HD100 vs. HVX on the Las Vegas Strip

Beware The One Eyed Flying Purple Eater

Beware The One Eyed Flying Purple Eater

'In the old Sheb Wooly song "Purple People Eater".
It is only visable with the JVC
HeHaw
Very good post Barry. Thanks for sharing.
Mule
Kill:kali: :kali: PURPLE People Eater
 
Great shots, Barry!

And I admire you for sitting through the stupid (in my opinion) revision of the Pirate Show.

I've had my camera for three weeks and haven't shot anything yet. Only tests taken directly into a hi def TV to see what it's going to look like when I use it on one of my films.

I look forward to taking your class and learning more about this excellent camera.
 
booth said:
To my eyes they looked like they were frame accurate - 1/48 of a second is pretty damn close. I'd say they were at the same moment.

I think the idea was to show the worst case scenario, and the HVX coped with it better.
Click to expand...


yeah, your right, but they still look overexposed, causing the image to wash out.

of course, someone will now take the still and darken it up, but not mention that because it was overlit to begin with there is lack of detail to begin with.

Whatever. I think both cameras are so outstanding and just miles above dv. Finally, low cost video can compete with film, what great stuff we have to work with now.
 
Very nice Barry.

The very first thing I noticed was the detail of the bosom on the billboard in HVX-Strip-1. Look at the shadow and 3-D feel of the HVX where as the JVC muddled the red dress into a flat splat (HD-100-Strip-1).

Yeah, obviously I am a guy and one might say that bosom detail is pretty important to me.

HUZZAH TO HVX!!

:)
 
dhffhd said:
Damn. Just when I thought I was finished researching this issue and decided on the JVC, now I got to go back to square one and rethink this.

As long as I'm here, how does the .7 wide angle adapter work on the HVX?

[edit] also, was that the stock 20x lens on the JVC?
Click to expand...

The JVC stock lens is 16x and I think this is what Barry was using... Barry?

Remember this is quite an extreme test and doesn't reflect most normally shooting. I would pick the camera with the feature set that you need. They both make a great image, each with slight advantages over each other. The difference in the image is pretty minor compared to the difference in camera ergonomics and recording system.

And remember, the HVX is only an SD camera really:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) :violent5:
 
nice comparisions barry. yeah. it just makes me want to vomit listening to people trying to flat out make stuff up about a camera.

one thing i am constantly amazed of as i shoot more and more on the Hvx is that its so much higher res than the ol DVX. every time i load a file up and look at the detail i just say "wow" . if anyone really wants to argue that its not high def, im not even going to give them the time of day to listen. thats like arguing that its not really a video camera at all.. its really just a big potato chip with alot of salt. its just plain crazy talk.
 
Thank you Barry. As i have personally discovered, you need to take this camera out in the field and really use it to really become aware of its strengths. Alot of people just sit here and look at compressed H264 files or pick apart individual frame grabs. I kno, i was one of them.

Props for a truly stunning camera. Im shooting in Normandy at the moment and am loving every minute with the HVX.
 
Barry... that is quite a post! Thanks for giving me more reslove that I picked the right camera. For a lot of us, this isn't even a real torture test.. but real world shooting situations. I shot a christian concert this morning and I was blown away by the results. The same band I've shot 20 times in SD.... and now it looks like it was off MTV.. BET... VH1. Just simply stunning under concert lighting.... I'm also so so so happy at the cameras ability to resolve our most deadly enemy.. RED CONCERT lighting. It's not just a bloody red blur with no discernable features... It's beautiful red with details and highlights... Enough to tickle anyone's fancy....


I was also able to record for over 2 hours with the P2store. It's so easy and not nearly as big of a pain as I thought it would be.... It also gets a lot of attention and certainly a ton of WOWs... I can't wait to have the cash to buy the Marshall monitor.


Did you also put a link on that other forum so they can poo poo this as well. Some people are contrarians by nature. I had a guy on Friday trying to compare his 3 chip Sony SD camera to mine.... Calling it a Fad and a gimmick.. Well that MO-FO shut the hell up when I popped out the Dell 2405 and showed him the goods.

