Hey,

Still looking into HD cameras. I was just about set to pick up an FX1, but then I thought about maybe saving up for a Z1... and when I get up to the $5000 price range, why not go up to the HD100? My concern is 720p. I know there's a whole thread going on 720p vs 1080i, but I don't know if someone can point me in the right direction. Between the HD100 and Z1, which do you all think is the better option? Thanks in advance for any advice!

Those cameras are night-and-day different. Every aspect of them is different. Z1=handycam-style, HD100=shoulder-mount. Z1=1080i, HD100=720p. Z1=fixed lens, HD100=interchangeable lens. Z1=$4900 street, JVC=probably $6000 street (to start). And, of course, Z1=available now, HD100=maybe July.

They have practically nothing in common -- you should be able to take one look at them and determine which one you want.

Decide what you want to use the camera for, and the choice between these two should be quite easy.

Those cameras are night-and-day different. Every aspect of them is different. Z1=handycam-style, HD100=shoulder-mount. Z1=1080i, HD100=720p. Z1=fixed lens, HD100=interchangeable lens. Z1=$4900 street, JVC=probably $6000 street (to start). And, of course, Z1=available now, HD100=maybe July.

They have practically nothing in common -- you should be able to take one look at them and determine which one you want.

Decide what you want to use the camera for, and the choice between these two should be quite easy.

Just an FYI--B&H has the HD100 listed as $5499.99 with lens.

I plan to use the camera for ENG, industrial video, broadcast, and indie filmmaking. I much prefer a shoulder mount form factor, and although I don't see any immediate need for them, interchangable lenses are a plus.

So, sounds like the HD100 is the camera for me, right? My only concern is the fact that the FX1 has more resolution.... any comments?

So, sounds like the HD100 is the camera for me, right? My only concern is the fact that the FX1 has more resolution.... any comments?

Both are HD cameras and both will produce great looking pictures, don't choose a camera based on resolution alone - you already said the HD100 better suits your needs. IMO, 1080i and 720p are pretty close to equal in quality.

Both are HD cameras and both will produce great looking pictures, don't choose a camera based on resolution alone - you already said the HD100 better suits your needs. IMO, 1080i and 720p are pretty close to equal in quality.

The HD100 certainly does seem to be the way to go. My only concern was that 1080i would have a much better quality than 720p, but since that doesn't seem to be the case, I'll probably go with the HD100. Thanks for the advice!

Of course Sony will always come up with the argument that 720p could be considered high definition but real high definition starts with 1080i etc.
One must remember that 1080i only produces about 810 lines of vertical resolution because of the Kell factor. So you may find that 1080i is a lot closer to 720p than you would have thought. I think the real test will be after comparing the footage obtained from both cameras.

Surely it's the interlace filtering to stop twitter that drops you down from 1080 to 800 or so, and both the 720p (of a 720p camera) and the 800 or so will be effected by the Kell factor as that's mostly accounting for the resolution of a sampled system, whether it be interlaced or progressive??

Either way, 720p is very comparably to 1080i, and it's also worth noting, that in a small 1/3" ccd camera, you're much more likely to be recording more of that 720p resolution than 1080i resolution due to the relative lack of sharpness of the lenses due to the small CCD size.

Graeme

Eric,

Glad you asked the question, as I've been wondering the same. If it's OK, I'd like to add to the question-

Do JVC and Sony have equal reliability and product support?

I've had a Canon GL2 for almost 3 years and it's been great. No problems, works every time when shooting and when using it with my Mac.

So I'm hoping to continue that "just works great" factor with my next camera (Z1 or HD100). Does anyone have any comments on reliablity and product support from these two manufacturers?

From what I've read in this forum over the past week or so, everyone loves their FX1's and Z1's. But I thought it was too hard to judge what could be expected of the future HD100 based on HD1 or HD10 comments. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not asking anyone what they think of the HD100 (since it's not available yet), just thoughts on if JVC produces a quality product like Canon and/or Sony?

My own experience with Sony products (most recently a cybershot F828 and Vaio laptop) has been great. Is JVC an equal quality product? If this is too off-topic from Eric's original question, please feel free to delete or move this post. Thank you.

I think they are both okay, other there would be less people buying JVC.
Of course, with electronics, the chances of something that one time stops working is always there, even if you handle your material carefully.
I know that Sony has a good reputation of the speed at which they repair thing, and I don't know if that's the case with JVC, so I couldn't tell you that, but I think there is not so much to worry about that.
Good luck!

Well, JVC don't have the best name in the business, a fact that's been pointed out many times on many forums in many debates.

That said, it doesn't mean they can't make a quality product. I've shot a hell of a lot of hours on GY-DV500's and 700's and they're both fine cameras. Although, the be fair, I prefer Sony's DSR range! (now I'm going to be flagellated as a Sony lover ;).

