HD100 + Mini35 Footage!!!

I seriously need to start saving up some money! I want these toys so bad! It's like crack, not that I know what crack taste like.... So who here has a matte box?
 
Hey, Barry appears in his DVD, in the slow motion sample. Not as clear as this photo, but his persona has gone public a long time ago...
 
A question came to mind. Would the JVC plus mini-35 yield a better image than the HVX200 plus mini-35. I guess the advantage the JVC have would be that its lens is removable, thereby removing one more layer that the image has to go through. I guess we won't know the answer until the HVX is released. Are we one month away when we will have HVX footage from Amsterdam?
 
Wow, it is amazing how the mini-35 setup modifies the image.
Hey Barry, finally we get to see how you look like.

Are you guys planning on making a 35mm blow-up? That would be cool to see as well.
 
Ernest_Acosta said:
A question came to mind. Would the JVC plus mini-35 yield a better image than the HVX200 plus mini-35.
Click to expand...
That remains to be seen. I would make a somewhat educated guess that the answer is "not a chance", but we'll have to test it. The HVX is delivering 50% more resolution and 3x as much color information as the HD100. That's got to have an impact. I like the JVC, and I'll buy one, but I'm not gonna pretend that it's something it's not.

But, hey, we all may be surprised. We won't know until we see 'em side by side!

I guess the advantage the JVC have would be that its lens is removable, thereby removing one more layer that the image has to go through.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The JVC removes its stock lens, yes -- but then it has to add a relay lens, so there's just as many layers to go through. The advantage to the JVC is that the relay lens is a much simpler optic -- it's not a 13x zoom lens, after all! And simpler will = cleaner.

The only direct comparison I can make is the XL1/mini35 against the DVX/mini35. The XL1 had lower resolution, and frame mode, etc., but it had a removable lens, vs. the DVX with its much higher true progressive scan, but non-removable lens. With the mini35 attached, the DVX smokes the XL1. I've never seen a frame of footage from the XL1/mini35 that could hold a candle to the DVX/mini35. (Now, the XL2/mini35... that's a whole different subject! There you're talking about actual higher resolution on the chip, plus the less-complicated optics; I would certainly say the XL2/mini35 should be delivering superior footage than the DVX/mini35.)

With the HD100/mini35 vs. the HVX/mini35, you're looking at a similar situation as the XL1 vs. DVX: XL1/JVC offer simpler optics but lower resolution (and the JVC further has lower color resolution) vs. the DVX/HVX with fixed complex optics, but substantially higher resolution. In the XL1 vs. DVX the DVX easily triumphed due to its chips, I expect the HVX to do the same as compared to the JVC. But that's a guess.

But let's be clear -- the HD100 looks *awfully nice* with that mini35 on there! I think I may have to get me one of those... I loved the mini35 on the DVX but wasn't totally convinced about the resolution loss... but with the HD100, there's enough resolution that it makes it completely worthwhile. I'll just end up getting both connecting kits and use it with both cameras!

Are we one month away when we will have HVX footage from Amsterdam?
Click to expand...
That's how I understand it...
 
araujofh said:
Are you guys planning on making a 35mm blow-up? That would be cool to see as well.
Click to expand...
Not sure. It's really Charles' test, I was just there to assist. I'll ask him though. That would be very interesting to see!
 
I must say that the JVC was a lot smaller than I thought it was, I didn't know how small it was until the pics with people actually operating it, Jesus, I thought it was gonna be huge........

And those stills are awesome........
 
Who, me? What?

The filmout subject just came up and has been in the back of my mind since this weekend. I am going to make some preliminary calls to see if I can get it done, it would be interesting to see. Stay tuned.

Glad you cats liked the article. Thanks again for all your help, Barry.
 
What I don't understand is why didn't JVC asked you guys to do something like this in first place... If this was the first footage everyone saw coming out of the camera it would create a much bigger impression.

I'm sure they invested millions on research, but then nothing on making it sell... crazy.
 
Now that's the way to put together an article. Thanks for the downloadable content.

A couple of questions about your levels on the clips. I noticed that some are dark and some are light (on the scope). I don't know your intent with the clips but, for instance, the woman standing in from of the flowers. Did you intend to not use full luminance range with the subject or what made you select the iris settin you did? Zebra? Set to what?
 
We used the waveform monitor. Her face was the brightest element in the shot -- there weren't any other specular highlights. So the brightest element is about 70 IRE. Had there been direct sunlight on something, it would have used the exposure range above 70 -- but since the face was the brightest element, the overall picture's waveform maxxes out at 70.
 
That's close to the reading I got (72) on her face. Just for grins I pulled it up to 85 and the scene brightened nicely but she's fair and her face was lost. How did (or does) the zebra on the camera compare to the waveform monitor?
 
How come I can't download the clips. I always get a bunch of strange numbers and symbols when I click on the links. I then try to open the link using VLC player and it still doesn't download. What am I missing here. (BTW I work on a Mac)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top