Wide shot detail

disjecta

disjecta

Lucky Duck
Most, if not all, of the footage I have seen so far from the HVX seems to be a little soft and "videoish" in resolving details of trees, etc. on a far away horizon.

On the other hand, I have looked at some of the phenomenal shots PappasArts has gotten on his JVC HD100 and the detail in some of his long shots is astounding. For instance, take a look at the "Huntington Beach Pier" file on his download page and you will see what I mean: http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/69/wo/sNN0udpXkDNEgYcr.1/0.2.1.2.26.27.97.3.35.0.1.1.1?user=pappasarts&fpath=JVC%20HD100%2024p%20HD%20MARCH%2013%202006-%20NEW%20BLACK%20&%20WHITE-%20&templatefn=FileSharing1.html

Has anyone gotten some really good sharp shots with the HVX showing detail on the horizon that they are willing to post (it can just be a still)?

I am not in a position to get a new camera yet but, when I am, it's going to be between the HD100 and the HVX. The JVC has an organic feel to it that has just blown me away. Haven't really seen that on the HVX yet. It looks great in closeup and medium shots but still haven't seen any good long shots.

Thanks,

D.
 
It's a subjective thing. One of the reasons I chose the HVX was because it looked more organic looking than the HD100 :D

I thought the grain of the HD100 looked more electronic than the HVX's too.

No stills as yet though.
 
I would not say videoish in resolving details but 'artificial' like in 3d games. It is a little smooth in my eyes, that is subjective. I am not surprised, it is the way this cam is build and works with the chipset. In the end it is al software I think, greenshift, interpolation. If you keep the HVX close to the original settings I like the colors and flow realy much, if you boost saturation during landscape filming it is going over the top. Colorwise I mean. The raw resolution seen from the HD101 head is higher. But I see CA on the long shots -lens- that holds me down.
 
the JVC is a nice camera, but has some flaws with the codec.. and certainly with motion... big time. Check out that Thread Barry had in Las Vegas... Under sever conditions it doesn't hold up at all...
 
is the wide angle setting on a hvx lens wider than a jvc, cause it could be that at full wide Z00, the detail in the trees is getting lost because its just too small. the field of view is compressing the detail. Also i noticed on a DVX "classic" at Z00 the detail it records drops significantly. zoom in to Z04 -05 and it suddenly gets some res back. Could just be that the optics of the lens are being over extended.
 
The JVC has impressive imagery. I'd love to see some controlled shots made availlable (controlled as one would see in a production evironment).

As much as I love the shots Michael is making available I wish they were in color

However, the detail in the Wideshots are indeed glorius. The clouds on the horizon are stunning!
 
Justyn said:
the JVC is a nice camera, but has some flaws with the codec.. and certainly with motion... big time. Check out that Thread Barry had in Las Vegas... Under sever conditions it doesn't hold up at all...
Click to expand...

Nice looking stuff! Great detail.

I was also trying to decide between cameras a few months back, and I loved the form factor of the JVC, and the focus assist, and clearly the images look quite good, but that HDV codec was the dealbreaker for me. I'm going to shoot a lot of action, and don't want my big money shots potentially spoiled by codec glitches caused by too much... action! The very idea of such a thing occurring (even if it's rare) gives me such a sense of dread, I wouldn't shoot an action movie on HDV. (and then I learned the HVX has variable frame rates, and a rock solid 4:2:2 codec, so my decision was easy). Now if my subject matter was predominantly interviews/static shots, or if my genre was drama, I might consider it. The HD100 is a very cool camera, just not the one for me.
 
TimurCivan said:
is the wide angle setting on a hvx lens wider than a jvc, cause it could be that at full wide Z00, the detail in the trees is getting lost because its just too small.
Click to expand...
Yes, the wide angle on the HVX is much wider than the JVC. Even the JVC with its optional wide-angle adapter isn't as wide as the HVX's stock lens. Even when they're at the same focal length, the HVX still sees a wider field of view because its chip is bigger than the JVC's chip. The HVX has to be zoomed in to 6.3mm (50% more than its maximum wide angle) in order to match the JVC at its widest wide angle.

Also i noticed on a DVX "classic" at Z00 the detail it records drops significantly. zoom in to Z04 -05 and it suddenly gets some res back. Could just be that the optics of the lens are being over extended.
Click to expand...
This could use a little testing. I'm not sure whether this case is true or not; I'll have to try a 4.2mm shot, then move the camera back and zoom in to 6.3 and match the framing, and see if the detail is the same. I've wondered if the HVX's max. wide is a little soft or not, but then I found the differences in detail level and determined that the detail level difference was accounting for more of the perceived sharpness difference between the HD100 and the HVX. An HVX at +7 is adding the same amount of edge enhancement as an HD100 at -6, so if you want to compare them to see what the true resolved detail is, the first thing you have to do is match their edge enhancement levels so you're starting with an even comparison.
 
Back to the original question: Disjecta, did you see the LV Strip shots?

Not exactly what you're asking for, but it may serve until I can get some more appropriate side-by-sides like what you're asking for.

