Do you feel this review is fair to the HVX200?

You can also go back to that Las Vegas test that Barry did to see the weaknesses of the JVC...and sonsequentially check out that one that Adam Wilt did where the JVC comes out looking like the best solution...

I think real work analysis and test is the way to go. I shot with the JVC for 3 days and had quite a different reaction. The layout of the camera was wonky and strange to me. The form factor seemed odd... and the LCD was complete crap.. kind of like the HVX one is for focusing as well.

I was also ultimately un-impessed with the image overall. Just didn't look as cinematic and that's what we were shooting. An indi feature and the DP didn't want to shoot with the HVX as he had time in on the JVC. I wish he would have... but again it's all subjective because he loved the way it looked and how it handled light... so again, pick ya poison and be happy. I know I am.
 
On to the original question -- was the test fair? I think Walter put a tremendous amount of work into it, and that really shows.

Keep in mind the perspective of the reviewer -- Walter has repeatedly said "there's basically no difference, all these cameras in the same price range will produce about the same image." So in the review he shows both of 'em producing about the same image. Understandable, I guess. But it also seemed quite restricted to testing things that only the JVC supports. For example, no testing of 24p. Why? I'd suspect it's because the reviewer uses FCP, and FCP doesn't support JVC 24p, so had he tested 24p he'd have been left with footage he couldn't use. No testing of 60p, or 1080/60i. Why? Because the JVC can't do 60p in high def, and it can't do 1080i at all. If you want to compare motion, why not compare glass-smooth 60p footage against relatively-stuttery 30p (and if you're shooting sports, events, or broadcast, you'll need that glass-smooth 60p or 60i look. The JVC can't even think about those jobs.

The review was pretty good for what it covered, and I commend Walter for taking so much time and being so thorough. But it totally ignores the differences between the products. If they produce the same (or ballpark same) image, how are you supposed to choose one? That's where MrPolarBare hit the nail on the head. It's all about the features.

Things the HVX does that the JVC doesn't: 1080/24p. 1080/30p. 1080/60i. 720/60p. 720/48p. 720/36p. 720/32p. 720/26p. 720/22p. 720/20p. 720/18p. 720/12p. DVCPRO50. 480/30p. 4 channels of uncompressed audio, vs. 2 channels of MPEG-1 Layer II 384-kbit compressed audio. Batteries that last six TIMES as long. 8 gamma curves including the filmlike cine-gammas. P2.

Things the JVC does that the HVX doesn't: 480/60p. 576/50p. 720/25p. Interchangeable-lenses. More detailed image paint menu. Split-screen Effect. Potential for Tape Dropouts. "mode changing". MPEG artifacting under certain challenging conditions. Ghosting artifacts when using a mini35.

It's like comparing a swiss army knife against a phillips-head screwdriver. If you test the phillips-head screwdriver of the swiss army knife against a conventional phillips-head screwdriver, you may indeed find that both of them do a pretty good job of tightening or loosening phillilps-head screws, and in some cases the dedicated phillips-head screwdriver is the better tool.

But what about flathead screws? Swiss army knife can do that, phillips-head screwdriver is useless for that. What about for opening a box? Swiss army knife can do that quite well, phillips-head screwdriver is (mostly) useless for that. What about opening bottles, filing nails, sawing wood, cutting things, etc. etc. etc. There are lots of things a swiss army knife or Leatherman can do, that a dedicated screwdriver can't.

The HVX is the swiss army knife of production tools. The HD100 is a fairly good phillips-head screwdriver for the price.

You have to know what the tool can do, and what it can't do. Focusing on the "sameness" doesn't help. We all know that under good conditions all the HD cameras perform well and produce good-looking pictures that are more similar than different. That's the conclusion we came to at the DV shootout, and the same conclusion they reached at the Texas Shootout. It's knowing how the tools are DIFFERENT that lets you know which one is right for you. And these tools are very, very different when it comes to features and capability and how they handle footage -- not just in the general image, but in challenging circumstances, in unpredictable circumstances, in smoke and fire and strobelights and stage performances, in moving shots and sports, with a mini35 on the front...

