Has the HVX Stolen JVC's Thunder?

[Jon Jaschob]

Yeah sure that's a given, but not if you don't have a manual lens, then it's as good as it gets...

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

Have to disagree there. Autofocus tends to hunt, and autoexposure does very badly on scenes with an excess of highlights or shadows.

[Daniel Patton]

Originally Posted by Jack Felis

However, if I were to choose today, I'd still have to choose the HVX200 for the 4:2:2 color space and variable frame rates alone, I'm planning to do a lot of greenscreen and other special effects work with my films, so every little bit helps.

(But oops! Looks like I went elsewhere with my camera choice *cough*look at sig*cough*) ;)

In doing greenscreen work with the HVX you may find that you lose as much as you gain. For that 4:2:2 and gain in chroma... you lose overall pixel resolution compared to the JVC. The HVX will be softer with less actual edge detail, so unless you like pulling soft edge keys keep looking. I believe that it's in fact that same "soft" image that the HVX user base likes so much about the camera. The HVX does have that soft pleasing look but at the cost of detail. We have used both cameras enough to know better than to run the HVX and trust DVCPro alone to pull a perfect key. Buy a JVC with SDI and then see if you still prefer the HVX for keying.

Peace!

Red however should be another story.

[Yves Fortin]

It's mostly a better promotion of their products for Panasonic again JVC. Here in Canada (Mtl), JVC is poorly represented. On the internet site of JVC (Canada), there is no way you can see any information of the new model HD200 or HD250. If you call the PRO-HD authorized Canadian dealers, they can't tell you anything about them either. At one of the dealer, they even told me they were re-thinking about selling the JVC products by lack of service. It's not that way they will compete again Panasonic.

But I still prefer a camera like the HD100 or HD200 for manuel lenses, workflow, ergonomic and quality.

[Drew Curran]

Its the DVX/HVX religion.

The DVX had and still has an awesome following because of the price/quality ratio, and the fact that so many indie films are/were shot using it.

Staying true to human nature, most DVX users will buy HVX's becasue they are practically upgrade DVX's. Why change a good thing? I almost gave in and bought a HVX because when I was researching (can surfing the internet relentlessly when at work be counted as research!?! ;-)) which camera to buy I immediately noticed how big and loyal a following the DVX had. So I thought I'd buy the HVX. Afterall its cool to be in the VX club. I even joined the DVX user forum!!

What put me off was the fixed semi-manual lens, etc. The picture quality is entirely subjective.

I make films with my HD100. They will not win awards. But I like the way they look. I like the fact that the HD100 causes me to take my time. Focusing. Exposing. Zooming manually. Adjusting. Pre-planning. If I have auto exposure and auto focus I rush things and feel out of control. I just love the 'pro' character of the HD100.

[Werner Wesp]

It all boils down to the manual lens. It is a different way of shooting. Even without knowing the picture quality of the HVX, that was no option to me because of the form factor and servo lens. I have spent to many hours with the XL1 and XL2 to be able to endure any more servo lens operation...

[Daniel Patton]

Originally Posted by Drew Curran

... (can surfing the internet relentlessly when at work be counted as research!?! ;-))

Yes, more than valid, damn smart in fact. ;)

[Peter Ferling]

Originally Posted by Werner Wesp

It all boils down to the manual lens...

Interesting subject, and one that pertains to several other cameras, so I'm inclined to chime in. I almost purchased an HVX, and smartly so, decided to hold off and rent one from a local vendor.

It's not just a lens issue, it's the entire workflow from start to finish. There's a certain amount of effort to get footage into your edit bay. Where the HVX seems the most practical approach in theory, but in practice it was very frustrating. Even for our short form production, I found the timing of many takes entirely dictated by the swapping of those P2 cards, etc. Sure you could swap midstream, but every swap effected the shot/framing/concentration of the crew and performers. Tranfers were not one-to-one in speed. Many times we wound up waiting for a card to be available. This level of frustration was affecting both the actors and agitating the shoot. Since we dragged out a workstation to dub the media, we simple gave in and captured directly to an Array via firewire.

My next camera has HD-SDI out.

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Peter Ferling

Interesting subject, and one that pertains to several other cameras, so I'm inclined to chime in. I almost purchased an HVX, and smartly so, decided to hold off and rent one from a local vendor.

