So for Filmmaker, V1 or HD-110? at DVinfo.net

Andrea Miller · October 23rd, 2006, 08:09 PM

Hi,

From what I've read I have the feeling that the V1 is not going to be better than the HD110. Of course it is speculation, but I'm curious to know your opinion. It's been reported through some posts here that in many conditions the V1 is not better than the Z1, and I think it's been established that the Z1 is a tiny bit inferior to the HD100?
Thanks
Andrea

Paulo Teixeira · October 23rd, 2006, 08:22 PM

You can always add the HVX200 to that mix if you have a good budget.

The V1u that’s been tested was not a final version so the test against JVC’s camcorders is worthless.

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...180#post560180

Heath McKnight · October 24th, 2006, 05:42 PM

Try before you buy. I like the V1 a lot, it's a great camera and held up well. You need a little more light, but you need a little more light with HDV vs. DV.

heath

Seth Bloombaum · October 24th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Any of these cameras cost a lot of money - IMO you've got to find a way to have hands on and shoot your kind of shots, camera in your hands, and see how the footage looks to you and edits in your systems.

Truth is, all these cameras are GREAT! It's more a question of what works best for you than which is "better".

Krystian Ramlogan · October 24th, 2006, 08:51 PM

All things being equal, it depends on your needs. But, since the V1u will have greater depth of field due to its size chips I'd say that was a strike against the V1u.

Also, the JVC has better manual control, so for finessing a shot or just knowing you are totally in control I'd say the JVC was a better bet.

As others have said though, you should look at footage produced by both and determine which look suits you and then weigh that against the practical use of the camera for your intended use.

K.

Heath McKnight · October 24th, 2006, 08:57 PM

And use the camera, try it out.

hwm

Tom Roper · October 24th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea Miller

Hi,

From what I've read I have the feeling that the V1 is not going to be better than the HD110. Of course it is speculation, but I'm curious to know your opinion....

Andrea

My feeling is very different, the V1U sounds like the segway to movie making nirvana by most accounts.

Krystian Ramlogan · October 24th, 2006, 10:06 PM

Movie making nirvana? Hmm, I think that's a stretch. What are your reasons?

Tom Roper · October 24th, 2006, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

Movie making nirvana? Hmm, I think that's a stretch. What are your reasons?

Latitude, absence of smear and full vertical resolution at 24P.

Bill Pryor · October 25th, 2006, 09:25 AM

I'd go with the JVC, funds permitting...shoulder mount, bigger chips, total professional control vs. handycam style. But comparing the V1 to the JVC is sort of an apples to oranges thing. The V1 is a handycam prosumer camera, while the JVC is a fully professional camera, and there are good and bad things about both styles. I find pro cameras quicker and easier to use for most things; but there are situtations where auto focus and optical stablization are very desireable.

Krystian Ramlogan · October 25th, 2006, 10:00 AM

Latitude remains to be seen, although yeah the ClearVid CMOS does appear to have a wide lattitude although at a reduced aperture range (I think...from what I've read); does it have a wider lattitude? Has there been a direct comparison that demonstrates this to be fact?

Absence of smear, hmm...yeah that's something I also think is great but under controlled lighting it's not that big of a problem. As a filmmaker, I'd think you'd be in a more controlled environment than a run and gun situation. But, it is a great thing!

Full vertical resolution compared to the JVC; hmm. different flavors of 24 frame recording aside I don't think it's that big of a difference, especially if the JVC has better glass and resolves more at which point the JVC will lead.

I'm still with the JVC, though there is room for improvement! And it is still a matter of personal opinion.

I never use any kind of in camera stabilization, even with my consumer cam; just a tripod and years of hand held work (10+) to get a steady shot - although, as my shoulder gets tired I do agree I'm very tempted!!

All of the above are just my opinion. Feel free to disagree! :-)

K.

Bill Pryor · October 25th, 2006, 10:15 AM

I pretty much agree, and I've always liked a heavier shoulder mount camera for hand held shooting. However, the handycam form has its place too. Recently I had occasion to shoot some all hand held interviews where the guy would talk and then go walk around with me following. I used a Z1, and the Z1's OIS is so good that I was able to hand hold it for the interview just as steady as with a shoulder mount camera. Then when the guy got up and walked, I was able to start following immediately, and the shot looked good. With a shoulder mount camera, I would have had to take it off my shoulder to do the walking shot, and that would have sucked. So I guess in an ideal world, there would be a handycam type camera with a quick release shoulder mount device and a viewfinder that could be repositioned forward so you could use it on the shoulder and still use the viewfinder properly.

Thomas Smet · October 25th, 2006, 10:20 AM

CMOS does seem to give a more natural film like image on the few cameras I have seen that use cmos but then again the SONY Cinealta cameras use CCD's and the last time I checked there were a few projects out there done with them that looked great. I'm sure if I offered to buy you a F900 you wouldn't turn it down even though it uses CCD's.

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.

