A personal review of the JY-HD10U and GV-HD1
 

Guys,

I've been evaluating this camera for about 4 weeks now and I am very impressed with the performance. I think you may have it all wrong.

First, if you're looking for the professional controls of a $120K camera for $3K, you're asking for too much. The camera is to HD, what the VX1000 DV camera was to video production about 7 years ago. this camera, first introduced by Sony revolutionized the video industry to say the least and is one of the most successful cameras for Sony ever.

Mitch you and I argued about this 7 years or so ago on the Fast board and you stated emphatically, you would NEVER use DV for video production. Well, needless to say, you embraced the format like the rest of us, even had a write up on Apple's web site if I remember correctly.

Yesterday, I arranged a comparison between a Sony HDW900 - Cinealta camera and the 2 flavours of JVC HDV format cameras. We were at Plus 8 Digital in Vancouver. Yes these are the same guys who supply Hollywood in LA and New York and Toronto. We had a standard industry test chart set up and a model for skin tone comparisons.

We were plugged into a SONY 24inch professional 16X9 HD monitor. Sells for about $20K and we had a waveform and vectorscope plugged in too. The test was overseen by one of the top technical directors in Vancouver. When we walked in he was skeptical too telling me I was wasting his time and mine.

Now, there is no way a $3K camera can outperform a $120K camera, but what I wanted to achieve was determining just how close we could come to duplicating the images.

Well, the signal to noise in the monitor was extremely close. The Sony has about 55db, our engineer estimated the JY-HD10U was about 56db. The resolution was amazingly close, but the Sony won again. Color was great on the JVC, close to the Sony, but the Sony won again. We also tested our shot with plus and minus 2 stops of light. The JVC's highlights were crushed with too much light, and there was more noise in the lower light. Skin tones were very pleasing in the JVC as it was in the Sony. In short, we proved what we believed, the $120K Sony was a superior camera to the $3K JVC's.

BUT - the JVC did produce images that were 100% HD, and I believe would be able to to be used in HD production. Our Technical director and the local SONY HD dealer agreed the bang for the buck is huge and the quality was impressive. This camera will make it in the real world, it will shoot everything from commercials (see http://www.floatingcar.com) to music videos and in Toronto, there are currently a few features being shot. No Mr. Speilberg, Mr. Lucas and the guys won't be buying one anytime soon, but then again, Mr. Kelly, Mr Ives and their counterparts won't be putting up the cash for the Sony HDW900/950 any time soon either. There is a market for the HDV format, and I believe it will be for the professional video producer who today makes his living selling local commercials, corporate videos and perhaps open doors for documentary and low end film/feature production.

If you reviewed the consumer version of this camera, the GV-HD1, you would have found significant differences with the JY-HD10U. Frst, there are about 70,000 pixels more resolution in the viewfinder on the JY-HD10U than it's consumer sibling. Second, you can generate color bars on the JY-HD10U. Lastly and most importantly the edge sharpening on the JY-HD10U is not as extreme as the GV-HD1 which provides a more appealing image than the consumer model.

You can't shoot this camera like any pro (or for that matter, consumer) DV or Analog camera. It must be considered more like a film camera and controls come in the form of filters, matte boxes and flags, not menus, switches and built in filters. This is similar to how you also shoot the Sony HDCam too. While it has extensive menus, filters and controls, it still requires a solid knowledge of camera operations, and most packages that are rented go out with full filters, flags, matte boxes, focus controls, etc.

I wouldn't use the HDV format for "gonzo" video production, it requires more finesse and skill. I am disapointed you didn't like the camera Mitch, I think you may have beenb looking for it's faults rather than figuring out how to make a buck with it.

I wouldn't make the assumption as so many did with the VX1000 that this is the end of development for this format. Sony, Sharp, JVC and Canon have all adopted the HDV MPEG 2 format as a new video standard. It will not surprise me in the least when at NAB 2004 we see a new 3 chip, switchable glass lens camera from either SONY or JVC (I'd bet on JVC) and a HD version of the PD150 and XL1s.

Currently, I have been made aware of 5-6 companies developing plugins for the various NLE's (Final Cut, Premiere, etc) and in fact today, you can edit the media in Premiere and FCP using 3rd party plugins.

