Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

But this test got me wondering if I should hold on on my XL2 purchase or better yet, just bite the bullet and buy a HD100 already. I love what I'm seeing. That night shot is just fantastic.
Without intention of starting a vs debate, could anybody involved with the test and who has sued one, comment on what are his impressions of the HD100 compared to the XL2?

If you're talking about comparing feature for feature, the HD100 beats the XL2 like a rented mule. It's got most everything the XL2 has, a better form factor, more professional controls, *much* better menu system, far more extensive image controls, and -- oh yeah -- it can shoot high-def. Plus it also does 480/60p, plus it can even do 576/50p.

The XL2 can shoot 480/30p, which the JVC can't. XL2 can record four channels of audio, HD100 can't. The XL2 also has the potential for autofocus and superb optical image stabilization; the HD100 doesn't have any sort of autofocus or image stabilization.

If you're talking about image performance -- well, I'm not so sure how to compare 'em. I mean, obviously the XL2 can't even offer an HD signal, so the HD100 clearly wins there. The only place you can compare them is in SD. The XL2 does a mighty fine job, for standard-def, and it's a clean signal. I haven't used the HD100 in DV mode, only in HDV mode. In HDV mode it's certainly a noisier signal than the FX1 in HDV mode, and I recall the FX1 and the XL2 being pretty comparable noise-wise. But in DV mode, maybe the HD100 is a cleaner signal -- don't know, didn't try it.

The HD100 is also $2,000 more expensive than the XL2, don't forget that. That's a lot of change. XL2 batteries probably last a lot longer than HD100 batteries too -- HD100 batteries max out at about an hour for the biggest battery.

I was in the verge of ordering a XL2 and 35 adapter , but now, I'm thinking if I should go with the HD100.

I have my gripes with the JVC, yes -- but I can't see how it won't cannibalize what's left of the XL2 market. I think XL2 sales have been slow already, and when the HD100 hits US shelves I think Canon's really going to feel the pinch.

I would love to know your opinions about how the 2 compare in your opinion for shooting a feature.

No question about it whatsoever -- if you're springing for the mini35, and you're going through the effort of making a full feature, and you're deciding between XL2 and HD100 and you won't wait for the HVX, then get the HD100 and shoot in HD. No question. Any niceties the XL2 would offer will be completely overshadowed by the ability to offer that your film was shot in high-def. High-def in and of itself is meaningless, but if all other things are equal (comparable camera, both 24p/filmlook, etc) and one of 'em is SD and the other is HD, well, HD is better. Distributors will pay more attention to an HD-originated film than they will a DV-originated film (at least until they get swamped with HDV-originated movies that are as awful as the current flood of DV-originated movies they have to sort through!)

If you're going for straight-to-DVD release, the XL2 remains a strong contender.

Specially image control and low light performance.

The HD100 has extensive, extreme image controls. As for low light performance, the XL2 isn't spectacular at that, but I expect it to be a slightly better performer than the HD100. However, it's mostly irrelevant -- adding a little light will do far, far, far more for the quality of your image than any difference between these cameras would!

However, keep this in mind -- The XL2's been out for nearly a year. It's a known quantity, a proven solution, and any issues are pretty well known. The HD100 is a complete unknown. It's been on the market for, what, a week? Already we've had QC issues -- how much do you trust your entire production to an unproven camera? If you're willing to take the risk, I think the HD100/mini35 is a far smarter choice than the XL2/mini35. But recognize that it is a risk.

The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for, has many green screen shots.

Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV. You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2 cameras for those shots).

[Michael Maier]

Hey Barry, thanks for the straight answers. I appreciate that.
Some comments.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

If you're talking about comparing feature for feature, the HD100 beats the XL2 like a rented mule. It's got most everything the XL2 has, a better form factor, more professional controls, *much* better menu system, far more extensive image controls, and -- oh yeah -- it can shoot high-def. Plus it also does 480/60p, plus it can even do 576/50p.

The XL2 can shoot 480/30p, which the JVC can't. XL2 can record four channels of audio, HD100 can't. The XL2 also has the potential for autofocus and superb optical image stabilization; the HD100 doesn't have any sort of autofocus or image stabilization.

