HD100/200 user satisfaction

[Joel Chappell]

Originally Posted by Carl Middleton

Sorry that I don't know much about your question... but hello from another first coaster!

Good to see I'm not the only person in the tri county area who logs on here ;)

Carl

What do you shoot with Carl?

[Paolo Ciccone]

Originally Posted by Shai Camerini

Ciao Paolo
I didn't understand how do you capture the material, and how do you use it inside FCP? Can you explain the steps and setups?

There a lot of posts about the workflow but here is a quick summary for the HD100:

- If you have short takes, a few minutes each, just connect the camera to your computer via FW and press Cmd-8 in FCP open the log and capture window. Just did it for the aforementioned GS shots and it worked fine.
- If you have long takes or you can't get FCP to capture in the right way the use HDVxDV or Apple DVHS-Cap to capture the .m2t files ( data from the tape )
- Use MPEG Streamclip to convert the clips to .mov files using your codec of choice. At this point it would be the wrong choice, IMHO, to use the Panosonic codec given the pixel reduction mentioned before. SheerVideo ( http://www.bitjazz.com ) offers excellent compression without loss of data and it's my preferred method for rountripping between FCP and AfterEffects (or Shake, or SynthEyes or...). Remember to set the frame rate in MPEG Streamclip if you capture at 24p ( frame rate = 23.976 ).

At this point you have QuickTime files that can be used in FCP or any other applications.

[Jon Jaschob]

I have had the HD100 for about a year and a half. I like it. Never has given me too many problems, never have had to send it back...knock on everything.
I am still learning to use it as I was not a video camera operator when I bought it. Best bang for the buck. I see them used for 2.5k, I paid 5k for mine.
I might have bought the panni but the P2 issue was too much for me($$$).
I have the AB battery, a better mic, wide adapter, and will be getting a letus lens adapter soon. All I need for what I do. I bought Cineform Aspect HD as I am PC PPRo2 based. The files are as easy to use a DV, capture thru render.
My experience with the camera has been great so far.
Jon

[Glen Vandermolen]

I've had my HD200 (with a 17X Fujinon lens) for a few months now. I've been able to shoot some incredible video with it. The high def stuff looks fantastic. I rent it out to a friend and he constantly raves about the camera. He prefers it to the Z1 and HVX.
I do think its low light capabilities aren't the best. Understand I come from 2/3" chip broadcast cams, so I'm used to better low-light performance. What happened to the talk about some kind of JVC low-light level upgrade?
It's ergos are top-notch. I shot a week long, mostly hand-held production and the low weight and terrific balance of the camera was a godsend.
Using the DR-HD100 makes editing so much easier. Just plug the HD100 into your editing system, download the files and you're set to go. More or less.

[Jeff Kellam]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

I do what Paolo does, intermediary codec called Cineform. Best thing since orange juice. HDV has been beat up because of its inadequacy in post, the IC totally solves the issue. You don't need some Octacore Freon cooled nuclear powered computer either, just need a little bit of storage--and that's no problem because they're practically giving away hard drives these days. So HDV gets trashed all the time, but looks like the hottest thing down the pike is the Sony Xdcam EX. And guess what format it shoots in? a juicier version of HDV.

Brian:

Do you smartrender any of your HDV?

Jeff

[William Hohauser]

After a year and a half of the HD100 and shooting footage for documentaries, a music video and several instructional videos, I can vouch that the camera will give you some astounding images and the camera is designed for hand held videography unlike the cinderblock HVX200 but I have to reiterate some of the previous comments.

The lens is workable but the problems of CA and shallow wide angle are there. The CA never really affected my work but I find myself in situations where I can't get far enough back from the subjects for an establishing shot. I am not sure if the HVX200 is any better out of the box but I do know that a wide angle adapter would be much cheaper for the HVX. In fact I have an upcoming project that I will be shooting scenes in the back of a taxi and I'll probably use a small Sony HDV camera instead of the HD100 and worry about integrating the formats later.

The camera is heavier (especially with an adequate battery) so a quick subway trip to a shoot is not as easy as with a smaller camera.

On the plus side, it uses tape (or an optional hard drive) which would have helped my friend with his HVX200 last month. On the road, he shot hours and hour of footage and since he couldn't afford many P2 cards he was transfering the data to a hard drive. Well guess what happened? The new hard drive had a massive failure and poof! No more footage, forever. The memory card system of the HVX200 requires a much heftier investment for safe storage of data than the tape based HDV format. I'm sticking with tape for the while (while using the hard drive, either could be considered the backup).

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kellam

Brian:

Do you smartrender any of your HDV?

Jeff

errrr...what exactly is smart render? I use Vegas 6, never seen any smart render function there.

[David Scattergood]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

After a year and a half of the HD100 and shooting footage for documentaries, a music video and several instructional videos, I can vouch that the camera will give you some astounding images and the camera is designed for hand held videography...

In fact I have an upcoming project that I will be shooting scenes in the back of a taxi and I'll probably use a small Sony HDV camera instead of the HD100 and worry about integrating the formats later.

The camera is heavier (especially with an adequate battery) so a quick subway trip to a shoot is not as easy as with a smaller camera.

