Video noise of 950 & PD-150 at DVinfo.net

Yik Kuen · March 27th, 2003, 08:46 AM

Do you guys notice that the 950's grain is not as noticeable as PD-150's?

Although PD-150 is brighter, but when the gain kicks in, the video noise is intolerable after +9dB.

950 (or those with more pixels like X10) has somehow finer video grain. Even though not as bright, but it produces cleaner video!

Tom Hardwick · March 28th, 2003, 11:13 AM

This is somewhat acedemic simply because the 950 *better* be quieter because it goes into gain up so much earlier than the VX2000/PD150.

When the 150 is at maximum aperture and 0dB, the 950 in the same situation is at maximum aperture and +9dB. (I'm making the assumption that it's half a stop worse than the TRV900, in which case the +9dB is correct).

If you film at maximum telephoto then (in the same lighting conditiions) the 150 will be max aperture and +6dB. The 950 will be max aperture and a not very funny +18dB. Do you still think it "produces cleaner video" Yik?

tom.

Yik Kuen · March 28th, 2003, 06:39 PM

Precisely, Tom. I have compared both the PD-150 and 950 side by side. Forgive me, I'm just a video newbie, trying to share what I see. I do not have sophisticated tools nor professional knowledge to judge this.

950 at +18 dB at iris wide opened, is almost as bright as the PD-150 at 0 dB gain, albeit, lower in color accuracy.

And of coz, if you pump up the gain on 150, it will be very much brighter than the 950. But, the quality of 150 footages with more than +12 dB gain is unacceptable.

I'm not saying that 950 produces better and brighter images than 150, but just wondering if the processing capabilty of 950 is somehow better in suppressing noise.

The newer cams definately has better DSP and processing algorithm built-in, and I'm pretty sure, the newer breeds of Sony DV/DVCAM (VX3000 or PD-160!) will have the same or better processing capability in addition to their better optics.

We have 950, 150 and thinking to get another cam, JVC GY-DV-301 sometime next week. What do you think? Any comments on this JVC model? Does it live up to the PD-150 standard?

Thank you.

Tom Hardwick · March 29th, 2003, 01:06 AM

I just read a test of the JVC 301 last night Yik, and it made me very wary of the cam. There are two points that worried me. One is the aperture control - in both the auto and manual settings, any change in aperture was done is very visible steps. As you know, the 150 is invisibly smooth as it varyies the aperture in auto. Wish I could say the same for it in manual though.

The next thing on the JVC was the non-detachable lens hood. WhyJVC have done this I have no idea, but as the tester said, fitting any sort of lens converter is a bit of an adventure.

tom.

Kenn Jolemore · March 29th, 2003, 07:02 AM

Tom wrote:
The next thing on the JVC was the non-detachable lens hood. WhyJVC have done this I have no idea, but as the tester said, fitting any sort of lens converter is a bit of an adventure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You sure have that right . Instructions that start with "using a sharp hacksaw blade" involving camcorders tend to get my attention.
KennJ

Yik Kuen · March 29th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Yes guys, I have read it too. But I like the additional settings like :

- Auto knee
- Black stretch
- Black compress
- Color matix
- Cine gamma
- Additional gain levels like -3 dB and +24 dB

Changing or attaching lens is not really that important to me. Like the XL1s, the lenses are way too expensive for me. Guess, I will be sticking to their original optics most of the time.

Regarding the iris in auto, I just can't believe that the engineers in JVC could design a pro cam like this. I would really like to hear from somebody that has purchased and used this cam since I couldn't have hands on testing at the shop.

Thank you.

Tom Hardwick · March 30th, 2003, 12:54 AM

I think you're right to be suspicious of any test report Yik. Here in the UK the JVC sells for 300UKP less than the VX2000. Now that's quite a lump of money - it's a bayonet-on Optex 0.65x converter for instance (which of course you can't fit to the JVC), but in the brochure in front of me JVC show the two converters they make for the cam. One's a 1.4x tele and the other is a 0.7x widie. The filter diameter is 52mm so at least accessories won't be madly expensive. and the standard zoom is 14x, starting at a wider angle than the VX2k.

tom.

Yik Kuen · March 30th, 2003, 08:49 AM

Hi guys,

I'm really puzzled now. Why are they selling the JVC 301E at the same price as AG-DVX100 here in Singapore?

