JVC HD100 focus problems!!!

I

Icarus2005

Well-known member
I Just came form Byrns & Sawyer, where I walked in ready to plop down 10,000 for the new toy with a hard drive and extras. But I left empty handed. Why?

It is a very nice camera with a lot of great features. BUT!

And this is a very big BUT:

1. The lens is front focus, which acts like a zoom when focusing, changes your frame making it wider or tighter if you want to rack focus. In other words, YOU CAN'T RACK FOCUS WITH THIS CAMERA!!! It'll look like CRAP!!

If you're doing docs, wedding, porn or anything that isn't filmic it'll likely not be an issue to you and it will make a great camera. But if you want to make films and rack focus it is an absolute unusable piece of crap. The lens that is. Not to mention it is narrow as hell and I'm told Century is have a very had time trying to make a wide adaptor due to the front focus lens.

Does have great zoom length though if you need to get in tight. And the auto zoom is wondeful and very slow for creep shots, which is quite nice. ANd also has macro adjustment for super tight shots, means no need for diopters or other expensive lenses. Hats off to them on that one.

2. I also didn't care for the image tone. There was an DVX100a setup beside it, and the DVX image was much more filmic or cine-like. I tried changing the white balance and mixing light to warm it up to the same tone to no avail. The JVC still looks more "video" than the panasonic, I can only assume it has to do with the codec, given that jim told he it was to the same gamma and cine setting as the panasonic. Granted, I'm told that can be done in post, but I like to get it as close to what I want on set whenever possible.

3. warning on the shutter speed dial: it's in a location (particularly for run & gun shooters and doc or reality shooters) where it can accidentally be changed during movement. On the other hand, if you wanted to change it quickly for some reason it is very easy to do. Easy solution if you don't want it changed during a shoot is to put a piece of gaff tape over it.

Bottom line, I'm waiting for the HVX200, even though it's killing me.
 
Thanks for the info... that's exactly my plan at the moment... would like to hear from Canon too...

Icarus2005 said:
I can only assume it has to do with the codec, given that jim told he it was to the same gamma and cine setting as the panasonic. Granted, I'm told that can be done in post, but I like to get it as close to what I want on set whenever possible.
Click to expand...

I don't agree on that however. The tone and look is far more likely to be a result of the chips and camera's processing. 35mm film transfer to DVD still looks like film, and ProHD is just the same MPEG2 encoder, but higher resolution and bitrate.

Can anyone else comment on the "tone" of the HD100's image. I have also noticed that skin tones look a bit...er... blotchy...redish... It is slightly unpleasant, a bit like footage I have seen from the XL2.
 
Yeah, I guess I forgot to mention that about the stock lens -- it breathes like a pervert making an obscene phone call. It's reminiscent of an old Angenieux 12-120 in that respect.

As far as the image tone, don't trust the out-of-the-box look. They have a "cinema mode" setting which results in very, very flat, pale, "blah" footage. Not at all a match for the DVX's CineMatrix and CineGamma. But there's a very wide variety of image settings you can paint with in the camera; in some ways there's more than there are in the DVX, and in some ways less (DVX has 7 gamma curves, HD100 has two, but the HD100 has full white paint for red & green, etc., the DVX doesn't). I wouldn't make any judgements based off of how the stock camera is set up, you can do much better with it with some adjusting (and I mean in-camera, not in post).

I think the stock lens is highly unsatisfactory, but frankly I'm looking forward to seeing how the camera performs with the 1/2" lens adapter. Early on when we were just talking theory, I was convinced that 1/2" lenses would be useless for shooting high-def with. But after seeing the Eidomedia conversion on the Z1, it's renewed my hope that maybe an SD lens can do okay. And, I'm still hoping that we can get good performance by using 16mm movie camera lenses with it...
 
Icarus2005 said:
2. I also didn't care for the image tone. There was an DVX100a setup beside it, and the DVX image was much more filmic or cine-like. I tried changing the white balance and mixing light to warm it up to the same tone to no avail. The JVC still looks more "video" than the panasonic, I can only assume it has to do with the codec, given that jim told he it was to the same gamma and cine setting as the panasonic. Granted, I'm told that can be done in post, but I like to get it as close to what I want on set whenever possible..
Click to expand...

You can dial in any look you like with the camera. You just have to know how to use it. The tools are there in the menus. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then I'm not sure you have a foot to stand on with your comments.

You should investigate these things before you come on a forum and go on and on about it's crap, etc etc.

