GL1 versus HD100 at DVinfo.net

Earl Thurston · February 14th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Hi folks. In case there is anyone out there thinking about upgrading from SD to HDV, I've posted a page comparing my two cameras, the Canon GL1 and JVC GY-HD100U. It may seem a bit odd to compare such radically different cameras, but it's the kind of thing I would've been interested in seeing a few months ago when I was making my decisions.

http://www.neopics.com/gl1-hd100/

Dave Ferdinand · February 14th, 2006, 01:23 PM

Hey Earl, isn't that Deer Lake Park? I've been there a few times and it sure hell looks like it!

The HD100 as expected blows the GL1 to pieces but I'm guessing the sharpening setting on the GL1 wasn't tweaked. At least my GL2 does a bit better than that when you turn the sharpness a few notches down.

I own a HD1 and HD10 as well. Maybe we could do a HD1 or HD10 vs HD100 sometime.

Tim Gray · February 14th, 2006, 01:31 PM

Having just made a decision last night, your post was a little late :) Better late than never though.

Interesting tests - The only time the HD100 seems to fall apart is at the extreme telephoto which can be expected with cheaper lenses. On every other shot, the difference at SD was quite evident.

I think the best workflow for HD->SD (in FCP at least) is to work in an HD timeline and then send it out to Compressor to make an SD dvd. You lose the benefits of HD when you convert it to DV - going to uncompressed SD will be a lot better for a dvd on final output.

Earl Thurston · February 14th, 2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

Hey Earl, isn't that Deer Lake Park?

Yes indeed. Deer Lake Park is right across the street from my work office, so we just popped over last Thursday afternoon. It's also where we shot the host segments for the recycling video.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

I'm guessing the sharpening setting on the GL1 wasn't tweaked.

That's correct. Our comparison is a bit skewed because we wanted to compare how we've used the GL1 in the past to how we can use the HD100 now. The GL1 footage could use less sharpening and some colour correction. However, I've always been leary at using the GL1's adjustments because there is no numeric representation in the menu -- just a little slider. Makes it a bit hard to recall settings for matching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

At least my GL2 does a bit better than that when you turn the sharpness a few notches down.

Plus, the GL2 has double the resolution on the CCDs, so I'm certain it would be an even fairer test in that regard as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

Maybe we could do a HD1 or HD10 vs HD100 sometime.

Yeah, that could be quite useful. Not sure when though. As it was, it was tough getting out last Thursday. (Have had the camera since Jan 9!) Keep it in mind though.

Thomas Smet · February 14th, 2006, 04:52 PM

This was a very interesting test. I am glad to see somebody finally do it. We all know HDV has more detail but it is great to see just how much more. If SD DVD's are the final output HDV scaled down would blow away the most expensive 2/3" SD cameras. No SD camera no matter how good it is can capture pixels that small.

When dealing with images displayed on a HDTV well we can see how much better HDV really is. Sometimes it is nice to see how much better things are instead of just thinking about how much better they are.

Zack Birlew · February 14th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Yes, this thread is THE MOST INTERESTING THREAD I've read all day! The HD100U totally blows away the GL1! Man, that GL1 really sucks in comparison, did you see the difference in sharpness? Man, whoever bought one of those must be really sorry, lol!

*looks over at his GL1 in the corner of the room*

Oh..... =/

Seriously, Earl, you made a wise decision. I'm a fan of the HD100U myself and I'm in the same situation when it comes to camera choices, I've got a GL1 that I've been using and since I don't like the XLH1's image (personal preference), the the only other choices left are the HD100U and the HVX200. Nice comparison.

Jon Glen · February 14th, 2006, 06:15 PM

Earl, what do you capture your footage with? straight off the camera or with the JVC external deck? actually hell, what's your whole work flow? haha i was over at Cinequip White yesterday regarding the JVC camera, looks like i'm picking one up so next thing i need to get a grasp of is the work flow after shooting.

