SOMEONE POST JVCHD100 Footage!!!!

Ken Hodson · June 9th, 2005, 02:35 PM

"The camera wasn't the correct colorspace"

it used the SD colourspace as that was what most apps people use are geared for. JVC realized that more people would be incorporating its footage with their present SD workflows not mixing it in with their CineAlta shoot. Not a negative in anyway.

"it embarassed the HDV format in the eyes of most shooters."

Thats a personal opinion. My jaw hit the floor once I saw what the cam was capable of. Especially considering the price point.

"It was a flimsily made camera with poor quality output."

What? The HD10 is a very solid cam. It weights more than any cam of the same size I've ever held. As far as poor output quality, what are you talking about?

"It sounded terrible"

Again what are you talking about. It lacks manual audio leveling, but the auto leveling does an adaquate job, and as far as the sound quality it is as good as any HDV cam which I would not describe as terrible by any stretch of the imagination. My guess is out of ignorance you are refering to a few cams from an early production run that had some factory audio issues that were corrected by JVC.

"It had no NLE support."

Well now your not even talking about the cam, but of the HDV format in the early days. Hardly a deficiency of the HD10.

I don't mind that you don't like the cam. To each his own. But "misserable failure" and "embarassed the HDV format" and "terible sound" are all childish overstated comments. I own the cam and think it is amazing, so I feel an urge to defend it. What is your excuse for being so verbaly agressive against it?

Michael Pappas · June 9th, 2005, 02:37 PM

TO DSE:
OT. Douglas Spotted Eagle, Is there a way I can get your surfing files off your site?

PappasArts Entertainment
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts.com
PAPPASARTS@HOTMAIL.COM

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 9th, 2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

What is your excuse for being so verbaly agressive against it?

I bought one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael,
We just changed server systems, and I haven't been able to upload the larger files. I have our ISP's techs looking into why...but not sure what the problem is at this point. I hope very much to have this resolved shortly.
We also have some motoX footage to go up, as well as some elk dueling in rut.

Graeme Nattress · June 9th, 2005, 03:28 PM

Douglas, you're right. The first JVC "HD" camera was terrible. Indefenseable was the lack of manual controls for anything, and the over-excessive edge enhancement that painted big black felt-tip lines around any object. I think you, more than most people, are qualified to talk audio quality, and I'm not going to disagree with you about that. Lack of manual audio controls is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, JVC have done the "right thing" about their new HD100 camera. They actually listend to people and have given them what they want. Even though their new camera is "only" 720p, it's probably, from the footage I have, offering more real detail than the Sony 1080i offering, and it is fully manual. JVC have listened. This is a very good thing and they should be praised for it. They deserve to do well with their new camera.

Graeme

Michael Pappas · June 9th, 2005, 04:22 PM

Thanks Douglas!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

I bought one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael,
We just changed server systems, and I haven't been able to upload the larger files. I have our ISP's techs looking into why...but not sure what the problem is at this point. I hope very much to have this resolved shortly.
We also have some motoX footage to go up, as well as some elk dueling in rut.

Michael Pappas · June 9th, 2005, 04:31 PM

The probelm with 720p is it's the starting ground for HD. 720P is softer than 1080i and ofcourse 1080p. I was working with the Varicam again a few weeks ago, and I like it, but it's no 750 or 900/950. I want as many pixels as I can have for post. I like the JVC, but a major concern for me is 720 is just above pixel starved for HD level. A 1080 image is so much larger and even after you deinterlace you still have more core res in the image.

Michael Pappas
PappasArts Entertainment
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts.com
PAPPASARTS@HOTMAIL.COM

HVX200 lens article
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/do_hvx...ream_of_lenses

ARTICLE ON JVC'S HIGH DEF CAMERA THE JVCHD100u
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_

HDX-200 lens good or just functional Article....
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/hdx200...st_functional_

SDX900 vs AG-HVX200 Article..
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/sdx900...llustrated_pov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Douglas, you're right. The first JVC "HD" camera was terrible. Indefenseable was the lack of manual controls for anything, and the over-excessive edge enhancement that painted big black felt-tip lines around any object. I think you, more than most people, are qualified to talk audio quality, and I'm not going to disagree with you about that. Lack of manual audio controls is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, JVC have done the "right thing" about their new HD100 camera. They actually listend to people and have given them what they want. Even though their new camera is "only" 720p, it's probably, from the footage I have, offering more real detail than the Sony 1080i offering, and it is fully manual. JVC have listened. This is a very good thing and they should be praised for it. They deserve to do well with their new camera.

Graeme

Graeme Nattress · June 9th, 2005, 05:12 PM

There's resolution and then there's definition. 1080i has more resolution than 720p, but due to the interlace factor, it has no more definition vertically. The Z1/FX1 uses a pixel shift technique to get more resolution than it's 960 horizontal. The 720p cameras have a real 1280 resolution horizontal, rather than the 1440 from 960 resolution of the 1080i FX1/Z1. Given the above the actual definition of the Z1 and HD100 will be very equal, with even perhaps the HD100 having more real definition even with it's lower resolution.

So what you really want is lots of pixels and lots of definition and quality for those pixels. Having one without the other is not worth having....

Evan after deinterlacing you don't have more definition in the Z1 than the HD100 - indeed, you'll have less.