The JVC is a camera that's nice and does the trick for most.. but after the HVX I'd have to have some serious beer goggles to think that pig is anything close in quality and functionality.... I too have become quite militant about the HVX... In two weeks I've been reformed... saved... converted and excited. It's gonna be an interesting ride fo SHO!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for enlightening

Thanks for enlightening

Barry_Green said:
Whew.

I've calmed down now.

Thanks for listening.
Click to expand...

Rant on Barry, I will listen! It always amazes me when people feel they have to trash another to justify themselves. The JVC is a good camera if it does what you need. For me the HDV cameras have never been an option because I didn't want the limitation of the mpeg compression. So to each thier own, I'm always impressed with the knowledge you have to share, just remeber for those who speak with out knowing, It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think your an idiot then it is to post on the forum and remove all doubt.
 
The new firmware revisions on the JVC are a vast improvement and they are free to all owners. It is still my 3rd choice after the XLH and HVX though, even though I can get it at cost. Surely a capable camera though.

In both the HVX and the XLH (in 24F mode) the perceived resolution is higher than a static chart shows. I think the SD argument stems only from the CCD which at 960X540 is actually smaller than a PAL XL2 at 960X576. That is not apples to apples, it is like saying a car cant be faster than another car because they are both 4 cylinders... in this case, one is turbo-charged =o)



ash =o)
 
berni said:
the hd100 seems a tad overexposed (and all that that entails) which seems a tad unfair dunnit?
Click to expand...
HOw can it be unfair? Both were set to wide open. If there's any difference, it's in how the two handle bright scenes that cross into overexposure.

The JVC's "wide open" is 1/4 stop more open than the HVX though, 1.4 vs. 1.6, so theoretically the JVC should be 1/4 stop brighter throughout.
 
baquajim said:
I would have rather not seen the JVC shot right at the moment of explosion so it didn't blow out the picture.

Or at least show the HVX at the same moment.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. Both are from the exact same moment in time, exactly. That was the whole point.
 
Great post Barry...thank you. I'm not surprised at the results, but great of you to take the time to put the nay-sayers to rest.
I'm very interested in the sharpness findings (maybe+ sharpness has it's place in certain applications)!
Also let's not forget that we are comparing 720P, and the HVX can of course shoot 1080p as well...whereas the JVC cannot.
Thanks again for passing on your knowledge and experiences with the camera Barry!
Cheers,

Brian Broz
 
I've taken another look, and there's a distinct lack of jaggies on the HVX footage that are apparent on the HD100 footage, that's a really heartening thing as we're getting the camera for filmmaking and that's the most ugly noticeable thing about the electronic image... JAGGIES, bleh...
 
AshG said:
in this case, one is turbo-charged =o)
Click to expand...

Magnificent illustration. My friend just bought a Lotus Esprit Turbo. It's a four-cylinder. It's a world-class supercar, but it's a little four cylinder turbo. It is, shall we say, fast! :)
 
Barry_Green said:
HVX in 1080/24p and downrezzed to 720 for this comparison (because A, I refuse to tie one of the HVX's hands behind its back, and B, knowing what I was going to shoot, I wanted to get to the bottom of this "overexposure artifacts" question.)
Click to expand...

This makes me think that perhaps the best workflow would be to shoot in 1080/24p and then transcode to uncompressed 720p/24. That way you get the best of both worlds. The higher res of the dvcproHD 1080 compression, but the smaller file size of the 720p uncompressed (obviously not that small!). One could do a lot with color correcting with a uncompressed 720p signal over using a compressed DVCPROHD 1080 one. man I'm a dork. -a
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
You missed the point. Both are from the exact same moment in time, exactly. That was the whole point.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I understand that, it was hard to tell at first because the JVC was overexposed and the image was blown out, it was hard to see the details but I can see where the explosions and sparks line up with each other.

Those last stills from the JVC were not representative of what that camera is capable of. Your first stills are evidence of that. It looks like it should have been stopped down a couple of stops.

But whatever, the whole point of the exercise was to show the HVX was high defintion. Which is stupid to begin with because anyone with half a brain can see that it; along with the Canon, Sony and JVC are all high definiton and produce excellent images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top