Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video

[Charles Papert]

Frank, to respond to your "lens on lens" post:

I felt the same way as I had always used the Mini with the XL1/XL1s, poo-poo'ing the fixed zoom systems. Then I saw it on the DVX100a at a trade show, and realized it looked great, and bought that system thereafter.

Bottom line and the reason for the whole thing: the images. Who cares what the physical device looks like. It's still a smaller package than a 35mm camera system. Ergonomically, there are certain issues but they have nothing to do with the extended length due to the two sets of lenses, more about viewfinder placement for handheld (which I have fixed for myself by adapting the fore-mounted Canon viewfinder to the Mini35 for use with any camera, a scheme also followed by the new P+S breakout box).

You want to see awkward ergonomics and Frankenstein rigs, you should see some of the Panavised Cinealta configurations; we're talking 3-4 feet long. Try getting that sideways through a doorway.

[Frank Farago]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Tape size has virtually nothing to do with anything. Compression might, but that's not mentioned in your post.

So, if you don't like 1/3 chips, if you don't like 35mm adaptors, if you don't like 1/4 tape, and if you can afford film; I'm wondering what your motivation is to come into the forum and blast away? I'm not a big fan of the JVC either, but the format is a good format, and the JVC certainly is no toy camera.
Have you actually EXPERIENCED a 35mm adaptor? Your inability to simply play back the m2t files tells me you don't have a system that's up to the task of even HDV, let alone HD...Why take potshots at a system you know nothing about?

Well, first off, thank you for your level-headed, polite response. Let's start with tape sizes. In the digital domain, we've got 1/4-inch and 1/2-inch, and that's about all we've got, unless you know of someone who wants to buy our trusted ole' Sony 9850 U-matic SP VTR.

It might be purely concidental, but my understanding is that by and large, 1/4-inch digital tape formats employ higher compession ratios than 1/2-inch formats, perhaps with the notable exception of Panasonic's DVCPro HD. Of course, I am not quite sure what video codecs have to do with camera lenses, but that's all right.

With respect to triple 1/3-inch chips, they are the way of the future and I love them to death. They are excellent for what they are, if one knows what they are for. On the other hand, I make it a point not to confuse a camcorder with a 1/3-inch chip and mount with one that uses the 2/3-inch variety. Apples to oranges, sort of.

With respect to using 35mm lens adaptors, there is nothing wrong with that. However, it is also like telling Canon that when they ship an X2 H1 with a newly designed 20x HD-grade zoom lens, they are giving the consumers an inferior lens that should be replaced a the earliest opportunity with a "real" 35mm film lens. I don't buy into that hype.

We are now debating the pros and cons of getting a pair of the JVC 720P or a Canon/Sony 1080i camcorder... and there is a D9 (Digital S) recorder/player VTR that we still use for 4:2:2 archiving. Therefore, I do not consider myself a sworn enemy of JVC Professional, as you seem to suggest.

With respect to 35mm film adaptors... no, I have not "experienced" one as of yet. My loss, I know.

With respect to playing back the videos, I was not aware that one has to have an earned Ph.D. in Computer Sciences to do so. There could have been many reasons why the JVC image looked like hell upon playback... as I mentioned, the Canon X2 H1 and the Sony HVR-Z1 looked great in comparison, w/o the bothersome dropped frames.

In my opinion, we are not yet at the era of high definition content streaming over the Intrernet... so I will check out the actual image quality of these camcorders on Monday in person. The dealer has both the JVC and the Sony units hooked up to an HD monitor, so that will prove to be most telling... until the Canon will make its grand entrance in the next few weeks...

Witrh respect of "not having a system up to HD stndards," you've lost me. We've done a project that was shot with Arrifelx film cameras and then telecined in SD to Digi Beta and in HD to DVCAM. I am not quite sure what sort of a super-system I should have had to have this done, but done it was.

Lastly, in addition to the excellent DV Info web site, I am also visiting film sites. Somehow I do not seem to detect a frenzy amongst folks using old-fashioned film cameras to have their result look more like video. On the other hand, I can now see that many videographers want to make video shoots that end up looking like film. I guess if you use a $5,000 video camera and the result does not look like it was shot on 35mm film, you have failed in your mission. Each format has its own, proper place, and just because in certain apps one uses one over the other, the person does not have to be classified a sworn enemy of video or film. The two can live together peacefully, each on doing what it was designed for and has the competitive edge in, in my opinion.