I will give you this: the lens does breath a ton. I'm not sure how you could say it's unusable for rack moves because of this though. At the very least, acknowledge that your opinions are your own and don't insinuate that it's fact.
 
it's unclear from these posts why you can't rack focus. you make it sound like focusing also changes the zoom setting? and barry says it makes a noise?
 
brianluce said:
it's unclear from these posts why you can't rack focus. you make it sound like focusing also changes the zoom setting? and barry says it makes a noise?
Click to expand...
"Breathing" is a term which refers to when a lens' optics change the apparent focal length slightly when you're only attempting to shift the mechanical focus (the actual zoom ring does not move). More expensive lenses attempt to minimize this effect. This in no way prevents you from performing rack focus moves with this lens, it only makes its effect slightly less desirable.

I think we can only expect so much from a "give away" standard lens such as the one that ships with the HD100. I'm dying to see this camera for myself (I pass B&S on the way to and from work everyday!).

And to title this thread with, "JVC HD100 focus problems," is inaccurate and misleading. The cheap Fujinon lens that ships with the camera, I'm sure focuses fine, it just breathes a lot (which is bad), and this has NOTHING to do with the camera body itself.
 
brianluce said:
it's unclear from these posts why you can't rack focus. you make it sound like focusing also changes the zoom setting? and barry says it makes a noise?
Click to expand...
No noise. The lens exhibits "breathing", and I was just making a play of words off of the obscene phone call's typical "heavy breathing".

NBC explained it. When changing focus, it can look like you've zoomed in or out somewhat, even though you haven't changed the zoom setting at all.

As for image, you definitely have to play with the settings. There's an incredible amount of control in there.

And be sure to look at Nate's clips on DVInfo -- he's got me convinced that great work can be done even with the stock lens, provided you play to its strengths. The footage looks cleaner and better than anything comparable coming from the Sony implementation. Right now my only real concern is the dead pixels issue -- if I can get one with no dead pixels, I think I'd be quite happy with it. At least I'm optimistic enough to explore it thoroughly. I still have to think that if this camera had come out a year ago, they could have charged twice as much for it and we'd still all have felt very lucky! The HVX or a forthcoming Canon or whatever may shift that perception, but man... in the right hands, used the right way, I bet the JVC will produce some very nice footage!
 
Okay, for the sake of brevity I wrote " focus problems" rather than "focus PULLING problems".

Yes, some lenses 'breath'. But this is hands down the worst I've ever seen. I don't know if you folks trying to downplay this have tried to rack with it yet. But when you do you'll understand my comment.

By the way, if you read my post I clearly stated the lens was "crap", not the camera. In fact I said this would make a great camera for some people, just not me. ANd I praised other features as well.

In regards to the scene files and gamma curves for tonal quality, I stated that Jim (runs Byrnes & Sawyer) had already set the camera as close as he could to the DVX settings. I assumed he knew what he was doing and I didn't play with the menu. I was honestly too bumbed about the lens at that point that I already decided not to buy it, so why bother going into too much depth with it.

When they get a better low cost lens out there and I see raw footage shot that compares to the DVX cinelook I'll buy one! Otherwise I'll just wait for the HVX which will be out by the time these others lens issues are solved. Or so I hope :)

for the record guys, I'm not trying to argu with any of you, I'm just stating my opinion.

And please, if anyone in LA wants to show me how to use this camera and get the same 'look' as the DVX, by all means lets meet. I'd LOVE to see it. I'll even buy you lunch.
 
Icarus, have had the camera since last Thursday and uploaded some footage to another popular message board and it's linked there. The clips I have there are nice and warm, and to me, are very comparable to something from a DVX.

The clips are full res, native streams from the cam. Go take a look.

Nobody's trying to be hardass here...I just honestly think if you made the decision to NOT buy the camera so quickly, you're missing out. I'm really sure the HVX is gonna be really nice too, but the HD100 is here now and has a whole set of it's own advantages.
 
Icarus2005 said:
for the record guys, I'm not trying to argu with any of you, I'm just stating my opinion.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's cool . . . I just nearly **** a brick when I read your thread title, and immediately thought "XL1 focus problem" kinda problem (which actually doesn't make sense either, since the JVC has a real, manual lens). I'm sure the HD100 has its problems, but I'm also sure that the HD100 is a huge step up from my very first DV camera, the VX1000, which cost NEARLY as much!
 
It would appear that "breathing" has been explained.

The following comments are based on my observations with one of the pre-introduction cameras that JVC was showing around, but I suspect that the lens is unchanged.

