DP of "24" hit tv show does a adapter and camera shootout

[Justyn]

Just spreading the love, bro. Now, if I could just land some gigs and keep myself in check. I got another credit card arrive yesterday with another 4k of spending glee....

I'm keeping calm though... I do want to get some method to offload the P2 card I have and I'll buy a 2nd card as well. Do you like the USB on the go drives? Recommend another option?

 

[joelnet]

We found that actually the HD100 recorded a bit less information even though it was recording more lines of res.

On my tests the results were visually obvious. MY HVX got beat in real world and rez chart tests. Believe me, I'd love to rig the tests in favor of the HVX... in fact I did!! Almost every test was camera moving or subjects moving. I was after dynamic range, color rendition, low light and motion tests. The HD-100 didn't lose on anything. I figured colors and latitude for sure would go to the HVX.

Is my unit a lemon? Every other camera shootout will begin to show a trend if it isn't... but after 2 shootouts you've got 2 sets of people calling the HD-100 a surprise and the HVX-200 lower resolution.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=44354&highlight=4-way

To quote Adam Wilt:
"The real surprise of the test was the JVC HD100. It had the noisiest picture of the bunch, but in every other aspect we were all stunned at how good its images were. While the Canon was slightly crisper, the JVC rendered a more naturalistic, more alias-free image while yielding only a little ground in terms of raw resolution (and remember that the other cameras are 1080-line cams while the JVC is 720p-native). Its image detail clearly topped that of the Z1 and HVX200. The JVC also seemed to handle highlights more gently than the other cameras, and may (if I recall correctly, but this is disputable) have held onto detail for half a stop more overexposure than the other cameras did.


And the skin tones! After shooting the normally exposed images, we increased each camera's exposure by two stops to drive Kacy's skin up into the knee-affected area. While I don't recall specifics for the other cameras, I do recall that everyone was agog at how well the JVC handled skin tones. There was little of the hue shift that characterizes overexposed skin on so many cameras; the HD100 "looked more like film" in this test than the other 1/3" cameras did.


If a winner were to be picked on how well a camera did on the tests as compared to its expected showing, the HD100 would be that winner. "

-------------------------------------------

Never forget these thoughtful words:

"Doesn't matter it is only words. Words are cheap, easy to come by and there is an endless supply. "

Side by side tests on the other hand seem to be revealing something beyond words. Pictures.

 

[CineAlta]

This camera makes me excited about shooting again.. Excited about lighting... and excited about putting out my absurd brand of comedy. Maybe someone would even watch it... GASP!

Nice post! The DVX100B has done the same for me! :2vrolijk_08:

 

[stabwound]

And the skin tones! After shooting the normally exposed images, we increased each camera's exposure by two stops to drive Kacy's skin up into the knee-affected area. While I don't recall specifics for the other cameras, I do recall that everyone was agog at how well the JVC handled skin tones. There was little of the hue shift that characterizes overexposed skin on so many cameras; the HD100 "looked more like film" in this test than the other 1/3" cameras did.


If a winner were to be picked on how well a camera did on the tests as compared to its expected showing, the HD100 would be that winner. "

Without seeing native footagage from the JVC, and judging from all reports including yours, I'll accept the JVC beats the HVX on res, lattitude and the "film look."

But because the JVC is better, it doesn't mean the HVX is therefore bad or unacceptable. Similiarly, JVC is not bad because the Varicam is better.

If those "wins" of the JVC were my only criteria, I'd be buying the JVC. But I've considered HVX's other strengths, and hence my decision to buy the HVX.

I'm getting the feeling that perhaps you might be wishing you got the JVC instead.

I'll only regret the HVX is if next month, someone announces a camera that's as high ressed as the Canon H1, with lattitude and film look of the JVC, P2 type storage-variable frame-etc of the Hvx, for $5500.:love4:

 

[CineAlta]

But because the JVC is better

Debatable.

I'll only regret the HVX is if next month, someone announces a camera that's as high ressed as the Canon H1, with lattitude and film look of the JVC, P2 type storage-variable frame-etc of the Hvx, for $5500.

You mean the HVX200A?

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I think they were right to do that. None of the cameras had specialist operators so people may have shouted "bias" if you had have paid for Barry to be there.

Barry had a camera. I did not. They were without insurance. I had it to cover Barry and his camera.


Best,

Jan

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

On my tests the results were visually obvious. MY HVX got beat in real world and rez chart tests. Is my unit a lemon?

Send me a private message and lets arrange an evaluation of your camera.

Never forget these thoughtful words:

"Doesn't matter it is only words. Words are cheap, easy to come by and there is an endless supply. "

Side by side tests on the other hand seem to be revealing something beyond words. Pictures

And I agree, it is the pictures that make you money or tell your story. That is what the HVX is bringing home.

Best,

Jan

 

[stabwound]

Debatable.

Heh heh.

