HD100 vs. HVX on the Las Vegas Strip

Sounds like people get emotional around here... oh well people do get emotional.. I guess that's what's so good.

Hey just on that 6 cam shootout stuff, the moving shots on the resolution charts that were put side by side... now I'm probably gonna get the panny anyhow but it didn't perform that well did it? I mean the alias products were bad weren't they?... and didn't the hd100 look great on the stills... and didn't the xlh have lens CA on the stills?
 
People forget that the camera shootout didn't actually have any motion tests. Barry's Las Vegas shoot is a motion test. If the camera shootout had had more time to do motion tests and putting the different codecs through the ringer, I think the results would have been very interesting.
 
I documented the test methodology precisely, showing exactly what settings and what f-stop were used, so that anyone who feels like it could go out and get precisely the same results.

I am a huge proponent of the HVX because I like the product. Some may or may not remember this, but I bought the first HD100 that EVS sold, paid $5,350 cash for it. It had problems and I sent it back. But I wouldn't have bought it if I didn't think the product has a lot of merit.

Remember, this thread started because of a preposterous allegation that the HVX is SD-only when shots start moving. I didn't go do a "pre-emptive strike", I set out to verify or dispel what I thought was a preposterous claim. And since the claim came from a JVC proponent, I felt it was appropriate to put it side-by-side with the JVC to see if there is any merit to the claim and to find out how both would handle the moving test.

I believe that it has been conclusively proven that:
A) the HVX is every bit as high-def as the HD100, whether shots are moving or not, and any claim to the contrary is simply and easily demonstratable to be a falsehood.

B) the HVX is clearly, obviously higher color sampling, which should dispel the 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0 controversy.

C) I could detect no veracity to the notion that there are "overexposure artifacts" in the HVX when in 1080 mode; something that was not part of the initial claim but I figured hey, this was a good chance to see whether there was truth to that rumor or not.

Do these results make the JVC a bad camera? Heck no. It's capable of some very nice results, obviously. But that wasn't the point. Someone made an outlandish claim, and I put it to the test. And the test says that the silly claim was just that: silly, and factually incorrect. And frankly I was a bit miffed that the assertion was made that the HVX would drop to "standard def" on a moving shot, especially as in reference to an HDV camera, because not only do I have five months' experience with the HVX, but it is well-known and well-established and well-acknowledged that it is HDV, not the HVX, that is challenged by lowering resolution on moving shots. So I used the "torture test" to, yes, torture it. To push it to the extremes. To find out what, indeed, is what.

And we found out. We found out that DVCPRO-HD held up better than HDV, but we already knew that it would; just nice to see it confirmed. We found out that the HVX is indeed higher color sampling, but we already knew that; again, it's nice to see it put to the test rather than debated in numbers and statistics. And we found out that the HVX is every bit as high-def as the competition, something that anyone who's ever shot a frame of HVX footage already knew, but apparently needed to be demonstrated conclusively. So, here's the conclusive demonstration.

And that's all that this was about.
 
Last edited:
FullRez,

There are plenty of working professionals here - including, but not limited to Barry Green. In each of your posts here, you take a swipe at Barry's motives and, in nearly the same breath, put him right back on the "guru" pedestal.

"...but you can't have it both ways." Your words.

Look, in this particular instance, the HD100 didn't perform as well in the field as the HVX200 - that's it. End of story. The JVC returned miserable images in every key frame - SSE; CA; loss of detail around highlights; blooming and vertical smear.

You're obviously going to see what you want to see, but repeating that something is purple or "UV" over and over again won't stop it from being blue if that is what it is. Look at the straight images of the strip without explosions - it is properly exposed in both cameras.

The JVC simply cannot render the image. Blame the lens, blame the colorspace, blame Las Vegas... but please, let's stop with the innuendo.

e
 
Yes, you can't have it both ways. My point was not that Barry is this or isn't this. My point was that no matter what his intentions (which are obviously good in this case) the perception for some might be that he is biased towards the HVX. He says he likes the HD100 but prefers the HVX. I say that I like the HVX but prefer the HD100. You see?

I am making no innuendos of any kind. Unfortunately these forums are filled with emotional people who love to fly off the handle and misunderstand posts. It is this unfortunate behavior that has me making disclaimers in my posts. If I wanted to bash someone, I would just do it. If you read through my posts you will see that I shoot straight and have no ability to ass kiss or play games. I am very serious about my feelings of Barry and they are positive.

When I don't agree with my friend or my girlfriend, I share my feelings, but that doesn't mean I hate them, I'm disrespecting them, etc. It just means I don't agree.

