It's on their website as the GY-HD100UCH, so I'm presuming it's accurate...

Yes, as a matter of fact you can get these FOB prices delivered in Miami for the PAL-B version, DIRECTLY FROM JVC:

GY-HD101E USD 4,800.00 (Camera + 16X lens)
BR-HD50E USD 2,700.00 (HDV VTR)
TH13x3.5BRMU USD 7,900.00 (Wide angle lens w/zoom)

The body only you can get it for less than USD 4500 pulling the right knots inside JVC's...

L

Wow. That's some great footage there. I would like to congratulate everybody involved with the test. Awesome work!
It actually changed the way I look at HDV. Nothing which I have seen from the old JVC HDVs or from the Sony HDV had made me think about buying a HDV camera. I tested a Z1 when it came out, but wasn't impressed at all. But this test got me wondering if I should hold on on my XL2 purchase or better yet, just bite the bullet and buy a HD100 already. I love what I'm seeing. That night shot is just fantastic.
Without intention of starting a vs debate, could anybody involved with the test and who has sued one, comment on what are his impressions of the HD100 compared to the XL2? I was in the verge of ordering a XL2 and 35 adapter , but now, I'm thinking if I should go with the HD100. The HVX200 is out of the loop for me. I need it now. So, if anybody in the test has used a XL2, with or without a 35 adapter, I would love to know your opinions about how the 2 compare in your opinion for shooting a feature. If it would be inappropriate to post such comments here, or if Chris would rather not have them in this thread, please feel free to email them to me (michael_maier75@yahoo.com). Specially image control and low light performance. I would really appreciate it. It could help me to make an educated decision and help me to better invest my hard earned money.
The thing is, with my lack of interest on HDV, I didn't research any about it. I have no idea of post production limitations or chromakey use. But I know now I will research as much as I can. The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for, has many green screen shots. I know 4:2:0 is not the best, but I can't afford 4:2:2. Since I'm in PAL land, HDV and DV would make no difference in terms of color space.

Thanks for the great article and fantastic clips.

P.S. Hey Luis, where are you getting those prices for the PAL version? A PAL is what I need :)

Hi Michael, where are u from? I'm getting those prices from an official dealer in Argentina, they are only for buying from Argentina but shipped to Miami as well.

They are FOB, without freight costs or any customs taxes, so that would bring the price to the USD 6000-6500 point many have talked about here.

L.

Hey Luis, I'm in Europe.

If you're talking about comparing feature for feature, the HD100 beats the XL2 like a rented mule. It's got most everything the XL2 has, a better form factor, more professional controls, *much* better menu system, far more extensive image controls, and -- oh yeah -- it can shoot high-def. Plus it also does 480/60p, plus it can even do 576/50p.

The XL2 can shoot 480/30p, which the JVC can't. XL2 can record four channels of audio, HD100 can't. The XL2 also has the potential for autofocus and superb optical image stabilization; the HD100 doesn't have any sort of autofocus or image stabilization.

If you're talking about image performance -- well, I'm not so sure how to compare 'em. I mean, obviously the XL2 can't even offer an HD signal, so the HD100 clearly wins there. The only place you can compare them is in SD. The XL2 does a mighty fine job, for standard-def, and it's a clean signal. I haven't used the HD100 in DV mode, only in HDV mode. In HDV mode it's certainly a noisier signal than the FX1 in HDV mode, and I recall the FX1 and the XL2 being pretty comparable noise-wise. But in DV mode, maybe the HD100 is a cleaner signal -- don't know, didn't try it.

The HD100 is also $2,000 more expensive than the XL2, don't forget that. That's a lot of change. XL2 batteries probably last a lot longer than HD100 batteries too -- HD100 batteries max out at about an hour for the biggest battery.

I have my gripes with the JVC, yes -- but I can't see how it won't cannibalize what's left of the XL2 market. I think XL2 sales have been slow already, and when the HD100 hits US shelves I think Canon's really going to feel the pinch.

No question about it whatsoever -- if you're springing for the mini35, and you're going through the effort of making a full feature, and you're deciding between XL2 and HD100 and you won't wait for the HVX, then get the HD100 and shoot in HD. No question. Any niceties the XL2 would offer will be completely overshadowed by the ability to offer that your film was shot in high-def. High-def in and of itself is meaningless, but if all other things are equal (comparable camera, both 24p/filmlook, etc) and one of 'em is SD and the other is HD, well, HD is better. Distributors will pay more attention to an HD-originated film than they will a DV-originated film (at least until they get swamped with HDV-originated movies that are as awful as the current flood of DV-originated movies they have to sort through!)

If you're going for straight-to-DVD release, the XL2 remains a strong contender.

The HD100 has extensive, extreme image controls. As for low light performance, the XL2 isn't spectacular at that, but I expect it to be a slightly better performer than the HD100. However, it's mostly irrelevant -- adding a little light will do far, far, far more for the quality of your image than any difference between these cameras would!

