I am trying to reconcile the absolute certainty I previously felt about the GR-HD1 with the uncertainty this forum has introduced. First, some reference points:

The #1 Google result for the search term "jvc hd" returns an article with this picture:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_scr.jpg

Now, I look at this picture and can immediately see that it is TOTALLY superior to ANY image that could be produced with mini-DV. I think that is a fair and objective statement. Without getting into questions of contrast ratio or resolution, let me try an limit this to questions of color exclusively. I don't know what the technical terms are for discussing color in video, but I have been using an XL1, and watching reality tv shows on televsion shows and so on, and have started identifying mini-DV footage as "beige-vision".

This GR-HD1 image, by contrast, isn't limited by mini-DV "beige-vision" constraints at all--not only are the colors vivid, but the CCD seems to subtly mute the color palette so that the colors seem to work better _with each other_. (I know, to a large extent this has to be attributed to the subject of the photograph above, a Las Vegas casino, but nevertheless, I have noticed that HD seems to have a characteristic way of handling colors that is subtly muted and pleasing).

So that was my point of view yesterday and the day before. Now, hunting through this forum, I see various complaints about the JVC, including:

- it doesn't handle low light well
- it doesn't handle indoor natural lighting well
- it doesn't have a full array of manual controls

I am seeking some semi-objective reassurances and caveats concerning this camera's ability to perform as an image capturing tool.

1) How are the FX1 and similar cameras superior to the HD1?
2) Isn't the GR-HD1 TOTALLY superior to the DVX-100 concerning color?
3) Can the GR-HD1 handle a wide variety of lens adapters?
4) What are the biggest weaknesses of this camera?
5) What manual controls, specifically, are missing that would be helpful?
6) What are some specific circumstances where the camera's performance falters, and what are the solutions?

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful responses.



* The full article is http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/jvc_grhd1_fi_camcorder_review.htm and contains the following links to other pictures also taken by the HD1 http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_2.bmp http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_3.bmp http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_4.bmp http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_5.bmp http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_6.bmp http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_7.bmp

Let me see if I can help with your questions :)

1) The FX1 and other HDV cameras which will be hitting the market soon are vastly superior in their low light capability, color rendition, and manual controls. If you don't need manual then the HD1 may be ok.

2) No! The DVX is 3CC the HD1 is 1CCD. That right there not only decreases resolution (bayer pattern) but it gives the image a much flater look. You could easily mimick the image of the HD1 with a DVX - just have to play around with the settings. Same goes for an XL2. But yes, I can see what you mean about handling color interaction better. IMO that comes from a lack of intense saturation that many in the DV world attempt to achieve when going for a "film look." You should be able to achieve this very effect in the cameras controls with the DVX or XL2.

3) Don't know :)

4) Well what is your intended purpose? If you plan on going to film then the 30p frame rate will be really bad (it doesn't work out to 24 easily at all). If your just going to DVD (or perhaps soon to be HD DVD/Blueray) then the lack of manual control and low latitude would be the next in line.

5) Iris, shutter speed and focus are the three I know of (not entirely sure about the focus thing).

6) Low light - dump more light onto the set!
Low latitude - control your lighting very well
30p - no good for film

I love 30p personally but if film is an intended use then 30p will be the last frame rate on the list to shoot with.

Hopefully that was semi-objective. I've only played with the camera briefly instore so take my words with a grain of salt.

EDIT: forgot to mention that the camera has a TON of edge enhancement. This may or may not be bothersome to you.

<<<--
2) No! The DVX is 3CC the HD1 is 1CCD. That right there not only decreases resolution (bayer pattern) but it gives the image a much flater look. You could easily mimick the image of the HD1 with a DVX - just have to play around with the settings. Same goes for an XL2. But yes, I can see what you mean about handling color interaction better. IMO that comes from a lack of intense saturation that many in the DV world attempt to achieve when going for a "film look." You should be able to achieve this very effect in the cameras controls with the DVX or XL2.

5) Iris, shutter speed and focus are the three I know of (not entirely sure about the focus thing).

