The JVC HD100 Takes No Prisoners!

[Scott Ellifritt]

Take a read at the following link: http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172
where the DP of the television spy drama "24" compares cameras and cine adapters.

[Steve Benner]

Yes, Rodney has been all over about how much he likes the HD100 line and he is apparently using the HD110 for some backround shots during 24 Season 6.

[Tony Tibbetts]

From Showreel Article
"The other issue with these cameras is interlace/progressive recording. The JVC and Panasonic shoot true progressive, and both the Canon and Sony offer a faux progressive mode: the 24f on the Canon and the Cineframe mode on the Sony. Canon's 24f mode is superior to the Sony's 24cf, and the filmic cadence of the Z1's 30cf lies somewhere in between. So although the XL H1 did a decent job generating a 24p feel when there is movement in the frame, there is still an interlace feel when the movement comes to a standstill. None of them match the filmic feel of the HD100's true progressive mode."

I find this bit pretty suspect myself. First they acknowledge that the JVC and Panasonic are progressive and none of the "faux" camera modes can compete. Yet only the JVC has the true "feel" of real 24fps. Gee the Panasonic doesn't cut it because why? It isn't true progressive like the JVC? Even though it uses progressive chips and has frame discreet compression? I'd argue because of that the HVX is "true" 24fps as opposed to the JVC.

Hogwash.

Yet another biased interpretation which attempts to use facts to validate a subjective opinion.

I own an XH-A1. I've used all of these cameras. I like the JVC a lot. I'm not a big fan of the HVX200. Charters hawks the JVC on the JVC Pro website. His video is posted there for all to see. I would take this comparison with a grain of salt.

[Jack Walker]

At a demo of the XH-A1 a Canon rep told me that the Canon camera had interlaced chips and the JVC camera had progressive chips. I assume he was telling the truth. Canon has a proprietary, unknown to outsiders, way of getting the progressive scan out of the interlaced chips. I believe the Canon 24f does look different than the true 24p of the JVC camera.

It has been posted by JVC on this site that Charters has not and does not get any money for touting the JVC camera. I'm guessing that's true and he has his own reasons for complimenting it. If he gets some other benefits, I don't know. However, I think the benefit of having his name out there and his picture may be significant to him.

The quirky accident of ending up on the top TV series of the new century puts one in a strange place, and sometimes people like to do things -- i.e. give their name to a product they like -- just because they have the opportunity to after a long (while continuing) career.

[Tony Tibbetts]

I've seen footage from all cameras. The only difference to my eye is the gamma curves. Certainly the Sony CineFrame has an odd cadence. But to my eyes the XH-A1 looks about the same as 24p footage from an XL2, which as we all know is "real" or "true" 24p.

The HVX certainly has it's own look, but it's 24fps. Once the Canon 24f is properly ingested into an NLE it becomes "true" 24p. It cetainly looks like it. I just watched a bunch of footage I shot from my XH-A1 on a 60 inch LCD and the 24p cadence looked just like all the other sub 10k cameras out there.

Maybe Charters doesn't get paid to hawk JVC gear. Maybe his nephew gets free JVC gear for all I know. Maybe the President of JVC is his childhood pal. Maybe the camera designer "saved his ass in 'nam". I dunno. I'm unsure of his motivation, but theres an obvious bias. It's either 24fps or it isn't? To claim that theres some sort of magical 24fps voodoo happening with the JVC is silly. Granted those aren't his words, but it's certainly implied and it's most certainly not based on fact.

He could have just said "I like the look of the JVC camera the best". What the hell is this "movement" he is talking about. I haven't seen it.

[Barry Green]

I owned an HD100, currently have an HVX and DVX, and spent a week with the XHA1 doing a comparative test against the HVX.

Any claims, anywhere, that there's anything "superior" about the JVC's 24P vs. the HVX's 24p are, as said earlier, hogwash.

And claims that the 24F doesn't look like 24p are also hogwash.

