GY-HM100 v. HV30
 

At present using HV30 and thinking of ordering JVC HM100 to make 1.5 hr. doc (under good conditions, light etc.) aimed at TV or cinema.

a) Is it possible technically with either cam + editing with FCP or Premiere on a Mac?
b) Are either cameras good enough? Has anyone done a comparison?
c) Editing in FCP should give me HD final master in 1920x1020 with JVC, but not HV30? - so suppose impossible to combine shooting?

Thanks for any ideas here.

I had an HV30 and upgraded to the HM100. I shoot sports, and I shot while moving (in a boat, car etc)
I wanted CCD's and manual controls. I have found that 720p works the best for me. The picture in 720p from the HM100 looks much better the HV30 to me, especially on action shots. Cleaner, no CMOS wobble etc.

In 1920x1080 mode, the HM100 is ok. It is not that much sharper that 720p. 1080 is noiser that 720p. You will have to reduce the detail of the HM100 to -6 or more to get it clean. I think it is similar to the HV30 but again a little better.

The HV30 shoots 1440x1080i anamorphic, but you can output it to 1920x1080. You can mix the the two and output 1920x1080.
I edit the MP4 files from the HM100 in Adobe with no problems at all.

Thanks Andy - very useful info. Is it that you prefer Adobe to FCP or just that you don't work on a Mac?

I just don't have a Mac. Adobe CS5 is really a good piece of software now. So the arguments between FCP and Premiere will continue... :)

I'll have a quick stab at number 2.

I don't know the HV30 so I'll leave that to one side. I do have an HM100 and a DSR-450 (2/3 inch chips DVCam) and the thing that caught my eye was the line about you wanting to make a 1.5 hour doc for TV or cinema.

Depending on the nature of your subject matter, it could well be the case that you will be disappointed by using such a small camera - be it the HM100 or any other small camera for that matter - on a large project. Here's why.

If I suddenly didn't have my 2 cameras, say I mislaid them ;-) and wasn't going to hire equipment, knowing what I know now after years of using shoulder-mount cameras and needing a camera to shoot a 1.5 hour doc, I would not choose an HM100 - or indeed any other small camera - for the task. Ideally I would go buy a PMW-350 or a 320 - but I'm broke as well since I mislaid my cameras and the insurance company flipped me off ;-) so what to get - and why?

I would buy something with a bit of weight to it - if I could afford an HM700 then that would be fine. If I couldn't, I would buy a used GY-HD200 or 100 or something like that, and shoot on tape. Once you have a meaty lens and battery aboard, the camera takes on a new role that these small 'handycams' can aspire to but never fulfill.

Full manual control is essential (IMO) for serious production and having a professional spec lens, whether it's for 1/3 inch, 1/2 inch or 2/3 inch chips, means that you can explore some superb avenues of cinematography almost impossible to achieve on something like the HM100. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing the poor little HM100 - I actually think that for what it is, it is a remarkable camera. But at the end of the day it is a tool and any workman will tell you that you choose the right tool for a particular job.

If you're 1.5 hour doc is about living rough in the sewers of Rangoon, I would not hesitate in saying the HM100 would not only be perfect for the job, but better at it than anything else I can think of, including an EX-1 (better low-light but too big - you will be murdered for it). Take the audio handle off and you are virtually unrecognizable as a filmmaker.

But if you are spending time shooting above ground in wonderful vistas with plenty of time and a good tripod, you will not only find a larger camera with a good manual lens a great advantage, but also the work will go quicker and be easier. Fiddling about with little knobs and switches to get the HM100 into any reasonable manual state is tiresome over the long-term, and manual focus is at best 'passable'. Pulling focus is doable but an element of luck is always present. On a full manual lens like what you might find attached to a JVC GY-HDxxx it will be a joy to use - and manual exposure a simple and precise movement. Zooming on the HM100 is a joke. Fine for fly-on-the-wall down in the sewer, but reframing during the shot? Forget it. A zoom should be like a gentle breaking on a traveling car - as you approach the stop, right at the last second you ease your foot off the break pedal or you get an unpleasant jolt in the neck, right? Same with a zoom - you start off gently, rev up to an appropriate speed, then slow down nice and gently at the end. The HM100 cannot do this - the mechanics are not there. On a proper lens like you will find attached to the HM700, this is easy to do and makes all the difference between crafting your work, and simply pressing a button. Similarly with a tripod-based pan. A small camera - even on a good head - simply doesn't have the weight to create a smooth and even pan with gentle starts and finishes. Put a larger cam on a good set of sticks with a nice head and you will wonder what the hell you were thinking about going after a handycam.