If anyone thinks that the images posted in this thread are the clear indication to which camera is better then yes I'm going to insult you by saying you need more experience. Oh, and once again for those that missed it - Barry did not skew these results in anyway, he did not rig them, he did an honest test and we will let the still frames speak for themselves. I was only stating that when you are a guru for a paticular brand, it's hard for others to see it as being non biased. If you can't see the reasoning in that than I don't know what else to say.

However, do some homework, review footage posted by HD100 owners under various conditions and see what you think. Not sills, but full motion images. There is plenty on here and on dvinfo.net. We are all human, we do have faults, emotions and preferences. Why is it I can't give my opinion about people and my take on how unfortunate it is that it's hard to be a member of brand X without looking biased towards Brand Y?

I've used an HVX and an HD100, Barry has used both. I would say that that gives us both a great insight to their abilities. Please do your own testing and see what you like, don't just have blind faith in brand XYZ.
 
Last edited:
The perception for some that he may be biased ?

You are the only person who seems to be repeating this. Please refrain from making this statement again; this will be the only time I ask.
 
John, I'll do much better than that. I'll just keep my thoughts to myself for now on. At least about the HVX.

For the record my bias comment was directed to anyone (including myself) who would be seen biased because of our relationship with a brand. That is all. I appreciate the warning and as expected I'm one wobble away from hanging myself.
 
John_Hudson said:
The perception for some that he may be biased ?

You are the only person who seems to be repeating this. Please refrain from making this statement again; this will be the only time I ask.
Click to expand...

My god, of course there's a perception that Barry is biased! That's what the shannon rawls debaucle was all about. What I say is if someone has evidence that barry's testing is rigged then let's hear it! so far, no one has made a strong case that the test was flawed. I personally still find barry's test results quite compelling despite the arrows. I think it'd be great internet drama if someone could expose this test as cunning manipulation of digital imagery on the part of mr. green. but you know what? so far that ain't happening.

For a brand agnostic guy like myself, speaking personally, the worst way to bolster barry's credibility is the censor and ban, that only fuels the fire and confirms conspiracy theories. Let the arrows fly, barry is still standing last i checked. that's where credibility comes from.

the troublesome thing for me is that these kind of assaults might discourage barry and others from performing similar tests in the future. I live in the central philippines, you think i can find an hvx to rent? no way. I depend heavily on places like this for decision making.
 
FullRez said:
They are both great cameras. Don't under estimate how important detachable lenses are. Ask yourself why Panavision, Arri, Aanton, Moviecam, all pro video cameras, etc. all have detachable lenses. I mean we all keep saying we want our HD cameras to act like film cameras. Fixed lens?
Click to expand...

Don't over estimate it either. What very few non engeniers know is that to make an interchangeable lens for such a small sensor requires enormous comprimise in optical design. Thus, unless you have an expected selling price of $10,000+ creating an interchangeable lens that can perform well is quite a challenge. The HD100's Fujinon is a miracle in that it can even produce a sharp image for it's price. But it is not in the same leauge with the HVX's lens because the HVX has a closed system. A system where the focus can be done with the chip block and the optical formula can be optimised at any focal length using minimal corrective elements. Even Canon who is supposedly known for thier HD lens designs has problems making an interchangeable 1/3" lens that can rival the HVX even at almost twice the price. Yes in an ideal world we would all love to have the quality that the high end interhangeable lenses afford us, but for most, including most professionals the lens included with these 1/3" cams
is what we will use for all our projects. Untill JVC & Fujinon can come up with an innovative alterantive to the 16x stock lens it will continue to be the second weakest link in the product. The first being the HDV 4:2:0 format.

BTW I don't believe I need to defend myself as impartial or un-biased, I am neither and don't claim to be. I do own the HVX and for good reason, it's the only professional choice. I have shot both the HD100 and XL-H1 for paid clients. My opinion is that HDV remains a less than viable codec in all it's flavors. It's comprimises are just too great, ask any post house who's had to deal with it on a job and they will go on for days about the HDV nightmare. On the other hand the HVX is being welcomed and even encouraged as a low cost way to achive remarkable looking HD footage.
 
Back on the subject...

I think the Las Vegas test is flawed because of the effects lighting used... unless you're going to shoot that kind of stuff for a living (UV lights, LED's, etc). Remember cameras are engineered to respond to incandescent or solar lighting for decent color rendering.

A concern for me in the 6 way shootout was the aliasing on the HVX in the moving (yes moving Isaac) shots posted... is it actually there? Is that a concern?...

The way I'm thinking is if I use HVX at 1080, then I'll probably have to tether to a drive... and if I have to tether then why not the XL-h1 at 10bit then?
 
berni said:
The way I'm thinking is if I use HVX at 1080, then I'll probably have to tether to a drive... and if I have to tether then why not the XL-h1 at 10bit then?
Click to expand...

