JVC or HVX - help me decide!

A

Adam Grunseth

Member
I am looking to purchase a new camera and would like to expand into HD territory. I think I have narrowed my decision down to the JVC with 80 gig hd recorder, or the HVX. Both cameras have features that are very appealing to me, and there are also things that I don't care for with both cameras. For tax purposes I need to make the purchase before the end of the year.... please help me decide.
 
Save more tax - buy both ...then post a report for us all to read.

Actually buy the one that suits your requirements best. It isnt a decision based on the tax collector cos he knows less about your business than we do (and we know nothing about it).
 
Rent both and test all the way through your post work-flow before making a purchase commitment.
 
Look at the post workflow.
Have a read around the traps - look and judge for yourself at which of the 3 hdv variants or 1 p2 workflows has the least problems.

Be aware of what you're buying into, however.
The camera is only part of the equation these days.
An important part, yes ....
 
robbo said:
Look at the post workflow.
Have a read around the traps - look and judge for yourself at which of the 3 hdv variants or 1 p2 workflows has the least problems.

Be aware of what you're buying into, however.
The camera is only part of the equation these days.
An important part, yes ....
Click to expand...


Speaking of workflow, I do have a question about using P2 cards. We use P2 for shooting, and edius to edit on at my work and capture via panasonics little usb2 p2 drive. We have encountered numerous problems, edius crashing, the whole computer going down. Corrupted clips that will corrupt the whole project and make the project unable to open later after its been saved.

Are other people having better luck with p2, and what workflow would anyone here reccomend?
 
Thetre must be something in your system that is causing these problems. Edius is probably one of the more stable platforms around P2. I suggest that you cantact Canopus Tech support and work it through.

Sorry you are having problems,

Jan
 
I've used both the HVX200 and the JVC H100. Where I'm working now we have two JVC H100 cameras. I do a reasonable amount of shooting with them. I spent the summer doing a number of shoots with the HVX200. As someone who has used both cameras in real situations with high stakes, here's a summary of my conclusions about the two.

First of all two cameras differ significantly in terms of design priorities which in the end boil down to three major factors: RECORDING MEDIUM, RECORDING FORMATS, and FORM FACTOR. In terms of look you can tweak each of the cameras to look really good, though the HVX looks good out of the box and the JVC requires some work in terms of tweaking the settings. One edge the HVX has over the JVC out of these categories is the spot meter. The multiple Zebras are also a nice HVX feature.

FORM FACTOR

The JVC is designed to look and feel like a large professional ENG camera, a baby-Betacam so to speak. But that's where the illusion ends. In practice, the camera is no nore or less than a prosumer camera. You will find mile-long threads around the web in the pros and cons of these two cameras, but in the end the form factor thing is really an operators preference point of view. Many videographers prefer cameras that follow the ENG shoulder mount form factor. This camera is very popular among them. The HVX on the other hand is modelled after the DVX and is designed to be as small as possible, it's a HANDHELD camera rather than a SHOULDER MOUNT camera. What I like about handleld cameras is you can always add camera support gear when you need it, but the rest of the time it's as small as possible.

RECORDING FORMATS

The JVC gives you the choice of HDV 720/24p and 720/30p recording formats when shooting HD. Not a lot of versatility there. The HVX with variable frame rates gives you a whole slew of options to shoot. It's the camera for all seasons and all reasons. The versatility makes it a real filmmaker's camera. This has also been discussed in many threads so I'll not repeat all of that here.

But the real difference is in the MPEG-2 4:2:0 inter-frame compression used in the HDV tape format and the DVCPRO HD 4:2:2 intra-frame compression format used by the HVX. Editing MPEG-2 is a pain. I did a little test recently on a Mac Pro w/ FCP on a project I was editing: Render time for a complex 6:30 sequence with all sorts of effects titles and stuff: 16 minutes in DVCPRO HD, I got tired of waiting for it to complete in MPEG-2, it had taken like 10 minutes to render the first two minutes. MPEG-2 is a good delivery format, it sucks for editing, even with fast machines. It's much faster and efficient to edit with DVCPRO HD because it's an intra-frame format (it's handling compression of single frames rather than groups of frames). MPEG-2 is good when space is at a premium, but with the cost of hard drives these days, and the fact that time is money (even for an indie-no-budget project, time is still valuable).

RECORDING MEDIUM

Both systems can record to hard drive, so as far as hard drive recording goes, they are on par, except the problem remains the actual format of the video. HVX gives you two recording choices: P2 or Hard Drive. JVC gives you two recording choices Hard Drive or HDV tape.

In terms of P2 vs. tape, here is where the two cameras are different like oil and water and the debates border on religious wars. In my opinion it boils down to the false-security and familiarity of videotape vs. the state-of-the-art P2 workflow that requires more preparation and education on the part of the videographer and editor, but once you learn the ins and outs of P2 workflow, it's WONDERFUL. It's fast to ingest material, it's been solid for me.

I've had all sorts of problems capturing HDV tapes from the JVC, I've even had one tape eaten. After around 100 P2 card loads handled over the summer when I was using the HVX, I had no a single hitch. Now I did make sure to use cards with the latest firmware, I read all the documentation and discussion threads related to the tools. P2 requires more homework and preparation.

