JVC-HD100 To theatrically-released film copies

[goldyprog]

Hi everyone. I'm brand new to this forum, and this website as well. I'm considering purchasing a GY-HD100 within a month from now for a feature-length documentary. On JVC's site, they say one of the camera's advantages is its transfer, specifically 720p/24 fps transfer to film for future distribution. That's my aim, as long as I record on the hard drive disk vs. tape to try and avoid drop out.

What is everyone's thoughts on this? Also, will the tapeless record option reduce or eliminate dropout as noted in a previous thread? Thanks!

-Matt

[Sirius_Doggy]

If JVC's site said it then it must be so..................:grin:

[Barry_Green]

Tapeless should eliminate all tape dropouts, yes. The HDV format has other challenges that won't be overcome by recording to disk, but the hard disk (FireStore) recorder should eliminate dropouts that happen on tape (as well as elminating capture time in the edit suite).

The hard-disk recorder hasn't been announced yet as to availability or price. I found the 40gb listed at $1495 and the 80gb listed at $1895 on one reseller's site, but I'd bet those are guesses; I don't think actual retail or "street prices" have even been made available yet.

[mmm]

Barry, now you have seen ProHD, what were your thoughts on it?

From the clips I have seen, the format seems pretty capable, I am more worried about the issues with the actual camera.

[Barry_Green]

... about ProHD... while I remain disappointed overall in the HDV format, I will say that if you *had* to shoot HDV, JVC's 24P implementation is certainly the most robust version of it. It has the best bits-to-pixel ratio of any HDV implementation, and it has the lowest overall compression ratio and the best degradation-resistance. And the overall detail that gets recorded is really about the same as the detail level recorded on the Sony -- and if you were going to try to use the Sony in any of the CineFrame modes, the JVC is actually substantially higher resolution, with much more detail per frame.

But keep in mind, no "reality" shooting -- if you think 24p is stuttery, you'll never be able to shoot anything that doesn't have the "stutter" -- so there's definitely a place for 60i shooting.

Not happy about the audio; JVC's already admitted that they could put uncompressed PCM audio on their implementation, and that they may do so in the future, but they just didn't on the HD100. I think that was a mistake, but hey...

I really want to like the camera. I hope JVC's quality control in the US is superb. I believe the reason the camera's so delayed here is probably due to QC issues, and I applaud them for taking the high road and refusing to release the camera until it's ready (assuming that's what's going on behind-the-scenes).

Do I think its footage will prove a robust competitor to the forthcoming HVX? Not a chance. I think the HVX will mop the floor with it. (could be wrong, but I don't think so; a little time will tell.) But there is enough different between the two cameras that I think both will find success in the marketplace. I look forward to trying my cinema lenses on the JVC; I may just get the body-only kit and put the $800 price difference towards a lens mount adapter instead of getting the oh-so-disappointing Fujinon.

[Tibby]

Is there an $800 lens mount adapter for the JVC? Is there one coming in the near future? That would make a world of difference towards making a decision to buy this camera.

[goldyprog]

Barry Green: What is so wrong with the Fujinon that will be shipping with the JVC?

[stephenlnoe]

goldyprog, what's wrong is the clarity. Barry Green posted a rather striking video of how well the lens handles a rack focus. It was full of aberrations. Check it out here http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/chroma-aberration.wmv This is Green's vid. I'm still unsure of the details about whether the lens had the same aberrations at 3/4 zoom or mid zoom. Either way, when the camera comes into the local dealer I'll be looking at it as well and giving it a few test that meet my needs.

I think it will be a really good Doc camera and commercials as well. I'm more of a believer in the format I think than the guru.

[Barry_Green]

Is there an $800 lens mount adapter for the JVC? Is there one coming in the near future? That would make a world of difference towards making a decision to buy this camera.
There will be several adapters. At the bare minimum JVC has announced a 1/2" bayonet adapter, and a "c"-mount adapter. I'm certain others will be engineered as well -- I'm working with a camera engineer to see about getting PL or Arri Bayonet lens adapters made so we can use 16mm lenses with it. And, of course, there's the mini35 lens adapter too...