It's not just a lens issue, it's the entire workflow from start to finish. There's a certain amount of effort to get footage into your edit bay. Where the HVX seems the most practical approach in theory, but in practice it was very frustrating. Even for our short form production, I found the timing of many takes entirely dictated by the swapping of those P2 cards, etc. Sure you could swap midstream, but every swap effected the shot/framing/concentration of the crew and performers. Tranfers were not one-to-one in speed. Many times we wound up waiting for a card to be available. This level of frustration was affecting both the actors and agitating the shoot. Since we dragged out a workstation to dub the media, we simple gave in and captured directly to an Array via firewire.

My next camera has HD-SDI out.

I can believe that's frustrating. It's hard keeping those actors focussed :-)

Anyway, in defense of the P2 / HVX: This should be temporary. As soon as P2 cards are out with huge storage capacity (and a modest price) this shouldn't be a problem anymore. But how long is that going to take and won't there be better camcorders by then?

[John Vincent]

Editing solutions (or lack thereof) become very big to people who already have the camera(s) and are trying to do the work...

From what people are saying, directors wanting to hire someone don't seem to be thinking in those terms. Footage from the HVX and P2 cards, while being vastly more expensive and needing almost immediate downloading and storage, do seem to have an easier time editing. There have been far more reported problems getting 24p to edit properly from footage shot on the JVC - and a much longer wait to get them.

That said, the image itself is on the whole better on the JVC. More resolution. Interchangable lens. An almost infinate palate of changable recipes, form factor, etc.

HVX, for some, will be better - from their previous use of the DVX, to the 4:2:2 colorspace. But in almost every shootout, the JVC wins. The debate has always been, in my mind and many others, whether the JVC or the Canon HL-1 is a better choice (if it had true 24p it clearly would be - but it doesn't), not if the HVX is.

As much as I like the JVC100, in my own mind its days are numbered - as are the HVX and Canon HL-1. If RED (or Sony) can truly produce a 4K camera for under $20 grand, there can be little reason to justify buying a $10k camera. Clearly there is yet another threshold of technology about to be broken.

The JVC' 100 has sold well over 10,000 units. There is a new generation of video cameras that may surpass even 35 mm film in quality coming down the pipe. There is no more thunder to steal. In terms of getting work, just show 'em what the JVC can do - it's still the best bang for the buck....
For now.

john
evilgeniuesentertainment.com

[Alex Bowles]

Thing is, there really isn't an apples to apples in this equation. Each camera seems to fill in for the weak spots on the other. For example, 4:2:0 HDV is far less post-friendly than 4:2:2 DVCproHD. However, as anyone who has worked with P2 will tell you, the workflow is much trickier than JVC's. Producer's who don't factor this into the mix upfront tend to find out the hard way later on.

And as noted, the 200 generates that icky green cast, whereas the sensor on the JVC seems to be technically superior in just about every way. (I just did a shoot where we shot on both the 100 and 200, and I was much happier with the JVC's image.)

And then there are the lenses. Nothing, in my opinion, makes a bigger difference to picture quality than good glass. A $40k box of Ziess Super-Speed primes on a decent day rate is unparalleled. The JVC, with its bayonet mount, gives you better access to the world of high-end optics.

My real beef is with HDV. But I'm also moving towards a tapeless workflow, which renders the in-camera record features irrelevant. In this scenario, the JVC is the clear winner, as it produces a better signal overall (the sensor actually operates at 4:2:2 - it's the HDV encoder that resamples at 4:2:0.)

So yes, I tend to agree with the folks who say that, if you know what you're doing, the JVC is the better bet. Of course, these tend not to be the people who staff their shows from Craigslist...

[Toenis Liivamaegi]

JVC and Panasonic are the same company don`t you know? Matshushita, which operates the Panasonic and JVC brands?
HVX is the only cam out there which can record in variable framerates up to 60p in 720p under 6k. Sure you have to rent or buy a $150 shoulder support for it.

But as we can see even from the discussion here Matshushita still owns us.

Damn, my first PC was too manufactured by Matshushita 20 years ago.

Think,
T

[John Vincent]

Wile ultimately owned by the same corporate entity, the companies are totally seperately run, with a completely seperate corporate command structure. If your logic were valid, then one of the two cameras wouldn't exist at all (although I do admit it's pretty odd sales tactic).

In terms of slo-mo, it is a feature that while nice, it's rarely a deciding factor. I suppose if everything else was equal....

I'd think that both brands, while still selling units, have already reached their peak in terms of sales. At this point, the future seems to be pointing towards RED or Sony. Perhaps if/when Canon puts out the "XL-3" - ie - a 24p HD camera....

