Do you feel this review is fair to the HVX200?

D

DVmaker

Active member
Hey guys, I'm stuck between the HD100 and the HVX200. Then i ran across this review which leaned me toward the JVC. Are there any objections that you all have to this review as far as the technical merit of his analysis?


The Review:
http://www.bluesky-web.com/HDVHVX.htm

NOTE: Please dear god don't let this start any sort of flame war. I'm only interested in cold hard facts.
 
With all due respect, this is an HVX200 forum and most hear will favor the HVX.

Having said that, I happen to think the HVX200 produces some decent footage and has a lot of great features.
 
seemed pretty balanced to me. At first I was suprised at well the hd100 fared against the HVX, but as the review went on the HVX gained back sme points.

yeah, tough call
 
Yes. And nearly every shot that's paired up as "pick one" I picked the HVX shots from the gut. Not that I'm a huge fan of the cam, mind you, I just guess the Panasonic "look" appeals to me more -- it has more saturated blacks and soft edges on everything, without looking muddy. Call it "filmic," or don't at all -- I just like it.
 
To be honest, I liked the HD100's image over the HVX's in most cases, and would like to see what the HD200 offers up.

Though, in other cases, the HVX200 still rendered color better.
 
Bsmith said:
doesn't the hd100 cost like 10k more? so who cares.
Click to expand...

Ouch, ignorance rears it's ugly head.

Anyway-- It could run beyong 10k when you replace the lens already attached to it. It's not making HD100 owners happy.

And then again, the HVX200 can cost well over 10k after accessories as well... so, they're still in the same class.
 
I didn't understand. Walter compared 720P of the JVC with 1080i of the HVX. Anybody forgot to tell him the HVX does 1080p?

And what is the deal saying the JVC has more detail? The JVC had more (much more) edge enhancement artifacts, wich did nothing but bug me. The smearing is also something incredibly ugly, so I'd avoid the JVC for night shots.

But in all honesty, aside from that, I think it's a serious review. My conclusions are that although the JCV delivers, and certainly is the best looking camera ever, the HVX image still is nicer by my standards. The fact the two of them can produce images that are incredibly similar should not be ignored. I still believe in 4:2:2 codec advantages, and don't like that greenscreen test Walter did. If you're doing a test impossible to pull off (a furrry bunny over a poor screen), no need to make the test. Any camera would suck in that situation...

But anyway, the JVC has definate advantages. Easier workflow to pull off, great form factor, interchangeable lenses, and an image that is very nice. So to choose between them might not be as easy as it seems, and it' a choice that might be done in a project to project basis.
 
The article was a good read. Walter makes some good points.
One thing that bugs me,is he converts HDV to uncompressed QT and
then compares that uncompressed QT to DVCPRO-HD QT...doesnt seem fair to compare one native file to a converted native file to uncompressed for keying etc etc. Doa uncompressed qt to uncompressed qt...make things more equal.

Bottom line is HDV is hard to edit, and adds extra steps. Plus with hvx200....you don't need a deck or wearing out your camera heads.

If the hd100 was anything but HDV.....I would really be interested.
 
In additional to Walters complaints about P2, other reviewers have commented about P2 and many have said they don't "get it".
I have owned and used cameras from all the majors, JVC, Sony, Hitachi, Panasonic. And these have all been used in real productions over many years. A long time friend was still shooting with his Sony DXC-537 with BetaCam who did not buy into the DVX, but once he saw the HVX it was all over. He was looking at the JVC and actually had one on order until he saw the images coming from my HVX. No charts, no bunnies just honest video of real stuff. He cancelled the JVC order and is now the proud owner of a new HVX. He was confused about P2 and the workflow. Once he got in there and did it and was thinking of every production he might be doing.....
The lightbulb went off and he "got it". He realized that a few minutes during production would save hundreds if not thousands in post.
Being able to off-line video in the field if need be....but bringing a Hard-drive and a project file to an FCP post house......
And not to mention the money saved with P2 on head replacement, not cheap on HD decks and the easier flow of creating back-ups and just the space saved not housing thousands of tapes - that don't seem to play when you need them......I guess the guys who don't "get it" - won't.
 