So far, the only thing which I would miss in the XL2 is the image stabilization. It's just nice to have it for some shots. I never use auto focus and 30p is pointless since I'm PAL.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

If you're talking about image performance -- well, I'm not so sure how to compare 'em. I mean, obviously the XL2 can't even offer an HD signal, so the HD100 clearly wins there. The only place you can compare them is in SD. The XL2 does a mighty fine job, for standard-def, and it's a clean signal. I haven't used the HD100 in DV mode, only in HDV mode. In HDV mode it's certainly a noisier signal than the FX1 in HDV mode, and I recall the FX1 and the XL2 being pretty comparable noise-wise. But in DV mode, maybe the HD100 is a cleaner signal -- don't know, didn't try it.

Noise is a little of a a problem in low light, which the feature I want to shot has lots. Over 60% of the scenes are night externals and some internals.
About the resolution, I may be overlooking something, but in the case of HDV, where the color space in the same as PAL DV, 1280x720 doesn't seem a whole lot more than 960x576. I know it still is more. But I did a type of diagram to compare the frame sizes and it really looks quite close. The difference here is way smaller than the difference from 1208x720 an 1920x1080. Besides, the thing about the HD100's HD is that is is HDV. For post production, do you have the same flexibility as in DV for editing, compositing, graphics etc? How about color correction and multiple renders, how does it hold up? All that is very important when shooting a feature. How about audio. It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better.
Also, will the extra HDV compression be apparent in any special shooting situations? If by chance, digitally projected in a big screen, will the compression show?
Is the HD100 native 16:9?
So all that would have to be weighted in in the comparison.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

The HD100 is also $2,000 more expensive than the XL2, don't forget that. That's a lot of change. XL2 batteries probably last a lot longer than HD100 batteries too -- HD100 batteries max out at about an hour for the biggest battery.

In PAL land, it doesn't seem to cost all that much more. The XL2 in Europe sells for 4700 euros in most places. It seems the HD100 will sell for under 6000. The only thing is that they don't seem to offer a body only kit in PAL. I would like to get the body only kit. But, aren't the PAL and NTSC the very same camera. As I understood, they both do PAL and NTSC frame rates. So, maybe I could just buy a body only kit from the U.S.? Am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Barry Green

I have my gripes with the JVC, yes –.

It would be interesting to know what are your grips, besides the malfunctions described in the article and which may be a pre-production model problem?

Originally Posted by Barry Green

but I can't see how it won't cannibalize what's left of the XL2 market. I think XL2 sales have been slow already, and when the HD100 hits US shelves I think Canon's really going to feel the pinch.

Yeah, if it turns out to be a real solid performer, it will definitely affect XL2 sales. But it's JVC we're talking about here. They not always hit it. Remember the DV300? It didn't sell at all. It was a good camera I heard, but it just didn't catch. The HD100 seems to be a great cam, but it's yet to prove to be as reliable as the XL2. Naturally, it's a matter of time, since it's new. But in order to really do damage to the XL2, it has to pass this test first.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

No question about it whatsoever -- if you're springing for the mini35, and you're going through the effort of making a full feature, and you're deciding between XL2 and HD100 and you won't wait for the HVX, then get the HD100 and shoot in HD. No question. Any niceties the XL2 would offer will be completely overshadowed by the ability to offer that your film was shot in high-def. High-def in and of itself is meaningless, but if all other things are equal (comparable camera, both 24p/filmlook, etc) and one of 'em is SD and the other is HD, well, HD is better.

Yeah. The higher resolution is sure nice. My worries are more with the post process and reliability.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Distributors will pay more attention to an HD-originated film than they will a DV-originated film (at least until they get swamped with HDV-originated movies that are as awful as the current flood of DV-originated movies they have to sort through!)
If you're going for straight-to-DVD release, the XL2 remains a strong contender.

The film will be for DVD release only.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

The HD100 has extensive, extreme image controls. As for low light performance, the XL2 isn't spectacular at that, but I expect it to be a slightly better performer than the HD100. However, it's mostly irrelevant -- adding a little light will do far, far, far more for the quality of your image than any difference between these cameras would!

Good point! But that night shot in the test sold me anyways. It looks great.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

However, keep this in mind -- The XL2's been out for nearly a year. It's a known quantity, a proven solution, and any issues are pretty well known. The HD100 is a complete unknown. It's been on the market for, what, a week? Already we've had QC issues -- how much do you trust your entire production to an unproven camera? If you're willing to take the risk, I think the HD100/mini35 is a far smarter choice than the XL2/mini35. But recognize that it is a risk.