I didn't mean the JVC was better camera, though it came across that way (Ishould reread my post before sending)... I meant the rez, lattitude and filmlook. Like I said, I have to go with what folks are reporting on the net... I'm not in the position to judge, since I've not seen JVC or H1 footage.

"Better" is a relative term.... Cindy Crawford might be "better" looking than Nicole Kidman, but I'd be happy to have either of them.

For those craving the "film look" and lattitude, I'd say the Z1 and the H1 may fall into the Ernest Borgnine category.

 

[joelnet]

But because the JVC is better, it doesn't mean the HVX is therefore bad or unacceptable. Similiarly, JVC is not bad because the Varicam is better.

If those "wins" of the JVC were my only criteria, I'd be buying the JVC. But I've considered HVX's other strengths, and hence my decision to buy the HVX.

I'm getting the feeling that perhaps you might be wishing you got the JVC instead.

I've never said the HVX200 is bad and I never will. In fact, I'm positive it's the best camera for a lot of people out there. The JVC has weaknesses... they just don't happen to be in the area of picture quality. So far I haven't seen any codec problems. I HAVE seen tape issues here and there.

The post situation for the JVC on the Mac is horrible IMHO. The number of JVC hardware failures seems to be high.

I don't think we've seen any HVX200 hardware failures yet. That's amazing.

I'm getting the feeling that perhaps you might be wishing you got the JVC instead.

Yes - I've made my mind up to switch. For me, I'm an image quality freak above all else - no doubt about it. Workflow - eh... I don't do weddings or corporate gigs. I'll be shooting for my own pleasure and I want as good as I can get under $10k.

Let me tell you this: when you sit there in a side by side viewing and the JVC footage comes up and everyone just reacts "Wow! that's incredible" and then the HVX footage comes up and there's silence it's all you need to know. I'm convinced that Adam Wilt's comment "everyone was agog" regarding JVC footage was the truth. Everyone is agog.

The HVX looks really darned good and that's why so many people are rightfully excited about it. But the first time they see a dialed in JVC shoot the same stuff they're going to know what I'm talking about.

Haakon here had very honest conclusions regarding the HVX's strengths and weaknesses based on what I experienced.

I'd highly recommend anyone on the fence needs to test these cameras themselves as much as possible. Buy from a retailer that has an exchange policy of some type. There's a lot of money involved and the right retailer will stand by and protect you... and the next one over will tell you "tough". It's one of the many ways they differentiate themselves.

I just spotted Jan's offer of evaluating my camera. Well there you have it, it doesn't get better than that... in fact, a friend of mine works for Panasonic and he told me "Panasonic will always take care of you man, it's a great company".

 

[Jarred Land]

when you sit there in a side by side viewing and the JVC footage comes up and everyone just reacts "Wow! that's incredible"

ha ha ha when your looking at two halves of an image that dont match, cut in half right lol ... SSE baby you couldn't of said it better.

 

[mmm]

Barry had a camera. I did not. They were without insurance. I had it to cover Barry and his camera.

My point is that if these guys, who really know their stuff, can't make the HVX perform on set, then most people buying it won't have much hope.

I would say in the HVX's defence that, to me, it seemed far easier to get good results from than the JVC. The JVC out of the box is far from tweaked.

 

[mmm]

ha ha ha when your looking at two halves of an image that dont match, cut in half right lol ... SSE baby you couldn't of said it better.

Hey, low blow Jarred. Ask anyone who owns the camera if that is still an issue. It is no longer like it was on release

I personally think JVC's two processor compromise was the best. Either that or use interlace or lower res sensors.

A JVC rep seemed to drop me a hint the other day on the phone when I was questioning him about 1080p in their next camera. From what he said, they are pushing for 720p60, I am guessing to hard drive. Maybe 720p is a better option on these 1/3" cameras. We may have to leave 1080p to larger more expensive units for the time being.

Yes I know the HVX claims to do 1080p before anyone says it.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

I would say in the HVX's defence that, to me, it seemed far easier to get good results from than the JVC. The JVC out of the box is far from tweaked.

My point was that there was an experienced operator on the set for the JVC. That operator has had a long standing relationship with JVC.

Best,

Jan

 

[booth]

On my tests the results were visually obvious. MY HVX got beat in real world and rez chart tests. Believe me, I'd love to rig the tests in favor of the HVX... in fact I did!! Almost every test was camera moving or subjects moving. I was after dynamic range, color rendition, low light and motion tests. The HD-100 didn't lose on anything. I figured colors and latitude for sure would go to the HVX.

The HD100 is capable of a nice image, true. However I'm uncertain whether it's actually recording any more detail in that added resolution than the other cameras. Just based on tests that we have done on high end post-prod kit.

It's like saying the 1080p mode of the HVX records more resolution therefore must be better than all the other cameras out there - but does it record any extra detail?

