I guess I'm not in touch with the indie film makers but interested in what you have to say.

Why don't you guys like the DVX100? I think it would be a stellar cam if it had 16:9 like my PDX10. Of course Century Optics is about on unveil a supposedly excellent anamorphic adapter for the DVX100.

Tommy, I think the camera you have, the PDX10, is awesome. The only thing is, I would have to use something like Magic Bullet to make it 25p or 24p, and I’m starting to hear complaints about Magic Bullet causing artifacts (not to mention the fact that is cuts down on resolution.) The DVX 100 is a great camera, but then us resolution freaks would have to cut the resolution on the DVX 100 even further to use it in 16:9. And if we use an Anamorphic adapter then the DVX 100 becomes almost as crippled as the HD10. Focus is a b#tch, the zoom range is limited, and no filters can be used with the Anamorphic adapter. But all these cams have their pros and cons, as everyone knows. I just really want a true 16:9 25p or 24p cam (under $4k), something like the GR-PD1. In all honesty though, the 30p only feature of the HD10 does bugs me.

I've noticed the majority of the people who are comenting on the camera, don't own the camera.

Perhaps it would clarify things if when folks posted they identified whether they own the camera or not.

it would lend some credibility to the discussions.

DBK

(I don't own one yet, but hope to next week)

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Tommy, I think the camera you have, the PDX10, is awesome. The only thing is, I would have to use something like Magic Bullet to make it 25p or 24p -->>>

I'm using a PDX-10 for a project that will be digitally projected, and have been processing the footage with DVFilm Maker, an inexpensive standalone application that deinterlaces and converts to 30p (or 25p for PAL). The same company also does 35mm transfers. Their software tries to perserve as much resolution as possible when deinterlacing.

I don't own a JVC camera, but have been following it with interest. I could afford one today, but it just sounds a little too rough around the edges. I look forward to a time in the near future when there will be more mature products and a choice of vendors supporting the HDV format. In the meantime, you early adopters are blazing the trail that the rest of us will follow someday.

I don't own this JVC nor have any intention of buying one in the near future. But I am interested in how people are going to use it. Personally, I don't need MPEG2 at this time, and I think that the cost of these 2 models are grossly overpriced. But I also feel that this cam may be just the ticket for some folks; and regarding its price, well, at the moment, it's the only choice in town in way of MPEG2 HD. Yes, I can see the logic with going this JVC route. But as for its use for broadcast and film transfers, no, I don't think these are logical. I believe JVC is testing the waters, and they'll be new models coming in the near future.

One important point I'd like to make is that I see this cam as being a tool for shooting weddings---especially for shooting without the intention of editing, and slapping it directly to a disk. And weddings my friends puts bread and butter on the table. With shooting 2 weddings, the income can easily pay the the cost of one of these cams, and then some, at least here in Vancouver.

I own a JY-HD10 and HDTVs at 1080i and 720p. The only two problems for this camera are:
- not enough users
- better editing software

Second generation cameras typically are better than first generation. If that is what stops you from buying one, I'm sorry for you. Some people are still waiting to buy the perfect computer. If you want please join their club and correspond using snail mail with them.

Jose, glad to hear you're happy with the JY-HD10.

Don't feel sorry for me, I'm quite happy waiting for a more polished product with hopefully improved color accuracy (3CCD) and better low light performance. A new storage solution would be appreciated but thats probably pushing it.

Old man SD may have one foot in the grave but hes still very much refined and I'll catch up with Junior when comes into his own.

BTW - I don't buy computers, I build them. :)

There is no question there will be others, I even got a hint from someone at JVC on the next camera.

The only real question you need to address right now is:

1. Can you make money with this camera?

2. Does it provide the quality level you require?

3. Can you afford it.

4. Do you just want it.

If you answer yes to any of these questions, buy it, have a great time with it, make money or don't.

Waiting for the next big thing, well you'd still be waiting to buy your first colour tv, your first computer, your first......

Get the point?

My message here is tooooooooo many people are commenting on this camera like they own the damn thing. I just want to see a discussion and comments from people who own it, rather than those who lust after it.

