Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video - Page 13 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems
GY-HD 100 & 200 series ProHD HDV camcorders & decks.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 12th, 2005, 03:01 PM   #181
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 392
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wow that is great nate!! i really do like your work by the way, the new music video you have on your site is great, and i heard you shot that with the hd100u and the mini 35... if you dont mind me asking i would like to know if the lights in that video where "cranked up" and then in post you pushed the gama, contrast, and brightness down to make everything dark...

or is it more of what you see is basicly what it looked like in the viewfinder... im still a little worried about the infomus split screen problem because quite frankly jvc already said it is what it is...

In your work i did NOT even see one little hint of it.. its just great looking! I am shooting a feature film with this camera (in about 8 months or so) and basicly i want my end results for the darker shoots to look like that last video you did... any and all pointers would be amazing :-)
Giuseppe Pugliese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2005, 12:39 AM   #182
New Boot
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Castle, Delaware
Posts: 14
Film lenses with video cameras

"You're using a lot of words to tell others how dumb they are or nonsensical they are, or just plain uneducated if they use a P+S or M2, or other 35 adaptor."

Could very well be "guilty as charge." Apparently, many folks using DV cameras day in and year out are not remembering that they are using DV cameras. Not film cameras.

Yes, I may be old fashioned, but I come from an era when film cameras were using lenses made for film cameras, and TV/video cameras were using... well... lenses specifically made for TV/video cameras. Wasn't that long ago, either.

I can't imagine what the underlying tenet is of pasting a film lens front of a fixed zoom lens (Panny, Sony). I can't think of any, except for desired image distortion.

Theres is also the issue of "price equilibrium." Just as it usually makes not much sense twisting a $500 lens onto an Arriflex 535 film camera, one wold think that similar discrepancy prevails when fitting a $50,000 lens to a $5,000 camcorder. Yes, you can do it, but why would you want to?

For "special effects", anything goes: use a pinhole lens on a 65mm film camera, if that is the effect you want. What I was talking of initially was to purchase a video camera only to junk its lens immediately and "upconvert" it to that coveted "film look." We should keep in mind that most episodic TV shows and even daytime soaps still use 35mm Panavisions to acquire the footage.

"My point about tape is, it's digital. The size of the tape doesn't determine the quality of output for the most part. We'll soon be tapeless around the world anyway, further emphasizing my point."

Tape can indeed be digital. Or analog, as is the case with Beta SP, U-Matic, S-VHS, for example. Leaving these for the moment, the highest quality 1/4-inch tape format I am aware of is Panassonic's 100 MB/sec DVCPRO HD. And the only reason this 1/4-inch tape can do high-def is because it is running at quad speed in both the camera and the VTR.

On the other hand, Sony has a 1/2-inch tape format that can do 4:4:4 color sampling (HDCAM SR). So, I respectfully disagree about the lack of correlation between tape size (1/4-inch or 1/2-inch) and picture quality. It seems to me that more zeors and ones can be put onto a 1/2-inch tape than to a 1/2-inch tape, even if the compression algorithms are identical.

This "soon be tapeless" world is just around the cornet, coming in a few decades. There is the famous issue of "American Cinematographer" from 1966, in which a group of ASC camera gurus collectively predicted that by 1976, all film projects and television shows will be using electronic cameras only. That certainly did not happen.

"It's not meant to replace or match 35mm film, that's merely the lens format that folks have access to."

I understand.

"In terms of resolution, the Z1 and a 35 adaptor don't approach the resolution of 16mm, let alone 35. Most folks know this. But the longer focal length, and the grain added by these devices, has a very nice, pleasing feel to it."

Again, I was talking more in abstract terms, not as a practitioner. I take your word and those of others fully on this. Just so I am understanding the premise here, using the film optics on a DV camera is not meant to "imitate" film rez, but to enhance a certain feel and atmosphere?

"As far as your Cannes/Sundance comment...maybe so many people insist on shooting in digital formats because doing so lowers the price of admission for them to such festivals. That's the whole point of independent film, isn't it?"

Well... here is another can of worms. My personal feeling is that there is a good reason why we have "barriers of entry" to an industry and set prices of admission. I would propose that we as a colletive audience would be somewhat better off if only one-tenth of the feature films would get made. Of course, regardeless of the number of films that do get made, the process or natural attirition will eliminate the nogoodniks from the gems. And, as we have seen time and again, you can make world fame with a film that had a $5,000 prods budget, and you can make a huge stink bomb for $200 million.

