PDA

View Full Version : JVC HD100 is great 10/10



sonisfear
08-28-2005, 05:32 AM
The Jvc so far has been a dream coming from the DVX100. I can now get rid of that annoying monopod and just stand there and shoot a stable shot. the imaging is different but very nice. Do Not judge the cam by its default settings. The HD100 doesn't come to life until you play with its parameters. The small GOP is way easier for my system to manage/render.

I assure you a lot of thought has gone into this cam. It already feels like a good friend. Lets not even talk about the respect and intrigue it generates.

I do like the smoothness of the Sony better but the overall package of the JVC has me smiling. The output looks great it feels great in my hands/shoulder. I am booking pro gigs that I would not have gotten with my DVX. I am developing new broadcast skills especially manual focus on the fly.

I love it.

I have not tossed my DVX100. In iniatlial test, intergrating the two files was Jarring. but I found that if I shoot 30p in the DVX turn off detailing and increase the contrast in the cam. Then up-convert to 720p and use my sharpen plug-in at 90% effect (more than 30% in 480 looks terrible) it looks less jarring and the viewer is less distracted in change between cams.

harlan
08-28-2005, 08:53 AM
Puff puff give mutha "bleeeeeep", let's see some footage. :)

How long have you had HD100 that it's been able to book gigs for you?

sonisfear
08-28-2005, 09:03 AM
1 week, I brought it in to the local cable company who uses DSR300 and evryone was like gaga goo over it, Showed them some footage and I start monday with some projects.

harlan
08-28-2005, 09:24 AM
Very cool mate. Congrats on the camera. Now lets see the goods!!! :)

sonisfear
08-28-2005, 09:39 AM
This is a newbie question but what is the best way to do that?
I have already made 3 5minute test about 260MB each showing Day, night and dvx intergration.

harlan
08-28-2005, 10:57 AM
Honestly, I'm just a film guy and not real knowledgable when it comes to the internet and forums.

It would be nice though, if there were someway that you could post the full-res native clips directly from the camera rather than a recompressed H.264 or something; as that would allow us a better look at the image quality without seeing artifacts from recompressing the footage.

If you can find a way to host the files, I'll see if my tech. guy has enough room on the FTP site and would be capable of hosting some footage. There are also a few websites like yousendit.com & rapidshare.de that allow you to upload & share large files.

Looking forward to seeing your footage, mate.

thx again,

harlan

dashwood
08-28-2005, 11:28 AM
It would be nice though, if there were someway that you could post the full-res native clips directly from the camera rather than a recompressed H.264 or something; as that would allow us a better look at the image quality without seeing artifacts from recompressing the footage.

Harlan,

I also received my production model last week and have shot a few minutes of footage. There is another thread "Here's what's in the box" with some samples on page 4.
I posted in H.264, m2v and put some of the m2t streams on my server. These shots were quick and dirty, but I think demonstrate that the HDV codec with 6frame GOP is actually working quite well. At least better than I ever expected.

Direct link:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.php?p=275038&postcount=33

Tim

sonisfear
08-29-2005, 05:52 AM
My take on the whole HDV-Raw footage is this.

HDV is a band-aid until production tech can hand a less compressed format. Industry guy keep talking about the small margin in quality. It reminds me of DVD audio. Remember those the audio DVD recorded at 24bit 192k with superb audio reproduction.

What happend to it? Does anyone use it? No... but mp3 players are selling like nobodies business.

The answer is the consumer wants convenience and low cost as much as they want quality. HDV is that compromise for now until our computers can handle huge files and decks are cheap to play them.

HDV is definitely not perfect but sure does wow the customer (wedding customers) and is better than any DV reproduction right now.

side note***The JVC native component out for uncompressed capture with a third party device as well.

Industry guys who are not so hip to change keep tell "Ya but what are your costumers going to play it on".

The old Blue ray VS HD DVD is irrelevant for now. This tech is way to expensive for the consumer and production and is years away.

There are over five great HD video compression codecs that play High definition really well. WMV, DIVX HD, Quicktime 7, HDV. Great thing is yes these are software so customers can play them in their computers. But it is so easy for a manufacture to upgrade a regular $50.00 DVD player with a better video card and these HD codec. Hence
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101546

Please note the MSRP of only $399.00. this deck plays 2 hours HD from a regular .30 dual layer DVD.