The focusing is acheived by changing the spacing between the first group of optics and the main body of the lens. In the lens I saw the group both rotates and moves fore and aft as you focus. It is in a fixed outer housing, so that it acts like an internal focus lens in appearance , but it is not.

Honestly, to me it appears to be derived from an older 14X standard definition lens that had a 65mm diameter front and focused in this manner.

As for difficulty with attachments, the primary issue is that for Fujinon to make a fixed housing that does not vignette as the optics move back and forth, it was necessary to make it larger -85mm OD. This, combined with the deeply recessed front element, means that the smaller, lighter, and sometimes less expensive attachments like those for the Panasonic DVX100 and Canon XL1/2 may not work. Larger, heavier and more expensive broadcast lens attachments may be required.

On other problem is the fact that the lens housing appears to be made of some non-metalic composite (plastic or some sort?) that is easily distorted when clamping 85mm clamp-on accessories onto the front of the lens. This causes the focus to bind and seize up. It is possible to find the compromise between too tight (binds) and too loose (falls off) but requires care. This issue is worsened by the use of larger heavier attachments.

I saw nothing in my tests that made me doubt that the optical quality of the lens was adequet for the application. In fact I marvel that Fuji and other manufacturers manage to make complex lenses so cheaply.

While criticism is good, and everyone should be aware of a products limitations, the quality video possible with these new $3000- $10,000 cameras is amazing, to me at least.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division
 
Nate, I tried to look at your footage and it took a good while to download and then my damn comuter wouldn't play it, some window said I was missing something. Damn microsoft!

I agree the HD100 has some great stuff, as I stated above. But the reality is that can't do what I need it to do for the shoots I have coming up. Even for the Emmys this weekend, it wouldn't be good because it's not wide enough on the widest setting, and even though they say there's a wide adaptor out there, no one has one.

My decision is based on the fact that getting what I need out of it would cost an additional 10grand or more, according to B&S. I can't spend that much. ANd I know the HVX will do what I need with just adding the wide angle for another grand.

There some things I love about the lens, which I wish the HXV would be able to do and doesn't. But I can't have both so I have to choose which elements are most important to me to achieve the films I intend to shoot, on the budget that I have.

As Einstein said "math doesn't lie" and the math says I need to go with the HVX. Believe me, I totaly wish I could be shooting projects this month with HD. It's just not a reality.

If you're not too far from Hollywood I'd love to drop by and compare the cinelooks of it and my DVX side by side.
 
Okay, first you say the camera is okay for anything other than films, now you're stating it's unusable to shoot the Emmys as well?

Also, you stated you'd rather wait for the HVX but you need to shoot something this weekend?!... Wow, seems to me there's lots of confusion here.

I have to agree with Nate in that without playing with this camera it's impossible to understand what it's capable of doing. I also hated the first footage I saw (which was presented voluntarily in this board by a member that clearly stated he wasn't an expert videographer) but after the most recent stuff it's looking good, very good. And it will get better with more patience and technical ability.

Maybe the camera does breathe, it has it's defficiencies, but to say that it's unusable because of this or that it can not equal the look of the DVX without actually owning it and play around with it, damn, what's the credibility of that?

I bet the HVX is going to be a great camera... and I also bet it's not going to be the box of wonders everyone is making it out to be.
 
Icarus2005, Are you sure you didn't get to B and H and get a case of buyers remorse? I'm sure the HVX200 will be dynamite but the HD100 is dynamite as well. They are not two peas from a pod, as you know. They are completely different cameras with different formats.

There has been a nice outlay of m2t files to test and see what the current owners are seeing. The math doesn't lie but neither do the images. Were you prepaired NLE wise to handle HDV? I mean, it's not just the camera. What about the rest of your studio? Really I'm stunned that anyone can criticize a $5500 camera that has displayed such a high quality level. Unlike the Z1 the HD100 has been artifact free (almost completely) and the motion estimation is impeccable. I have taken the clips and tried almost everything with them and they're broadcast worthy in every way. I've written it before and I'll write it again, JVC has done a terrific job with the HDV codec.

The stock lens has been questioned time and time again, but for $800 I can't see much room for criticism and I think others are realizing that as well. One of the beautiful parts of the HD100 is the lens interchangeability which virtually give you a new camera and new camera experience per lens. Since the camera is so new, who knows what an SD lens will do on the body? It's hard to say without testing it (which I'm sure B.Green will be doing).

