The JVC HD100U tests with other HD cameras

[Brian Duke]

I'm reading the test results from Barry Green on the HD100, XL H1 etc and it appears that the JVC surprised everyone with its performance. Niced to hear the techincal aspects of it, despite the fact that I already love the way it shoots. Anyone else have a take on the results, being the novice I am.

[Nate Weaver]

I'd say something, but it's hard to summarize the results even into a short paragraph.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you can cook up about it.

[Brian Duke]

Hi Nate,

I just really wanted to know after all the "trash talk" about the JVC if it really is that bad, because I haven't seen it, but again, I am not a tech guy or DP. Like how did the resolution hold up? How did the colors look compared to others? Sharpness etc? Overall, are you happy you got yours after seeing it compared with the other HD cameras?

d.

[Robert Niemann]

Nate, I would be very interested in hearing your opinion about the film-like/movie-like feel of the HD100 respectively HVX200. Barry says, that the HD100 has got a "large sharpened noise effect/texture, that is just a little more video-y" (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showpost.p...6&postcount=28). Would you agree? From what I have seen so far, I would say, that the HD100's pictures can be more film-like than the HVVX200's ones.

[Chip Kuhn]

Sorry I missed the Green article. Where is it?

Chip

[Steven Thomas]

Right here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43409

[Warren Shultz]

Go ahead Nate, say it! Take two or even three paragraphs. I'm reading between the lines here but it sounds like the HD100 kicked enough butt to gain some grudging respect from non-fans.

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

I'd say something, but it's hard to summarize the results even into a short paragraph.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you can cook up about it.

Did you get a feel for how much 1080p helps resolution over 720p? The one thing I noticed in Barry's comments was that the JVC was pretty sharp in comparison to the rest. I'm not sure how much benefit shooting in 1080p is over 720p at this point - at least on these cameras. Once you get to the F900 there may be a huge advantage.

Any thoughts?

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Brian Duke

How did the colors look compared to others? Sharpness etc? Overall, are you happy you got yours after seeing it compared with the other HD cameras?

The camera held very well, because it was a controlled test and none of the problems the camera has manifested themselves (the split, lens CA).

For resolution, among the 4 "toy cameras", it went like this:

1-XLH1
2-JVC
3-HVX200
4-Sony Z1U

Going by the numbers alone, the JVC holds up and I am no longer considering the HVX to buy. BUT, I still keep seeing every day new clips from the HVX and it continues to impress me. The HVX may not win by resolution chart alone, but I feel strongly that it makes the prettiest pictures, especially from inexperienced users.

So by the numbers, and the virtue of the HD100s pro layout (which is now a bigger deal to me than BEFORE I bought the camera), I'm cool with my purchase.

Originally Posted by Robert Niemann

I would be very interested in hearing your opinion about the film-like/movie-like feel of the HD100 respectively HVX200. Barry says, that the HD100 has got a "large sharpened noise effect/texture, that is just a little more video-y"

I've never felt I could make a determination like that from a set of test charts (or test scene), nor do I feel that the term "film look" means much. Keep in mind what most people consider a "film look" is whatever the colorist decided (even feature films are being color-corrected on DaVinci-like equipment these days).

My feeling is that if you keep the detail setting down on ANY of these cameras, and take care to minimize over-exposed areas in frame, you can get an image that looks "film like".

I guess what I'm saying is that any of the cameras can make a very convincing film/movie like feel. Just turn off or down the damn detail circuit, and expose knowing that the way highlights blow out are a give away for video.

It's true what Barry said about the noise size and quality in my opinion, but I think he made that statement based on the latitude test real-life scene where we had Black Stretch 3 on to maximize shadow detail. Just because he said things in the way he did, do not for a second think that he meant that you can't get a filmy image out of the camera....remember we were comparing 4 cameras.

Originally Posted by Warren Schultz

I'm reading between the lines here but it sounds like the HD100 kicked enough butt to gain some grudging respect from non-fans.

I wouldn't even call it "grudging". Everybody was genuinely trying to be open-minded in this test. The JVC definitely held it's ground, and everybody during the course of the test told me so repeatedly (since I was away from the monitors operating and changing camera settings when it was up). Adam Wilt repeatedly spoke very well of it's resolution chart, in mild surprise, along with everybody else.

Before the testing, based on my own work, I had been going with a detail setting of -3 or -4 as a healthy balance between perceived sharpness and true resolution conservation. As we put the first res chart up, both Adam and Jay instructed me to turn the detail down, down, down (much to my dismay, in my own tests prior I felt that much more than -5 and the camera was actually _blurring_ the signal). When we got to the detail basement, they proclaimed that the res was actually quite high, compared to the others.

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

Did you get a feel for how much 1080p helps resolution over 720p? The one thing I noticed in Barry's comments was that the JVC was pretty sharp in comparison to the rest. I'm not sure how much benefit shooting in 1080p is over 720p at this point - at least on these cameras. Once you get to the F900 there may be a huge advantage.

First of all, understand that camera heads and recording method are two completely different things. In Panasonic's and JVC and Sony's case, the recording formats are tied to political/marketing decisions that were made years prior to the design of these cameras.

In other words, the recording format resolution is a poor indicator of what a given camera may or is able to resolve. If the Canon had gone with 720p, it's reasonably clear that that format decision would have compromised the resolving power of the camera. On the other end, it was very clear from our tests that the Sony Z1U could have been a 720p HDV camera and it wouldn't have lost even a smidge of horizontal resolution.

