I need advice on the JVC HD100

[Hamad Abdulla]

Hi,

I have been reading a lot of good stuff about the new JVC HD101 or 100 camera, which is really tempting me to buy it...

I already have a Digital Betacam DVW 790 camera, but now I'm looking more towards buying an affordable camera to give me that extra film look to my productions, whether they were documentaries or movies...

Now how good is the JVC HD101 cameras? Are they capable of giving the viewer a film look close to the Sony Cinealtas? Can we use such cameras for the production of a medium budget ranged film and then transfering it onto 35mm? Of course putting in mind that the right lighting and cameraman are running the show... I also do own an editing suite that supports HD by the way...

I also have been advised to get the mini 35 lens for it, is that of any good in order to get better film look results?

So, is it worth upgrading to the JVC HD101 or should I not waste my money, because its results are similar to the Digi Beta camera that I already have? Will I get that film look that I need with this camera?

Thanks for the advice...

[Jack Walker]

There are others who can give you a lot of advice.

However, one place to check is imdb.com:
http://www.imdb.com/search

On the search page, go down to word search. Change the drop down box to technical and search for "digibeta" and for "HD100."

For each search you will get a list of films made with each camera.

[Brian Luce]

the HD100 is nice for the money but not in the same league with what you're using now--digi beta.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Hamad Abdulla

Hi,

I have been reading a lot of good stuff about the new JVC HD101 or 100 camera, which is really tempting me to buy it...

I already have a Digital Betacam DVW 790 camera, but now I'm looking more towards buying an affordable camera to give me that extra film look to my productions, whether they were documentaries or movies...

Now how good is the JVC HD101 cameras? Are they capable of giving the viewer a film look close to the Sony Cinealtas? Can we use such cameras for the production of a medium budget ranged film and then transfering it onto 35mm? Of course putting in mind that the right lighting and cameraman are running the show... I also do own an editing suite that supports HD by the way...

I also have been advised to get the mini 35 lens for it, is that of any good in order to get better film look results?

So, is it worth upgrading to the JVC HD101 or should I not waste my money, because its results are similar to the Digi Beta camera that I already have? Will I get that film look that I need with this camera?

Thanks for the advice...

I just was at a demonstration of different video cameras transfered to 35mm given at DuArt here in New York City. At one point they projected a split screen of a Sony DigiBeta camera (I don't remember which model) with a HD-100. The comparision was not as different as you might think. While the HD-100 was better with detail, the DigiBeta was better with tone and latitude but that's to be expected when comparing tiny 1/3" HD chips with large 2/3" SD chips. Also the Sony had a better lens. Overall the HD-100 made some very good transfers to 35mm. So did the Digi-Beta. We also saw some not so good Digi-Beta transfers and a bad HD-100 transfer. The low down; the better the lens, the better the lighting, the better control you have over the image, the better your transfer to 35mm will be regardless of the format. They projected some footage from a SD DV project shot with an old Canon camera that looked great because the DP replaced the standard lens with a very high-quality lens.

Conversely, we also saw an HDV camera with a 35mm lens attached that looked worse then footage from DV camera.

An HD-100 or 101 will not ever look like a CineAlta except in certain circumstances. I actually felt that the HD-100 created a more film-like image then the CineAlta which can look so clean that it seems unnatural. Film-like meaning something that resembles Super16mm. The HD-100 is more prone to exposure blow-out then either your DigiBeta or a CineAlta.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

I just was at a demonstration of different video cameras transfered to 35mm given at DuArt here in New York City. At one point they projected a split screen of a Sony DigiBeta camera (I don't remember which model) with a HD-100. The comparision was not as different as you might think. While the HD-100 was better with detail, the DigiBeta was better with tone and latitude but that's to be expected when comparing tiny 1/3" HD chips with large 2/3" SD chips. Also the Sony had a better lens. Overall the HD-100 made some very good transfers to 35mm. So did the Digi-Beta. We also saw some not so good Digi-Beta transfers and a bad HD-100 transfer. The low down; the better the lens, the better the lighting, the better control you have over the image, the better your transfer to 35mm will be regardless of the format. They projected some footage from a SD DV project shot with an old Canon camera that looked great because the DP replaced the standard lens with a very high-quality lens.

Conversely, we also saw an HDV camera with a 35mm lens attached that looked worse then footage from DV camera.

