my honest impression

[saru]

Hey all


I went into my local shop the other day and had a good hour or two fiddling with HVX, the fat boy. They have HVX and JVC HD100 next to each other and both are connected to Panasonic HD LCD monitor LH1700W. What I found about is as follows:

* LCD is über low rez that looks like you fed composite signal to 320x240 (or lower) cheep LCD. Even if you turn on EVF DTL on, you never know if it's in focus or not especially at wide end.

* FOCUS ASSIST does kinda work. But again, due to low rez LCD you'll get frustrated.
Personally I find HD100's FOCUS ASSIST much much much beetttter and with its manual lens focusing is purely an enjoyment.

* This is minor, but on LCD the left and right edge has weird pink and green fringe. Anyone remember that DVX100(non-A/B) had pink line on left edge and black line on the right with its native footage? It looks exactly like that.

* EVF has somewhat better rez than LCD. (it was vice versa in case of DVX100, I think)

* Comparing both HVX and HD100 operation-wize, focus ring traveling is much longer on HVX thus it makes harder to focus quickly. HD100 is *snappy* or *pops* into focus but with HVX, you endlessly turn focus ring with its LCD (or even EVF).

* The fat boy is really fat. I don't think I can hold it handheld long enough. I've been using a shoulder rig anyway with my DVX, but with HVX's low rez LCD, I definitely need good external LCD mounted on the rig - if only HVX had a shape of HD100 :undecided

* PICTURE - To my eye both of them are not so different in terms of perceptive definition. Remember both of them are connected to 1280x768 LCD side by side.
In fact, at the tele end with shallow dof, HD100 pops in focus very nicely but HVX creeps (with longer traveling ring) in-focus area and you're not kinda sure where's in focus - which made me think HVX has slightly lower definition than HD100. BTW, I could not distinguish HVX's 720p and 1080i picture on LH1700W's 1280x768 panel.

* Digging into menu, I found that focus ring can be assigned to be IRIS ring. This could be great when using mini35 variants with shoulder mount rig because once you focus GG, you never touch it again and camera iris is the one mostly accessed - with large *IRIS ring*, it's very easy to blind touch and change the iris ! However, this function only works when the camera is in AUTO FOCUS, and I'm not sure if the camera is wise enough not to focus away from GG.



I have been one of many who expected really much from HVX.
The concept of P2 workflow is superb and I'd really like to jump into the bandwagon asap.
But, by analyzing Kaku's footage extensively (Yes I'm on a Mac and I watch them on 23" Cinema), and operating a camera in person (OK it's only an hour or two, I know I can't judge anything with that little time), I am thinking now again.

I honestly hope panasonic is aware of the issue and improve the camera further on the second batch.




Well, I think I'm getting one anyway soon, to be extremely honest with ya all :cheesy:

 

[Benton]

* Digging into menu, I found that focus ring can be assigned to be IRIS ring. This could be great when using mini35 variants with shoulder mount rig because once you focus GG, you never touch it again and camera iris is the one mostly accessed - with large *IRIS ring*, it's very easy to blind touch and change the iris ! However, this function only works when the camera is in AUTO FOCUS, and I'm not sure if the camera is wise enough not to focus away from GG.
:

Thanks for your review...
The above Quote is referring to the HVX , yes?

 

[saru]

Yes it refers to HVX.

See page 104 on the pdf manual and look for USER1 button assignable function, FOCUS RING section. I think this is similar to DVC30, where you can assign ZOOM or IRIS to the focus ring.

 

[Justyn]

bashing buy buying too

bashing buy buying too

[Well, I think I'm getting one anyway soon, to be extremely honest with ya all :cheesy:[/QUOTE]

Seems to be a common thing to bash and then end it with... Doesn't compute.

 

[Haakon]

Seems to be a common thing to bash and then end it with... Doesn't compute.

That's what I was thinking, too.

Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned - for the things I need the HVX for - there currently IS no competition. It's like you have the choice between mediocre or nothing. Not a very reassuring feeling. :undecided

 

[saru]

I thought you guys could understand what I felt using the camera for the first time after good 10 months of waiting.

Being a DVX100 user since it's first introduced, I really love it and without doubt I'd been thinking of buying it's big bro HVX since the time I heard about it.

I know there's no competition for what HVX offers in this price range and for the price, the picture etc IS reasonable. But, I just expected a little bit more..

This kind of comment might be common for sure but is just what I honestly think.

