Which one is better ? Panasonic AG-DVX100 OR JVC GR-HD1

Ken Hodson · October 20th, 2003, 11:54 PM

HD or 24pMini DV?

Hey Agus, here are my thoughts.
I am guessing you are aiming for TV distribution, so 24p is going to do you little good. 1 point JVC.
If you are going to be capturing fast moving objects (see cars:babe magnets) you might get an advantage with the JVC as you will be able to "zoom" in on a clip to steady it, or provide details that would be lost on SD resolution. As well the JVC offers a SD resolution 60p mode that would provide the best high speed capture in its class (anyone disagree?)
You will also be capturing in a 16x9 aspect ratio on the JVC. If you are selling to TV you may be forced to go 4:3. The JVC may be a plus or a negative if this is the case. If your camera person/editor is not a pro the JVC may be to much for them to handle. In that case you probably want to head to the Pana. But befor you do that you might want to fire your camera person and hire one of the many JVC HD experts you will find @ this FORUM. Like me ;>)
Ken

Steve Mullen · October 21st, 2003, 08:10 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson :

Has anyone seen what an HD tv goes for? What good is it shooting in HD if no one is going to watch it in HD? -->>>

My 27" Sony XBR cost almost a $1000.

My Toshiba 35" cost $1500.

There are several HDTVs for $750 to $1500.

B&H has a projector for $999.

The cost factor is no longer a huge issue.

Nor is programming. VOOM just lauched a DBS service with 38 HDTV channels.

I wont shoot anything except HD.

BUT -- I agree that the VX100 is a better camera than the HD10. For SD work you can't go wrong with it. Or, with a PD150.

Yik Kuen · October 21st, 2003, 09:39 AM

Based on your feedback, Hi rez-> Std rez yields better output. So, can we say that those Mega 3CCD cam (eg. PDX-10) does produce better images than standard 3CCD (eg DVX100, PD-150) if given enough light?

Steve Mullen · October 21st, 2003, 10:50 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Yik Kuen : Based on your feedback, Hi rez-> Std rez yields better output. So, can we say that those Mega 3CCD cam (eg. PDX-10) does produce better images than standard 3CCD (eg DVX100, PD-150) if given enough light? -->>>

NO WAY. A hi rez chip is worse than a lo rez chip, when recording to NTSC.

Shane Walker · October 21st, 2003, 03:58 PM

I've been all over the forums and researching this same question of "Is HD ready for prime time" on various fronts for months now...my ultimate short answer: sort of.

I agree with the postings that suggest that these two cameras have distinct and somewhat incomparable merits--but it all points to the very frustrating fact about the 'state of HD' that I have come to realize. All affordable options for both acquisition, authoring and display of HD to date are fraught with compromises and belay the fact that it's still being treated by the consumer electronics industry as a fledgeling format (or they're just nowhere near getting their production pipelines into any sort of efficiency yet). Those $700-$1500 HD sets being referred to aren't true/full HD. Most of the $4000+ plasma/lcd sets aren't either. They cheat resolution or refresh rate to offer a lower-rez or clipped (think cropped edges) image. I'm not about to spend thousands on a T.V. that claims to be HD until it really is full 720p 1K. That's HD. The JVC camera cuts similar corners in color space and image control...and it's single CCD is lower rez that some SD CCDs. Wait or not to jump in , but you have to call it as it is.

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 03:33 PM

Shane,

Regarding: <<-"Is HD ready for prime time"-->>

HD10U aside. With all due respect, I think that you are missing the point.

HDTVs being expensive is irrelevant.

Assuming you are shooting a Discovery Channel nature show. Would you prefer a 35mm Arri cam or a DV cam? The answer is 35mm even though no one is going to project your show with a 35mm projector. The ultimate delivery is NTSC TV. Still, the added resolution combined with top of the line optics creates better imagery.

