Good day to everyone. I am about to upgrade to a new camera system and the HD110 is at the top of my list. I am a methodical person and relatively thorough with my research.

One of the things I notice is that there are more topics posted in this area than any of the other cameras. It's noteworthy at the least. Does that mean there are more users or these, or more problems with this system?

I am very interested to hear the challenges you have with these cameras. Not generalities that are available throughout this forum (which I have spent many hours reading). Real issues, aggravations that you have encountered in using these cameras.

This is not an attempt to bash the HD100/200 camera system. They are well established as great systems and widely used. But with every camera, no matter which brand, model etc., there are things that become annoyances that you can only discover after you have it in your hands producing content.

Finally, are you going to stick with your HD100/200, or are you considering an upgrade, and if so, what would it be? This may seem insignificant to some, but I think that someone that has been enjoying their HD100/200 for 2 or 3 years, and is going to change to something else may have some interesting insights.

Thanks in advance.

Joel

Sorry that I don't know much about your question... but hello from another first coaster!

Good to see I'm not the only person in the tri county area who logs on here ;)

Carl

Ive been using the hd100 for a while now here in the humid tropics. The system stood well. I use mine extensively for corporate work. TV spots , promotional videos. I use mine with a lens adapter.

Ted

HI JOEL

I had a XL1S/ SONY FX1
and i now have a 110. Its total PRO
Love this camra. i got the DR_HD100 (no more tapes) or you can use tape with the DR 100 if you choose, also a .NTG-1 mic I have had the Camera for 8 months
and have no issue's with it .Plus the fact you have such a great crew with DVi
they always help when you need it if its possible

Good Luck
Joe

I've had the HD200U for over a year now, and it's time for me to get serious about my cinema projects. I have a reservation for a RED, which I think is the only logical move for me. I'll be able to shoot 4k, 2k (1080p, 720p, if you wish). And edit natively on FCP 2.

Hi guys, sorry to deviate abit..

I'm on the same spot with JOEL....

I'm looking for an upgrade.. I have a DVX, XHA1.. and I'm looking to upgrade to either the HVX, or the HD110..

Hows the HD110 compared to HVX, the pros and con...

and if I'm gonna buy my HD110 next week, any top-5 pointers I should know?


Best regards
David
Singapore

I have been using the JVC HD100 for over 2 years now. Within a few weeks time I will shift to another camera system and another brand.

Though the HD100 was a reasonable tool to help me produce a couple of great videos, there are many concerns:
- the standard lens is poor, lots of CA, soft in the corners at full zoom, soft at low aperture
- not enough wide on the standard lens, almost always have the wide angle adapter on it
- at the start my HD100 suffered from the SSE (split screen error). One day it suddenly popped up, ruining a days work and leaving me with a rental HD100 for a few weeks. It was fixed a little when the a-upgrade was performed. Nevertheless at gain levels over +6 dB the split screen is always visible.
- only up to 720p
- low light performance is not good enough for me
- poor lcd screen, both color and readability during daylight/sunlight
- the standard jvc battery was a joke
- housing is very plastic and feels fragile

Some good points were:
- tapeless acquisition with the DR100, works great
- easy to operate, manual focus, knobs and buttons at the right places
- everything you need is there: 3ccd, XLR, 48v phantom, SD, HDV, zebra, skin details, lots of adjustments possible, lens controller possible
- shoulder cam
- possibility to use v-mount or ab-mount batteries

regards,
Erwin
-

The style of the camera... I work as a TV camera guy for my day job, so its nice that my HD-110 has controls in the same spot, and a lens that works the same way. The camera feels and behaves like I want it too- not like some little pro-sumer rig.

The camera can produce great pictures if you know what your doing. You can customize the look that the camera will output to your hearts content, and a real manual lense opens the door to all sorts of creative opportunities. If you don't have experience with broadcast cameras though this probably isn't the camera for you. I've known many DVX users who don't care for the HD-110 because they need to use it like they would a broadcast cam and they're not comfortable doing that.

I know there is alot of talk about CA with the lense, but I have only seen it appear verly slightly in extreme circumstances, and usually then by adjusting the zoom or iris ever so slightly it will go away. The thing that really annoys me with the stock lens is the insanely slow zoom speed. I end up turning the servo zoom off most the time and zooming manually.

Because the camera has true HD resolution chips, but are only 1/3 inch, you have some very tiny pixels crammed into a tiny space. One of the results of this is very poor low light performance. This camera sucks light. Even for simple indoor shoots that seem to have plenty of natural light I find myself setting up at least one 500w light with a softbox to help out.