EDIT: forgot to mention that the camera has a TON of edge enhancement. This may or may not be bothersome to you. -->>>

* * *

• Can anybody PROVE that a color image that has come out of a DVX-100 is comparable to an HD image?

• Can anybody point to a DVX image which transcends the beige-vision nature of DV?

• Does anybody deny that DV is beige-vision?

* * *

#5: Ack! The HD1 doesn't have manual iris control, manual shutter speed or manual focus controls????

* * *

EDIT: Is edge enhancement that thing in video where the edges alway look extra dark? I thought that was just a characteristic of video. That is actually something that cameras _try_ to do?

Hey Steve,

I know the DVX can make a nice picture for my purposes at least. Technically, there is no more color information in a DVX image vs that in a HD image *ratio wise.* MPEG2 HD is a 4:2:0 color space while the DVX and DV in general record in 4:1:1 (or 4:2:0 if you live in PAL land). Same color ratio different organizations. The problem I have with the HD1s color is that it's created from a bayer pattern. Now, what really matters is the image itself but bayer patterns cut the resolution of the image down a bit and tend to have less realisitic colors.

You seem to be quite happy with the colors though so it may be fine for you. What is it about the images you see here that differs from DV? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Could you post a grab or something demonstrating what you mean? You may very well be right, I just can't say as I'm not sure I understand!

I know the HD1 does NOT have manual iris or shutter. I'm not 100% certain about the focus.

Edge enhancement is indeed the extra dark edges that you see in video. Often it appears as a halo around an object - either black or white. Yes, cameras really do try to do this! it adds to the percieved sharpness of the image but it also makes the footage look electronic and harsh. I know you can turn the sharpness setting down (to 100% off) on the XL2 and DVX. I'm absolutely certain that this cannot be changed on the HD1.

Do you need a camera now? If not you should probably wait until NAB. There will be some more HD options introduced and I'm guessing prices on current cameras will drop a bit.

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw : Hey Steve,

You seem to be quite happy with the colors though so it may be fine for you. What is it about the images you see here that differs from DV? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Could you post a grab or something demonstrating what you mean? You may very well be right, I just can't say as I'm not sure I understand!
-->>>

I did a search on "DVX100 pictures" and this is the first result I found.

The pictures come from American Cinematographer so it is a fairly safe bet that the operator was a fairly competent photographer.

http://www.24p.com/ASC_Pictures.htm

Now what is the first thing you see when you look at these pictures? BEIGE.

It drives me CRAZY that you DVX users pretend not to see this. It is BEIGE. EVERYTHING IS BEIGE!!!!

Honestly, I don't see it. Sorry! Can you be more specific about what you are seeing? If anything the 35mm on that website looks more beige in my mind than the DVX. Maybe I'm just not understanding which specific thing you are talking about?

Part of what you may be refering to is a lack of contrast. That's a common thing when the DVX is used with cinegamma. It's meant to maximize dynamic range. There are, however, other options which give a punchier picture such as cinegamma-v. You can go to either extreme with the camera. That's not a color thing of course but a rendition of the light and dark areas which can be changed about in several different ways.

Here's a nice site that has some good footage. I believe it was all shot with cinegamma but it does display what the camera can do well. I can't find any good comparison grabs at the moment. I'll have to sit down and shoot some stuff with varying in camera settings to get some decent stuff to post.

http://www.pinelakefilms.com/

EDIT: Just thought of something else. Most DVX footage has the sharpness setting turned WAY down. That might also add to the lack of contrast that you are seeing. The HD1 has this in plenty of course.

Take the last ASC picture, the picture of the color chart.

I think it is obvious that if you compare the DVX color chart picture with the HD pictures that the DVX colors look muddy. The DVX colors look dirty! Like they need to be put in the laundry! Here are the links:

http://www.24p.com/asc_web/35mm_Macbeth.jpg

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/articles/jvc_hd_scr.jpg

For my part, I am satisfied, and thank you for putting me thru this exercise.

Hopefully someone else will chime in and give some opinions as well. I hear you on the colors. I think it's a lack of contrast between colors yes? They just don't pop out from each other?

