JVC GY-HD100 or the Canon XL2 - Not that simple

[Mikael Widerberg]

I do understand that for a independent filmmaker the GY-HD100 would be the smarter choise.

But if you produce DVD:s, wats the bennefit of The GY-HD100? The resolution at the end will be the same.

Is it not more importent with bigger ccd:s, that can manage a bigger light spektrum from the darkest dark to the lightest light?

I do also have some hesitation about the lens inkluded with the JVC camera. It do not have autofucus (pushauto), can be quite useful some times. And the same goes for iriscontroll. No image stabilization. It might not be sharp enoughe?

I do not have the money to by the 13x zoom lens.

I also is gongin to by a wideangle lens/converter, and my ges is thath it will be much more expensive for the GY-HD100?


Sorry me for my bad spelling!


Mikael from Sweden

[Barry Green]

If you have no need for HD resolution, and are instead producing primarily for DVD, the XL2 may indeed be the better choice (certainly it will be the less-expensive choice, should be just over half as expensive as the HD100). It remains to be seen however. In theory the larger pixels of the XL2 should deliver better latitude, sensitivity, and signal-to-noise performance as compared to the HD100. But theory and real world experiences don't always coincide. In the next couple of months we should see the HD100 and have a chance to put it through its paces.

But for an SD-only, straight-to-DVD production scenario, the XL2 may very well prove to be the better buy for your purposes.

[Heath McKnight]

You could always buy the HD-100 and downconvert, and when you want to do HD(V), you won't have to spend another $5000-$6000 to get a new camera.

heath

[Bill Pryor]

Or just shoot DV with the JVC. Same with the Sony Z1. With either one you've got a very nice DV camera with 16:9 chips just like the XL2, and if HDV becomes a real format, you're there.

[Heath McKnight]

Bill's right, or have an HDV master and down-convert.

heath

[Tommy James]

Actually Terminator 2 Extreme DVD was released in a 2 DVD set one in standard definition and one in high definition. Step in to Liquid the surfing movie was also released in high definition DVD. A regular DVD while not as good as the Blue Ray format never the less is a good low cost way to distribute high definition video. Most windows XP computers can play high definition DVDs and a computer with a DVI output can be hooked up to an HDTV. Also the new Avel Linkplayer can support the playback of high definition video and the new Avel Linkplayers will feature HDMI connectors which should be an improvement in quality. Also the HD-VHS format is a very good low cost alternative to Blu-Ray DVD and 50 movies have been released in this format including Mel Gibsons the Passion of the Christ. Although HD-VHS has been considered a failure nevertheless the price of these players is rapidly falling and soon this format could achieve critical mass and really take off.

So with the floodgates wide open for the distribution of high definition video even with todays technology I think the JVC HD100 is the clear winner. Yet some will choose to wait around until Blu-Ray DVD becomes affordable and they will miss out on a lot of oppurtunities.

[Heath McKnight]

You need a Windows XP Pro box with at a least 2 ghz processor, and a monitor that is HD compatible.

It's all detailed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...m/HDVideo.aspx

heath

[Steven White]

If you are only concerned about SD release, keep this in mind:

HDV (720p variant, 4:2:0):
Y=1280x720
Cr = 640x360
Cb = 640x360

DV (NTSC version, 4:1:1):
Y=720x480
Cr=180x480
Cb=180x480

DVD (NTSC, 4:2:0)
Y=720x480
Cr=360x240
Cb=360x240

For progressive images, the HDV source will scale much better to that 4:2:0 SD than the DV will. Furthermore, at its native resolution, the HDV camera will look significantly better than the DV at its native resolution, thanks to the 4:2:0 colour space... not to mention the extra resolution.

Never mind. I just realized you're in Sweden - so it's all PAL and 4:2:0 anyway.

-Steve

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Heath McKnight

You need a Windows XP Pro box with at a least 2 ghz processor, and a monitor that is HD compatible.

It's all detailed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...m/HDVideo.aspx

heath

Actually its a bit worse than that. 2.4Ghz for 720P and 3.0Ghz for 1080P. And they aren't kidding either. I can't quite get smooth playback of a 720P WMV file on my 2.0 Ghz machine and 1080P is more akin to a slide show than video :(

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

[Anhar Miah]

You should try VLC player, its plays almost anything, and hd-wmv files that would normally stutter plays smoothly (must be the optimaized programming) not bloatware by microsoft methinks !!

[Patrick King]

Ahnar,

What is a "VLC player"? Is it a box (hardware) or software?

[Joe Hudson]

Originally Posted by Patrick King

Ahnar,

What is a "VLC player"? Is it a box (hardware) or software?

The VLC player is a funky little open source media player for linux/mac/XP. A main feature is the ability to stream video over LAN.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

[George Johnston]

I am about to trade in my Canon XL2 for a JVC HD100...why ?

Electronic lenses fail in 2 ways

1. You canot do a decent pull focus with an electronic lens
2. You cannot beat a proper manual leaf shutter iris

The XL2 has a fairly small LCD screen which is only useful when you have the eyecup closed for focusing. I also have a Sony the HD Z1E and you can stand away from the camera in an interview situation and still watch focus, sound levels etc. with it's flip out LCD. The flip out LCD and the lens are very appealing with the JVC and truth be told it also looks and is more professional.

[Anhar Miah]

My personal view is that HDV could be better, because that way when you downconvert from HDV you can bypass DV25 format alltogther. I know that in theory downconverstion should not yeild better results, however I'm now convinced that its more to do with HOW you downconvert, after alot of experimentation I think I might have a good workflow (see another thread).

One of the reasons that got me experimenting was the fact that I read in another thread about BBC testing use of Z1 and found that downsampling only yeilded good results (over shooting nativley) when using high end downconverstion equipment (Snell&Wilcox Ukon).

And one thing is for certain, once the HVX comes out(as well as HD100) one of the most FAQ is goining to be "How do I make great looking DVDs from my HD source?"

End of the Day XL2 is tried and tested, HD100 is not here yet, so the real question is time. Do you need something NOW, if so then XL2 else if you can afford to wait then HD100 (HVX200 also a consideration ;) because you have the potential for much more.


Anhar Hussain Miah

[Heath McKnight]

If you need a camera now, buy what you like. Personally, I like the DVX100A more than the XL-2, but that's my opinion. I hope to test the HD-100 with Jon Fordham soon.

heath