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. Look how long it took to add true 24p support into Final Cut Pro and they have had the specs from JVC and Canon for well over a year. I hope this time the process will be faster but what if it isn't? What if you shoot a project after December and need to edit in 24p and find out you cannot exactly do that yet without a workaround conversion in a 3rd party tool. All the other forms of 24p from the other cameras are all pretty much supported now so you could start editing right away. Perhaps a point release of Vegas will add the feature but what if you do not use Vegas? Are you going to dump your NLE and move to Vegas? If you use FCP and they take a long time to add the 24p pulldown for the V1 you would have to a get whole new computer to use with Vegas. If you can wait with the camera it would be great to see how quickly the 24p support is added to NLE's.

Peter Ferling · October 25th, 2006, 11:29 AM

Tom has a point. The only way to realize the cost savings in a cheaper camera is when your production pipeline is in place to support it. Any kind of exspensive conversion or post secondary step (time cost money too), will negate the advantage. I don't have an FCP solution, I'm a windows guys and would either have to rely on adobe responding or go switch to the next best editor that supports it, and hit the wall with a learning curve/change in my workflow.

This point applies to all cameras. Some of us tent to forget that getting the media is one thing, and what you do with it is quiet another. If this camera sells like hotcakes that would only fuel the fire for NLE programmers to get a solution out quick. The second ring of the cash register is a copy of their updated software.

Marcus Marchesseault · October 25th, 2006, 02:14 PM

I agree that workflow is critical when looking at a camera. Of course HDV is the typical focus of software upgrades these days and it seems that at least FCP and Vegas are there. 24p editing may still have some hurdles, but I don't think it will be a problem for very long. At worst, an upgrade to the next version of the software should be the only expense.

Here is why I think the V1 is the ideal choice, although there are many other cameras that look very tempting:

1. Exposure latitude is really what makes film superior to video beyond what can be done by the crew to enhance the lighting. When it is all boiled down, the crew (and their lights) is first, latitude is second, and resolution is third. I would rather have an SD camera (with true 16:9) with perfect film latitude than an HD camera with consumer video camera latitude. That said, the 3-chip HDV cameras aren't deficient with latitude, but most CCDs are far short of film. CMOS seems to bridge the gap sufficiently to make it a better choice.

2. The small form factor is a huge benefit for indie movie types. It will still be a workable size with a 35mm adapter added yet can go super-portable when guerilla shooting is necessary. Unfortunately, controlled circumstances are frequently NOT a part of independant movie-making.

Other than those factors, many of the newer cameras seem overall equal. The HD110 seems like it would be perfect for corporate video and as one of the cams in a wedding environment. For any news stations that have gone HD, it seems like a perfect cam for field work where size and cost are considerations. It is too large to cram into some of the wedding/event video scenarios, but it's real lens is very appealing for some types of work.

October 23rd, 2006, 08:09 PM	#1
Andrea Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Munich Posts: 28	So for Filmmaker, V1 or HD-110? Hi, From what I've read I have the feeling that the V1 is not going to be better than the HD110. Of course it is speculation, but I'm curious to know your opinion. It's been reported through some posts here that in many conditions the V1 is not better than the Z1, and I think it's been established that the Z1 is a tiny bit inferior to the HD100? Thanks Andrea

October 24th, 2006, 05:42 PM	#3
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Try before you buy. I like the V1 a lot, it's a great camera and held up well. You need a little more light, but you need a little more light with HDV vs. DV. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

October 24th, 2006, 08:51 PM	#5
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	All things being equal, it depends on your needs. But, since the V1u will have greater depth of field due to its size chips I'd say that was a strike against the V1u. Also, the JVC has better manual control, so for finessing a shot or just knowing you are totally in control I'd say the JVC was a better bet. As others have said though, you should look at footage produced by both and determine which look suits you and then weigh that against the practical use of the camera for your intended use. K. Last edited by Krystian Ramlogan; October 24th, 2006 at 09:33 PM.

October 24th, 2006, 08:57 PM	#6
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	And use the camera, try it out. hwm __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

October 23rd, 2006, 08:22 PM	#2
Paulo Teixeira Trustee Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 1,773	You can always add the HVX200 to that mix if you have a good budget. The V1u that’s been tested was not a final version so the test against JVC’s camcorders is worthless. http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...180#post560180

October 24th, 2006, 06:28 PM	#4
Seth Bloombaum Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 3,420	Any of these cameras cost a lot of money - IMO you've got to find a way to have hands on and shoot your kind of shots, camera in your hands, and see how the footage looks to you and edits in your systems. Truth is, all these cameras are GREAT! It's more a question of what works best for you than which is "better".

October 24th, 2006, 10:06 PM	#8
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Movie making nirvana? Hmm, I think that's a stretch. What are your reasons?

October 25th, 2006, 09:25 AM	#10
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I'd go with the JVC, funds permitting...shoulder mount, bigger chips, total professional control vs. handycam style. But comparing the V1 to the JVC is sort of an apples to oranges thing. The V1 is a handycam prosumer camera, while the JVC is a fully professional camera, and there are good and bad things about both styles. I find pro cameras quicker and easier to use for most things; but there are situtations where auto focus and optical stablization are very desireable.

