ABC may use HD100

Actually I super-imposed them over each other and lined up the three pins exactly.
Also - taken into consideration is the actual camera specs taken from their respective websites mentioned in my earlier post.
DVX 14 3/8"
JVC 12 /38" Body only.
 
Gibby said:
The filter sets may include:

Pro-Mist, Soft/FX, Soft Net, Diffusion FX (black and gold), Warm Polarizer, Wide Angle Circular Polarizer, UV Protector (for each lens and converter lens), ND, Haze, Skylight
www.cut4.tv
Click to expand...

Thanks Gibby, I take it that you'll be using 82mm screw on filters given that you don't intend to buy a matte box for the HD100's, is that right?

The thing is, the southern hemisphere light that I shoot in is really harsh, so I tend to get really contrasty outdoor shots. Shadow areas can look hideous, or if I expose for the shadows, the rest of the shot is blasted out. With the DVX I've been using a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter, which is very effective in handling contrast but washes out the colour. I notice this filter is absent from your list. Do you prefer using Diffision FX to handle contrast... or?

Sorry to hijack this thread with filter questions, but I've followed your posts around on other threads and I've appreciated your insight, so I thought I'd take this chance to pick your brains. A couple of months ago you posted a lot of intelligent thoughts on the HD100 which kept me interested... the fact that a seasoned pro like yourself (and ABC for that matter) is investing in these cameras gives me some confidence in the product. I can't wait for your assessment of the camera when you've captured some footage... it will also be great to here what Barry has to say when his arrives.

Hey, thanks a lot.
 
About filters... I only use an UV-filter (more or less as lens-protection, but with the obvious advantage of outdoor shooting of landscape shots). I was wandering: Now it's a HD camcorder, should I worry whether the UV-filter I buy actually resolves the higher definition? Or is it like a given for a filter (which isn't a lens and therefore hansn't any internal elemants that might bring resolution down)?
 
Sirius_Doggy said:
Actually I super-imposed them over each other and lined up the three pins exactly.
Also - taken into consideration is the actual camera specs taken from their respective websites mentioned in my earlier post.
DVX 14 3/8"
JVC 12 /38" Body only.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, ARRIguy is right about the XLRs... after blowing up those XLRs 1000% and measuring from a dozen comparative points, there seems to be about a 12% difference between them... but I agree your pic is closer than the earlier photo comparison.

Isn't this fun, I have to find something less anal to do with my Saturday afternoon. Maybe I'll start scripting.
 
say: to bring this topic back to it's roots: So ABC might well be using the new JVC?

In Europe JVC already has a big market-share in broadcast-camcorders (DV500, DV5000, DV700-series), but I'm reading here (American boards) sometimes that JVC has a "lower-quality"-name or image to it (that obviously doesn't exist with us. Might the HD100 then be a turning point of this for JVC (in conquering the American broadcast-market)?
 
lacuna said:
Nevertheless, ARRIguy is right about the XLRs... after blowing up those XLRs 1000% and measuring from a dozen comparative points, there seems to be about a 12% difference between them... but I agree your pic is closer than the earlier photo comparison.

Isn't this fun, I have to find something less anal to do with my Saturday afternoon. Maybe I'll start scripting.
Click to expand...
It's not often a guy who's not used to the abstract qualities of electrons can contribute to a forum such as this so please excuse my continuing comments on the two sets of comparison photos (post 7 and 8).

Though our measurement methods were completely different (I used a micrometer and shifted the images to the same area on my screen) it's reassuring to see that you arrived at the same figure as I did. I used the (roughly) 12% error in Sirius's photo to apply to larger parts of the two cameras to check both sets of photos and found 10s's to be very close. I'm curious, did you try this too?

The 12% error you and I calculated in Sirius Doggy's comparison is a linear value. This difference is effectively squared when you show something in two dimensions as in his photo. In 3D reality the 12% error is cubed to yield a camera in volume 40% larger than it really is! I think these factors account for the apparently big (and real) difference our minds perceive between the 2 sets of photos.

Tonight I also should be getting on with house renos instead of using a micrometer on a computer screen! If you haven't done it already, maybe this will divert you from your script to do more 1000% blowups of other parts of the camera in both sets of photos - and maybe to verify my calculations that show the accuracy of 10S's comparison photo.

Happy script writing:grin:

PS To all viewers: I'll try to refrain from more of this diversion.
 