Also, the HD-110 doesn't come in as complete as a package as the hvx does. Your going to need some sort of external battery system... I use IDX. I've also heard quite a bit of discussion with time code issues related in recording to tape, so I have a firestore mounted to the back of my cam. In short the configuration I'm happy with costs quite a bit more than just the camera, and I probably could have got away with the HVX for alot less money.

With that said though I wouldn't trade my HD-110 for anything.... except for a HD-200 or 250. If your used to the DVX and like it- and if your not familiar with broadcast cameras, I would say the HVX is probably your best bet. If your not satisfied with the DVX though and want something with ergonomics closer to what you get in a standard ENG/EFP camera than the HD-110 is the best choice. No camera is clearly better or worse though.... it all comes down to what you feel more comfortable using.

Along the lines of what Adam said...

I think it all comes down to ergonomics. I grew up on shoulder mounted cameras and simply cannot use the camcorder form factor (HVX and Sony) for my own work.

The 16x lens is sufficient and more importantly to me is a fully manual broadcast lens. I do a lot of run and gun work so I get more shots (and better) from a manual lens.

I suppose if you are used to the camcorder form factor then there will be a learning curve with the JVC's. That said, once you go with manual lenses you will never go back to fixed- ever!

I've had 2 HD200's for a year now running flawlessly every weekend.

Bottom line- they are maintenance free and making money.

Hi Joel
what make & model camera are you using now?

Joe

Hi Joel
what make & model camera are you using now?

Joe

I've got a couple of Sony HVR-A1u's, Panasonic DVC20, and a Panasonic AG-455.


Because the camera has true HD resolution chips, but are only 1/3 inch, you have some very tiny pixels crammed into a tiny space. One of the results of this is very poor low light performance. This camera sucks light. Even for simple indoor shoots that seem to have plenty of natural light I find myself setting up at least one 500w light with a softbox to help out.

I haven't really seen too much out there about low light being a problem with the hd100. Maybe I heven't looked in the right places. Interesting info.



- at the start my HD100 suffered from the SSE (split screen error). One day it suddenly popped up, ruining a days work and leaving me with a rental HD100 for a few weeks. It was fixed a little when the a-upgrade was performed. Nevertheless at gain levels over +6 dB the split screen is always visible.

Is the Split Screen issue still a factor with the 110 and new 200?

I suppose if you are used to the camcorder form factor then there will be a learning curve with the JVC's. That said, once you go with manual lenses you will never go back to fixed- ever!

The manual function of the lens is one of the attractions of this cam for me. I don't think I have ever had a camcorder that zoomed, focused or otherwise adjusted that way I wanted it to with the built-in controls.



Great feedback folks. I really appreciate it.

Hi guys, sorry to deviate abit..

I'm on the same spot with JOEL....

I'm looking for an upgrade.. I have a DVX, XHA1.. and I'm looking to upgrade to either the HVX, or the HD110..

Hows the HD110 compared to HVX, the pros and con...

and if I'm gonna buy my HD110 next week, any top-5 pointers I should know?


Best regards
David
Singapore

I don't see the HD110 as a major upgrade over a xha1.

HVX200? The image is softer than the HD110's but it has a better codec.
HVX200 has more features like variable frame rate but has extremely short record times, P2 cards are crazy expensive and viable archival solutions are very expensive (LTO's)

HVX200? The image is softer than the HD110's but it has a better codec.

I think that Walter Graff has spent a good amount of time and words in showing how these two cameras come really close to the same result. The HVX200 codec doesn't seem to make much difference and it's "better" only in regard to color encoding, it does chop off quite a bit of resolution, 960 horizontal pixels compared to 1280, and that is much more important to me. As I said many times, just say no to HDV in editing. Acquire the footage from the HD100 or any other HDV-based camera, convert it to Sheer or any other lossless codec and edit from there. Think of HDV as a capture-only format and you will not have any problem. I just shot a series of scenes with the HD100 with Green Screen in a less than optimal situation and it worked just fine. I got a key as clean as I could possibly expect from any HD camera.

I think that Walter Graff has spent a good amount of time and words in showing how these two cameras come really close to the same result. The HVX200 codec doesn't seem to make much difference and it's "better" only in regard to color encoding, it does chop off quite a bit of resolution, 960 horizontal pixels compared to 1280, and that is much more important to me. As I said many times, just say no to HDV in editing. Acquire the footage from the HD100 or any other HDV-based camera, convert it to Sheer or any other lossless codec and edit from there. Think of HDV as a capture-only format and you will not have any problem. I just shot a series of scenes with the HD100 with Green Screen in a less than optimal situation and it worked just fine. I got a key as clean as I could possibly expect from any HD camera.

