A Noob with some questions about the HD110,HD200 and misc.

[Robert Thomas Baumer]

HI,

I asked these question on another thread. I think maybe putting it in it's own thread might be more appropriate:

Newbie here with maybe some dumb questions. I hope you don't end up rolling your eyes too much. I have a intro on the "in your neighborhood"
thread.

I would like to get the GYHD 200 but because of lack of sufficient funds I might have to settle for The HD110. I want to get into independent film making.

In terms for transferring to film will 1080p produce a better print than 720p?
I know the JVC models I mentioned don't record in 1080p but Will this be an issue in terms of resolution?

Is the need for a diffusion filter greater for HD shooting?
- Or is it about the same?

I have a flat panel monitor that can display at a res of 1280/1024 at 32
resolution (maxed), Is this a usable monitor for editing HUD footage?
(assuming I use the HUD 200 or HUD 110 )

Any other info you can throw my way would be appreciated?[/

[Teodor Miljevic]

You're asking a lot of question at the same time but i will try to anwers does I think I can help you with.

In theory 1080p is of course superior to 720p for film print out. Notice I said in theory because inside this simple question must be some thought of other equipment that is rated using 1080p as their recording resolution. The only ones in that cathegory that are even in sight of you budget are canon xh-a1, canon xh-g1 there is also two other candidates that are out of your reach since you said you couldn't afford hd200 and they are the xl1-h1 and sony f330. Of these candidates the only one that actually exceeds the boundries of 720p is f330(and that is with a decent lens not the crappy crippeling canon autolens, which makes it quite a bit more expensive) meaning that in theory all the mentioned cameras above except f330 could have used the same hdv1(the 720p version) as jvc without loosing anything in picture quality (in fact since jvc are the only ones using hdv it is beond me why they do not release a hdv1.5 version where they use the entire 25mb/s (which dv-tapes have been used for in a decade by now) spread out on 720p probably making an even better format than HDV2).

My point after this rant is well... as I said before in theory 1080p is better than 720p but simply put you can't afford it.

Regarding diffusion. If you want to print to film then you should avoid it all together. If you are shooting for digital distribution. Then I would say that you could use about the same diffusion as you did for sd. You could even use an even stronger one. The biggest problem is that you have to be even more perceptive of what f-stop you're using. In a pressed situation I could use f5.6 on a dvx100 coming awfully close to showing the diffusion pattern. With the extra resolution of Hd I would stay between and f2-f4.

The last tip i can give you is that I think you would get a better picture from a hd100 with the cheap upgrade to the 17x5.5 fujinon lens than the hd200 with the stock one(that would cost roughly the same).

Are you going to use a 35mm-adapter? if yes you don't need diffusion and secondly I would buy the following setup. Xh-a1 + your preffered 35mm adapter + marshall hda 70p that roughly equals the cost of a hd200. In my oppinion all hd-cameras below 10000$ are useless witout the aid of a good monitor. You're only going to get high sd-quality without it. I experience this all the time without my monitor (were talking lucky shots here) I hate the feeling of turning the focus knob and not seeing any difference (you know something is wrong :)

[Adam Grunseth]

I will do my best to try to answer your questions....

First, the HD110 is a great camera..... I wouldn't call it settling.

You asked about 1080p vs 720p. In short, the answer is yes.... 1080p has more resolution than 720p, so in theory a film transfer from a 1080p source will be slightly sharper than a transfer from a 720p source. However, you also have to take into account which camera you are using. The only sub $10,000 1080p camera I know of out there is the Panasonic HVX (correct me if I'm wrong, its been a little while since I've been in a market for a HD camera). The HVX actually has lower resolution on the CCD's than the JVC, so even though the HVX can record a 1080p signal, it produces it via pixel shifting. If you were to transfer material from the JVC at 720p and the HVX at 1080p to film, all other things being equal, you would actually have greater detail from the image transfered from the JVC because the JVC's CCD's picked up that information in the first place. It should be noted though that either one though has the capability to look very nice when transfered to film.