Anyway, best wishes for you whatever you decide to get :). I'd recommend waiting until after NAB if you can though. There will be many more alternatives then!

I think I know what Steve means by 'beige' tones, but as Aaron says it's just lack of contrast and sharpeness. It may also have to do with the cinegamma settings used in each shot.

The HD1 colors are definitely more vivid and contrasty, but that's only due the worse color latitude. You can easily achieve this in post with images captured with a DVX100.

Also, all the HD1 shots that you (Steve) posted don't have people on them or high contrast situations (sun/shade). It would become more apparent the problems you may encouter when shooting skin tones during daylight.

Don't get me wrong, I think the HD1/HD10 are great cameras and deserve much more credit then they get, but the DVX100A is, overall, a better camera.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand :
The HD1 colors are definitely more vivid and contrasty, but that's only due the worse color latitude. You can easily achieve this in post with images captured with a DVX100. -->>>

Pardon me if I sound skeptical, and if I am paraphrasing wrong, but aren't you saying the reason the HD1 is reproducing colors more accurately than DV, and with greater tonal variety, is because the HD1 is dealing with a _smaller_ color palette?

Chris Hurd removed some comments I made about group-think because he felt they were offensive, but to reiterate, I have this growing suspicion that the primary reason the DVX retains dominant mindshare is because everybody keeps reiterating how it is the best.

The point of view I am investigating is simple. While the DVX may, at the end of the day, be a better camera than the XL2, or at least a much much better value, it is of a format that is already on its deathbed. Yeah, on its deathbed. Not a new thought. The foundation of this argument--insofar as it has been developed--is that take just about any two random images, one HD and one miniDV, and it is immediately apparent using the naked eye that HD is reproducing color more vividly, accurately and pleasingly than miniDV. That's the conclusion I have come to based all the footage I have seen so far.

In other words, I have yet to see a miniDV image that has anything close to the tonal variety expressed in that HD1 shot. Not one. Dave, asserting that the DVX is "just a better camera" is certainly a common enough type of comment. It's very easy to read that kind of comment all day long in any number of posts. Frankly, the sheer volume of that type of commentary had me believing that miniDV was a contender.

But I have yet to see a.single.image that demonstrates this idea that any miniDV camera can deal with color in the same league--doctored in post or undoctored. I genuinely am very interested in being shown another POV, but simply positing something doesn't make it so. Saying that you can remove the "muddy" quality on the color chart in post by lowering the contrast doesn't make it so. Saying that 3 chips is better than one doesn't make it so. Making technical assertions in the abstract doesn't make it so. Only a picture will prove it.

Again, I've got nothing invested in this argument--I don't need to justify my ownership or use of any one camera. But it seems to me to be quantifiably obvious that, relative to HD images, miniDV colors are INHERENTLY muddy. How that muddiness came to be is not germaine. The pertinent issue is that not only is it muddy, but it is inherently and possibly irreversibly muddy. I know that sounds impossibly dogmatic, but I am reacting against this relentless DVX propaganda, and it seems that not only does the emperor have no clothes, the emperor is beige.

I just found this thread, and I think I can elucidate a bit. The "beige" thing has got to be the cinegamma, a gamma curve that softens contrast. That adds a bit of a look which basically can sometimes look like you've put a layer of gray over your video. But, it lets you resolve more latitude. Lower-contrast pictures retain more detail in the shadows and in the highlights, higher-contrast pictures (such as the HD1 produce) result in punchier contrast, but less overall information recorded.

But Steve, you're aware that the DVX has 7 different gamma curves, right? I mean, you can dial in any look you want. Comparing DVX color with a few shots off the web is doing this cam a great disservice. As an example, have a look at this page:
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/TwelveMPLooks.JPG

Of those twelve pictures, which one is the DVX? The answer is, of course, that they're *all* DVX footage. All the same camera, all shot in the same place. None of those shots were treated in post in any way -- they're all shot by the camera, just using the different menu settings to create different looks. And the looks can be very different, from soft muted contrast to ultra-contrasty saturated punchy colors.