Sony 1080i? Would you convert to progressive (if that was what you were filming in on the JVC)? I can see the need to have a smaller HD cam within your 'arsenal'.
The JVC is fairly heavy - I've done work where I've had to shoot scenes across an entire city...it was too time consuming to pack away this and a tripod so I eventually carried the tripod (libec LS38) and HD100 on my shoulders for the best part of a day...I lost several hundred pounds (weight btw) on those days.

So glad I chose this camera over the other, smaller, interlaced, auto functioned to the hilt camera's...it's taught me in a fairly quick time the functionaility of a 'real' video/film camera. It's look alone garners respect and the HD filmic look is fantastic for it's price.
Of course, I'm no expert but there's enough of them on here who use (very well) and talk highly of this/these cameras.

Recent work using HD 720p25 and slow mo SD50p really looks lovely.

[Alan Ortiz]

The HD100 was the first camera i had ever used. I had no interest in video at all before I purchased it, and spent most of my time on my dad's old nikon and his trusty manual focus lenses periodically experimenting with B&W photography for fun.

Coming from somewhere with no experience whatsoever, I can tell you that the HD100 is a wonderful tool to have in your arsenal- its very intuitive, and just feels "right" when using it. Thanks to the incredibly helpful, friendly community and the classy pro's on this board such as Tim Dashwood, Paolo Ciccone, Nate Weaver, etc (the list is long) I was up and running in one weekend. Im glad and definitely blessed to have been given the opportunity to own one and while its just a tool, there was without a doubt a certain magical connection that I had from operator-to camera that felt like I was holding on to my dad's old nikon again. The very first project EVER that I had filmed was a running "commercial" for class in black and white- and the HD100 blew me away with its organic and filmic look. Is the SSE there? It can be. Is it controllable? Absolutely. The viewfinder? Yeah its a little flimsy but at its price point I have to tell you that when I purchased it for over 5 grand two years ago it felt like ALOT more camera than 5 grand worth. I have yet to see a camera of ANY kind that didnt have flaws or workarounds, but most important to me, the HD100 has NEVER let me down when I needed it to be there, and that alone makes it worth the price. If I were you, Id own both the JVC and HVX- they really do fill in for roles that the other struggles with. Id like to own an HVX at some point so I can see for myself what all the craze is about rather than just messing with one, but honestly if I could only choose one Id choose the JVC all over again and better yet, if I was doing really well Id go with the 200 and never look back.

Plus it doesnt help that I am totally reliant on JVC's focus assist- I really dont get why every camera doesnt have one like it and it I always miss it when I work with other cameras.

[William Hohauser]

Originally Posted by David Scattergood

Sony 1080i? Would you convert to progressive (if that was what you were filming in on the JVC)? I can see the need to have a smaller HD cam within your 'arsenal'.

Indeed, I would de-interlace the Sony footage while the whole project would be converted to ProRes (FCP) or something similar. It's all an experiment, the whole project is going to be heavily processed anyway (in terms of image) so I think I'll be able to get away with mixing 720p and 1080i.

[Joel Chappell]

Originally Posted by William Hohauser

On the plus side, it uses tape (or an optional hard drive) which would have helped my friend with his HVX200 last month. On the road, he shot hours and hour of footage and since he couldn't afford many P2 cards he was transfering the data to a hard drive. Well guess what happened? The new hard drive had a massive failure and poof! No more footage, forever. The memory card system of the HVX200 requires a much heftier investment for safe storage of data than the tape based HDV format. I'm sticking with tape for the while (while using the hard drive, either could be considered the backup).

Most folks that have used these for a while highly recommend the Hard Disk Drive. I am also cautious about a totally disk based solution without some sort of backup.

Data corruption is real. And when it occurs, it is without any warning. A real advantage seems to be the dual record option of tape with the Disk.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Joel Chappell

Most folks that have used these for a while highly recommend the Hard Disk Drive. I am also cautious about a totally disk based solution without some sort of backup.

Data corruption is real. And when it occurs, it is without any warning. A real advantage seems to be the dual record option of tape with the Disk.

Ya. An underappreciated advantage of the HD100 is the ability to have redundant back ups with a hard drive recorder. The camera covers your ass.

[Jeff Kellam]

Originally Posted by Brian Luce

errrr...what exactly is smart render? I use Vegas 6, never seen any smart render function there.

Brian:

I hope you are kidding about still using Vegas 6. Even Vegas 7 was much better.

But now we are on Vegas 8. Smartrender is in Vegas 8 and does not re-encode, or touch at all, HDV clips on the timeline that have not been edited. By doing this you save render time by Vegas "skipping" over this material and better yet, it is a lossless transfer with no degradation of quality.

Jeff

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kellam

Brian:

I hope you are kidding about still using Vegas 6. Even Vegas 7 was much better.

But now we are on Vegas 8. Smartrender is in Vegas 8 and does not re-encode, or touch at all, HDV clips on the timeline that have not been edited. By doing this you save render time by Vegas "skipping" over this material and better yet, it is a lossless transfer with no degradation of quality.

Jeff

Well, thing is, Vegas 6 and cineform work really well for me. The only thing intriguing about version 8 is the improved titler.

[David Liu]

Great personal reviews guys..

I do understand the HVX much difference is due to the P2 workflow and size, how bout the A1, it records on tape, small and seem to be only lacking in 50p option.

Anyone up to comment on the HD110 to Canon's XHA1?