Others here might attack me for this, but I would urge you to not consider resolution that much in your choice of camera. In the long list of things that affect image quality, resolution is at the bottom of the list. Expecially when your considering HD cameras. More importantly I think is the level of control the camera gives you, and how easy it is to operate. This is where the JVC really shines- with a true manual lense and all the controls where they need to be, after a while you don't even think about it, the camera becomes an extension of you.

As far as the need for a diffusion filter.... i'm going to say its about the same. I mean it all really depends on the specific look your going for.

As far as your monitor, it sounds like it should work for editing. I have a dedicated 16:9 HD progressive scan HD monitor hooked up to my edit system that I use to preview the footage I'm editing in real time, full screen, full rez. I love it! it is so much nicer than just working with video in a tiny window.

[Robert Thomas Baumer]

I can theoretically get the JVC GY HD 200, but I am also aware of what else I need. From what you wrote I assume I should get a good HD monitor and forgo the one I am currently using. The prices I've seen for monitors are well, to say the least.....expensive. Can you recommend any?

Can you recommend any HDMI graphics cards?

Motherboards (cpu's)?

I figure I'll need at least a terabyte of hard drive space.

From what you've wrote, I might not need a diffusion filter. I am intending to
promote what I do over the net. So perhaps putting a diffusion filter in post prod (Adobe) would be smarter?

With a good 35 mm adapter wil I be able to use lenses intended for film cameras (zeiss)? Or I am I stuck with strickly HD lenses? (perhaps a dumb question)

P.S. Thank you both Teodor and Adam, I appreciate your input.

[Adam Grunseth]

I was in the same boat as you, i could in theory afford the 200, but with the other accessories I needed I opted to get the HD110. I have not once regretted going with the 110, its quality is so spectacular. Unless you need 60p HD, I would say the 110 is probably good enough. It should also be noted that the 110 will do very nice 60p at 480 lines of resolution- I didn't know this when I bought the camera, but it was a very nice surprise.

If you are looking at transfering to film, I would stay awayfrom cameras that offer frame mode and only look at true progressive scanning. I can not stress enough how mush easier it is to resize a progressive scanned image to a different resolution and retain a very high level of quality.

As far as graphics cards.... I've always been partial to ATI- I really can't back that up with anything other then that I had a G-Force once and it wasn't all that great.... since then I've used ATI and been totally happy so haven't had any reason to look into anything different.

I would strongly reccomend two processor cores. I have used systems with multiple multi-core processors, but for some reason when you have more then two physical processor cores the sysem (although blazingly fast) seems less stable. This is just from personal experience, but while comparing systems I ran a 2 dual core xeon processors side by side with a single pentium D processor, putting them through a variety of editing tasks using edius pro 3. The pentium D with its two cores, although not as fast, did not crash nearly as often and was more than fast enough for me. If you go with intel processors i would recomend an intel motherboard, they do compliment eachother nicely.

How much hard drive space you need depends on what kind of projects your doing and how much video you need to store. HDV doesn't take up any more physical space than regular DV- however I transcode my HDV video to DVCpro HD for editing and color correction, which does take up more space. I have 1.2 terabytes and find that it is enough for me and what I do.

Monitors- I use viewsonics 22 inch flat panel widescreen (don't remember the model number). They were $400 a piece.

As far as diffusion, i use the soft focus effect built into edius which works wonderfuly for me.

As far as using film lenses... I believe the Redrock adapter (i might not be remembering correctly) allows you to use film lenses with your camera.

Also I noticed you mentioned Adobe. I used to use adobe premier pro 2, but it had stability issues with me on very long projects. Also I was dissapointed with its real time performance. Switching to edius was like going from night to day. With nothing but a software change i could suddenly color corect and to complex compositing in full rez hd real time without the system blinking an eye. To do the same thing in adobe i would only get low rez realtime previews and have to sit and wait for rendering to see it full rez. Also edius 4 does not seem to have any stability issues on extremely lengthy projects.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Adam Grunseth

Others here might attack me for this, but I would urge you to not consider resolution that much in your choice of camera. In the long list of things that affect image quality, resolution is at the bottom of the list.

No one here is going to attack you for that. First of all we don't allow "attacks" of any nature here. If someone perceives an attack, we need them to report the post in question so the moderators can deal with it.