That and the post production process, which I heard is still not as easy and flexible as DV, are the main things holding me back. At least the XL2 is a proven camera and DV post production is a well known territory. I don't even know which NLEs can edit 720p HDV. Can Avid Xpress HD or Vegas 6 do it? Can AE handle 720p HDV? Those are things to consider. The resolution difference might not be all here. But if the post path would be no extra complication and it really turns out to be a solid camera, I think it's the way to go over a XL2 set up. The foreground in the images on your test looked so sharp, that it looked like a greenscreen shot. So much was the separation of the sharp foreground (the girl in front of the flowers) and the background. It's really impressive how sharp it is.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV. You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2 cameras for those shots).

I know. I have the option of renting a IMX camera for green screen too. I will have to run some test with the camera I end up buying and see.

Thanks for the nice conversation Barry. Really helping a lot.

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

It does indeed record Mpeg1 Layer II audio, but we should all realize that compression rates and bit sampling do *not* determine audio quality. Proper audio recording techniques do.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

It does indeed record Mpeg1 Layer II audio, but we should all realize that compression rates and bit sampling do *not* determine audio quality. Proper audio recording techniques do.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

Compare HDV audio to PCM and ATRAC... http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?i...d-a1ebcaaf1463

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

It does indeed record Mpeg1 Layer II audio, but we should all realize that compression rates and bit sampling do *not* determine audio quality. Proper audio recording techniques do.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

Sure does Chris.

Thanks.

[Jacques Mersereau]

>>The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for,
>>has many green screen shots.


>Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV.
>You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2
>cameras for those shots).


I am wondering about the component analog video output on HD100.
Did the model you used have that feature and is anyone aware of
hardware that can be made to capture that signal? Could that be made
to work as a possible green screen solution?

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Jacques Mersereau

>>The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for,
>>has many green screen shots.


>Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV.
>You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2
>cameras for those shots).


I am wondering about the component analog video output on HD100.
Did the model you used have that feature and is anyone aware of
hardware that can be made to capture that signal? Could that be made
to work as a possible green screen solution?

Good question. I remember reading it would be uncompressed, either 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, which both would be great for greenscreen work.

[Mark Grant]

It does indeed record Mpeg1 Layer II audio, but we should all realize that compression rates and bit sampling do *not* determine audio quality. Proper audio recording techniques do.

Indeed. A few weeks ago I was editing some scenes for an actor's showreel from HDV footage shot on a Z1, with audio recorded on the camera from an MKH60... it was by far the best audio of any low-budget shoot I've edited, from Hi8 up to Digibeta and DAT with 16mm film.

Having a good mike and a sound recordist who knew what they were doing easily compensated for any minor theoretical loss of sound quality in compressed recording. HDV audio just isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Jacques Mersereau]

Originally Posted by Mark Grant

Indeed. A few weeks ago I was editing some scenes for an actor's showreel from HDV footage shot on a Z1, with audio recorded on the camera from an MKH60... it was by far the best audio of any low-budget shoot I've edited, from Hi8 up to Digibeta and DAT with 16mm film.

Having a good mike and a sound recordist who knew what they were doing easily compensated for any minor theoretical loss of sound quality in compressed recording. HDV audio just isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.

Actually it ALL matters. Good audio can be ruined any number of ways.

But this is obvious.

[Kevin Dooley]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Good question. I remember reading it would be uncompressed, either 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, which both would be great for greenscreen work.

Yeah, either way would work... I wouldn't want to even contemplate the computer needed to record this direct to disk... but you could easily rent a deck and record to DVCPRO HD or HDCAM or some other higher (than HDV) standard of HD.

[Jacques Mersereau]

I am not sure, but I believe those HD decks take
HD-SDI and do not have analog component HD input.
When I get a chance I'll check on it.

I wish these HDV cameras had HD-SDI. One wire and
easy hook up to decks or CPU with card.

[Kevin Dooley]

Even if they take only HD SDI, a simply converter will do the trick... there's plenty of them on the market now and I'm sure some are available to rent... or will be if this sort of studio/chroma key production catches on for these HDV cams...

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

1280x720 doesn't seem a whole lot more than 960x576.

The XL2 doesn't record 960x576, it records 720x576. So you're looking at 414,720 pixels per frame, vs. 921,600. The HD frame has 2.2 times as many pixels per frame. May not sound like much when you're comparing 576 against 720, but in reality it's over twice as much.

