Jon Fordham's HD10 complete review, Parts 1 & 2 - Page 5 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > The Archives > JVC GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U

JVC GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U
All about the original single-CCD HDV camcorders from JVC.


 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 6th, 2003, 07:35 PM   #61
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 105
Originally posted by Jeff Donald :
Quote:
Until you print it, project it or transmit it to a TV. Then differences in CoC, as a variable of film size, chip size etc., will have an effect on DOF.

Since this is a video forum and people's work will be viewed on a TV or projection screen (magnified), it is misleading to ignore CoC and it's impact.
Assuming an identical projected size, the CoC on the imager will be smaller on the smaller imager in proportion to its reduced size. That reduction means that DOF is reduced, but that reduction is offset by the reduced magnification required of the optics to achieve the same perspective. The reduced sensor size means that diffraction effects must be similarly reduced. Since DOF is inversely proportional to the square of magnification and CoC and allowable diffraction are proportional to sensor size, the end result is a wash (except at high mags where effective aperture is different from physical). At low mags and identical physical apertures, the smaller sensor will have larger DOF in proportion to the ratio of sizes.
Craig Jones is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 08:01 PM   #62
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
Craig, we're in agreement except I've never been to a theatre that projects 35mm film to a 32 inch diagonal. The Inverse Square Law does play a role, as you point out. If you see factor D in my article, the viewing distance (or size of screen, print etc.) has an apparent effect on DOF.

Quote:
At low mags and identical physical apertures, the smaller sensor will have better DOF in proportion to the ratio of sizes.
If by better you mean a larger DOF, we're in agreement.
__________________
Jeff Donald
Carpe Diem




Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Jeff Donald is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 08:16 PM   #63
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 105
I suppose a target viewing size could be unreasonable for one format and not another, but you wouldn't need to compare their DOF performance then. If you wish to compare DOF characteristics of different formats, you must choose a common final viewing standard or the comparison won't make sense. You are correct, viewing angle/distance effects DOF but it does so equally on both formats in the comparison.

I changed "better" to "larger".
Craig Jones is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 08:57 PM   #64
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently)
Posts: 837
Hi Craig,

I notice that you own a JVC HD1 in addition to your Sony VX2000?

Do you ever shoot 16:9 on your VX2000? How are you incorporating the HD1 into your work? Will you be considering taking the HD1 underwater with you? Also, would you possibly have any spare time to produce a few side-by-side comparison images between the VX2000 and the HD1? They don't have to be swan song images or such, just a few side-by-sdie examples of any type of subject will do. I thought it would be helpful to get a tangible report of your experiences with the HD1 so far.

I understand if your schedule does not allow for this, but would certainly love to hear your feedback.

- don
__________________
DONALD BERUBE - noisybrain. Productions, LLC
Director Of Photography/ Producer/ Consultant
http://noisybrain.com/donbio.html
CREATE and NETWORK with http://www.bosfcpug.org
and also http://fcpugnetwork.org
Don Berube is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 08:58 PM   #65
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
Quote:
you must choose a common final viewing standard or the comparison won't make sense.
And therein lies the problem with discussions of DOF and personal observations collected in an unscientific manner.

No standards were established at the beginning of the comparisons of the DVX100 and HD10. We must rely on Jon's experience and professionalism to convey his impressions of the cameras performance.
__________________
Jeff Donald
Carpe Diem




Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Jeff Donald is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 09:14 PM   #66
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya
Posts: 608
meanwhile , back at the ranch

So... back to the DOF differing pics that Jon posted: Can the HD10 come close to the short DOF the DVX got in that shot?
I wonder if ND could shorten it that much?

For the academic types: A picture is worth 10^3 words. It's fun to chat about images, but posts of images and viewing them are where it's at.
"Where's the beef?" comes to mind.

-Les
Les Dit is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 09:21 PM   #67
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
The two cameras in question, if operated identically and are focused on the same subject, and the subject is of similar proportion, will produce identical DOF.
__________________
Jeff Donald
Carpe Diem




Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Jeff Donald is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 09:35 PM   #68
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya
Posts: 608
Define "operated identically".

