The HVX has taken some tough criticism...
- Thread starter DarkMatter
- Start date
- Status
DarkMatter
Veteran
I'm confused by your analogy, let me see if i read this correctly; HVX=Porsce 911, SonyHDV=Ford focus. from your statement the Ford (Sony) is better because it is the sales leader, but the Porsce 911(HVX) is not as good a car because it Hasn't sold as many yet... Hummm,,... Can't say I would ever buy a ford, just look at their track record, and if you could buy a porsce 911 for a thousand dollars more, you would be a fool to buy a Ford instead!AshG said:
I don't have anything bad to say about the Sony HDV cams, I think they look incredible, I did some stunts for a feature that used the HVR-Z1U for all the cinematography- but I would like to add also that if the HVX were available at the time the Sony would not have even been considered.
If anyone is interested here are some pics. of me on that set;
http://www.shadowwalkersthemovie.com/sw200507101377_1000.jpg
Me getting squibbed up on the set.
http://www.shadowwalkersthemovie.com/sw200507101391_1000.jpg
In full makeup creeping along the beams.
Cees Mutsaers
Veteran
I am confused about the results of the shoot out at dv.com where the HVX ends as last. Can someone explain me where in the test I can see that the HVX is better than for instance the Z1?
BigMike
Well-known member
There's a thread about the shootout. They did not have the HVX optomised correctly.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=61945
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=61945
Jan_Crittenden said:
There are confusing and misleading comments here. It makes it sound like Walter Graff, not movie stunts sold his JVC to buy a HVX and it further makes it sound like movie stunts sold his hd100 to buy an hvx. Movie stunts had a dv5000, not hd100. Also, I don't know anything about Walter Graff's buyer's remorse but I do know that the two camera shootout with the HD100 and HVX was done with loaner cameras.
Last edited:
DarkMatter
Veteran
Facts:brianluce said:
I sold my gy dv5100 at half price from 12,000 to 6,000 and purchased the HVX. I stated it quite clearly in my previous post. I had problems with all the JVC cams that iv'e owned GY-x2B, DV-500, and now DV5100, between the x2B and the DV-500, i thought it was just a coincidence, now I KNOW that their Quality control is poor, their customer service is lacking, and their repair center is a joke. And that is putting it nicely.
Justyn said:
I totally disagree. I'm in Phoenix where it's as BRIGHT as anywhere. If you add an ND9 to the HD-100 it kicks the HVX's butt on skin tones. Period. I shot them side by side for two months. Did you have two months with each camera to tweak settings?
Look at that DVinfo shootout. Those skin tones aren't even close. Look at the overexposed skin tone shots both indoors and out. And that was CineD... I don't think another gamma witha a sharper curve would help. If you're shooting people the HD-100 is more forgiving in sunlight in my experience.
All I know is if someone is shopping they MUST shoot both cameras.
Oh, and add me to the list of guys who bought an HVX and sold it in favor of the HD-100. I have ZERO regrets. Absolutely a better camera for ME.
Last edited:
dregenthal
Veteran
joelnet said:
Hey Joel . . . thanks for the weather report! Is that a routine practice or does that camera not come with an adjustable iris?
Yeah, but I think their results could have been more persuasive if the guy operating the HVX had just left the lens can on. I want to be sure that next time I publish a test I have absolutely no familiararity with the product I am testing . . . making my results more compelling.
Agreed.
Well "goody goody gum-drop!" So now there are two of you . . .
Someone can always raise this (or a similar) thread from the ashes every time we can't think of something informative or useful to post but, IMHO, you can try another bazillion times if you want but you will still never get people who have made (or are about to make) a different choice to validate your decision for you. An dat's dat!