DBK

>>My message here is tooooooooo many people are commenting on this camera like they own the damn thing. I just want to see a discussion and comments from people who own it, rather than those who lust after it.<<

I really hate to get off topic, but this message board is open to people whom are also thinking about buying it. They are entitled to share their thoughts on a product so that others can challenge them, and therefore help them make a better purchasing decision. If you want to read about comments from HD10 owners, then you are more then welcome to start up your own thread strictly for HD10 owners. Heck, I even did it, go check it out.

By the way, there was a *lot* of really far-off topic stuff in this thread. I've trimmed out the irrelevant material which brings the number of replies from 63 down to 48, and steers things more or less back on course. Hope this helps,

Re: weddings and the JVC HD-10

Frank posted earlier that he thought this was a good camera for weddings. I own the HD-10 and have used it as a second camera on 2 weddings, one this past weekend. My first camera is an Ikegami DV7-W (Sony 500WS equivalent) I love this little JVC cam for it's cinematic image and wonderful resolution, and if I were making an indie movie this would be my choice of camera if I couldn't afford higher end HD or film. I would choose it over my IKE or an SDX900, or any SD camera, purely for the resolution, which is so important for large screen blowups.
But for weddings, it is not at all an ideal camera. For weddings you need a camera that can operate in very low light conditions, which are often the case at receptions, if not the norm. You often need to add 9db of gain or more in these situations, and the camera must not add so much grain that it ruins the picture.
You also need a camera where you can accurately and quickly dial in focus and aperture and white balance settings. The JVC is not this camera, it has poor manual controls and it requires sufficent light ( but not too much) for it's very picky CCD, and also time to set up the shots, just like a film camera.
It can however be used as a second camera to hold a wide shot at wedding ceremonies, where lighting is normally plentiful, which is all I use it for. I love the picture it gets in panoramic scenes, which being HD, do not fall apart on blowup as SD DV does. Basically I do not think it is a good run-and-gun or ENG camera, but a great, if not revolutionary, indie film camera that people should embrace for artisic purposes where they have the luxury of time to set up good filming conditions for it.

Just my opinion based on my experiences so far.

I realize one needs a cam good with lower light, for weddings in general, such as a VX2000/PD150, XL1s or a GL2, etc; it was just a shot in the dark. :)

I was thinking more on the lines of outdoor weddings. Again, this was only a suggestion.

"1. Can you make money with this camera?"

How can anybody make money off of it right now? There is no viable HD-DVD yet. It cannot be used for 24p film transfers. Downconversion for SD DVD looks no better than lower priced 3 CCD cameras. By just about any measure it's a loser when it comes to value.

"Downconversion for SD DVD looks no better than lower priced 3 CCD cameras"
Wrong.

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : "Downconversion for SD DVD looks no better than lower priced 3 CCD cameras" -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : "Wrong." -->>>

I agree with Ken. The down converted DVD from HD looks better than from any native SD source. Here the resolution acts as oversampling way above that of any DV competitor (3CCD or not.) The resulting anamorphic progressive scanned DVD also holds up very well when scaled back up to an HD display with a progressive-scan DVD player. Yes it is poor-mans HD-DVD, but you can do that today (plus add HD WM9 tracks for PC users.) I have tested this will booth GR-HD1 and the JY-HD10.

An additional advantage of the resolution oversampling (for DVD production), is you can now crop, pan, zoom and rotate your HD source without any loss in definition in the target DVD output. This can't be done using any DV camera -- certainly interlaced sources kills any sizing, but even progressive sources get soft as there is no oversampling. I have also done this on a demo reel DVD, with zooms up to 180% without any perceived quality drop. Basically like doing camera motions in post.

A professional can make good money today using this camera.

Agree with the above; I've seen the output from this thing downconverted to standard def and it looks absolutely stunning; right on par with any current 3-CCD camcorder. Now if only it had full manual control...

Thats right Ken and David!
 

** OK, this is the camera for me. **
First off: The great hi res moving images. And I do like the pan&scan zoom and post camera moves that I am going to be able to do without quality loss!

And second: I may get the SD mode to preform full slowmotion shots (shooting at double speed) with this cam too!!!!
How??
SEE THIS POST: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13870


+ It is more filmlike picture quality than SD DV!

YES! Thats all an poor prosumer filmmaker like me needs!

By the way David:
Do you have some footage from your demo reel that maybe you could put out on the web so we could see it? I would sure like to see the 180% zoomed pan&scans!!