Graff's tests corroborated an earlier shootout regarding the JVC's slightly sharper image.

I can't speak authoritatively on the efficacy of the 960 pixel count, the topic has been hashed over about a zillion times here, however the arguments I read regarding pixel shifting convinced me that there was some mitigation in regards to the HVX's less than HD pixel count.

I do what Paolo does, intermediary codec called Cineform. Best thing since orange juice. HDV has been beat up because of its inadequacy in post, the IC totally solves the issue. You don't need some Octacore Freon cooled nuclear powered computer either, just need a little bit of storage--and that's no problem because they're practically giving away hard drives these days. So HDV gets trashed all the time, but looks like the hottest thing down the pike is the Sony Xdcam EX. And guess what format it shoots in? a juicier version of HDV.

I think that Walter Graff has spent a good amount of time and words in showing how these two cameras come really close to the same result. The HVX200 codec doesn't seem to make much difference and it's "better" only in regard to color encoding, it does chop off quite a bit of resolution, 960 horizontal pixels compared to 1280, and that is much more important to me. As I said many times, just say no to HDV in editing. Acquire the footage from the HD100 or any other HDV-based camera, convert it to Sheer or any other lossless codec and edit from there. Think of HDV as a capture-only format and you will not have any problem. I just shot a series of scenes with the HD100 with Green Screen in a less than optimal situation and it worked just fine. I got a key as clean as I could possibly expect from any HD camera.

Ciao Paolo
I didn't understand how do you capture the material, and how do you use it inside FCP? Can you explain the steps and setups?

Sorry that I don't know much about your question... but hello from another first coaster!

Good to see I'm not the only person in the tri county area who logs on here ;)

Carl

What do you shoot with Carl?

Ciao Paolo
I didn't understand how do you capture the material, and how do you use it inside FCP? Can you explain the steps and setups?
There a lot of posts about the workflow but here is a quick summary for the HD100:

- If you have short takes, a few minutes each, just connect the camera to your computer via FW and press Cmd-8 in FCP open the log and capture window. Just did it for the aforementioned GS shots and it worked fine.
- If you have long takes or you can't get FCP to capture in the right way the use HDVxDV or Apple DVHS-Cap to capture the .m2t files ( data from the tape )
- Use MPEG Streamclip to convert the clips to .mov files using your codec of choice. At this point it would be the wrong choice, IMHO, to use the Panosonic codec given the pixel reduction mentioned before. SheerVideo ( http://www.bitjazz.com ) offers excellent compression without loss of data and it's my preferred method for rountripping between FCP and AfterEffects (or Shake, or SynthEyes or...). Remember to set the frame rate in MPEG Streamclip if you capture at 24p ( frame rate = 23.976 ).

At this point you have QuickTime files that can be used in FCP or any other applications.

I have had the HD100 for about a year and a half. I like it. Never has given me too many problems, never have had to send it back...knock on everything.
I am still learning to use it as I was not a video camera operator when I bought it. Best bang for the buck. I see them used for 2.5k, I paid 5k for mine.
I might have bought the panni but the P2 issue was too much for me($$$).
I have the AB battery, a better mic, wide adapter, and will be getting a letus lens adapter soon. All I need for what I do. I bought Cineform Aspect HD as I am PC PPRo2 based. The files are as easy to use a DV, capture thru render.
My experience with the camera has been great so far.
Jon

I've had my HD200 (with a 17X Fujinon lens) for a few months now. I've been able to shoot some incredible video with it. The high def stuff looks fantastic. I rent it out to a friend and he constantly raves about the camera. He prefers it to the Z1 and HVX.
I do think its low light capabilities aren't the best. Understand I come from 2/3" chip broadcast cams, so I'm used to better low-light performance. What happened to the talk about some kind of JVC low-light level upgrade?
It's ergos are top-notch. I shot a week long, mostly hand-held production and the low weight and terrific balance of the camera was a godsend.
Using the DR-HD100 makes editing so much easier. Just plug the HD100 into your editing system, download the files and you're set to go. More or less.

I do what Paolo does, intermediary codec called Cineform. Best thing since orange juice. HDV has been beat up because of its inadequacy in post, the IC totally solves the issue. You don't need some Octacore Freon cooled nuclear powered computer either, just need a little bit of storage--and that's no problem because they're practically giving away hard drives these days. So HDV gets trashed all the time, but looks like the hottest thing down the pike is the Sony Xdcam EX. And guess what format it shoots in? a juicier version of HDV.