The same applies to HD. Many TV shows are shot in HD. From "Cedric the entertainer" to "Jay Leno". BTW, nobody watches these shows in HD, they watch on regular NTSC TVs.

Now back to the HD10U. In my opinion, the question should be a two part question:

1/ Can this camera deliver better quality footage for the NTSC market than comparably priced DV.
My answer so far is YES, absolutely as long as you know how to work with lighting. Which btw is the case with all HD.

2/ Can this camera deliver acceptable HD to the HD market. I think the jury is still out on this. Discovery seems to think no but other pros seem to think yes.

Shane, can you tell I am passionate about this camera? ;)

Yang Wen · October 26th, 2003, 04:29 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich :

The same applies to HD. Many TV shows are shot in HD. From "Cedric the entertainer" to "Jay Leno". BTW, nobody watches these shows in HD, they watch on regular NTSC TVs.

-->>>

Many shows are shot in HD because it is a nice alternative to shooting in film while still preserving the image quality the audience have come to expect, even in the SD domain. No way this camera will offer the color latitude, depth of field, and resolution as the studio models used on today's network programs. Thus that arguement is entirely irrelevant. When the day comes a greater number of "average Joes" have a widescreen HD capabale set in their homes, then this JVC cam will have a greater importance. This JVC cam might serve as a catalyst to get to that day. But that remains to be seen. I would personally never buy this camera for my uses. I own a DVX and would love to get a second one.

Ken Hodson · October 26th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Yang-"When the day comes a greater number of "average Joes" have a widescreen HD capabale set in their homes, then this JVC cam will have a greater importance."

I don't think so. When that day comes this model JVC will be superceded by later models. This cam has a great importance NOW because it allows idependant film makers the resolution needed for large screen display or quality down sampled SD content. This camera has nothing to offer most of the general public or "average Joes" who are happy shooting SD.
Ken

Yang Wen · October 26th, 2003, 08:59 PM

I agree this camera has an advantage of higher resolution but it can never compare to similarily priced SD cams as far as color handling goes. Not everyone is out there shooting some obscure indie film, some of us are actually trying to make money with our cameras. Hell, You'll prolly see me selling my DVX and buying this camera if my 75% of my clients has HD sets.

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 09:01 PM

And they know what they're talking about up there in Canada! Check out this footage shot with the HD10U:

http://www.4lanes.com/reel_523.htm

This whole argument going around about image quality with this camera comes down to lighting and know-how. This is not a pick it up, turn it on and shoot solution. If you want beautiful images you have to work for it. Like other HD cameras...and film. Image quality isn't only about color it's also about resolution and this camera has it. You either have it or you don't. DV doesn't HD does.

Don't get me wrong, this camera is FAR from perfect. But it's the only HD solution for under 30K out there.

Ken Hodson · October 26th, 2003, 09:40 PM

"Not everyone is out there shooting some obscure indie film", yes but people who love this camera usually are ;>)
No one here is saying this camera is right for everyone, by in large everyone here is to smart for that
Ken

Yang Wen · October 26th, 2003, 10:13 PM

Well if your passion is to shot obscure indie films all day and night that only you and your buddies will like, then by all means get your light kits and this camera. You'll have a blast I'm sure.

Alex Raskin · October 26th, 2003, 10:26 PM

Yang, I saw a couple of your previous posts before with your point well made.

But to throw in the implicitly negative "obscure indie films" expression as you just did is very lame.

Yang Wen · October 26th, 2003, 10:40 PM

Alex, My prior generalization is precisely how i feel about indie films as a whole. However, I meant not to put down every indie filmmakers out there, but I do find a good number of the stuff (both online and at festivals) to be crap. Thas my $0.02, I try not to sugar coat it.

Ken Hodson · October 26th, 2003, 11:04 PM

Have you watched any Hollywood flicks lately? They are running @ about a 90% *crap* level. And thats being generous!
If you insist that a good movie can only be made by throwing handfulls of money at it, hollywood style, that you are hanging out in the wrong forum Yang!
We aren't here discussing weddings shoots.