When a consumer can play better quality at this price...HD is here....
When I can produce HD without buy any expensive burners and media HD is here.

Yes it is not as sharp as it could be but great enough to transition the customer to Blueray and /or HD DVD later when they become cheaper and more affordable for everybody.

So Don't wait to produce your ideas your ideas (In my humble opinion).

Sorry for the long wind ....just had to let it go.

skart82
08-29-2005, 06:31 AM
Really interesting sonisfear. Thank for that explanation, really good perspective.

mezelf27
08-29-2005, 07:52 AM
I agree with you sonisfear, only I'm just a little anxious about how to play it in the future.

A data-dvd with .m2t files is very handy, inexpensive and easy to make, but I guess compatibility won't hold as other blue-ray- and HD-DVD-devices will emerge. And that's a pity....

sonisfear
08-29-2005, 08:13 AM
Well it depends on how much better the bluRay and HD dvd format looks.

Cost/Benefit

If the picture dosen't justify the cost customers will stick with codec (especially seeing that these codec are in constant state of evolution) by the time BluRay is affordable these codecs are going to look really good.

My guess is that BluRay and HD-DVD will become a braodcast standard like BETA became and Compression codecs will be the cosumer medium like VHS.

Mac
08-29-2005, 08:31 AM
As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm considering the JVC. I produce documentaries that mostly end up on the PBS national schedule. (I use super16 when the budget allows, but have made 2 regional docs with the DVX and am completing another now with the XL2). My reason for switching to HDV is this. The films I make take more than a year to research shoot and edit, sometimes as long as 2-3 years. I have to quess, try to anticipate what broadcasters will be expecting in the future (they quite frankly, usually don't know). The DVX gave me cine gamma and 24p, the XL2 gives me 16x9, the JVC will offer improved resolution. To be honest, if the new Panasonic wasn't a handicam design, I'd wait for it - P2 doesn't scare me and it's sure to be the best of the breed. And I don't want to shell out big bucks for hign end HD camera because I already own super16 stuff, and if I've got the cash I'll shoot film... So each of these cameras is a band-aid until the US industry settles. HD is a buzz, SD looks great when it's shot right, Beta SP looks like bad video, U-Matic sucks - but what will the public expect in another 2 years? Super High Fi Extended Resolution HD...?

sonisfear
08-29-2005, 10:55 AM
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/inst_man.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101539&itempath=&feature_id=19

I am not sure if someone elses posted this but here are video samples to look at. This is what I am getting from the cam in my own use.

Cool ehh..

sonisfear
08-29-2005, 05:30 PM
Puff puff give mutha "bleeeeeep", let's see some footage. :)

How long have you had HD100 that it's been able to book gigs for you?

Well Harlan was in disbelief about gigs so early with the HD100. Well today was my first day at my local cable company. They use DSR300 in the studio so I was asigned to take head shot videos of various host of different shows against a blue or green screen.

I could tell the guys are interested in the cam for possibly picking up a few for the station. A little known but usefull feature (standard but new for a guy coming from a DVX) is The Studio Return which allows you to see the pogram out and back to what you are recording. Sweet. the cam blended perfectly into the broadcast environment.

My assignment meant I had to record to tape. We compared the HD100 output to the DSR300 in DV (not HDV mode, studio wasen't HD compatible yet) and the output raised some conversations. All agreed that it looked great, different from the DSR300 but totally broadcast (I personally think it was the lens). Remember this cam is only $6K.

The station staff really liked the focus assist function and the ease of skin tone learning feature.

I am totally in as a assitant videographer although I have a bit to refresh with studio operations.

No joke, I love my HD100.

I said to someone the other day who was is the fence about the HD100. You can have the best resolution in the world if you can keep a stable shot its crap. Having the cam on my shoulder is a whole new world for me. I don't need image stablization because the cam is where it should be on my center of gravity reacting like my body reacts with my eye. (you pros must be so laughing at this, but okay its new to me). Really how much better do you need the imaging than this cam. The form factor, interchange lenses, High defintion, great looks and the price really is the complete package right now.