Brian:

Do you smartrender any of your HDV?

Jeff

After a year and a half of the HD100 and shooting footage for documentaries, a music video and several instructional videos, I can vouch that the camera will give you some astounding images and the camera is designed for hand held videography unlike the cinderblock HVX200 but I have to reiterate some of the previous comments.

The lens is workable but the problems of CA and shallow wide angle are there. The CA never really affected my work but I find myself in situations where I can't get far enough back from the subjects for an establishing shot. I am not sure if the HVX200 is any better out of the box but I do know that a wide angle adapter would be much cheaper for the HVX. In fact I have an upcoming project that I will be shooting scenes in the back of a taxi and I'll probably use a small Sony HDV camera instead of the HD100 and worry about integrating the formats later.

The camera is heavier (especially with an adequate battery) so a quick subway trip to a shoot is not as easy as with a smaller camera.

On the plus side, it uses tape (or an optional hard drive) which would have helped my friend with his HVX200 last month. On the road, he shot hours and hour of footage and since he couldn't afford many P2 cards he was transfering the data to a hard drive. Well guess what happened? The new hard drive had a massive failure and poof! No more footage, forever. The memory card system of the HVX200 requires a much heftier investment for safe storage of data than the tape based HDV format. I'm sticking with tape for the while (while using the hard drive, either could be considered the backup).

Brian:

Do you smartrender any of your HDV?

Jeff

errrr...what exactly is smart render? I use Vegas 6, never seen any smart render function there.

After a year and a half of the HD100 and shooting footage for documentaries, a music video and several instructional videos, I can vouch that the camera will give you some astounding images and the camera is designed for hand held videography...

In fact I have an upcoming project that I will be shooting scenes in the back of a taxi and I'll probably use a small Sony HDV camera instead of the HD100 and worry about integrating the formats later.

The camera is heavier (especially with an adequate battery) so a quick subway trip to a shoot is not as easy as with a smaller camera.


Sony 1080i? Would you convert to progressive (if that was what you were filming in on the JVC)? I can see the need to have a smaller HD cam within your 'arsenal'.
The JVC is fairly heavy - I've done work where I've had to shoot scenes across an entire city...it was too time consuming to pack away this and a tripod so I eventually carried the tripod (libec LS38) and HD100 on my shoulders for the best part of a day...I lost several hundred pounds (weight btw) on those days.

So glad I chose this camera over the other, smaller, interlaced, auto functioned to the hilt camera's...it's taught me in a fairly quick time the functionaility of a 'real' video/film camera. It's look alone garners respect and the HD filmic look is fantastic for it's price.
Of course, I'm no expert but there's enough of them on here who use (very well) and talk highly of this/these cameras.

Recent work using HD 720p25 and slow mo SD50p really looks lovely.

The HD100 was the first camera i had ever used. I had no interest in video at all before I purchased it, and spent most of my time on my dad's old nikon and his trusty manual focus lenses periodically experimenting with B&W photography for fun.

Coming from somewhere with no experience whatsoever, I can tell you that the HD100 is a wonderful tool to have in your arsenal- its very intuitive, and just feels "right" when using it. Thanks to the incredibly helpful, friendly community and the classy pro's on this board such as Tim Dashwood, Paolo Ciccone, Nate Weaver, etc (the list is long) I was up and running in one weekend. Im glad and definitely blessed to have been given the opportunity to own one and while its just a tool, there was without a doubt a certain magical connection that I had from operator-to camera that felt like I was holding on to my dad's old nikon again. The very first project EVER that I had filmed was a running "commercial" for class in black and white- and the HD100 blew me away with its organic and filmic look. Is the SSE there? It can be. Is it controllable? Absolutely. The viewfinder? Yeah its a little flimsy but at its price point I have to tell you that when I purchased it for over 5 grand two years ago it felt like ALOT more camera than 5 grand worth. I have yet to see a camera of ANY kind that didnt have flaws or workarounds, but most important to me, the HD100 has NEVER let me down when I needed it to be there, and that alone makes it worth the price. If I were you, Id own both the JVC and HVX- they really do fill in for roles that the other struggles with. Id like to own an HVX at some point so I can see for myself what all the craze is about rather than just messing with one, but honestly if I could only choose one Id choose the JVC all over again and better yet, if I was doing really well Id go with the 200 and never look back.