The difference here is way smaller than the difference from 1280x720 an 1920x1080.

Well, no, it's almost exactly the same. 720P has 2.22 times as many pixels as PAL. 1920x1080 has 2.25 times as many pixels as 720P.

Besides, the thing about the HD100's HD is that is is HDV.

Oh, I hear you... trust me...

For post production, do you have the same flexibility as in DV for editing, compositing, graphics etc? How about color correction and multiple renders, how does it hold up?

If you're editing in its native codec, it falls apart instantly. HDV is a terrible format for editing and re-rendering. Which is why many/most editing solutions transcode away from HDV at the first possible instant.

Truthfully it's really only an issue if you're doing multiple renders. If you add all your effects but don't pre-render them down, you can stay in the native codec and do one final render to whatever your delivery codec is. But if you intend to be doing multiple renders, you transcode HDV over to another codec (such as CineForm) and get away from MPEG-2 as quickly as you can. MPEG-2 can't even do a dissolve without the degradation being noticeable.

How about audio. It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better.

Man does not live by specs alone. If all other things are equal, obviously uncompressed is better than compressed. But if the JVC's mic preams and other circuitry are better quality than the XL2's (and, for the price tag, they should be) then the overall quality of the audio could indeed survive any degradation introduced by the MPEG-1 Layer II audio compression. Let's look at it this way -- any cheap $299 Sharp Viewcam also records uncompressed audio -- but I'd bet cash money that the JVC will record an overall better-sounding signal than that Sharp ViewCam would. There's more to it than just specs -- the components and hardware all matter, they're all ingredients in the final recipe.

With that said, I haven't tested the JVC's audio, and haven't heard of anybody doing so either. It could be superb, it could be tragic, it could be anywhere in between. Obviously we are all expecting the audio to be a good performer, given the very nature of the camera. That doesn't mean it will be though -- it needs to be tested and verified.

Also, will the extra HDV compression be apparent in any special shooting situations? If by chance, digitally projected in a big screen, will the compression show?

Most definitely. But if going to the big screen, I think having twice as many pixels in the frame will likely do more for you. I've seen XL1 projected on the big screen (28 Days Later) and it was thoroughly outclassed by DVX/24P footage. I'm expecting that having twice as many pixels again should result in a substantially sharper picture. But -- hey, that's just expectation, I could end up disappointed...

Yes MPEG-2 compression is a factor. With the JVC, especially at 24P, it's less of a factor than in the Sony cameras. The JVC/24P solution allocates the most possible bits per pixel of any of the HDV formats, so it's less likely to encounter bit-starved compression artifacts. It can still happen, that's for darn sure. But it's less likely to happen on the JVC than on Sony cameras, under the same shooting conditions. Of course, the Sony is also delivering more pixels per frame and a whole lot more pixels per second -- there's a definite tradeoff there. But for film-style work I think the JVC is the only level of HDV that may be acceptable.

But -- again -- if you're worried about all these issues, why not just wait for the HVX? The HVX will give you a DV-style workflow (because the compression is, at heart, DV compression). It gives you 50% more luma resolution, and three times as much chroma resolution, as the HD100 can. It's 4:2:2. It has four tracks of uncompressed audio. And it's only three months away. I mean, for all the concerns you have, it seems like the HVX answers them all...

Is the HD100 native 16:9?

As others have already answered, yes -- all HD is native 16:9. If you're asking if the HD100 has a 4:3 or 16:9 CCD, I'm not sure -- I'm guessing it's 4:3, I'm pretty sure it's the same chip as in the HD1/HD10, which was 4:3 1280x960, using a 16:9 1280x720 patch for video. But that's the same thing the XL2 does -- it's a 4:3 CCD, 960x720 on chip, but it uses a 16:9 960x480 patch for 16:9 images. And that doesn't stop it from being native 16:9.

But, aren't the PAL and NTSC the very same camera. As I understood, they both do PAL and NTSC frame rates.

No. The European version records PAL, the American version records NTSC. The European version cannot record or play back NTSC (although it does have an HDV SD-480/60P mode) and the American version cannot record or play back PAL (although it can record the HDV SD-576/50P mode). Both versions can shoot 720P at 24, 25, and 30fps.

So, maybe I could just buy a body only kit from the U.S.? Am I missing something here?