[Frank Farago]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Frank, to respond to your "lens on lens" post... I felt the same way as I had always used the Mini with the XL1/XL1s, poo-poo'ing the fixed zoom systems. Then I saw it on the DVX100a at a trade show, and realized it looked great, and bought that system thereafter. Bottom line and the reason for the whole thing: the images. Who cares what the physical device looks like. It's still a smaller package than a 35mm camera system. Ergonomically, there are certain issues but they have nothing to do with the extended length due to the two sets of lenses, more about viewfinder placement for handheld (which I have fixed for myself by adapting the fore-mounted Canon viewfinder to the Mini35 for use with any camera, a scheme also followed by the new P+S breakout box).

You want to see awkward ergonomics and Frankenstein rigs, you should see some of the Panavised Cinealta configurations; we're talking 3-4 feet long. Try getting that sideways through a doorway.

Charles, than you so much for the kind explanation.

I have not used the Mini35 or similar adapters, so I am certainly not one to even voice and opinion on their pros and cons in the field. Certainly, there is freedom in the Milky Way to use a Cooke film lens on a DV camcorder and a Fujinon video lens on a 35mm Moviecam. And just from a layman's perspective, it would be so nice if Sony and Panny would finally realize that they would actually SELL MORE CAMCORDERS if they were making them with removable lenses. Kudos to Canon and JVC for deciding to take this pofessional route from the get-go.

Yes, it does look kind-a strange to see an all-in-one camcorder with an extra, large zoom or prime via an adaptor. On the other hand, seeing the results is truly believing, as you have stated. As a camerman or DP (which I am of course not), the final image is what counts, and no degree of experimentation is too little or too much.

When we shot our feature on film, I suggested to our D.P to go digital, but he had his nose turned up at that. "I wouldn't be caught dead shooting video," or something like that. That was a while back, the former stamina has now all but disappeared, fortunately. It's really no what's behind the lens what is important, but what goes on front of it.

I think Sony and to a smaller extent, Panny will have difficulty pushing their $50,000+ 2/3-inch HD camcorders once the worldwide HDV invasion launches in earnest. When the likes of National Geographic Channel are ordering the light and infinitely maneuverable JVC GY-HD100s for their nature docus, the days of the beheomth and diamond-priced bulky camera-corders may be drawing to a close. Yes, you can till tell he difference between 1920x1080 and 1440x1080, the different compression algortihms, 8-bit vs. 10-bit, color space, and the like, but the size and weight of the HDV generation will easily slay the behemoths, IMHO.

Lastly, the little Panny DVX camcorders are just fantastic (the way I hear it from everyone, not having used one in person). This is why it is so good to have this fine forum available to everyone without fear of being lynched for his/her sometimes rather uninformed opinion-- one can learn about the pros and cons of various gear and techniques w/o having to purchase one of everything and then learn the hard way what works and what does not.

Again, thanks for the clarification, Charles, about using the DVX with the adaptor and film lenses. I would love to se some of your footage! And yes, it is a God-awful sight to see the already less-than-pretty CineAlta decked out in $100,000 worth of froth. :-))

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Frank Farago

I mean, why would anyone purchase a camcorder with a fixed zoom lens, knowing that it has a fixed zoom lens...

Originally Posted by Frank Farago

Having an extra zoom lens frankensteined onto a fixed zoomed camcorder like the Sony Z1 is plain nonsensical...

Originally Posted by Frank Farago

Well, leave it to the inventive Germans to Frankenstein a camera using 1/2-inch video tape to 35mm film camera. What's wrong with this picture?

Originally Posted by Frank Farago

Not to be contrarian or anything, but why do so many people insist on shooting their "Citizen Kane 2" project onto a 1/4-inch video tape, and then present it on a 100-foot wide screen at Cannes or Sundance??