If you constrain your shooting to the areas where the JVC is optimized, you can get very good performance from it. Sometimes, on par with what the HVX can deliver. But if you step outside those constraints, you'll find the JVC quite limited, where the HVX is just getting warmed up. And that's why I think it's the superior tool for the vast majority of shooting circumstances, provided that the recording time situation works for what you're using it for.
 
Last edited:
First of all, please all of you forgive me for what I am going to type. But I have to say this from a novice point of view. Here is my opinion about whether it is fair or not:

I do not know what fair is supposed to mean. If it means that for the selected tests, the tester was fair, then probably, he was fair.

However, if it means that he selected all relevant tests that help us really evaluate which is the better camera, my opinion is that it is not that fair of a test and can be slightly misleading.

The most valid test between the JVC and HVX in my very humble opinion is the following:

HVX 1080-24P versus JVC 720-24P

Why? Because JVC and HVX are probably the only HD cameras under 10K that can do 24P (not 24f or others).

Yes, you might argue why not have it 720 vs 720. The answer is very simple. I want to see the best 24P image that HVX produces against the best 24P image that JVC produces UNDER VARIOUS CONDITIONS!

Nevertheless, I enjoyed the format and the details of the article. I loved looking at still pictures. But I still have reservation against it and I cannot in good conscious recommend the article as the real test between JVC and HVX.

Sorry again.
 
Barry_Green said:
The HVX is the swiss army knife of production tools. The HD100 is a fairly good phillips-head screwdriver for the price.
Click to expand...

Hey...Thanks Barry. That's the line I gave you and was spreading at NAB!:dankk2: Ya notice I carry the Swiss Champ on my hip all the time.

And I can't think of a better way to describe the HVX. There may be better options for a few tasks, but no single camera can cover as many jobs better. For my production company, it was THE obvious choice.
 
I dont doubt the JVC is a good camcorder, but there is so much edge enhancement in these the pictures... scaring...

...even in the color chart picture, the edge enhancement is everywhere.

that sais, the JVC is a good camcorder, but i prefer the HVX...and bought one.

Is it possible to lower the detail level enough to make the edge enhancement dissapear on the JVC ?
 
^
Mostly but then the "detail" advantage of the JVC kind of disapears. From what I've seen, it ceases to look any sharper than the HVX200 with the same amount of edge enhancment. That's not to say that the cameras are equally detailed. JVC's has bigger chips and ends up resolving a bit more than the HVX200 can but, to my eye at least, you really don't see it unless the edge enhancment is strongly present (since that's the way JVC designed it). If you want to lose the edge enhancement, you're left with something that is pretty much just as sharp and detailed as the HVX200 (but with worse colors, gamma, and motion).

I personally have mixed feelings on edge enhancment. Sometimes I like it when I want details to stand out but it has the drawback of giving the image a more digital quality (or course). I'm never really happy as when I up it, I'm happy it looks sharper but I hate the more digital look and the extra noise it tends to create. When I push the detail down, it looks fuzzy to me. In general, with the DVX100 at least, I tend just to leave it alone.
 
The JVC's chips are actually smaller. And yes, you can turn edge enhancement completely off with the JVC, but you can't get 100% "off" with the HVX.

The comparison really needs to be better balanced. In the article there are some pictures of the JVC at +7 and the HVX at +7, and that's totally not in the same ballpark. The HVX at +7 is about equivalent to the JVC at -6.

There's another picture in that article with the HVX at -7 and the JVC at -7, and that's not appropriate either. With the HVX at -7, the JVC would need to be set somewhere between MIN and OFF in order to deliver comparable edge enhancement. If the JVC is to be left at -7, the HVX should be cranked up to about +5 to get comparable edge enhancement.

Anything over -6 on the JVC is territory the HVX can't even get to as far as artificial edge enhancement. You could sharpen the images in post to match, but not in-camera. The JVC has an extraordinary amount of edge enhancement capability. But as far as raw resolution (without edge enhancement) they're fairly comparable.
 
I still haven't seen an image where i have been impressed by the detail and crispness of an HVX image and i have one. The JVC seems to me to have a better harder quality in that regard, the HVX is a little soft.
This is quite clear for all to see in this review.

Kind regards
THE HONEST LIAR
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
The HVX is the swiss army knife of production tools. The HD100 is a fairly good phillips-head screwdriver for the price.