Here the AG-DVX100 is about S$5000, VX2000 at $4100.

Is there a price difference btw JVC DV300 and 301?

(301 = newer model that supports DV in)

Do you think is worth while to get JVC for its pro-like configurabilities, bearing the risk of getting lousier quality than the PD-150 and VX2000?

I'm just worried if the JVC model produces noisier video than the above VX and PD, not just only in dim environment but bright objects too, like AG-DVX100 does.

Tom Hardwick · March 31st, 2003, 01:40 AM

Small correction Yik, the 300 and the 301 are parallel models, both introduced at the same time. The 300 is intended for those that don't wish to pay the European "VCR recorder import tax" and have other ways of recording to DV.

Another point bearing in mind - do make sure that the JVC will happily work with your capture card. Of all the manufacturers, JVC seem to be the on with the most difficulties in this department.

tom.

Yik Kuen · March 31st, 2003, 01:55 AM

Thank you Tom.

Yes you are right, I heard that too. But I suppose, that should be the previous batch of camcorders. All newer ones should be OK.

But there's still some risk, ya..

*you've given me another headache :p

Tom Hardwick · March 31st, 2003, 03:14 AM

Better curable headaches now than incurable diseases later Yik. That's what these message boards (and in fact the whole WWW) are so good at - they give the lousy manufacturer nowhere to hide and they give the good manufactures a pat on the back.

But the only way I'd be tempted to shell out for the 301 was if I could hire one for a weekend or a dealer would let me really test it out, and connected to my NLE too.

Here in the UK the 301 has been a bit of a failure. I say this because although all new camcorders drop in price and find their true market value with a month or three, the JVC (with its XLRs)started with illusions of grandeur that put it in PD150 terrority. It's now selling at a smidgen more than the little TRV950.

It's a brave effort by JVC, but to really compete with the DVX100 and the VX2k it should've had a larger side screen and most certainly have a manual zoom ring and two ND filters. And if that hood really is non-detachable then any widie must be able to fit within the 4:3 aperture within the existing hood.

In fact I simply cannot believe the hood is fixed! Just looking at the pictures shows that actually manufacturing such a protrusion as a fixed entity would be near-on impossible. You'd never be able to attach filters to the front of the lens either - I reckon that tester just has weak wrists.

tom.

March 27th, 2003, 08:46 AM	#1
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Video noise of 950 & PD-150 Do you guys notice that the 950's grain is not as noticeable as PD-150's? Although PD-150 is brighter, but when the gain kicks in, the video noise is intolerable after +9dB. 950 (or those with more pixels like X10) has somehow finer video grain. Even though not as bright, but it produces cleaner video!

March 29th, 2003, 07:02 AM	#5
Kenn Jolemore Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: norfolk Va. Posts: 124	Tom wrote: The next thing on the JVC was the non-detachable lens hood. WhyJVC have done this I have no idea, but as the tester said, fitting any sort of lens converter is a bit of an adventure. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You sure have that right . Instructions that start with "using a sharp hacksaw blade" involving camcorders tend to get my attention. KennJ __________________ KennJ

March 28th, 2003, 11:13 AM	#2
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	This is somewhat acedemic simply because the 950 better be quieter because it goes into gain up so much earlier than the VX2000/PD150. When the 150 is at maximum aperture and 0dB, the 950 in the same situation is at maximum aperture and +9dB. (I'm making the assumption that it's half a stop worse than the TRV900, in which case the +9dB is correct). If you film at maximum telephoto then (in the same lighting conditiions) the 150 will be max aperture and +6dB. The 950 will be max aperture and a not very funny +18dB. Do you still think it "produces cleaner video" Yik? tom.

March 28th, 2003, 06:39 PM	#3
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Precisely, Tom. I have compared both the PD-150 and 950 side by side. Forgive me, I'm just a video newbie, trying to share what I see. I do not have sophisticated tools nor professional knowledge to judge this. 950 at +18 dB at iris wide opened, is almost as bright as the PD-150 at 0 dB gain, albeit, lower in color accuracy. And of coz, if you pump up the gain on 150, it will be very much brighter than the 950. But, the quality of 150 footages with more than +12 dB gain is unacceptable. I'm not saying that 950 produces better and brighter images than 150, but just wondering if the processing capabilty of 950 is somehow better in suppressing noise. The newer cams definately has better DSP and processing algorithm built-in, and I'm pretty sure, the newer breeds of Sony DV/DVCAM (VX3000 or PD-160!) will have the same or better processing capability in addition to their better optics. We have 950, 150 and thinking to get another cam, JVC GY-DV-301 sometime next week. What do you think? Any comments on this JVC model? Does it live up to the PD-150 standard? Thank you.