In a more direct answer to your question, 1080 "helps" only if the chips are capable of it. In my own opinion, all of these cameras record only about a 720p's camera worth of detail, if that makes any sense. The only possible exception is the Canon, but it's vertical resolution was dampened by 24F mode.

You are correct in your comment about the F900. The chips on that camera resolve enough that if the recording format was only 720p, much resolution would be thrown away. It should be noted that both the Varicam and the F900 spanked all of the other 4 cameras in every test. But all of the 4 baby cameras made a pretty picture on the numerous HD monitors on set.

[Shannon Rawls]

In my opinion the JVC spanked that ass! The Canon & the Panasonic & the Sony did not look as pretty or "movie-like" as you made the JVC look Nate!

We setup the 10-stop test scene setup with the girl at the sundeck table, the HVX looked horrible. It was right after Jay had figured out that the "Black Stretch" on the Varicam was turned up too much making it look like junk. Aftyer Jay fixed that & dialed in the Varicam, we moved on to the smaller cameras. And when it came to the HVX it looked bad. So bad that Barry took 6-10 minutes (literally) trying to dial the HVX in getting frustrated. He went back twisting and turning and fliping through the picture menu on the HVX trying to get it to look better. It never came around to the look of the XL-H1 that we were A/B'ing it back and forth from or the F900 that we were A/B'ing it back and forth from. The skin tones on that girl NEVER came around on the HVX. But as SOON AS WE PLUGGED THE JVC HD100 into the monitor....everybody simultaneously said "whoaaa!"

YES...I wish my HVR-Z1U & my XL-H1 looked as good as the JVC HD100 did, BUT THEY SIMPLY DID NOT! I wish they did, but they didn't. THERE...I SAID IT! *smile* They are MY cameras.... The HVX200 was NOT pretty at all! Not as pretty as the XL-H1 and DAMN sure not as pretty as the HD100........ The Z1U was in 60i mode, so it "looked" different. Like a reality type look, so I didn't even compare them in my notes that I were taking in my head.

I don't know what it was. Maybe it was because the XL-H1 wasn't dialed in and had nobody there to do it. Maybe it was because the JVC can turn it's edge detail all the way OFF and the XL-H1 "AND" the HVX200 can't. Maybe it was because NATE'S A GOOD CINEMATOGRAPHER and he knows that camera extremely well. Or maybe it's because JVC just did a damn good job! I don't know....All I know is when we plugged up the HD100.....IT LOOKED LIKE FILM....and you know it, and it was the nicest picture of em all.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Brian Duke]

For a moment form reading your posts I thought you may have downgraded the HD100U as a result of your personal interest in the XL H1. Never judge a book by its cover... =) You may want to change your add on Graigslist though...

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Robert Niemann

Barry says, that the HD100 has got a "large sharpened noise effect/texture, that is just a little more video-y" Would you agree?

Nate seemed to not have answered your question. HERE, let me answer it then....

NO I don't agree.

I don't remember seeing, talking about, pointing at, displaying on the monitor, discussing it with, laughing at or commenting on ANYTHING LIKE THAT about the HD100. NOT ONCE in 11 hours!
MOREOVER, I didn't see it neither!

I didn't thinkg the HD100 looked VIDEO-Y, VIDEO-ISH or VIDEO-LIKE one bit. Nor can I remember that anybody else say that......NOT ONE TIME while we were there.

- ShannonRawls.com

[Brian Duke]

Shannon, we should connect anyways, as I am in your area of Los Angeles. With out combined packages we could be the new Sith Lords, or Jedis, which ever you prefer =)

[Pete Bauer]

Yeah, let's do keep it real ... and not confuse "truth" and "opinion."

As do many folks here, I do appreciate Shannon's forthright opinions, even if not the way he expresses them at times (hint: getting tired of editing out profanity). However, **nobody's** opinion represents some Ultimate Truth. A subjective interpretation of how closely a particular digital image emulates some elusive, minds-eye "film-like look" is at best an informed opinion. Not a Universal Truth.

Let's talk about the results, and not let our horns get locked again over our varying personal opinions of things that are entirely subjective...that's one way for threads to run off the road and into the ditch, so to speak. If we discuss specific things that we all can see, such as areas of a frame grab or short HD clips, we all might actually learn something useful.

[Rob Lohman]

Notice: I've quite heavily edited this thread. Pete's post above this one from
myself was in response to the original thread but still has valid points.

Shannon: stop putting words in other people's mouth or trying to get them to
say certain things or see things in your light. You can tell us what *you* think
as your edited posts now reflect.

People, please get a perspective. We can't know if anyone involved is *actually*
speaking the truth. Everyone has opinions though, and that is fine.

Besides this, please take the following into consideration:

1) from all I've heard from everyone involved is that this is all based on things they all SAW THAT DAY. Which is already two days in the paste. And we all know how memory's are, especially when people are tired.

2) why don't we all just WAIT for when the people involved have SEEN the footage in POST and hopefully share with the rest of the world so everyone can make up their OWN MIND on what looks good and doesn't.

With all of this said please think twice about what you post to this or any
thread on this subject. Read your post back before you hit that post button.

This is all getting really tired, especially with no actual stuff to look at.

Thank you all for your consideration in this matter.