Plus it doesnt help that I am totally reliant on JVC's focus assist- I really dont get why every camera doesnt have one like it and it I always miss it when I work with other cameras.

Sony 1080i? Would you convert to progressive (if that was what you were filming in on the JVC)? I can see the need to have a smaller HD cam within your 'arsenal'.


Indeed, I would de-interlace the Sony footage while the whole project would be converted to ProRes (FCP) or something similar. It's all an experiment, the whole project is going to be heavily processed anyway (in terms of image) so I think I'll be able to get away with mixing 720p and 1080i.

On the plus side, it uses tape (or an optional hard drive) which would have helped my friend with his HVX200 last month. On the road, he shot hours and hour of footage and since he couldn't afford many P2 cards he was transfering the data to a hard drive. Well guess what happened? The new hard drive had a massive failure and poof! No more footage, forever. The memory card system of the HVX200 requires a much heftier investment for safe storage of data than the tape based HDV format. I'm sticking with tape for the while (while using the hard drive, either could be considered the backup).

Most folks that have used these for a while highly recommend the Hard Disk Drive. I am also cautious about a totally disk based solution without some sort of backup.

Data corruption is real. And when it occurs, it is without any warning. A real advantage seems to be the dual record option of tape with the Disk.

Most folks that have used these for a while highly recommend the Hard Disk Drive. I am also cautious about a totally disk based solution without some sort of backup.

Data corruption is real. And when it occurs, it is without any warning. A real advantage seems to be the dual record option of tape with the Disk.

Ya. An underappreciated advantage of the HD100 is the ability to have redundant back ups with a hard drive recorder. The camera covers your ass.

errrr...what exactly is smart render? I use Vegas 6, never seen any smart render function there.

Brian:

I hope you are kidding about still using Vegas 6. Even Vegas 7 was much better.

But now we are on Vegas 8. Smartrender is in Vegas 8 and does not re-encode, or touch at all, HDV clips on the timeline that have not been edited. By doing this you save render time by Vegas "skipping" over this material and better yet, it is a lossless transfer with no degradation of quality.

Jeff

Brian:

I hope you are kidding about still using Vegas 6. Even Vegas 7 was much better.

But now we are on Vegas 8. Smartrender is in Vegas 8 and does not re-encode, or touch at all, HDV clips on the timeline that have not been edited. By doing this you save render time by Vegas "skipping" over this material and better yet, it is a lossless transfer with no degradation of quality.

Jeff

Well, thing is, Vegas 6 and cineform work really well for me. The only thing intriguing about version 8 is the improved titler.

Great personal reviews guys..

I do understand the HVX much difference is due to the P2 workflow and size, how bout the A1, it records on tape, small and seem to be only lacking in 50p option.

Anyone up to comment on the HD110 to Canon's XHA1?

Great personal reviews guys..

I do understand the HVX much difference is due to the P2 workflow and size, how bout the A1, it records on tape, small and seem to be only lacking in 50p option.

Anyone up to comment on the HD110 to Canon's XHA1?

I'd sum it up like so, more or less the same picture quality.
The Canon is cheaper, but the JVC has the more ergonomic pro design and the ability to use different lenses.

I have shot with both and like the HD110 better. The A1 is good for low profile shooting, but I am not happy with the ergonomics of the A1. I much prefer a Sony Z1 or JVC HD110.

I think that it matters on your shooting style.

Both cameras can produce good images.

Daniel Weber

Ive got to agree with Daniel. Ive used the XH-G1 for several projects and for handheld work I don't really like the way its balanced. Its not as heavy or bulky as the HVX but its longer than you would expect too. Put these cams on sticks and these issues disappear, but being able to get rock solid images from my shoulder cant be beat. Between the XH-A1 or the HD110, I would say to go with the 110 for that reason alone.

Between the XH-A1 or the HD110, I would say to go with the 110 for that reason alone.

Agreed. Seems like small thing, but good run and gun capability opens up so many options...

I love the lens. The 17x, anyway, but not so much anyX, more the manual style. You need another camera, however. My HD250 just can't fill as many rolls as a smaller, high quality camera can. Shooting in a car, shooting an on the road doc from cramped quarters - not strong suits of the HD250.

That said, I am more than fine with 720p; am surprised at how good it scales up (like, for instance with Smoothcam); want a second camera anyway; love feeling/shooting/looking like a "pro"; have minor complaints that I would with any other camera; got a good deal on it; and have finally come to the other side of the "oh crap, I need image stabilization; I wish I'd gotten 2x A1s, this thing is huge."

