hvx200 or jvc250?? at DVinfo.net

Chuck Wall · March 29th, 2007, 10:34 PM

Hi

I have a friend who is trying to decide which cameras to use on an indie film. He likes the dvcprohd vs hdv for compression, but I think the newer chips and encoder in the 200/250 will erase the 100mbit advantage.

I think this is his only stumbling point, not a p2/vs tape concern.

He does want 720 24 that I am sure of.

Looking for input from those that have gone down this road.
Also he will need to buy two and match images.

Chuck

Tim Dashwood · March 29th, 2007, 10:50 PM

Chuck,

This discussion has come up numerous times in the past. Unfortunately, you will be unlikely to get any truly objective opinions in this forum, or the HVX forum. Do a search and you'll see what I mean. Here's just a few: Old Thread 1 Old Thread 2 Old Thread 3

The HD250 and HVX200 are different in almost every way except that they can both acquire and record 720p24 or 720p60. Otherwise it is almost pointless to compare them at all.

I suggest that you or your friend make a list of features that are personally important to you and your style of filmmaking, then prioritize the list and determine which one scores the highest for you.

For example:

-price
-format
-form factor/ergonomics
-interchangable lens
-BNC connectors
-HD-SDI out
-Noise
-post-workflow

Then, go and test the cameras yourself. If two are being purchased for a feature film, then testing is essential.
If you aren't sure about any specifics of the HD250 please ask and I'm sure one of us will know the answer. The same goes for the HVX200 forum.

Brian Luce · March 30th, 2007, 01:56 AM

The HD250 is almost double the cost of an hvx. They're made by the same company (Mat.). The Hd250 most likely going to give you better results. But bang for buck, esp for a feature, the HVX is great package.

Drew Curran · March 30th, 2007, 02:07 AM

The P2 workflow will add to the cost of the HVX in that you'll need a laptop or some other means of off-loading footage from the P2 cards when shooting in the field. The HVX only records SD to tape. It is an excellent camera for the money though - varible frame rates, etc.

That was my main reason for going with the HD100 - HDV recording to tape and long form recording.

Drew

Mike Marriage · March 30th, 2007, 02:52 AM

Personally I think both cameras produce a pretty similar image - both look great when handled well but are still only relatively cheap 1/3" cameras and it shows in certain situations.

Do you need HDSDI output? If not, I'd get the HD200 and save some cash.

If you want P2, get the HVX. If you want the more professional ergonomics, go with the JVC.

The JVC with the new HZ CA13U 16mmm lens adapter looks like a great option. Check it out in this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78280

Both these cameras will get noisy and a little ugly in low light, so bear that in mind if you're shooting a dark piece.

Werner Wesp · March 30th, 2007, 03:24 PM

Bear in mind that 720 24p in DVCPROHD is only 40 Mbps, not the full 100 (- that's only with higher frame rates, this is the number I seem to remember, I haven't checked it, but I'm quite certain) - besides the HDV1 ProHD codec does very, very good work for 24p. It is very unlikely you'll get the codec to break up - just the chroma res will be somewhat lower. On the other hand, the HVX will get you a dramatically lower resolution overall.

I can't imagine anyone making a feature without the manual control of a 'real' lens, but if he's thinking of using Mini35 (or the likes) this argument will be out.

Anyhow, it really depends on his workflow, his style, the product he wants to deliver, the money he wants to spend, ... With information on all those aspects it would be a lot easier to advise him (just the 'taste'-aspect will always be open to discussion) - or sell him consultancy services :-)

Chuck Wall · March 30th, 2007, 10:49 PM

Thanks for the responses, I think that the best way is as most pointed out to try them both and decide on how good they best fit and work on the project.

I dont think they will use the mini, but I am hoping that they get a better lens should they choose the jvc over the "stock" lens offered.

Chuck

Craig Yanagi · March 31st, 2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

They're made by the same company (Mat.).

In keeping this comparison objective, note that the P2 and ProHD camcorders are manufactured by Matsushita and Victor Company of Japan, respectively. The only technology shared is that the HD-SDI 720p output of the HD250 carries Varicam flags. Major components such as image capture systems, recording mechanisms and signal processing technology are unique to each product line.

...and, subjectively, the best way to determine which camera is best for you is to test them in the manner you're going to use them. This forum is a great place to prep you in what to expect.

Good Luck,

Brian Luce · March 31st, 2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Yanagi

Major components such as image capture systems, recording mechanisms and signal processing technology are unique to each product line.
.

Good Luck,

Aren't Panasonic and Jvc divisons of Matsushita?

The expression "You get what you pay for" has particular relevance when comparing similar products from one company.

Jack Walker · April 1st, 2007, 01:10 AM

You might want to check out some films done with each camera.

Here is a list of HVX200 films:
http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?...ic%20AG-HVX200

And the HD250 forerunner, the HD100:
http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:JVC%20GY-HD100U

I've said it two dozen times, but in my opinion the first job is to go through the script and see what you need to shoot and how you need to shoot it. Add to the the experience of the DP/videographer. Add to that the workflow you have, are you working with certain programs, computers, whatever, etc.

