HD100 vs. HVX on the Las Vegas Strip

At f/2.8 or f/4 the entire shots would have been pitch black. That's two to three stops down. It would have been impossible to shoot at that level.

The m2t's alone are larger than my entire website's storage space; the m2t's are 600mb's, the MXF's are about 3.3 GB. Posting 4GB of files is not practical.
 
Not to mention the fact that he didn't have to take up so much room quoting your entire post. Geez...
 
Barry_Green said:
At f/2.8 or f/4 the entire shots would have been pitch black. That's two to three stops down. It would have been impossible to shoot at that level.

The m2t's alone are larger than my entire website's storage space; the m2t's are 600mb's, the MXF's are about 3.3 GB. Posting 4GB of files is not practical.
Click to expand...
I can ask SalaTar to provide the space (temporarily) if you are willing to upload.

4GB is a harsh reality.
 
4GB would take about three weeks to upload though.

If I knew how to run Edius better I should be able to extract and write an MXF clip that extracts the salient points. I'm working Tue thru Fri, but if I get time tomorrow to figure that out, I'll try to do an extraction and post those bits.
 
Barry . no matter what you do or how convincing the results.. someone just has to question some stupid detail of your procedure. There is always something that can be done more accurately but you don't need NASA certification to see this one.

"I though you knew to shoot the stock lens on an HD-100 @ F2.8 to F4. F1.4 certainly will be CA riddled on the stock lens."

It blows my mind ! but I guess it should't. people ultimately believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence. Thanks for an awesome comparison.
Aloha
-A

__________________
 
Barry_Green said:
At f/2.8 or f/4 the entire shots would have been pitch black
Click to expand...
Did you actually try that? I just went down to the corner at 10pm and was able to get a lot of stuff at F5.6. In fact, I probably would have chosen 2.8 to 3.4 - and my area doesn't have near the light that the Vegas strip has.

And Explosions? Let me get my spotmeter out. ;-)
 
Even if those comparisons weren't exactly even they were close enough to see that anyone would have to be insane to purchase the JVC camera or any HDV camera over the HVX. There is just no comparison. The JVC looks bad to me. The HVX is clearly in a higher league.
 
Last edited:
Mitch_Ives said:
So, you were able to switch P2 cards without jostling the camera? I haven't quite figured out how to change them without moving the camera...
Click to expand...


Mitch. I shot handheld for almost 3 cards worth of time.. then I swtiched over to sticks and remained on them for the rest of time as it became a one man set from then on...

I think there there's not really much you can do with the switching. Handheld I get the bump too.. but there's a way to minimize it somewhat.. and also if there is a bump.. I just try and do it quickly.. and move onto shooting. What I have done is apply some pressure with my ricght hand and offset it with the left as I pop out the card with the left hand... I do this with the lens at the widest setting to minimaze whatever motion there might be...

Also, do you shoot with a monopod? I love the little bastards and it really helps with changing the cards out quickly.
 
Barry, I think you should know:

Thanks to this article you wrote, I'm buying the HVX-200. All of my doubt is completly gone. Thanks a lot.

- Proximity.
 
About 1.4 vs. 2.8/4: Wide open was the proper exposure for both cameras. If you're telling me you'd rather see a side-by-side where one camera is underexposed by two stops as compared to the other, I can arrange that. I won't, of course, because that would be ridiculous. But I could. The methodology behind the test is meticulously documented, and each was set to equivalent settings, and the results are what was gotten from those equivalent settings.

About the pictures not loading -- for some unidentifiable reason my server is down.

I've mirrored the pictures on my other server, hopefully this one will not be afflicted by a similar malady:
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Strip-1.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Strip-1.JPG

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Strip-2.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Strip-2.JPG




http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-1.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-1.JPG


http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-2.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-2.JPG

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-3.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-3.JPG

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-4.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-4.JPG

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-6.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-6.JPG

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-8.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-8.JPG

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Sirens-10.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Sirens-10.JPG
 
Last edited:
proximity said:
Thanks to this article you wrote, I'm buying the HVX-200. All of my doubt is completly gone. Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...
Just be sure it's the one you want in all ways -- if you need interchangeable lenses or some other unique feature, the other cameras have their merits.

But if you really wanted the HVX and were nervous because of some fears being spread by others about it, then I'm glad to have been able to clear that up. This is a phenomenal imaging tool, and a breakthrough at its price point. It really is an amazing time to be a camera buyer right now!
 
Barry,

As you may remember I was a little skeptical about the HXV before seeing footage because the specs, mainly resolution, seemed lower than the competing HDV cameras but after seeing numerous clips and these stills all doubt is removed.

I always said the image is what matters and the HVX clearly has the better images and moving images.
 
Barry_Green said:
But if you really wanted the HVX and were nervous because of some fears being spread by others about it, then I'm glad to have been able to clear that up.
Click to expand...

My fears have been sporadic (as they've been raised by different posters on this site) but you've swatted them down again and again. Thanks Barry.
 
js33 said:
Even if those comparisons weren't exactly even they were close enough to see that anyone would have to be insane to purchase the JVC camera or any HDV camera over the HVX. There is just no comparison. The JVC looks bad to me. The HVX is clearly in a higher league.
Click to expand...

Everything I've shot on my JVC looks great. Plus I can put it on my shoulder, use V-locks, change the lens, it handles like a pro camera, it can record an hour of HD onto a £2 tape. However, I can't use P2, the stock lens is poor, I can't shoot slo-mo in HD, +18dB sometimes shows SSE. Swings and roundabouts. There is more to picking a camera than the picture it produces of Las Vegas on a particular night.
 
David Jimerson said:
No one disagrees.
Click to expand...

My post was in responce to js33's. Saying it is "insane" to buy the JVC after looking at a couple of screen grabs isn't a good way to judge a camera.
 
So much bs, so little shooting. This past weekend, we shot four episodes of a cable series with the HVX in SD 480 24p.

With at least three series originating on DVX and HVX in SD, I'm certain the network will soon sign-off on moving to HD acquisition based on the tests we're running for the post-production supervisor.

I'll tell you, aside from the complaints over LCD brightness (when compared to the Z1U), our producer was ga-ga over the HVX. It was difficult for us to shoot without jumping into HD, but we suffered through it as best we could.

Go shoot.

e
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top