HD100 great option for SD shooter?

L

lacuna

Well-known member
How well do you think the new JVC will function as a DV camera? Okay, there are cheaper options, but for me the camera's form factor, manual lens, and native 16:9 chips all (potentially) place it ahead of the DVX100 (and given its lighter weight, better balance, LCD and non-scifi looks, the XL2 to boot). I know there is a huge price difference between the JVC and the DVX, but the resale value on the HD100 may be a lot greater too in a couple of years when I'll actually be ready to go HD (ie: when P2, HD monitors etc have dropped in price, I can afford to upgrade my NLE system, and the market has matured). And just maybe the HDV option will prove attractive too.

The only downsides I can see in terms of shooting SD on the HD100 are the relative lack of wide angle on the standard lens (which could be overcome with a teleconverter), and the fact that its CCDs are optimised for 720p (I'm not a techl expert, so I don't know if this would have any baring on its SD performance).

Am I missing something, or would this not make a great DV camera, albeit an expensive option?
 
I think the JVC DV500-series DV camcorders are the finest example of a MiniDV camcorder.
I wholeheartedly recommend that particular camera as I have had excellent results with it.

As for the HD100 that remains to be seen. Who knows? It's all conjecture at this point.
 
Yes... I've always liked the look of the 1/2" JVC miniDV cameras - add to them progressive 16:9 CCDs (albeit 1/3") with a smaller, lighter body and more control over the image - I'm thinking that might make a great DV camera.
 
I agree the JVC DV500 is a great cam. We have used ours extensively over the years. 1/2 CCDs are an excellent way to go. Too bad these new HD cams don't have them?
 
I would imagine that the JVC would be on par with the XL2 but that's what people assumed about the Z1U and FX1 when they came out. I don't know, HDV cameras are weird. I love the imagery the JVC gives in HD, there's no way this camera could ever be called useless, it looks that good. I personally don't remember what SD modes the camera shoots in, but if they have a 24p mode then Canon and Panasonic could be in real trouble as far as their SD cameras go. But who knows, we have yet to see. I couldn't tell you a more precise answer mostly because I couldn't change anything on the JVC when I was at NAB. They locked the controls so I have no idea how the camera performs in any other modes but 720 24p and 720 60i.
 
Jack_Felis said:
I would imagine that the JVC would be on par with the XL2 but that's what people assumed about the Z1U and FX1 when they came out.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? I haven't read anything abou this? Are the sony's reportedly bad is SD modes? (or is it just that is has a SONY-auto-setting? (way to cool, as far as I'm concerned, but that probably taste.... Besides, these aren't cam to shoot in auto-mode, just like an XL2)

Well I'm actually selling my XL2 (3 weeks old) to get this JVC. I can't imagine footage wo be of less quality, altuogh I must say, the XL2 is quit outstanding with its native 16/9.
 
How good it performs in HD and in SD? We will know soon, this camera is coming somewhere next month. Nothing better than talking about a camera you realy can use, how it feels, how the image looks like etc. There is a lot of energy wasted in talks about products that not even left the drawingboard...
 
mezelf27 said:
What do you mean? I haven't read anything abou this? Are the sony's reportedly bad is SD modes? (or is it just that is has a SONY-auto-setting? (way to cool, as far as I'm concerned, but that probably taste.... Besides, these aren't cam to shoot in auto-mode, just like an XL2)

Well I'm actually selling my XL2 (3 weeks old) to get this JVC. I can't imagine footage wo be of less quality, altuogh I must say, the XL2 is quit outstanding with its native 16/9.
Click to expand...

The issues would likely be related to latitude and light sensitivity. All of the 1/3" HD chips are going to pack a lot more pixels than SD. This means higher pixel count but at what cost? Sure a well lit scene will probably look just as good from a HDV camera in DV mode as it would from a native DV camera. But the price you may pay is that in less than perfect lighting (dark or extreme bright and dark in same scene) it may not perform as well as a native 720x480 1/3" chips.

This is of course speculation so we will have to see. This would be my main concern. I experienced this when going from the DVX100 to the XL2. The Xl2 packs more pixels on the CCD to help benefit its true 16x9 mode. Unfortunately I have found it more difficult to shoot low light scenes because it does not respond to low light as well. It feels a stop and 1/2 less responsive than the DVX. If I have the XL2 wide open for a shot I have found my partners DVX is more like F2.8 or so. Not a big deal but when he opens up wide to properly expose a darker scene I have nowhere to go. I am already wide open and can't see the detail he sees in the shot.

The tradeoff is my footage is much sharper in 16x9 than his. If in 4x3 mode is neccesary the DVX wins that test hands down.

Anyway.....just try to think of that. If the XL2 is less sensitive to low light and it packs a relatively modest ammount of extra pixels onto the chip, it only stands to reason that packing more would only serve to hurt the light sensitivity even further. As was the case with the FX1. In Barry Greens tests I think it was another stop 1/2 below the XL2 which puts it 2-3 stops less sensitive than the DVX. Now.....that doesn't mean that is is less quality footage. But depending on what you are shooting it could hurt you. Especially if your style calls for a lot of low light filming.

Having said all of this it is possible that JVC/Panasonic have developed newer technology that overcomes this light sensitivity issue. We can only hope they have.

FWIW
 
Pixel math

Pixel math

I don't know much....but since the jvc is 720p instead of 1080i might there be a difference in the low light ability....more info on a larger pixel?
 
Not likely, since the JVC and the Sony have about the same number of pixels on the CCD. The JVC is 1280x720, the Sony is 960x1080, so either way you're looking at about a million pixels.

The earlier JVC HD camera was a low-light pig, I think JVC rated it at 35 lux. The Sony FX1/Z1 is quite a bit better than that, even though it's still a couple of stops slower than their own PD170.

I'll have an HD100 in a few weeks, and will be able to answer authoritatively as to how it responds.
 
I'll second Barry's tests on the Z1 and PD170 light sensitivity. I own and use both, and it's about 2 stops difference. The JVC DV500 that I own shoots down to .75 lux, and is obviously excellent in low light conditions. If JVC can tweak the chipset in the HD100 to shoot in at least as low of light as the Z1 (7 lux), I'll be happy. Lower would be even better. I'll also have one of the first HD100's shipped. Though I don't set up lab tests for my cameras, I do shoot in every type of environment, outdoor and indoor, natural light and artificial light. When I start shooting with the camera I'll be glad to post my honest impressions of it's "real world" performance, not just light sensitivity, but the other parameters of its performance.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Doesn't the JVC dv500 have a bigger CCD? 1/2 inch I believe. So since it is native 720x480 on a bigger chip that means much larger pixels which usually means better light gathering properties. The HD100 will shrink the CCD down in size and then pump up the pixels so we are getting knocked down in 2 areas. I really hope that they can pull a rabbit out of there hats though.
 
JVC DV500 does use 1/2" CCDs that merely have to gather enough light for a standard definition camera. You're entirely right in that it will be a challange for JVC to get similar low light performance out of 1/3" CCDs. Barry was right in that the JVC HD10 had poor low light performance. Then again, the HD10 was a 1-chip camera and, along with the consumer version, JVC's first venture into the HDV world. Hopefully JVC will have figured out how to maximize the light gathering capability of the chips in the new HD100. We'll know in a few weeks...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv
 
Gibby I have enjoyed reading your posts at DVXuser.

Can't wait to hear your impressions of the HD100 when you get your hands on it. Nice to hear Barry will be taking it for a test drive too.

Thanks in advance for your forthcoming reviews
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top