And the budget is important. The HD250 is much more expensive than the HVX200 (would the HD200 be all you need?) and if you just had 1x the wide angle lens, thats another $9000.

The HD250 also requires different accessories, tripods, heads, etc. in some cases than the HVX, so are you using stuff you already have, or is that an issue?

Carefully going over these issues will probably make your decision obvious. And, yes, a tryout is definitely necessary before committing.

By the way, do you have to use P2 cards? Won't the camera record to a hard drive?
Yes, I found a recorder: http://www.abelcine.com/store/produc...ductid=1000023 (and I know Citidisk has one, too)

I also remember being told by Serious Magic at Cinegear last year (before Adobe) that they were working on recording the HVX using DV Rack.

I also wonder if the V1 might be a viable option for the right feature.

Craig Yanagi · April 1st, 2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

Aren't Panasonic and Jvc divisons of Matsushita?

Actually, Victor Company of Japan R&D operates autonomously from Panasonic. With regards to the P2 and ProHD camcorders, that's why the ballistics of the cameras are so dissimilar. Matsushita's prior ownership of Victor Company of Japan was managed through non-electronics based groups within the organization. This arrangement kept control of JVC operations, but allowed for free reign with regards to technological development. That was the direction Konosuke Matsushita, the late founder of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. had set for JVC. The VHS format is just one of the results that came from this independent development.

Dylan Couper · April 3rd, 2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

You might want to check out some films done with each camera.

Here is a list of HVX200 films:
http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?...ic%20AG-HVX200

I've been involved with two of the films on this list.
One was supposed to rent my HVX200 but ended up shooting on a DVX100 when they couldn't budget it.
The other film I DP'd using a DVX100 and shot one scene with my HVX200. Guess a film is much more marketable if they say it was shot on DVCPRO HD instead of miniDV, eh? :)

I wonder how many more on that list are exaggerations.

Jack Walker · April 3rd, 2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I wonder how many more on that list are exaggerations.

I would guess that all of them are, though in different areas.

For someone legitimately transferring to film, I would suggest she or he call a couple of reputable transfer houses and discuss the issues associated with each camera with them.

Since several features have been successfully shot with the PD150, I believe any of the HDV cameras could be used to do a good job. The decision has to be based on the other issues already brought up in this thread.

I am looking forward to Tim's feature, "Bull," to be released. I think that will be a good example of what the HDxxx cameras can do as the primary camera in a low-budget scenario.

(It's also always a good idea to remember that "low budget" includes pictures in the several million dollar range. Which reminds me, if you are doing a short -- up to 35 minutes in length -- you should contact SagIndie: http://www.sagindie.org/. They have a once a month workshop in L.A. on their contracts. By doing one screening in a certain house you can use SAG actors and get all rights to the film for any use for almost no money. Of course, it works best if a couple of top notch actors are friends of yours, and they will work for you for the SagIndie rate. But there are a lot of SAG actors who are outstanding who like to do little projects. There's not that much work. And a side, side note, I learned that all internet projects are done with individual deals with SAG. There's one guy in charge. You might want to call him if you have an internet project and have access to SAG actors. You might make it legit for very little money.)

Stephan Ahonen · April 4th, 2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I wonder how many more on that list are exaggerations.

I second that, you can't trust IMDB like it's gospel. I know a local jib operator who does a lot of television work, he's listed in IMDB for a Crash Test Dummies concert that HDNet shot around here a couple years back. I told him this and he said he remembered being called for that concert but he recommended someone else for the gig instead.

Jack Walker · April 5th, 2007, 01:05 AM

I think a lot of IMBD is taken from the film credits, and those are frequently where the problems are. But all the mistakes can be corrected. I've had my name spelled wrong in the credits, so I didn't get credit under my name. When I sent an email it the film was added to my name with an AKA... that is, they added the film, but still listed the credit with the name listed in the film credits.

As far as the cameras on a film, that info has to be given to them by someone, and frequently it is very incomplete, perhaps accurate at the initial stages but changes, etc.

March 29th, 2007, 10:34 PM	#1
Chuck Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 111	hvx200 or jvc250?? Hi I have a friend who is trying to decide which cameras to use on an indie film. He likes the dvcprohd vs hdv for compression, but I think the newer chips and encoder in the 200/250 will erase the 100mbit advantage. I think this is his only stumbling point, not a p2/vs tape concern. He does want 720 24 that I am sure of. Looking for input from those that have gone down this road. Also he will need to buy two and match images. Chuck