DarkMatter
Veteran
Gee... Do you think he works for JVC. I Knew one of these guys would wander on this thread and try to cause trouble. Let me know how your JVC is doing in a few months, considering you just invested in scrap metal.:crybaby:joelnet said:
Jan_Crittenden said:
Thanks for the info. I was wondering though; does shooting in 24p mode give the HVX an edge over the JVC (I mean, the article consisted of stills, not motion, so we couldn't test that anyway). To be honest, I currently can't tell if something is edge-enhanced, or if it is simply just sharper/higher resolution. What I mean by this is not that I find edge enhancement pleasant because I'm oblivious to it; I just am not sure if the picturers in the article are a result of the image being edge-enhanced excessively, or if the JVC is actually sharper. And for a while, I didn't know who to believe and if there's really a way to test this -- the people on the JVC camp would claim that it is sharper; opponents claim it to be due to edge-enhancement. I'm too arrogant to know who is correct. I actually don't care too much if the footage is on p2 or tape, because I think I'd eventually use a laptop or firestore. I do like the DVCProHD format a lot more, for obvious reasons. I'm also surprised that Movie Stunts decided to replace his expensive JVC with the HVX; but I think the real question is, would he have wanted to replace it with the JVC HD100?
It hadn't occured to me until a few days ago that there is a way to test of the HD100 is overly edge-enhanced (which makes it seem sharper than the HVX); or if it really is sharper. Because the HD100 has an OFF setting for Detail; you could turn off the edge-enhancement all together. You could simply compare both footage; the HVX at -6 Detail; and the JVC at OFF. While this isn't fair; it still works in this scenario. If the JVC still appears to be sharper, than one may claim that the JVC is inherantly sharper than the HVX, even thought the HVX has edge-enhancement still on (at a very low setting, but still). If the HVX is sharper; well, than you could claim that either they are approximately the same sharpness; or that the HVX could be slightly sharper, but there's no way to tell because it can't be turned off.
DarkMatter
Veteran
Hell no! Even if the detail was sharper, I wouldn't give the cam 6 months before it started falling apart, like my previous JVC's. I've said it before, and i'll say it again, poor quality control, lousy customer service, and their repair shop is a joke. (though sending a camera in numerous times for repair and not having it fixed each time is not funny.)Gordon JL said:
spent a lot of time here
spent a lot of time here
Hey, to all you in my position of two months ago, reading endless posts of pro's and con's:
Don't be fooled - everyone, and I really believe this now, everyone has an agenda. Usually rationalising their choice in camera after the fact.
The real target of bizarre venom seems to be the hd100ua, but it's a great camera. This forum (which I used to recommend to friends) seems to be a bit anti-consumer and biased now, what with the hd100ua threads relegated to obscurity. I don't really want to enflame people too much, but an organic and evolving forum wouldn't be brand based and could follow people's interests instead of directing them. (oooh, the RED, admittedly cool, but no Panasonic, what gives?).
Suffice it to say - the hd100 has more lines of resolution in its ccd's (hence the better detail, and no, it's not all about edge enhancement folks), has a tapeless workflow with the dr-hd100(which I cannot yet afford but 80gb is same price as 8gb p2), has a great form factor, has a far superior focus-assist, has upgradeable lenses (rent for those very special shooting days), and has excellent customer service from JVC (wow, they even replace broken viewfinders and whatnot free of charge and respond to tech queries promptly and succinctly). Also, this camera's been to the Brazilian rainforest, and the BC rainforest, and back, and doesn't exhibit a bit of deterioration.
I've gotten some excellent low-light shots, the noise being of a different nature than the hvx's noise.
The camera's settings are nicely modifiable - see Paolo Ciccone's True Color v.3 settings at dvinfo.net - and the most used features and settings all have well-placed switches on the camera body.
The hdv codec, while requiring an extra step in post workflow, is robust and hasn't exhibited the timecode breaks I'd expected. Still trying to create the sticky foliage effect, perhaps I should stop throwing the background out of focus and instead go for that infinite focus look. No split-screen effect on my camera. Nor do I have the magenta to green tingeing.