Ultimately you're going to need to see the camera to make an educated decision. It sounds a lot like you're not in a hurry to buy and assuming that's the case I'd wait for the HD-100 to come out and then decide from there what is the best option. I certainly wish I could!...

The biggest difference between the cameras image wise (lenses and form factor notwithstanding) is that the sony shoots at 60iand therefore can get the "live" video look that is very important for ENG/event videography.

The HD100 shoots at 30p, It does have true 24p, very important for Indie filmmaking, which the Sonys don't have.

However you CAN get 24 fps footage from the Sonys by post processing the footage.

The JVC camera does output the full 60 frames per secound in its analog uncompressed output. All that is required is an HD-SDI converter so that this camera can be used for ENG and live sports broadcasting.

What do you mean JVC does not have the best name in the business? JVC introduced the worlds first consumer high definition video camera. If this was not enough the same year JVC introduced its line of super high definition 1500i televisions that upconverts 720p not just to 1080i but all the way up to 1500i. So for the same price of a Sony video camera that does not come with a television JVC buyers got a video camera plus the super high definition display 2560 by 1440.

I don't think anyone should get into the mind set that the Sony has higher resolution. It may be higher on tape, but it is the recorded resolution that matters. The Sony's use 960x1080 chips which they pixel shift to 1440x1080, then record to tape at 1920x1080.
For example, it has been stated many times that the older hd10 is a little sharper in head to head comparisons with the Sony FX/Z1. Now consider that the HD100 uses 3 chips unlike its little brother, so it will not suffer the resolution drop inherent of 1ccd. Also consider the resolution drop that all interlaced cams suffer. One other huge point to consider is compression. Compression eats resolution, at least visually. The HD100 or HD10 offers much more data per pixel captured, based on 720p into 19Mbps than FX/Z1 at 1080i into 25Mbps. The JVC's also use a 6 frame GOP while Sony a 12 frame GOP. All of this math is compounded more when you consider the HD100 has the ability to shoot 24p, thus saving 1/6th more bandwidth. Even less compression means the JVC data per pixel climbs even higher.
This said, I still think most amature cam users would find the Sony's preferable. Progressive must be shot like film. Slow movements, tripods, ect. Interlace better suits hand held, and fast motion (although the 12 frame GOP may disagree). As well shooting progressive will always have lower light capability than shooting interlaced. This matters to consummers who are shooting without lighting setups.
Sony is obviously targeting the eager HD consummer who is attracted by the big number "1080i" while JVC is targeting the indie filmaker. Sony's market is about 100 times bigger, but JVC must find its niche somewhere or die.

I don't think anyone should get into the mind set that the Sony has higher resolution. It may be higher on tape, but it is the recorded resolution that matters. The Sony's use 960x1080 chips which they pixel shift to 1440x1080, then record to tape at 1920x1080.


Not quite....
Sony records the image to tape at 1440 x 1080. The NLE then uses a pixel aspect ratio stretch of 1.333 to accomodate the 1440 to 1920 image. This is similar to DV, except it's a horizontal vs vertical pixel aspect ratio.

True enough Douglas. My point was not to just go by the numbers. The FX/Z1's are a ways off of true 1080 recording. For example a Varicam captures only 960x720 then records this to tape in 720p, but will dust both the JVC's and Sony's!

The JVC's also use a 6 frame GOP while Sony a 12 frame GOP.
That's in 50i. In 60i the Sony uses a 15-frame GOP.

All of this math is compounded more when you consider the HD100 has the ability to shoot 24p, thus saving 1/6th more bandwidth.
Well, the jury's still out on that. There are conflicting reports of how the JVC actually records 24p. Initial reports said that it was a straight 24-frame recording, but Steve Gibby talked to the guys at Lumiere, who had actual 24p footage, and he reported that they said that instead what was happening was the JVC was recording the 24p footage within a 60p data stream. How that affects compression, I don't know -- may affect it a lot, or maybe not significantly at all, since MPEG-2 is highly skilled at detecting redundancy and saving space.

So the JVC's 24P may be even less compressed than its 30p, or it may be more compressed (due to being carried in a 60p data stream).

In the end, all that really matters is what the footage looks like once you get it into your NLE. Whether it's 1080 or 720, whether it's HDV or DVCPRO-HD, it's all up to what the final footage looks like. And that's not a question we can examine (or even think about beginning to explore) for months, from either new camera. Until then, the Sony is the only affordable HD camera around.

Sony is obviously targeting the eager HD consummer who is attracted by the big number "1080i" while JVC is targeting the indie filmaker. Sony's market is about 100 times bigger, but JVC must find its niche somewhere or die.
Interesting angle... but I don't know that I'd agree entirely. In the circumstances I've seen HD be used, it's never been in weddings or events, and rarely in indie filmmaking (although that audience is probably the most attracted to the idea of affordable HD!). As HD is used today, it's in commercials, and corporate videos, and infomercials. And sports. And of those uses, all but sports are well suited to the 24p approach of the JVC. The indie filmmaking crowd would be a bonus, but for people actually working with HD now, for paying clients, it seems like the JVC has plenty of potential.

