GOing from the HVX to the JVC...

H

Hambartsum

Member
Hey guys so I thought I was absolutley set on the HVX and I came upon a really good deal from someone who owned the camera and practically never used it selling it for $5000 and he was local. So I went and checked the camera out taking the cash with me, set on buying it, but then something happened, I didn't like the camera. It just didn't feel right, it was far too fat and blugy, I could't hold it comfortable to save my life of course I could use a tripod but I do handheld work and I needed that. Anyway so I didn't buy it, and then my friend mentioned the JVC to me which I had known about but hadn't payed it any serious thought because of my bias for the HVX which mainly came about from this website....anyway so now I'm really leaning towards the JVC110 (the 100 is discontinued)...now I have a few questions especially after hearing abou the new 200 thats going to come out....

1) This is a stupid question probably but I just want ot be certain, will I be able to use the adapter for the 16mm lenses on the 110, I'm assuming I can because they have the same bayonet size, but this is really important to me because I have a large access to 16mm lenses, so I just want to make sure.

2)I keep hearing how the new function of the 200 to flip the image electronically whne using a mini35 is a great feature, is it difficult to flip the image in post and does it affect the quality or anything like that? I'm assuming not, and the 110 flips it as well but only so you can look at it, so it doesn't actually flip it, ri ght?

3)Lastly and perhaps most importantly...I own a Sony HDV HC1, while the camera is obviously not anywhere close to the JVC, I would still like to use it as a B camera on a shoot, but I keep hearing how using Sony and JVC is like using two different mediums? Can't I just capture the sony on a sony deck and put it into my project along with capturing the JVC on a JVC deck and putting that with the Sony? Is that the main reason they are so incompatible or is there something more?

Thanks in advance, this forum is an amazing encyclopedia. I'm gonna go check out the JVC today just to see how it feels in my hands or more rightly my shoulders.
 
That's pretty cool to hear actually. Usually people jump the HVX200 ship based on the limitations of P2 cards or straight to laptop recording. I personally believe you should go for the JVC HD200-series, maybe not the 250 since it doesn't include the lense, but you don't want to cut yourself short if a better one is coming out really soon. The image flip thing is just a convenience thing as far as I can tell, some have reported about image quality loss when flipping in post, but I think that's just hogwash.

Whether the Sony HC1 will work or not is hard to say, I guess if you were filming straight in 60i and no 24p/30p or anything like that then you'd get a good match if you set both cameras to be exactly identical. I too like the over-the-shoulder feel of the JVC, but did you by any chance give any thought to a DVRig Pro setup for the HVX200? I mean, there's so much to the HVX200, especially the 4:2:2 color space and variable frame rates, and I'm not sure it would be entirely fair for me to just say "Get the JVC" if the HVX200 didn't have a fair fighting chance.

By the way, what are you using the camera for primarily? It makes a big difference in what I would recommend for you.
 
ya but

ya but

I'm using the camera for a feature-length narrative film. The p2 cards were also an issue with the HVX, plus the footage on the JVC looks a tad better than on the HVX, but no major difference. I don't care about the variable frame rates, however just out of curiousity what are the advatnages of the 4:2:2 color space?

The problem with getting the JVC200 is that it costs $2000 more, basically $8000, thats too much intself but plus accesories, etc...it becomes almost $10,000, plus I need to start shooting by the end of sept, and the 200 comes out in october, so do you know anything about that adapter that allows 16mm lenses, will it work on the 110 as well??

Thanks
 
The 16mm adapter will fit on any of the cameras...HD100/110/200/250...just like any 1/3" lens will fit on all of them. But I really doubt it will be out by the time you need it for your feature. Also, I have heard conflicting reports on the price--anywhere from $1000 to $10,000.
 
cool

cool

Well I would start the feature at the end of Sept and continue shooting for a while longer so maybe I can use it then, I just wanted to make sure for future use....
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
i thought u needed a mini35 to use any film lenses?
Click to expand...
There is a 16mm adapter on the way that allows you to use ANY C-mount 16mm lens. You will not need a mini35. Stay tuned!

S.Noe
 
Cheesesailor77 said:
but again, you cant use 16mm film lenses on the JVC without a 3rd party adapter right?
Click to expand...

No, you don't need any 3rd party adapters. This JVC 16mm adapter mounts directly to the camera and a 16mm lens mounts to the adapter. It's unclear right now what DOF and FOV you get from the 16mm lens. But it seems to be a purely mechanical and/or optical adapter since I don't think it uses any power. They had a mockup of it at the recent trade shows but it was just a tube with lens mounts on either end.
 
