So for Filmmaker, V1 or HD-110?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Another thing to think about is that the pulldown method for 24p for the V1 isn't yet supported in any NLE for realtime 24p editing. I understand that the specs have been sent to all of the major NLE's but who knows how long it will take to add it in.

You should look over the posting list. You'll find EDIUS 4 supports 24p now.

As far as the specs -- 3-2 pulldown is exactly the same as used for Telicined film so it's the norm.

------------

"... although at a reduced aperture range."

I assume you mean the limit of f/11 rather than f/16. If so, then you should no that no lens should be stopped down past f/8 (1/3-inch) or f/5.6 (1/4-inch). So f/11 is more than enough.

-------------

These are such different tools that I'm not sure this question has an answer.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

...While I think the V1 is going to be a nice camera we need to stop thinking of it as the one camera to rule them all. There is no such thing as a perfect HDV camera. The V1 just gives film makers yet another option and another style of look to use to tell their story. Thats it...

I'm with that - thanks for putting it so well, Thomas. I respect the people who've posted above, but... I disagree with much of what's been written in this thread about the V1 being "better" than this camera, or "worse" than that camera.

The HD100 footage I've seen displayed full-screen full-resolution on a good monitor looks very pretty indeed! It sort of put to rest for me all the ideas about 1080i being "better" than 720p, and gave me some new attitudes about evaluating cameras.

Now, all I think about is: the pictures and the ergonomics (where the controls are, and are the controls I'm interested in easy to get at).

No, I don't own an HD100. Yes, I'm VERY anxious to get my hands on a V1, have shot several days with a Z1.

While the previews and the engineering discussions of the V1 have indeed piqued my interest, that's as far as it goes. I want to shoot pictures, and see how well I can control the camera, and how MY footage looks.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

You should look over the posting list. You'll find EDIUS 4 supports 24p now.

As far as the specs -- 3-2 pulldown is exactly the same as used for Telicined film so it's the norm.

The 3:2 pulldown is not the same. It is the same pattern but film doesn't use flags. mpeg-2 video will use flags so the NLE's need to know how to deal with those flags. Perhaps Edius does work with it but how could it have been tested since the V1 isn't out yet? We do not know how well it works or if the process is going to be slow. Edius may work great with it but we just do not know at this stage and this is my only concern. My concern isn't that it will never work but when will it work and how well will it work. I think it is pretty blind to just trust in a format before it has been through it's paces and worked out in the industry first. Even if Edius does work well what about the other NLE's? Not everybody uses Edius. I still think the V1 is going to be a good camera but I think it would be wise to hold off getting one for at least a few months after it comes out to see how the NLE support works out first.

[Jeff Zimmerman]

What gets me about the HD110 is that its still 1280x720 - this is not high definition - this is somewhere between SD and HD. I've seen first hand comparison between a HD100 and a Canon XL-H1 at 1080i downconverted to 720p - Hands down the H1 kicked its butt. Two weeks ago I was at the Video Expo in Denver and asked a JVC rep if they planned on getting into 1080 high def. She simply explained they were a progressive house and where going to stay at 720p - well what about 1080p which is aronud the corner. That's progressive. Personally I don't like any footage you have to upconvert to get the desired resolution needed. That's where the V1 comes in - it will do 1080i - SD ultra slo-mo and 24p - It will kick the crap out of any JVC product in its price range. Granted the optical-lens acquistion of the HD110 is very nice but is bumping up a lower resolution picture really what your after? If you want the sweet film look by a nice matte box with some fitlers control your lighting and shoot in 1080 - Also just on a side note, is it really fair to compare Sony's $4000 V1 "HD" camera to JVC's $6,600 "Better than SD" camera? Sony has got the upper hand and always will.... Its too bad that JVC misses the boat on what HD houses need. About NLE support, it will probable strong for professional applications like Avid and Final Cut. Heck I'm all ready editing XDCam in Final Cut with flawless results and that just came out not to long ago.