Another objection people raise is the cost of P2, but you have to amortize it over the life of the camera system. P2 can be used over and over again. Think it it more conceptually as a MEDIA TRANSPORT DEVICE rather than a MEDIA STORAGE DEVICE.

I you do your homework and are willing to do your own archiving (a good BACKUP/ARCHIVING strategy is essential when using P2) you will come to like P2. In addition, as P2 capacity increases, the system becomes more valuable. Blu-Ray storage drives are entering the marketplace and will become common next year on high-end editing workstations as an alternative to DVD+R/DL for archiving media. This will help alleviate some of the pain around archiving and provide a better answer to how do I archive all this digital media if not on tape?

The HDV tape format is a serious compromise in terms of quality and reliability. Most people who FEAR P2 have not used it, and those who have used it and still fear it have often run into problems becuase they used P2 without doing their homework. No doubt that there is more to know and more to deal with when it comes to P2 workflow, it's a WHOLE NEW WAY OF WORKING, but the extra effort is worth it for a fast and efficient workflow.

And we're taking DVCPRO HD, an excellent format for both Produciton and Post, resolution issues notwithstanding.

A while back I did an interview with Barry Braverman on the topic of P2 workflow you might find intersting, here's the link: http://kino-eye.com/2006/04/30/to-p2-or-not-to-p2/

I like both cameras, they each fit a different niche, in fact, of all the HD cameras out there, these are the two that I find most interesting from a filmmakers standpoint and they each offer impressive price/performace ratio. But one last factor to consider: reliability. In my experience the HVX is much more reliable than the JVC. I think that JVC tried to do too much with the H100, and they have created an impressive, yet tempermental camera. The HVX in many ways is a more conservative design and comes from a long design process that started with the DVX and draws lots of technology from the Varicam, which was my favorite video camera until Panasonic unvelied the HVX.
 
Last edited:
Edius is probably one of the more stable platforms around P2. I suggest that you cantact Canopus Tech support and work it through.

Sorry you are having problems,

Jan[/quote]

I have 4 computers that I use Edius Broadcast. I have used the HVX 200 since receiving it in Janurary, with no problems. It is like Jan says. A very stable platform.

Mule Ferguson
Pumpkin Creek Video :Drogar-Love(DBG):
 
Adam Grunseth said:
Speaking of workflow, I do have a question about using P2 cards. We use P2 for shooting, and edius to edit on at my work and capture via panasonics little usb2 p2 drive. We have encountered numerous problems, edius crashing, the whole computer going down. Corrupted clips that will corrupt the whole project and make the project unable to open later after its been saved.

Are other people having better luck with p2, and what workflow would anyone here reccomend?
Click to expand...
USB and not P2 is probably your culprit. USB is also burst rather than a stream of data. USB is CPU intensive so if you have edius open and are getting crashes its USB taxing your CPU.

Take USB out of your workflow all together.

You can buy a PCMCIA card adapter to add a slot for your desktop PC for between $17 and $30 http://sewelldirect.com/PCItoPCMCIA.asp or use the camera to connect via firewire.
 
EDIUS is the most stable, integrated, best P2 editing platform on the market. Any issues you are encountering are due to some hardware or software incompatibility in your system, not due to any inherent shortcoming in EDIUS or in the P2 equipment.
 
Adam, tell us what's important to you, and what isn't. What do you like about each, and what don't you like about each? You may find that some of the preconceived notions you have about one or the other may not actually be accurate, and getting some additional perspective might make the decision clearer. They're two very, very different products, so the choice between them should be simple.
 
Code: 
EDIUS is the most stable, integrated, best P2 editing platform on the market.


That sounds good to me. However I've read posts on here about people with Edius having problems capturing the P2 footage. One guy stated there is a know issue with Edius. Is this true?

ripupthehwy
 
ripupthehwy said:
Code: 
EDIUS is the most stable, integrated, best P2 editing platform on the market.


That sounds good to me. However I've read posts on here about people with Edius having problems capturing the P2 footage. One guy stated there is a know issue with Edius. Is this true?

ripupthehwy
Click to expand...

Where did you read this? Like with many other NLE's there are a few problems around but certainly not with importing (not capturing) P2 footage.
 
ive heard and seen really good things about the hd 100, but ever since i started editing with dvcpro hd with the 4:2:2 color spacing, i would have a hard time going a different direction. im editing in a fraction of the time it used to take me to log and capture. and coupled with the firestore and soon to be released cineporter and 16gb p2 cards the limits of p2 are getting less and less. the hvx is more $ for sure, but i think far more versatile and maybe even optimal for more pro minded people. anyway thats why im on the hvx forum and not the hd 100, i love this camera!
 