And that's why I think it's the superior tool for the vast majority of shooting circumstances, provided that the recording time situation works for what you're using it for.
Click to expand...

I think even the most ardent JVC fanboy would concede the HVX's superior versatility. The HVX's dv50 capability had me drooling.

Regarding your last point, the recording time situation, you're not glossing over it, but nonetheless, it's a huge caveat for a lot of us, it's THE reason I opted for the JVC. Someone here described P2 as a blessing or a curse, and that's fair because P2's viability, at the moment, has everything to do with the type of production a person does.
 
This article shows how hard it is to do a completely objective comparison. Barry hit the nail on the head about the detail issue.

My main observation was the JVC always looked more enhanced, Sometimes that looked good and sometimes not but i think a fairer comparison would have been to try to get an equivilent enhancement on both cameras from the get go. His suggestion that the one camera was meant to look more enhanced or something because that's where the manufacturers put the "0" level was meaningless to me.

Also I didn't know what settings he had on the cameras, were the blacks & chroma levels equal, the matrixs etc., and the imagery itself didn't really test what the cameras could do. How about a high contrast sunny shot with many levels of exposure and lots of detail in leaves etc. Moving leaves in the wind for motion issues.
I'd like to see lit shots with people etc - Faces.
It is a hard thing to do and a valient attempt, but I don't feel I learned too much from this except that neither camera knocks the other off the boards.
 
Lenilenapi said:
I don't feel I learned too much from this except that neither camera knocks the other off the boards.
Click to expand...

Not to kick a dead horse, but this is precisely the conclusion i've reached after reading zillions of reviews and comments. Which takes us back to feature sets-variable frame rates, variable formats, ergonomics, long record times, blah blah.
 
yes.. the two cameras are alot closer than i thought they were.

i must tell you though.. the framerate thing is really starting to grow on me.. I have come to the point were I dont know how i lived without it.
 
Jarred Land said:
yes.. the two cameras are alot closer than i thought they were.

i must tell you though.. the framerate thing is really starting to grow on me.. I have come to the point were I dont know how i lived without it.
Click to expand...

Me too... The creative possibilities the HVX gives us make it heads above the competition, at least for me... Interchangeable lenses? Get a redrock micro! Still well bellow $14000 for the 13x lens + JVC combo!

( The Leica lens on the HVX is very, very good)
 
Barry_Green said:
Things the HVX does that the JVC doesn't: 1080/24p. 1080/30p. 1080/60i. 720/60p. 720/48p. 720/36p. 720/32p. 720/26p. 720/22p. 720/20p. 720/18p. 720/12p. DVCPRO50. 480/30p. 4 channels of uncompressed audio, vs. 2 channels of MPEG-1 Layer II 384-kbit compressed audio. Batteries that last six TIMES as long. 8 gamma curves including the filmlike cine-gammas. P2.
Click to expand...

Barry, consider the next check from Panasonic well and truly earned. I had all but given up on HVX200 and was preparing myself mentally for the purchase of HD100... but you turned me back towards the HVX200.

But, and it's a big but. P2 isn't suitable for my workflow and most definitely not suitable for my wallet. I was looking at the FS-100 and CitiDisk HD as solutions, but it seems neither supports some of the more exciting features of P2, such as 720PN and under/overcranking - or am I wrong? CinePorter apparently supports those features, but it's expensive and comes out too late. That said, CitiDisk HD (cheapest of the trio) is not out yet either.

I'm also torn between NTSC and PAL. I'm currently in a country where I can buy the HVX200 (NTSC) for US$4550. In a few weeks time I'm back home (a PAL country), where I'd have to pay US$5700 for the PAL version. While it would be nice to have PAL for eventual DVD production, I dislike the fact that the PAL version shoots 25p instead of 24p. That might cause problems when shooting for film/theater release in mind. Yes, I read elsewhere on this forum about how European filmmakers shoot 25p for mixed theater and TV release, but I can't help thinking that 25p to 24p conversion would somehow show up on the big screen.

So, I want to shoot HD and use the exciting features P2 provides - but have no wish to buy the very expensive (my opinion, non-debatable in that respect) P2 media. Am I screwed or what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top