John,

remind me for that demo in 8 days. I'm on a holiday until next Wednesday.

ok
 

ok, I will!

A different point of view?
 

Kevin,

Although a slightly dated input, I thought I’d offer my 2cents since I believe your interest in the camera is similar to mine. I am a consumer/hobbyist who was interested in shooting HD for display on my personal HD display. To start with I’ll quote a post I made on this forum shortly after I first hooked up my HD10 to my HD projector.

“Holy..$@#%*. I do believe what I’m seeing actually exceeds my expectations. The picture from the HD10 on that 94-inch wide screen comes very close to the best HD cable feed I get and is actually better than some signals that are compromised with interference etc. I think the image could be projected considerably larger and still be very pleasing.”

“I ended up purchasing the HD10 while in the market for something better than my previous DV instamatic (JVC GR-DVP3). That camera is a pocket DV with a 680K pixel CCD and a small lens. Although I love the camera because of it’s pocket size, it certainly doesn’t have the resolution to stand up to a large projection screen. I was originally in the market for a quality 3CCD camera to supplement the pocket cam, but decided on the HD10 instead. Absolutely glade I did. I’m not looking back on my decision to go HD. In fact, I’m looking forward to getting far more serious in shooting and editing video as a hobby and, well… who knows. I do thank all of you who have contributed on this forum. Much of what I learned probably eased some potential early frustrations. I look forward to reading and posting more in the future.”

That post was on August 10th and I haven’t changed my mind since. I purchased the HD10 for personal use with my HDTV projector. I was disappointed at how my previous DV, HI8 and SVHS material looked on a large (94-inch) screen. I truly believe that this is the market that JVC is after. Just view their consumer web site and I think most people will agree. The bottom line for me is that I’ve chosen to be an early adopter because I’m capturing in HD now. I realize that editing, etc is in a “catch-up” mode, but I’m capturing in HD now. I can work out the rest as things develop. I find it exciting that so many professionals are using or considering using these cameras. I suspect their philosophy is much like mine. Dispite all the noted deficiencies of features generally required by professionals at least they can start capturing in HD now.

rez means nothing, nada, zip if your display device can't use it.
that's like buying a $10K stereo and plugging radio shack speakers into it

Bill,

I couldn’t agree more. That’s a point that can’t be stressed enough. The projector I’m using is an Infocus Screenplay 7200. This projector has the TI Mustang HD2 (1280 x 720; 16:9) DLP chip. I’m projecting the image onto a 94-inch wide 1.0 gain screen. The image from the HD10 in HD mode is fantastic. I suspect that I will endeavor to create progressive DVD’s in the near term which should also look very good on this projector.

I am soooo jealous! Would somebody please buy me one of those projectors for Christmas?, or my birthday?, or YOUR birthday?

Ha! I would agree. Thanks for the input guys. I'm happy to hear about your positive experiences with the cam.

Now - on with the questions: How do you like/dislike it's single chip color response? Have you had a chance to compare it with a 3 chip cam? How does it work in basic indoor living room lighting? Did you notice it to be any less sensative than other cams? I'm curious with all that extra resolution - is grain and noise more noticable with it? Maybe lower resolution DV cams are more "forgiving" of lower light conditions.

So many questions......does anyone in this thread have the GR1? Do you feel it looks oversharpened? I wish I could just get my hands on this cam once and for all so I could see for myself....

I am still surprised by so many opposite user opinions about the output from a camcorder. I've never seen one generate so much emotional static before! You'd think either people would see it's output and say "oh yeah", or "no way".

I understand that this camera's video is very sensitive to viewing on an appropriate HD monitor ( it is after all a "new" technology), but having some regulars here insist it's junk, while others praise it - some regulars making statements that MPEG2 has to be LESS resolution than DV (!), others saying things like "well if your going to have to resample it's video down to DVD or DV size it's going to look terrible - statements that are basically NOT TRUE in the real world, makes me wonder how many are speaking out of just plain emotional predjudice, intead of dealing with facts. ..

Strange stuff indeed. I have never seen a piece of gear generate so many emotions and different points of view before. If it was a new guitar effect, or a synthesizer, people would be gathering around in excitement to see what this new thing could do! And keyboard technology changes and is introduced far faster than camcorders. Makes for interesting reading, at least.

