hpx 300 vs. JVC's hm 700

ripupthehwy

ripupthehwy

Well-known member
I was in new york monday at the B & H store checking out the hpx 300. Then I noticed JVC's new hm 700. It looks impressive. Similar lens, slightly bigger high rez LCD screen and an overall HUGE improvement over JVC's HD 110 & 200's, but I knew it not to be full raster 1920 x 1080 chips (although CCD's).

The guy thats over the camera dept. there told me "technically, the 300 is higher resolution, but I prefer the JVC because it has less noise."

Has anyone done any comparisons of these 2 cameras, which sell for the same price after rebates at B & H ??? Barry Green, what do you think??

Thanks for any thoughts/imput to help in my purchasing decisions.
 
Haven't seen one, I lost all interest in JVC products after my HD100 purchase. The 700 looks like a step up from the HD100 line, but less noise? That's the first time I've heard anyone make that claim; normally they complain that the JVC's picture is weak, soft, and too noisy.

Whatever the B&H guy was talking about, maybe he's out of the loop -- the firmware update for the 300 fixed the noise complaints massively. The 300's razor sharp and the codec is massively better.

The JVC is CCD, so no skewing, but I haven't heard enough reports to know whether the split-screen issue is still there. It's 35mbps long-GoP MPEG-2 at 4:2:0, vs. the HPX300's AVC-Intra 10-bit 4:2:2. You can record on cheap SD cards with the 700, the 300 requires P2 cards. The 300 has CAC, the 700 doesn't, so you can expect a lot more purple/green fringing on the 700. The 300 has really reigned in the chromatic aberration with its CAC.

Other than that, I don't have any experience with the JVC HM700 so would be unable to advise you further.
 
I love my 110, IMO the JVC colors are far richer and more vibrant than anything I've gotten out of a Panasonic. Had this one been available when I needed a new camera, I would have most likely bought it over the 300.

The 110 had a major design flaw in the body is 2 parts, and with heavy batteries the frond and back start to get loose and break. A couple news stations had sent all of theirs in for repair over this. This version seems to fix that moving it a bit more robust, plus SD or SxS recording.

It doesn't have the unislot for wireless, and I really like the Lectrosonics unit I added to my 300. Here's a great review of the camera:

Writeup

HM 700 Review Video

Link: http://philipbloom.co.uk/reviews/cvp-tv-review-of-jvc-gy-hm-700/

I'm not sure what he's talking about with poor low light performance. Given the chip size I think it does a superb job, and having used both, my 110 again blows the 300 away in low light. Maybe I haven't found the right settings, but the same guy's review of the 301 seems lukewarm compared to the 700. the music is mellow, lots of drab gray shots, which produce a great smooth picture, but lack the warm colors.

(stepping off soapbox)
 
Last edited:
love my 110, IMO the JVC colors are far richer and more vibrant than anything I've gotten out of a Panasonic.
Click to expand...

Not saying I don't believe you, but I own an HVX 200 and used to work with the JVC 110's alot (in fact I have one sitting in my office right now). My experience has been totally the opposite. First thing I do when I shoot with the JVC 110 is crank the chroma as high as it will go, and still it is not as rich as my HVX 200.
 
OK, I've said plenty about this in the other threads, now I'll just post some still frames directly from a FCP 7 sequence. These are all un-retouched shots. I've also included one from an old JVC 110 for comparison.

Unfortunately I don't have shots of the same scenes with both cameras, but they're similar enough to make a comparison, IMO.

First, grabs from footage I shot with the JVC GY-HM700 back in July (in 720p mode):

4095354087_31b41fb5be_o.png


4095354143_c819822306_o.png


4096114692_fd98251922_o.png



Now grabs from footage I shot with the Panasonic HPX300 in September (in 720p mode):

4095354281_fb02782f56_o.png


4096114882_0230330ef6_o.png


4095354331_e97aecaf37_o.png



A shot from the HPX300 in 1080p mode:

4096136384_2d386c885e_o.png



And, finally, a shot from the JVC 110 to compare:

4096114934_5e483b5c60_o.png
 
Wow... The 300 really seems to give better shots than the JVC. (Yes of course, it all depends on light etc). But... they look great!
 
Nice shots mountainmedia, but can't see how they prove anything really. Until someone does a shootout with the two cameras side by side with similar setups shooting the same things.

