HM100 & HM700 + Canon 14x Lens Field Test
 

thanks Tim! Still downloading some of them. I'm happily surprised at how good the HM100 looks to my eyes! I wonder if I can rationalize one for some bi-plane arial work i might get next month.

The Canon lens so far looks to me to be similar to the 17x quality.. basically at it's worst is about the same as 16x at it's best? I'll have to stare at them some more for a couple days to say anything else.

Thanks for posting!

Thank you Tim!!

Thank you!

Hey Tim,
I can't seem to play the .MOV files (im on a macbook), even tried to import to FCP, but it won't let me see it, just a little audio? also tried VLC... any ideas?

If you have FCP6 they should play fine (even though the Macbook may drop frames with 1920x1080 35mbps media).
If you have an earlier version of FCP just download and install the PerianXDCam component into your Macintosh HD/Library/Quicktime folder.

Great images from both cameras especially considering the lack of filters and the strong sunlight. The 100 is amazingly close to the 700 in this situation. Gross MPEG artifacts are minimal compared to what I would expect HDV to have in a similar setting. I have a question about the apparent grain in the image. Would you ascribe this to the MPEG or the camera itself?

Looking at the raw clips, particularly looking at the sky, it appears the HM100 has a lot of grain/noise. The HM700 has less noticeable grain, but more MPEG-induced banding in the gradient of the sky's colors.

Thanks Tim! works fine now

did you shoot any 720p?
 

Tim,

Did you or anyone else shoot any 720 @ 24fps at 35mbs? Just wondering if the daylight noise is lower and if we gain anything in the extra headroom we get with 720p 24fps 35mbs vs 1080p 24fps 35mbs. Thank you.

Simon, you might also try Apple software update to get the latest version of Quicktime. I had the same problem, but it did the trick for me.

These new cameras by JVC intrigued me, but after seeing these clips, I am pretty shocked. What's with all the video noise? In sunny situations, you should have to be magnifying the image by 200% on a monitor to see any noise, even with a 1/3" chip camera. Looks like JVC has failed. Their previous offerings only had 720 resolution, and now their 1080 stuff looks like garbage. But that's just my opinion. I definitely won't consider a JVC for a future purchase. Sorry to be real about it, but these images look terrible to me.

Tim,
Are the linked files actually raw from the camera's?

Thanks amigo..

I found also a lot of noise.. but lately I am changing my mind on it. It doeasn't look such a problem... If I compress in MPEG2 at the end of my editing (either DVD or Blueray) to give the final product to my client, the noise seems to disappear and become a nice cinema-look grain.
Check this MPEG2 (DVD quality) file:

http://www.siroma.com/AreaRiservata/...glia10.m2v.zip (280 Mbytes... 10 minutes)

All footage is shot with HM700, Fujinon 16x (same like GY200) also with macro use. Many shots made with automatic settings (also allowing gain). Colour settings are personal (black compressed to reduce noise in dark gray areas and colours enhanced). Seagul shot is shot at 1280 60p and slowmotioned to 25 while also upscaled to 1920 (before compressing to 720 16/9 mpeg2)

Thanks for the test, but the CA on the car on the left side looks not so good.

But I read the Panasonic HP300-manual and find the important point
"CA-Correction works only in horizontal line", so I see some CAs on
Phil Blooms-Testclips from his walk on the sea.

So the CAC is not so good, as I thought. When Canon builds a really good
new optic with the 14x4,4, so the HM700 will be really better then the HPX301.

-----
Hi Marcello, I see your Clips and find the colour fringings etc. really bad.
But the in Europe available Fujinon 16x5,5 is not so good for really
HighDefinition - and the 17x5-Fujinon is not available in the German shops.