Luv

Darin

basche
08-29-2005, 06:42 PM
Sonisfear. I am grateful for your sharing of information on the hd100. Today I was in B and H in NYC and was talked out of buying a dvx and convinced into waiting for the store to get the hd100 in. The sales guy (who owned two dvxs') said that he put his hands on one sometime ago and said that it feels like a "real" camera in your hands. I come from a TV news background, and almost never use a "camcorder". I'm seriously considering this camera, Questions, how's the audio? what kind of audio package do you use? Has your lighting gear had to change since you switched to the JVC Camera? Lastly, if I buy this camera, do you recommend anything other gear that works well with it (I'm starting from scratch)?
Thanks,
Basche'

harlan
08-29-2005, 08:33 PM
Great news my friend, glad to hear that the HD100 is working out so well for you. Keep us posted.

ciao,

harlan

sonisfear
08-30-2005, 07:24 AM
Okay well I am not a Barry Green. I am a audio producer who started out using my audio Vegas 3.0 (it is at 6.0 now) program to edit my own wedding and then quickly evolved into a wedding videographer. The DVX took me to a great new level and now the HD100 is going to take me even further.

The reason why I am so excited about HD is becuase the customers are excited about HD which gives me a marketing edge and I personly love the way it looks.

The audio on the Hd100 is great! mono but great. I would use stereo audio from DVX as rear suround source in Vegas. The shot gun mic that is included with the JVC is the way to go.

The DVX would pick up immediate area noise/ambience (as it should) like me talking to the photographer or giving composition instructions to the bride. The shot gun mic allows the cam to get more sound from the subject and less ambient and machine noise.

I was thinking of getting a nice Sennheiser shot gun mic but I am satisfied with what came with the HD100. I also use a Audiotechnica W88 wireless lapel. It is cost effective and has got the job done but I am not happy with it. The mic was too directional and didn't sound good and it also picks up minor RF noise depending on the distance from the subject.

My partners Sennheiser wireless lapel/handheld transmitter is what we mostly use now. It has a very warm sound no rf artifact over incredible distances.

Sony's are good too but I find they can be more expensive and more popular. This leaves more chance for RF conflicts.

My lighting....

I started with a microlux (35 watt) kit which works well, a little to hot/directional. People would cover their eyes with it. So then I added the Cool Lux SL3200 which has a reflex diffusion chamber for even lighting and less blinding. You can remove the chamber for a 100watt light fill. This light drains the battery quick and has a short throw.

My solution was to buy a $20.00 ac/dc transformer a light stand and a $15.00 ac remote control. I now plug in this light in for the podium for only the speaker and /or subject. I only light the subjects not the hall

This increases battery life and dosenít take away from the hall ambiance by flooding the place with white light.

The funny part is recently I found these 1000 watt (2 x 500watt) halogen lights with stand and case on sale at a grocery store for $40.00. I bought two sets and replace the bulbs with 100watt bulbs and repapinted them from yellow to black and took the grills out of them and voila, four light systems with various watt bulbs for different occasions for under $100.00. Now my Sl3200 is back on my cam and I my $40.00 lights illuminate the subjects.

You definitely need filters like polarizer (you donít need circular because the cam doesnít have auto focus). One thing I miss is auto focus, but it is surprising how fast I am getting use to focusing on the fly it is almost second nature already.


You might want to think about zoom control and focus control if you do a lot of tripod shooting. I find myself hugging the tripod and cam without it.

But the next major purchase for me is the DR hd100 (DTE).

Wow that was a lot of typing hope it helps.

Jbucaro
08-30-2005, 08:17 AM
I am presently using the Sony's DSR 300 and I am considering purchasing the JVC HD100. I check JVC's website and there is no mention of the lux nor the signal to noise.

Thank you

sonisfear
08-30-2005, 08:32 AM
I have only done one wedding with the HD100 so far and the lighting was really low I am still learning how to get the most out of it.

The DVX100 was gain boosted 3dbmv and the HD100 was boosted about 9dbmv. So the DVX is better under low light but the HD100 wasen't bad and the detail was still there with workable grain.

