I just wanted to mention this briefly. I was at the JVC event at the DGA last week and finally got a chance to spend some time with an HD100. I really enjoyed using the focus assist. I obviously didn't have enough time to determine how accurate it was, but the impression I got was that it's a very handy system.

Hearing some feedback from people who've used it would be cool. I plan to pick up an HD100 within a couple of weeks and I'm obviously curious.

I think this community owes a lot to JVC, Andrew Young, the Director's Guild and the third-party accessory manufacturers who were available to us at the event, BTW. It was very informative and there was a wonderful degree of access to the involved parties as well as the equipment. I found answers to most of the questions I've had about this camera.

I'll start shooting with it in March on a documentary film I'm working on that's been primarily shot on 35mm and 16mm stock up until now. I will continue using film for exteriors, but the talking head stuff seems like it will be the perfect task for the GY-HD100.

Rob

Robert
whenever I shoot manual focus (most of the time) I shoot with focus assist
colour is colour and once set in camera - it is what it is
once I know that my subject is exposed properly, and the whites are not blown out, it's focus assist ... in B&W - I prefer it
It's a bit tricky at first, especially touchy at middle focal lengths
yet seemingly quite accurate ... a lot more accurate than my eye is for sure!
if the resolution on the VF were better I might use to it differently, yet as it is I prefer B&W anyway
cheers
Pete

Robert
whenever I shoot manual focus (most of the time) I shoot with focus assist
colour is colour and once set in camera - it is what it is
once I know that my subject is exposed properly, and the whites are not blown out, it's focus assist ... in B&W - I prefer it
It's a bit tricky at first, especially touchy at middle focal lengths
yet seemingly quite accurate ... a lot more accurate than my eye is for sure!
if the resolution on the VF were better I might use to it differently, yet as it is I prefer B&W anyway
cheers
Pete


I've also found that the VF is quite good for Zoom and focus...a bit smaller than the XL but a lot more like a small CRT VF than the big pixels in the Canon.


In an action shoot last week I used both for comparison and all of the focus pulled by eye was as accurate as the Focus Assist stuff.

That said, the focus assist is really good and as Peter says once you've set exposure, you can leave it on and track motion with it which is great...I'm looking forward to seeign how a focus puller working with a follow focus and the LCD screen will do.

Robert
whenever I shoot manual focus (most of the time) I shoot with focus assist

Pete

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought there was no auto-focus in the HD-100, so you mean all the time?

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought there was no auto-focus in the HD-100, so you mean all the time?

correct, there is no autofocus.

I found the focus assist mode useful, but it wasn't 100% good enough on getting a perfect focus. I'd definately want to use it if there's nothing else though.

Graeme

I found the focus assist mode useful, but it wasn't 100% good enough on getting a perfect focus. I'd definately want to use it if there's nothing else though.

Graeme

Agreed! Although it helps a lot, I have still shot some pretty soft stuff with it just the same. It worries me to shoot without a larger reference monitor since buying this camera, a tough lesson, and I had to learn the hard way. But that has more to do with shooting HD over SD and not related to camera brand/make/model.

But that has more to do with shooting HD over SD and not related to camera brand/make/model.

Working without a monitor, it's a lot easier to shoot soft stuff on any given HDCAM or a Varicam than it is with the JVC.

Working without a monitor, it's a lot easier to shoot soft stuff on any given HDCAM or a Varicam than it is with the JVC.


Because of the focus assist?

Because of the focus assist?
Because of higher resolution B&W CRT VF.

Because of higher resolution B&W CRT VF.


It was just a confusing post. Until the HD100 I've only had B&W CRTs, but the expression "easier to shoot soft stuff" made me think Nate meant easier to shoot soft.

Honestly, It's just as easy to me to pull focus on the HD100 as it was using an FU-1000.

My point was that higher end cameras generally only have peaking available. It's a better peaking than what's on the HD100, and the viewfinder IS higher res, but you still can get bit.

I myself think that FA on the HD100, while not the only tool/technique you should use, is indispensable. And I'm hard pressed to think of how it could be done better.

All of the other baby HD cams use a PIP zoom with mild peaking for their focus assist...not as desirable in my opinion.

My point was that higher end cameras generally only have peaking available. It's a better peaking than what's on the HD100, and the viewfinder IS higher res, but you still can get bit.

I myself think that FA on the HD100, while not the only tool/technique you should use, is indispensable. And I'm hard pressed to think of how it could be done better.

All of the other baby HD cams use a PIP zoom with mild peaking for their focus assist...not as desirable in my opinion.


I wasn't confused...we were agreeing <g>.

Although not perfect, I found JVC's magic outline better than peaking.

Graeme

Although not perfect, I found JVC's magic outline better than peaking.