To me, that's a fair and unbiased review of both cameras. If the HVX and HD100 have advantages and drawbacks, they were both recognized in this article.

I prefer the images from the HVX - there is something about the gamma curve that is simply more pleasing to my eye. Look at the MacGregor chart especially in the flesh tones - pinks are rendered nicely on the HVX, while the HD100 simply renders five scales of brown. Where are the peach colors?

Again, CA on the stock HD100 lens is dreadfully apparent. This is reinforced in the night and gain portions of Walter's piece. Dunno, all that CA isn't a feature I'd want in my primary lens. The promise of the HD100 is compromised by that lens - I'd consider it more were it fitted with a lens that was on-par with the rest of the camera.

e
 
That was a fantastic review. That's the kind of review I'd like to see more of. It seemed fair and unbalanced. It was well researched and every statement was backed by evidence. It highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of both cameras, and to me, his conclusion was perfectly logical. If both cameras yield similar results, then in the end, the biggest issues to consider are physical design, monitoring, and archiving.

I have been back and forth on which camera to choose for a month now. I'm buying the HVX for two reasons and two reasons only. First, I already have a DVX so the HVX can be used as another camera for DV event recording. Second, the HVX has multiple frame rates. That's it. I still prefer tape over P2 for archiving purposes and am not looking forward to constantly buying harddrives to store footage.

If the JVC HD200 was out now, I'd buy it over the HVX. It's going to really hurt the HVX market in my opinion because it reduces the gap in features between the two cameras. Since it's not going to be out until October, it's not an option for me.

HVX it is.
 
B&H has the HD100 with Fujinon 13x wide angle lense for $14,000. Meaning the lense could cost more then the camera. Sense lenses don't follow Moore's laws as much, you could argue this was a satisfactory solution with value retained upgrade possibilities. Or could you?
I don't know much about the camera but it's tested well with both Walter and Barry, but it seems worth looking into and comparing to the HVX. Don't know if Avid supports the 24p in jvc hdv flavor yet.
 
Good review but it doesn't sway me over to the JVC camp.

Part of the problems with these tests is this:

When we see the images, the two cameras look pretty damn close but these are all simple tests of exterior locations without really messing with the settings. When applied to a real film with real focus on lighting, I've seen some fantastic things come out of the HVX200 that I have yet to see the JVC match in quality.
 
I did see a trailer for a movie that was shot with the Sony HDV Pro camera. It was very nice. I have to dig that up. But the post-production was basically digitize the footage then extensive
de-interlacing, color-correction on a very high end system.
Basically all the cost savings by going HDV were mitigated in the post-production process.
 
Last edited:
I guess I was a little confused by the end of the article, probably because I don't feel enough emphasis was placed on the smearing. From the images shown, that smearing was pretty ugly, and considering night shots are decently common for indie filmmakers, I would think that would make more of an impact.

Otherwise, there's no denying the quality of both cameras. I've only heard good things about both in the end.

Here's my view: JVC would be excellent for corporate work, where it would be used largely in well lit areas, and on a tripod. The HVX seems to be a better option for indie filmmaking, where lighting conditions aren't always controllable, and the unit, though large-ish, lends itself to more handheld shooting and doing more esoteric shots.
 
HowdyDoo said:
If both cameras yield similar results, then in the end, the biggest issues to consider are physical design, monitoring, and archiving.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the biggest factor (I think) after image resluts...."features". Variable frame rates, 1080P, 4:2:2, etc.

One a sidenote, one of the main reasons I bought this camera was for the 4:2:2 color compression for Chromakey work. It is amazing how bad his green screen test was. He could have painted a piece of plywood green and gotten better results (not that that would have been ideal...but). I mean talk about not doing a test right. That test did absolutely nothing for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top