March 29th, 2007, 10:50 PM	#2
Tim Dashwood Wrangler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto, ON, Canada Posts: 3,637	Chuck, This discussion has come up numerous times in the past. Unfortunately, you will be unlikely to get any truly objective opinions in this forum, or the HVX forum. Do a search and you'll see what I mean. Here's just a few: Old Thread 1 Old Thread 2 Old Thread 3 The HD250 and HVX200 are different in almost every way except that they can both acquire and record 720p24 or 720p60. Otherwise it is almost pointless to compare them at all. I suggest that you or your friend make a list of features that are personally important to you and your style of filmmaking, then prioritize the list and determine which one scores the highest for you. For example: -price -format -form factor/ergonomics -interchangable lens -BNC connectors -HD-SDI out -Noise -post-workflow Then, go and test the cameras yourself. If two are being purchased for a feature film, then testing is essential. If you aren't sure about any specifics of the HD250 please ask and I'm sure one of us will know the answer. The same goes for the HVX200 forum. __________________ Tim Dashwood

March 30th, 2007, 02:07 AM	#4
Drew Curran Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: N. Ireland Posts: 370	The P2 workflow will add to the cost of the HVX in that you'll need a laptop or some other means of off-loading footage from the P2 cards when shooting in the field. The HVX only records SD to tape. It is an excellent camera for the money though - varible frame rates, etc. That was my main reason for going with the HD100 - HDV recording to tape and long form recording. Drew __________________ Pixol www.pixol.co www.facebook.com/pixolmedia www.twitter.com/pixolmedia

March 30th, 2007, 03:24 PM	#6
Werner Wesp Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Belgium Posts: 497	Bear in mind that 720 24p in DVCPROHD is only 40 Mbps, not the full 100 (- that's only with higher frame rates, this is the number I seem to remember, I haven't checked it, but I'm quite certain) - besides the HDV1 ProHD codec does very, very good work for 24p. It is very unlikely you'll get the codec to break up - just the chroma res will be somewhat lower. On the other hand, the HVX will get you a dramatically lower resolution overall. I can't imagine anyone making a feature without the manual control of a 'real' lens, but if he's thinking of using Mini35 (or the likes) this argument will be out. Anyhow, it really depends on his workflow, his style, the product he wants to deliver, the money he wants to spend, ... With information on all those aspects it would be a lot easier to advise him (just the 'taste'-aspect will always be open to discussion) - or sell him consultancy services :-) __________________ High-Definition Video Consultant - CEO of Delimex NV - http://www.delimex.be gear of choice : http://www.wespgear.com

April 1st, 2007, 01:10 AM	#10
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	You might want to check out some films done with each camera. Here is a list of HVX200 films: http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?...ic%20AG-HVX200 And the HD250 forerunner, the HD100: http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:JVC%20GY-HD100U I've said it two dozen times, but in my opinion the first job is to go through the script and see what you need to shoot and how you need to shoot it. Add to the the experience of the DP/videographer. Add to that the workflow you have, are you working with certain programs, computers, whatever, etc. And the budget is important. The HD250 is much more expensive than the HVX200 (would the HD200 be all you need?) and if you just had 1x the wide angle lens, thats another $9000. The HD250 also requires different accessories, tripods, heads, etc. in some cases than the HVX, so are you using stuff you already have, or is that an issue? Carefully going over these issues will probably make your decision obvious. And, yes, a tryout is definitely necessary before committing. By the way, do you have to use P2 cards? Won't the camera record to a hard drive? Yes, I found a recorder: http://www.abelcine.com/store/produc...ductid=1000023 (and I know Citidisk has one, too) I also remember being told by Serious Magic at Cinegear last year (before Adobe) that they were working on recording the HVX using DV Rack. I also wonder if the V1 might be a viable option for the right feature. Last edited by Jack Walker; April 1st, 2007 at 01:44 AM.

March 30th, 2007, 01:56 AM	#3
Brian Luce Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,290	The HD250 is almost double the cost of an hvx. They're made by the same company (Mat.). The Hd250 most likely going to give you better results. But bang for buck, esp for a feature, the HVX is great package.

March 30th, 2007, 02:52 AM	#5
Mike Marriage Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: NE of London, England Posts: 788	Personally I think both cameras produce a pretty similar image - both look great when handled well but are still only relatively cheap 1/3" cameras and it shows in certain situations. Do you need HDSDI output? If not, I'd get the HD200 and save some cash. If you want P2, get the HVX. If you want the more professional ergonomics, go with the JVC. The JVC with the new HZ CA13U 16mmm lens adapter looks like a great option. Check it out in this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=78280 Both these cameras will get noisy and a little ugly in low light, so bear that in mind if you're shooting a dark piece.

March 30th, 2007, 10:49 PM	#7
Chuck Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 111	Thanks for the responses, I think that the best way is as most pointed out to try them both and decide on how good they best fit and work on the project. I dont think they will use the mini, but I am hoping that they get a better lens should they choose the jvc over the "stock" lens offered. Chuck

April 5th, 2007, 01:05 AM	#15
Jack Walker Trustee Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Burbank Posts: 1,811	I think a lot of IMBD is taken from the film credits, and those are frequently where the problems are. But all the mistakes can be corrected. I've had my name spelled wrong in the credits, so I didn't get credit under my name. When I sent an email it the film was added to my name with an AKA... that is, they added the film, but still listed the credit with the name listed in the film credits. As far as the cameras on a film, that info has to be given to them by someone, and frequently it is very incomplete, perhaps accurate at the initial stages but changes, etc.