ABC may use HD100

[Gibby]

In an article by Jay Ankeney, in the latest print edition of TV Technology, page 17, entitled "Good Morning America goes HD", Ankeney quotes Preston Davis, president of Broadcast Operations and Engineering for ABC, as stating that Davis predicts the new HDV recording format will play an increasingly larger role in Good morning America's remote productions. Davis stated that ABC currently uses DV cameras such as the PD-150, which they will gradually replace with 720p HDV cameras, and that ABC feels HDV is a very suitable format for ABC's early transition into high-definition television news.

The only 3-chip 720p HDV camera on the market is the new HD100. The HD100 is roughly the size of a PD150, so it can be assumed that the HD100 is the camera that Preston Davis is referring to. Interchangeable lenses on the HD100 has to be another feature that's attractive to ABC.

The above statement has nothing to do with the obvious ability of the HD100 to be a hardlined uncompressed 720p60 to HD-SDI news and sports camera. It refers to the HD100 as a replacement for ABC's PD150's, for ENG use. ABC, ESPN, and Fox all broadcast their HDTV in 720p. I think wisdom dictates that smaller production entities, like those of us on this board, especially those that shoot ENG-style mobile television, and who freelance or do contract production for those networks, should find this information quite interesting. It's way too early to dismiss the HD100 as just a 24p documentary or feature camera. It may prove to be much more versatile in application than us second guessers on internet chat boards think...

I already own a Z1, I'm buying two HD100's, and I can't wait to buy two HVX200's. Different paint brushes for different canvassas. The more diverse my can of brushes is, the more economic viability and survival ability my company has. When I need an F900s or Varicams, I'll rent them on a per project basis...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[Sirius_Doggy]

The HD100 is roughly the size of a PD150,

huh? I don't think the HD100 w/lens is near the size of a PD150. It's quite a bit bigger.

[Barry_Green]

The HD100 without the lens is about the size of a pack of cigarettes, maybe a bit thicker. :laugh: Okay, that may be an exaggeration but not much. It's a SMALL camera. The main body is certainly no bigger than the PD150's main body. The lens is longer and skinnier. About the only thing that adds "size" to the HD100 is the handle on the top.

Someone did a size-scale comparison that showed the HD100 was almost exactly the same size as a DVX, so I'd say Gibby's right on the money by comparing it with the PD150. The HD100's just a slight bit bigger than the DVX. Now, with the 13x wide-angle lens, yes it's bigger because that lens is a lot beefier. But with the stock lens, no, it's not any bigger than a PD150/DVX class camera.

[Sirius_Doggy]

I know you were exaggerating with the cigs comment but it sure looks a bit bigger with the lens. And afterall, you will NOT be shooting anything without the lens on there.....:grin:

http://cakonos.image.pbase.com/image/42302896.jpg

[athouguia]

I've printed the PDF brochure that has a real size photo in 3 pages. Putted all three together and compaired with my PD170. The HD100 is about 15 centimeters bigger than the Sony... it's quite a difference. It's about the same size as the XL2.

[Gibby]

In my initial post I said "roughly the size of a PD150" - which it is. I didn't say "exactly the size of a PD150". I've worked extensively with a PD150 and handled the HD100 at NAB, and I'm well award of their relative sizes.

I took the time to post an interesting tip, on this HD100 board, describing a new article quoting a top-level ABC network executive saying they intend to use a 720p HDV camcorder for some of their national news gathering and for their Good Morning America national program, and as a simple bylight mentioned that it would replace ABC's HD150 for those functions, and all each of you responding posters can think to address is the relative sizes of the HD100 and PD150? The point is that ABC will switch from a mid-sized DVCAM format camcorder to a mid-sized 720p HDV camcorder, which at present could only be the HD100...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[Barry_Green]

Here's the size comparison photo that member 10s put together a while ago:
http://img237.exs.cx/img237/4872/jvcdvx9pw.jpg

So the JVC is a little longer, but overall it's pretty much the same basic size as a DVX (or a PD150, as Gibby originally postulated).

[Sirius_Doggy]

Not to make a big deal out of this but sorry, there is NO way that photo is accurate.
According to the DVX manual - our camera is 14 3/8" long.
According to the JVC website, the HD100 body is 12 3/8" long. There's no way that lens is only 2".
If you look at JVC's website and look at the photos of the guys holding the camera on thier shoulder....then place your DVX on your shoulder the same way (I know it's not designed for that) you'll see that the HD100 w/lens is easily 5 or 6 inches longer than the DVX.

Here's my thoughts on the size comparison:

http://ck37.image.pbase.com/image/46511937.jpg

[Amahp]

Does size really matters? Wouldn't it be cool to have a 1080i HD DVXpro camera the size of a pack of ciggarets? Imagine the manoverability.

[athouguia]

Gibby, thank you for your good post and sorry for talking about the camera's size.

[mezelf27]

Sorry to bring up the size again, but on the pdf there are exact measurements. In total the HD100 with standardlens is at least (depends on the position of the shoulder-pad) 45cm (= 17,7 inch). The DVX is roughly half that size... (I have used one quite a bit).

Size doens't say everything, but obviously, when filmen with the HD100 you're not quite as inconspicuous as with the DVX (to the un-trained eye, of course). So it all depends what ABC wants a smaller camcorder for.

The HD100 is indeed a small professional camcorder and it looks that way. To the untrained eye it's still a professional crew filming, something that might be avoidable with the DVX and the upcoming HVX. If it's your intention to draw no attention to yourself at all... this is a point to consider. Everyone saw the XL1 and XL2 as a full professional camcorder (especially with a windjammer on the mike). The HD100 will receive the same reaction.