I have seen the DSR 300 in action at a wedding and that is a serious cam. The lux you are use to from that CAM is not at all what you will get from the HD100.

You might want to wait for the GY HD7000 2/3 cmos sensor.
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101476&feature_id=01

It might be more up your alley.

I will try to get some footage posted.

Jbucaro
08-30-2005, 09:03 AM
Thank you for your valuable information!

sonisfear
09-01-2005, 07:39 PM
In another forum someone was saying that HD would replace film but not with a 1/3 CCD

I am happy to report that JVC is doing amazing things 1/3ccd. It is definately a heck of a lot better than my DVX100 in standard DV mode.

Today I did my second gig for my local cable company filming a department store 15 second commercial spot.

I must shoot in DV mode because the station is not HD ready.

The station staff was going to bring a DSR300 but fortunately they were all signed out. So once again we used the HD100 in DVmode. We brought a ref monitor with us and the Station guys was impressed. The fact that they had to study the output for so long to determine how close to the DSR300 was a compliment. They beleived it required more light and wasen't as crisp as the dsr300. My I repeat in DV mode.

To even be compared to such a cam is a huge compliment. Especially seeing that the HD100 dosen't cost anywhere close to a DSR300. All of there the station crew agreed that its damn good and definitatly pro enough.

Let me repeat in DV mode.

Once again I stat I love this cam.

One thing I did find one thing wrong. Play back of HDV from the cam has a unusable studder/gitter. I can see why JVC tries to promote BR50 HDV player unit.

Native cam out is fine and output from my NLE is fine but play of HDV matterial from tape is doesn't look good. Unless I am doing something wrong. Still figuring it out.

Hey Barry green.

What is the difference between DV and SD modes in the HD100?

Barry_Green
09-01-2005, 07:53 PM
DV mode is regular DV, so 720x480x60i.

"SD" mode is progressive-scan video at the same resolution, but at 60 full progressive frames per second -- so 720x480x60p. DV mode is encoded using DV compression, but SD mode is encoded using MPEG-2 compression.

Basically "SD" mode is an HDV version of standard-def video, but at 60 frames per second.

sonisfear
09-01-2005, 08:07 PM
Wow...that's great.

Hey Barry...I'd to take this time to extend my appreciation for your expertise and support for young pros like myself in this industry.

sonisfear
09-01-2005, 08:12 PM
Barry can you confirm my HDV playback problem? Is it me or is the play back imaging on motion with componet out not smooth.

stephenlnoe
09-01-2005, 08:31 PM
The fact that they had to study the output for so long to determine how close to the DSR300 was a compliment. They beleived it required more light and wasen't as crisp as the dsr300. My I repeat in DV mode.

To even be compared to such a cam is a huge compliment. Especially seeing that the HD100 dosen't cost anywhere close to a DSR300. All of there the station crew agreed that its damn good and definitatly pro enough.


I agree with this. The clips that were posted were so dead on in the wave monitor, I couldn't see much fault. I also agree (from the posted clips) that a touch more light would have been nice but you could absolutely get away with not adding more light and it was completely in the legal spectrum and IRE range.

Barry_Green
09-01-2005, 09:52 PM
Barry can you confirm my HDV playback problem? Is it me or is the play back imaging on motion with componet out not smooth.
Well, without seeing exactly what you're talking about, I can only guess. Are you talking about dropouts? Or judder?

If it's dropouts, a head cleaning and sticking to one brand of tape should solve it. And yes, you may need to clean the heads on a brand-new camera (but only do so if it's necessary).

If it's the judder you're talking about, all I can say is: I told you so. (not you in particular, just the world in general). The live component output of the camera is 60p, which gives you the glass-smooth "reality" look. But on tape the best it can do is 30P. Which means stuttery/juddery footage, if you don't shoot with 30p (or 24p) in mind.

In high-def on the HD100, you will never be able to get that glass-smooth "reality" look recorded on tape. It just can't do it. And playing back in the deck won't change anything. That's all the camera can do. What you see (on playback) is what you get.