If all you want to shoot is HD, then yes you could do that. If you want to use it for standard-def DV work, you would find that the camera can't do PAL DV.

It would be interesting to know what are your grips, besides the malfunctions described in the article and which may be a pre-production model problem?

My gripes with the JVC are these:
1. HDV. I don't care for the format at all. I think it has some uses, but I think it's a half-baked format, they should have left it in the oven a little longer.
2. Dropouts. HDV dropouts are nasty. I intend to get around it by buying the DR-HD100 and I already have HDV Rack. I wouldn't shoot without at least one of those connected at all times.
3. WYSAWYG - or, What You See Ain't What You Get. You don't see the effects of MPEG-2 compression on the viewfinder or LCD, and you don't see the effects of motion smoothing either. You also won't see those effects on the analog output. The only way you know whether your footage is good or not is to rewind it and play it back from tape. If you don't do that, you may think you got a great shot, only to find out that you overdrove the MPEG-2 compression and what you have on tape is actually a blob of macroblocked compression artifacts. You just don't know until you play it back.
4. The lens. Ugh. Nasty, nasty, nasty chromatic aberration. I'm seriously considering not even getting it -- I mean, it'd be convenient for ENG shooting, but I would never want to use that on a production where you're trying to get the best image. I'm looking into having a custom mount made so I can use my Arri Bayonet-mount Zeiss 16mm camera lens, or of course the mini35. The stock lens on the JVC is unacceptable.
5. Dead pixels. Dead pixels are bad. Dead pixels are completely unacceptable to me, and every camera report I've heard of has mentioned them, and every camera I've used, and every camera I've seen footage from, has them. That's a definite quality-control issue that JVC must address or this camera may end up DOA. Dead pixels recorded in your footage are a dealbreaker.
6. Fixed Noise Pattern/Gain issues. The camera has a weird split-screen fixed noise pattern issue. It's most noticeable under gain, but can be observed at 0dB of gain as well. JVC apparently is aware of the issue and apparently has some way to fix it. They should. They better.
7. Battery life. The stock battery only lasts about 40 minutes, and the biggest heavy-duty battery they offer only lasts an hour. I'm spoiled by the 6-hour DVX and 8-hour PD150 runtimes. You can get anton-bauer batteries, yes, but those are quite expensive and very heavy.
8. Unknown issues due to JVC's rep. Let's face it, JVC doesn't have a great reputation. They've made some good products -- I think the DV500 was a great little camera, and the DV300 got blindsided by the DVX -- had the DVX not come out with 24p, the DV300 would probably have been a big hit. And the HD100 looks like it might be a smash hit, pending the resolving of QC issues. JVC cannot afford to "blow it" with this camera. If they get it right, I think they'll have a big hit on their hands. But quality must be job 1, to borrow a line from Ford.

Good point! But that night shot in the test sold me anyways. It looks great.

Yes, but that night shot was done with 440 watts of fluorescent light and 575 watts of HMI. You cannot shoot without lights. No video camera does a decent job without some lights. Lights are not optional, they are mandatory.

I don't even know which NLEs can edit 720p HDV. Can Avid Xpress HD or Vegas 6 do it?

Avid's support is not yet released, but it's coming. Vegas 6 can do it, yes. Premiere Pro can, and FCP can, and Pinnacle Liquid probably can, and I'm sure Canopus Edius can too.

Can AE handle 720p HDV?

Presumably. I don't know. But if you're exporting to AE, you'll want to do that through an intermediary codec anyway.

Regarding the 4:2:2 issue, other posters have brought up the uncompressed analog outputs. If you had some way to record that, you could obviously pull superb keys from the JVC, far superior to what you could get out of the XL2. But recording uncompressed analog HD is neither easy nor cheap. And IMX is a standard-def format.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

The XL2 doesn't record 960x576, it records 720x576. So you're looking at 414,720 pixels per frame, vs. 921,600. The HD frame has 2.2 times as many pixels per frame. May not sound like much when you're comparing 576 against 720, but in reality it's over twice as much. .

Barry, are you sure about that? 720x576 is a 4:3 frame.
On Canon’s spec sheets for the XL2 it says 960x576(PAL) and 960x480(NTSC)

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Well, no, it's almost exactly the same. 720P has 2.22 times as many pixels as PAL. 1920x1080 has 2.25 times as many pixels as 720P. .