Sometimes that's desirable, sometimes not. and sometimes it's desirable to have a smaller camcorder (like the DVX), and sometimes, not...

So IMO, it all depends what the ABC guy actually ment....

[Gibby]

Sorry to bring up the size again, but on the pdf there are exact measurements. In total the HD100 with standardlens is at least (depends on the position of the shoulder-pad) 45cm (= 17,7 inch). The DVX is roughly half that size... (I have used one quite a bit).

Size doens't say everything, but obviously, when filmen with the HD100 you're not quite as inconspicuous as with the DVX (to the un-trained eye, of course). So it all depends what ABC wants a smaller camcorder for.

The HD100 is indeed a small professional camcorder and it looks that way. To the untrained eye it's still a professional crew filming, something that might be avoidable with the DVX and the upcoming HVX. If it's your intention to draw no attention to yourself at all... this is a point to consider. Everyone saw the XL1 and XL2 as a full professional camcorder (especially with a windjammer on the mike). The HD100 will receive the same reaction.

Sometimes that's desirable, sometimes not. and sometimes it's desirable to have a smaller camcorder (like the DVX), and sometimes, not...

So IMO, it all depends what the ABC guy actually ment....

The ABC executive quoted in the article specifically said that ABC will be switching from the PD150's to 720p HDV for some of ABC's national news gathering and field production for ABC's Good Morning America program. Why bring up the DVX (DV) and HVX (DVCProHD), when he specifically stated they were going to use a 720p HDV camera? ABC broadcasts theirTheir transition is happening right now, and what is the only 3-chip 720p HDV camera about to be shipped? The HD100. ABC (and Fox and ESPN) broadcasts their HDTV in 720p. ABC didn't state that they were going to use the new 720p HDV cameras for undercover journalism. ABC didn't use the PD150s for that either. The PD150, with the shotgun mic, looks like a professional camera to most observers. My crews have used PD150s quite often - and nobody thought they were amateurs. It's big enough, expecially when accessorized, to look very professional.

Why is everyone on this thread getting off on camera size tangents and discussing everything but what ABC stated: that they will be transitioning from DVCAM (PD150) to 720p HDV (if not HD100, what else?) for some of their national field acquisition? Instead of "Well, if ABC is using them, I might have to re-think my biases, it's "But the DVX is _ centimeters long...", and on and on...

C'mon guys! I love my DVX and I'm buying two HVX's. But I'm also buying two HD100 packages. I made that decision in April at NAB, where I was checking out the HD100 elbow to elbow with executives from several TV networks. I have a long resume of producing, directing, and shooting nationally-airing television programs. I've taken the time to share pertinent information that could have some positive impact on many of your production careers. I have no agenda in doing so, and I'm not a lackey for any particular manufacturer. I just feel its good "karma" to share important information whenever possible...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[Sirius_Doggy]

Gibby - First let me apologize for sort of thread-jacking from the very beginning regarding the size.

Second - I have no doubt from the very begining post that ABC is talking about the HD100. I never claimed they were talking about any other camera other than the HD100 I simply brought up the one part of the comment made by you (or copied from the article you read) about the PD150 & HD100 being roughly the same size. From there the posts have sort of spiralled into all this other conversation. I too handled the HD100 at NAB so that's why it struck me that someone (you or whoever you quoted) claimed they are roughly the same size. I'd compare the PD150 to the DVX or HVX in size but not the HD100. That's the only point I was trying to make. If I had to compare the HD100 to anything it would be the XL1 or 2.

Third - Good luck with your 2 HVX's and 2 HD100's. You must have a killer business going out there to drop "roughly" $35k on new cameras. Wish I was in your boat.

[mezelf27]

Sorry, Gibby, I was not trying to discret you or anything. I was just commenting on the shape and dimensions. Not of any post in specific, just to share the info I had on that. Don't get me wrong...

I'm bying a HD101e as well, and I'm pretty sure it'll be comparable to my XL2 (witch was just a little bit bigger then my old XL1).

Sorry if I offended you....

By the way: to me this is a very interesing point, because I'm waiting for my HD101 (should arrive next week), but I have never seen one or held one....

[Gibby]

Doggy - No worries! Yeah, it was me that said the PD150 and HD100 are roughly the same size. no doubt the HD100 is larger, but my point is that it is a midsize replacing a mid size. Mobility is what ABC is after, and an XL2/HD100 sized camera still provides that much more readily than a full-sized rig. Having entities the size of ABC using small, affordable camcorders for some of their work opens up tremendous opportunities for boutique production shops and freelance operators. Plus it's good news for the overall industry - the more large, prestigious companies buy cameras like the HD100 and HVX, the more prices drop, storage gets cheaper, editing NLEs adopt formats, etc. For smaller prosumer and equipment-challenged professionals it's a very positive sign! I recently posted an HVX200 news item about potential use of the HVX at the Winter Olympics. Everytime a large, high-profile entity uses mid-size, 1/3" cameras for some facet of there production it benefits everyone on this board, indeed everyone in the industry who know how to use that particular camera. It's a big dance that we all benefit from. More cameras sold - more R&D, more R&D - better products, better products - more utilitarian value from them, more cameras sold - more attachments and accessories produced, and on and on. It's one big dance we do together...

My company isn't big and wealthy. Under five in-house employees, but we have extensive lists of quality freelance shooters, editors, directors, etc. With budgets, we ramp up with crews of as many as 30-40, treat them well, pay them what they're worth, cut them loose after the project, and look forward to the next project. Some of our work is contract production, but the majority is self-syndicated national television programming that we retain the syndication rights and copyright to. We're buying two HD100s and two HVX200s, but it's with project-generated funds. We maximize technology, while minimizing overhead, and it allows us to give networks and business media clients the best bang for their bucks. Part of that mazimize/minimize business model is to stay on the cutting edge of camera technology and use possibilities. That's why I comb through "prosumer" equipment tech chat boards to share and recieve the latest ideas and news.

