Side by side test HD101, Z1, HC1, HDX400
 

I have orderd the HD101, but I am starting to get worried. The problems with the picture seemes to be the same as in the posted threads on this forum.

It doesent even hold up against the one chip HC1!!

Seems to be some difference between what was shown at NAB and what people are experiencing in the field. I hope someone from JVC steps up and addresses this.

"HD101 was tested in 720/25p and converted to 1080/25p."

HOW -- in camera? And WHY? You should be feeding 720p60 into your monitor letting it do any scaling. And, WHAT display?

"At normal lighting levels the color was less rich, more muted."

SOME might consider this an advantage. This same complaint was raised against the first JVC HDVs, and while true, many of us now prefer this "Non Sony" look.

"At +18 dB gain the picture color was not uniform, with more red noise on one side (with the lens capped)."

WITH a cap on there was no "picture" so a silly test, IMHO.

There was chroma distortion at low light. AM or PM noise?

"The camera's low light performance was ... not as good as on Z1."

We expect ANY 3 CCD progressive camera to be 6dB less sensitive than a 3 CCD interlace camera.

Have to wonder if JVC isn't dumping the first factory run in Europe which could account for nothing being shown in the USA.

To me it proves only that a person can conclude anything they want when posting to the web from behind a nameless, anonymous presence. I would caution interested folks to withold judgement until we run our own formal, organized comparisons here at (H)DV Info Net.

Hi,
I think it was not a very impartial test. Mikael, I'm going to order one so we'll can cry together. But the most important internet shop in Italy (they're very competent and they have the first stock of the cam) in a hd100E first look says:
http://www.adcom.it/visnew.php?id=76
I translate (syntesis):
1) The video quality it's exceptional.
2) The HDV e DV sensibility it's above Sony HVR-Z1E. (sic!).
3) A good director of photo can do what he wants live with the manual controls of the cam (and an HD monitor).
4) Exposure latitude (dynamical) above our expectations.
5) The HDV 720p records (with MPeg2 4:2:0) keeps one's very good resolution also with speed cam movements.
6) In vtr BR-HD50E: play without drops.
Ok, ok, it's only a first look, they sell it ( yet also the sony Z1) but the 2&5 points are interesting also 'cause in june the Adcom organized a comparison with the beta-press HD100vsHVR Z1E and the result was on the contrary.
I'll buy in Italy, you can find it from 4500€ without tax.
Sorry for my Frankenstein english, I live near him.

Thats been my contention on this and other boards. JVC hasn't gotten this camera into pro reviewers hands, at least not anyone I've heard of. Even a few days before release would have great.
So all we hear is disapointment and worry and ignorance. Bad PR by JVC IMHO. But I'm not passing judgement until a qualified review comes around.

I would have to say I would be more than upset if Australasia and Europe were the dumping ground for any pre-production ccds before the US release!

Either that or they working right up to the US release date to get the reported issues so far, right. Have you had a US release date?

"At +18 dB gain the picture color was not uniform, with more red noise on one side (with the lens capped)."

WITH a cap on there was no "picture" so a silly test, IMHO.

The red noise is in the blacked out VF and more visable on one side than the other. My concern is this is the 4th report of this. And I would like to know what effect this has on the 'normal picture'.

This is of course taking into account that it was a legitimate review.

I was talking with Tim Tokita, the General Manager of Product Engineering for JVC today, about the HD100. I asked him about a delivery date for the US, and he repeated "August." So no specific date yet, but at least August beats the "September" quote we've been hearing from resellers.

A few other things -- he said that the analog output is full color resolution, prior to color decimation. Should mean that for studio applications where you have the hardware and ability to capture 720/60p footage uncompressed, you should get excellent color keys.

Also, about "motion blur" -- you don't see the effect in the viewfinder! Or on the monitor! If you put on the "motion blur" filter, you're effectively shooting without knowing what you're getting -- you'd have to stop and rewind the tape and play it back to see what it looks like.

Also, to forever put to rest anybody's hopes -- there is not, and will not, and never will be, 60p (or 50p) out the firewire port of the HD100. Not possible, not gonna happen.

Also, I asked about the modification for HD-SDI that replaces the tape drive. He said it would be a different camera model with *very* limited applicability. It would be only for locked-down studio situations, basically. No ability to record whatsoever; it would be strictly for a live camera.

He also confirmed that the US version would have the 25p frame rate. So all HD100-series cameras in all worldwide territories shoot 720p at 24, 25, and 30fps. They also all shoot 480/60p and 576/50p. However, they do not share PAL/NTSC. US cameras shoot standard-def in NTSC; European/Australian cameras shoot standard-def in PAL. There is no PAL/NTSC switchability.