Ken

October 20th, 2003, 11:54 PM	#16
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	HD or 24pMini DV? Hey Agus, here are my thoughts. I am guessing you are aiming for TV distribution, so 24p is going to do you little good. 1 point JVC. If you are going to be capturing fast moving objects (see cars:babe magnets) you might get an advantage with the JVC as you will be able to "zoom" in on a clip to steady it, or provide details that would be lost on SD resolution. As well the JVC offers a SD resolution 60p mode that would provide the best high speed capture in its class (anyone disagree?) You will also be capturing in a 16x9 aspect ratio on the JVC. If you are selling to TV you may be forced to go 4:3. The JVC may be a plus or a negative if this is the case. If your camera person/editor is not a pro the JVC may be to much for them to handle. In that case you probably want to head to the Pana. But befor you do that you might want to fire your camera person and hire one of the many JVC HD experts you will find @ this FORUM. Like me ;>) Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 21st, 2003, 08:10 AM	#17
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by John Hudson : Has anyone seen what an HD tv goes for? What good is it shooting in HD if no one is going to watch it in HD? -->>> My 27" Sony XBR cost almost a $1000. My Toshiba 35" cost $1500. There are several HDTVs for $750 to $1500. B&H has a projector for $999. The cost factor is no longer a huge issue. Nor is programming. VOOM just lauched a DBS service with 38 HDTV channels. I wont shoot anything except HD. BUT -- I agree that the VX100 is a better camera than the HD10. For SD work you can't go wrong with it. Or, with a PD150. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

October 21st, 2003, 10:50 AM	#19
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Yik Kuen : Based on your feedback, Hi rez-> Std rez yields better output. So, can we say that those Mega 3CCD cam (eg. PDX-10) does produce better images than standard 3CCD (eg DVX100, PD-150) if given enough light? -->>> NO WAY. A hi rez chip is worse than a lo rez chip, when recording to NTSC. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

October 21st, 2003, 03:58 PM	#20
Shane Walker New Boot Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 11	Cart before the horse time...? I've been all over the forums and researching this same question of "Is HD ready for prime time" on various fronts for months now...my ultimate short answer: sort of. I agree with the postings that suggest that these two cameras have distinct and somewhat incomparable merits--but it all points to the very frustrating fact about the 'state of HD' that I have come to realize. All affordable options for both acquisition, authoring and display of HD to date are fraught with compromises and belay the fact that it's still being treated by the consumer electronics industry as a fledgeling format (or they're just nowhere near getting their production pipelines into any sort of efficiency yet). Those $700-$1500 HD sets being referred to aren't true/full HD. Most of the $4000+ plasma/lcd sets aren't either. They cheat resolution or refresh rate to offer a lower-rez or clipped (think cropped edges) image. I'm not about to spend thousands on a T.V. that claims to be HD until it really is full 720p 1K. That's HD. The JVC camera cuts similar corners in color space and image control...and it's single CCD is lower rez that some SD CCDs. Wait or not to jump in , but you have to call it as it is.

October 26th, 2003, 08:39 PM	#23
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Yang-"When the day comes a greater number of "average Joes" have a widescreen HD capabale set in their homes, then this JVC cam will have a greater importance." I don't think so. When that day comes this model JVC will be superceded by later models. This cam has a great importance NOW because it allows idependant film makers the resolution needed for large screen display or quality down sampled SD content. This camera has nothing to offer most of the general public or "average Joes" who are happy shooting SD. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 21st, 2003, 09:39 AM	#18
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Based on your feedback, Hi rez-> Std rez yields better output. So, can we say that those Mega 3CCD cam (eg. PDX-10) does produce better images than standard 3CCD (eg DVX100, PD-150) if given enough light?