[Barry_Green]

Barry Green: What is so wrong with the Fujinon that will be shipping with the JVC?
As stephen responded, yes, chromatic aberrations are quite awful with the stock lens. In the video stephen pointed to, it shows extreme purple/green aberration around white highlights. I've also seen shots where there's alarming purple or green outlines around objects, and in some cases (on the edge of the frame) the aberration is so significant that it produces what looks like a "ghost image".

It is not a good lens. Especially at the outer edges, or at full telephoto.

But it is reasonably sharp.

[goldyprog]

Thanks, stephenlnoe and Barry Green, I will keep that in mind about the Fujinon.

Any thoughts on a substitute lens? I've used, and would probably veer unless convinced otherwise for Canon optics (but no experience in the HD realm).

Lens I would need should be able to handle very dark-lit conditions for portions.

[Barry_Green]

Well, the thing is -- if you want it for standard-def shooting, there are quite a few options. The 1/2" adapter would let you use any 1/2" lens on the camera.

But if you want it for shooting high-def, there's really only two choices: the stock Fujinon, or the $12,000 13x3.5 Fujinon. There really aren't any other options, unless you can find a 1/2" high-def lens somewhere...

Eventually they'll come out with a c-mount adapter. It'll be interesting to see if there are any c-mount lenses that can adequately resolve the high-def frame on a 1/3" camcorder (which has a chip surface area about 1/6 as large as a 16mm film frame!)

So for high-def, some options may someday emerge in the future, but for the immediate future, the two Fujinons are probably the only choice.

It would be interesting to see how well a high-quality SD lens would do at resolving the high-def HD100 frame. I'm assuming it wouldn't do very well as far as pure resolution, but it should be exceptionally clean and aberration-free.

[mezelf27]

Few questions though...

How would you consider the €1000 fujinon lens with the JVC against the quality of the manual 16x lens for the XL1 and XL2 (although these are SD)?

So the chromatic abberations will still be noticable in SD recording?

[Barry_Green]

No basis for comparison. I didn't try the HD100 in SD; we'll have to ask some of our European or Oceanic members to comment.

[mezelf27]

On the widest angle the image was somewhat soft with the XL1, and XL2 also (albeit to a somewhat lesser extent). This was due to 1) lens and 2) pixels shift (especially if it concerned wide angle nature shots - lots of green).

I guess these problems should be overcome? no more pixel shift I guess and a lens that resolves HD, hopefully at all angles...?

[edgebsl]

I dont see why you couldnt use cinema lenses for HD? 35mm has way more resolution that hd and technicallly so does 16mm! Seems like a lens designed for super 16 would have the sharpness needed for HD since it is a smaller frame size like the hdv camera.maybe not the older ones...but the newer glass designed to squeeze the most out of the format.I would think some of the really good 35mm lenses would be sharp enough too.
The Cooke 10.4-52 could be had for about $6000 i think. Someone should rent it if they get an adapter and see how it performs with the jvc.

[edgebsl]

"which has a chip surface area about 1/6 as large as a 16mm film frame!) "

Okay , I didnt realize the frame was THAT much smaller. But then again there is way more resolution in film .Didn't I read somewhere the theoretical resolution of 16mm is about 3000 lines? That's a lot more than 720.Of course,because of the grain ,16mm will never LOOK like it has that much resolution and perhaps the lens manufacturers know that.

[mezelf27]

but the lenses will be LONG...

[Barry_Green]

Kodak describes most of their film stocks as having a resolving power of around 100 line-pairs per millimeter. So on a 16mm film frame, that works out to 1000 x 750 line-pairs, or 2000x1500 (which, when cropped to 16:9, scans very nicely at 1920x1080 HD res!)

However, that frame is a lot bigger than the 1/3" CCD frame, so I don't know if 16mm lenses will be up to the task of adequately resolving the HD image. However, if someone in England or Wales could just get an HD100 over to Les Bosher for a couple of hours, we could know for sure. Les will build the adapters, he just needs to measure a production model first.