He also mentioned that there may be an announcement about a PAL/NTSC switchable version of the HD100 made in a few months. It would be a more expensive camera, but it would be the same basic camera but with PAL and NTSC capability in both.

Let's see... what else... oh -- he said the 19 megabit data rate leaves the PCM audio tracks untouched. So some day, in some future product (but NOT the HD100 or BR50 deck!) they could make a 720p HDV camera that included uncompressed audio. Repeat, this will not now nor ever apply to the HD100, but some future product could.

Oh, and get this -- the HD7000U, the 2/3" shoulder-mount cam, will also support 1080i. But it will *not* be HDV 1080i. They are not going to make it compatible with Sony HDV. It will have 720p HDV compatibility, but not 1080i HDV. He didn't say specifically why; might be some licensing thing. But they want to do 1080 anyway. So they'll come up with their own format. And, while they're at it, he said they will use 1920x1080 (not 1440x1080)! And maybe they'll use a higher bitrate. And maybe they'll use a higher profile level in MPEG -- as in, specifically, they may use 4:2:2. And HDV/1080i doesn't support progressive, but their version will.

So it looks like the already-fragmented HDV format is about to be splintered again (June 2006 at last rumor date) but hey, if you're gonna splinter, what a way to splinter! 3-CMOS 2/3" camera shooting 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 at both interlaced and progressive frame rates...

Some footage from the US version will be sent to Chris tomorrow.

I am currently testing the jvc gy-100 and comparing it to my old xl1.
I have a jvc multiformat monitor and when comparing the footage as shot in HD it of course blows away the xl1. What a picture!!
But if i put the cam on pal 50i there is hardly any difference...that is a disappointment to me, I would have thought that the quality of the fujinon glass would be better then the standard xl1 lens. Maybe you have better or different results? I would be very interested in a good comparison test from a credible source...

Yes, its the pix that's important. But I'll bet it is fixed in the NTSC models.

We shoot with B&W viewfinders without seeing how colors look on tape -- nothing new. Simply, put you really must use the filter in 25p/30p. And, I wouldn't in 24p/25p going to film. It's not something you turn on and off.

Interesting, since I think the circuit is there. They were debating turning it on.

Yes -- what has been called ProHD EX. At least 36Mbps to disk.

If this above is true.


Ops, the JVC can not even beat the old xl1 in SD.
Is it the lens or is it the CCD:s. Ither way its better if it is the CCD:s, then I just have to by a new camera instead of the 10000 dollar 13x zoom lens.

JVC must be kidding!

I think many folks underestimate the quality of glass that Canon provides. Even the original 16X IS auto lens that the XL-1 came with was rated at over 600 lines of resolution while the format only calls for a max of around 570.

So David, your statement just goes to show you that the format is the limiting factor to picture quality and not the glass in the SD comparison you mentioned above. The Fujinon lens may be better glass by necessity for HD, but that difference will be masked by SD limitations.

regards,

-gb-

There are other reasons why the lens is better, its a manual lens with proper zoom control, it has all the features professional lenses have. Meaning: RET button on the right place, possibility to check what the auto iris would do either continual or as a push button. It has a manual macro function that works the same way as on very expensive broadcast lenses and most of all : proper markings on the lens and a good feel when turning the rings...not top quality but like any good industrial lens.
I can't separately judge the lens compared to the canon xl1 lens. But that also does not interest me..I want to know what the picture is like compared to my old XL1. So far the SD package is disappointing to say the least. I will try to load some footage in to fcp 5 and then down convert it to sd and will then compare it to the footage of the canon xl1. That should give a good impression how the camera actually holds up to canon

Checking the menu there are several option (pal-version) 25 and 50 HD and the frame rate can be ntsc 30/60 or 25/50 for pal but there is also 24?? Its obviously ntsc..It does not say so on the manual but my multiformat jvc monitor calls it that, maybe I am missing the point here.... The camera is very much ntsc/pal switchable except for when you shoot in DV....Then it is a pal camera...
I tried the smooth motion on and of on 25p or 24p but could not notice any less motion blur or more when switched off. It is quit possible that there is but then it must be very very subtle...

HD is neither NTSC nor PAL, it is HD. NTSC refers specifically to standard-def interlaced video. HD is not NTSC, nor is it PAL. People seem to be using the terminology to differentiate territories, but it's not an accurate way to describe it.