You can try the "motion smoothing" filter, but in the examples I've played with it, it seems to trade juddery footage for blurry footage, not exactly a welcome trade.

If you want that glass-smooth "reality" look, you cannot shoot in HD on the camera. You'd have to swap over to the "SD" mode (or "DV" mode) for that. In high-def it cannot deliver "reality" style footage. It's something I've been trying to prepare people from from the first day the camera was announced, but I still think a lot of people are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise when they find what it really means.

sonisfear
09-02-2005, 06:03 AM
Hhmmm.. I must study this...

It looks decent after post. I do notice a bit of motion blurr but usable. what I see is double images of things that move.

okay it time to visit the store and test my tapes on the BR-50 playback deck.

athouguia
09-02-2005, 07:38 AM
I tested the HD100 today on my local dealer. I'm generally very well impressed with it. First impression, a little disappointment with its size... but half an hour before I was working with a digibeta, of course JVC looked to me very small.

I have nothing new to say about it, everything was posted already... Personally I really liked the ergonomics, with the standard battery it's perfectly balanced and very very stable. I didn't like the viewfinder, the resolution is not bad, but there is some drag when you make some fast movements. In low light conditions it could be better, however in SD mode it's significantly better.

They connected to a HD monitor and we watched some previously recorded footage, I noticed some chroma aberrations in a close shot, a white chair that was not directly exposed to sun light, however we were about 8 guys with some experienced eyes and no one saw it but me, well... I was the only one looking for it and it was hardly noticed.

Than I covered the lens, putted the gain at 18db and searched for dead pixels... there were some but very, very small... I had to stick my nose to the screen to find them. Finally after about 2 minutes looking to the black screen in different positions, I could see the split screen. It was darker on the right side, but it's another thing that I wouldn't notice if I didn't know.

Overall conclusion, it's a very ergonomic and well constructed camera, with a real pro touch, very good image quality in both HD an SD modes (menu parameters set to default) and an excellent option for it's price. It's issues didn't bother me, they would if it was a 50.000Ä cam.

mezelf27
09-02-2005, 07:48 AM
Personally I really liked the ergonomics, with the standard battery it's perfectly balanced and very very stable.

Damn, and I already bought an IDX outfit :huh:

Anyhow, I'm worried a little it might be too back-heavy with the small IDX's on... (a bit is no problem, but a lot might be...) - I guess I NEED to buy the 13x3.5 then :grin: (would my wife buy that, y'think? :beer: )

athouguia
09-02-2005, 08:22 AM
Mezelf, keep in mind that the standard battery only lasts about half an hour, don't be sorry for your purchase.

The IDX or A/B solution is not that important for balancing the camera, trust me, it is very well balanced. I was afraid it would be like the XL1, but the difference is night and day. However the suplied lens is a small and light one... I don't know how it would became with other lens.

Anyway, I won't buy another power system for now, I prefer to spend some money on a wide converter and a zoom control...

nateweaver
09-02-2005, 08:58 AM
...I noticed some chroma aberrations in a close shot, a white chair that was not directly exposed to sun light, however we were about 8 guys with some experienced eyes and no one saw it but me, well... I was the only one looking for it and it was hardly noticed.

Than I covered the lens, putted the gain at 18db and searched for dead pixels... there were some but very, very small... I had to stick my nose to the screen to find them.


Cosign on all this. I got my camera yesterday, and did the checks. There's some pixels under +18 that while not full stuck on, are close. Also, the split is visable under +18 also.

Frankly, I care a little but it's not a showstopper. Not regretting in the slightest.

sonisfear
09-02-2005, 01:12 PM
To give you a little back ground I was HDTV shopping and found that all the TV's I tried there was this unusable flicker with the HD100. I would not get this flicker in Native mode.

This was weird to me because the same footage didn't do this in post nor do I remeber it doing that in the store on the expensive HD ref monitors.

At first I thought it was the cam but as I started testing again I found that most of consumer TVs don't handle the 720p well but was fine in 1080I upconverted.

Its curious that the problem didn't occure with native mode.

I think the Tv's I was testing ($400-$800 26"/30" trying to save dough:^) don't like the 30 frames in 720P mode.

Anyway isues is solved..I think....