24F is sourced from interlaced chips, which does result in a resolution drop, but the motion is absolutely identical to genuine 24p. And the DVX, XL2, HVX, and HD100 all do genuine 24p; the only one that "fakes it" in a way that makes a difference to the look is the FX1/Z1.

Haven't tried the V1, but I expect it will be every bit as "legit" as the HVX/DVX/XL2/HD100.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Although, they are entitled to their opinion the same as you. To them I guess it's not hogwash but a reality. To you it's hogwash.

As always, I think you should judge for yourself.

[Antony Michael Wilson]

Absolutely, Stephen. Personally, I was extremely disappointed with the DVX and the HVX because neither met our needs at the time we used them and I find the HD100's pictures much more pleasing to the eye. But that's just an opinion. I wouldn't describe anyone's opinion to the contrary as 'hogwash', however committed I am to the HD100 at this point.

[Tony Tibbetts]

The point that was being made in the article related to frame rate cadence as the culprit for the "look" Charters liked. The insinuation being that the 24fps cadence is somehow different than all the other cameras... even the progressive ones. Yet he uses faux progressive modes as the culprit, yet claims that only the JVC progressive 24fps cadence is the true "24p"

It's ceases to be subjective opinion when you try to fudge facts to validate said opinion. It's certainly a subjective opinion... but it's also a biased comparison.

[Scott Ellifritt]

I currently own the DVX100A and have always been pleased with its performance in 24P. But as a result of shopping around and hands on comparisons for high def, I 'm going with the JVC 110 or 200. Nothing is hogwash when it all falls to the subjective.

[Tony Tibbetts]

Originally Posted by Scott Ellifritt

Nothing is hogwash when it all falls to the subjective.

Well, certainly.

However, the article was meant as comparison. They should at least attempt not to be biased.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Tony Tibbetts

Well, certainly.

However, the article was meant as comparison. They should at least attempt not to be biased.

I'm not so sure about the bias. If I recall correctly, the group on the set of "24" had turned their back on the HD-100 initially because of split screen. JVC service calibrated the camera and they gave the camera a clean slate.

[Diogo Athouguia]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

I owned an HD100, currently have an HVX and DVX, and spent a week with the XHA1 doing a comparative test against the HVX

If I recall, you owned a defective HD100. That might have influenced your opinion.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I'm not so sure about the bias. If I recall correctly, the group on the set of "24" had turned their back on the HD-100 initially because of split screen. JVC service calibrated the camera and they gave the camera a clean slate.

Yes, this is talked about in the article. Initially the camera was rejected, then it was looked at again several months later.

One of the subjective considerations was the size of the camera and general appearance and presence when setup with a lens system and a big matte box. Sutherland felt the large camera was a greater stimulator for the actor's energy than a small camera.

This wouldn't affect the way the camera is being used on the show now -- to shoot backgrounds -- but it is a consideration in some situations.

Some may consider that a professional should be able to act in front of any camera. True. However, if one setup gets a bit better result than another, go with the one that gets the best. Some actors are good for the 1st and 2nd take and then its downhill. Other actors get better with each take and the best performance may come on the 13th take. All the little details are worked together in the production to hopefully end up with the best result. If a bulky camera gets a better result, it's a good reason to use it.

I have put together an "impressive" HD110 setup to shoot a very short theatrical piece. And then in the Spring I am going to Europe and Russia and will shoot some documentary type stuff, and I believe the new Sony V1U may be perfect considering where I'll be, how I'll be traveling and the kind of video I will shoot and the result I want. The HD110 is too much to deal with, cart around, setup and protect.

Checking on the imdb, about the same number of features seem to have been shot with the HD100 and the HVX200, with a slight edge to the latter.

Interestingly, the Blanchette/Pitt third of BABEL was shot in 16mm.

[Chris Hurd]

We've reached a point where this thing is starting to go around in circles. I've edited out the most recent repetitive opinions... three or four times is more than enough, thanks... and have closed the thread.