I like the HVX and will get a look at it here in Chicago at Resfest (most likely). The form factor is terrible on that camera. It looks like a giant lunchbox and looks even harder to steady if you're handheld or even on a monopod. I was set on ordering some HVX's because my experience with the Z1/FX1 was not to good. I didn't have any faith JVC could pull off anything good. I was wrong. They've done a trememdous job with clean images and motion in a very small manageable file compaired to DIF or AVI. It's impressive...
 
Icarus2005 said:
ANd I know the HVX will do what I need with just adding the wide angle for another grand.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the HVX's stock lens will be wider than the JVC's lens even when the JVC is using its wide-angle adapter. The JVC+wide-angle converter = about 5mm, the HVX is 4.5mm. So you may not need to spend that extra grand.

If you're not too far from Hollywood I'd love to drop by and compare the cinelooks of it and my DVX side by side.
Click to expand...
Nate owns a DVX as well. He's quite familiar with the look the DVX gives. Some side-by-side would be appreciated though!
 
Puppy, I state I wouldn't want it at the emmys because it's not wide enough. In big events you need to have some wide shots to show how BIG the event is.

Again, people, I'm not saying the camera sux, just that it sux with THAT LENS. And at the moment there are no reasonable low cost alternatives. If you know of one, please enlighten me. Bear in mind that affordable is the operative word.

Let me put it this way as an analogy: it's like buying a ferrari for 150,000 and finding out the tires on it will only go up to 50 miles per hour, and if you want to go faster you need to buy the another set of tires that cost 200,000 extra. Sure, that doesn't change the fact that the ferrari is a beutiful great car that I'd love to have. But I don't think it's fair to have pay that much more to get it to do what I think should do out of the box.

again people, this is just my opinion. I wish the HVX had some of the features this JVC has come out with, because they have done some wonderful things.
 
Bill__Turner said:
It would appear that "breathing" has been explained.

Bill Turner
Schneider Optics
Century Division
Click to expand...
Well, I would have much preferred YOUR explaination, Bill, since, as I can see from your signature, you DEFINITELY oughta know what you're talking about! Great post! Keep posting!
 
Icarus2005 said:
But I don't think it's fair to have pay that much more to get it to do what I think should do out of the box.
Click to expand...
I think the term you're searching for is "fitness for purpose", implying that the item is fit for the purpose it's marketed for.

And there, I can agree with you completely, and also disagree completely, depending on what we define its "purpose" as. I think if someone's setting out to buy a high-def camera, then by gum what they get should be a high-def camera -- and all that that implies. Including a lens that can properly and adequately resolve the image etc. It should serve the purpose for which they're buying it. But that presupposes that they do their due diligence and buy a tool suitable for the job, as well...

Because then there's the other side of the equation, which is: HDV. HDV is not exactly a professional format. HDV is being used in the little HD1 and HC1 cameras, and by the end of next year I expect we'll see it being used in $399 Sharp Viewcams. So if you rephrase it that you're buying an HDV camera, then the HD100 and its lens are an absolutely fantastic package (even with the restrictions that the lens has, and I do agree that the stock lens is the weakest part of the package). And while I have my disagreements with HDV in general, I can freely admit that 720/24p HDV is definitely the best, most robust, least-compromised form of HDV.

There are people that are going to be blown away by the HD100. And there are people who are going to be totally underwhelmed and disappointed by it. It all depends on what your expectations are, going into it.

If you're expecting VariCam performance at 1/10 the price, I suspect you'll fall in the "underwhelmed" category -- it's not in the same league as the "real" high-def cameras (which is why it's 1/10 the price!) Just like a DVX is not a DSR450WSL.

But if instead you're going into it saying "well, I was considering an FX1... let's see what the JVC offers" then I think you'll be ecstatically thrilled with it. It's a great little camera, with a lot to offer.

I've been using this phrase a lot, I think it's time to use it again: "the camera is what it is, and it is not what it is not." Look at it for what it is, not for what you wish it was. And then decide, based on your own needs, whether "what it is" fits your purpose. The lens is a "freebie"/"giveaway" lens, with all that that implies. But for many buyers, it's the only lens you'll ever get or use, so you have to examine it in that light. Nate has shown us that some pretty sweet results are possible even with the stock lens, as long as you use it within its design parameters.

And I repeat, if this thing had come out last year it would have blown the FX1/Z1 away and been THE camera to have. Even with the issues that have been observed. I don't know that they could have done any better, given the HDV format and the price point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top