.02

on size issues, especially when shooting in vehicles, in my mates landcruiser I could shoot from one side of the cabin to the other from passenger seat, but this camera is long, in a chopper I had to sit the camera on my lap because on the shoulder it would have hit the pilot in the head, mind you it was a RU22, about the smallest chopper you can fly at 400kg. Image stabilization would be good for any vehicle shooting.
But for solid performance and useability, and expandability, and with the DRDH100 Reliability it's a great camera, mind you all rigged up with 95wh battery, DRDH100, NTG2, Chrosziel MB, it's like at least 10KG's. Oh that a 3rd party would make a better EVF with at least 50 more lines, and a better shoulder pad with more of a deeper/plush curve so it hugs the shoulder more for all day shoulder shooting. (Which at least you can do with this camera like with weddings etc!)

... aside from all of the above (FCP probs, poor low-light capability, viewfinder/monitor issues, need at least a wide angle adaptor - I use a RedEye - etc); I have a couple of minor gripes:

1: - the XLR plugs should be 90 degree L type plugs; as spec the camera mic XLR and my Sennheiser radio mic XLR stick out too far, catch on clothing, get bashed, generally make a nuisance of themselves. An easy fix, of course, but therefore one that JVC could make at the factory.

2: - the carrying strap mounts are in the wrong place. Esp the rear mount. I have a V-lock battery system, so sling the string from there. The factory sling mount is on the rear of the carrying handle which is all wrong.

Otherwise though, a cracking little camera, with Fab ergonomics, and feels and works like a proper 50k camera most of the time for a tenth of the price. Mine's been in cyclones in Mozambique, in firefights in Mogadishu, in riots in Pakistan, up close and personal with rhinos in Zimbabwe; and it just keeps on rolling.

Cool kit.

Hello all! Ive got 2 Hd110u's, based my whole new studio around them after careful research. One drawback that I didnt know in advance, but couldnt have afforded to rectify....and am not technically advanced to test on my own though I'm trying...
I believe that the 250 is the only model capable of outputting uncompressed HD signal via HDMI. I may be mistaken, and that the 200 does as well, but on the 100 and 110 by the time the feed is coming out the firewire its compressed into HDV. The JVC Pro HD page tech specs say it doesnt output 24 to component while recording. So any 24p work would have to go to HDV, meaning it gets compressed to Mpeg2. I have monitored via a small lcd screen via component while recording 24p, but it may bhave been converting it, i couldnt tell.
Ive been meaning to test the live firewire feed via Adobe On Location, but been busy. Ill get on it. I know it works, and that I get audio and video signal, and can test waveform and vectorscope from what the cameras getting, but I dont know what actual framerate or resolution Im getting via firewire
That issue aside, this cam has gotten compliments from all the DP's and editors I have talked to here in Spokane, Very flexible in formats, and all the control you need.
I do have questions about its white balancing though. Ive gotten it to read 3200 with a red tone via presets, and 3200 with a blue tone when doing the auto balance. This may be from my inexperience with White Balancing

Last thing. Ive seen posts about the split screen and actually saw it on one of my cams, dont remember testing the other at the time. In my case it was due to low lighting, and as soon as I get light to a pro level, that picture is fine. But check your cam as soon as you get it, under both conditions. You shouldnt need to over-light to get rid of this effect, but it IS true that these cams NEED light. DONT USE GAIN. Ive seen others post it, and tested myself. adding more than 3 db in gain will add visible noise to the image.

I received my 110 about a month ago. Up till now I have been using it DV outdoors (sunlight) and with studio lighting. The results were very good. I then used it at an event in a large hall with incandescent lighting along with my trusty PD170 and a Panny DVX100B. In my opinion there was plenty of available light. I must admit that I was somewhat disappointed with the 110. As opposed to the other cameras I had to open the lens all the way to get a decent exposure (0 db gain). Of course this led to a lot of CA. I do a lot of event work and am somewhat dissatisfied with the low light performance of the 110. I am worried that when I shoot stage performances that may be somewhat dark that I will have to use gain to get a decent exposure. Other than that I really love the camera. All the controls are in the right spots and it is a shoulder mount.

I must admit that the image was much crisper than either the Sony or Panny tho......

