Resolution V1 vs. JVC HD100

[Ralph Sturgess]

I am a HD100 user who hasn't been all that satisfied with his camera. Most of my life I've shot with sony cams, the vx2000 and fx1 in particular, I have always enjoyed the look and feel of the footage and the reliability of the sony brand. I'm curious to know how this new camera might fare agaisnt the JVC HD100. I find the HD100 to be a very tiresome and heavy camera to lug around which has resulted for me in less productivity. I heard that though the resolution on the FX1 and Z1U seems to be higher than the 720p of the HD100 it was in fact less sharp than the HD100, which always seemed strange to me since the Fx1 is supposedly 1080 x 1440 or something as opposed to paltry 720 by 12whatever on the HD100. Which will have higher resolution? the JVC Hd100 or the V1? Which will work better in low light? I know the hd100 is pretty miserable in low light and will sometimes even get a split screen effect. I use a letus35 adapter so low light performance is very important to me. What is your take? What would you go with?

[Barry Green]

The only review that mentions both that I've seen is Nigel's on dvuser.co.uk, and he seems to say that he prefers the HD111 over the V1U.
http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=141

[Dave Ferdinand]

With such a negative opinion on the HD100 I wonder why you even need advice to get rid of it?

Anyway, everyone knows that HD100 'paltry' resolution is higher (1280x720p) than the Sony's FX1 (960x1080i). We're talking interlaced vs progressive here.

And according to most users in the HD100 forum the camera is hardly miserable in low light.

And if the camera weight of the HD100 bothers you just go for the HV10.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Letus for the HD100 is a "flip" version that has more light loss. With the V1, you could not use the "flip", so you won't need as much sensitivity. Unfortunately, you will need to rotate your footage during post production. I guess there is always some bad with the good. Regardless, I'm guessing the V1 is in the same realm of sensitivity as the HD100. To get the same sensitivity as the PD170 in an HD camera, it is probably necessary to go with a camera with larger chips like the XDCAM or even the 2/3" models.

[Steve Mullen]

"However, this is a characteristic of progressive footage, it does look a tad softer due to the way it works, this is why motion such as sports programmes always looks nicer in progressive as opposed to interlaced as it renders movement in a different way."

The reverse is true. Progressive offers a sharper, clearer image which is why it is used for sports (ESPN and FOX) and by NASA. I'm wondering if the reviewer watches 720p50 HDTV? I don't think they have it in the UK. However, the JVC does not shoot 60p -- only 25p so the JVC does look very different. Thus, it's the low temporal rate, not the fact it is progressive, that makes it software--plus the shutter-speed is 2X longer for 25p verses 50p.

"The colour saturation and contrast were about the same, only the overall sharpness of the 1080i was not there."

1) I would agree that the increased resolution I would expect from V1 progressive is not there. I suspect row-pair summation is used on all frames captured. This keeps light sensitivity and V. Rez. equal between interlace and progressive mode.

2) I'm not able to measure any difference in resolution between 24p, 30p, and 60i. However, the motion blur is much greater at 25p so I would expect it would seem less sharp.

3) Also, what's left-out in this review is the fact the JVC is feeding 720p into the monitors. The V1 is feeding 1080i50 into the monitors, even when in shooting 25p.

These may not treated the same by monitors. In particular, monitors that deinterlace by bobing toss out a field automatically turning Sony 25p into 540-lines verses JVC's 720p.

I think this "review" shows why shooters don't make professional reviewers. They simply don't have the skill set to control all the variables.