The JVC has no readout of it's aperture setting, that complicates matters. I suppose you could ND the JVC until you see a drop in viewfinder exposure seen, and then assume it is at the widest f stop it can do. Then you have to assume that aperture is what JVC states as the minimum aperture. Too many assumptions for me.
In Jons sample pics, the JVC obviously had enough light to stop down. Says something about LUX ratings, but I don't want to open than can of worms either!
-Les


<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The two cameras in question, if operated identically and are focused on the same subject, and the subject is of similar proportion, will produce identical DOF. -->>>
Les Dit is offline  
Old December 6th, 2003, 09:52 PM   #69
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
Les, operated identically is self explanatory.. If the operation of the camera requires too many assumptions for you to be comfortable, then the JVC is probably not the camera for you, at this time.

Ergonomics and features are just as important as picture quality in determining the suitability of a camera to an individual operator. Let alone suitability towards specific projects. If you have a project that requires the limits of shallow DOF then the HD10 may be a less desirable camera. Not because it cannot deliver the limits if it's range of DOF. But, because it is obviously more difficult to accurately reduce the cameras aperture setting. Combine this with the inability to reproduce exact settings i.e. no manual controls, and you have a camera that won't be suitable for everyones needs.
__________________
Jeff Donald
Carpe Diem




Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Jeff Donald is offline  
Old December 7th, 2003, 12:02 AM   #70
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
Whew, I'm sorry I opened a can of worms on this subject! My apologies to all, and thanks to Chris H. for stepping in!

heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline  
Old December 7th, 2003, 12:42 AM   #71
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya
Posts: 608
Jeff, please explain how the DOF can be held constant on both cameras , even if you operate them identically, if the effective ISO speed of the cameras CCD's are different. You must mean using ND's to control the f-stop , that's all I wanted to clarify.
Are you sure the lowest F number of the two cams in question is the same?
If not, you may not get the same DOF, ( no matter what ND ) I hope you know that!
For most casual users, fumbling with ND's is a hassle, but we do it to coax the consumer grade cams to do what we want.
I own the HD10. I know it's limitations, but it is the camera for me at this time, because it resolves closer to movie film, which I am used to working with digitally at 2 to 3K res starting in 1988.
I always wished for more resolution, and when I saw that in this JVC , I was sold.
No more 'web cam' DV res for me. Hallelujah!
-Les
Les Dit is offline  
Old December 7th, 2003, 01:15 AM   #72
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya
Posts: 608
Did some digging.
The Panasonic lens is f1.6
The JVC lens is f1.8.
The JVC's lowest possible DOF is higher than the DVX.
Les Dit is offline  
Old December 7th, 2003, 05:44 AM   #73
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
Les, the problem with most discussions of DOF is the theoretical aspects measured by formulas vs. the observed aspects of viewers. Using standard DOF calculators, the difference between F1.6 and F1.8 is pretty small at most distances and focal lengths. A subject distance of 15 feet and focal length of 10mm, the difference in DOF is just over 2 feet. Because of the subjective nature of individual viewing, the difference in DOF may not be visually apparent to most viewers.

I agree that multiple ND filters is not ideal. There are several operational features that are either missing or inconvenient in their use. This will lead many potential users to wait for the next generation. I can understand pioneers, like yourself, purchasing the HD10. It is a unique camera that offers many great features, but will challenge many, in it's more complicated operation.
__________________
Jeff Donald
Carpe Diem




Search DVinfo.net for quick answers | Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors
Jeff Donald is offline  
Old December 7th, 2003, 06:27 AM   #74
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 105
Originally posted by Don Berube :
Quote:
Hi Craig,

I notice that you own a JVC HD1 in addition to your Sony VX2000?

Do you ever shoot 16:9 on your VX2000? How are you incorporating the HD1 into your work? Will you be considering taking the HD1 underwater with you? Also, would you possibly have any spare time to produce a few side-by-side comparison images between the VX2000 and the HD1? They don't have to be swan song images or such, just a few side-by-sdie examples of any type of subject will do. I thought it would be helpful to get a tangible report of your experiences with the HD1 so far.

I understand if your schedule does not allow for this, but would certainly love to hear your feedback.

- don
I have not used the VX-2000 in 16:9 mode nor tried to combine footage from the two cameras.

I've worked with Gates to develop the JVC housing (which is now in early production). I haven't received my housing, though. I intend to use it mainly underwater but my first real underwater test won't be until February. Until then it will be pool tests only.
Craig Jones is offline  
Old December 7th, 2003, 08:47 AM   #75
MPS Digital Studios
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 8,531
Don't use the VX2000 (or XL-1s) in 16:9 mode, the chips aren't powerful enough.

heath
__________________
My Final Cut Pro X blog
Heath McKnight is offline  
 

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > And Now, For Something Completely Different... > The Archives > JVC GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network