720/24p, as implemented on the JVC, is actually 720/60p. It is recorded on tape as a 60p data stream. It's not NTSC. Now, if you had the HD100 set to downconvert to standard-def, yes it would be appropriate to output the 720/24p through a standard-def NTSC signal.

There is no PAL mode on the US HD100. There is an HDV 576/50p mode, which would make for a good transfer to PAL, but it in and of itself isn't PAL.

importing the material into FCP 5 is turning out to be a problem. Just using HDV as capture source will let me control the camera but I see nothing...strange? What settings should I use when using the camera for fcp?

Spent a lot of time with the HD100 today, but not in a controlled environment, it was on the show floor at the WEVA expo. Got some footage in 30p w/wo motion smoothing, and also 24p, but I don't think I'll have any way to capture it.

The camera, as a camera, is very very nice. The amount of image control is extremely impressive. For those who are complaining about the muted color palette, have no fear -- you can crank up the chroma level until you get eye-poppingly-saturated colors. Their default "cinema mode" looks terrible, but that's because their implementation of Cinema Matrix is pretty much a flat super-low-saturation color palette. I can't imagine anyone thinking that it looks filmlike, unless you're strictly going for the low-color bleach bypass look maybe. But the Cinema Gamma options were flexible and could make for a very nice looking picture if you used the standard gamma.

The lens doesn't go wide, but it sure does go tele -- it's as long as the XL2's original 16x lens. Shallow DOF effects were pretty easy to pull off as long as you could get a long way away from your subject. The "focus assist" works well, it's basically a colored peaking tool and it was easy to get repeatable sharp focus.

Noisy? Oh yeah it's noisy. The default 0db picture has some noise in it, the 18db picture will make you think you're filming a swarm of bees. I think I'd rather underexpose my footage than go using the 12db or 18db of gain that the camera offers -- it's really noisy.

They had some demo footage playing, and it was rather a conundrum. They went to a zoo or park or someplace and shot some very nice looking footage. They had some plasmas facing the Sony booth, and I've got to say, the footage on the plasmas was weak. JVC should never be allowed to show their footage on those plasmas again. I thought it looked pale, lame, blocky, noisy, and with extremely blown-out highlights. Then you walk around the corner and see the identical footage playing on a CRT, and you say "now that's what I'm talkin' about!" Much, much better. Mirrors my impressions of the footage at NAB -- the live CRT looked good, the plasma playback-from-tape looked dismal. Well, they did it again. So if anyone wants to watch the HD100 footage, if you're at a trade show or somewhere, *don't* judge it off the plasmas, they just put on a lousy presentation. What looked like horribly-clipped highlights on the plasmas looked like nicely-rendered images on the CRT. JVC should hire a tech to figure out why their plasma displays look so bad.

Reservations? Many. JVC has a problem with dead pixels. There have been multiple reports of dead pixels on the web already. I have a borrowed HD1 here that has a dead pixel that glows green throughout every shot. Well, right there on JVC's demo footage of the HD100, that nice-looking zoo footage, there's a glowing green dead pixel in every frame. Even on their show demo footage there's a dead pixel! You'd think they'd get that right, but obviously there's a problem. Other problems included at least one obvious dropout (freeze-up for 1/4 second), and some shots with *severe* macroblocking -- I think it was a shot of a duck or a penguin, some waterfowl, and some sections of the water looked like a flippin' quilt, they were so macroblocked.

So JVC can talk all they want about how their version of HDV doesn't have motion artifacts, isn't bit-starved, doesn't have dropouts, etc. All I can say is "bullpucky", because it's clearly evident even in their demo footage. Not any worse than the Z1, so if you're happy with the Z1 you'd be happy with the HD100 footage too. But it's not better than the Z1 either -- it's about equivalent, as far as quilting, macroblocking, loss of detail under motion, and dropouts (actually on dropouts it's better because of the shorter GOP; dropouts on the JVC last half as long as dropouts on the Z1).

There's strong chroma noise throughout the images, it really does look like they're using the same CCD from the HD1/HD10. I have no factual inside-knowledge basis to say that, but the images look very HD1-like, they have similar noise to the HD1, similar dead pixels to the HD1... I'd bet a nickel that JVC has put three HD1 CCDs into the HD100.

