My conversion from dvx to jvc....

[Dennis Stevens]

On the road to Damascus, I saw the lines of resolution.

I apologize for all the religious metaphors - all that 'Da Vinci Code' stuff is on my brain.

I've been making short films with a DVX100A, editing on PPro 2.0. I'm planning on getting a JVC HD100. I also do some event videography, and I hope to expand that business.

I wanted to describe my reasons for converting to HDV, and see if anyone sees a flaw in the plan, or had any comments.

1-HD(V) is the wave of the future, everyone will expect that as an option as these new cameras enter the market. Might as well get familiar with the technology.

2-Sex appeal. I tell people (actors, crew who might want to come on board my projects) the next project might be in HD, their eyes light up. It immediately sounds like a project they want to be a part of.

3-Stigmata of SD. I read an interview on DVXuser with a professional dp who used a DVX100a on a film, and he said the main problem he had is the image was so horrible. A bit disheartening. I could certainly teach myself more about using the DVX, but why not master it using HD, since I'll probably have to use it eventually?

It seems like the JVC is a very cost effective way to have HDV and 24p, 2 things I'd like to have in my toolkit. With ConnectHD, I an still use my P4 3.0ghz/1.5gigs of RAM machine, so the total cost of investment is relatively low - No expensive P2 cards, no new capture cards, etc.

I'm still new to this board, so if this is a tired old question, sorry.

Also, sorry for the long post... just curious what people might say.

[Mark Silva]

I suppose it depends on what your used to seeing.

I remember when I first bought my GL1, I was fascinated at the great image it produced. (this was just before I began working in the post industry)

It wasn't until a few months later when working with Digital Betacam and footage telecine'd from 35mm Film and super 16 that I realized the image wasn't at all great.

Ever since then, I can't at all get excited by an SD Image originated from DV video. It's kinda like the day I went from dialup to broadband. Once you've tasted it, you don't want the old way anymore. :)


Anyway, congratulations on going with JVC. You won't be dissapointed.

[Steve Benner]

The HD100 is an amazing camera. I've had mine for about a week now, and I love it.

[Dennis Stevens]

The camera has certainly gotten a loyal following, from very professional people, which says a lot.

I was concerned with how well this worked as a videographer's camera, much of it seems designed as a filmmaker's cam. But from this board it looks like people are happily doing weddings and other stuff.

[Stephan Ahonen]

Originally Posted by Dennis Stevens

3-Stigmata of SD. I read an interview on DVXuser with a professional dp who used a DVX100a on a film, and he said the main problem he had is the image was so horrible.

It's probably less a problem of the DVX and more a problem of him being a professional DP. His idea of a "horrible picture" might be average or even great for most users of the DVX. I run into the problem myself with my background, I tend to treat things as huge catastrophes that other "less professional" people just deal with as par for the course.

[Dennis Stevens]

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

It's probably less a problem of the DVX and more a problem of him being a professional DP. His idea of a "horrible picture" might be average or even great for most users of the DVX. I run into the problem myself with my background, I tend to treat things as huge catastrophes that other "less professional" people just deal with as par for the course.

I'm sure that's at the heart of it, but that's the problem the digital-indie filmmaker has. You're marketing your product as a movie - so people compare it to other movies. If you ask to be judged as someone working with very little money, 35mm is so expensive, you've lost them. You can't make excuses. You have to deliver a product they like. So I was thinking any other edge that keeps people from saying 'Oh, another crappy digital movie' is worth the effort.

Let me preface all this by saying of course, good scripts, acting, competent cinematography has to come first. It's the artist, not the brush.

I just wanted to address the question of going HD if you're already SD, and when and why.

[Peter Jefferson]

"I just wanted to address the question of going HD if you're already SD, and when and why. "

Ill be jumping ship soon, but not yet.. for me, its when HD DVD's hit the shelves in teh local video shop, the PS3 is on the market and BD burners and media are reasonable. IE until the consumer can view the fotage, thats when i'll worry about it.At this time everythigns to ohigh in the air to meake a definite decision on which way to go.
Im happy to wait

1-HD(V) is the wave of the future, everyone will expect that as an option as these new cameras enter the market. Might as well get familiar with the technology.

((yes and with that, means new cameras, which means mroe time learning its nuance. All good either way. I totally agree.. not to happy with MPG2 as an acquisition format, but if thats what were stuck with so be it))

2-Sex appeal. I tell people (actors, crew who might want to come on board my projects) the next project might be in HD, their eyes light up. It immediately sounds like a project they want to be a part of.
((Theres a difference between HD and HDV.. a MASSIVE difference.. id be careful how im wording things as such if i was in your position. The sex appeal of the format only appeals to those that understand the format itself.. At this time, its like showing a 7 yr old kid a picture of a sexy 23yr old blonde lingerie model. Tthey know its SOMETHING, they know shes wearing lingerie, they now shes blonde, but they dont understand why it appeals to so many ppl.
They just cant see the OTHER subtlelties behind the imaeg itself. They just see it for what it is.. does it look good? Yes, ok..
however us geeks look at it and ask, Does it look good? Yes.. why? how? what if? what about... get my drift.. ??
(pardon the 7yr old, but i recently had a cleint who behaved that way so it just popped into my head)
To the average consumer they dont care.. they jsut want it to look good on a plasma, be it SD or HD.. u must consider that 85% of consumers ARENT educated in this..

