Giuseppe, all these are great points and I think that should be re-iterated often in the pages of forums like this. The fact is, like with everything, when something becomes popular, in other words, it escapes the "controls" of the professionals who worked in a particular sector of the industry, a lot of wrong assumptions are made. Either because of inexperience or for commercial interests of the parties that have vested interest. For example, it's a well known thing that Internet Explorer is the most broken browsers out there. Even the version of Opera built-in in my Nintendo Wii works more accurately than IE. Nevertheless 75% or so of people insist in using IE with the result that Web developers like myself spend days and days just to work around bugs in IE while the unmodified page works on ANY other browser out there. Do you have any idea how infuriating is that ;)?

Anyway, I had the good fortune to tape an interview with M. David Mullen, ASC a few months ago and he made a very interesting observation about AF. He pointed out that many people new to cinematography see the issue as a technical one. And that is the reason why it's so misunderstood. Because cameras are so cheap and popular, like in many other cases, people start using the tool without going to the traditional education that formed previous generations of filmakers. I give you another example. Today's non-destructive editing tools like Aperture or Lightroom allow us to frame our still photos with ease and that seems like a great technological achievement. I had the great luck to learn that skill when I was probably 14 or 15. My father used the develop his films in house (B&W stills) and I got my introduction to photography in those years. As I entered the dark room for the first time I assumed that the process was technical in nature. It was at the end of the chain that I realized that you could reframe your picture by raising of lowering the projector and by shifting and rotating the paper. The realization that you didn't need to frame the negative perfectly in the limits of the paper was an eye opening experience and taught me about cropping way before the first PC was invented (I guess I'm dating myself here).
As with framing, focus used to be a tools that was taught to aspiring filmmakers when the pros where more or less in control of the craft. As people acquire "independence" because of technology, everything seems to become a technology issue and they fail to see the use of focus as an artistic tool, it becomes just a requirement to make the shot, as much as putting the subject perfectly in the center of the frame ;) Understanding that focus is another "brush stroke" is the turning point in becoming an artist of the frame. I think that Mullen's observation summarizes the essence of the misunderstanding in this field and why people who look at the technical issue see it as a shortcoming.

Thank you for taking your time out to read my long rant by the way.

M. David Mullen ASC was the cinematographer for "The Astronaut Farmer" a movie I've been dieing to see actually. I feel bad because I dont want to come off as a know it all, but I would like to have people at least not shut the door to these things that make half of the film. I learn about film every day i edit or shoot, you continue to learn until you die i believe.

I guess im old fashioned? I change that statement im not because if i was i would be shooting film... I push the digital age, I love that i can take a $5k camera and shoot something that would normally take a ton of money in film processing and developing and converting to a digital intermediate. But i guess i still appreciate where it all came from. I think just because things are turning digital, doesn't mean we have to forget the way film is shot.

Who knows, maybe im just a crazy man who thinks too much about this? Ill shut up now... but yes despite its "problems" its a tool, and i personally think a good one at that. I am so glad JVC put the effort into making such a tool for people who can appreciate its capabilities while keeping the price so cheap. For me, when it first came out, it was a turning point in digital cinematography. Sure its not a 1920x1080 picture... but all of these other HDV cameres are so consumer targeted, its a breath of fresh air that a company went forth to make something of a more professional standard/build.

Its late... i worked all day... sorry haha.

We do a large mixed assortment of projects, from live event imag services to documentary style films and training videos. Prior to purchasing our slew of HD-110's, we used JVC GY-DV5000's and loved them. But we did want something a bit more portable and a bit lighter, so we designed our operation around the 110.

I can't say that we made the wrong decision, but the 110's definitely do have their faults. Although they do feel nicely on your shoulder and look more like a "pro" camera, for us, we really miss the low light performance we got from the 5000's. When it comes to most indoor events, we have really found that may of times, 0 db is not acceptable, sometimes having to push it beyond. The translation is GAIN = GRAIN, which for us can begin to yeild some pretty unacceptable results.

In daylight and outdoors, the cameras look superb. We have never had any problems with our cameras in regards to functionality, just in lower light conditions which we run into on a very regular basis. We don't always have the time, budget or clearances to run extra lighting for some of our projects, so for us, getting something that is goign to be a bit better in those situations will be beneficial.

So we have decided to sell our cameras and opt for the Sony EX1's. It was a hard decision because we have never really used any cameras other than shoulder mount cameras. We never really liked the "handheldness" of the Sonys, Panys and Canons. It's nice that the JVC "looks" good on the outside, but from what we have seen, the Sony is going to produce much more acceptable results. The 720p thing never really bothered us until we lost a couple of jobs with clients that wanted their project produced in 1080p for future scalability.

One of the major concerns we contimplated with a handheld type camera like the EX1 was that shooting without a tripod was going to be harder to get a steady shot and provide more strain on the operator. Sometimes we have 8-10 hour long events and holding your wrist in the air for that amount of time without having your shoulder to rest the camera on was going to be difficult. We ultimately decided that we would just get some sort of a steadicam type unit to take strain off, or if we needed to do some actuall handheld shooting, we could at least purchase a full size F series XDCAM, and we would not have to sacrafice image quality.

Bottom line is that JVC has always been very good to us. Their cameras have always been very nice looking and produced very nice images in good conditions. But we now need something that is going to be great in a wide variety of conditions, and I believe the 1/2" sony is going to be much more accomodating and acceptable to a wider range of clients in the years to come. Direct to disc built in is where it's at (no more homemade creative Firestore mounts to mount on the cameras) and better images along with an improved workflow should yeild more $$$ in the years to come.

* Another cheap plug: We do have our last GY-HD110 available in the classifieds.....*

Is the Mullen interview on your site? He's a great resource and is particularly knowledgeable on HD Video.

Joel,

I shoot with a Z1U, Bogen 503 on wilderness legs, edit with AspectHD & Premiere, currently building a FCS2 machine.

Sorry I missed your message originally!

Carl

Not yet. It will see the light of the day at some point.