Regards,
Jerry

I have to say something, and this is my opinion but... Every single thing (aside from the SSE problem) that people have complained about this camera, are all the things that a REAL camera is. This is a filmmaker camera, and i think a while ago in another post i said something similar.

people complain about its size, being to big or heavy... people complain about no auto focus... people complain about no built in steady shot... people complain about its low light problems... ALL of these issues are on REAL cameras! Its what makes shooting what it is.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but it is for me annoying to hear people complain about buying a camera to shoot indi-films and shorts and complain about these issues. The people who are complaining about these issues have obviously not watch DVD extras and behind the sceans of any movie they own, because if they did they would notice the tons of gear behind the cameras sometimes just to hold them up. The reason why films look like they do and "feel" like they do is because of all the issues you are complaining about. Dont knock it because you dont know how to use it properly or cant handle the weight... Do you know how much a sony F900 weighs without batteries ??

I have grown up watching cinematographers luge huge cameras around (well their camera assistants as well haha) and they don't say... wow this arriflex should be lighter and have an auto focus gear and should work well in low light without special film stock and on and on... the films look like they do because they are lit properly, shoulder mounted shots in real films look great not because the camera is light but because its heavy, it steadies out the shots. The cameras they use on films like an ariiflex extreme, depending on the lens in front of it, are longer than the hd 110 and they rig them on cars... in planes, everywhere!

If you want to start shooting with a camera and learn how to actually become a cinematographer, then these complaints shouldn't be on your mind. Me along with a few of my DP friends all have the same feeling on this subject, its what actually makes you a camera man. Its what actually teaches you how to shoot. Anyone can grab a dvx100a set it on auto focus and walk around and shoot with limited manual exposure... wow that took a lot of skill... (sarcasm) But to have in your head all the complications of lighting, apature settings, shutter speeds, camera rigging, focus issues, camera movement, ect, ect... then you are actually becoming a real shooter. Watch "Children of Men" lots of hand held shots with a heavy film camera, that has to be focused on the fly while making sure subjects are in frame and marks are being hit. Now thats a pain in the ass, and a sweat-filled-shirt of a job. They dont complain, they love it.

I guess why i sound so mad is because i really appreciate what cinematographers go through to get the shots that we grew up watching. And i hate when i see aspiring filmmakers actually complain about the very things that will be teaching them how to shoot. Are they really that spoiled that we don't want to control our own focus on a subject in a film, i mean i can understand in wedding photography, but thats not what this camera was built for.

I dont see problems with this camera, i only see this camera as the way it should be, complete manual control over just about everything so as an artist/cinematographer, you can control every aspect. With all these auto functions and loss of weight, and no shoulder mounting capabilities and the worst of all ... INTERLACED formats... think to yourself... if you like these things, then maybe you are looking at the wrong camera and maybe even wrong field of work. (i know that sentence might strike a few of you as harsh, but its how i personally feel)

Please for the love of god HD/2k/4k 24p 180 degree shutter, fast prime lenses and nice solid lighting. If you wanna make your film look like "film" live by these restrictions don't knock them, USE them, they are helping you believe it or not... they allow you to use your brain instead of the cameras.

Let the hate mail flood gates open haha... thanks for reading my crazy rant.

people complain about its size, being to big or heavy... people complain about no auto focus...


Giuseppe, all these are great points and I think that should be re-iterated often in the pages of forums like this. The fact is, like with everything, when something becomes popular, in other words, it escapes the "controls" of the professionals who worked in a particular sector of the industry, a lot of wrong assumptions are made. Either because of inexperience or for commercial interests of the parties that have vested interest. For example, it's a well known thing that Internet Explorer is the most broken browsers out there. Even the version of Opera built-in in my Nintendo Wii works more accurately than IE. Nevertheless 75% or so of people insist in using IE with the result that Web developers like myself spend days and days just to work around bugs in IE while the unmodified page works on ANY other browser out there. Do you have any idea how infuriating is that ;)?

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. And that is the reason why it's so misunderstood. Because cameras are so cheap and popular, like in many other cases, people start using the tool without going to the traditional education that formed previous generations of filmakers. I give you another example. Today's non-destructive editing tools like Aperture or Lightroom allow us to frame our still photos with ease and that seems like a great technological achievement. I had the great luck to learn that skill when I was probably 14 or 15. My father used the develop his films in house (B&W stills) and I got my introduction to photography in those years. As I entered the dark room for the first time I assumed that the process was technical in nature. It was at the end of the chain that I realized that you could reframe your picture by raising of lowering the projector and by shifting and rotating the paper. The realization that you didn't need to frame the negative perfectly in the limits of the paper was an eye opening experience and taught me about cropping way before the first PC was invented (I guess I'm dating myself here).
As with framing, focus used to be a tools that was taught to aspiring filmmakers when the pros where more or less in control of the craft. As people acquire "independence" because of technology, everything seems to become a technology issue and they fail to see the use of focus as an artistic tool, it becomes just a requirement to make the shot, as much as putting the subject perfectly in the center of the frame ;) Understanding that focus is another "brush stroke" is the turning point in becoming an artist of the frame. I think that Mullen's observation summarizes the essence of the misunderstanding in this field and why people who look at the technical issue see it as a shortcoming.