It's biggest con is that Apple and FCP don't support 72024p natively yet, (waiting and kinda wishing I'd followed my friends advice into PC land, instead of buying the 2.7 g5 last year).
so go ahead, tell me why you made a better choice with your hvx, but to all you who are presently uncommitted to brand or codec...
No wait, nevermind, I should have bought the hvx, damn, what was I thinking.
spent a lot of time here
Hey, to all you in my position of two months ago, reading endless posts of pro's and con's:
Don't be fooled - everyone, and I really believe this now, everyone has an agenda. Usually rationalising their choice in camera after the fact.
The real target of bizarre venom seems to be the hd100ua, but it's a great camera. This forum (which I used to recommend to friends) seems to be a bit anti-consumer and biased now, what with the hd100ua threads relegated to obscurity. I don't really want to enflame people too much, but an organic and evolving forum wouldn't be brand based and could follow people's interests instead of directing them. (oooh, the RED, admittedly cool, but no Panasonic, what gives?).
Suffice it to say - the hd100 has more lines of resolution in its ccd's (hence the better detail, and no, it's not all about edge enhancement folks), has a tapeless workflow with the dr-hd100(which I cannot yet afford but 80gb is same price as 8gb p2), has a great form factor, has a far superior focus-assist, has upgradeable lenses (rent for those very special shooting days), and has excellent customer service from JVC (wow, they even replace broken viewfinders and whatnot free of charge and respond to tech queries promptly and succinctly). Also, this camera's been to the Brazilian rainforest, and the BC rainforest, and back, and doesn't exhibit a bit of deterioration.
I've gotten some excellent low-light shots, the noise being of a different nature than the hvx's noise.
The camera's settings are nicely modifiable - see Paolo Ciccone's True Color v.3 settings at dvinfo.net - and the most used features and settings all have well-placed switches on the camera body.
The hdv codec, while requiring an extra step in post workflow, is robust and hasn't exhibited the timecode breaks I'd expected. Still trying to create the sticky foliage effect, perhaps I should stop throwing the background out of focus and instead go for that infinite focus look. No split-screen effect on my camera. Nor do I have the magenta to green tingeing.
It's biggest con is that Apple and FCP don't support 72024p natively yet, (waiting and kinda wishing I'd followed my friends advice into PC land, instead of buying the 2.7 g5 last year).
so go ahead, tell me why you made a better choice with your hvx, but to all you who are presently uncommitted to brand or codec...
No wait, nevermind, I should have bought the hvx, damn, what was I thinking.
Last edited:
Seriously, what's with the hate towards people who are critical. I think the HVX footage is gorgeous, but just as with the DVX, i'm re-considering shooting with it.
The noise issue is a beaten-to-death topic, but it seems to me a lot of you don't realise how much of a problem selling that to a client is.
I'm working on footage that just is too noisy for my taste, i can't sell that to my client. I know the HVX is catered more towards cinema then run-n-gun in low light situations, but you should expect more from a 5k cam.
The noise issue is a beaten-to-death topic, but it seems to me a lot of you don't realise how much of a problem selling that to a client is.
I'm working on footage that just is too noisy for my taste, i can't sell that to my client. I know the HVX is catered more towards cinema then run-n-gun in low light situations, but you should expect more from a 5k cam.
DarkMatter
Veteran
Wow that was long winded, seriously though best of luck to you with your JVC, God knows I didn't. They offer great features, but throw it in a sub-standard package. As for your comment about JVC fixing your broken viewfinder... give it a rest no warranty will cover damage you inflicted on it. And Final Cut Pro does offer 720 24p, It's DVC PRO HD.JimmyD said:
DarkMatter
Veteran
No hate here brother, What type of shooting do you do? Sounds to me you are using the wrong settings.parallax said:
First, no camera is WAY better overall, they all have strengths and weaknesses. Also, lets stop whining about the way the HVX was set up, nobody came to the XLH's defense when in the first shootout, there was nobody there who had a CLUE how to operate it. You cant go WRONG with any of these cams....
ash =o)
ash =o)
- Status