I just got ahold of a fairly large (46mb) .wmv of footage a coworker took with the GR-HD1. How do I go about uploading it for everyone? From what I can see, you can definatly see the sharpening in high contrast areas, but its not super-horrific. Certainly would be better without, but im not sure its worth $600 to $1000.

Kevin,

I don’t have any first hand experience with 3 chip camera’s, all I can offer is that I’m totally satisfied with the color rendition of the HD10. My comparison is with the JVC GR3 “instamatic” DV camera, which seems to over empisize colors and older HI8 and SVHS cameras that seem to mute colors. By comparison I think the HD10 records very natural colors. Neither overemphasized nor muted. In my opinion, right on.

As far as low light. Again, my experience is with middle range cameras. As such, I would say it compares favorably with the like. As an experiment, I taped some nighttime footage in my back yard, which was illuminated by only tiki torches and pool lights and as such was virtually unusable as far as seeing discernable images. However, I was actually surprised at the absence of video noise. It seemed as though there was less noise than with low to middle range DV cameras, which use high gain to compensate. Any good video and film benefits with abundant light. Anything less is a compromise. That said, I’d say this camera does an adequate job in low light.

Now as far as the issue of the GR1 having an over sharpened image vs. the HD10. I can’t comment at all. I have seen the HD1 only in a store and own the HD10, but this isn’t a just test. I can only tell you I choose the HD10 primarily for the higher resolution viewfinder. I use the viewfinder more often than not in bright outdoor light and although the HD10 viewfinder is nothing to brag about, it’s far better than the HD1. This is primarily important when using the manual focus.

At this point I’d like to summate by saying that I have no regrets in purchasing the HD10. My main priorities are capturing High Definition video for personal use. However, that isn’t to say I’m totally satisfied with the camera either. The main complaint I’d like to point out is again from a consumer/hobbyist point of view. This is in the area of audio. As a consumer/hobbyist I’m often content with on camera edits. That is to say, I haven’t always found it necessary to edit all scenes of a tape. However, with the HD10 and presumably the HD1, most people will be compelled to edit all scenes. This is because the on camera edits truncate the audio 1 to 2 seconds before the end of a scene and 1 to 2 seconds after the start of a scene. This is less of a problem to professionals who presumably edit all scenes. However, to me this is a nuisance.

OK OK…how about a second summate.
This camera is somewhat inspirational to me. That is to say as a consumer/hobbyist, this camera is inspiring me to be a better video photographer. The potential of the final product is pushing me to use/learn more professional techniques. Tripods, filters, zoom control, manual focus, static shooting, etc. I’m finding myself analyzing what I like about professional “films/video” and trying to emulate it. This camera is pushing me into a true hobbyist realm. And I’m jazzed!

Most everything in life is a trade off of priorities; desires, needs, affluence and perception. Only the individual can make the final decision.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : I am soooo jealous! Would somebody please buy me one of those projectors for Christmas?, or my birthday?, or YOUR birthday? -->>>

Paul,
You don't have to mortgage your sole to get great large screen performance. If you tinker like I, look into a used CRT projector. They are large and can be a little tricky to setup but coupled to a PC the results are most satisfying. Do some research at http://www.avsforum.com in the CRT front projector forum. A very decent used CRT can be had in the $800-$2000 range.

Now back on topic… I bought my HD1U to replace my very aged analog camcorder and could not be happier with it. I am not a pro by any means but I have a basic understanding of photographic. I shot some footage of semi pro water skiing the other day the with the proper manual settings the results are nothing short of fantastic on a 100" wide screen. The subjects I shot were have never seen them selves ski with such detail they were truly amazed. The camera is not for everyone epically if you really don’t have a way to display the image it can produce. But if you do the results are very gratifying.

Mike

If I read the specs correctly the camcorder will record in 720/30P which is almost 50% greater than DV25. IT will also record in standard DV25 too as well as 480P. This is not magic info its on the JVC WEB site!!!
I am sure that in the next year we will see versions in the more professional camcorders too now that a large number of manufacturers have agreed on the spec. Just like checking DV quality on a $100 WalMart TV is not a good indication of the compression quality HD has to be viewed on the right device. Steve is correct, the reactions are much the same as to the introduction of DV---fear of change and mostly wrong.