I suspect that the JVC cameras will have 1080i support announced at NAB 2007. This can easily be accomplished with the stock sensors using pixel shifting technology. There is this attitude that since 720p is not real high definition you are better off using a good 480i standard definition camera. This attitude is totally bogus. The fact is that 720p shot at 60 frames per second is not only superior to 1080i but it is also superior to 1080p for the fast action sports because 1080p is limited to 30 frames per second. But the superiority of 720p does not prevent people from trashing the format and calling it medium definition. If anything 1080i is medium definition becuase 720p delivers more pixels per second. However these debates will be moot once JVC has multi-format support.
 
I'm using the camera for a feature-length narrative film. The p2 cards were also an issue with the HVX, plus the footage on the JVC looks a tad better than on the HVX, but no major difference. I don't care about the variable frame rates, however just out of curiousity what are the advatnages of the 4:2:2 color space?
Click to expand...

It means a world of difference in CC and color in general. It means you get twice the color space of the HD100 which not only means more natural colors in camera but that you can push the color correction much farther in post. Look at Barry's comparison shots. They show that, as far as actual resolved detail goes (not edge enhancment which is no different than applying a sharpening filter), the HD100 and HVX200 are about the same. They also show the benafits of 4:2:2 for the in camera image and colorists will tell you the benafits in post.
 
Okay, the hvx is not as sexy or as ergonomic as the JVC, and I agree that for handheld it's the worst camera I have ever had, video cameras that is. Film cameras are even worst. Anyway, the beauty of the hvx is its colorspace and compression, which means that when you go to post, the image doesn't break down. As great as the JVC is, it is still a minidv hd camera, and minidvHD is a bad format for professional use, no matter how good the camera is... the problem is the FORMAT, a problem the HVX doesn't have, which is why it is a better camera.
 
SomewhereinLA said:
the beauty of the hvx is its colorspace and compression, which means that when you go to post, the image doesn't break down. As great as the JVC is, it is still a minidv hd camera, and minidvHD is a bad format for professional use, no matter how good the camera is....
Click to expand...
I vehemently disagree. and i disagree from an unbiased 'hands-on' perspective.....not from guessing or wishful thinking.

just thought i'd say that.
 
SomewhereinLA said:
Okay, the hvx is not as sexy or as ergonomic as the JVC, and I agree that for handheld it's the worst camera I have ever had, video cameras that is. Film cameras are even worst. Anyway, the beauty of the hvx is its colorspace and compression, which means that when you go to post, the image doesn't break down. As great as the JVC is, it is still a minidv hd camera, and minidvHD is a bad format for professional use, no matter how good the camera is... the problem is the FORMAT, a problem the HVX doesn't have, which is why it is a better camera.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious. Bad format for Professional use? You may want to bone up on your broadcast standards for HD before making these statements.
 
Thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
I have the hvx200. It has replaced DVCAM
as my camera of choice for broadcast spots
(some shoots I rent a 35mm adapter, some I don't)
and my personal film documentry I'm in production
on. I've never been of the mind of one camera for all things.
I still use Sony D35 series for all my live events.

I agree 720p is a great format, either camera.
I also think the JVC form factor is great for ENG,
the hvx200 sucks for hand held.

As for expense...well I find P2 pretty cheap overall.
And if I want more shoot time on location, I just rent
another 8 gig card for 40 bucks a day..(thats cheaper than
what I used to use in Beta stock LOL).

No decks (don't use your camera as a deck, especially
for a feature film). And HDV as a format really sucks in
my opinion. Most people who shoot HDV have to spend
time getting it to another format to edit. (hell, even canon
output to DVCPRO Hd to show off the XLH1).
Also I prefer the 4 tracks of uncompressed audio of the hvx.
And I can't stress not having to capture footage....this is a
huge time saver. HUGE. Especially when your dealing with
a narrative project.


Either way, expect to spend at least 12K getting into
HD, regardless of your 1/3 camera preference. you'll
need storage, good HD monitoring etc etc.

I do like the HD100, just not enough to buy it.
 
Last edited:
I just sold my HVX and went with the HD110. It's not a HVX vs. HD100 or HD110 or Canon...blah...blah. I made the change because I couldn't do anything with the edited product for my clients except encode to mpeg for DVD. I wanted the HVX because I should have been able to make HD DVDs. The dozen or so that I made while the Toshiba HDDVD player had a previous firmware version looked amazing. Although it was still mpeg encoded because h-264 didn't work on any of the HDDVD players.
I'm not putting anything on film. And I didn't need all the variable frame rates.
So it boiled down to a camera I could use with DVHS for my needs. It looks better than DVD and it suits my needs, for now. And this was now easy decision. DVCPROHD or GOP editing. Lower rez ccd or compressed 1280X720, which I prefer over 1080. All sorts of reasons to want both. So it comes down to what your needs are as it has been stated in many of the forums.

I think I have enough left over for a Canon 5D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top