In the hands of a competent operator, a DVX can run circles around an HD1 as far as color reproduction goes. You can make it look like anything you want. So you shouldn't try to make a comparative judgement based on two random grabs pulled from the Internet, done by different operators at different experience levels shooting different scenes...

Steve, I didn't say that the DVX 'is just a better camera'. I said that _overall_ is better than the HD1, and also the HD10U.

A camera is much more than the colors reproduced on an image, or the resolution.

Sure the HD1 has much better resolution than the DVX, but that's probably one of the few specs where it beats the DVX.

The worst point about the HD1 is the lack of full manual control (aperture, shutter speed, etc.) - which the DVX has, and so does the GL2, PD150, XL2, etc.

As I said before I agree that most footage we see on the internet shot using the DVX looks 'muddy', but that's because most people are unable to set it properly, or they just opt for that look. The images shown by Barry show several settings that are everything but brownish.

One last thing: if you knew me personally you'd know that I'm the least likely person of going for the 'group thinking'. I like to make analisys and observations of my own, and take my own conclusions. Personally I just don't think that high definition is enough to make the HD1, or even the FX1 a better camera over SD.

Aaron -"I know the HD1 does NOT have manual iris or shutter. I'm not 100% certain about the focus."

Well you have used the cam a lot I see. The cam does have a manual shutter. It does have a manual iris. And of course it does have manual focus. Were you even really serious about that last one? There are certain limits to shutter/iris combo's, which is where you might be getting confused.

The HD10 does not have the edge enhancement level of its consumer brother HD1.
Many who own the cams will tell you their colour rendition is a big possitive, me included. The colours look very natural and film like. Everything I shoot, the good the bad and the ugly, has an unmistakeable 16mm film look. DV colour was never my favorite to start with. As far a s colour info is concerned the DV and HDV have about the same information per pixel. But the HD10 has 2.5 times as many pixles. This is a great advantage for colour correcting especially when your final format will be downsampled to SD.

Aaron -"I know the HD1 does NOT have manual iris or shutter. I'm not 100% certain about the focus."

You beat me to it, Ken. Amazing that the thread got as far as it did without THAT bit of misinfo getting corrected...

Ya well you know when people get unhappy in their own turf they like to check out where the grass is greener. One has to wonder what so many DVX users are doing in a HDV forum ;>) ??

OK. I can see that miniDV is officially capable of producing non-beige images and can neatly occupy hand-painted photograph territory.* Moving past issues of SD vs HD, what about the HD1 as "acquistion hardware"?

i.e.,

- does the it handle lens adapters without issue?
- what are its biggest weaknesses?
- what manual controls, specifically, are missing that would be helpful?
- what are some specific circumstances where the camera falters, and are there any recourses?

In short, what are the critical and insurmountable flaws in this prosumer camera, relative to its image-making capacities?

* http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/CFJ/7006.jpg

Ok, here are my 2 cents:

If you have the time, energy, and patience to really set up your shots properly, the HD10 (don't know about the HD1) can be a kickass camera. In the right hands and in the right setting it can smoke the DVX100A, because regardless of the lighting, frame-rate, etc., you can't add resolution in post!

Now I'm not saying the HD10 is better than the DVX100. This is because there are just some situations (primarily low-light) where a shot would be impossible with the HD10 that the DVX100 could handle with ease.

Honestly a HD10 shot that is set up well looks very much like Super 16. It has what I consider as the best compromise of the frame rates (30p is not too stuttery, but more filmic than 60i), and you really get spoiled by the extra resolution.

This is especially true outdoors, I can't tell you the number of old-school film people who have mistaken some of our outdoor footage for Super-16. The saturation is very nice on the camera, but I believe it is the combination of frame rate, color saturation, and resolution that yields these results.

Indoor shooting with the HD10 can be an adventure. You really have to be careful with lighting, and you have to have a decent color monitor (minimum 13") on set. After a while though you get a feel for what the HD10 wants, and the magic starts to happen. I imagine it takes a solid 2 weeks of lighting setups to really get used to the HD10. You can watch our movie, for example, and see how we got more comfortable with the HD10 throughout the course of shooting.