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. And that is the reason why it's so misunderstood. Because cameras are so cheap and popular, like in many other cases, people start using the tool without going to the traditional education that formed previous generations of filmakers.

Thank you for taking your time out to read my long rant by the way.

M. David Mullen ASC was the cinematographer for "The Astronaut Farmer" a movie I've been dieing to see actually. I feel bad because I dont want to come off as a know it all, but I would like to have people at least not shut the door to these things that make half of the film. I learn about film every day i edit or shoot, you continue to learn until you die i believe.

I guess im old fashioned? I change that statement im not because if i was i would be shooting film... I push the digital age, I love that i can take a $5k camera and shoot something that would normally take a ton of money in film processing and developing and converting to a digital intermediate. But i guess i still appreciate where it all came from. I think just because things are turning digital, doesn't mean we have to forget the way film is shot.

Who knows, maybe im just a crazy man who thinks too much about this? Ill shut up now... but yes despite its "problems" its a tool, and i personally think a good one at that. I am so glad JVC put the effort into making such a tool for people who can appreciate its capabilities while keeping the price so cheap. For me, when it first came out, it was a turning point in digital cinematography. Sure its not a 1920x1080 picture... but all of these other HDV cameres are so consumer targeted, its a breath of fresh air that a company went forth to make something of a more professional standard/build.

Its late... i worked all day... sorry haha.

We do a large mixed assortment of projects, from live event imag services to documentary style films and training videos. Prior to purchasing our slew of HD-110's, we used JVC GY-DV5000's and loved them. But we did want something a bit more portable and a bit lighter, so we designed our operation around the 110.

I can't say that we made the wrong decision, but the 110's definitely do have their faults. Although they do feel nicely on your shoulder and look more like a "pro" camera, for us, we really miss the low light performance we got from the 5000's. When it comes to most indoor events, we have really found that may of times, 0 db is not acceptable, sometimes having to push it beyond. The translation is GAIN = GRAIN, which for us can begin to yeild some pretty unacceptable results.

In daylight and outdoors, the cameras look superb. We have never had any problems with our cameras in regards to functionality, just in lower light conditions which we run into on a very regular basis. We don't always have the time, budget or clearances to run extra lighting for some of our projects, so for us, getting something that is goign to be a bit better in those situations will be beneficial.

So we have decided to sell our cameras and opt for the Sony EX1's. It was a hard decision because we have never really used any cameras other than shoulder mount cameras. We never really liked the "handheldness" of the Sonys, Panys and Canons. It's nice that the JVC "looks" good on the outside, but from what we have seen, the Sony is going to produce much more acceptable results. The 720p thing never really bothered us until we lost a couple of jobs with clients that wanted their project produced in 1080p for future scalability.

One of the major concerns we contimplated with a handheld type camera like the EX1 was that shooting without a tripod was going to be harder to get a steady shot and provide more strain on the operator. Sometimes we have 8-10 hour long events and holding your wrist in the air for that amount of time without having your shoulder to rest the camera on was going to be difficult. We ultimately decided that we would just get some sort of a steadicam type unit to take strain off, or if we needed to do some actuall handheld shooting, we could at least purchase a full size F series XDCAM, and we would not have to sacrafice image quality.

Bottom line is that JVC has always been very good to us. Their cameras have always been very nice looking and produced very nice images in good conditions. But we now need something that is going to be great in a wide variety of conditions, and I believe the 1/2" sony is going to be much more accomodating and acceptable to a wider range of clients in the years to come. Direct to disc built in is where it's at (no more homemade creative Firestore mounts to mount on the cameras) and better images along with an improved workflow should yeild more $$$ in the years to come.

* Another cheap plug: We do have our last GY-HD110 available in the classifieds.....*

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. .

Is the Mullen interview on your site? He's a great resource and is particularly knowledgeable on HD Video.

What do you shoot with Carl?

Joel,

I shoot with a Z1U, Bogen 503 on wilderness legs, edit with AspectHD & Premiere, currently building a FCS2 machine.

Sorry I missed your message originally!

Carl

Is the Mullen interview on your site? He's a great resource and is particularly knowledgeable on HD Video.

Not yet. It will see the light of the day at some point.