Very good HVX vs HD100 article

it had an opposite effect on me... :)

HVX images looked more pleasing than HD100 images.... but the text said otherwise...

i guess everything comes down to the post workflow...
 
Yick,

None of the images that guy presented from either camera looked as good as even the DVX stuff I've seen. Me thinks it wasn't the fault of the cameras. I've seen plenty of beautiful HVX footage on this site for sure.
 
I am suprised Walter Graff, the writer of the article, ws that kind to the HVX200. For the last few months he has been slating the camera to all and sundry in the camera section of DV.com.
 
As one of the above users said, I personally didn't find the imagrey he got out of either that impressive. This tends to be a problem in a lot of these tests I've seen. I guess the real thing is that to get some great work out of either camera, you have to know it quite well. The fact that generally un-interesting stuff is shot doesn't help either (why doesn't he actually light a scene to show us what these things can do?).

The reason why I haven't been swayed from the HVX200 is this: when people have lit stuff well and put some work into the camera the images I've seen are far more impressive than anythign I've seen come out of the JVC. That's just the case.

I wouldn't judge two 16mm camera just by how they looked pointed at a lake with no lighting and very minimal messing with the settings.
 
From everything I've read, it sounds like all of these cameras do a fantastic job at this price range --- better than anyone imagined! For me, it was a matter of things like, variable frame rates, DVCPro50 for SD, P2, etc...

And I agree, his imagery left a lot to be desired. But most troubling was the way the FDNY car cut off those poor people in the minivan. That's just not cool.
 
DavidBeier said:
As one of the above users said, I personally didn't find the imagrey he got out of either that impressive. This tends to be a problem in a lot of these tests I've seen. I guess the real thing is that to get some great work out of either camera, you have to know it quite well. The fact that generally un-interesting stuff is shot doesn't help either (why doesn't he actually light a scene to show us what these things can do?).

The reason why I haven't been swayed from the HVX200 is this: when people have lit stuff well and put some work into the camera the images I've seen are far more impressive than anythign I've seen come out of the JVC. That's just the case.

I wouldn't judge two 16mm camera just by how they looked pointed at a lake with no lighting and very minimal messing with the settings.
Click to expand...

I honestly thought you owned the HVX already.

Maybe you should just go and buy it if you're hard pressed on the image quality.

Honestly, the HVX200 seems a better choice than the other cameras based on p2 and it's workflow, and it's variable frame rates. Which, when considering variable frame rates, getting 60p out of the HD200(250?) will kind of throw the variable frame rate advantage down a notch.

Whenit comes to the image, it seems it fairs the best in HD downconverted to Standard Definition.

That's just a thought, though.
 
I imagine Walt's intent was to compare the cameras, not focus strictly on composition. The shot of the sky crane and buildings have a lot of fine detail. I think it tells quite a bit.

As Walt mentioned, neither camera surpassed the other, both are capable of producing great footage.

The HVX200 tops the JVC by offering variable frame rates, the HD100 seems to render more detail.
 
Last edited:
redindian said:
and the most revealing thing is that HDV fared very well against DVCPROHD...
Click to expand...

I think I've been asking this question for a while: What's so horrible about HDV motion rendering? Someone tell me.

I finally got my answer... NOTHING. It's almost like this noise issue with the HVX, to me. Well, almost-- with the HDV motion rendering thing, it's not really there at all. You'd have to literally microscope it to notice the difference when you've got moving pictures. THe HVX noise is present and will be, whether anyone wants to deny it or not.

I've noticed that adapters and compression make the HVX noise a lot more tolerable.
 
Last edited:
redindian said:
and the most revealing thing is that HDV fared very well against DVCPROHD...
Click to expand...
keep in mind he was comparing a HDV mt2 file to uncompressed qt and comparing that file to a RAW compressed DVCPRO-HD qt.

I doubt stills from mt2 would look as good.
 
You're missing the point. Stills vs. moving footage... a completely different thing.

The Stills might not be as sharp, as he stated in his article, but when you play back the video, it's about the same, really. So, stills are stills. I have a D70 for stills...

What's interesting, though, is that if I did buy a camera and I had to choose... at this moment I can say I'd still get an HVX200. Why? I have NO idea.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
You're missing the point. Stills vs. moving footage... a completely different thing.
Click to expand...
really? I think still jpegs from mt2 vs stills from uncompressed targas would reveal more info. But thats just me.

Besides my point is Walter always post jpegs...which are lossy. And comparing an uncompressed file from hdv to a compressed file from DVCPRO-DH is not really even steven., is it?:badputer:
 
esperman said:
really? I think still jpegs from mt2 vs stills from uncompressed targas would reveal more info. But thats just me.

Besides my point is Walter always post jpegs...which are lossy. And comparing an uncompressed file from hdv to a compressed file from DVCPRO-DH is not really even steven., is it?:badputer:
Click to expand...

It reveals more info about resolution, yadda, and yadda.

The overall picture is what he was trying to show. By directly comparing what most people use as examples (stills) to what should be reviewed (moving footage) to really see what the end result is.

He gave more than one example of both cameras in near-identical moving situations, and they both performed well.

As it was said earlier, each one offers something that hte other doesn't. Whether it'd be variable frame rates, or better resolution.
 
redindian said:
it had an opposite effect on me... :)

HVX images looked more pleasing than HD100 images.... but the text said otherwise...

i guess everything comes down to the post workflow...
Click to expand...


funny, I was thinking the same thing. :D

On almost all of the day shots, the JVC exhibited noticably more contrast. I want my lattitude darn it!

