grown up watching cinematographers luge huge cameras around (well their camera assistants as well haha) and they don't say... wow this arriflex should be lighter and have an auto focus gear and should work well in low light without special film stock and on and on... the films look like they do because they are lit properly, shoulder mounted shots in real films look great not because the camera is light but because its heavy, it steadies out the shots. The cameras they use on films like an ariiflex extreme, depending on the lens in front of it, are longer than the hd 110 and they rig them on cars... in planes, everywhere!

If you want to start shooting with a camera and learn how to actually become a cinematographer, then these complaints shouldn't be on your mind. Me along with a few of my DP friends all have the same feeling on this subject, its what actually makes you a camera man. Its what actually teaches you how to shoot. Anyone can grab a dvx100a set it on auto focus and walk around and shoot with limited manual exposure... wow that took a lot of skill... (sarcasm) But to have in your head all the complications of lighting, apature settings, shutter speeds, camera rigging, focus issues, camera movement, ect, ect... then you are actually becoming a real shooter. Watch "Children of Men" lots of hand held shots with a heavy film camera, that has to be focused on the fly while making sure subjects are in frame and marks are being hit. Now thats a pain in the ass, and a sweat-filled-shirt of a job. They dont complain, they love it.

I guess why i sound so mad is because i really appreciate what cinematographers go through to get the shots that we grew up watching. And i hate when i see aspiring filmmakers actually complain about the very things that will be teaching them how to shoot. Are they really that spoiled that we don't want to control our own focus on a subject in a film, i mean i can understand in wedding photography, but thats not what this camera was built for.

I dont see problems with this camera, i only see this camera as the way it should be, complete manual control over just about everything so as an artist/cinematographer, you can control every aspect. With all these auto functions and loss of weight, and no shoulder mounting capabilities and the worst of all ... INTERLACED formats... think to yourself... if you like these things, then maybe you are looking at the wrong camera and maybe even wrong field of work. (i know that sentence might strike a few of you as harsh, but its how i personally feel)

Please for the love of god HD/2k/4k 24p 180 degree shutter, fast prime lenses and nice solid lighting. If you wanna make your film look like "film" live by these restrictions don't knock them, USE them, they are helping you believe it or not... they allow you to use your brain instead of the cameras.

Let the hate mail flood gates open haha... thanks for reading my crazy rant.

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Giuseppe Pugliese

people complain about its size, being to big or heavy... people complain about no auto focus...

Giuseppe, all these are great points and I think that should be re-iterated often in the pages of forums like this. The fact is, like with everything, when something becomes popular, in other words, it escapes the "controls" of the professionals who worked in a particular sector of the industry, a lot of wrong assumptions are made. Either because of inexperience or for commercial interests of the parties that have vested interest. For example, it's a well known thing that Internet Explorer is the most broken browsers out there. Even the version of Opera built-in in my Nintendo Wii works more accurately than IE. Nevertheless 75% or so of people insist in using IE with the result that Web developers like myself spend days and days just to work around bugs in IE while the unmodified page works on ANY other browser out there. Do you have any idea how infuriating is that ;)?

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. And that is the reason why it's so misunderstood. Because cameras are so cheap and popular, like in many other cases, people start using the tool without going to the traditional education that formed previous generations of filmakers. I give you another example. Today's non-destructive editing tools like Aperture or Lightroom allow us to frame our still photos with ease and that seems like a great technological achievement. I had the great luck to learn that skill when I was probably 14 or 15. My father used the develop his films in house (B&W stills) and I got my introduction to photography in those years. As I entered the dark room for the first time I assumed that the process was technical in nature. It was at the end of the chain that I realized that you could reframe your picture by raising of lowering the projector and by shifting and rotating the paper. The realization that you didn't need to frame the negative perfectly in the limits of the paper was an eye opening experience and taught me about cropping way before the first PC was invented (I guess I'm dating myself here).
As with framing, focus used to be a tools that was taught to aspiring filmmakers when the pros where more or less in control of the craft. As people acquire "independence" because of technology, everything seems to become a technology issue and they fail to see the use of focus as an artistic tool, it becomes just a requirement to make the shot, as much as putting the subject perfectly in the center of the frame ;) Understanding that focus is another "brush stroke" is the turning point in becoming an artist of the frame. I think that Mullen's observation summarizes the essence of the misunderstanding in this field and why people who look at the technical issue see it as a shortcoming.