Read Steve Mullins review of this camera and technology in Video Systems, and take a look at the latest version of DV for an editorial.

This camera and format are going to change your business, or end it!

DBK

Re: A personal review of the JY-HD10U and GV-HD1
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Darren Kelly :

Great review! Your embrace of DV matches mine. So it was great to read about an A-B test. But one question.

"We also tested our shot with plus and minus 2 stops of light. The JVC's highlights were crushed with too much light, and there was more noise in the lower light."

Curious how the Sony handled the 2-stops up and down. I would predict at these stops the Sony highlights and shadows were still fine.

Darren,
I enjoyed quite a bit your review as I own a HD10. I wish most of the arguments in the forum were as objective as yours. Can you comment on your preferred filters for the HD10 and for completeness, you did not review the audio ability/shortcomings?

Darren,

Great review, great analogy. I own an HD10 and have also felt that most of the criticism I’ve seen has been from over expectation. I’m only a comsumer/hobbiest, but feel that the bottom line performance of the cameras is well within the expectations of the price range. These camera’s are not point and shoot, nor full fledged pro camera’s, but even as a hobbyist I’ve managed to shoot footage that is awesome on my HD projection system. I’ve already posted elsewhere that I’ve felt somewhat inspired by the capabilities of the camera to the extent of trying to use more professional techniques in shooting video footage. ND filters, tripods, light control, etc. I do believe that the bottom line, at least for me, is that I am getting at least what I expected and even more than I’d hoped for in terms of final video performance. My next steps will be editing and hopefully burning DVD’s with better definition than I’ve achieved with standard DV.

My regards to all that have supported these cameras with constructive feedback. I know that much of what I read within this forum, even before I decided to purchase the camera, has eased potential early frustrations and disappointments.

Cheers,

<<<-- Originally posted by Jose Cavazos : Darren,
I enjoyed quite a bit your review as I own a HD10. I wish most of the arguments in the forum were as objective as yours. Can you comment on your preferred filters for the HD10 and for completeness, you did not review the audio ability/shortcomings? -->>>

Thank you.

I only used an .6ND but would have liked an .9ND for really bright days.

There are 3-4 paragraphs on audio.

To answer a few questions:

Steve, the SONY handled the 2 stop change just fine. The highlights held and the lower light was also fine. It once again confirms how careful (or skillful) the operator needs to be when using the camera.

Jose: I have placed an order for 5 filters, which might be considered mandatory. A .3ND, .6ND, .9ND, Polarizer and promist. I am hopeful those will handle all shooting situations.

I didn't review the audio, primarily because I don't think I'll use it much, or I'll directly mike my subjects. In Fact, I didn't even order a mike for the camera, I have more mikes than I thought possible here, so when I receive the camera I ordered, I'll check out the audio then. I'll post an update at that time. I'm not sure what you mean by short coming in the audio? Can you explain in more detail?

It is a great camera and I look forward to using it.

Cheers

DBK

Darren as made a very thorough review as I would have expected. I have chatted a bit with him and what amazed me was that this guy has been in the buisness for over 25 years and he still approaches new technologies with an open mind. Fear is the mind killer, fear simply is a natural defense against threats, threats like a 3K camera that can do similar images to 120K cameras that we have been embracing and paying for years, as DV was a threat to the Betacam realm when it came out, but hey, Betacam still are used. I have a saying that image is everything and few of the people actually seeing what we shoot have enough knowledge to see the differences between cameras and formats, I mean, people in this very forum saw for exemple "28 days later" and thought it was shot on film but looking at it myself it certainly did not look like film definition to me but I asked a lot of people after the projection if they thought it was shot on film and none of the 50 some people that I asked had any idea it was shot in video.

My point is the following: if you need a vectorscope to see the difference it is not a good argument, seeing is believing, after all, we make those productions of ours for people to see them, not for us to indulge ourselves among those of our level of knowledge of the medium. The people in the industry tend to be very conservative. I know of a production company that use an old AVID software on a 233mhz pentium with a Targa capture card. The targa can capture at 8MB/s but their system cannot do more that 1.9MB/S. Their system is expensive and they use BetaSP to produce clear images that are totally destroyed by the compression artefacts, but, as they say, it's Avid and most TV's work with Avid and so on. What a shame to see all the quality that is lost out of fear of the new technologies. They would gain so much with lower cost stations like FCP and a G4 using either a DV converter or a more expensive capture card.