The edges of the JVC seemed too sharp to me, like in an artificial sort of way, not better resolution. (and yes, I did see a rez difference between the two camras; the HVX is noticably lower in the bar structures on the crane)

I also didn't like the JVC's color representation as much. It seemed like some colors that went over a certain threshold became super-saturated.

And I don't like what the MPEG-2 does to fast-moving objects. :/
 
Kholi said:
I honestly thought you owned the HVX already.

Maybe you should just go and buy it if you're hard pressed on the image quality.
Click to expand...

I'm in the process or trying to find the best deal actually but I'm still always open to someone changing my mind. After all if I'm going to plunk down 6k for a camera, something which is basically my tool to make my own movies, I want the best I can get.

I know people with an HVX200 and have a friend with an HD100. I've also looked at most of the footage that has been posted online. I've also worked with the DVX100 extensivly.

What I've gathered is this: The HD100 is a bit sharper (though realy not by a huge margin from what I've seen). The HVX200 has better colors, better motion, a better gamma curve, P2 workflow, and variable frame rates. Talking purely about the imagry, I'll take better colors, motion, and gamma over higher resolution any day.

A friend of mine shot an interview recently. He used a HD100 in SD and a DVX100A. Interestingly enough, the DVX's colors and gamma ended up looking much nicer (and the HVX200 improves on them). The difference was really staggering.

As I said in my last post, my problem with these tests is that we have a relativly bland shot from both cameras and they look pretty much the same (to be honest the resolution, color, and gamma between them is pretty neglible). The images I see here aren't even half as good as some of the better ones I've seen from the HVX. I've seen some really amazing stuff from the HVX200 but I really havn't been blown away by anything from the HD100. Show me some wonderfully lit scene from the HD100 with colors, gamma, and motion as good as the HVX200 but sharper and I'll most likely order one of those instead (as they're cheaper).

My brand loyalty only extends as far as it helps my movies. Panasonic has proven to make a great camera which lets me get the look I want. The HVX200 has produced some fantastic images that I have yet to see be matched by something else in it's price range. If anyone wants to show me something from the JVC that's comparible then please post it (don't show me anything fom the XLH1 though as I don't wanna deal with 24f!).

What bugs me a little about some of the comparisons is that they seem uber-resolution focused. As in, if you look at this one, he awknowladges that the HVX seems to do slightly better colors and slightly better motion, we can also see from the images a bit larger lattitude. However, he still claims that "the HD100 offers a better image." So, essentially he rules that resolution is more important than all the other factors combined. The impressions from the Texas shootout seemed to say the same thing.

I think this is the problem with the new HD craze. We got so excited about higher resolutions that we forget that there's a lot more than just how many pixels you can squeeze out. I used to play computer games a lot and the resolution on these things would get higher every few months. It would look really sharp for a little while untill the next highest came out and then it would always seem soft. I look at some older titles and they look pretty damn blurry. On the other hand, ones with great colors still impress me to this day. We had DV for a while but people didn't really start paying attention to using it as an alternative untill films like 28 days later were put in 24p (motion) and given a more filmlic gamma curve. I think that resolution is nice but color, motion, and gamma are all just as important (color and gamma more so) and the idea that a few more pixels trumps all three of them has me scratching my head.
 
Last edited:
I feel your pain, but on a different level.

I'm not going to buy a camera ANY time soon. Renting is the only plausible path for me. Unless I go on a three month long shoot, then sure, maybe. Other than that, there's no reason for me to shell out six-grand on a camera at the moment.

But, I say just buy an HVX and be happy. You don't want to waste too much time waiting...

I wish I was out shooting right now, but you have to wait for pre-production and all that stuff. Bleh.
 
I'm actually ordering one as soon as I get a check deposited (I refuse to put 6k on a credit card). I'm just saying that I'm always open for someone to change my mind.

Honestly, I really havn't been impressed with any imagrey I've seen come out of the HD100. The Canon XL H1 seems much sharper and looks like it has nicer colors (though still not as nice as the HVX200's). I might well be all over that if it wasn't for the fact it was both HDV and that you have touse your camera as a deck which I find totally unacceptible. Honestly this whole 24f thing (along with charging 3k more than everyone else) is really the dumbest thing Canon could have ever done. For the life of me I don't know why they would make a camera that shoots such gorgeous imagry and then shoot themselves in the foot like this.
 
I just don't get it. If people think the other cameras compare to the HVX, why are they hanging here?
I've spoke to several people who recently purchased the other $3 to 6,000.00 cameras and every one understood the Professional differences of their camera and the HVX. The more professional they are the more they regretted not getting the HVX.


I'm not trying to get a pissing match going here, but I waste more time reading peoples down speak about the HVX.


I did my homework; I've been doing professional video for 30 years now. I understand the technical elements of the HVX and I've found the HVX to be the absolute best option for any level of production bar none.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's really SIMPLE.
But for goodness sake, don't try and convince people here of something we know better.
Please chill out.
 
Last edited:
TedRR said:
I just don't get it. If people think the other cameras compare to the HVX, why are they hanging here?
I've spoke to several people who recently purchased the other $3 to 6,000.00 cameras and every one understood the Professional differences of their camera and the HVX. The more professional they are the more they regretted not getting the HVX.


I'm not trying to get a pissing match going here, but I waste more time reading peoples down speak about the HVX.


I did my homework; I've been doing professional video for 30 years now. I understand the technical elements of the HVX and I've found the HVX to be the absolute best option for any level of production bar none.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's really SIMPLE.
But for goodness sake, don't try and convince people here of something we know better.
Please chill out.
Click to expand...

Try reading and thinking before you post. No one here wrote that article, no one here is trying to convince anyone to go either which way. We're all commenting on the article that was written and nothing more.

Maybe you should go back and read through the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top