Another advantage of the HD10 is that you can really use the extra resolution to your advantage, even if you are delivering in SD. For example, we had several shots we had to crop by 60% (blow up by 40%), and the shots still looked nice in SD. No way you could get away with that if you started with an SD frame.

The downsides of the HD10 include:

1) Terrible sensitivity, very hard to use in low light, finicky even with moderate light (chroma noise).

2) You can set the shutter on manual and leave the exposure on auto, or vice versa, but you can't have both on manual. We lock the shutter at 1/60th, but we had sitautions where the exposure would drift when someone would walk into the scene with a black shirt, for example. This can be annoying and takes some real getting used to.

3) Lacks the true dynamic range of other cameras, like the DVX100 for example. This is mainly at the low-end, so you aren't going to get the shadow detail you would get with the DVX100. This is primarily due to #1.

4) The built-in audio recording blows, use double-system sound.

The upsides are:

1) Great color saturation

2) Great resolution

3) 30p is nice, especially if you don't care about going to film

Ok, I guess that was more like a dime rather than 2 cents :)

One more thing, if you have moderate chroma noise problems with the HD10 thay can be fixed in post. We use VirtualDub, Cineform has a plugin for their AspectHD product, etc.

So the chroma noise problem is not insurmountable.

However, in true "low-light" situations, there will end up being too much noise to fix without going for an "artistic" look.

For example, we had a bedroom shot that ended up looking really bad, noise like crazy, not to mention you could barely see the actors (keep in mind on the HD10's LCD everything looked great). However, we "solved" the problem by adjusting the brightness and contrast severely, changing the scene to 75% Black and White, and then using the chroma-noise filter. The result was a decent night-look. But if it would have been for a "normal" shot we would have had to throw it out.

Other times we have used 1/30th or 1/15th shutter to get better low-light performance, but that really only works for shots without much movement.

Hope this helps,

Ben

That was extraordinarily helpful, totally appreciate it; that's actually kind of priceless info.

Steve, I would highly recommend using the search feature at the top of the page then select the HD1/10 forum and throw in key words that intrest you. Everything you are asking has been discussed many, many times. To say the least, there is a massive amount of info in this DVinfo.net forum.

Egad! Thanks for the correction! As I said in my post, I haven't dealt much with the camera - only used it in store once and heard others reports. I was hoping someone would chime in and verify/correct me there! Thanks!

As for a DVX user on and HDV forum; I'm rather interested in the new format and am looking forward to NAB this year! The DVX is just a camera - same as any other! I'll choose whatever works for my needs :). Hopefully that will be some HD variant soon!

O-K

It's good to have you guys aboard.
The HD1/10 is a bit of an enigma. Often getting bashed when it is undeserved. It is a phenomenal cam but really takes an investment in time to learn to get the most. A few of us can get a little defensive to the general negative perception, like me ;>)
but any cam talk is wellcome here.

That----the weird things this camera does and how to get around them--is exactly what I'm interested in.

Defensiveness about one's own camera is totally understandable. To a large extent you're stuck with what you've got. I totally want DV to look good and totally want it to look film-like, but it's like DV enthusiasts are in denial.

The format is going to die. Period. The question is, how long is it going to drag on. I am very excited to have discovered these cameras even exist. If it takes a little tweaking and finesse to get an image that is easily four times better and half the price of, say, a DVX, then viva la revolucion. And that is the interesting discussion, I think: what are this camera's flaws and how does one get around them.

The discussion that is not interesting, in my opinion, is whether or not SD images can compare. Based on this thread, I am now thoroughly satisfied that SD is just plain, unequivocally, unambiguously inferior. The End.

Another discussion that is not interesting--because the issue is resolved--is whether or not the camera is flawed. The camera is flawed. Next.

Ever hear of the 10x rule? In order to supplant an existing technology, a contending, new technology has to either be ten times better or ten times cheaper. It seems to me that this camera fulfills the 10x rule, in some kind of permutation.