These were taken at the same instant in time, same position (HVX & HD100 side-by-side), HD100 at full wide-angle, both on wide-open aperture, both focused at infinity, HVX at 6.3mm to match the wide-angle of the JVC, and using equivalent settings or as equivalent as I could get 'em, I used Tim's CINE-D preset on the HD100 and actual Cine-D on the HVX), and I matched detail level together so they'd exhibit the same amount of edge enhancement. Framing is a bit off, as I was trying to balance and aim both cameras, but they're basically comparable.

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Strip-1.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Strip-1.JPG

and

http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HD100-Strip-2.JPG
http://www.icexpo.com/JVCnDVX/HVX-Strip-2.JPG
 
Last edited:
disjecta said:
Most, if not all, of the footage I have seen so far from the HVX seems to be a little soft and "videoish" in resolving details of trees, etc. on a far away horizon.
Click to expand...
I think that shot may be pretty sharpened, The noise appears higher than is typical. You definitely can sharpen the HD-100 more than the HVX BUT that also seems to be when HDV artifacting shows up. With detail set at MIN on that camera we've seen some really tough codec situations like fast moving water hold up with no artifacting. Minimum detail on the JVC is probably like the HVX at Zero but with less noise. Even in bad artifacting situations what I've seen looks much worse in a still frame than in motion. Same goes for HVX macroblocks. The noise in the HVX looks BETTER in a still frame than in full motion.

So stills are a bad way to compare these cameras... sure you can crank the HVX detail to +7 so you get something in a still that compares to the JVC sharpness, but that's not useful because full motion would show the noise and you'd back off the detail and end up a softer.

The HVX has barrel distortion and is softer at full wide... but it is wider than the JVC.

I personally remain unconvinced that the HVX is ever sharper than the JVC based on hours of side by side. At prime lens locations and apertures in daylight it's really close though. I think the edge to edge sharpness is better on the JVC and that helps with the impression people have that it has more resolution etc.

I've come to the conclusion that there are so many variables that I can very easily see one person being much happier with the HVX and the next person happier with a Canon or JVC. Unfortunately, not everyone can test like I've had a chance to. If that's your situation pick a camera (or community of users you like best), learn the heck out of it and don't look back.. it'll all be just fine if you shoot interesting stuff.
 
I dunno, my DVX is a touch soft at full wide. But that might just be a symptom of My Particulatr DVX. I thought everyones did that?

damn.
 
Believe me, I so wanted the HD100 to be a better camera than the HVX, simply because it would have cost me £££'s less, but I don't believe it is. As Joelnet says though, it's subjective and you really should test them both - if you have a good dealer they should let you check them out before you buy.
 
I guess it's a matter of opinion if it's subjective. They both have objective differences.

In the end, I can tell you Joel and myself could care less which camera edges over the other.

We've been running side-by-side tests for over six weeks on these two cameras.
Sure we threw up rez charts, but most of it has been how well does it perform under certain conditions.

booth,
to tell you the truth, I wanted to see the HVX200 out perform the HD100.
Why? For obvious reasons: DVCPRO50, 1080P, variable frame rate (720/60P !), solid state capture acquisition.

As suggested here, anyone in the market for one of these cameras should go get hands-on with both and decide what factors they like the most.

They both have good and bad points.
 
Last edited:
It depends what your post workflow is too. Another reason the HVX is good for us over the HD100 is that we're going to be going through the Davinci2k, and with that kind of thing you need the best color space you can get. We found going through the Davinci, and with a hardware uprez to 1920x1080 (for final mastering on HDCam SR) we were getting more detail from the HVX than the HD100 viewing on a high-spec £25,000 HD CRT monitor.

Our colorist thought that with better glass the HD100 might do better, but with stock lens, this is what we found with this post workflow.
 
Well as far as the numbers speak, the HVX will have a better color palette.

I have seen no examples that show the HVX producing a higher rez image.
Our quick one-on-one rez tests show the HD100 with a tad more rez, but nothing to brag about.

On the other hand, as your colorist mentioned, the rez for the HD100 can improve with better glass.

Tim Dashwood's rez tests showing stock vs 13X lens (detail OFF) clearly shows at least 20-25% increase in resolution.

I think the HD100 looks great now, I could only imagine how good the image must look with the 13X lens.

On the HVX200 defense, to add the 13X lens to the HD100 package increases cost by another $9K give or take.... ouch

I am hearing some upcoming NAB2006 info that there might be more lens options.
Hopefully, they're decent lens and reasonable.
 
Last edited:
booth said:
It depends what your post workflow is too.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a very real consideration. Like I said, so many variables - you could go out and shoot killer stuff with any of these cameras. Right now if you've got a Mac you probably want an HVX. I'm hoping that changes around - I think Final Cut should support every camera as soon as possible because I think that's their D*#N job as an NLE leader.
 
Wow,

Barry's Strip comparison shots look great ! To my eyes the HVX has better colour and also it can take the flare of the lights better than the HD100 - I don;t like the way the colours are breaking up with the HD100 light flares in the headlights.

I've been really impressed by the DVX and at the time I'm ready to buy its big brother comes out and I'm switching to that.

THe HD100 looks great as a camera to use, but the HVX with its DVCPRO HD codec as opposed to the HDV [albeit with a shorter GOP compared to Sony's offering] coupled with the P2 capture/transfer workflow tips it for me.

I can't wait to get my hands on the camera !!

Majormorgan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top