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

[Paolo Ciccone]

Interestingly enough I didn't see any mention to the half-backed resolution issue with the HVX. The camera doesn't really record at full resolution, it works with a horizontal resolution of 960 pixels instead of 1280. While the JVC gives you the option to capture at 4:2:2, the Panasonic camera limits your real resolution. That is in addition to the flawed, IMHO, workflow inherent with the P2 card. We, at "2nd Unit", are shooting a feature called "El Papel" and we use the Sony F-350 for that. To me the blue-ray DVD storage system is the real answer to the tapeless dilemma. Sony really nailed it and what we need now is just a 2-inch DVD format that can be used for smaller cameras like the HD-100. The workflow with the XDCAM is simply ideal. The flaw in the P2 are so glaring that is amazing it was approved in the first place. While tape defintely adds a lot of time to digitize your footage, compared to P2, the cost and inconvenience of backing up 2 times your footage nulls, for all practical purposes, the advantage that you think you get from the P2. I said 2 times because you first need to grab the footage from the P2 card. Then you immediately need to back it up to another disk before you start editing. If something happens to your original clips you have no backup from P2 or tape. So an immediate backup is vital. Remember that hard disks fail. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". While two disks going bad at the same time is an unlikely event, I've seen situations where both the original data and the backup were gone. Of course di disadvantage o creating a backup is that you need to keep it updated and well organized. In my experience not many people can do that. In the reality of a production schedule and the need to create dailies this backup cycle creates a roadblock. After you back up to another dsk/raid you then need to back up to a static storage of some kind, like a batch of DVDs. Not only this requires special software and adds to the overall cost of the P2 ownership, it also takes an incredible amount of time. You could use tape backup but you still have to run through that phase.
Not having an archiving solution built-in in the camera is a serious drawback, IMHO.

[John Vincent]

Yeah, the "But they'll be huge capacity P2 cards available soon at small cost" arguments are wearing pretty thin right about now, aren't they?

If they were cheap enough to use, then throw into a drawer (or whatever), fine. But they still cost what, a grand a gig? The idea might have been good but the ability to mass produce these cards just isn't there.

Neither, seemingling, is the demand. I don't hear anyone saying normal flashcards are a thing of the past for any other application other than some Panasonic gear - there is simply no mass market appeal to them (at least not at that price range).

And you are right on about organization - after an 18 hour shoot in some freezing outdoor local, organization is no one's strong point. Heck, most people I know in the biz are the exact opposite or organized - me included.

Paolo, what your take on RED and similar cameras? Should people wait, or get the most out of the existing tech?

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

Paolo, what your take on RED and similar cameras? Should people wait, or get the most out of the existing tech?

Thanks John.
In addition to all the valid arguments brought by everybody, I just thought that a 40GB ipod costs less then a 8GB P2 card. Looks like it would have been wise for Panasonic to simply make an interface for the iPod :)
Anyway, about RED I have a word that I borrow from the software industry: vaporware.
I was just amazed that people lined up to give to somebody money for nothing. RED has two main issues: it's not there, it's never been there and it's a totally unknown entity without pedigree. OK, those are basically 3 issues.
RED is a new company. As such we don't have any track record about customer service, technical support, financial strenght. Nothing. Do you want to gamble your next movie on that? I don't. Maybe RED will be the best player in the market and it will give a run for their money to Sony, Canon, JVC etc. I don't think so but it will take a few years before that can happen. During those years I plan on shooting a few movies and I'll use one of the HD solutions already in the market.
Second, the technology has not being tested. I'm not gonna give my hard earned money for a technology that has no foundation in the industry, has no concrete or even announced support from the likes of Adobe, Apple or Avid.
Third, JVC, Sony, Panasonic and Canon have been around. Sony is supplier for Panavision and others. There is a lot of weight in that. The industry doesn't embrace something quickly unless it comes from a trusted source. The Genesis camera is the pivoting point where traditional cinematographers are finally testing the new waters of HD. Because it comes from Panavision. RED... that's a totally unknown entity. When you are on a set of even a small production the tension is very high and carreers are made of ruined based on the ability to perform and deliver on time. As a cinematographer it's crucial that I can count on the support of not only the company but a network of dealers and rental houses that can help me when something goes wrong. There is so much more to this profession than just the technical specs. I wish RED the best luck, for now I'm gonna work with JVC and Sony for my projects.