October 26th, 2003, 03:33 PM	#21
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Shane, Regarding: <<-"Is HD ready for prime time"-->> HD10U aside. With all due respect, I think that you are missing the point. HDTVs being expensive is irrelevant. Assuming you are shooting a Discovery Channel nature show. Would you prefer a 35mm Arri cam or a DV cam? The answer is 35mm even though no one is going to project your show with a 35mm projector. The ultimate delivery is NTSC TV. Still, the added resolution combined with top of the line optics creates better imagery. The same applies to HD. Many TV shows are shot in HD. From "Cedric the entertainer" to "Jay Leno". BTW, nobody watches these shows in HD, they watch on regular NTSC TVs. Now back to the HD10U. In my opinion, the question should be a two part question: 1/ Can this camera deliver better quality footage for the NTSC market than comparably priced DV. My answer so far is YES, absolutely as long as you know how to work with lighting. Which btw is the case with all HD. 2/ Can this camera deliver acceptable HD to the HD market. I think the jury is still out on this. Discovery seems to think no but other pros seem to think yes. Shane, can you tell I am passionate about this camera? ;)

October 26th, 2003, 04:29 PM	#22
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : The same applies to HD. Many TV shows are shot in HD. From "Cedric the entertainer" to "Jay Leno". BTW, nobody watches these shows in HD, they watch on regular NTSC TVs. -->>> Many shows are shot in HD because it is a nice alternative to shooting in film while still preserving the image quality the audience have come to expect, even in the SD domain. No way this camera will offer the color latitude, depth of field, and resolution as the studio models used on today's network programs. Thus that arguement is entirely irrelevant. When the day comes a greater number of "average Joes" have a widescreen HD capabale set in their homes, then this JVC cam will have a greater importance. This JVC cam might serve as a catalyst to get to that day. But that remains to be seen. I would personally never buy this camera for my uses. I own a DVX and would love to get a second one.

October 26th, 2003, 08:59 PM	#24
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	I agree this camera has an advantage of higher resolution but it can never compare to similarily priced SD cams as far as color handling goes. Not everyone is out there shooting some obscure indie film, some of us are actually trying to make money with our cameras. Hell, You'll prolly see me selling my DVX and buying this camera if my 75% of my clients has HD sets.

October 26th, 2003, 09:01 PM	#25
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	And they know what they're talking about up there in Canada! Check out this footage shot with the HD10U: http://www.4lanes.com/reel_523.htm This whole argument going around about image quality with this camera comes down to lighting and know-how. This is not a pick it up, turn it on and shoot solution. If you want beautiful images you have to work for it. Like other HD cameras...and film. Image quality isn't only about color it's also about resolution and this camera has it. You either have it or you don't. DV doesn't HD does. Don't get me wrong, this camera is FAR from perfect. But it's the only HD solution for under 30K out there.

October 26th, 2003, 09:40 PM	#26
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"Not everyone is out there shooting some obscure indie film", yes but people who love this camera usually are ;>) No one here is saying this camera is right for everyone, by in large everyone here is to smart for that Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 26th, 2003, 10:13 PM	#27
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Well if your passion is to shot obscure indie films all day and night that only you and your buddies will like, then by all means get your light kits and this camera. You'll have a blast I'm sure.

October 26th, 2003, 10:26 PM	#28
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Yang, I saw a couple of your previous posts before with your point well made. But to throw in the implicitly negative "obscure indie films" expression as you just did is very lame.

October 26th, 2003, 10:40 PM	#29
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Alex, My prior generalization is precisely how i feel about indie films as a whole. However, I meant not to put down every indie filmmakers out there, but I do find a good number of the stuff (both online and at festivals) to be crap. Thas my $0.02, I try not to sugar coat it.

October 26th, 2003, 11:04 PM	#30
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Have you watched any Hollywood flicks lately? They are running @ about a 90% crap level. And thats being generous! If you insist that a good movie can only be made by throwing handfulls of money at it, hollywood style, that you are hanging out in the wrong forum Yang! We aren't here discussing weddings shoots. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.