Mezelf27 - No worries also! I've used the XL1 and XL2 extensively, and handled the HD100 at length at NAB. They are relatively close in size, being about the same weight (about 6.9 lbs for the HD100, and 6.6 lbs for the XL2). The HD100 seems less bulky than the XL2 for some reason though. As Barry mentioned, the HD100 wih the 16x on it, is relatively close in size with the DVX100A with a wide attachment and shotgun mic on it, though the DVX weighs less. I predict you won't be disappointed in your HD101E. Used with professional camera techniques, it should get some excellent images for you.

Cheers guys,

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[mezelf27]

Thanks Gibby! I must say, when I first bought my XL2, I was quite dissapointed. The images were perfect, but it was a serious bit heavier then my previous XL1 and the balance seemd even worse. As opposed to my JVC GY-DV500 and DV5001 (which are both a lot heavier), the XL2 is hard to operate for an entire day.

You have handled the HD100. Is the balance better on that one? Or do you think an Anton-Bauer-rig will be needed for that?

[Gibby]

Thanks Gibby! I must say, when I first bought my XL2, I was quite dissapointed. The images were perfect, but it was a serious bit heavier then my previous XL1 and the balance seemd even worse. As opposed to my JVC GY-DV500 and DV5001 (which are both a lot heavier), the XL2 is hard to operate for an entire day.

You have handled the HD100. Is the balance better on that one? Or do you think an Anton-Bauer-rig will be needed for that?

I also own a DV500U, which I bought in 2001. With my Fujinon 20x6.4 lens, Century .8 wide converter, IDX Endura battery, and Sennheiser Evolution 100 wireless, the rig weighs out to about 15 pounds. Loaded with every accessory available, the HD 100 should be under 10 pounds. I think that no matter how you accessorize the HD100, you should consider balancing front to back with your accessories. The new Fujinon 16x is not that heavy of a lens. If you look at the photos of the camera, and look closely at how long the handle is, you'll see that even using the small, stock batteries your hand can get real far forward on the handle to keep the camera balanced for carrying or low angle hand held shooting. I do a lot of hand held shooting, so that's a consideration. If you're going to use the .8 wide angle converter on the 16x, you should probably consider balancing the camera out with the optional Anton Bauer or IDX batteries, and a small wireless mic system on the back of the camera.

Unlike the XL2, The HD100 is definately a shoulder-mount camera if you want to use it that way. I'm a fairly big guy (6'2", 210 lbs), and with the sliding shoulder pad all the way back it felt comfortable on my shoulder. Reaching to the 16x lens felt a little different because it was a much closer reach than the full-sized shoulder cameras I'm used to, with 1/2" and 2/3" lenses. The 13x lens is longer and heavier, so the reach to it is more familiar. If you're using the 13x, it would probably be a good idea to also use the Anton Bauer or IDX battery system to counterbalance the camera.

How will I accessorize the two HD100's I'm buying? I don't usually need a matte box or follow focus system for the type of shooting I do. I'll rent them if I need them. Camera A will have the 13x lens, several IDX Endura batteries, Sennheiser Evolution 100 wireless mic, Sennheiser ME66 shotgun mic, a Vinten 10 tripod, a tripod-mountable mini-jib (10'), a mini-sungun, a hand held camera stabilization unit, a compact analog to HD-SDI converter for hardlined gigs, a flexfill, various filters, rain cover, hard case, and airline carry on case. Camera B will have the stock 16x lens, Century 2x (when available), Fujinon .8 wide angle converter, 1/2" to 1/3" stepdown converter, Fujinon 20x6.4 1/2" lens (from my DV500U), IDX Endura batteries, Sennheiser Evolution 100 wireless mic, Sennheiser ME66 shotgun mic, Vinten 10 tripod, a mini-sungun, a compact analog HD-SDI converter for hardlined gigs, various filters, rain cover, hard case, airline carry on case.

Why would I divulge the exact makeup of my camera systems? I think the risk of creating competitors is more than counterbalanced by the opportunity to create allies who can shoot with me...

Enjoy your new camera when you get it!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[lacuna]

Thanks Gibby, care to divulge a little more? Specifically I'm wondering which filters you will be using with the HD100... what are your favs, the filters you can't live without?

[Gibby]

Probably 65% of what I shoot is outdoors, natural light, with the remaining 35% being indoor/artificial light. The HD100 has some built-in ND filters. I prefer Tiffen filters. For each HD100 I'll pack an appropriate set of filters. The filter sets may include:

Pro-Mist, Soft/FX, Soft Net, Diffusion FX (black and gold), Warm Polarizer, Wide Angle Circular Polarizer, UV Protector (for each lens and converter lens), ND, Haze, Skylight

You can check out these filters and more on the Tiffen web site.

There may be others added in for individual projects. Hope this helps!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[ARRIguy]

Not to make a big deal out of this but sorry, there is NO way that photo is accurate.
According to the DVX manual - our camera is 14 3/8" long.
According to the JVC website, the HD100 body is 12 3/8" long. There's no way that lens is only 2".
If you look at JVC's website and look at the photos of the guys holding the camera on thier shoulder....then place your DVX on your shoulder the same way (I know it's not designed for that) you'll see that the HD100 w/lens is easily 5 or 6 inches longer than the DVX.