Earl Thurston · February 14th, 2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Glen

Earl, what do you capture your footage with? straight off the camera or with the JVC external deck? actually hell, what's your whole work flow?

I just have the HD100 hooked up to my PC via Firewire. The PC is a Dell 4600 P4 2.66 GHz with 533 MHz front side bus and 512 MB RAM running Windows XP. I use Premiere Pro 1.5.1 and Aspect HD. And believe it or not, even though my PC is below their recommended requirements, it edits HDV better than DV (mainly due to Aspect HD, which I highly recommend). Not much else special other than that. I was quite surprised -- was expecting to face more obstacles than I did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Glen

i was over at Cinequip White yesterday regarding the JVC camera, looks like i'm picking one up so next thing i need to get a grasp of is the work flow after shooting.

Congrats! I think you'll have fun with it. Seriously consider using one of the Cineform products, though. Their intermediate codec alleviates all the problems of MPEG2 interframe editing, and those stills were captured directly from the Cineform 8-bit files, so that's what the quality is like. From that point forward, it's just like editing DV. (Though, this all depends on what platform and software you use for editing.)

Steven Thomas · February 14th, 2006, 07:15 PM

Earl,

I'm impressed in your detail work here.
This really shows how well the HD100 performs.

Could you give us an Idea on both camera settings?

Thanks, Steve

Dave Ferdinand · February 14th, 2006, 07:38 PM

Steven, if you read the article in his website he explains the settings for both cameras.

Jack, don't forget he mentions the GL1 was left in default mode so it's not surprise we can see al that exagerated EE on GL1 grabs. Not that it would be much closer to the HD100 but it's good to take all the info into account.

Maybe I'll post some GL2 vs HD10 at their best. I need to get my hands on a 2-head tripod kit.

Diogo Athouguia · February 14th, 2006, 07:42 PM

The difference is huge but obvious. It would me more fair to shoot with the HD100 in SD mode for a comparision between cameras. I know this test purpose was to compare the differences between HD and SD.

Steven Thomas · February 14th, 2006, 09:38 PM

Dang!

I guess it pays to read.

Zack Birlew · February 14th, 2006, 10:03 PM

Dave, I was being sarcastic since I'm a GL1 user. That was my lame attempt at being humorous. =)

As far as the settings go, I don't think it would make much of a difference anyhow, ya know, "SD vs. HD" and all that.

Thomas Smet · February 14th, 2006, 11:02 PM

Can you imagine how bad this GL1 footage will look when true 1080p displays are more common? If scaling up to 1280x720 makes SD look that bad it will look even worse at 1080p. The images you posted from the HD100 however still look pretty clean when scaled up to 1080p.

John Vincent · February 15th, 2006, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Thurston

I use Premiere Pro 1.5.1 and Aspect HD. And believe it or not, even though my PC is below their recommended requirements, it edits HDV better than DV (mainly due to Aspect HD, which I highly recommend).

Seriously consider using one of the Cineform products, though. Their intermediate codec alleviates all the problems of MPEG2 interframe editing, and those stills were captured directly from the Cineform 8-bit files, so that's what the quality is like. From that point forward, it's just like editing DV. (Though, this all depends on what platform and software you use for editing.)

Earl - I own a JVC100, but as of yet, have not gotten a system to edit with yet. You seem to have an educated opinion on which set-up to use...

So, if you were me (cheap :) ), what would you use now?

John

February 14th, 2006, 01:01 PM	#1
Earl Thurston Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Burnaby & Maple Ridge BC Posts: 289	GL1 versus HD100 Hi folks. In case there is anyone out there thinking about upgrading from SD to HDV, I've posted a page comparing my two cameras, the Canon GL1 and JVC GY-HD100U. It may seem a bit odd to compare such radically different cameras, but it's the kind of thing I would've been interested in seeing a few months ago when I was making my decisions. http://www.neopics.com/gl1-hd100/