Again, I might be wrong, but it seems it is 960x576 according to Canon. In this case, it’s less of a difference. But as I said in the prior post, the difference is still there.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

If you're editing in its native codec, it falls apart instantly. HDV is a terrible format for editing and re-rendering. Which is why many/most editing solutions transcode away from HDV at the first possible instant. .

Oh, ok. Sounds simple enough then.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Truthfully it's really only an issue if you're doing multiple renders. If you add all your effects but don't pre-render them down, you can stay in the native codec and do one final render to whatever your delivery codec is. But if you intend to be doing multiple renders, you transcode HDV over to another codec (such as CineForm) and get away from MPEG-2 as quickly as you can. MPEG-2 can't even do a dissolve without the degradation being noticeable. .

It seems the best thing is to convert right after you capture your footage and work out of mpeg2.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Most definitely. But if going to the big screen, I think having twice as many pixels in the frame will likely do more for you. I've seen XL1 projected on the big screen (28 Days Later) and it was thoroughly outclassed by DVX/24P footage. I'm expecting that having twice as many pixels again should result in a substantially sharper picture. But -- hey, that's just expectation, I could end up disappointed... .

Makes sense. Although the 960x576 would look extremely good. HD is HD. If the compression does not kick in, it should look way better.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Yes MPEG-2 compression is a factor. With the JVC, especially at 24P, it's less of a factor than in the Sony cameras. .

Yes, the compression on the HD100 is looking really good. None of the tests has any compression artefacts. Even after compression for the web. So, it seems JVC is doing something right with the HD100’s HDV. Maybe ProHDV will be the HDV ticket.
.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

But -- again -- if you're worried about all these issues, why not just wait for the HVX? The HVX will give you a DV-style workflow (because the compression is, at heart, DV compression). It gives you 50% more luma resolution, and three times as much chroma resolution, as the HD100 can. It's 4:2:2. It has four tracks of uncompressed audio. And it's only three months away. I mean, for all the concerns you have, it seems like the HVX answers them all... .

Apart from the fixed lens, which kind of rends the Mini35 a little pointless IMO, the HVX200 sounds great. But unfortunately, it’s not out yet. It might be end of December or even January till it hits the streets. I need it now. Also, with the prices of P2 so high, it would cost almost the double of a HD100 and you would have to carry a laptop around, which for this project won’t always work.
But a HVX200 is on my plans. If I get a HD100, I might sell it after this project and get the HVX end of next year. But now, the HVX is not practical, for the reason I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

As others have already answered, yes -- all HD is native 16:9. If you're asking if the HD100 has a 4:3 or 16:9 CCD, I'm not sure -- I'm guessing it's 4:3, I'm pretty sure it's the same chip as in the HD1/HD10, which was 4:3 1280x960, using a 16:9 1280x720 patch for video. But that's the same thing the XL2 does -- it's a 4:3 CCD, 960x720 on chip, but it uses a 16:9 960x480 patch for 16:9 images.

See, now you also say it’s 960x480. Am I missing something here? For me, a 720x576 or 720x480 was always a 4:3 frame. How can the XL2 record that in 16:9 and still be a 16:9 image?

Originally Posted by Barry Green

My gripes with the JVC are these:
1. HDV. I don't care for the format at all. I think it has some uses, but I think it's a half-baked format, they should have left it in the oven a little longer.

Oh yeah. But remember HDV is a compromise. You get a resolution where the cheapest camera in the market right now capable of doing it cost 60k with a lens. But you get it for under 6k, and you can record it on under 4 bucks tapes. There are trade offs, but if wasn’t for HDV, the lower class would never be shooting HD. Even the HVX100 won’t be so practical and economical. At least not in it’s first 2 years or so. So, it’s a trade off. It always was. The difference is, that now, the HD100 seems to be making this trade off worth the trouble. That’s the way I look at it.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

2. Dropouts. HDV dropouts are nasty. I intend to get around it by buying the DR-HD100 and I already have HDV Rack. I wouldn't shoot without at least one of those connected at all times. .

That’s a good back up. But frankly, I have no complains about the footage you guys got. It looks nothing short of great.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

3. WYSAWYG - or, What You See Ain't What You Get. You don't see the effects of MPEG-2 compression on the viewfinder or LCD, and you don't see the effects of motion smoothing either. You also won't see those effects on the analog output. The only way you know whether your footage is good or not is to rewind it and play it back from tape. If you don't do that, you may think you got a great shot, only to find out that you overdrove the MPEG-2 compression and what you have on tape is actually a blob of macroblocked compression artifacts. You just don't know until you play it back. .