I think there's plenty of room for both products.

but it is the recorded resolution that matters. The Sony's use 960x1080 chips

Never mind that even 960x1080 is larger than 1280x720, and implementation of pixel shift can be expected in to increase that resolution in many situations.

"Never mind that even 960x1080 is larger than 1280x720, and implementation of pixel shift can be expected in to increase that resolution in many situations."

While interlaced and long GOP will bring it right down again. I will again point out that the Varicam captures only 960x720, but looks cleaner, sharper, better. How is that then?

Barry - It is my understanding that the cam captures everything at 60p as this is what it exports uncompressed. But it will put to tape only the frames needed. Eg. all 60 when in 480p mode, 30 or 25,24 when in 720p mode. Unless of course you seriously believe they are cramming 2X the info as the HD10 in 19Mbps? I don't think so. If they really were putting 60p to tape, where is the 720p60 mode? You don't think they would just leave it out if they were already capturing it. Of couse not.

Barry - It is my understanding that the cam captures everything at 60p as this is what it exports uncompressed. But it will put to tape only the frames needed.
No, that's backwards. A common misconception, but backwards.

The VariCam captures the frames it needs, at the appropriate scanning rate. For 60p, it will capture 60 frames per second. For 30p, it doesn't capture 60 frames and then drop half of them... instead it captures 30 frames, each spaced 1/30 of a second apart. Same for 24p -- it runs the CCD at 24Hz, captures 24 frames per second, each frame 1/24 of a second apart.

When it comes time to record to tape, it will duplicate frames to round out the sequence to 60, because the tape format can only record 60 frames per second. So for 30p, it will record each frame on the tape twice, so you get 60 frames on tape, but 30 distinct, unique frames (and each unique frame is flagged as "active", and the duplicate frames aren't, so when you use the frame rate conversion tool it can discard the duplicates). For 24p, it records using a 2:3 sequence, etc.

But it doesn't just shoot at 60fps and then drop frames -- that'd look awful. It does it the right way -- variably scanning, capturing exactly the way it should, and then just pads the frames when recording. The HVX (or any future P2 camera) won't have to do that padding thing, because it doesn't use tape, so it'll just record the active frames directly.

The JVC uses a similar variable-scanning CCD -- or at least that's how I understand it. The CCD runs at 24hz, 30hz, or 60hz. If what you suggest is how the JVC actually works (running at 60hz all the time, then dropping frames to create 24 or 30) then that would be horrible... wouldn't be much better than CineFrame 24. I certainly hope that's not the case.

Unless of course you seriously believe they are cramming 2X the info as the HD10 in 19Mbps? I don't think so.
That's the question mark. But it wouldn't be 2x the info, because MPEG-2 can probably encode the duplicate frames in just a few bytes. Because the pad frames would be exact duplicates of existing frames, I'm sure it wouldn't really affect compression efficiency much at all.
If they really were putting 60p to tape, where is the 720p60 mode? You don't think they would just leave it out if they were already capturing it. Of couse not.
Well, there's a reason for that. If you go back to the original HDV spec, it does specifically mention 720p/60 as an accepted HDV standard. So why no 720p/60 to tape? I saw Adam Wilt at NAB, and he cleared it up -- he said that the NTT MPEG compression chipset that JVC is using cannot handle a 60p data rate. The tape format supports it, the camera supports it, but the MPEG encoder doesn't. So you will never get 60p on tape, and you won't get 60p out the firewire either. It's a hardware limitation.

As to how they could be then encoding the 24p within a 60p stream, I don't konw -- maybe because there's only 24 source frames the chip can handle it? I really don't know. Like I said, it's conflicting information. Steve Mullen described it as 24 frames recorded discretely. Steve Gibby spoke with the people at Lumiere, who said that they had actual footage from the camera, and the 24p data was carried within a 60p stream. I don't know what the answer is. Obviously someone got it wrong.

"Well, there's a reason for that. If you go back to the original HDV spec, it does specifically mention 720p/60 as an accepted HDV standard."

Sure it does. Always has. But it would look like crap if it had to fit in 25Mbps or less.


"That's the question mark. But it wouldn't be 2x the info, because MPEG-2 can probably encode the duplicate frames in just a few bytes. Because the pad frames would be exact duplicates of existing frames, I'm sure it wouldn't really affect compression efficiency much at all."

I think you are on the right path here. Sounds reasonable. The confussion stems from the fact that you can pull 60p discreet frames from the cam head or 30 or 24 the second you hit record.