 

[Haakon]

No, the report is good... I think the more people that have the chance to use the camera and share their opinions, the better. It's just weird when you basically list everything that you think is wrong with it, and ultimately sound like you aren't that interested, but then finish your post with an "I'm buying it anyway." Like I pointed out, though, I think there are a handful of us that feel the same way. I can identify.

 

[evinsky]

There was exactly the same thing said when the DVX came out. Then people found out how much it rocked and all was good. These are all non issues once you get to know and use the cam. And the breathing on the JVC lens is horrendous, I could'nt tell if I was focusing or zooming, does have the best HDV image I've seen so far though it is not quite up to the HVX, but close.

 

[saru]

The reason I reported is because I AM interested, of course !
And that interest drove me walk into the local shop and examine the camera for sure.

I believe if we raise the voice they do listen - that's been the way it is and how the HVX came out, isn't it ? When the original DVX100 introduced many people claimed that the volume knobs were accidentally dialed in normal use. And they listened to it and corresponded accordingly, in a month or so ! This is huge advantage of what is called Cell Production (I believe).

So, if we don't raise the voice, they won't know.
If we do, they will, and hopefully will correspond.
This is one of the reason I love Panasonic and ended with *buying anyway* phrase :thumbsup:

 

[Barry_Green]

* LCD is über low rez that looks like you fed composite signal to 320x240 (or lower) cheep LCD. Even if you turn on EVF DTL on, you never know if it's in focus or not especially at wide end.

Without focus assist there's no way to have accurate focus, no. This is an absolute impossibility, you can't expect to be able to accurately focus a million-pixel image on a 200,000 pixel LCD. You *must* use focus assist, and it's that way with all the cameras. Or a high-res external monitor, of course.

* FOCUS ASSIST does kinda work. But again, due to low rez LCD you'll get frustrated.

I completely disagree, I think the focus assist is just brilliant, and it's by far the best of the focus assist modes on all of the cameras. With the HVX you can be using the focus assist while recording (something Canon and Sony don't let you do, and something that's absolutely crucial).

Personally I find HD100's FOCUS ASSIST much much much beetttter and with its manual lens focusing is purely an enjoyment.

I would caution you to try the HD100's when in a low light or low-contrast situation. You may find that it doesn't work AT ALL. The JVC's focus assist is very neat, and it is a delightful feature that usually works very, very well. But it relies on the same data that "peaking" and an "autofocus" system do -- if you get in any sort of situation where an autofocus system would "hunt", you'll find that the JVC focus assist doesn't even show up. You're left totally on your own, trying to focus through a tiny low-res LCD. With the HVX you're never that stuck, because you can use EVF DTL *and* the magnified focus assist.

The manual focus ring on the HD100 is sweet-feeling, but it breathes like a pervert making an obscene phone call. The HVX isn't a direct manual connection but it performs like one -- it's absolutely completely thoroughly precise and gives you every bit as much control and precision as a true manual direct-connect would.

As far as focus assist goes, let me remind you that we shot tack-sharp, razor-sharp footage with the HVX and we didn't even have a monitor of any type, all we had was the focus assist. I think the focus assist on the HVX is freakin' brilliant.

* EVF has somewhat better rez than LCD. (it was vice versa in case of DVX100, I think)

It was. The DVX had a 180k pixel VF and a 200k pixel LCD; the HVX (and DVX100B) have 210k pixel LCDs and 230k pixel VF's.

* Comparing both HVX and HD100 operation-wize, focus ring traveling is much longer on HVX thus it makes harder to focus quickly. HD100 is *snappy* or *pops* into focus but with HVX, you endlessly turn focus ring with its LCD (or even EVF).

This is a difference between an ENG/news-style lens focus, and a cine-style focus. ENG lenses have short focus travel, cine lenses have much longer focus travel. The HVX uses cine-style (although without hard stops of course).

* The fat boy is really fat. I don't think I can hold it handheld long enough. I've been using a shoulder rig anyway with my DVX, but with HVX's low rez LCD, I definitely need good external LCD mounted on the rig - if only HVX had a shape of HD100 :undecided

The fat boy is pretty fat, and I wouldn't try holding it in one hand for very long, that's for sure. I normally use both hands, the right to support it and the left cradled under, thumb on the iris dial and index finger on the focus & zoom rings.

HD100 shape would be nice. I hope they'll introduce an HVX300 or something, in the vein of what the DSR250 was to the PD150.