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. And that is the reason why it's so misunderstood. Because cameras are so cheap and popular, like in many other cases, people start using the tool without going to the traditional education that formed previous generations of filmakers.

Thank you for taking your time out to read my long rant by the way.

M. David Mullen ASC was the cinematographer for "The Astronaut Farmer" a movie I've been dieing to see actually. I feel bad because I dont want to come off as a know it all, but I would like to have people at least not shut the door to these things that make half of the film. I learn about film every day i edit or shoot, you continue to learn until you die i believe.

I guess im old fashioned? I change that statement im not because if i was i would be shooting film... I push the digital age, I love that i can take a $5k camera and shoot something that would normally take a ton of money in film processing and developing and converting to a digital intermediate. But i guess i still appreciate where it all came from. I think just because things are turning digital, doesn't mean we have to forget the way film is shot.

Who knows, maybe im just a crazy man who thinks too much about this? Ill shut up now... but yes despite its "problems" its a tool, and i personally think a good one at that. I am so glad JVC put the effort into making such a tool for people who can appreciate its capabilities while keeping the price so cheap. For me, when it first came out, it was a turning point in digital cinematography. Sure its not a 1920x1080 picture... but all of these other HDV cameres are so consumer targeted, its a breath of fresh air that a company went forth to make something of a more professional standard/build.

Its late... i worked all day... sorry haha.

[Kit Hannah]

We do a large mixed assortment of projects, from live event imag services to documentary style films and training videos. Prior to purchasing our slew of HD-110's, we used JVC GY-DV5000's and loved them. But we did want something a bit more portable and a bit lighter, so we designed our operation around the 110.

I can't say that we made the wrong decision, but the 110's definitely do have their faults. Although they do feel nicely on your shoulder and look more like a "pro" camera, for us, we really miss the low light performance we got from the 5000's. When it comes to most indoor events, we have really found that may of times, 0 db is not acceptable, sometimes having to push it beyond. The translation is GAIN = GRAIN, which for us can begin to yeild some pretty unacceptable results.

In daylight and outdoors, the cameras look superb. We have never had any problems with our cameras in regards to functionality, just in lower light conditions which we run into on a very regular basis. We don't always have the time, budget or clearances to run extra lighting for some of our projects, so for us, getting something that is goign to be a bit better in those situations will be beneficial.

So we have decided to sell our cameras and opt for the Sony EX1's. It was a hard decision because we have never really used any cameras other than shoulder mount cameras. We never really liked the "handheldness" of the Sonys, Panys and Canons. It's nice that the JVC "looks" good on the outside, but from what we have seen, the Sony is going to produce much more acceptable results. The 720p thing never really bothered us until we lost a couple of jobs with clients that wanted their project produced in 1080p for future scalability.

One of the major concerns we contimplated with a handheld type camera like the EX1 was that shooting without a tripod was going to be harder to get a steady shot and provide more strain on the operator. Sometimes we have 8-10 hour long events and holding your wrist in the air for that amount of time without having your shoulder to rest the camera on was going to be difficult. We ultimately decided that we would just get some sort of a steadicam type unit to take strain off, or if we needed to do some actuall handheld shooting, we could at least purchase a full size F series XDCAM, and we would not have to sacrafice image quality.

Bottom line is that JVC has always been very good to us. Their cameras have always been very nice looking and produced very nice images in good conditions. But we now need something that is going to be great in a wide variety of conditions, and I believe the 1/2" sony is going to be much more accomodating and acceptable to a wider range of clients in the years to come. Direct to disc built in is where it's at (no more homemade creative Firestore mounts to mount on the cameras) and better images along with an improved workflow should yeild more $$$ in the years to come.

* Another cheap plug: We do have our last GY-HD110 available in the classifieds.....*

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. .

Is the Mullen interview on your site? He's a great resource and is particularly knowledgeable on HD Video.

[Carl Middleton]

Originally Posted by Joel Chappell

What do you shoot with Carl?

Joel,

I shoot with a Z1U, Bogen 503 on wilderness legs, edit with AspectHD & Premiere, currently building a FCS2 machine.

Sorry I missed your message originally!

Carl