Ron Evans

<<<-- Originally posted by Ron Evans : If I read the specs correctly the camcorder will record in 720/30P which is almost 50% greater than DV25. -->>>

While technically correct that 720 is 50% greater than DV25's 480 lines, that doesn't really tell the story. Multiply the pixels out and you'll get a better idea:

DV25 = 720 x 480 = 345,600

HDV = 1280 x 720 = 921,600

921600 / 345600 = 2.67.

So the JVC puts up nearly three times as many pixels as a standard-def camera. As I've said before, while the JVC has its shortcomings, resolution certainly isn't one of them!

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Sturges : How do you like/dislike it's single chip color response? -->>>

Color response is good, 3 chips would be better

<<<-- Have you had a chance to compare it with a 3 chip cam? -->>>

It reminds me of the early CCDs, it will streak vertically if something is real bright like car headlights or the sun.

<<<-- How does it work in basic indoor living room lighting? -->>>

Not great, but not much worse than most broadcast cameras at 0 db gain. Most people that slam this camera for poor lowlight performance, are comparing it to DV cameras with auto gain always on. They don't see the noise thay are adding.

<<<-- Did you notice it to be any less sensative than other cams? I'm curious with all that extra resolution - is grain and noise more noticable with it? -->>>

Very quiet in the blacks. Chroma noise is an issue.

<<<-- Maybe lower resolution DV cams are more "forgiving" of lower light conditions. -->>>

Yes.

<<<-- So many questions......does anyone in this thread have the GR1? -->>>

Yes, I bought it when it first came out. I wish the HD10 was available then.

<<<-- Do you feel it looks oversharpened? -->>>

Only at the transitions of high contrast objects.

<<<-- I wish I could just get my hands on this cam once and for all so I could see for myself....

I am still surprised by so many opposite user opinions about the output from a camcorder. I've never seen one generate so much emotional static before! You'd think either people would see it's output and say "oh yeah", or "no way". -->>>

A friend of mine, who is also a cinematographer told me he was sad when he heard I bought one of these cameras. Well, I thought about buying the DVX100, it's the best looking DV camera I've seen, but another friend of mine, Barry Green already had one. I sold my VX1000 (which I used to tape my kids' birthday parties) on ebay for $1500 and bought the HD1 for $3100 and got the JVC DVHS deck for free. I am puzzled why my respected friend is sad. He also bashes the camera when talking about it. Yes the camera has lots of shortcomings, but anyone who has shot reversal stock can handle this thing, just bring a full set of NDs so you can force the shutter speed and fstop to where you want them.

I like shooting film, but a lot of stories gather dust because no one can get them financed. I'm doing a short this weekend for a buddy with the JVC that will probably tour the film festivals and hopefully will be digitally projected in 720p. It's a "no budget" project which at best, would have been shot with a traditional video camera.

The lack of manual control is frustrating, the loss of color when a highlight blows out is maddening, the chroma noise is a new problem I'm just now seeing, but..........when everything is right on, the pictures are gorgeous.

Now, we just have to figure out how to edit this stuff.

Jay

Kevin.

Think about your original query this way: Some people believe that "my toys are better than your toys".

It doen't matter whether its a cam, a lens, a tripod, a car, a house, etc. The stuff that they own MUST be better than yours.

Ignore them.

Get the most out of your system. Eventually, they will join you.

Originally posted by Barry Green

"Regarding the JVC cam being embraced and loved by the low-budget filmmaker, that ignores the camera's biggest obstacle: the fact it shoots HD in 30P only, which is the single worst frame rate for transfer to film or to PAL for international distribution. Besides its other limitations, which can mostly be overcome, the 30P-only is a dealbreaker"

How about using After effects or ReVision's Fieldkit to convert 30p to 24p

http://www.revisionfx.com/

Interesting idea, but will it work? Fieldskit is a de-interlacing product, and the HD1 footage is progressive - no fields. So I don't know whether this would work or not.

Anybody want to give it a try?

If your movie is a huge success and worthy of distribution there are professional studio programs as well as independent soulutions like Magic Bullet and twixtor. That is not the problem, making a movie worthy of film distrobution is.