DR champion?
 

It seems that a few of you had the opportunity to use both, the JVC HD100 and the Canon XL-H1. I don't have the opportunity to test them against each other before I buy a camera. In your opinion what camera has the best DR?
From the TX shootout article it seems the HD100 but is not very clear. Also it seems that Canon made a camera with less video noise but also about this the article doesn't have a clear cut answer.

Thank you for your answers
Regards
Gabriele

DR?

IMHO there is more noise in the blacks of the JVC but not enough to be of consequesnce. It's definately not what i'd use to make my decision about which camera I'd buy.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=65843
There's a bit of discussion goin gon here about the differences.

Thank you for the answer. About DR I meant Dynamic Range. To me it is one of the biggest decision factors. I'm so much on the fence... Anyone has experience about HD100 Vs. XL-H1 dynamic range?

Thanks to all of you
Gabriele

they are both about the same and are both great. the hd1 will handle highlights better then the h1. The h1 can see into the shadows better then the hd1. the range is about the same on both. you must pick which you want to handle better. highlights or shadows.

I performed my own comparison tests in March. (I think I posted some frame grabs in a thread somewhere.) I remember the dynamic range (as defined by manipulation of the curve with the knee function and black stretch) to be slightly better on the HD100.
For best results with the XL-H1 use a gain level of -3dB, not 0dB.

As for the noise question, the Canon has coring and noise reduction functions built in to the menu system, so it is possible for a skilled operator to tune out some noise. However, this doesn't mean that it is less or more noisy than the HD100. I didn't directly compare noise, but I don't consider the HD100 to be a particularly noisy camera either.

I liked the XL-H1 in general as a direct update from the XL2, which I was very very familiar with. However, the deal-breakers for me were an obvious back focus slip of the stock lens (only HD XL mount available I think) when zooming back out to 5.5mm, and the maximum 540 lines of resolution in 24F mode.

Do you think that it was 1/2 stop or better?

Thank you very much
Gabriele

Now I've (don't laugh at me) a JVC HD1 and I developed a growing hate for the highlights :-) I trust that both these camera are better than a JVC HD1 :-) 2 - 3 stops I hope.

The scary thing however is to see that even professional production has bad highlights. I watch discovery HD and I see MANY documentaries with highlights problems. I assume that a cinealta or other very high end stuff has been used.

What is your opinion guys?

Gabriele

I'd rather be able to see highlights than better shadows.

I know what you mean about seeing blown out stuff on those tv shows though.

I was watching sunday night football and the coaches white jackets were clearly blown out until the shadow of a player toned it down. The whites were white but there was a hint of blue i could swear.

I can guarantee you if the video operator shaded that camera so the shirt wasn't blown out, the picture as a whole would have been too dark and the field behind would have been a different brightness when they cut to a different camera, which would have looked even worse. That's why they let the shirt blow out. Live production is a constant balancing act of trying to make whatever you're given to work with look good, it's not like they can tell the coach "don't wear bright whites, they look bad on TV."

As for there being a hint of blue in highlights, it's possible the white shading adjustment could have been off for that camera (doubtful), but it's also possible your TV operates at a high color temperature compared to the ambient lighting in your room. Video operators on live productions generally do their work in a darkened room so they're not distracted by ambient light.

True but isn't a little spooky that even cameras of that level can't control highlights. During the SD days I never saw so many blown highlights.
if these camera blown hilights so bad go figure a $5000 camera.... :-(

High-end broadcast cameras actually do pick up a lot of information in the highlights, you can get it back using knee functions. The trouble with knee is that I (and most people I talk to) think it looks pretty bad, it makes for very unnatural-looking highlight rendering. If I had a shot looking into a light I'd see a very odd halo of color around the light instead of a more natural glow. I experimented with knee for a while in this one show I technical direct and shade cameras in, before I finally decided to leave it off and let the highlights blend naturally into white.

Dollar for dollar value.

This is a little of topic. But have you considered the cost difference?

I am very sympathetic to your quandary as I found my self agonizing over the same decision several months ago.

And, looking back I realize my intent to make the "right choice" was consuming a lot of my time.... that I could have put to better use.

I have a history of always trying to buy the "best model". Believing that paying more now will end up saving me money in the long run.

And as a rule I do still hold that to be true. I can Not buy anything I feel is made or built cheaply.

But here's what I am discovering for myself. In this time of unprecedented technology growth, some things may not be worth the extra money.

Example, last year I decided to purchase my first home theatre projector.

If you don't know, that industry is seeing the same kind of break through technology advances that our video world is seeing. With the same kind of price drops as well.

I really struggled with my decision on weather to buy the more expensive projector, as opposed to just a very good one for half the cost.

Even though I understood in my mind that projectors were going to be evolving very fast over the next several years, getting better and cheaper just like computers have, it took all my conviction to buy the less expensive model.

Well, you know what? It works great, I love it. I mean I really love it.

And in a year or two when I upgrade I won't take that big of a financial hit on it. I made the right choice.

Well, that's how I feel about HDV technology. It's in it's infancy and IMHO things are going to be changing really fast. Getting better and cheaper.

I read enough about the two camera's to understand their both great unit's. And people much more experienced than I were having a hard time deciding between the two.

So, I took a step back and said to my self, both of these camera's are great, why not save a few thousand dollars now, because no-matter which one I buy, I going to want to replace it next year anyway.

I'm not saying that I believe the canon is better just because it cost more. In fact, I believe there very close.

I am suggesting that the JVC is dollar for dollar a better value.

The JVC is a great camera and I believe you will be thrilled with it, and you can take the money you save and put it aside for next your camera.

As for me, and the JVC.....

It works great, I love it. I mean I really love it.

Hope this helps.

Isn't Dynamic Range a term used to described audio signals?

Isn't the topic of this thread more accurately "latitude"?