Here's my thoughts on the size comparison:

http://ck37.image.pbase.com/image/46511937.jpg
Interesting picture Sirius. The thing that shows your size comparison to be questionable is the XLR plug socket - something that shows on your photo of both cameras. There's about a 12% difference in size. The photo shows the HD 100 having a larger socket. Unless there's a new and different standard XLR plug, I'm afraid your side by side comparison exaggerates the size of the JVC. 10S's photo comparison (in Barry's earlier post), if not exact, is very close to being 100% accurate.

The HD 100 is the nicest handling camera of any prosumer I've played with. I wish others would adopt the same on-the-shoulder format - esp. the HVX 200 :(

[Sirius_Doggy]

Actually I super-imposed them over each other and lined up the three pins exactly.
Also - taken into consideration is the actual camera specs taken from their respective websites mentioned in my earlier post.
DVX 14 3/8"
JVC 12 /38" Body only.

[lacuna]

The filter sets may include:

Pro-Mist, Soft/FX, Soft Net, Diffusion FX (black and gold), Warm Polarizer, Wide Angle Circular Polarizer, UV Protector (for each lens and converter lens), ND, Haze, Skylight
www.cut4.tv

Thanks Gibby, I take it that you'll be using 82mm screw on filters given that you don't intend to buy a matte box for the HD100's, is that right?

The thing is, the southern hemisphere light that I shoot in is really harsh, so I tend to get really contrasty outdoor shots. Shadow areas can look hideous, or if I expose for the shadows, the rest of the shot is blasted out. With the DVX I've been using a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter, which is very effective in handling contrast but washes out the colour. I notice this filter is absent from your list. Do you prefer using Diffision FX to handle contrast... or?

Sorry to hijack this thread with filter questions, but I've followed your posts around on other threads and I've appreciated your insight, so I thought I'd take this chance to pick your brains. A couple of months ago you posted a lot of intelligent thoughts on the HD100 which kept me interested... the fact that a seasoned pro like yourself (and ABC for that matter) is investing in these cameras gives me some confidence in the product. I can't wait for your assessment of the camera when you've captured some footage... it will also be great to here what Barry has to say when his arrives.

Hey, thanks a lot.

[mezelf27]

About filters... I only use an UV-filter (more or less as lens-protection, but with the obvious advantage of outdoor shooting of landscape shots). I was wandering: Now it's a HD camcorder, should I worry whether the UV-filter I buy actually resolves the higher definition? Or is it like a given for a filter (which isn't a lens and therefore hansn't any internal elemants that might bring resolution down)?

[lacuna]

Actually I super-imposed them over each other and lined up the three pins exactly.
Also - taken into consideration is the actual camera specs taken from their respective websites mentioned in my earlier post.
DVX 14 3/8"
JVC 12 /38" Body only.

Nevertheless, ARRIguy is right about the XLRs... after blowing up those XLRs 1000% and measuring from a dozen comparative points, there seems to be about a 12% difference between them... but I agree your pic is closer than the earlier photo comparison.

Isn't this fun, I have to find something less anal to do with my Saturday afternoon. Maybe I'll start scripting.

[mezelf27]

say: to bring this topic back to it's roots: So ABC might well be using the new JVC?

In Europe JVC already has a big market-share in broadcast-camcorders (DV500, DV5000, DV700-series), but I'm reading here (American boards) sometimes that JVC has a "lower-quality"-name or image to it (that obviously doesn't exist with us. Might the HD100 then be a turning point of this for JVC (in conquering the American broadcast-market)?

[ARRIguy]

Nevertheless, ARRIguy is right about the XLRs... after blowing up those XLRs 1000% and measuring from a dozen comparative points, there seems to be about a 12% difference between them... but I agree your pic is closer than the earlier photo comparison.

Isn't this fun, I have to find something less anal to do with my Saturday afternoon. Maybe I'll start scripting.
It's not often a guy who's not used to the abstract qualities of electrons can contribute to a forum such as this so please excuse my continuing comments on the two sets of comparison photos (post 7 and 8).

Though our measurement methods were completely different (I used a micrometer and shifted the images to the same area on my screen) it's reassuring to see that you arrived at the same figure as I did. I used the (roughly) 12% error in Sirius's photo to apply to larger parts of the two cameras to check both sets of photos and found 10s's to be very close. I'm curious, did you try this too?

The 12% error you and I calculated in Sirius Doggy's comparison is a linear value. This difference is effectively squared when you show something in two dimensions as in his photo. In 3D reality the 12% error is cubed to yield a camera in volume 40% larger than it really is! I think these factors account for the apparently big (and real) difference our minds perceive between the 2 sets of photos.

Tonight I also should be getting on with house renos instead of using a micrometer on a computer screen! If you haven't done it already, maybe this will divert you from your script to do more 1000% blowups of other parts of the camera in both sets of photos - and maybe to verify my calculations that show the accuracy of 10S's comparison photo.

Happy script writing:grin:

PS To all viewers: I'll try to refrain from more of this diversion.

[athouguia]

The PDF brochure has a real size photo divided in 3 pages... just print it and put all 3 together, it'll save you a lot of work.

[Sirius_Doggy]

First - Let me apologize again to Gibby for the thread jack but I can't believe this size comparison thing is still going on.

Look at these two photos
#1 - Taken from page 69 of the DVX Owners manual states the depth (or length as we are calling it) as 14 3/8"

http://cakili.image.pbase.com/image/46587989.jpg

Does everyone agree this is fact?
ok then, onto photo number two taken from JVC's spec page for the HD100 stating the depth of the HD100 to be 12 3/8"

http://cakonos.image.pbase.com/image/46587988.jpg

Now granted it does not state that this is for the body or entire camera but look at it this way. If the entire camera w/lens is 2" smaller than the DVX then my drawing and 10s' drawing are both wrong.

