|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 16th, 2008, 12:00 PM | #31 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Try swapping the lens.
|
March 16th, 2008, 12:16 PM | #32 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Olney, Maryland
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
Without doing a side by side camparison...Cam 2 looks brighter. What are your iris settings for both cams? |
|
March 16th, 2008, 01:41 PM | #33 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 282
|
The HD200 is a bit more light sensible than the HD100, if the same iris position is used on both cameras it is normal to have a brighter image on the HD200.
I have both cameras also, I never tried to change lenses... now I'm curious, I'll try it asap. I also have different colour temperatures readings, I don't know which one is more accurate but I think I never had a readding bellow 3000k on the HD100... maybe it's the lowest it goes. I'm used to have different values on different brand cameras... but I also found it strange to have such a difference between my two JVCs. In fact I had some difficult matching their image settings. Lee, your camera is damaged for sure. These cameras have a slight difference on their image, but not as you report. For me the HD200 is better, it handles the dark tones better. |
March 16th, 2008, 05:00 PM | #34 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Memphis Area, SoCal, Jax, and Princeton
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
The iris setting was auto on both for this test. The cameras were set at the same height with the lenses virtually touching. I'm not going to give away which one is which just yet. I will say that after I set the cameras up identically there was much less difference in the two images, but to my eye, there is still a winner. Given that the 200 has a 'better' processor, it should be clear. Notice the difference in the first test when I went to AWB? Interesting...... I noticed a more than neglible amount of difference in the low light setting, too. |
|
March 16th, 2008, 07:32 PM | #35 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Olney, Maryland
Posts: 197
|
Ok...I finally downloaded the clips...I was just taking a peak at a small sample online earlier.
I definitely like the warmer preset white balance on CAM 1. And like I said before, CAM 1 shows less artifacts w/ the straight lines. However, there is a different noise there in the darker scene that I don't like. I'm not sure going "AUTO IRIS" is a good way to do the test. Both CAMS have some DEAD PIXELS...Cam 2 has a really obvious one. |
March 16th, 2008, 08:08 PM | #36 | |
JVC America
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 516
|
Exchange Policy
Hi Lee,
As Matt has pointed out, JVC Professional (US) does have a 30 day replacement policy, as you have read on the link below. If you feel that the camera is defective, please do not hesitate to call our Customer Care Center for assistance - 1-800-582-5825. Selece option 7. Keep in mind that the hours of operation are 9 AM to 5 PM Easterd Time, Monday thru Friday. Quote:
__________________
Carl Hicks JVC Professional Products Company |
|
March 17th, 2008, 09:33 AM | #37 | |||||
Wrangler
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 3,637
|
I've only quickly scanned through this thread, and I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll directly address Lee's originating post as best as I can. My apologies to anyone who may have already answered these questions.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You mention that zooming the lens out the image "degrades." Do you mean it loses focus? This is back-focus, and if that is happening then back-focus is not set properly. Make sure the lens is not in macro mode, then make sure you open the aperture all the way to F1.4 and put your chart about 15 feet away from the camera. Zoom in and front focus, zoom out and back focus, repeat, then lock the back focus ring. Quote:
The obvious thing to check for is damage to the mount. Is anything bent? Is there a metal shard inside the mount anywhere that won't allow it to sit flush? Quote:
__________________
Tim Dashwood |
|||||
March 17th, 2008, 05:07 PM | #38 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,650
|
After looking at the footage I can only make a few comments.
- Clip 1 has a little more problems with diagonal lines and alias artifacts than clip 2. - Clip 2 is slightly murkier in image quality to clip 1. And slightly noisier to clip 1. - White balance is eventually better in clip 1. I am not seeing the "degrading image" mentioned before although the aliasing is annoying. Please try the same tests in HDV and post some full-res stills. I am curious if the aliasing is a product of the in-camera downconversion to DV resolution.
__________________
William Hohauser - New York City Producer/Edit/Camera/Animation |
March 17th, 2008, 07:37 PM | #39 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Memphis Area, SoCal, Jax, and Princeton
Posts: 63
|
Okay, enough fun....
Here's what JVC and my dealer have done: - JVC had no problem with the overnight replacement. The 'full-time-fan' is not normal... --BUT-- - There are apprently no more 200's available until about the 1st week in April. As in JVC would overnight one if they had it, but there are some mods being made and they simply have no stock. - My dealer has gotten a 250 for me to use for my shoot. Cam 1 is the 100. Cam 2 is the 200. Thank you all for your input. I think my expectations will be more in line with reality when I receive the new cam, though I will be disapointed if, ultimately, I can't tweak the 200 to perform better than the 100. With that said, they said they would be happy to swap the 200 for a 110 should that be the case. Thanks again, Lee |
March 19th, 2008, 05:39 AM | #40 | |
HDV Cinema
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
|
Quote:
Steve
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c |
|
March 19th, 2008, 07:06 AM | #41 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 64
|
Quote:
Also something I had not heard about until now, is this whole thing about the image quality from the 200 not being as good as the 100?? What gives?? I thought a 14bit processor with the better signal to noise ratio would have yielded a better image - at least that's what I thought when I decided to pay the extra $2,000 for the 200 model!!! I don't own a 100 to do a side by side comparison and now quite concerned about this. I can't compare it to my Canon XH-A1 because the Canon is obviously superior to the Pro-HD image resolution. Don't get me wrong I'm not having buyer's remorse, I love the HD-200's ergonomics however, is the difference in picture quality between the 100 & 200 just a one off case with Lee's camera or a documented fact?? JT |
|
March 19th, 2008, 08:10 AM | #42 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 121
|
Quote:
|
|
March 19th, 2008, 08:45 AM | #43 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 64
|
The sound of the fan does not bother me at all because weddings are usually fairly raucous affairs, but even in the quietness of my studio I barely notice the fan running. As soon as I got the camera I took one look look at that Fisher Price mic that came with it and replaced it with my Rode NT1 which could explain why I'm not hearing any Iris or fan noises in my footage.
I'm more concerned about what Lee and others were saying about the quality of the image between the two Pro-HD models. I just looked on the JVC site and it clearly states that the new 14bit processor is supposed to have better handling of noise in low light and better highlight handling. Well in terms of low light handling my Canon XH-A1 is a whole stop more sensitive & less noisy, however I can deal with that by slowing the shutter down to 1/25. The real disappointment for me is the highlight handling because it shows that terrible purple fringing on blown highs akin to what I'm used to seeing on my DVX100. If it weren't for the HD-200 ergonomics which I love, I would have bought another XH-A1. On the plus side, after shooting my first wedding with the 200 last weekend I can say that I'm really pleased with how 50P looks when it is slowed down! JT |
March 19th, 2008, 09:43 AM | #44 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 1,116
|
Quote:
I thought that this problem was caused by the specific model of 250 that I tested but I got reports from DSC and others that this phenomenon is shared by all HD250. This might not be a huge issue but I personally like the HD100 better. The 250 of course has features that are not available on the older model and that is really the reason for the price difference. |
|
March 19th, 2008, 10:44 AM | #45 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,290
|
Quote:
|
|
| ||||||
|
|