After watching Phillip Bloom's review of the two I will say that the 300 having the USB slots where you can copy the footage from the p2 cards to usb flash is probably the dealbreaker for me. Great feature.

Phillp's blog mentioned how noisier the 300 is compared to the sony EX series of cameras. Barry Green mentioned a firmware update improved this? That true?
 
Last edited:
ripupthehwy said:
Barry Green mentioned a firmware update improved this? That true?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

The HPX300 is a Full Raster Camcorder that records in Master Quality AVC-Intra 100 10 bit 422...

That should be a deal breaker for any one buying such a camera for less that than $7800 with a Fujinon 17X CAC lens...

On experienced shooters hands, skew & noise won't be any problem!

Definitively!
 
OK, for all the movement & skew people out there, I uploaded a clip from a project I recently completed using the HPX300 in 1080p30 mode. I won't dispute that there's skew present in some of these clips, but unless you're looking for it, is it really distracting?

4096255419_854f6e3edb_o.png


Link to video: http://www.vimeo.com/7561778
 
Move the 300 like you would move a film camera, on a tripod, dolly, Steadicam or handheld with great skill and the 300 shines with a killer codec, 10 bit, full raster a decent lens for free. Wave it around like a drunken bar goer walking out of the bar after closing time and it will skew all over the place as will any other CMOS camera with a rolling shutter.

Pros who know how to deal with the limitations of CMOS seem to not be having any issues with the 300. Shooters who handhold and track wild action on a long lens a lot may find that a CCD camera works better for them.

Dan
 
Media $$$

Media $$$

I agree that the 300 makes a mighty fine image. But, if you shoot a lot of footage on a regular basis for clients who can't afford an extra body to transfer footage off P2 cards, doesn't the cost of media get to be a burden? I'm serious, the cost of the media is a big obstacle for me.
 
With 64GB cards under $1,000.00 now, it has become a none issue for me. I own 7 P2 cards and have rarely needed more. You can get the 300 with two 64GB P2 cards, a professional battery and charger system and a case for well under $10k. What's not to like? The E Series P2 cards have mitigated that as an issue for the majority of users. Sure, if you need to shoot 8 hours of footage in 1080 per day, could be an issue but the most I shoot in a day is usually under an hour.

I will concede that if I were shooting a travel show or something reality based where I had to shoot MANY hours of footage a day, I would consider tape (HDV) or XDCAM HD discs over P2. If you are running three cameras for 8 hours a day, I agree, P2 can be quite a handful and there would be something very handy about NOT having to dump P2 cards although the 64 GB cards (and soon, the 128GB cards) mitigate a lot of these issues. But at the end of the day, someone still has to dump and verify the P2 cards. I have spent many a night in my hotel room, dumping P2 cards, while the rest of the crew goes out and has fun. It all just depends on the types of shows you work on. Right now, I am not doing reality or travel. So P2 rocks, love it. But if I sell a reality show (I am developing 3-4 of them to pitch), I would heavily consider whether or not P2 would work financially and logistically. Each show is different, depends on how it is shot, shooting ratios, crew size and turnaround.

My .02,

Dan
 
Film cameras utilize a rolling shutter (the shutter is a disc that moves in a circle and exposes the film the same as a CMOS chip would). So does that mean that all of you that reject CMOS also reject film? Exactly...

The codec, the lens, and the more reliable P2 media, would definitely make me buy the 300 over the JVC.

I've used the JVC and 300, and the JVC feels more like a toy compared to the 300. Its just too light and flimsy.
 
A film camera's "rolling shutter" is not much like a CMOS camera's rolling shutter at all. In a film camera the entire frame is exposed simultaneously for most of the exposure, the 'rolling effect' only affects at the very beginning and very end of the exposure. Film cameras work more like a CCD's global shutter than a CMOS rolling shutter.
 
In the very basic definition of a rolling shutter, then film and CMOS share something in common. Now, film is exposed differently than a CMOS chip, but film can still skew, and that was my point. The shutters on a film camera are just a rotating disc that we can adjust the angle. The same idea can be applied to CMOS. We adjust the shutter speed and the chip does the same idea without having an actual rotating disc.

My entire point was to prove that you can eliminate skew in most cases with careful operation and knowledge.
 
CMOS=Film, so if we don't like CMOS therefore we don't like film? Really?

I'm with Barry on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top