You are limited by the gear. Or not!

Sorry for the length - just a bit of food for thought.

If we could do a Vulcan mind-meld and be able to see what I have seen and interpret all the things I have come across, you would be scouring eBay for a used HM700 and a GOOD tripod with a fluid head. Everything else takes second row. The truth is, you can't botch up at the front end with kit that's just not quite right - you'll realise too late that it's a waste of time.

What's the subject matter of your doc? And if you say it's about waste water systems in the 3rd world, I will **** a brick.

Cheers

Steve C

Ok, since no one else has talked about this:
a 90 minute documentary AIMED AT BROADCAST shot entirely in HD on either of these cameras is likely to be refused by the broadcaster.

Actually Shaun is completely correct. If you're going to make something and then tout it, it better be totally exclusive or they'll simply say thanks, but no thanks.

That said, I shoot SD news footage regularly and if it's just a few shots on a bright sunny day I'll get the HM100 out and have a play, pop the footage into a Final Cut SD timeline and hey presto. I've had the pixel-peepers onto it and they cannot fault it.

If you've got Cameron Diaz cleaning out that Rangoonian sewer, there will be a bidding war for your iPhone footage!

Steve,

That was a very good explanation of why the HM100 might not work. I should copy it and paste it for people who wonder why I shoot with an HM700 instead of a Canon SLR. Each camera is a tool and should be used at the proper time and place. The HM100 might work in some situations, but probably not very well for a broadcast or cinema application.

Thanks everyone for such long and helpful opinions. The replies are about in line with my original thinking but I just needed to test it on the forum - and to convince me to think straight! Thanks again.

Please forgive my ignorance, but could you explain for us newbies just why it would be rejected? Not looking for an argument, just curious.... :-)

Charles.

Shaun? Anyone? I too am curious like Charles. The HM100 is not up to broadcast scratch?

At the BBC, any camera has to be tested and certified for broadcast on BBC.
Normally, it is full raster 1920x1080 resolution, 4:2:2 color space, an at least 50mbits codec.

Here is the BBC site: BBC - Commissioning - Producing High-Definition TV
Here is some fo the tests they do: BBC R&D White Paper WHP034 - Alan Roberts

Other stations have different requirements

So the HM700, HM100U would not be considered broadcast quality by the BBC. But, many local TV stations in the US use HM700's

Discovery channel has it's own requirements, a little different from BBC.

The channels in the United States have a long list of OK formats, and basically it means if you bought a HD camera under $10,000 it's unacceptable. Panasonic HVX 200 is considered consumer HDV by most networks inspite of it carrying the DVCPROHD logo. It's not the same league as a HPX 500.

That being said, many of these exclusive networks for establish shows etc use some of the base models Sony HDV palmcorders for much of the footage like on "Deadliest Catch" because they are disposable. Who cares what it looks like, your watching crabbers at 4:00 am in a storm. just what did you expect it to look like?

So if your not looking at a minimum of $10k for a stripped down (without lens even) HPX-500, your not in the "OK" list to start with for many channels. If your program is exciting and awesome, then you learn of the sliding scale and you can probably get in.

However many news networks use the HM700 for all their live broadcasts, so the "OLD OK" list is changing.

The biggest thing I've run into is at the top of the list of "DON"T" no autofocus and no auto exposure. Unless it's a natural/human disaster, if they see it, they will refuse it.

If you slap a NanoFlash on the HM100 however, and use 100mbps or above, you might be off the hook for the BBC requirements. But, pixel shift might be the enemy of the HM100 so don't get your hopes up.

..nice solution, but...
 

Great idea re. NanoFlash Jack, but anyone know or can guess how much danger pixelshift on HM100 can bring to acceptance for broadcast? Anyone else out there using this setup?