Graeme

Daymon Hoffman · June 9th, 2005, 08:55 PM

Well said Graeme! :)

Thomas Smet · June 10th, 2005, 12:48 AM

I agree with Graeme on this one. Starting with a high quality natural 1280 x 720 is much better for post than an interpolated beat up 1440x1080i. Pixel shift and deinterlacing are interpolations where you create pixels that were never there or change current ones. If you keep 1080 as 1080i then yes there is more detail on a CRT. Poor 1080i has to go through yet another 3rd interpolation when it is either viewed on a TV or transfered to film by scaling the 1440 to 1920 for the correct aspect ratio.

1280x720 always gets to stay as is and also happens to be one of the only true square pixel formats.

Graeme Nattress · June 10th, 2005, 05:42 AM

Thanks Thomas, but if you take 1080i from the Z1 or FX1 there is no more detail there than a good 720p, no matter how you view it (CRT / LCD) or deal with it.

Graeme

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 11th, 2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Pappas

Thanks Douglas!

Michael,
The HDV files are back up, I won't have the motoX or elk footage up until the computer arrives here in Orlando. Finally got our new server up and running. I hate server maintenance!

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images.htm

Michael Pappas · June 12th, 2005, 11:36 PM

Thank you very much Douglas. I have been looking forward to seeing these.

Michael Pappas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Michael,
The HDV files are back up, I won't have the motoX or elk footage up until the computer arrives here in Orlando. Finally got our new server up and running. I hate server maintenance!

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images.htm

June 9th, 2005, 02:35 PM	#16
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"The camera wasn't the correct colorspace" it used the SD colourspace as that was what most apps people use are geared for. JVC realized that more people would be incorporating its footage with their present SD workflows not mixing it in with their CineAlta shoot. Not a negative in anyway. "it embarassed the HDV format in the eyes of most shooters." Thats a personal opinion. My jaw hit the floor once I saw what the cam was capable of. Especially considering the price point. "It was a flimsily made camera with poor quality output." What? The HD10 is a very solid cam. It weights more than any cam of the same size I've ever held. As far as poor output quality, what are you talking about? "It sounded terrible" Again what are you talking about. It lacks manual audio leveling, but the auto leveling does an adaquate job, and as far as the sound quality it is as good as any HDV cam which I would not describe as terrible by any stretch of the imagination. My guess is out of ignorance you are refering to a few cams from an early production run that had some factory audio issues that were corrected by JVC. "It had no NLE support." Well now your not even talking about the cam, but of the HDV format in the early days. Hardly a deficiency of the HD10. I don't mind that you don't like the cam. To each his own. But "misserable failure" and "embarassed the HDV format" and "terible sound" are all childish overstated comments. I own the cam and think it is amazing, so I feel an urge to defend it. What is your excuse for being so verbaly agressive against it? __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

June 9th, 2005, 03:28 PM	#19
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Douglas, you're right. The first JVC "HD" camera was terrible. Indefenseable was the lack of manual controls for anything, and the over-excessive edge enhancement that painted big black felt-tip lines around any object. I think you, more than most people, are qualified to talk audio quality, and I'm not going to disagree with you about that. Lack of manual audio controls is a disaster waiting to happen. However, JVC have done the "right thing" about their new HD100 camera. They actually listend to people and have given them what they want. Even though their new camera is "only" 720p, it's probably, from the footage I have, offering more real detail than the Sony 1080i offering, and it is fully manual. JVC have listened. This is a very good thing and they should be praised for it. They deserve to do well with their new camera. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

June 9th, 2005, 05:12 PM	#22
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	There's resolution and then there's definition. 1080i has more resolution than 720p, but due to the interlace factor, it has no more definition vertically. The Z1/FX1 uses a pixel shift technique to get more resolution than it's 960 horizontal. The 720p cameras have a real 1280 resolution horizontal, rather than the 1440 from 960 resolution of the 1080i FX1/Z1. Given the above the actual definition of the Z1 and HD100 will be very equal, with even perhaps the HD100 having more real definition even with it's lower resolution. So what you really want is lots of pixels and lots of definition and quality for those pixels. Having one without the other is not worth having.... Evan after deinterlacing you don't have more definition in the Z1 than the HD100 - indeed, you'll have less. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

June 9th, 2005, 08:55 PM	#23
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	Well said Graeme! :) __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

June 10th, 2005, 05:42 AM	#25
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Thanks Thomas, but if you take 1080i from the Z1 or FX1 there is no more detail there than a good 720p, no matter how you view it (CRT / LCD) or deal with it. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

June 9th, 2005, 02:37 PM	#17
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	TO DSE: OT. Douglas Spotted Eagle, Is there a way I can get your surfing files off your site? PappasArts Entertainment http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS PappasArts.com PAPPASARTS@HOTMAIL.COM

June 10th, 2005, 12:48 AM	#24
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I agree with Graeme on this one. Starting with a high quality natural 1280 x 720 is much better for post than an interpolated beat up 1440x1080i. Pixel shift and deinterlacing are interpolations where you create pixels that were never there or change current ones. If you keep 1080 as 1080i then yes there is more detail on a CRT. Poor 1080i has to go through yet another 3rd interpolation when it is either viewed on a TV or transfered to film by scaling the 1440 to 1920 for the correct aspect ratio. 1280x720 always gets to stay as is and also happens to be one of the only true square pixel formats.