What I like about the Panasonic HVX-200 is the fact that it can do full progressive 720p at 60 frames per second which is the best high definition for the fast action sports. The JVC HD100 can only do 720p at 30 frames. Companies like Sony love to tell everyone that 720p is not real high definition and only their 1080i cameras cut the mustard. While everyone likes to believe Sony it is the opposite that is true. Watch any 1080i sports broadcast and you will artifacting and blocking anytime there is fast motion. Watch a 720p broadcast and you will see a crisp clean picture that handles fast motion without picture quality going to hell. And why does everyone choose these 1080i interlace cameras when most consumers prefer the flat panel displays that are natively progressive? Everyone brags about which deinterlacing technology gives you the best doctored look but when you shoot progressive deinterlacing is simply not needed. The fact is that 720p at the full 60 frames per second is higher resolution than 1080i and as far as I'm concerned all these 1080i cameras should just go away.
 
By NAB HDV as a professional format will be on its death bed. If you want to invest in a dying format get any HDV camera. Otherwise go with DVCProHD or WAIT! My personal advice to anyone that is the least bit undecided, is that it is crazy to purchase anything this close to NAB as it promises to make half of them obsolete.
 
I was in a similar position this month. I've been after a camera for ages and could finally afford something of quality. My choices were the JVC HD 110 or the HVX200. I'm here, so I obviously went for the Panasonic. The things that tipped me in the direction of the Panasonic were:

1) The Panasonic output looks better to my eyes. Comparing still for still, the JVC looked like some kind of ugly unsharp mask filter. The HVX looked more like film. Softer, more pleasant. Despite the numbers that JVC are throwing around, the Panasonic simply looks nicer in my uneducated opinion. Numbers mean nothing, really. Do you like it, or should people be telling you that it is better?

2) P2 cards. Costly stuff, but the idea of tape fills me with laziness. I've got an expensive portaDAT sat at home doing nothing. I can go out and record digital stereo with it, but getting it into the computer requires pressing play on the DAT and record on the computer. Zzzzzzz. I used the DAT machine maybe twice before it was more trouble than I could be bothered with. I then got a small Edirol recorder that records 24bit wav files straight onto SD cards. I can just hook this up to my Mac and mount it like a regular drive. Drag and drop. I've used it almost every day. My same lazy mentality helped me choose the Panasonic. It's something I would actually use.

3) Under/Over Crank. Nothing else (in this price range) can really do this, unless I'm wrong. I couldn't find anything.

4) There just isn't much footage out there shot with the JVC. I can't find anything out there done with it. This worried me - Are people actually, really using it? I could find loads of shots done with the HVX - Plenty of stuff on here that is inspiring and really shows me that in good hands, people can do some great things with this camera.

The JVC (arguably) looks better as a piece of lusty tech. It looks more like some heavy weight professional equipment, that's all it had over the Panasonic in the end. I'm starting to like the way the Panasonic looks. I'm sure its short comings can be made up for with a 35mm adapter and a mattebox. Bigger is better, right? :)

Of course, I could have waited a month or two or three to see if something better is coming out, but the waiting game with tech is something you can't ever win anyway. Something better always appears and always will, but seeing as David Lynch completed filming a 3 hour feature on a lesser camera just proved to me that content is king. If I can't do something good with what I have, why should I even bother at all?
 
The HVX is more versatile BUT once you factor in p2 and any of the various archiving solutions like LTO, the HD100 is more affordable. The other thing is if you need long recording times, the HVX200 is not a good choice.

Regarding editing, most people I know convert the mpeg2 stream into an IC. I use cineform and it edits fast, and glich free on Vegas 6 with a single p4.

So that's my argument for the JVC is lower cost and better for long form recording.
 
Horseface, that post was brilliant end-to-end. I am in complete agreement on every point (except perhaps the laziness part).

1) if the footage looks better to you, then it looks better, regardless of what the numbers say. I'm always puzzled by those who insist that the numbers, in and of themselves, are a determining factor. Heck, if pixel count is the most important thing, why get a JVC? Why not get a Canon instead? The determining factor is whether you like the look of the footage.

2) Exactly. Solid state has displaced tape in many recording mediums, and video acquisition is about the last bastion tape still has a hold on. Sure it's a bit inconvenient for us in the early days with the small cards, but card capacities will grow and get cheaper. Not a doubt in my mind that solid state is all anyone's going to be using 10 years from now, and once AVC-HD hits in full force on the consumer side we're going to see a very rapid migration away from tape.

3) Nothing anywhere near this price range does that, no.

4) I've seen good example footage, but when it comes to actually being used in professional production environments and by high-profile users and on television shows, the HVX has a massive lead. Heck, Panavision just bought $2 million worth of Panasonic HD gear, so you'll be able to rent HVXs from Panavision. I don't see any HDV gear being offered by Panavision.

5) Yes, I much prefer the look & shape of the JVC. Small handheld form factor has its place, but the HVX is a bit too big to be a small handheld camera; as long as it's going to be that big it might as well inherit the JVC's ergonomics...

And finally, 6) "If I can't do something good with what I have, why should I even bother at all?" Brilliant. We're now at the point where all these tools are adequate to the task. It's not a case of interlaced-only 60i standard-def 4:3 video cameras anymore; heck, even Sony's finally offering 24P! And Canon's 24F is plenty fine. They all can do amazingly well.

So just pick the one that suits your style the best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top