Overall the camera is nicely built, nice to use, feels good, looks good, and produces a pretty good image. The HDV format is, as always, disappointing -- easily the weakest element in the chain. But I kind of feel like Adam Wilt when he said "long-form GOP is the devil, but maybe it's time to start dealing with the devil". I believe I will go ahead and get one, especially after seeing the level of image control that's available. I think it would make a decent companion to the HVX. But: JVC had better have one heck of a warranty/repair policy on those dead pixels, or they will have more grief than they can handle. I don't mind dead pixels on the viewfinder/lcd so much, but when they're on the CCD and there's glowing green dots in every frame of footage you shoot -- well, that's an issue worth returning the camera over. So I do hope for their sake they have the ability to mask dead pixels (I saw no evidence of such in the menu system) or that they have a very liberal, very customer-friendly repair policy for dead pixels.

yes your right but the monitor got me confused pal/ntsc are different from HD. Nevertheless when you put the frame rate in to 30/60 (ntsc for sure...)
you can change the recording mode to HDV-HD30 or 60P. So you somehow do set the HD for an output compatible with ntsc? Making the cam switchable but not in SD

....The HD output formats are very confusing to me as there are so many...correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be no 1080i recording only output...or is that the 24 mode output?

There is no 1080i recording of any type. The only concession to 1080i in this camera is that you can cross-convert the 720p signal to output 1080i on the analog outputs. So, for example, if you were using a 1080i-only monitor, something that couldn't display a 720p signal, you could have the HD100 convert its 720p signal to 1080i for use with that monitor.

Praise the camera gods, another opinion! I'm glad our findings, stack up with what you've seen Barry.

I have a camera, I've used the camera, I've spent 9 years renting cameras, am I missing something with this camera?

I was begining to think I was going mad.

How did you find the viewfinder and LCD?

LCD's a little low-res but I really like that they moved most of the clutter out of the main display area, occupying mostly the letterbox bar area. And I love that it has a one-touch button to make all that stuff go away.

The camera I used was bolted to the tripod so I didn't really even bother with the viewfinder very much -- but of what I used, I thought it worked well. The focus assist seemed much more usable than the last time I experimented with it. Overall I think it's quite usable.

However, having just captured the footage, I can say this: DEAD PIXELS. I thought the particular camera I was using didn't have any, but I was wrong -- there's one that glows through every frame I shot, and another that shows up in the close-the-iris-crank-the-gain test.

JVC has a serious problem with these dead pixels.

Am I right in thinking, the quality of the picture (noise/grain and chroma problems) is like that of a $1K to $2K camera?

I guess it answers the question about the CCD, definitely not what would be expected from the new 1/3inch Altasens chip, but the HD1 chip.

I was waiting to see what the other single chip HD1/HD10 replacement was going to be like, I think I needn't bother. I admire JVC for the GY-DV500/5000, truly an effort in the right direction for us in it's time, but the HD lineup seems more like the GR-5000/GY-300 times.

It is unbelievable that they would do this after the HD1 problems, are they trying to shoot their reputation again? Do we have to boycott their products if the finale "Pro" test results prove this to be all true (mind you the Sony and Pana are less than ideal too)? I definitely am not going to lay down that sort of money for these sort of problems. They didn't even make 24/25p into a 25Mb/s stream. If we could only record the uncompressed output to another codec on hard drive, that would help the Pana and Sony in resolution and compression artifacts. I understand that cineform is looking at hardware codec solutions.

Looks like the market for $10K-40K cameras is secure for some time, to think we waited years for this.

What do you think Chris?

Wayne, I think it's still very, very early to be reaching any conclusions. It's a mistake to pass judgement based on such a small handful of data such as that which we've acquired so far. Barry had his hands on a "market test" MT sample, in other words a pre-production demo unit, not 100% complete, very typical and common at trade shows. Let's get some more reports, especially when the final version of the camera starts to ship. It's far too soon right now.

Normally I'd agree with Chris -- but I made a point of asking them how complete the camera was, and they told me it was a production model. Not a market-test or prototype version, they said it was representative of the off-the-shelf, retail-ready production model.

I'm worried about the dead pixel thing because every report I've read, from Italy and England and New Zealand and now the US, has mentioned it. And those are all released-to-customer models (or, in the case of the US one, a camera that's supposed to be the same as what will be released). JVC's own demo footage had a dead pixel on it. And the camera on the floor had it.

I know dead pixels "happen". If you can mask it electronically, it's not such a big deal -- may be no big deal at all, may even become a non-issue. Where I'm concerned is that it seems to be common, and I just want to know that it won't be an ongoing problem before plunking down $6000 for the camera.

I don't know if Z1's and FX1's are having a similar issue or not. It stands to reason that the more pixels you pack onto a chip, the more chances there are for something to go wrong.

I liked the HD100. I am almost definitely buying it. I'm just saying that there are multiple corroborating reports of dead pixels, and that's something that needs to be addressed.

I have been reading posts of people talking about instances of the same thing in production cameras in the Pal markets. But my question was related to Pro testing eventually actually confirming this.