With the HVX you could tether to a laptop with a firewire drive.
With the XL-H1 you need a very powerfull desktop system with a very fast RAID.
 
That HD100 sure looked good in the 6 way shootout... the lens seemed better than the canon... but is the SSE real?
 
brianluce said:
For a brand agnostic guy like myself, speaking personally, the worst way to bolster barry's credibility is the censor and ban, that only fuels the fire and confirms conspiracy theories. Let the arrows fly, barry is still standing last i checked. that's where credibility comes from.
Click to expand...

Interesting point and taken.

Nice post Brian.

------------
 
evinsky said:
Don't over estimate it either. What very few non engeniers know is that to make an interchangeable lens for such a small sensor requires enormous comprimise in optical design. Thus, unless you have an expected selling price of $10,000+ creating an interchangeable lens that can perform well is quite a challenge. The HD100's Fujinon is a miracle in that it can even produce a sharp image for it's price. But it is not in the same leauge with the HVX's lens because the HVX has a closed system. A system where the focus can be done with the chip block and the optical formula can be optimised at any focal length using minimal corrective elements. Even Canon who is supposedly known for thier HD lens designs has problems making an interchangeable 1/3" lens that can rival the HVX even at almost twice the price. Yes in an ideal world we would all love to have the quality that the high end interhangeable lenses afford us, but for most, including most professionals the lens included with these 1/3" cams
is what we will use for all our projects. Untill JVC & Fujinon can come up with an innovative alterantive to the 16x stock lens it will continue to be the second weakest link in the product. The first being the HDV 4:2:0 format.

BTW I don't believe I need to defend myself as impartial or un-biased, I am neither and don't claim to be. I do own the HVX and for good reason, it's the only professional choice. I have shot both the HD100 and XL-H1 for paid clients. My opinion is that HDV remains a less than viable codec in all it's flavors. It's comprimises are just too great, ask any post house who's had to deal with it on a job and they will go on for days about the HDV nightmare. On the other hand the HVX is being welcomed and even encouraged as a low cost way to achive remarkable looking HD footage.
Click to expand...

Another good post (You people are so level headed :P )

My own worst enemy today is not the available cameras but my own motivation

Each current offering gives us something to work with.
 
Hey folks--let's please stay on topic and follow the forum guidelines. Please keep your posts to the technical and informational and if you have any questions about policy or moderation, please PM a mod. Cheers.:beer:
 
John, you need no-one to say it, but that response was about as big as it gets. Hats off.


Such a fine site,

And with nothing to add,

I'll bid you goodnight!

ahem
 
evinsky said:
Don't over estimate it either. What very few non engeniers know is that to make an interchangeable lens for such a small sensor requires enormous comprimise in optical design. Thus, unless you have an expected selling price of $10,000+ creating an interchangeable lens that can perform well is quite a challenge. The HD100's Fujinon is a miracle in that it can even produce a sharp image for it's price. But it is not in the same leauge with the HVX's lens because the HVX has a closed system. A system where the focus can be done with the chip block and the optical formula can be optimised at any focal length using minimal corrective elements. Even Canon who is supposedly known for thier HD lens designs has problems making an interchangeable 1/3" lens that can rival the HVX even at almost twice the price. Yes in an ideal world we would all love to have the quality that the high end interhangeable lenses afford us, but for most, including most professionals the lens included with these 1/3" cams
is what we will use for all our projects. Untill JVC & Fujinon can come up with an innovative alterantive to the 16x stock lens it will continue to be the second weakest link in the product. The first being the HDV 4:2:0 format.

BTW I don't believe I need to defend myself as impartial or un-biased, I am neither and don't claim to be. I do own the HVX and for good reason, it's the only professional choice. I have shot both the HD100 and XL-H1 for paid clients. My opinion is that HDV remains a less than viable codec in all it's flavors. It's comprimises are just too great, ask any post house who's had to deal with it on a job and they will go on for days about the HDV nightmare. On the other hand the HVX is being welcomed and even encouraged as a low cost way to achive remarkable looking HD footage.
Click to expand...


man, some good stuff here. esp about the compromises made when going with interchangable lenses. thought i'd repost the whole thing.

question: have you found the shortcoming of the hdv codec less pronounced in the jvc flavor? with it's shorter gop?

also, from what i've read, there are some 2000 dollar lens solutions for the jvc getting some decent ink.
 
I believe that each of the "flavours" of HDV don't talk to each other ie: sony won't play Canon, won't play JVC, vica versa etc. Anyone know about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top