But if you look at the photo below that I took at N.A.B. (right after I handled the camera) you can clearly tell this camera w/lens is NOT 2" smaller than the DVX

http://ck37.image.pbase.com/image/42302896.jpg

So if the camera w/lens in NOT 2 " smaller than the DVX, that must clearly mean that the spec from JVC's website is stating the size of the camera body ONLY (which is completely understandable since the total length will vary depending on the lens you put on it.)

If you look at this evidence, it is fairly clear, at least to me, that my comparison photo is much closer to the truth than 10s' which shows both camera's to be almost exactly the same length. (in fact his shows the eyecup to make the DVX slightly longer.) I'm just saying no way.

My last post on this subject. I'm sure Gibby or Barry or someone else will soon be posting side-by-side comparison photos when they receive their HD100's.
If I'm wrong I'll be back to apologize to everyone here for sounding like a total jerk.

[monte]

What great contests from the most trivial of things oft arise.

[lacuna]

The PDF brochure has a real size photo divided in 3 pages... just print it and put all 3 together, it'll save you a lot of work.

But then we'd have to find a raison d'etre, and measuring pixels on a screen is much less taxing.

For ARRIguy: 10s' DVX XLRs are clearly way bigger than those on his HD100, if you blow them up. I think Doggie's are closer, but exaggerate a little in the opposite direction. The truth, of this most critical of issues, is to be found somewhere in between.

PS - Sirus I don't think anyone was doubting the numbers from specs sheets, but there could be a lot of factors to explain the figures, eg: the lens hood of the DVX, or where each manufacturer defines the body as ending.

I'm going to 2046 in a couple of minutes. Can't wait...

[mezelf27]

Sorry, but since everyone seemed to miss this info: it's from jvc ITSELF, and it will probably put a stop to this discussion:

Look at the drawing with sizes on the information PDF...

But you might also look at

http://www.gpjco.tv/jvc.htm

[lacuna]

Sorry, but since everyone seemed to miss this info: it's from jvc ITSELF, and it will probably put a stop to this discussion:

Look at the drawing with sizes on the information PDF...

Mezelf, why put an end to such a beautiful discussion. Didn't you hear DVXuser is 20% intellect (that part comes from the likes of Barry Green and Gibby), 80% entertainment.

Maybe you can somehow misplace the link in your post and allow the conjecture to continue.

Doggie I just figured it out, JVC is using imperial inches, Panny is using metric inches.

Now we can all sleep soundly.

[mezelf27]

:grin: aha

i wasn't trying to end the discussion, but I havent seen or held the HD100 yet, but I ordered one. I might be seriously dissapointed if it was just as big as the DVX. Not because I want my camcorders to be big, but because it wouldn't fit so snugly on my shoulder then :grin:

[Gibby]

Thanks Gibby, I take it that you'll be using 82mm screw on filters given that you don't intend to buy a matte box for the HD100's, is that right?

The thing is, the southern hemisphere light that I shoot in is really harsh, so I tend to get really contrasty outdoor shots. Shadow areas can look hideous, or if I expose for the shadows, the rest of the shot is blasted out. With the DVX I've been using a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter, which is very effective in handling contrast but washes out the colour. I notice this filter is absent from your list. Do you prefer using Diffision FX to handle contrast... or?

Sorry to hijack this thread with filter questions, but I've followed your posts around on other threads and I've appreciated your insight, so I thought I'd take this chance to pick your brains. A couple of months ago you posted a lot of intelligent thoughts on the HD100 which kept me interested... the fact that a seasoned pro like yourself (and ABC for that matter) is investing in these cameras gives me some confidence in the product. I can't wait for your assessment of the camera when you've captured some footage... it will also be great to here what Barry has to say when his arrives.

Hey, thanks a lot.


Glad to help! I think that the opportunity to network and create allies far outweighs the risk of creating competitors...

Yeah, they will be 82mm screw-in filters. I may buy a matte box eventually if my need for one increases. Of course, that would then require me to but a whole new set of filters for the box. I understand what you're saying about Southern Hemisphere light. I visited your beautiful country briefly a few times - never had the chance to shoot there though. I have shot extensively throughout Australia, South Africa, and other locations deep in the southern hemisphere, and did notice the harshness of the sunlight (thin ozone layer?).

About the Tiffen ultra-contrast use on the DVX, and reduced chroma, the DVX has such nice saturated chroma that losing a little doesn't necessarily hurt you much. The HD100 though, with it's 4:2:0 colorspace could be a different story. Of course the camera isn't available for testing yet, but I don't know that you would want use anything that reduces chroma on an already chroma-challenged 4:2:0 camera. Don't get me wrong, I expect the HD100 to have excellent chroma properties, but no 4:2:0 camera is going to have the colorspace properties of a 4:2:2 camera, although there are ways to boost the chroma in your NLE system. The exception, of course, would be if you are using the HD100 as a hardlined, uncompressed anolog camera, in which case the output is reportedly 720p60 with a 4:2:2 colorspace. If that was an outdoor hardlined shoot, and you were trying to handle contrast using the a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter, you'd be dealing with a 4:2:2 colorspace, thus you'd have richer chroma to begin with, so losing some by using the filter may not hurt you much. I do like the Diffusion FX. When I get the HD100's, I'll test them out in every kind of light, indoor and out, with every kind of filter, then I'll get a clear picture of what the camera can do.

I stay up on tech, but I'm a real-world, in the field shooter. Tech specs can be deceptive! I know pretty quickly what a camera can and can't do. Then I just use it at what it is best at....

C-ya!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

[Barry_Green]

The truth about the camera size is, like most things, somewhere in the middle.