The PDF brochure has a real size photo divided in 3 pages... just print it and put all 3 together, it'll save you a lot of work.
 
First - Let me apologize again to Gibby for the thread jack but I can't believe this size comparison thing is still going on.

Look at these two photos
#1 - Taken from page 69 of the DVX Owners manual states the depth (or length as we are calling it) as 14 3/8"

46587989.jpg


Does everyone agree this is fact?
ok then, onto photo number two taken from JVC's spec page for the HD100 stating the depth of the HD100 to be 12 3/8"

46587988.jpg


Now granted it does not state that this is for the body or entire camera but look at it this way. If the entire camera w/lens is 2" smaller than the DVX then my drawing and 10s' drawing are both wrong.

But if you look at the photo below that I took at N.A.B. (right after I handled the camera) you can clearly tell this camera w/lens is NOT 2" smaller than the DVX

42302896.jpg


So if the camera w/lens in NOT 2 " smaller than the DVX, that must clearly mean that the spec from JVC's website is stating the size of the camera body ONLY (which is completely understandable since the total length will vary depending on the lens you put on it.)

If you look at this evidence, it is fairly clear, at least to me, that my comparison photo is much closer to the truth than 10s' which shows both camera's to be almost exactly the same length. (in fact his shows the eyecup to make the DVX slightly longer.) I'm just saying no way.

My last post on this subject. I'm sure Gibby or Barry or someone else will soon be posting side-by-side comparison photos when they receive their HD100's.
If I'm wrong I'll be back to apologize to everyone here for sounding like a total jerk.
 
athouguia said:
The PDF brochure has a real size photo divided in 3 pages... just print it and put all 3 together, it'll save you a lot of work.
Click to expand...

But then we'd have to find a raison d'etre, and measuring pixels on a screen is much less taxing.

For ARRIguy: 10s' DVX XLRs are clearly way bigger than those on his HD100, if you blow them up. I think Doggie's are closer, but exaggerate a little in the opposite direction. The truth, of this most critical of issues, is to be found somewhere in between.

PS - Sirus I don't think anyone was doubting the numbers from specs sheets, but there could be a lot of factors to explain the figures, eg: the lens hood of the DVX, or where each manufacturer defines the body as ending.

I'm going to 2046 in a couple of minutes. Can't wait...
 
mezelf27 said:
Sorry, but since everyone seemed to miss this info: it's from jvc ITSELF, and it will probably put a stop to this discussion:

Look at the drawing with sizes on the information PDF...
Click to expand...

Mezelf, why put an end to such a beautiful discussion. Didn't you hear DVXuser is 20% intellect (that part comes from the likes of Barry Green and Gibby), 80% entertainment.

Maybe you can somehow misplace the link in your post and allow the conjecture to continue.

Doggie I just figured it out, JVC is using imperial inches, Panny is using metric inches.

Now we can all sleep soundly.
 
:grin: aha

i wasn't trying to end the discussion, but I havent seen or held the HD100 yet, but I ordered one. I might be seriously dissapointed if it was just as big as the DVX. Not because I want my camcorders to be big, but because it wouldn't fit so snugly on my shoulder then :grin:
 
lacuna said:
Thanks Gibby, I take it that you'll be using 82mm screw on filters given that you don't intend to buy a matte box for the HD100's, is that right?

The thing is, the southern hemisphere light that I shoot in is really harsh, so I tend to get really contrasty outdoor shots. Shadow areas can look hideous, or if I expose for the shadows, the rest of the shot is blasted out. With the DVX I've been using a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter, which is very effective in handling contrast but washes out the colour. I notice this filter is absent from your list. Do you prefer using Diffision FX to handle contrast... or?

Sorry to hijack this thread with filter questions, but I've followed your posts around on other threads and I've appreciated your insight, so I thought I'd take this chance to pick your brains. A couple of months ago you posted a lot of intelligent thoughts on the HD100 which kept me interested... the fact that a seasoned pro like yourself (and ABC for that matter) is investing in these cameras gives me some confidence in the product. I can't wait for your assessment of the camera when you've captured some footage... it will also be great to here what Barry has to say when his arrives.

Hey, thanks a lot.
Click to expand...


Glad to help! I think that the opportunity to network and create allies far outweighs the risk of creating competitors...

