HVX vs Jvc HD100 & Sony Z1u for Cinematic Picture

Mike Krumlauf

Mike Krumlauf

Award Winning Filmmaker
I was wondering out of these 3 cameras, which one has the most cinematic image and control for the money?

I own a HVX200 and have had it for a few months now....overall i am pretty unsatisfied with it. The P2 system is overpriced, the LCD is not as sharp as the Z1us, and its Cine gammas mute the color out to the point of un-satisfaction.

I dont care about the color space of the cameras as i never to green screen work.

I am starting production on my first feature next month, i am new to the HD formats and i want to make sure that i have made a right decision or if i have been coned.

6200 is alot of money to spend on a camera....but i feel i was cheated.

All the best,
Mike
 
Well, I'll trade you my A1 for your HVX!:) Haha, the A1 is a wicked camera and we just finished principal photography on a feature film this past Friday. It definitely held its own, as I'm sure the HVX will and has.

-Kegan
 
Four Eyed Monsters said:
I was wondering out of these 3 cameras, which one has the most cinematic image and control for the money?

I own a HVX200 and have had it for a few months now....overall i am pretty unsatisfied with it. The P2 system is overpriced, the LCD is not as sharp as the Z1us, and its Cine gammas mute the color out to the point of un-satisfaction.

I dont care about the color space of the cameras as i never to green screen work.

I am starting production on my first feature next month, i am new to the HD formats and i want to make sure that i have made a right decision or if i have been coned.

6200 is alot of money to spend on a camera....but i feel i was cheated.

All the best,
Mike
Click to expand...

The Z1 has no effective manual exposure control, has limited options for "look" plus it shoots no better than 25mb - I've been trying to unload mine for several months with no interested buyers.

In my experience, I would never use it to shoot a feature and it doesn't hold a candle to the HVX.

Give it a little more time and perhaps with patience and a little time spent reading the literature available, you'll see the higher quality of the '200.

If not... to each his own.
 
I have owned the z1u and the HVX200 (and a HPX500 too) . I just bought a JVC HD200.

The "most cinematic image" is a bit vague but here goes!.

There was an amazing indiefeature film shot with the Z1u called Tomorrow is Today. The film looks fantastic. I read a lot of reviews from viewers of the film and not one ever mentioned an inadequate image quality.
Some very compressed stills: http://www.lumieremedia.com//current-projects/tomorrow-photo-gallery.html
Film Website: http://lumieremedia.com/tomorrowistoday/index2.php

The Z1u's controls are a little wacky and there isnt a real 24p recording mode. You must shoot at 50i PAL, then deinterlace and do a 4% slow down to conform to 24p spec. (thats what happened with tommorow is today)

There have been many decent indie-films shot with the HVX200 also (in fact there was an action indie feature that came to Portland and was hot with the hvx200. It grossed quite a bit).

I like the HVX200's variable frame rates. P2 is ok... I dont like the MXF file format much. The picture is a bit soft in HD and over-sharpened but it still looks good. There arent any in-depth matrix adjustments in camera though, just presets. Its hard to calibrate cameras when the presets are limited. Regardless, the hvx200 is a great camera.

A popular Australian indiefilm called Gabriel, was shot with a jvc hd100 and was transfered to 35mm. It was a huge success too. Its grossed a few million and was only made for something like $200k. It was purchased by Sony pictures!
http://www.gabrielmovie.com/


You can get a "cinematic picture" from all 3.

If it were my pic though: the JVC wins handsdown because of how nice it is to use! It has a real lens with a real iris and focus barrel, shoulder mount formfactor, ENG style button layout, thorough image adjustment menus, and a very sharp picture (even with the detail turned off). And it takes cheap tape stock!

In reality though, its really only you thats holding you back from creating the cinematic look, not the camera. The HV20 could create a more "cinematic" picture in right hands, than an F900 in the wrong hands. Just focus on lighting and make sure the acting isnt cheesy.

Good luck on your film by the way!

-Hunter
 
Last edited:
Hey,

Thanks everyone for your responses thus far. I was talking with my DP friend Jon Fordham..i was reading an e-mail he sent me and i think i will give the HVX more time.

I have only had it since December 15th 2007....i think once the weather here in Chicago gets warmer and green hits the trees i will get better images.

So i guess one final question i have is should i shoot 720pn or 1080i/24PA?

Special Thanks to Hunter....u helped me alot, i think i need to not be so impulsive and adapt my style and palette to the camera i have.

Mike
 
Thats the ticket!

1080/24pA is a lot less compressed that 720/24pn:

1080/24pA datarate is 80/mbits actual vs 720/24pn's datarate of 40/mbits actual

Go the 1080 route if you can afford the extra archival space.

-Hunter
 
both the other cameras you mention are hdv. ive used both the sony and jvc and from both a codec and a workflow standpoint the HVX is FAR superior.

the problems you mention are mostly fixed by:
1. getting an external monitor - which you should do ANYWAY with ANY of these 3 cameras
2. adjusting the camera settings to suit your needs

why/how the heck did you spend $6200 on your hvx? i got mine over a year ago and paid a grand less than that...

p2 overpriced? give me a break! this is probably the most short-sighted and narrow-thinking of all the hvx criticisms! when you consider how much time you save in NOT having to log and capture after you shoot to tape - P2 pays for itself in about 2 uses! at least it has in my workflow
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how you would spend much less than $6200 on an HVX (new), unless you shot tape (which sort of defeats the purpose of owning an HD camera), or a single 16GB P2 card was sufficient for your purposes.
 
the poster said he spent $6200 on the "camera". they didnt mention anything about additional price of p2 cards...

i paid $5200 for my standalone HVX and i didnt get a friggiin free p2 card. i worked on other projects until i could afford the extra $1300 for my 8 gig card. then i worked a while longer until i could afford two 16 gig cards.

all these crybaby posts about not getting their FREE 16 gig card (and book or battery or case or whatever) in a timely manner or at all just make me want to shake people. if you cant afford to use the camera, dont buy it. but dont go crying that its too expensive. i found a very suitable way to buy my way in and its worked quite well - dont know why it would be so hard for anyone else...
 
THe 6200 was the cost of the camera,mattebox,p2 card, warranty.

The camera itself ran me 5000 alone. Sorry for the mishap in communication there.

I dont have the money for an external monitor...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top