3-Stigmata of SD. I read an interview on DVXuser with a professional dp who used a DVX100a on a film, and he said the main problem he had is the image was so horrible. A bit disheartening. I could certainly teach myself more about using the DVX, but why not master it using HD, since I'll probably have to use it eventually?

((Meh, its like me saying that a Canon d5 looks better than a kodak easyshare... you're talking cameras which are VASTLY different in format, CCD, buiild, dynamic range, workmanship, operability (ie camera operator skills) damn i can go on.. its like comparing a Ferrari f350 to a Ford Mustang... 10x the price, sexier faster harder drive with a ot of wow factor, but the mustang will still get you there, albeit not as sexy and eye popping as teh Ferrari... its unfair to compare equipment like this.. ))

It seems like the JVC is a very cost effective way to have HDV and 24p, 2 things I'd like to have in my toolkit.
((Agreed, the camera is BRILLIANT.. for long form events its cant be beat.. i prefer it to the canon spec wise, and the HD200 wil be even better. Id honestly prefer a tape based HVX, as i come from Pana Camp and have all the batteries and other gear, as well as the knowhow of using the tool itself, but the P2 cards just dont cut it for long form))


With ConnectHD, I an still use my P4 3.0ghz/1.5gigs of RAM machine, so the total cost of investment is relatively low - No expensive P2 cards, no new capture cards, etc.

((agreeed this is another reason why im going 720p.. efficiency and disc storage requirements.. as in OPTICAL disc storage... ill be able to fit much more on a BD Disc as 720p than i would as 1080i ))

[Dennis Stevens]

Lot of good points from Peter-

What's nerve-wracking is one does all kinds of research on cameras, technology, what your market is, etc, etc, etc. You hope a clear answer on what to buy, what to rent, how you'll edit, what to shoot will pop out of all that data, as clear and obvious as a steaming poop on a cold winter morning.

But that rarely happens - you're left instead having to just weigh various options, and make your judgement calls.

[Kevin Shaw]

Theres a difference between HD and HDV.. a MASSIVE difference

Once again a reminder that HDV *is* a legitimate form of HD, so it doesn't make sense to describe them as separate entities. And while there are significant differences between HDV and other HD recording formats, such differences may be minimized by current delivery options and typical HDTVs. Of course it never hurts to use the best cameras you can afford, and if HDV doesn't yield results you like then there are more and more options worth considering at fairly modest prices.

The HD100U didn't impress me when I tested it back in February, especially for event videography. In that price range I'd recommend either the Panasonic HVX200 or Sony Z1U: the Panny can be used as a widescreen DV camera for event work without buying expensive P2 cards, and the Z1U is a cost-effective solution for general-purpose HD videography.

[Peter Jefferson]

"Once again a reminder that HDV *is* a legitimate form of HD, so it doesn't make sense to describe them as separate entities."

I can see where youre coming from, but on the grand scale of things, i believe it does make sense. Considering the different workflows, formats, framerates, the major difference is acquisition and workflow.. HDV IMO is the closest we'll get to the DV style workflow with afew extra steps. DVCProHD and uncompressed HD through SDI is another, and the list goes on and on
In turn, for event work, these new formats take up a variety of different times to manage/convert to intermediate, process, render etc
This is what i was refering to with regard to differences..

The only thing HD and HDV really only share is resolution frame size. Everything else is secondary to that (ie codecs and acquisition, frame rate) as having these various forms of HD on the market, one cant tag HDV as "The one HD format to rule them all" its just not going to happen.
They are seperate entities, and if we treat them all the same, we end up confusing ourselves and in turn, this could be misleading to clients which can get u into alot of hot water

[Jemore Santos]

Peter we know you love your panny, but HD is not one format, its not even an aquisition, its lines to frames and thats it, anything that is 720p or 1080i/p is classified as HD, now you say HDV is the closest thing to having a DV aquisition, why? because it's tape? how about HD-Cam?
Dont flame bate the HD100

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Jemore Santos

Peter we know you love your panny, but HD is not one format, its not even an aquisition, its lines to frames and thats it, anything that is 720p or 1080i/p is classified as HD, now you say HDV is the closest thing to having a DV aquisition, why? because it's tape? how about HD-Cam?
Dont flame bate the HD100

Hi Jemore,

I don't think Peter was trying to flame and I get the point of what he's saying. HDV (particularly HDV1) IS the closest thing to DV25 workflow we have. That's really one of the main draws of the workflow aspect of ProHD. The sad part (particularly for FCP users) is the 24p aspect of the workflow is not resolved for some NLE's. The HDV1 cuts easily on a moderate PC or MAC. TC/EDL/Audio/Capture/Dump are all identicle workflow characteristics to DV but at a much higher resolution with spectacular DVD results.

[Jemore Santos]

"TC/EDL/Audio/Capture/Dump are all identicle workflow characteristics to DV but at a much higher resolution with spectacular DVD results."

And whats so bad at that, if it's not broken don't fix it yeah?

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Jemore Santos

And whats so bad at that..

Absolutely nothing!

BTW My retort to Peter got clipped off the message somehow but to Paraphrase it: HDV seems to be the new DV and everyone is supporting it (NLE wise). It's not a phase as once thought, it's a reality that is viable for the bandwidth of broadcasters.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

The only thing HD and HDV really only share is resolution frame size...They are seperate entities, and if we treat them all the same, we end up confusing ourselves.

No, they're not separte entities in the way you've been describing them. HD is an umbrella term which includes all video acquisition and delivery formats which conform to HD specifications, and that includes HDV. Saying HDV isn't HD is like saying apples aren't fruit, which would be incorrect.