Sirius' picture is way too exaggerated in size of the HD100 -- it's nowhere near that big compared to the DVX. And now that I've seen 'em both, 10s' picture does definitely make the HD100 too small.

I printed out the "actual size" pics from the HD100 brochure, and put the DVX on top of it.

With the viewfinder in the down position, like Sirius' shot, the front of the DVX's lens hood extends up to the rear of the lens hood on the HD100. The HD100's lens hood provides the additional length.

The HD100 does look a lot taller, but that's mostly due to the handle. The main body is about the same size, height & thickness-wise, as the DVX. The lens is much longer, but that's to be expected -- it's an 88mm lens, vs. 45mm on the DVX.

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/JVCvsDVX-size.JPG

Here's Sirius' picture, updated according to the printout from the JVC brochure:

[mezelf27]

That shows, if the HVX is just a little larger than the DVX, it will be quite a big lump for shooting hand-held, I fear...

[ARRIguy]

That shows, if the HVX is just a little larger than the DVX, it will be quite a big lump for shooting hand-held, I fear...
A supplier who attended NAB and handled the mock-up told me it felt noticeably heavier than the DVX too.

In an earlier thread someone (Barry Green?) said the model shown at NAB was the same weight as the production model will be. Has Panasonic given out this figure or did anyone who attended the show find out how much that was?

[ARRIguy]

The truth about the camera size is, like most things, somewhere in the middle.

Sirius' picture is way too exaggerated in size of the HD100 -- it's nowhere near that big compared to the DVX. And now that I've seen 'em both, 10s' picture does definitely make the HD100 too small.

I printed out the "actual size" pics from the HD100 brochure, and put the DVX on top of it.


The HD100..... lens is much longer, but that's to be expected -- it's an 88mm lens, vs. 45mm on the DVX.

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/JVCvsDVX-size.JPG

Here's Sirius' picture, updated according to the printout from the JVC brochure:
Thanks for clearing up the size controversy Barry.

Following is something that's true with amatuer film cameras (eg. Canon Scopic 16) so correct me if I'm wrong in transposing it to the video world. Besides focal length there's probably another factor accounting for the difference in lens protrusion from the body between the DVX and the JVC: As with most of the fixed lens prosumer camera designs, a good portion of the Leica lens is likely recessed into the DVX body. This can make the camera more compact and easier to handhold. This is something that's easier to do with the fixed lens cameras as opposed to interchangeable lens cameras such as the HD100 where it's all hangin out.

[Barry_Green]

We didn't get to weigh it. Honestly it handled fine and felt fine, but it is definitely bigger than the DVX.

[mezelf27]

It all remains to be seen, of course, but the preliminary data are: 3.1 kg (+/- 7 lbs?) for the HD100 and 3.7 kg for the HVX (+/- 1,5 lbs more!).

I guess if that's true (the 3.7 kg), it would be something like the XL2: seems fine, holds comfortably.... until you have to do that for half a day or so....

[athouguia]

It'll be worse than the XL2 because you can't put the HVX on your shoulder. It won't hold comfortably... 3.7Kg on an handycam... you'll need a strong arm!!

[lacuna]

Glad to help! I think that the opportunity to network and create allies far outweighs the risk of creating competitors...

Thanks Gibby, more good stuff! Keep us up to date

[Ralph Oshiro]

Here's a couple of real-world pics of the two cameras. Of course, there's nothing common in the two frames to make a size comparison, but at least you can see the size of the BNC jacks on the JVC, and the P2 card's size next to the Panasonic.

http://www.24framefilms.com/HD100-1.jpg

JVC HD100 Protoype at NAB 2005


http://www.24framefilms.com/HVX-1.jpg

Panasonic HVX200 Mock-up at NAB 2005

[Jarred Land]

i gotta give it to JVC for the cute little cheek pad. Thats a pretty good idea.

[BrianAWells]

i gotta give it to Panasonic for putting a viewfinder on the camera. Thats a REALLY good idea! :cheesy:

[Ralph Oshiro]

http://www.24framefilms.com/HD100-2.jpg

A picture of the JVC HD100 with all the cool accessories mounted on it!

[Ralph Oshiro]

i gotta give it to Panasonic for putting a viewfinder on the camera. Thats a REALLY good idea!HA! Duh . . . I JUST got it, Brian! I took that picture of the HD100 that was mounted on a remote head 'cause it was one of the few times I could get a clear shot of the camera from all angles (that JVC booth was CROWDED!). Yeah, so since it was on a remote pan/tilt head, no need for the VF!

[BrianAWells]

Hey, did you happen to see the one with the Mini35? I took my own picture of it (heck, why not?!) but never actually found out if it was optically functional or not... Not like I'm in the market for buying a Mini35 OR a JVC camera.. I just kind wondered if you had heard about it.

Also, I found out some more about that Sony "450 whatever" camera you like. It actually will do a 24PA, at least according to the newest printed literature they have out right now (or so I'm told) and also, I have a copy of the 140 page manual as a PDF.. if you want it, send me a PM with your email and I'll whisk your way.... SFAIK, they aren't available online just yet....

[Ralph Oshiro]

Also, I found out some more about that Sony "450 whatever" camera you like. It actually will do a 24PA, at least according to the newest printed literature they have out right now (or so I'm told) and also, I have a copy of the 140 page manual as a PDF.Holy crap, Brian! That's AWESOME that the DSR450 does 24PA!!! Whew! Thanks! No, I didn't see the Mini35. I never really got the point of that thing--I mean for the price (and loss of light) you pay for it, you could like totally buy a way better camera to begin with! Anyway, I sent you a PM--that would be great!

P.S. By the way, what does "SFAIK" mean?

[Mike Parker]

Wusses!