Frank, Personally, as an owner of several Z1's and an M2 35mm adaptor, I take your statements as fairly condescending.
You're using a lot of words to tell others how dumb they are or nonsensical they are, or just plain uneducated if they use a P+S or M2, or other 35 adaptor. Others happen to like the look. Whether you do or don't isn't really germaine. It's not *your* money anyone is spending to get the look *they* want, right?
My point about tape is, it's digital. The size of the tape doesn't determine the quality of output for the most part. We'll soon be tapeless around the world anyway, further emphasizing my point.
It's not meant to replace or match 35mm film, that's merely the lens format that folks have access to. In terms of resolution, the Z1 and a 35 adaptor don't approach the resolution of 16mm, let alone 35. Most folks know this. But the longer focal length, and the grain added by these devices, has a very nice, pleasing feel to it. You don't like it? Fine.

As far as your system goes, I can only assume that if it can't play back an m2t file without being choppy or dropping frames, then your system isn't capable of editing HD either. If I've assumed wrongly, my apologies.

As far as your Cannes/Sundance comment...maybe so many people insist on shooting in digital formats because doing so lowers the price of admission for them to such festivals. That's the whole point of independent film, isn't it?

I don't believe anyone here is an "enemy of film." I'd submit that if the majority of folks here *could* shoot film, they would. The cost of renting an Arri or Bolex isn't the only expense. The name of this forum is "DVINFO" which would represent "Digital Video Information." Therefore, coming in and trashing folks that want to make their video look as filmlike or cinematic as possible simply seems very arrogant, particularly for a new member of the community.

[Nate Weaver]

I'm going to have an entire music video shot on the JVC w/Mini35 posted here on the 28th.

Frank, all of it may seem silly, the Mini35 and such, but when used right you can get some great stuff out of it.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Frank Farago

it would be so nice if Sony and Panny would finally realize that they would actually SELL MORE CAMCORDERS if they were making them with removable lenses.

To a certain group, sure. Overall? Not a chance.

The fixed-lens PD150 outsold the interchangeable-lens Canon XL1 by a margin of, what -- wild guess, 4 to 1? Considering the bulk purchases by the BBC etc. it's probably more like 10 to 1, but I'll just guess 4 to 1 to be on the safe side.

Head to head, month to month, the fixed-lens DVX outsold the Canon XL2 by a margin of at least 6 to 1, and probably closer to 10 to 1 according to the stores I called to spot-check.

The interchangeable-lens AJ-D200, which was the the first 1/3" camera with an interchangeable lens, probably didn't sell nearly as many as the fixed-lens DSR250. Don't know that for sure, but I used and rented the 250 many times, and I don't think I ever saw an AJ-D200 or 215 in the field.

So while interchangeable lenses are definitely better than not, and I really really wish all cameras had 'em, I don't think it's fair to say that adding interchangeability is a path to guarantee greater sales.

[Chris Hurd]

Adding to Barry's statistics above, realize that the *majority* of Canon XL series owners never changed lenses on those cameras, they simply shot with the lens that came with it. For every ten automatic stock XL lenses, there's maybe one 3x wide and one 16x manual.

why do so many people insist on shooting their "Citizen Kane 2" project onto a 1/4-inch video tape, and then present it on a 100-foot wide screen at Cannes or Sundance?

Because it's remarkably affordable. Money is no longer a limitation in this realm; now it's down to talent and content... as it should be.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

To a certain group, sure. Overall? Not a chance.
The fixed-lens PD150 outsold the interchangeable-lens Canon XL1 by a margin of, what -- wild guess, 4 to 1? Considering the bulk purchases by the BBC etc. it's probably more like 10 to 1, but I'll just guess 4 to 1 to be on the safe side.
Head to head, month to month, the fixed-lens DVX outsold the Canon XL2 by a margin of at least 6 to 1, and probably closer to 10 to 1 according to the stores I called to spot-check.
The interchangeable-lens AJ-D200, which was the the first 1/3" camera with an interchangeable lens, probably didn't sell nearly as many as the fixed-lens DSR250. Don't know that for sure, but I used and rented the 250 many times, and I don't think I ever saw an AJ-D200 or 215 in the field.
So while interchangeable lenses are definitely better than not, and I really really wish all cameras had 'em, I don't think it's fair to say that adding interchangeability is a path to guarantee greater sales.

Yeah, that's all true. But the reason is price and price alone. Most people always go for the cheaper stuff.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Adding to Barry's statistics above, realize that the *majority* of Canon XL series owners never changed lenses on those cameras, they simply shot with the lens that came with it. For every ten automatic stock XL lenses, there's maybe one 3x wide and one 16x manual.