February 14th, 2006, 01:23 PM	#2
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	Hey Earl, isn't that Deer Lake Park? I've been there a few times and it sure hell looks like it! The HD100 as expected blows the GL1 to pieces but I'm guessing the sharpening setting on the GL1 wasn't tweaked. At least my GL2 does a bit better than that when you turn the sharpness a few notches down. I own a HD1 and HD10 as well. Maybe we could do a HD1 or HD10 vs HD100 sometime. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

February 14th, 2006, 04:52 PM	#5
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	This was a very interesting test. I am glad to see somebody finally do it. We all know HDV has more detail but it is great to see just how much more. If SD DVD's are the final output HDV scaled down would blow away the most expensive 2/3" SD cameras. No SD camera no matter how good it is can capture pixels that small. When dealing with images displayed on a HDTV well we can see how much better HDV really is. Sometimes it is nice to see how much better things are instead of just thinking about how much better they are. Last edited by Thomas Smet; February 14th, 2006 at 10:25 PM.

February 14th, 2006, 05:28 PM	#6
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	Yes, this thread is THE MOST INTERESTING THREAD I've read all day! The HD100U totally blows away the GL1! Man, that GL1 really sucks in comparison, did you see the difference in sharpness? Man, whoever bought one of those must be really sorry, lol! looks over at his GL1 in the corner of the room Oh..... =/ Seriously, Earl, you made a wise decision. I'm a fan of the HD100U myself and I'm in the same situation when it comes to camera choices, I've got a GL1 that I've been using and since I don't like the XLH1's image (personal preference), the the only other choices left are the HD100U and the HVX200. Nice comparison. __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

February 14th, 2006, 07:38 PM	#10
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	Steven, if you read the article in his website he explains the settings for both cameras. Jack, don't forget he mentions the GL1 was left in default mode so it's not surprise we can see al that exagerated EE on GL1 grabs. Not that it would be much closer to the HD100 but it's good to take all the info into account. Maybe I'll post some GL2 vs HD10 at their best. I need to get my hands on a 2-head tripod kit. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

February 14th, 2006, 01:31 PM	#3
Tim Gray Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Media, PA Posts: 144	Having just made a decision last night, your post was a little late :) Better late than never though. Interesting tests - The only time the HD100 seems to fall apart is at the extreme telephoto which can be expected with cheaper lenses. On every other shot, the difference at SD was quite evident. I think the best workflow for HD->SD (in FCP at least) is to work in an HD timeline and then send it out to Compressor to make an SD dvd. You lose the benefits of HD when you convert it to DV - going to uncompressed SD will be a lot better for a dvd on final output.

February 14th, 2006, 06:15 PM	#7
Jon Glen Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 40	Earl, what do you capture your footage with? straight off the camera or with the JVC external deck? actually hell, what's your whole work flow? haha i was over at Cinequip White yesterday regarding the JVC camera, looks like i'm picking one up so next thing i need to get a grasp of is the work flow after shooting.

February 14th, 2006, 07:15 PM	#9
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Earl, I'm impressed in your detail work here. This really shows how well the HD100 performs. Could you give us an Idea on both camera settings? Thanks, Steve

February 14th, 2006, 07:42 PM	#11
Diogo Athouguia Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Portugal Posts: 282	The difference is huge but obvious. It would me more fair to shoot with the HD100 in SD mode for a comparision between cameras. I know this test purpose was to compare the differences between HD and SD.

February 14th, 2006, 09:38 PM	#12
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Dang! I guess it pays to read.

February 14th, 2006, 10:03 PM	#13
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	Dave, I was being sarcastic since I'm a GL1 user. That was my lame attempt at being humorous. =) As far as the settings go, I don't think it would make much of a difference anyhow, ya know, "SD vs. HD" and all that. __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

February 14th, 2006, 11:02 PM	#14
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Can you imagine how bad this GL1 footage will look when true 1080p displays are more common? If scaling up to 1280x720 makes SD look that bad it will look even worse at 1080p. The images you posted from the HD100 however still look pretty clean when scaled up to 1080p.