The end resut is what matters in most cases. Certainly in the case of the JVC as it was the case with the miniDVs. HDV is now a reality and as Darren pointed out, there is more to come in the next years, systems will support the format sooner than we might expect.

One important thing about Darren's review to keep in mind: The JVC does 1280X720 HD while the HDW900 does 1920X1080 HD so there is indeed a huge difference (as there is between 480P and 720P of course). I am set to test the JVC head to head with Panasonnic's Varicam (witch is also a 720P) next week, I will post a thread on that.

Thanks for your kind words Eric.

"I am set to test the JVC head to head with Panasonnic's Varicam (witch is also a 720P) next week, I will post a thread on that."

I'm going to look forward to that review. I hope to do the same in a few weeks when production takes a brake and the cameras are available.

Until then, I am looking forward to receiving my HD10U today or tomorrow!

Cheers

DBK

Darren,

Your review of the HD10U is quite an eye opener.

What type of ND filters do you suggest.? Graduated ND s?

I'm not a fan of the graduated filters, so I would recommend full filters.

Grads assume the highlights are in one place in the scene, while full filters give you better protection.

take for example a street scene. You assume the sky is a fault, but take a look at the sidewalk, which is white concrete, or the light colored car that passes by. These will also present brighter than desired areas.

Just my 2 cents

DBK

What type of video was 28 days shot on?
I had heard that some scenes used XL-1s's, but it was just a few scenes at the beginning when you were looking through the cams viewer and the news clips.
ken

28 Days Later was shot using Canon XL1 cameras, up to 8 of them at a time. It was shot on PAL format, using Frame Mode.

The very end bit, where he wakes up in the house, and the grassy field and all that, that was shot on 35mm. The rest of it was all XL1 (not XL1s).

Here's a link to the article in American Cinematographer magazine:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html

Darren,

It's good to see a sensible and unbiased review. Most of the people slamming this camera haven't touched one, let alone done side by side comparisons. My findings are very similar to yours.

It's not as easy to see with flesh tones, but when very chroma-saturated highlights blowout (such as neon or a red stoplight) the color just disappears with no gradual roll-off. You can actually find exposures where stoplights appear to be flashing like police beacons as they switch from red to white. The f900 and most other cameras will either roll off smoothly or hold some chroma through the knee circuitry.

I have a shoot Oct. 2nd with the f900 and I'm going to bolt my JVC to the top and double shoot. I'll try to post the results somewhere but I'm not sure how to get the HDcam HD-SDI into my computer.

I did a music video with the Varicam a few months back, it's nice that Panasonic puts all the controls in the same place as the Sony. The picture was nice, but seemed to miss the "snap" that the Sony has. But to be fair, I didn't go through all the menus and adjust gammas, detail, etc.

The JVC is a handful, but you can coerce some great images out of it, if you treat it like film. I thought your review was right on the mark.

Jay

Thanks for the link Barry. Very cool. I can't comment on how it looked on the big screen, but on a home SD system I was very impressed and would not have guessed. And XL1 non S's as well, wow!

The article in Barry's link is very well done. It has many tricks and techniques that I think most in this forum would be interested in.
If anyone would like to comment on some of theses techniques in relation to getting the most out of the HD10 I would love to here them. Or if anyone would like to point out any situations in which the film makers would still be better off with the XL1 over the HD10 in regards to the specific challenges of that movie. Lets here them!
ken

I did see it on the big screen, and I was fairly disappointed. Except for extreme closeups, the rest of the picture looked quite soft, with some shots looking downright out of focus. I'm sure they didn't look that way on the television, but blown up to theatrical size, it didn't hold up well at all. Some shots looked okay, but any wide-angle shot was noticeably soft.

They shot in frame mode on the XL1, which is known to lower resolution, and they didn't use any sort of anamorphic system so the 16:9 extraction would lower resolution again.

Barry Green wrote:
"I did see it on the big screen, and I was fairly disappointed."

(also about 28 days later) Same for me but what can you expect for a camera whose CCD has lower resolution than it's actual image. But it did deliver pretty well as far as the ambience is concerned. Not as much visible artefacts as I would have guessed.