* PICTURE - To my eye both of them are not so different in terms of perceptive definition. Remember both of them are connected to 1280x768 LCD side by side.

On a 720p display, sure -- provided you're only shooting 24p or 30p; obviously the HVX would have a massive advantage in temporal resolution if you put it in a frame rate higher than 30 because the JVC can't do that. Well, actually, let's clarify: on the monitor you'd actually see 48p or 60p on the JVC, but of course what you get on tape and what you see on the monitor aren't the same thing.

JVC uses a much higher level of edge enhancement than the HVX does as well. This is one thing I want to check on in the 4-way next week: how much of the JVC's very-nice definition is edge enhancement/sharpening, and how much is actually resolved? Of course, we're asking that of all four, but the JVC had a huge dropoff in perceived sharpness when you change the detail circuit from "min" to "off", much moreso than the HVX or Sony did.

BTW, I could not distinguish HVX's 720p and 1080i picture on LH1700W's 1280x768 panel.

That's to be expected. You'd probably only really see a difference if playing back recorded footage, and even then the 1700 can't display the full res of the 1080 signal.

However, this function only works when the camera is in AUTO FOCUS, and I'm not sure if the camera is wise enough not to focus away from GG.

Yeah, I thought that was an interesting feature until I tried it. I think in practical use it's probably going to prove to be nothing more than a novelty.

 

[sanjin]

That's what I was thinking, too.

Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned - for the things I need the HVX for - there currently IS no competition. It's like you have the choice between mediocre or nothing. Not a very reassuring feeling. :undecided

Sounds like you want to be a low-cost camera SUPERMAN. Be aware that HVX's best parts are mostly software driven. So about all advantages you get with gamma and variable frame rates you could comfortably get with any other low-cost cam in post (and use a much better software than HVX has). Now you could really make a C H O I C E.


SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html

 

[Isaac_Brody]

So about all advantages you get with gamma and variable frame rates you could comfortably get with any other low-cost cam in post

Bullsheet. You can't get the same variable frame rate results in post.

 

[saru]

Without focus assist there's no way to have accurate focus, no. This is an absolute impossibility, you can't expect to be able to accurately focus a million-pixel image on a 200,000 pixel LCD. You *must* use focus assist, and it's that way with all the cameras. Or a high-res external monitor, of course.

That is something I should understand, though I expected the HVX's HD image on its LCD somewhat looked sharper and crisper than the DVX's SD image on its LCD. It didn't to my eye, sadly. Is that exceptional that the one I used was pre-production model or something? I think I must check it with the store.

I would caution you to try the HD100's when in a low light or low-contrast situation. You may find that it doesn't work AT ALL. The JVC's focus assist is very neat, and it is a delightful feature that usually works very, very well. But it relies on the same data that "peaking" and an "autofocus" system do -- if you get in any sort of situation where an autofocus system would "hunt", you'll find that the JVC focus assist doesn't even show up. You're left totally on your own, trying to focus through a tiny low-res LCD. With the HVX you're never that stuck, because you can use EVF DTL *and* the magnified focus assist.

Oops, I didn't think of that ! Only by using HD100 in store for a short time, this was hard to guess. But again, with my in-store HVX experience, I had some frustration looking at the LCD. Even the displayed info (eg. timecode) looked blurry. Is this the case even with your model (pre or production model), Barry?

With the HVX you can be using the focus assist while recording (something Canon and Sony don't let you do, and something that's absolutely crucial).

I heard about that. It is something I don't understand why Sony and Canon did that way. It's pretty bad.

This is a difference between an ENG/news-style lens focus, and a cine-style focus. ENG lenses have short focus travel, cine lenses have much longer focus travel. The HVX uses cine-style (although without hard stops of course).

That's a relief ! Being 82mm thread, HVX's lens barrel is now bigger than DVX. And with the fact it is cine-style as you pointed out, I might've felt it traveled so long.

I really look forward to your upcoming 4 way shoot out
And because I'm thinking to use HVX (Yes! and I mean it. Yes) with mini35s, if you could try that out that would be greatly helpful.

Thanks in advance :thumbup:

 

[sanjin]

Bullsheet. You can't get the same variable frame rate results in post.

Desperately waiting for the comparison shots from the HVX vs Varicam with the variable frame rates. Than I should know more about how HVX "Inheriting the Varicam's Legacy". When you shoot in 60i/50i and whatever you get later in post like the variable frame rates is done always OVER 60i/50i. So your cam's software can do it for you before (like in HVX case )...or you could do it in post later with other cams.



SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html

 

[Justyn]

Barry, as you nominate the funny quotes of the week.. you should nominate ya self too:

The manual focus ring on the HD100 is sweet-feeling, but it breathes like a pervert making an obscene phone call.


Now that's good. I had an hour with the HVX and had dreams about it. This camera is so damn hot. It has everything a "Filmaker" wants.

I'm trying to figure out my buddies .mac account and I'll post what we shot. Within about a minute we were able to capture footage to an apple 12 inch laptop that only had 512 of RAM and it worked perfectly. This workflow is why I"m so excited. I did it about a year ago with varicam footage and was so blown away that I didn't have to buy anything in addition to my G5.

I'll post a link to my footage. Nothing fancy but it really shows the quality of this lens. We were all in awe over the darn stock lens. I mean..you can get a fulll soft background and crystal clear subject and then reverse it in an instant. I have never been able to get that with my XL1 ever.

Man... I have seen this thing like 10 times on this forum.. bashing the camera but then announcing that they'll probably buy one. In order to find out what people are yearning for... you just have to look at the buzz and there isn't any buzz over the Canon or the JVC... just this 200. It's very similar to the 100 when that camera came out but I wasn't in a position to grab one so the revolution went on without me as I shot with my canon. Now, i'm a traitor and won't be purchasing another Canon camcorder unless they really re-think their product line and pricing.


Thanks for such a funny quote and also for coming loaded with so much tech ammunition. I also have invested so much energy and time into this as well as money and donated plasma.. and I hate people pissing on my parade just to appear to have a point which never really computes. I mean... I think they forget that we.. that all of us.. that I do have eyes that don't lie and a brain that sees the
possibilities for this camera. It's gonna be a workhorse for music videos I can tell you that already.

J

 

[Neopics]

As some of you already know, I had to make a decision between the HVX200 and HD100 for an upcoming project. Unfortunately, the scheduling of the project is fixed and the delay for the HVX has meant I had to cancel my HVX pre-order and buy the HD100, which I just got a couple of days ago.

Needless to say, I haven't had a chance to use the HVX to make a comparison, but here is what I've noted about the HD100 lens/focusing:

• Barry (and others) are absolutely right about the breathing and chromatic aberration. At the wide end, the whole image looks like a slight zoom. At the telephoto end, the breathing is in the green and purple halos from the CA. It's really quite an abysmal lens quality-wise.
  
• I find the manual focus and peaking feature in the viewfinder really easy to work with. I did some tests trying to focus by VF alone and then comparing on the big screen. In all cases, what I thought was in focus in the VF was spot on when I checked the nearby video projector.

(BTW, I quite love using a manual lens again, after five years with a GL1.)

So basically, if you're a fan of manual lensing, the HD100 is worth consideration, but seriously consider upgrading the lens. That'll be a big factor cost-wise.

In my situation, once my current project is done, I'll need to consider my long term plan -- keep the HD100 and save up for a better lens, or sell it and get the HVX (which is what I really wanted anyway.)

 

[Chris Messineo]

As some of you already know, I had to make a decision between the HVX200 and HD100 for an upcoming project. Unfortunately, the scheduling of the project is fixed and the delay for the HVX has meant I had to cancel my HVX pre-order and buy the HD100, which I just got a couple of days ago.

One question, did you drop off the EVS list and if so were you lower than number 46?

Chris

 

[Justyn]

Cmessineo..

I like that thinking! I personally am number 193 on that list so it might take an earthquake to get me closer.


J

 

[Zack Birlew]

Well, in any case, the HVX200 would be a big upgrade for a guy like me with a dusty but trusty ol' GL1. I'm a little put off by the negativity surrounding the initial release of the camera. Makes me want to wait for the HVX200A or RED. But since I won't be getting one until the end of the year, what with the new Intel Macintosh computers, Final Cut Pro 6, and buying a new house in Las Vegas, I've got quite a bit more on my mind than just a new camera.

 

[izoneguy]

Plus, I don't believe 99% (90%??) of what is going on here.
Most complainers have not even seen the HVX footage. I remember seeing demos of the DVX and thought "that looks like ****".
But after getting one it takes a lot of testing and shooting in different situations to get the look you want. And your look may not be my look. Plus I always do a fair amount of post-processing to get the exact look a client my want.