That said, why is that--as described in Ben's tale above--the image in the viewfinder could be different from the image on a monitor?

The LCD sucks. It will give you a vauge idea, but not a HD idea. For example it is very hard to tell when you are overexposed or not or wether you are in focus. SD focus was a lot easier. With HD a little off and your looking like SD. An external monitoring solution is almost required. A small TV works great, (not HD but you can tell focus and exposure just fine) or a laptop works sweet, and of course a true HD field monitor would be great. You can't just hope and guess with this cam. You better be on the money or your gonna be mad. Although the fully auto mode will suit many applications (except filmmaker ;>)

<<<-- Originally posted by Ben Buie : After a while though you get a feel for what the HD10 wants, and the magic starts to happen. I imagine it takes a solid 2 weeks of lighting setups to really get used to the HD10. -->>>

I heard what Ben was saying here second hand, too.

That there is a way of predicting what the camera "wants"--so much so that the monitor ceases to be necessary?

What does the camera want?

Indoors has different meanings, low light, low wattage incandescent or candle light in the home. But the GR-HD1/10 really excels in another indoor environment, industrial photography where footage is shot on the factory floor under combinations of flourescent, mercury or halogen lighting, or office lighting. In that indoor setting, I have found the auto-white-balance to be nearly spot on, plenty bright and nicely saturated. I've actually made a little bit of money doing that.

Outdoors in bright daylight, contrast and latitude can be a challenge. But there I've found that a quality polarizing filter in combination with a 2x or 4x neutral density filter can more than tame the worst problems. So effective, you can overdo it in fact. But done right, the result is beautiful. For example, in bright daylight a 4x ND in combination with polarizer lets you choose a slower 1/60th shutter speed that imparts the right amount of motion blur to have fluidity and sharpness. The polarizer allows control of the latitude, to maintain shadow detail and saturation while not clipping the highlights. I find that turning the polarizing ring to achieve the deepest blue sky and absence of reflections to be overdone. Instead, I pursue a polarizer setting that reduces some but not all reflections, on the order of about 50%.

I don't use a monitor, and the LCD is hard to see in bright daylight. Unless on the tripod, I prefer the low resolution viewfinder, and trust the excellent auto-focus to do the job in daylight.

Summary:

Quality Neutral Density Filters
Quality Polarizing Filter
Quality Tripod
1/60th shutter speed
Practice and Experimentation

Ansel Adams would have approved. And yes, the camera is flawed. Next.

you should be praised, Tom

Tom, you want to move to Atlanta and be our DP? :)

You sound like you've got it down man.

Great post!

Ben

yes. more please

(rolling eyes...) Knock it off...Now!

If anyone is paying attention, Ben and Ken are the film makers!

It's turning into an orgy in here. Back to hardware. Any speculation on what the nature of the HDx problem is?

Do you think that the problem it has with really bright sunlight is the same thing causing the problem with the poor handling of low light (I know that mught be a hard thing to speculate about).

And what does it mean when you say you have to "experiment" and be careful with lighting and stuff, can you elaborate and amplify?

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Watnet :Do you think that the problem it has with really bright sunlight is the same thing causing the problem with the poor handling of low light (I know that mught be a hard thing to speculate about).

And what does it mean when you say you have to "experiment" and be careful with lighting and stuff, can you elaborate and amplify? -->>>

I'm just repeating what's already been noted by others, that small (1/3 inch) high density CCDs (1280x720) are slow to respond to light. The problem of latitude is one of attempting to record the full dynamic range from maximum brightness to minimum, without clipping the brights or losing detail in the dark areas.

The other problem is mpeg compression, where in the 6 GOP (group of pictures) scheme used by HD1/10, only one frame contains all the picture information, and subsequent/previous frames record only the difference from adjacent frames. That's a problem with the compressed HDV format that appears during fast motion and panning, and the result of the compromise of storing 19mb/s on miniDV tape.