But what they really paid for and the reason they chose going with a interchangeable lens camera is that if they ever need it, the option is there. They don't have to saw their lens off in order to change it :)

[Jiri Bakala]

But it's not only that, it's also the quality of the lens itself and the ease of use. To use a pull focus, matte box or any other accessories is much easier and more precise with a lens like the Fujinon on the HD100 than any of the built-in ones. And you can't beat the ability to always get to the same focus point with the fully mechanical focus control.

[Michael Maier]

Yeah, you're right, but if you mention that, somebody always come with the excuse that the manual controls on the built in lenses are good enough, precise enough, have got a lot better, bla,bla,bla.(I don’t think so and can’t stand them.) So I don't even waste my time making this point anymore. But I completely agree with you.

[Bill Pryor]

There's a big difference between an interchangeable "real" lens and the interchangeable lenses used on the XL series. They're just like the fixed electronic lenses, except they come off. Granted, you can buy a "real" lens for those cameras, but few really have.

The whole electronic lens thing is one reason why if I had to have only one camera, it would be very difficult to choose one with an electronic lens, whether it was interchangeable or fixed. The JVC is quite attractive to me simply because it uses a "real" lens. If I had one, it's doubtful I'd ever switch lenses because the only other one available is the wide angle that costs more than the camera. If they had a package deal with that nice wide angle lens for $2K or $3K more, then that camera would jump off the dealer's shelf and into my bag.

I've been using the same lens for about 15 years, an ancient Nikkor ED 8.5-127 I bought new (for $9K) for a BVW300 when the BVW300 was revolutionary. I still use it on the DSR500. I believe I took it off the old 300 twice when a 5.9mm wide angle was available for me to use, and once so far for the same reason on the DSR500. For me, it's not so much the interchangeability that is an issue--rather, it's the control you only get with a manual lens.

That doesn't mean a guy can't shoot good stuff with an electronic lens camera. I use a DSR250 also and have used other 1/3" chip prosumer cameras. It's just a lot more difficult to be 100% sure all the time under all conditions with an electronic lens. And for run and gun situations, it's really difficult. It's sort of ironic, one reason I got the DSR250 was for run and gun work, because of its light weight, long battery life and optical stabilization. However, in most quick and dirty situations, I go for the DSR500 because of the above reasons.

If the JVC HDV camera turns out to be decent, it may be way ahead of all the other cameras in its category simply because it uses a "real" lens.

But that's just my opinion. Other's often prefer the electronic lenses.

[Chris Hurd]

I'm usually the one that comes in with that response, that the stock lenses are much better now than they were before. I try not to waste my time making this point anymore either, except to say that if you haven't used one of the newer ones, you really don't know what you're missing.

For example. It's much easier and much more precise to pull a rack focus movement with the stock 20x HD auto lens on the XL H1 than it is with a Fujinon full manual lens. Reasons why: the auto lens offers repeatable focus position preset movements, and has a built-in tape measure in the form of a focus distance readout.

For example I can change focus from 4.3 meters to 10.2 meters and repeat that move all day long. I can repeat a focal length change much the same way. There's no question whatsoever that this procedure is faster and more accurate than doing it manually. Plus, the auto lens doesn't "breathe" the way the Fuji does. The primary drawback is that the focal plane change may not happen slow enough for some folks. If you prefer a slow rack focus, that is best done with a manual lens by an experienced focus puller.

The point is that there's a choice. There is no "one correct way" anymore. If you prefer to do it the manual way, that option is there. If you prefer to program it in, that option is there as well.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

this procedure is faster and more accurate than doing it manually.

Unless of course you're using a follow focus rig on that manual lens, and then *that* would be a faster method. Just add $500 to the price of the lens, unless somebody knows of an available FF for less than that.

[Giuseppe Pugliese]

i know its been a while since the last time someone talked about the footage that is in the start of this fourm but i have one large question that i hope the person who posted thos m2t files could tell me....

i would love to know if these files are "untouched" raw footage, or was this stuff dumped into and editing program, tweaked (color correction, gama corection. ect..) , and then out put to a m2t file...

Im new to this site, but i read these all the time... i plan on shooting quite a large shoot in about 8-9 months and I dont have the hd100u to test yet so im looking to see what it can really do.

[Nate Weaver]

Posted files were untouched.