I've been schlepping around a 25-pound Ikegami Betacam for years, often all-day-long, and I'm 58 years old. And you guys are bitching about a seven pound camera??? I also own a DVX100a and a Sony DSR-200a and the truth is, I prefer the 10-pound shoulder-mount 200a to the DVX for shooting comfort.

It's a lot less wear and tear on ones' body when you're shooting a 10-15 minute interview off the shoulder than hand-holding a DVX. It's also MUCH more stable. When I have to shoot an interview with the DVX I generally use sticks or a monopod.

To put all of this into perspective, when I got into this news business back in 1970, the standard rig was an Auricon Pro 600 camera, Auricon MA-11 amplifier, Frezzi camera battery and inverter (the cameras ran on 110-volt AC), 30-volt Sun Gun and battery, shoulder brace (padded with foam rubber) etc. Total weight: close to SEVENTY POUNDS! When the 15-pound CP-16 camera came out in 1973, we thought we'd died and gone to heaven.

Puleeeeze...

Mike Parker
www.mp-tv.com

[Ralph Oshiro]

I've been schlepping around a 25-pound Ikegami Betacam for years, often all-day-long, and I'm 58 years old. And you guys are bitching about a seven pound camera???Hey there, old-timer! I started a few years after you with an Ikegami HL-79 (only had to shoot with an RCA TK-76 once) and a stupid BVU-110 (and once in a while, that 50 lb. Ampex VPR-20 1" deck)! And yeah, that darn 30V belt was no picnic either! I remember when the first tube-based Betacams came out in the early 1980's (BVW-1/BVW-3)--we thought we died and went to heaven too (remember registration charts?)! We're soon to get new XDCAMs at NBC to replace our aging BVW400s. But once we get all the Lectrosonics gear, Hytron 120s, and the PagLight on the darn thing, that damned camera is STILL gonna weigh 25 lbs.!!!!!

[Mike Parker]

Yep, just when the cameras start to lighten up, the "next big thing" comes along and we're right back where we started from a weight standpoint.

I used HL-33's and -35's at KYW in Philly, then we had a few RCA TK-76's from across the river in Camden. We ended up with Sony BVW-300's and BVU-50's and lost our sound guys in the process.

When I started my own business, my first camera was a JVC KY-310 (not a bad camera) and a JVC 3/4" deck. Went on to a KY-320B which had Plumbicons instead of the Saticons on the KY-310. Upgraded that to a KY-950 which has LOC Diode Gun Plumbicons just like the HL-79 only the JVC had MUCH better pre-amps and blew the HL-79 into the weeds in low light. I shot part of the pilot for Rescue 911 with my KY-950 and the other crew was using an HL-79. Technically, my night footage looked MUCH better. Everyone was amazed. I ended up spending two seasons at Rescue and moved to La La Land from Lenexa, Kansas.

I spent almost 12 years out there from 1990 - 2001. From 1990 to 1996, LA was the news center of the universe: Rodney King, the trials, the riots, earthquakes, fires and floods, and TWO OJ trials. We all got rich. I moved back to South Florida after I came to realise that my primal fear is earthquakes. At least with hurricanes you have advance notice and can stock up on emergency supplies: ice, beer, Doritos.

Since you work for NBC, do you ever run into a blind, drunk, reprobate shooter named Jim White? I taught him everything he knows. (He probably says the same about me...)

Mike

ps. I wonder how many DVX members know what "HL" stands for.

[tomthemacman]

Whoah, my dad worked at KYW through the Evening Magazine era and is still there today. You might remember him. Does John Wills ring a bell?

[BrianAWells]

I prefer the 10-pound shoulder-mount 200a to the DVX for shooting comfort.
Even though that camera is a little more than a scaled version of the VX1000 with bigger tapes, I'll agree, that is one of the more comfortable cameras I've used. Real viewfinder. Lightweight batteries. Super long record time. No idea why Sony abandoned this form factor. I think it could be a real hit.

Personally, I dig shoulder mount cams, within reason. There is a limit to how much I want to subject myself to when doing handheld operating. The classic Mighty Wondercam is a great addition to a DVX package. I saw a guy using one on a reality series a while back and recently have thought about ordering. It's super lightweight and not bulky like other shoulder mounts. Plus, it's cheap. Any thoughts?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/147274.jpg
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=MICQ&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=147274

...Add a zoom controller and you're all set !

[ARRIguy]

Any thoughts?
I've used braces like this before with this sort of camera. The fatigue factor can be worse with this brace than without - depending on whether or not it allows you to brace your elbow on your body). Though it can give you more stability the camera's center of gravity is still in the same place as it would be without the brace so it's still way front heavy - weight your body has to support.

To try to balance this rig (i.e. to reduce the fatigue factor) you'd have to add an extention arm from the shoulder pad to extend past your your back and add a pile of weight out there - very cumbersome. You might be able to get it to work but a well designed shoulder mount camera does it all, only in a far more compact and useable form.

My edit is to add another point on this type of brace:
Unless you're left hand is wraped around the top of the camera, it tends to be to be top heavy and unstable when your doing quick pans esp. if like the HVX 200 the camera is heavier. As soon as you remove your hand to do a maunal focus or zoom you get framing giggles. For occasions where you are following some fast moving subject and can keep your left hand wrapped around the top of camera it's an excellent rig - something like swinging a shotgun on skeet shooting range.

[Barry_Green]

The CP16 was indeed a marvel of lightweight engineering. I've had my share of Auricon 600's (including the "pro lightweight" version!) and a couple of Auricon 1200's. Man, a 1200 with the 1200' mag -- that's a HEAVY camera.