To experiment, is simply to repeat things you've already tried under known conditions, so that when faced with crux of performing for real in a new situation, you have a basis of previous judgment to call upon.

Where it's convenient to, I practice shooting and re-shooting the same irrelevant scenes to gain experience with shutter speeds, apertures, white balance, programmed modes, lens filters, viewfinders, basically any and all of the camera's feature set. Eventually, you acquire the judgment that lets you forsee the potential problems of the scene in advance. In the end, the goal is to attain perfect exposure, white balance and latitude that captures shadow detail without blowing the highlights, maximize sharpness, color saturation and fluidity, and minimize panning artifacts and chroma noise. To achive all of those things at once is difficult, but mostly possible with practice and experience.

So it's a camera that rewards planning and preparation, and a smooth and steady hand, and penalizes the abrupt point and shoot style. That's why I made the Ansel Adams comment, it's a modern day view camera, not a pocket digital cam. The really good 1080i cameras, HDCAM, VARICAMs make everyone an expert. Lesser cams like the HD1/10 are less forgiving of hand holds, exposure and motion.

As I was writing the last post, I was distracted by a short feature on Discovery HD Theater about a Japan Auto show. It was an indoor setting with brightly colored automobiles, interesting human subjects and crisp overhead mercury lamps.

It was exactly the type of setting I was referring to, where a HD1/10 would excel. You wouldn't need any filters, a 1/60th shutter speed would be about optimum, and you'd have richly saturated colors, high sharpness and contrast that would really set off the HD1/10. I was visualizing that with probably just a tripod, I could make something that would hold up respectably to the 1080i VARICAM in that circumstance, with a bit of a filmic look added.

And just now, Discovery HD is showing the US Navy Blue Angels aerobatic team. That type of footage would be considerably more difficult to mimic with the HD1/10. In one sense, it's oversaturated in the manner of vibrant colors we are accustomed to with broadcast television, and artifact free panning. But it combines unparalleled image stabilization, the exposure and latitude are perfect under a rich blue sky, shadow detail and highlights that are not overexposed. Combined with high motion and changing light, it would not be possible to match that quality with the HD1/10, it's just too much all at once.

I could listen to you all day long

My biggest problem with my HD10 is it takes a long time to render all the beautiful HD stuff in the final stages of production. :)

I'm delivering a few hours of programming and my machine has both its processors full. This last week of production it'll be at or near 100% for more than 60 hours. Of course I'm letting a lot of stuff process overnight.

You're editing offline, right?

Nobody edits online with this stuff, right?

I edited everything offline using Apple's OfflineRT NTSC Anamorphic preset, which is PhotoJPEG 320x240 at 35% quality, with uncompressed 16 bit 48KHz stereo. I'm in the final stages, bringing everything "online." I put that in quotes because I'm using DVCProHD720p as my online codec. The reason for that is I've got 6+ hours of programming to turn out and only 1.7 terabytes of hard drive space.

I bet there are people out there editing online with this stuff. Those people are working on shorter running time projects and/or have the hard drive capacity to do it.

I just went and looked at the HD1 for the first time today. I can see why everybody was so up in arms saying /the dvx is a better camera etc/

Just a couple controls on the cam. Is the 10 as simple as the 1?

By simple do you mean lack of controlls or do you mean easy to operate?
As far as contolls go they are identical.

>Just a couple controls on the cam

Ah but ... each control does more than one thing!

Guys, I just got through watching Ben Buie's Docudrama, "ON OUR WAY UP" in Hi-Definition WMV-HD. Wow! I'll have more to say about it later, but if you're HD-ready and bought a dvx because it had more controls without seeing HD1/10 output done right, you'll be sick with envy later.

Part of what I've noticed out here (+I assume this is true anywhere) is that in looking for work, people want to know what your gear is--primarily your camera. DVXs are popular. I have never heard of a JVC requested by name. I imagine the next under 10k camera to occupy that category will be the Z1 (everybody loves to contemplate his/her 35mm blow-up).

But the HD100 looks like it might win hearts and minds at the low end of the scale (even though it is more professional than prosumer). I think this really is a battle of technology platform marketing, and just like choosing mac or PC, the game is to try and anticipate where the market will go.