October 25th, 2006, 10:00 AM	#11
Krystian Ramlogan Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 121	Latitude remains to be seen, although yeah the ClearVid CMOS does appear to have a wide lattitude although at a reduced aperture range (I think...from what I've read); does it have a wider lattitude? Has there been a direct comparison that demonstrates this to be fact? Absence of smear, hmm...yeah that's something I also think is great but under controlled lighting it's not that big of a problem. As a filmmaker, I'd think you'd be in a more controlled environment than a run and gun situation. But, it is a great thing! Full vertical resolution compared to the JVC; hmm. different flavors of 24 frame recording aside I don't think it's that big of a difference, especially if the JVC has better glass and resolves more at which point the JVC will lead. I'm still with the JVC, though there is room for improvement! And it is still a matter of personal opinion. I never use any kind of in camera stabilization, even with my consumer cam; just a tripod and years of hand held work (10+) to get a steady shot - although, as my shoulder gets tired I do agree I'm very tempted!! All of the above are just my opinion. Feel free to disagree! :-) K.

October 25th, 2006, 10:15 AM	#12
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I pretty much agree, and I've always liked a heavier shoulder mount camera for hand held shooting. However, the handycam form has its place too. Recently I had occasion to shoot some all hand held interviews where the guy would talk and then go walk around with me following. I used a Z1, and the Z1's OIS is so good that I was able to hand hold it for the interview just as steady as with a shoulder mount camera. Then when the guy got up and walked, I was able to start following immediately, and the shot looked good. With a shoulder mount camera, I would have had to take it off my shoulder to do the walking shot, and that would have sucked. So I guess in an ideal world, there would be a handycam type camera with a quick release shoulder mount device and a viewfinder that could be repositioned forward so you could use it on the shoulder and still use the viewfinder properly.

October 25th, 2006, 10:20 AM	#13
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	CMOS does seem to give a more natural film like image on the few cameras I have seen that use cmos but then again the SONY Cinealta cameras use CCD's and the last time I checked there were a few projects out there done with them that looked great. I'm sure if I offered to buy you a F900 you wouldn't turn it down even though it uses CCD's. 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. 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. Look how long it took to add true 24p support into Final Cut Pro and they have had the specs from JVC and Canon for well over a year. I hope this time the process will be faster but what if it isn't? What if you shoot a project after December and need to edit in 24p and find out you cannot exactly do that yet without a workaround conversion in a 3rd party tool. All the other forms of 24p from the other cameras are all pretty much supported now so you could start editing right away. Perhaps a point release of Vegas will add the feature but what if you do not use Vegas? Are you going to dump your NLE and move to Vegas? If you use FCP and they take a long time to add the 24p pulldown for the V1 you would have to a get whole new computer to use with Vegas. If you can wait with the camera it would be great to see how quickly the 24p support is added to NLE's.

October 25th, 2006, 11:29 AM	#14
Peter Ferling Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wyomissing, PA Posts: 1,141 Images: 57	Tom has a point. The only way to realize the cost savings in a cheaper camera is when your production pipeline is in place to support it. Any kind of exspensive conversion or post secondary step (time cost money too), will negate the advantage. I don't have an FCP solution, I'm a windows guys and would either have to rely on adobe responding or go switch to the next best editor that supports it, and hit the wall with a learning curve/change in my workflow. This point applies to all cameras. Some of us tent to forget that getting the media is one thing, and what you do with it is quiet another. If this camera sells like hotcakes that would only fuel the fire for NLE programmers to get a solution out quick. The second ring of the cash register is a copy of their updated software.

October 25th, 2006, 02:14 PM	#15
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	I agree that workflow is critical when looking at a camera. Of course HDV is the typical focus of software upgrades these days and it seems that at least FCP and Vegas are there. 24p editing may still have some hurdles, but I don't think it will be a problem for very long. At worst, an upgrade to the next version of the software should be the only expense. Here is why I think the V1 is the ideal choice, although there are many other cameras that look very tempting: 1. Exposure latitude is really what makes film superior to video beyond what can be done by the crew to enhance the lighting. When it is all boiled down, the crew (and their lights) is first, latitude is second, and resolution is third. I would rather have an SD camera (with true 16:9) with perfect film latitude than an HD camera with consumer video camera latitude. That said, the 3-chip HDV cameras aren't deficient with latitude, but most CCDs are far short of film. CMOS seems to bridge the gap sufficiently to make it a better choice. 2. The small form factor is a huge benefit for indie movie types. It will still be a workable size with a 35mm adapter added yet can go super-portable when guerilla shooting is necessary. Unfortunately, controlled circumstances are frequently NOT a part of independant movie-making. Other than those factors, many of the newer cameras seem overall equal. The HD110 seems like it would be perfect for corporate video and as one of the cams in a wedding environment. For any news stations that have gone HD, it seems like a perfect cam for field work where size and cost are considerations. It is too large to cram into some of the wedding/event video scenarios, but it's real lens is very appealing for some types of work.