With repect to the technical quality of films at Sundance and Cannes, I attended both in the past and can tell you that I have yet to see a technically unacceptable film shown. I think those would get axed at the early stages. If you have a blow-up or up-rez in which the image would be sub-par, well, it won't get shown at the premiere festivals.

"I don't believe anyone here is an "enemy of film." I'd submit that if the majority of folks here *could* shoot film, they would. The cost of renting an Arri or Bolex isn't the only expense. The name of this forum is "DVINFO" which would represent "Digital Video Information." Therefore, coming in and trashing folks that want to make their video look as filmlike or cinematic as possible simply seems very arrogant, particularly for a new member of the community."

Well, up until right now, I don't believe anyone was "trashing" anyone else. I guess you confused me here at the end, though: why is it exactly that people get a DV camera and then want to make the shot footage look just like film? I thought I got it. But now, I believe I just don't get it. Oh, well. I butt out. :~)
Frank Farago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2005, 02:27 AM   #183
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stockton, UT
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Farago
why is it exactly that people get a DV camera and then want to make the shot footage look just like film? I thought I got it. But now, I believe I just don't get it. Oh, well. I butt out. :~)

I would submit exactly that; you don't get it.

You are welcome to your point of view, of course. And you've had your say in expressing that point of view. However, the majority of those that use DV, HDV, or other formats are after a look that doesn't look like straight video if they're independent film makers, documentarians, or shooting for television. And even if they weren't looking for a non-video look, but bottom line is that folks are looking for whatever works for them to make their visual media look different than anyone else, or at least different in some way. It's called "individualism" or "creativity." And it's all part of the digital democracy that brings everyone the ability to express their art in whatever look, fashion, or form they wish, in virtually every display technology. DV cameras don't have to shoot media that looks like DV. Anymore than folks that have shot remarkable films using the Fisher Price Pixelvision cameras needed to be limited by that substandard technology either.

Bottom line? Too many people get caught up in too many labels, specs, technical BS, and propaganda instead of making great media. If it looks good to the artist, then that's all that matters.

Right?
__________________
Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot
Author, producer, composer
Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
http://www.vasst.com
Douglas Spotted Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2005, 11:25 AM   #184
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
Frank:

Although "netiquette" appears to give a pass to spelling and grammatical errors, I sense you are in the group that stresses accuracy when making a point (me too), so you may want to proofread your posts a bit more; such statements as "It seems to me that more zeors and ones can be put onto a 1/2-inch tape than to a 1/2-inch tape" obviously make it a bit hard to get one's point across accurately.

There's a lot of things to respond to but I'll have to restrict myself to just a few. The statement about the $500 lens on the 535 vs the $50K on the DV camera: one would be done for degradation, the other for enhancement. It wouldn't be logical to spend many tens of thousands of dollars purchasing a complete cine lens set for one's DV camera perhaps, but there's nothing illogical about renting them for a shoot. Many in the DV world abhor renting as they see it as throwing money away, although that's the way films have been made for years prior.

While I personally have access to 35mm and 16mm gear, I choose not to have to beg, borrow and steal short ends and processing/telecine time to make projects that I think are just as well served by well-shot DV, especially when the Mini35 is used. And of course it's now possible to purchase a lower-end version of this concept and use modified still lenses to achieve the same effect (now all we have to do is convince many of the practitioners that just because you can provide shallow focus, you don't have to shove it in the viewer's face for every shot, but that's another story...).

"We should keep in mind that most episodic TV shows and even daytime soaps still use 35mm Panavisions to acquire the footage." Many episodic shows, yes; although there are quite a few shot on 16mm and HD. Sitcoms are probably half and half film and HD. Daytime soaps, all video as far as I know (I'm not an afficiando but I believe this to be the case).
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2005, 05:13 PM   #185
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Farago
If you have a blow-up or up-rez in which the image would be sub-par, well, it won't get shown at the premiere festivals.
While I agree with your sentiment there have been exceptions. NBT (Never Been Thawed) was shot on 2 Hi 8 (yeah, not even miniDV) cameras and not only was it shown in Santa Monica but got rave reviews and packed the house. It also got distribution and will be in your local NetFlix in a few days. Story still is king. But it better be one helluva story if you're telling it on Hi8.

Regarding the 35mm adapters. They emulate the shallow DOF feel of film. They harm the resolution and everyone should know it, but they look better than straight video for dramatic narrative or music videos to me.

For Nature Channel or the Super Bowl gimme straight HD over anything else.