That said you are planting seeds of doubt about the HVX (not that that's a bad thing) and we've gotta decide which cam we actually go with soon :undecided

Soon we're having a few more tests both 'real world' and charts, etc. Will be interesting to see which cameras image our DP and colorist can pretty up the best. I'll try and post some samples of what happens when you hardware uprez/colour correct the different cams etc.

 

[BigMike]

The JVC is a good camera. If they were judging by componant out, uncompressed, with good lighting, the image can be staggeringly good.

I'd like to read the review if they shot an action scene recorded in HDV onto the mini DV tape and played that side-by-side to the HVX recorded to the P2.

The HVX would totally stand out, then. Isn't 24 a kind of an action drama?

Anyway. I took a two day class on the JVC and rented one for a weekend. HDV just isn't good enough. If I was going to capture the footage on a Wafian using Cineform, tugging around a lot of equipment..., THEN I most likely would have bought the JVC.

The HVX gives me a really good image without tugging around an extra twenty five pounds of expensive junk (not a slam on the Wafian, which is an awesome piece of hardware and I think Cineform's Prospect HD is brillant!).

 

[dregenthal]

Interesting that Keifer Sutherland said he can't give as intense a performance for a "small" camera (as a Panavision). I've heard talent say that before. Maybe someone should construct a large "shell" type enclosure to surround small 1/3" HD cameras? I once went to an NBA basketball game which was shot with these tiny Thomson (camcorder size) broadcast cams, in huge Canon studio-size enclosures (with Canon lens).

It could be similar to performace issues in music. I once heard Slash, guitarist of Guns N' Roses, say he can't record as good of a guitar solo, through a small amp in the studio, so they had to rent an arena, set up stacks of amps at full volume, for him to give his best performance.

Maybe there is something to expensive, large matteboxe's after-all, psychologically optimizing your talent?

You mean it's actually true?

SIZE DOES MATTER!!! <g>.

 

[Jarred Land]

You mean it's actually true?

SIZE DOES MATTER!!! <g>.

Ive been riding that fact all my life.

 

[joelnet]

I'd like to read the review if they shot an action scene recorded in HDV onto the mini DV tape and played that side-by-side to the HVX recorded to the P2.

I've never even looked at the JVC camera using the component out other than at NAB last year. Every test I did was recorded to HDV because I knew the codec was a big concern. God knows it keeps getting tossed in the air around here... and people run frightened instead of just testing it for themselves.

This concern is why I did so many moving shot torture tests. I think the JVC 6 frame GOP must have solved the Sony problems. It's pretty easy to test in any store... go handheld and have someone dance or fight. Go try it - don't trust me. Which camera held focus better?

I think another crucial variable in my tests was I shot wide open a lot to try to lessen the DOF. When I got to the rez charts I saw the camera wide open dropped in resolution considerably from F4 (F4 to F8 all looked about the same). The JVC was softer wide open too, but because it started out at 700, it still looks pretty good wide open. That's a consideration no one mentions when they poo-poo resolution. I didn't either until I saw they charts. The light bulb went off in my head. The HVX is soft in wide angle too. You just sit there hunting for what's most in focus.

The JVC suffers from CA more than the HVX.. but I've still got HVX footage with CA on it - usually zoomed in and wide open. The wolves footage has CA across the front leg... how much does it really bug you? How tough would it be to fix in post if you had too? Probably easier than fixing marching ant noise on smooth surfaces that have gradient light hitting it. (Read that as "interior home wall"). Probably easier than adding detail where there is none.

 

[Rhydon]

How did you find the final HDV footage? Was the HVX200 footage comparible in color? The biggest gripe i have with HDV is its limited color and its a pain to post with. What are your thoughts?

 

[joelnet]

How did you find the final HDV footage? Was the HVX200 footage comparible in color? The biggest gripe i have with HDV is its limited color and its a pain to post with. What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are the color has been mindbogglingly rich on the JVC and I could only get there on the HVX by going to the enriched matrix. In fact, I keep bugging my friend to dial back the JVC saturation so it doesn't look like Travel Channel HD (if there is such a thing).

I thought colors would be the big issue too... we shot a some saturated and vibrant flowers and both cameras were pretty solid.

I do think you have to dial in the JVC and you can't just pull it off the shelf and get that result.

Check this out:
http://www.paolociccone.com/

Notice the factory settings vs. the DCS based in Part 1. Can you see the HUGE difference? If you just grab a JVC and shoot, yeah the colors probably look like crap.

Here's a quote from a new user on another board:
"Im a new user of the HD100. Out of the box the settings look drab, but following this thread, and using the latest settings you made nailed the best settings IMHO for this amazing camera!

Thank you Paolo for sharing this valuable information.
Our next projects require rich saturation of colors while maintaining filmic qualities in contrast and gamma. Your settings are perfect.
We will be doing tourism promotional videos for several Islands in Asia and I will credit your contribution in our work."