[Bill Pryor]

A very good point. It's always best to let somebody else be the first kid on the block with the new toy. I've rarely bought any camera until the second generation.

[Heath McKnight]

Jeff,

You are wrong; anything over 575 lines of vertical resolution is considered HD. 720p is high definition.

heath

[Jeff Zimmerman]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

anything over 575 lines of vertical resolution is considered HD. 720p is high definition.

So your saying any old DVCam, Beta Camera that can do over 575 lines or better yet PAL at 768x576 is High Def? I think not... although the standards due say 720p and 1080 formats are high def. If you even attempt to match 720p to a 1080 image your going to notice a difference. 1080 has more spatial resolution then 720p making it a higher resolution picture with more detail than 720p. Even if you convert a 720p image to 1080i your going to lose detail. If your going for the big picture 1080 is where you want to be. To lock yourself into a JVC product that only does 720p with a lose in conversion to 1080 is not where you want to be. Start with the best resolution you can and if you decide to downconvert it will look much better than any up conversion. I don't mean to blast 720p but I have seen it first hand. Sony's V1 may not look as professional as the HD110 but for the price your better off going with something at 1080. The Z1U is even cheaper than any HD100's out there. Plus you get that awesome battery life.

Here's a link I found about HDTV Standards : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_definition_television

Appreciate the forum.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Heath is technically correct, even if off by a pixel or two. Analog resolution isn't often thought about, so it would be more accurate to say "anything above 580 lines is technically HD."

Interestingly, there are camcorders with imagers smaller than 580 v lines that are HD, due to resampling ability.

But I agree with you in that the world is a 1080 world.

[Andrea Miller]

I read the results at DV.COM and the HD-100 was actually not bad at all. Actually in that shoot out, the HD 100 was considered a tad above the Z1? You seem to forget that 1080i is interlaced, that's what the i means! Sure, it occupies more space on the screen, but with a trick, if I understand correctly.

For me 1080i is like dilution. Progressive is concentrated. Beside I've heard that it's a good thing that JVC use smaller GOP to make their HD images. You are the only one who is saying that the HD 100 is not HD.

Besides by changing the lense on the JVC you might indeed get a much better picture. You can rent a $ 30,000 lens for a day, three days, a week to hook up on your HD 100 if you need it? That's an amazing advantage.

I don't own a HD 100, the only cam I've own is a DVX 100a, but I've seen footage of a HD 100 from a guy who went to Madagascar film a documentary and there is no doubt the JVC is superb.

I also saw some footage of the HD 100 transposed to film at Duart in NYC and yes, I was very impressed. This is more than enough to tell a story.

If what you're going to shoot is visually comparable to what was in Brokeback Mountains, I think Film will always be better. Cowboys riding horses with big mountains in the back will always look better on film. But I have no idea why Woody Allen still bothers shooting his stuff, mainly interiors, with anything better than a HD 110. That cam would be perfect for him. All shots are very static, no panning at all, no high speed object, no big panoramic.

[Brett Sherman]

Originally Posted by Andrea Miller

For me 1080i is like dilution. Progressive is concentrated. Beside I've heard that it's a good thing that JVC use smaller GOP to make their HD images.

That's the advantage of the Sony in that it shoots 1080P if you want. Sure, HDV format is 1080i, but the actual image is 1080P. As you are aware since you own a DVX100 a progressive image can be recorded in an interlaced format.

JVC has also been known to show more "stickiness" with the image where things stay stationary for 6 frames then jump.

[Thomas Smet]

Jeff the Z1 does not have any more detail then the HD100 this has been proven already. The only camera that does have more detail then the HD100 is the Canon HDV cameras which are detail junkies. Even then through a lot of tests the HD100 could hold it's own compared to the 1080i cameras. I really think you are getting wrapped up in the numbers. Yes a down scaled image from the Canon may look better but that is more based on the look of the camera and nothing to do with detail. JVC has a very interesting look to it that people used to shooting video may or may not like.