Shoulder mount is definitely more stable than handheld, and is less fatiguing than handheld, especially on a long shoot. But I gotta say, if you want to reduce the fatigue factor, the little Steady Stick is the way to go. Way, way, way less fatiguing than shoulder-mount, because it takes *all* the weight off your back and puts it right on your hips (where you don't even feel it, really).

[BrianAWells]

Man, a 1200 with the 1200' mag -- that's a HEAVY camera.
I know a guy who receives a large portion of his work filming speeches on 16mm. He's got an old 1200' Mitchell mag for his 16M, but that thing is impossible to load! Pretty cool looking and quite rare...

We recently found TWO 1200' mags for his SR-3's (custom fab, only six ever built) ... on eBay of all places! Dude, these things are bigger than the airline carry-on restriction! They are HUGE!

[ARRIguy]

..... But I gotta say, if you want to reduce the fatigue factor, the little Steady Stick is the way to go. Way, way, way less fatiguing than shoulder-mount, because it takes *all* the weight off your back and puts it right on your hips (where you don't even feel it, really).
Here's a user's review to talk about this support:http://www.dvfreelancer.com/articles/steadystick.html

Though not this brand, I've used similar supports successfully in some situations, but one trouble i've had with them is flexibility of moving the camera in relation to my body. There is an impediment factor when doing a pan (with feet planted) or a tilt (<in this case with having to adjust viewfinder orientation). (I'd like to hear if this has been overcome [or even partly overcome] with the steady stick.) The reviewer also recommends extra paraphenalia to make the steady stick work well - more stuff: more prep and take down time.

At the risk of overstating my point: There is nothing like the freedom of movement of the human spine/neck combination and operating a camera that almost becomes a part of your head and eye. You can still add this extra stuff to such a camera for the occasions you may need it. For a camera in the HD 100 weight range (very low for shoulder mount) I would expect these times would be very few.

For me this form/weight issue will be a major factor in favouring the JVC HD100 over the HVX 200 for handheld use. Now if it only came supplied with a lens with as wide a focal length as the HVX 200!

[Ralph Oshiro]

For me this form/weight issue will be a major factor in favouring the JVC HD100 over the HVX 200 for handheld use.I gotta admit, after fondling the JVC HD100 at NAB, I really liked the form factor and ergonomics. Plus, the damn thing just looks super-cool! Some of you will remember the "old-school" shoulder braces--the kind that had a "V" support that leaned against the front of your chest--those things ROCKED! I think someone in the back of DV magazine or something makes a modern version of that style brace. The Anton Bauer brace, to me, looks like the best of the bunch (assuming you upgrade your power to bricks).

But I just had to chime in about the HD100--it sure looks and feels cool in your hands. The handheld ergonomics of the DVX100 (or any Handycam-type camera) leaves a lot to be desired when operated without a brace, and the HVX200 will leave even more with its added weight and bulk. But 99% of my photography for my personal stuff is sticks, dolly, or Steadicam, so the handheld ergonomics isn't a HUGE factor for me. I do own one of the little braces that I like a lot (a Hollywood Lite?)--it's just without the chest brace, that style brace does get awfully tiring. I actually end up cradling the shoulder pad part under my right arm and hold the camera more like a rifle when using that style brace.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Yep, just when the cameras start to lighten up, the "next big thing" comes along and we're right back where we started from a weight standpoint.That's what I keep saying, Mike. Even when the essential camera electronics get down to about 5 lbs., then they'll invent 3D-holographic, smello-vision cameras in the year 2020, and they'll STILL be 25 f**king pounds!!!

[mmm]

...and just as the quality is getting so good, they introduce 1Kb/s Digital "Blocktastic" Television.

[Ralph Oshiro]

. . . they introduce 1Kb/s Digital "Blocktastic" Television."1Kb/s Digital 'Blocktastic' Television???"

[mmm]

Just commenting on how terrible digital TV looks in the UK.

Movement makes it fall apart completely. I guess 1Kb/s is exaggerating a little though :embarasse

I find fast sports to be pretty unwatchable!

[Barry_Green]

Ah -- for a minute there I thought you must be talking about HDTV in the US (same thing with sports, although 720p seems to hold up a little better).

[mmm]

I am yet to see HDTV. It arrives here next year, and I haven't been able to catch it whilst in the states either.

I am staying analogue for now, because it looks the best! They just want to free up more bandwidth to pump out more crappy shopping channels IMO.

[Shiloh Arts]

I am yet to see HDTV. It arrives here next year, and I haven't been able to catch it whilst in the states either.

I am staying analogue for now, because it looks the best! They just want to free up more bandwidth to pump out more crappy shopping channels IMO.


Actually...I've seen a soccer game broadcasted in HDTV...my brother is a A/V tech and he always get the newest toys. He has a 27 inch sharp HD plasma screen and it looked AWESOME! :thumbsup:


Pete

[mmm]

I'm in the UK though. I am pretty sure nothing is being broadcast in HD here yet. We are just beginning to see HD ready TVs though. I am yet to see one which is 1080 though, so maybe Europe is sticking with 720p...?

[Barry_Green]

According to all I've read about the EBU and their endorsing of standards, they seem dead set on embracing progressive. So yes, it's likely Europe will either adopt a 720p standard, or maybe they'll decide to wait for 1080/50p, who knows? But I really doubt they'll endorse 1080i -- they seem firmly in the "progressive=better" camp.

[athouguia]

To try to balance this rig (i.e. to reduce the fatigue factor) you'd have to add an extention arm from the shoulder pad to extend past your your back and add a pile of weight out there...

I think you're talking about something similar to the Easy Rig. I tried one with a Sony Betacam and liked a lot. It's probably very usefull to handycams, it gives a very good freedom.
http://www.easyrig.com/