Like I said, I saw it on the small screen in a divx 700mb no less, and was very impressed. The empty bridge scene looked great and made me sure it was film. I was looking for DV type artifacting but nothing ever poped out to my eye. They must have used some sort of cleaning program.
Ya its funny they chose those cameras. It must have been for the lens options. But why not even the S model? Maybe it was shot a while ago. Two years ago that might have been first choice.
I have a feeling it was borrow your buddies XL1 day and they ended up with 8.

They could have used whatever they wanted -- they had a $15,000,000 budget!

I don't really know why they chose the XL1. Obviously part of it was that they wanted to use Frame Mode, and the XL1 is one of the few cameras that could do it. Also they ditched the stock lens and used expensive Canon zooms, so they were surely trying to get the best quality they could. There was no DVX or SDX available, so frame mode was about it. Why they chose XL1 instead of XL1s is a question...

It is a question of look, a bad creepy, desolate world with a low res video image, highly contrasted and desaturated, then, in the end, as the world gets better and the zombies dies, the film is shot Hi-res, everything is clean and colorfull. it is a efficient method of getting us in the mood and it did indeed work fine. Keep in mind there are motives and there are means, they had the means, it was a conscient choice. This being said, I don't think we can compare transferring XL1 footage to 35mm and JVC to 35mm so I do not see where this discussion would lead us. I guess we should move forward to discussing about the JVC.

Low res
 

The only part in the film, when viewed on the big screen, that really seemed to call out for better resolution was the initial scene in abandoned London, where buildings in the distance had this really blurry out of focus look, and even an annoying little surrounding halo. Seems like such a waste when it must have cost a fortune to clear out so much of the city for shooting. Probably more than the cost of all the DV cameras x1000. I would have like to seen that part on film.

I saw 28 Days and I didn't even notice that it was DV until later on in the movie. I was watching it like everyone else in the theatre...watching the content!

At some point early on...I did notice the aspect ration. But, the stupid projectionist's never seem to get the movies right. You notice that? The edges always go off into the wall instead of on the damn screen!

Anyway, I said to myself..."Damn, I was ingrossed in the movie and didn't notice that it was shot in DV!" At the end, I did notice the difference in the ending...and I told my girlfriend afterwards about the technical change. She said, "I didn't notice anything different."

Soo...once again. It's not the camera it's the operator. (But, I'll still take my HD10U over any DV!)

Chris

I went to a free preview of 28 days..., not knowing it was shot on DV. Pretty much as soon as the movie started I noticed that it was shot on DV, although the picture quality was more akin to VHS, with the edge enhancement sharpness turned up to the full.

I've seen PAL and NTSC video converted onto film for an SMPTE conference, and even their worst example (they were demonstrating how, and how not to do it) was better looking than 28 days...

The fact is that they purposefully degraded the video. Everyone else knows that you turn the sharpness control to a minimum. The end result is a headache inducing, out of focus mess.

BTW, at the SMPTE conference, they had shot the some test scenes on HDCam and Film together (with the cameras next to each other) and projected the HD digitally, and converted to film, and the film as film. Obviously, the film prints were pristine because they'd not been through a theatrical distribution. There was a lot more shadow detail on the HD, although the film handled highlights better. Overall the HD projected digitally looked best.

Larry, if you read the link to the article you will understand that not being able to clear the streets is why they chose DV.
SD resolution is how 80% of everybody who watches this movie will view it. And it holds up, thanks to some crafty film work. I urge everyone who is into making their own movie with a HD10 to read the article, and learn from some of the techniques they used.
ken

I heard a key reason they shot 28 days digitally was that you can't shut down parts of London like you can shut down parts of other cities around the world - it's not permitted

Graham,

Do a search for 28 Days Later here at DV Info, and you'll get the scoop on it.

heath

>>I wouldn't make the assumption as so many did with the VX1000 that this is the end of development for this format. Sony, Sharp, JVC and Canon have all adopted the HDV MPEG 2 format as a new video standard. It will not surprise me in the least when at NAB 2004 we see a new 3 chip, switchable glass lens camera from either SONY or JVC (I'd bet on JVC) and a HD version of the PD150 and XL1s.<<

Check out DVInfo News.