I'm through with the HD100U!

B

brsirob

Member
So the first unit I got had 2 dead pixels, 4 days later the next one comes. I pick it up;
"Its been tested by our service tech. its good to go!"
SPLIT SCREEN! Even with NO Gain!

So the camera's wasted a week of my time and my dealer's money shipping it back and forth everywhere.

I'm going with the DVX 100A Panasonic. I have no more time to mess around with the JVC although I thought I'd post this part of an email the service tech sent me:
---
We have been issued a service bulletin from JVC that seems to solve the problems that you’ve described. We have put a camera through this procedure and it seems to work exceptionally well.



On behalf of JVC I apologize for the problems you’ve experienced with the HD100.
---

So do you folks think the Panasonic was a good call? How did you like it Tim Dashwood? (I checked out your site, and saw some of the flicks you did on it, I was impressed.)
 
i had a similar experience with a jvc dv500 a few years ago. out of the box it had this wierd solarization look. back to jvc. two weeks later they send it back to me claiming the problem was fixed and unit was tested. guess what? they didn't fix it right. exact same problem. back to jvc for a second time, finally they got it right.
 
brsirob said:
So do you folks think the Panasonic was a good call? How did you like it Tim Dashwood? (I checked out your site, and saw some of the flicks you did on it, I was impressed.)
Click to expand...

Well the DVX100 was the first of its kind (24P SD video camera under $25,000) and you'll find hundreds of people on this forum who can vouch for its capabilities and image quality. I've shot hours of broadcast television with it and have loved its adjustable gamma capabilities.

With that said, the JVC HD100 is in a class of its own right now being the only HDV Progressive capture camera available under $80,000 in a "pro" form factor and with interchangable lenses.

If HD, "pro" ergonomics, and interchangable lenses aren't high on your priority list, then you can save some money and get right to work with a DVX100. (Preferably the DVX100A.)

Its too bad you had a bad experience with your JVC. As you probably know, I also exchanged two units. If it was January 2006 and this happened to me I would be royally pissed. However, I have a history of being an early adopter of technology and I've gotten used to a few bumps in the road when you are the first one to have it in your hands.
JVC obviously made a tough choice: Either wait until everything is worked out and release late in 2005 (like Panasonic/Canon) or release first and get a jump start on the competition. I think that ultimately they made the right choice based on the demand for this camera.

I'm curious about something. Did your first camera have split-screen, or just bad pixels? Bad pixels can be cloned in a process that takes less than 30 seconds to complete. JVC did it for me on-site for one bad pixel, but then taught me how to do it myself.
Pixels can go bad during shipping and can be caused by radiation (dependent on flight paths, or x-ray machines.) This happens with all CCDs, even on my BetacamSP!

Tim
 
Weird, very weird. You don't like the JVC, so your getting the DVX100A? There is an incredible discrepancy between these cams. Lots in between. Why no XL2 (also no HD - like the DVX, but already 16/9), SONY Z1 (HD - albeit another format), JVC GY-DV5000 or some upcoming cam(HVX, XLH1, ...)?
 
Hey, dashwood it's cool that JVC taught you how to fix dead pixels. Maybe some anonymous poster could leave that info on some obsucre website... wink wink. :)

Going from the JVC to a DVX100 is a big step down. Can't you consider the FX1 at least? It would keep you in the realms of HD.
 
If you want to stay in HD, and you like the DVX... why on earth not wait a couple of months and get a high-def DVX (otherwise known as the HVX)?
 
Apparently he doesn't mind downgrading to DV, which makes me wonder why won't he use the HD100 in SD mode. It gives 60p with no split screen problems.
 
theHeadlessPuppy said:
Going from the JVC to a DVX100 is a big step down. Can't you consider the FX1 at least? It would keep you in the realms of HD.
Click to expand...

If I was forced to make the choice, I would personally go for standard def DVX100 over either Sony HDV offering for a better gamma curves and control.

I have a NTSC DVX100A, PAL XL2, NTSC BetaSP, and now HD100 in my inventory. They all have their own uses - depending on the client.
I love the Xl2 for SD production (576 lines) and the Canon 16x Manual servo lens is amazing. I just picked up this camera in June for an EPK for a European client. I'm not crazy about the ergonomics. It is very front heavy. The image is amazing though, and very easy to control. (-3dB is cool.)
I love the DVX100A for the very film-like look of the gamma curves. It is small, but sucks for handheld work. (I built a shoulder brace that helps, but it is still front heavy.)
I love the BetaSP for handheld documentary work - but honestly I haven't really pulled it out in about a year. It is a beast, but very well balanced on the shoulder. It is old, but will never let you down.
The recent acquisition of the HD100 makes the XL2 and DVX100A a little redundant.
Maybe I should sell the Xl2 and keep the DVX100A as a small "run & gun" third camera?

Anyway, I have never had an interest in interlaced HD cameras. The image may be higher resolution, but it still looks like "video" when it is downconverted.
I remember shooting a documentary in 2000 with the HDW-F700. It looked great on HD monitors, but just looked like DigitalBetacam on the SD downconvert. The HDW-F900 Cinealta had just come out, and I really wanted to shoot the doc in 24P. However, we had to work with what was realistic for the budget.
I haven't shot a frame of interlaced HD since.

My 2 cents.

Tim
 
Barry_Green said:
If you want to stay in HD, and you like the DVX... why on earth not wait a couple of months and get a high-def DVX (otherwise known as the HVX)?
Click to expand...

That's true. You can still shoot DV to tape and HD to P2 or HDD.
 
I get my DVX-100A today; and have a much better feeling about it than the latter (maybe because it costs less!); at this point in time I'm not that interested in hi-def; I will be when there are more screens to play it on out there in the world.

By the time I got my second HD100U I also got the Anton Bauer Gold-Mount with a Dionic90, and I might say that balanced the camera very nicely indeed! If you have a HD100U I'd seriously recomend getting the Anton Bauer rig.

Thanks for your advice Tim.
 
HeadlessPuppy I had split screen problems in both HD and DV modes with No gain on!!

That camera has problems, and when I spend 8 Grand on a camera, I want no problems.

I have never been extremly intrested in Hi-Def but I have been interested in the physical design of the camera ie. the shoulder mount & because it essentially handles as a betacam; everythig is where you expect it to be, down to the iris ring. Yet its smaller and lighter than the betacam. I love the design, but I'm not waiting indifinetly for JVC to admit the problem and provide a fix for it. Worse yet charge for the fix like sony did!
 
I suppose the DVX is a good option then if you're not that keen on HD.

I wasn't aware that the split screen problem was there in DV too. Anyone else that owns an HD100 aware of this problem and found a solution for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top