You talk about how bad it is to upscale but what about 1080i only pushing 540 pixels per field. On a progressive display each of the 60 frames per second is only using 540 vertical pixels that alternate every other line so either the in between lines are duplicated or interpolated depending on how good of a TV you have. The last time I checked 540 was smaller then 720.

Also you must remember that 1080i HDV only samples 1440 pixels which is only slightly smaller then 1280. So on a progressive display you have 1440x540 vs. 1280x720 per 1/60th a second.

Another thing that makes 720p seem not so bad is something even you said. If you downscale Canon 1080i footage to 720p and upconvert back to 1080 it still looks very good. In fact if you compared the two side by side you would see that you really didn't loose much at all. So in fact all 1080i HDV cameras seem to only do slightly better or equal to 1280x720 lines worth of detail. The Canon may go above that range by a little bit but it is very far from a clear difference. This again goes back to the look of the JVC. JVC just has a different look to it. You either like it or you do not. I can tell you that there are a lot of very high end people who have shot on film for decades compared to us who love the HD100 to death. Are you going to say those guys who have shot on film before are too blind to see how bad the JVC is?

1080i HDV is almost a waste if you think about it. maybe we get a very very slight detail edge on some 1080i HDV cameras but in the end is it really worth it for the higher level of bandwidth that is needed? Based on many tests the JVC is for the most part equal in detail to the other HDV cameras. If that is the case it would have been better for SONY and Canon to go with 720p as well. 720p is easier to work with because it doesn't waste pixels and is progressive in nature. 720p 24p uses much less bandwidth compared to 1080i 24p but has been shown to hold up almost as much detail. If all the other cameras were 720p they would all have different looks and wouldn't look the same as the JVC. The Canon would look like it does now when you scale down the 1080i footage to 720p. The same would have been true for SONY. The problem however is that the 720p vs. 1080i is more political then anything else at this stage.

ABC has a lot of TV shows in HD and they look great but guess what they are all shot at 720p. In fact they use DVCPROHD which is my opinion is in some ways worse then 720p HDV due to the fact that it only samples 960x720p pixels. It still looks great however. Pixels and resoultion are not everything. Yeah if you had a great 1080p camera that really had 1920x1080 pixels worth of detail it would look better then 720p but we do not have that yet. A Cinealta will look better but then gain we are not talking about a Cinealta. There is a reason why even the Z1 was considered "half HD" by some pros that work with the Cinealta. Because it isn't anywhere near up to the full detail potential as true 1080p HD. It is about on par with 720p HD but with a slightly different look.

Jeff you can say what you want but I know a lot of pros who have shot on 35mm that love their HD100's.

[Heath McKnight]

Spot,

Thanks for the correction.

And everyone, I've used amost every HDV and DVCPro HD camera below $10,000, except the news JVC offerings, but that will soon change. Of all the cameras, the Z1 is still my favorite, but the HD100 had a very film-like image; the V1 has a lot of potential, but I need more time with it, but I love what I've seen so far; the HVX is a great camera; the H1 is, too.

heath

[Tim Brown]

Jeff,

Have you used either the H1 or the HD100?

[David Ziegelheim]

To me it is more of a budget issue. The HD100 will end up 50% more expensive with accessories. I'm sure both will produce a decent image. And both would need some adapter for DOF enhancement.

One wild card not mentioned is the HDMI out on the V1. It provides a less expensive option to record uncompressed 4:2:2 video (compared to the JVC component out). I would be very interested to see the effect of this vs. all the other camera features. You couldn't use the HDMI in a run and gun, avoid the police I don't have a permit scenario, but you could indoors.

If it is true, the wider latitude and HDMI uncompressed capture would also, possibly, help when you don't have enough lights, flags, and gels to make everything work right.

Personally, I'm waiting until the spring or I need something immediately. In addition to the V1 and Canon A1, there should be a new, small, 1080p JVC, some AVCHD Panasonic, and maybe the Sony Z2.

[Tim Brown]

David,

With regard to the HD100, what accessories are you referring to?