(Either that or I am just spending way too much time fantasizing about all the gear I'm going to buy.)

What I'm wondering is, is the JVC HD platform really kind of fundamentally different from the Sony or Pana? Over in the HD100 area, in the Sean Dinwoodie post, Sean posited that JVC does HD really really well.

One assumes that the chips in the HD100 can trace their lineage back to the HD1/10 chip. Does that mean in spending the time to understand the nuances of HD1/10 operation, you are buying into the JVC platform and therefore, in some respects, training yourself for the HD100? Or are the differences negligible?

PS,

I think Ben should put his film on BitTorrent.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Watnet : What I'm wondering is, is the JVC HD platform really kind of fundamentally different from the Sony or Pana? Over in the HD100 area, in the Sean Dinwoodie post, Sean posited that JVC does HD really really well.

One assumes that the chips in the HD100 can trace their lineage back to the HD1/10 chip. Does that mean in spending the time to understand the nuances of HD1/10 operation, you are buying into the JVC platform and therefore, in some respects, training yourself for the HD100? Or are the differences negligible? -->>>

The JVC HD100's version of HD is almost identical to the Sony FX1/Z1 (all are HDV, with JVC adding a little something extra to HDV in the HD100), and both are very distinct from Panasonic's DVCProHD.

I think the training aspect isn't necessarily to do with the cameras but with the post production workflows. Today's FX1/Z1 editor can be completely comfortable working with HD100 editing. As operating the cameras go, the HD100 will be almost nothing like the HD1/10 because all of the controls make a huge difference. In that sense the FX1/Z1 are more similar to the HD100. Anyway 1080p24 will be great, and FX1/Z1 shooters will be envious.

Thats 720p24.

Woops.. I guess I'm really looking forward to the GY-HD7000. :)

Ha ha.

<<<-- Originally posted by Murad Toor : The JVC HD100's version of HD is almost identical to the Sony FX1/Z1...and both are very distinct from Panasonic's DVCProHD.

I think the training aspect isn't necessarily to do with the cameras but with the post production workflows. Today's FX1/Z1 editor can be completely comfortable working with HD100 editing. -->>>

I appreciate the tenor of this--I can see how one would say that post-production workflows are where the learning curves exist, but I am talking about something that is quite possibly altogether different; I am really talking about cinematography, but I am speaking quite naively.

I am talking about photography: this all started when I saw that photo at the beginning of this thread. Soon after, I saw a couple episodes of Project Greenlight on Bravo. In both of these instances, the color palette & tonality reminded me of a Gauguin painting.

I was jumping up and down. It was like the _HD chipset_ was translating the world into Gauguin colors. This was one of the more remarkable things I'd seen, on a color level. For reference, here is a link to represent the color palette I'm talking about

http://www.abcgallery.com/G/gauguin/gauguin.html

Since then, I've seen HD stuff that doesn't always automatically fall squarely into that color palette. So what I'm talking about is what previous posters were referencing when describing the learning curve associated with lighting and so on. I know a lot of this relates to production design and so on. But I am really talking about the photographic nuances, subtleties and idiosyncrasies to be avoided and exploited.

That said, I'm quite interested in this premise that Sony and JVC are doing HDV similarly. Is that an assertion made from a subjective photographic/aesthetics point of view?

Or is that a technical assertion made because they conform to the same standard, and if so, what does conforming to the standard really entail and how vigorous is it?

I'd *love* see the reaction of that guy who tried so hard to sell Ben away from the HD10 when he sees "ON OUR WAY UP" in high definition.

That's why Ben is making movies, and the camera salesman has an hourly job.

All the credit goes to Ben. The HD10 gave him enough of the right stuff. He channeled the weakness and strengths of the camera together into a purposeful theme.

okok we'll download the movie>>>

-what's the url?

here's a good review of some HD10 probs:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/index.php?showtopic=3050

it sez black turns to green in direct sunlight, and colors get nicely saturated on a n overcast day