If I could shoot film I wouln't shoot film. I'd shoot a Genesis... which is digital but takes 35mm Cinema lenses and has great resolution and quite a bit of latitude. Welcome to the future. :-)
http://www.panavision.com/in_frame_d...gid=1&typeid=1
Joel Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2005, 06:58 PM   #186
Trustee
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,214
It's cheaper to produce on DV.
It takes less time to produce on DV
It takes less resources to produce it on DV.

Now that it is so incredibly cheap to produce DV there are 102 channels of trash for my family to watch on TV. The techology certainly hasn't increased the amount of great storytellers.
Stephen L. Noe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2005, 08:31 PM   #187
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ - USA
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe
The techology certainly hasn't increased the amount of great storytellers.
Maybe not quite yet. But I believe it will in the next 5-10 years.

Are there more good websites now than 8 years ago?

There currently is an enormous amount of new and truly amazing artwork and photography due to the digital revolution. But in the beginning there was a lot of trash and you could have made the same statement about layout/design etc. back in those days.

There are also a lot of musicians creating cool stuff they probably would not have started 20 years ago due to digital audio workstations plummeting in price compared to traditional gear.

Right now do you hear more people talking about pixels or archetypes and emotions? I think that's because the techies get the hardware first. Most may never become good storytellers because they aren't obsessed with story as much as they are specs. Until we get obsessed with story we will fail to tell good ones.

Robert Rodriguez says everybody has 10 bad movies in them... so go make them and get them out of the way. I think that's what's happening right now. The DV revolution folks are just getting their chops down... and are starting to understand why it's so tough for even Hollywood to tell great stories.

(disclaimer - the ratio of "GOOD" to total efforts might be worse than ever in the future, but the total number of "GOOD" will rise IMHO)
Joel Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2006, 10:50 PM   #188
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Centreville Va
Posts: 1,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Aaron
Maybe not quite yet. But I believe it will in the next 5-10 years.

Robert Rodriguez says everybody has 10 bad movies in them...
Did he get a 3fer1 with SpyKids3d?
Joe Carney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2006, 07:31 PM   #189
Go Cycle
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Huntington, NY
Posts: 795
HD lenses are ground differently than SD lenses. I can see the difference in SD. Our 100 does not look as clean (stairstepping) as the 5100 with a 20X Fujinon. Even if I were to place the adaptor on our 100, the 1/2 inch lens still would not equal the proper type of glass.

LOU
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Basmas
I'd like to see a test between the stock 1/3" lens and a quality 1/2" lens with the adaptor. This distinction between HD and SD lenses bothers me..
__________________
Lou Bruno
Lou Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2006, 03:06 PM   #190
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 48
Images: 11
What mode?

What mode were you guys shooting in? BTW, great stuff!!!!!! I have had my HD-100 for a while now and while I've produced acceptable results nothing quite compares to yours with the mini-35. I have attached still Nikon lens which give a little better image but when I shoot 24p it is very jumpy. Did you shoot in HDV 24p?
__________________
Chris Lognion
Chris Lognion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2006, 09:36 PM   #191
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 320
Ghosting/Trail on night shot

Is it just me or did anyone else notice the slightly ghosted image of the girl's arm on the night shot (way back at the beginning of this thread). I've been looking for someone to mention it, but no one seems to see it. I don't think it's just my decoder either because I've seen similar trail effects on other HD-100 produced material. - Like the codec doesn't refresh fast enough.

I'm seriously thinking of getting this camera because it produces very beautiful & filmic images, but just want to make sure I know what type of codec I'm buying into. My Sony FX1 would never ghost like that. -Produce compression artifacts, sure, but not ghost. Here's a screen shot of what I'm seeing:

http://video.terpstar.com/extra/JVC-HD-100_Capture.jpg

You can see it by going through frame-by-frame or in HD playback as well. For some reason, it's not really visible in SD playback.

Has no one else seen this?

-Chad
Chad Terpstra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22nd, 2007, 06:12 PM   #192
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Orinda, CA
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Reggiardo View Post
Hi Michael, where are u from? I'm getting those prices from an official dealer in Argentina, they are only for buying from Argentina but shipped to Miami as well.

They are FOB, without freight costs or any customs taxes, so that would bring the price to the USD 6000-6500 point many have talked about here.

L.
Hey Luis, I am from Argentina as well. What's that dealer? (If you can, please contact me via email, vrljicak@gmail.com)
I am wondering if its worth it spending more in the 111E PAL version if i am not wanting to shoot PAL DV. Is there any reason I should consider the PAL version other than DV 576i?
Agustin Vrljicak is offline   Reply
Reply

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 > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:33 AM.


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