An HD-100 or 101 will not ever look like a CineAlta except in certain circumstances. I actually felt that the HD-100 created a more film-like image then the CineAlta which can look so clean that it seems unnatural. Film-like meaning something that resembles Super16mm. The HD-100 is more prone to exposure blow-out then either your DigiBeta or a CineAlta.

Go to the movies and see "Little Miss Sunshine" and take a look at the film quality. The HD100 can certainly match that film's quality and probably surpass it.

With ProHD and a firm grasp on the workflow (to film) there is no reason the technology sould get in the way of the story telling now. It's easy and inexpensive. Seriously.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

Go to the movies and see "Little Miss Sunshine" and take a look at the film quality. The HD100 can certainly match that film's quality and probably surpass it.

With ProHD and a firm grasp on the workflow (to film) there is no reason the technology sould get in the way of the story telling now. It's easy and inexpensive. Seriously.

What was that shot with?

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

What was that shot with?

Little Miss Sunshine was shot with 35mm film, format super 35:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0449059/technical

Here's the cinematographer, Tim Suhrstedt:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005891/

I think the movie looked good and the picture matched the style of the movie.

Sometimes the projection makes things look worse better than they are. I saw Sunshine in the Director's Guild Theatre in L.A. and it looked like other movies shot in 35mm. I've also seen some high budget movies there that look fairly bad, but I think they looked the way they were supposed to. I've seen a couple of DV blown up movies that looked very good there.

I think the secret is to match the style, the lighting and material with excellent people shooting. The best people are not frequently shooting on DV or hcv... though there are some excellent people working with those cameras, too.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

Sometimes the projection makes things look worse better than they are. I saw Sunshine in the Director's Guild Theatre in L.A. and it looked like other movies shot in 35mm. I've also seen some high budget movies there that look fairly bad, but I think they looked the way they were supposed to. I've seen a couple of DV blown up movies that looked very good there.

I think the secret is to match the style, the lighting and material with excellent people shooting. The best people are not frequently shooting on DV or hcv... though there are some excellent people working with those cameras, too.

As the monitor makes the video look good, a good projection makes the film look good. I've been to more then enough movie theaters recently where poor projection has ruined viewing a perfectly good print. Frequently it's a weak projection lamp that's the culprit but of course a stronger lamp would mean that the theater might have to replace the print due to heat wear. Usually the sound is a mess, misbalanced speakers mainly.

I do some work with a film repetory house and they installed some very good HD video projectors. Projected quality 16mm and a good film transfer to SD video look about same which is remarkable. They haven't had the chance to project actual HD video yet but I'm sure it'll surpass 16mm and approach 35mm in quality.

When I saw Miami Vice which is an example of purposely degraded HD, I saw digital drop-out in a few scenes. I know the theater was projecting film so it must have been on the print. Where did the drop out occur? On the raw footage, during the film-out?

[Hamad Abdulla]

Thanks a lot guys for your help! I will try to get a hold of as many JVC HD100 productions as possible in order to be able to judge the quality of the camera, in order to see if it will be able to fit my needs...

[David Scattergood]

I shot some footage for a corporate vid on Friday, part of the brief being to film inside the interior of a fancy hotel in Liverpool. I shot in Standard Definition at 25p (I do not as yet have the facilities to post prod HDV); the results were fantastic - it helped a lot that the hotel interior was really nicely lit (huge atrium dropping natural light onto a marble floor and a series of halogens elsewhere). It was the first time I had taken the camera out on the road and I'm really impressed....there are things I could do better next time I'm sure (and if I posted footage here I'm sure I'd face some criticism here) but taking time to learn how the camera really works and considering the environment you are to shoot in, you can achieve fantastic results.
Having a decent tripod helped this time...in fact my current tripod (Libec) cost more than my old DV cam...smooth pans on progressive camera's breath life into the footage.
btw - can anybody confirm whether or not the SD 25p is true progressive or is that confined to the 720p format?
Thanks.

[Stephan Ahonen]

Originally Posted by David Scattergood

btw - can anybody confirm whether or not the SD 25p is true progressive or is that confined to the 720p format?
Thanks.

It's progressive segmented frame. In other words, the lines are drawn in interlaced order, but because both fields are part of the same frame it still appears progressive.