Yeah, they will be 82mm screw-in filters. I may buy a matte box eventually if my need for one increases. Of course, that would then require me to but a whole new set of filters for the box. I understand what you're saying about Southern Hemisphere light. I visited your beautiful country briefly a few times - never had the chance to shoot there though. I have shot extensively throughout Australia, South Africa, and other locations deep in the southern hemisphere, and did notice the harshness of the sunlight (thin ozone layer?).

About the Tiffen ultra-contrast use on the DVX, and reduced chroma, the DVX has such nice saturated chroma that losing a little doesn't necessarily hurt you much. The HD100 though, with it's 4:2:0 colorspace could be a different story. Of course the camera isn't available for testing yet, but I don't know that you would want use anything that reduces chroma on an already chroma-challenged 4:2:0 camera. Don't get me wrong, I expect the HD100 to have excellent chroma properties, but no 4:2:0 camera is going to have the colorspace properties of a 4:2:2 camera, although there are ways to boost the chroma in your NLE system. The exception, of course, would be if you are using the HD100 as a hardlined, uncompressed anolog camera, in which case the output is reportedly 720p60 with a 4:2:2 colorspace. If that was an outdoor hardlined shoot, and you were trying to handle contrast using the a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter, you'd be dealing with a 4:2:2 colorspace, thus you'd have richer chroma to begin with, so losing some by using the filter may not hurt you much. I do like the Diffusion FX. When I get the HD100's, I'll test them out in every kind of light, indoor and out, with every kind of filter, then I'll get a clear picture of what the camera can do.

I stay up on tech, but I'm a real-world, in the field shooter. Tech specs can be deceptive! I know pretty quickly what a camera can and can't do. Then I just use it at what it is best at....

C-ya!

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
The truth about the camera size is, like most things, somewhere in the middle.

Sirius' picture is way too exaggerated in size of the HD100 -- it's nowhere near that big compared to the DVX. And now that I've seen 'em both, 10s' picture does definitely make the HD100 too small.

I printed out the "actual size" pics from the HD100 brochure, and put the DVX on top of it.

With the viewfinder in the down position, like Sirius' shot, the front of the DVX's lens hood extends up to the rear of the lens hood on the HD100. The HD100's lens hood provides the additional length.

The HD100 does look a lot taller, but that's mostly due to the handle. The main body is about the same size, height & thickness-wise, as the DVX. The lens is much longer, but that's to be expected -- it's an 88mm lens, vs. 45mm on the DVX.

JVCvsDVX-size.JPG


Here's Sirius' picture, updated according to the printout from the JVC brochure:
 
That shows, if the HVX is just a little larger than the DVX, it will be quite a big lump for shooting hand-held, I fear...
 
mezelf27 said:
That shows, if the HVX is just a little larger than the DVX, it will be quite a big lump for shooting hand-held, I fear...
Click to expand...
A supplier who attended NAB and handled the mock-up told me it felt noticeably heavier than the DVX too.

In an earlier thread someone (Barry Green?) said the model shown at NAB was the same weight as the production model will be. Has Panasonic given out this figure or did anyone who attended the show find out how much that was?
 
Barry_Green said:
The truth about the camera size is, like most things, somewhere in the middle.

Sirius' picture is way too exaggerated in size of the HD100 -- it's nowhere near that big compared to the DVX. And now that I've seen 'em both, 10s' picture does definitely make the HD100 too small.

I printed out the "actual size" pics from the HD100 brochure, and put the DVX on top of it.


The HD100..... lens is much longer, but that's to be expected -- it's an 88mm lens, vs. 45mm on the DVX.

JVCvsDVX-size.JPG


Here's Sirius' picture, updated according to the printout from the JVC brochure:
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing up the size controversy Barry.

Following is something that's true with amatuer film cameras (eg. Canon Scopic 16) so correct me if I'm wrong in transposing it to the video world. Besides focal length there's probably another factor accounting for the difference in lens protrusion from the body between the DVX and the JVC: As with most of the fixed lens prosumer camera designs, a good portion of the Leica lens is likely recessed into the DVX body. This can make the camera more compact and easier to handhold. This is something that's easier to do with the fixed lens cameras as opposed to interchangeable lens cameras such as the HD100 where it's all hangin out.
 
It all remains to be seen, of course, but the preliminary data are: 3.1 kg (+/- 7 lbs?) for the HD100 and 3.7 kg for the HVX (+/- 1,5 lbs more!).

I guess if that's true (the 3.7 kg), it would be something like the XL2: seems fine, holds comfortably.... until you have to do that for half a day or so....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top