This leaves only a few full definition quality high end formats for us to record with. That is direct from component recording from the Sony/Pana HD cameras, and cameras like we are seeking in alternative imaging (sumix being the only affordable one of the horizon) that are not suitable for Eng/normal work. This is disappointing. Bring on the testing.

Thanks

Wayne.

I have one for a test...I cant see any faulty pixels on mine.....I am sure the one you got has the problem but mine doesn't so its widespread but not all camera's have it...

That's actually worse - it all the cameras have one, then you can relax and buy one knowing it may have one or so dead pixels. But it if some do and some don't, it becomes much more an adventure on purchase especially JVC and dealer policy for repair/replacement just like LCD panels.

<<<[QUOTE=Greg Boston]I think many folks underestimate the quality of glass that Canon provides. Even the original 16X IS auto lens that the XL-1 came with was rated at over 600 lines of resolution while the format only calls for a max of around 570.>>>

No to change threads or lead it in a different direction, BUT . . .
I simply don't believe the 16X lens resolves over
250 lines. If it did, then there should be no apparent resolution
gain when switching over to 35mm glass. There is a HUGE
resolution gain when you compare the XL1's 16X to 35mm without a doubt.

Where did you hear the 16X was rated that high? Whoever says
so is _very_ suspect imo.

There a numerous sources I believe who say that about the 16x lens. One of them is Canon. I don't think they would lie and just double the actual lines of resolution.

Glad to hear it -- I'd love to believe it's isolated to a few units.

Here's how to see 'em easily -- close the iris and jack the gain up to 18dB. You should see a swarm of red-tinted noise, but if you have dead pixels they should be glowing a very visible white. Rocketeer saw about 10, and I counted two on the one I was using. I didn't notice the dead pixel for the first few minutes I was using the camera, so it's possible you have 'em and just haven't seen 'em yet -- but the 18dB test will confirm whether they're there or not. I would be quite encouraged to hear your results -- if you don't have any, that's awesome news and maybe it means I'll just have to test it in-store before picking it up, to make sure to get a defect-free one.

Thanks for the report!

I am afraid you are right.... I counted about 9 dead pixels, did the same test on my old canon xl1: none....
But I wonder if it would actually show up when using the camera normally, maybe on a big cinema screen..but then you get to see a lot of noise from the projector..What I am saying is ...is this really important? I mean if there are going to be more oke...but...

Nine?! If you are sure about that, return it. That will show up during any display of the image at full rez. Downcoverting to NTSC/DVD etc may mask them but why spend $ on HDV if the full rez is not usable?

Mine is a demo, I did not buy it. I wil be returning it. But I have seen camera's with dead pixels before, you could easily see it when using the camera, these are however very faint.. I mean its like looking at a dark night and you see very faint a few white points Now I grant you I was not really looking for dead pixels but still : what do you mean by "any display of the image" I mean its video it rolls on..and what does it say about the camera or JVC for that matter?

Well, see, that's the problem with dead pixels -- they don't "roll on" -- they stay there in your face the entire time.

Nine is a lot. And high gain does make them more visible. Try shooting a scene under low light with 18dB and see if you still find it acceptable (I'm presuming that since you didn't even notice them before, you find the regular video acceptable, right?)

I find dead pixels most noticeable against dark backrounds. And it depends on what color they are -- if they're glowing bright green, there's no way to hide that. If they're white, they may fade into the background.

How often can pixels die? If straight out of the factory we already have dead pixels how many could there be after 1 year or five years?

Letting it warm up completely (20 min hot humid summer) might reveal more, at 18db.

I agree, 9 is a lot, most consumers wouldn't even want one on a $300 camera.

How come they are white, sounds strange, if one pixel on a CCD is down, shouldn't the matching pixels on the other CCD's be working. If you got two colours, the camera should be able to interpolate the third colour and mask the dead pixel? Does the JVC have a dead pixel masking function, the 500 had? Even my old Sony averaged the colour with the surrounding pixels.

The dead pixels on a black background at 18dB gain show up white. In actual footage with no gain they usually are color, bright glowing green or red for example.

I did some extra testing so for what its worth: Under difficult lighting I could see them on my multiformat jvc monitor but I really had to get close up to the monitor. That is while watching real footage, I did not record any on to tape. They however remain white in color. Under 12 DB gain or lower they disappear and are no longer visible. These are my findings only on this particular camera.

this is a pretty interesting discussion. can someone explain, briefly, how a dead pixel becomes a dead pixel. i've seen them in cameras before--but how does a dead pixel actually occur?