Jon Fordham's HD10 complete review, Parts 1 & 2

Don Berube · December 7th, 2003, 11:56 AM

Hi Heath,

I know this, I used to own a few VX2000's years ago.

I was referring to the VX2000 as it is one of the camcorders that Craig currently owns and utilizes in his work, aside from his newly-acquired HD1. Since there are a great deal of readers who are currently using VX2000's and similiar cameras, and since many readers are now interested in the "next-generation" of HDV camcorders which will by default generate 16:9 - thought it would be a nice example of what they can expect to experience when they inevitably start shooting in HDV. (>yikes< that was a l-o-n-g sentence!)

To clarify, the built-in electronically-interpolated 16:9 Mode from cameras that do not utilize true 16:9 chips is best used for small-frame video playback such as streaming video, multimedia presos, home video, etc. As Heath implies, "faux 16:9" is not quite good enough for full-frame professional broadcast applications such as television or DV filmmaking intended for the large screen.

However, it has been well documented that the 16:9 techniques implemented on the Panasonic DVX100, due to it's enhanced resolution and sharpness, is much more useable than most other DV handycams. I even used it on a recent 24P DV short I shot and was very happy with the results, all things considered. The new DVX100a promises to produce even better "faux 16:9".

- don

Barry Green · December 8th, 2003, 02:20 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : 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. -->>>

Well, yeah, but...

... what is the JVC's minimum aperture at full telephoto? The DVX's lens is not constant-aperture... you only get f/1.6 at the wide end (where the focal length means you're pretty much going to get infinite DOF anyway). At full telephoto the max you can get is f/2.8

I can't figure what the JVC is -- is it f/1.8 at the wide end, and f/1.9 at the tele? If so, combined with its maximum tele of 52mm (vs. the DVX's 45mm) the JVC should be able to deliver a shallower DOF than the DVX.

Les Dit · December 8th, 2003, 02:26 AM

Barry,
I read that the JVC is constant throughout it's zoom range.
-Les

Jerry D Sharp · December 10th, 2003, 10:00 AM

Great write-up, John. To contrast with your vast experience, I'm a bit of a wanna-be, and got time to see the HD10 in an all day demo (HD Roadshow, sponsored by Videography Mag/JVC) and training session, the day before the Gov't Video Expo last week in D.C..

Your comments about narrow range and easy wash-outs were also evident to us, but the speaker had a pat answer type phrase, each time we came to issues such as this: "Remember folks, this is a $3,000 HD camera". His way of saying, I guess, that a $3k camera will have many limitation compared to the "industry standard" cameras, but "look how much you get" for 3k.

I thought the colors were quite clean/clear, and I the reds, well, they were red, and NO bleed. I know we're gonna get one of these for our little shop, but plan to use it primarily in SD mode, since we have experience there, and probably can't afford the storage space for HD projects, just yet.

Just my thoughts. Great forum you guys have here,

Heath McKnight · December 10th, 2003, 10:19 AM

Thanks, Jerry! We try to keep it friendly and informative!

heath

December 7th, 2003, 11:56 AM	#76
Don Berube Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Boston, MA (travel frequently) Posts: 837	Hi Heath, I know this, I used to own a few VX2000's years ago. I was referring to the VX2000 as it is one of the camcorders that Craig currently owns and utilizes in his work, aside from his newly-acquired HD1. Since there are a great deal of readers who are currently using VX2000's and similiar cameras, and since many readers are now interested in the "next-generation" of HDV camcorders which will by default generate 16:9 - thought it would be a nice example of what they can expect to experience when they inevitably start shooting in HDV. (>yikes< that was a l-o-n-g sentence!) To clarify, the built-in electronically-interpolated 16:9 Mode from cameras that do not utilize true 16:9 chips is best used for small-frame video playback such as streaming video, multimedia presos, home video, etc. As Heath implies, "faux 16:9" is not quite good enough for full-frame professional broadcast applications such as television or DV filmmaking intended for the large screen. However, it has been well documented that the 16:9 techniques implemented on the Panasonic DVX100, due to it's enhanced resolution and sharpness, is much more useable than most other DV handycams. I even used it on a recent 24P DV short I shot and was very happy with the results, all things considered. The new DVX100a promises to produce even better "faux 16:9". - 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

December 10th, 2003, 10:00 AM	#79
Jerry D Sharp Tourist Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ft Eustis, VA Posts: 3	Great write-up, John. To contrast with your vast experience, I'm a bit of a wanna-be, and got time to see the HD10 in an all day demo (HD Roadshow, sponsored by Videography Mag/JVC) and training session, the day before the Gov't Video Expo last week in D.C.. Your comments about narrow range and easy wash-outs were also evident to us, but the speaker had a pat answer type phrase, each time we came to issues such as this: "Remember folks, this is a $3,000 HD camera". His way of saying, I guess, that a $3k camera will have many limitation compared to the "industry standard" cameras, but "look how much you get" for 3k. I thought the colors were quite clean/clear, and I the reds, well, they were red, and NO bleed. I know we're gonna get one of these for our little shop, but plan to use it primarily in SD mode, since we have experience there, and probably can't afford the storage space for HD projects, just yet. Just my thoughts. Great forum you guys have here, __________________ Jerry D Sharp US Army-SDDC

December 10th, 2003, 10:19 AM	#80
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Thanks, Jerry! We try to keep it friendly and informative! heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

December 8th, 2003, 02:20 AM	#77
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Les Dit : 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. -->>> Well, yeah, but... ... what is the JVC's minimum aperture at full telephoto? The DVX's lens is not constant-aperture... you only get f/1.6 at the wide end (where the focal length means you're pretty much going to get infinite DOF anyway). At full telephoto the max you can get is f/2.8 I can't figure what the JVC is -- is it f/1.8 at the wide end, and f/1.9 at the tele? If so, combined with its maximum tele of 52mm (vs. the DVX's 45mm) the JVC should be able to deliver a shallower DOF than the DVX.

December 8th, 2003, 02:26 AM	#78
Les Dit Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Southern Cal-ee-for-Ni-ya Posts: 608	Barry, I read that the JVC is constant throughout it's zoom range. -Les