Second, your suggestion that resolution is not all that important relative to other considerations when selecting a camera is absolutely correct, and it's a major issue that we try to get across to new people all the time. So, thank you for pointing it out. Much appreciated,

[Adam Grunseth]

Sorry Chris, I assumed I would probably be attacked for saything that because I have real world experience with some very commited resolution junkies and figured there may be a few of them lurking around here.

[Chris Hurd]

Resolution junkies, chronic measurebators, pixel counters, propeller heads, chair warmers, conspiracy theorists, and assorted trolls are generally dealt with on this site by a swift boot in the butt, which sends them sailing off to points unknown in a long and far-reaching parabolic arc. Rest assured this is a safe harbor for intelligent discussion. You're among friends here. Cheers,

[Robert Thomas Baumer]

I have a G Force right now that I am not happy with.

I have Windows XP media edition and I don't like it. I was thinking of switching to Mac.

Do you work on a mac?

[Adam Grunseth]

I do not work on a Mac. I have before, but I know PCs inside out... if it breaks, I can fix it. I don't know macs as well. Also with macs your pretty much limited to FCP. I don't mind FCP, but its not my preferred editor.

[Teodor Miljevic]

Robert:
Regarding 35mm adapters they can be used together with photolenses (preferably manual ones) but you can also use cinelenses it depends on ehat kind of mount you get them with.

If you are using Premiere pro 2 I can recommend aspect hd which is a realtime codec that greatly reduces generation losses and speeds up your editing. If you're using a 35mm-adapter and get your material recorded upside down. The cineform codec can turn it right in realtime while you are capturing

[Sean Adair]

Originally Posted by Adam Grunseth

I do not work on a Mac. I have before, but I know PCs inside out... if it breaks, I can fix it. I don't know macs as well. Also with macs your pretty much limited to FCP. I don't mind FCP, but its not my preferred editor.

There's also this obscure editing system called the "avid"
;^) which comes in a variety of flavors.
I guess it's a few months until adobe releases the new mac version of Premiere.

[Robert Thomas Baumer]

Originally Posted by Adam Grunseth

I do not work on a Mac. I have before, but I know PCs inside out... if it breaks, I can fix it. I don't know macs as well. Also with macs your pretty much limited to FCP. I don't mind FCP, but its not my preferred editor.

I don't know what FCP is.

I have the media editon of XP, Ive read it's not that great for these kinds of things.

I might be better of upgrading my current computer. After looking at websites on this I'm gonna have to spend a pretty penny on just a workstation alone.

Originally Posted by Teodor Miljevic

Robert:
Regarding 35mm adapters they can be used together with photolenses (preferably manual ones) but you can also use cinelenses it depends on ehat kind of mount you get them with.

If you are using Premiere pro 2 I can recommend aspect hd which is a realtime codec that greatly reduces generation losses and speeds up your editing. If you're using a 35mm-adapter and get your material recorded upside down. The cineform codec can turn it right in realtime while you are capturing

I've heard of the codec.

There's generation losses in digital. I find that od because one of the big selling points of digital for so long was no loss of quality no matter how many times you bounce or copt it.

No wonder vinyl is making a comeback in music.:)

[William Hohauser]

FCP = Final Cut Pro which is sold in the Final Cut Studio package that includes a number of other useful programs.

Go to an Apple store, if possible, and play around with it. You can edit HDV happily for less then $3000 (program and all hardware included). Depending on the projects you are envisioning of course.

But if the PC is the place you want to stay, there are several excellent programs that will get you up and running in HDV. Your workstation just has to be up to spec, that might cost a bit to achieve.

Onto another point. Pure digital video is of such vast quatities of information that nearly all digital recording has some sort of compression added just to get the data flow manageable. How much compression depends on the format. Us video paupers have to live with the compression dealt to us by DV and HDV. It just takes a little knowledge and practice to prevent compression from becoming noticable.

[Adam Grunseth]

Originally Posted by Sean Adair

There's also this obscure editing system called the "avid"
;^) which comes in a variety of flavors.
I guess it's a few months until adobe releases the new mac version of Premiere.

I left out Avid because I read some time ago that avid was going to be releasing products for the Macintosh.... I suppose they may have changed their minds- but last I heard is avid was no longer going to be available for macintosh users.