March 29th, 2003, 01:06 AM	#4
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I just read a test of the JVC 301 last night Yik, and it made me very wary of the cam. There are two points that worried me. One is the aperture control - in both the auto and manual settings, any change in aperture was done is very visible steps. As you know, the 150 is invisibly smooth as it varyies the aperture in auto. Wish I could say the same for it in manual though. The next thing on the JVC was the non-detachable lens hood. WhyJVC have done this I have no idea, but as the tester said, fitting any sort of lens converter is a bit of an adventure. tom.

March 29th, 2003, 08:32 PM	#6
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Yes guys, I have read it too. But I like the additional settings like : - Auto knee - Black stretch - Black compress - Color matix - Cine gamma - Additional gain levels like -3 dB and +24 dB Changing or attaching lens is not really that important to me. Like the XL1s, the lenses are way too expensive for me. Guess, I will be sticking to their original optics most of the time. Regarding the iris in auto, I just can't believe that the engineers in JVC could design a pro cam like this. I would really like to hear from somebody that has purchased and used this cam since I couldn't have hands on testing at the shop. Thank you.

March 30th, 2003, 12:54 AM	#7
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I think you're right to be suspicious of any test report Yik. Here in the UK the JVC sells for 300UKP less than the VX2000. Now that's quite a lump of money - it's a bayonet-on Optex 0.65x converter for instance (which of course you can't fit to the JVC), but in the brochure in front of me JVC show the two converters they make for the cam. One's a 1.4x tele and the other is a 0.7x widie. The filter diameter is 52mm so at least accessories won't be madly expensive. and the standard zoom is 14x, starting at a wider angle than the VX2k. tom.

March 30th, 2003, 08:49 AM	#8
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Hi guys, I'm really puzzled now. Why are they selling the JVC 301E at the same price as AG-DVX100 here in Singapore? Here the AG-DVX100 is about S$5000, VX2000 at $4100. Is there a price difference btw JVC DV300 and 301? (301 = newer model that supports DV in) Do you think is worth while to get JVC for its pro-like configurabilities, bearing the risk of getting lousier quality than the PD-150 and VX2000? I'm just worried if the JVC model produces noisier video than the above VX and PD, not just only in dim environment but bright objects too, like AG-DVX100 does.

March 31st, 2003, 01:40 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Small correction Yik, the 300 and the 301 are parallel models, both introduced at the same time. The 300 is intended for those that don't wish to pay the European "VCR recorder import tax" and have other ways of recording to DV. Another point bearing in mind - do make sure that the JVC will happily work with your capture card. Of all the manufacturers, JVC seem to be the on with the most difficulties in this department. tom.

March 31st, 2003, 01:55 AM	#10
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Thank you Tom. Yes you are right, I heard that too. But I suppose, that should be the previous batch of camcorders. All newer ones should be OK. But there's still some risk, ya.. *you've given me another headache :p

March 31st, 2003, 03:14 AM	#11
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Better curable headaches now than incurable diseases later Yik. That's what these message boards (and in fact the whole WWW) are so good at - they give the lousy manufacturer nowhere to hide and they give the good manufactures a pat on the back. But the only way I'd be tempted to shell out for the 301 was if I could hire one for a weekend or a dealer would let me really test it out, and connected to my NLE too. Here in the UK the 301 has been a bit of a failure. I say this because although all new camcorders drop in price and find their true market value with a month or three, the JVC (with its XLRs)started with illusions of grandeur that put it in PD150 terrority. It's now selling at a smidgen more than the little TRV950. It's a brave effort by JVC, but to really compete with the DVX100 and the VX2k it should've had a larger side screen and most certainly have a manual zoom ring and two ND filters. And if that hood really is non-detachable then any widie must be able to fit within the 4:3 aperture within the existing hood. In fact I simply cannot believe the hood is fixed! Just looking at the pictures shows that actually manufacturing such a protrusion as a fixed entity would be near-on impossible. You'd never be able to attach filters to the front of the lens either - I reckon that tester just has weak wrists. tom.