Well, that’s bad. Maybe one could get around that by using HDV Rack for preview, since it previews after the firewire compression?

Originally Posted by Barry Green

4. The lens. Ugh. Nasty, nasty, nasty chromatic aberration. I'm seriously considering not even getting it -- I mean, it'd be convenient for ENG shooting, but I would never want to use that on a production where you're trying to get the best image. I'm looking into having a custom mount made so I can use my Arri Bayonet-mount Zeiss 16mm camera lens, or of course the mini35. The stock lens on the JVC is unacceptable. .

I also don’t care for the lens. I wish I could get a PAL body only. But it seems it’s not available. But as Chris said, this lens is basically a give away. The real lens is the one that cost over 10K. But it’s better they give that one than no lens. Can you imagine if they sold only the body and you had to buy the 10k lens? Now at least you have the option of a cheaper lens for lower end stuff.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

5. Dead pixels. Dead pixels are bad. Dead pixels are completely unacceptable to me, and every camera report I've heard of has mentioned them, and every camera I've used, and every camera I've seen footage from, has them. That's a definite quality-control issue that JVC must address or this camera may end up DOA. Dead pixels recorded in your footage are a dealbreaker. .

At least it might be a pre-production thing. Hopefully it will be fixed. Also it has a masking feature, doesn’t it?

Originally Posted by Barry Green

6. Fixed Noise Pattern/Gain issues. The camera has a weird split-screen fixed noise pattern issue. It's most noticeable under gain, but can be observed at 0dB of gain as well. JVC apparently is aware of the issue and apparently has some way to fix it. They should. They better. .

I didn’t noticed that from that night shot you did. But hopefully it’s also a problem which will be addressed when it starts shipping.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

7. Battery life. The stock battery only lasts about 40 minutes, and the biggest heavy-duty battery they offer only lasts an hour. I'm spoiled by the 6-hour DVX and 8-hour PD150 runtimes. You can get anton-bauer batteries, yes, but those are quite expensive and very heavy. .

When you mentioned before about the low time of the battery, I went to Ebay and checked the prices of them. They sell for under 10 bucks new. So one can get like 10 of them for 100 bucks. I know it’s not the same as having a single battery which lasts 6 hours, but better than nothing. There’s also the question of the charger. It would help if you got more than one. Not really a turn off for me.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

8. Unknown issues due to JVC's rep. Let's face it, JVC doesn't have a great reputation. They've made some good products -- I think the DV500 was a great little camera, and the DV300 got blindsided by the DVX -- had the DVX not come out with 24p, the DV300 would probably have been a big hit. And the HD100 looks like it might be a smash hit, pending the resolving of QC issues. JVC cannot afford to "blow it" with this camera. If they get it right, I think they'll have a big hit on their hands. But quality must be job 1, to borrow a line from Ford. .

Yes. That I worry about. I have never owned a JVC camera before. I know JVC is not the most reliable, but there are lots of happy users out there. So maybe I get luck too :D

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Yes, but that night shot was done with 440 watts of fluorescent light and 575 watts of HMI. You cannot shoot without lights. No video camera does a decent job without some lights. Lights are not optional, they are mandatory. .

Oh yeah, definitely.
For the cast and foreground, I have enough lights. About 4-5k in lights. But I just can’t light the whole city back ground. But the HD100 did very good at that in that night shot. The background buildings only had their own lights and they looked good and pretty visible.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Regarding the 4:2:2 issue, other posters have brought up the uncompressed analog outputs. If you had some way to record that, you could obviously pull superb keys from the JVC, far superior to what you could get out of the XL2. But recording uncompressed analog HD is neither easy nor cheap. And IMX is a standard-def format.

I had forgot IMX was SD. Because I had plans of using it for greenscreen with a XL2, I forgot the HD100 was HD.
About the uncompressed 4:2:2 recording, one of those 300 bucks Decklink should do the trick, shouldn’t it? If one can put a fast enough system together to move the video that is. Storage would be an issue if filming a whole feature that way, but for greenscreen sequences, where most likely won’t be long ones, storage shouldn’t be that much of a problem.