Graeme


Absolutely...and overall I've found the HD far better than I expected which is a "testament" to the internet I suppose.

I actually never even considered this camera as a serious tool in goo part because it was either ignored or bashed from everything from it's lens to design flaws to format.

I find the lens a nice, affordable piece of glass, I find SSE to be a non issue to this point, I find the VF also to be a pleasant surprise.

I can remember looking into the XL2 VF the first time (after being used to a CRT) and being amazed that I could practically count the pixels...but the size was a plus anyway.
I find the JVC FV to be much nicer to zoom and focus and the FA to be the kind of innovation that should have been getting a lot more kudos.

Sorry Nate but I was also getting more confused with each new post, thanks for clearing that up.

I actually never even considered this camera as a serious tool in goo part because it was either ignored or bashed from everything from it's lens to design flaws to format.

I find the lens a nice, affordable piece of glass, I find SSE to be a non issue to this point, I find the VF also to be a pleasant surprise.

This is why people like myself, Stephen, and Tim continue to hang out here (well, if I may put words in their mouth)...we've found the camera suitable for use and to try to keep the internet FUD under control. People need to judge for themselves rather than taking some internet expert's word for it that this part is unusable, this issue is a disgrace, etc etc.

That goes for my opinion too. While everybody's entitled to my opinion ;-), in the end I really want somebody not just take my word for it, I'd like them to follow the same little experiments that I did and make up their own mind.

Then I'll argue endlessly with them on here :-)

This is why people like myself, Stephen, and Tim continue to hang out here (well, if I may put words in their mouth)...we've found the camera suitable for use and to try to keep the internet FUD under control. People need to judge for themselves rather than taking some internet expert's word for it that this part is unusable, this issue is a disgrace, etc etc.

That goes for my opinion too. While everybody's entitled to my opinion ;-), in the end I really want somebody not just take my word for it, I'd like them to follow the same little experiments that I did and make up their own mind.

Then I'll argue endlessly with them on here :-)

I agree. I sometimes have a love-hate relationship with the HD100, but ultimately it is the camera indie filmmakers like me have been wishing for for a decade. I mean it has HD, 24P, shoulder mount, removable lens, gamma response control, firewire, XLR inputs and it's affordable. The only other camera on the market that comes close to those requirements is the XLH1, but I would question "affordable," and as an experience XL1 and XL2 operator, I think the XL design it too front heavy to be called "shoulder mount."

Now of course the new camera I'm wishing for is "RED," but the HD100 will fit the bill until then.

I actually never even considered this camera as a serious tool in goo part because it was either ignored or bashed from everything from it's lens to design flaws to format.
You're right. It was bashed harshly by many people who had never actually touched it. It wasn't until Adam Wilt, Barry Green and company (Nate included) actually put the 1/3" cameras side by side that that sort of thing stopped around here. I think manufacter prepared literature can be very misleading, shouldn't necessarily be trusted, and I feel those guys put an end to image quality questions among the various 1/3" cameras. So cudos to them.

As I've commented more than once if you're a full time film maker and producer it's a lot more difficult than people might guess to test and evaluate the new tools you may be interested in.
If you're studios are on top of a mountain and you're productions take place on locations almost anywhere but LA and NY, then it's that much more difficult (not that I'm complaining).
So I rely a great deal on the experienced opinions of people I've grown to trust even though in many instances we've never even met.
It's either that, or as I was about to do, you buy 4 HD cameras and evaluate them all in real world circumstances.
That gets a bit logistically challenging for every big aquisition.

Speaking of the RED perhaps fitting the bill, that was one of the things I wrote weeks ago regarding a multi camera investment right now.
We need to be producing in HD today...from the Olympic work we just wrapped for the big show, to the TV and film work booked through spring.
I just couldn't see doing that kind of investment in time and money and systems if I were just going to step up to Varicam or RED or whatever really makes sense as things settled in the next year - which they will well beyond where we are now.

So yeah...3 HD100's @ $5k was kind of a no brainer once I got a chance to work with it in real production.
That's why I've gone out of my way to dispel the over the top comments about thel ens and the CA and the SSE (and whatever other acronyms people like to throw around).
If you can't do good work with an HD100, you can't do good work.

To what Jim said... If you can't do good work with the camera, you cant do good work. I whole heartedly agree. I just had an experience with an "off-the-clock" student shoot. In pre-prod we were discussing our options on which camera to run. I brought up the JVC to the group and was almost ousted! But now that the footage is being edited... They cant believe they ridiculed it so much. I still hear about how capture was not real easy because of the 720p24 but hey... I just go back to how good it looks and explain that we now have a capture session under our belt so the next should be a little better.

BTW Thanks to this community for being so helpful in your posts...