However, keep this in mind -- The XL2's been out for nearly a year. It's a known quantity, a proven solution, and any issues are pretty well known. The HD100 is a complete unknown. It's been on the market for, what, a week? Already we've had QC issues -- how much do you trust your entire production to an unproven camera? If you're willing to take the risk, I think the HD100/mini35 is a far smarter choice than the XL2/mini35. But recognize that it is a risk.

Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV. You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2 cameras for those shots).

Hey Barry, thanks for the straight answers. I appreciate that.
Some comments.



So far, the only thing which I would miss in the XL2 is the image stabilization. It's just nice to have it for some shots. I never use auto focus and 30p is pointless since I'm PAL.


Noise is a little of a a problem in low light, which the feature I want to shot has lots. Over 60% of the scenes are night externals and some internals.
About the resolution, I may be overlooking something, but in the case of HDV, where the color space in the same as PAL DV, 1280x720 doesn't seem a whole lot more than 960x576. I know it still is more. But I did a type of diagram to compare the frame sizes and it really looks quite close. The difference here is way smaller than the difference from 1208x720 an 1920x1080. Besides, the thing about the HD100's HD is that is is HDV. For post production, do you have the same flexibility as in DV for editing, compositing, graphics etc? How about color correction and multiple renders, how does it hold up? All that is very important when shooting a feature. How about audio. It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better.
Also, will the extra HDV compression be apparent in any special shooting situations? If by chance, digitally projected in a big screen, will the compression show?
Is the HD100 native 16:9?
So all that would have to be weighted in in the comparison.

In PAL land, it doesn't seem to cost all that much more. The XL2 in Europe sells for 4700 euros in most places. It seems the HD100 will sell for under 6000. The only thing is that they don't seem to offer a body only kit in PAL. I would like to get the body only kit. But, aren't the PAL and NTSC the very same camera. As I understood, they both do PAL and NTSC frame rates. So, maybe I could just buy a body only kit from the U.S.? Am I missing something here?



It would be interesting to know what are your grips, besides the malfunctions described in the article and which may be a pre-production model problem?




Yeah, if it turns out to be a real solid performer, it will definitely affect XL2 sales. But it's JVC we're talking about here. They not always hit it. Remember the DV300? It didn't sell at all. It was a good camera I heard, but it just didn't catch. The HD100 seems to be a great cam, but it's yet to prove to be as reliable as the XL2. Naturally, it's a matter of time, since it's new. But in order to really do damage to the XL2, it has to pass this test first.


Yeah. The higher resolution is sure nice. My worries are more with the post process and reliability.


The film will be for DVD release only.


Good point! But that night shot in the test sold me anyways. It looks great.


That and the post production process, which I heard is still not as easy and flexible as DV, are the main things holding me back. At least the XL2 is a proven camera and DV post production is a well known territory. I don't even know which NLEs can edit 720p HDV. Can Avid Xpress HD or Vegas 6 do it? Can AE handle 720p HDV? Those are things to consider. The resolution difference might not be all here. But if the post path would be no extra complication and it really turns out to be a solid camera, I think it's the way to go over a XL2 set up. The foreground in the images on your test looked so sharp, that it looked like a greenscreen shot. So much was the separation of the sharp foreground (the girl in front of the flowers) and the background. It's really impressive how sharp it is.


I know. I have the option of renting a IMX camera for green screen too. I will have to run some test with the camera I end up buying and see.

Thanks for the nice conversation Barry. Really helping a lot.

Hi Michael,

<< It seems the HD100 in HDV mode records MPEG1 audio. So I would think the XL2 16bit locked audio would be better. >>

It does indeed record Mpeg1 Layer II audio, but we should all realize that compression rates and bit sampling do *not* determine audio quality. Proper audio recording techniques do.

<< Is the HD100 native 16:9? >>

By definition of the format, all HDV camcorders are native 16:9. Hope this helps,

Compare HDV audio to PCM and ATRAC... http://www.vasst.com/resource.aspx?i...d-a1ebcaaf1463

Sure does Chris.

Thanks.

>>The project I'm considering the XL2 and now the HD100 for,
>>has many green screen shots.


>Then you're making a mistake shooting it on 4:2:0, whether DV or HDV.
>You'd be much, much better off waiting for 4:2:2 (or renting 4:2:2
>cameras for those shots).


I am wondering about the component analog video output on HD100.
Did the model you used have that feature and is anyone aware of
hardware that can be made to capture that signal? Could that be made
to work as a possible green screen solution?

Good question. I remember reading it would be uncompressed, either 4:4:4 or 4:2:2, which both would be great for greenscreen work.

Indeed. A few weeks ago I was editing some scenes for an actor's showreel from HDV footage shot on a Z1, with audio recorded on the camera from an MKH60... it was by far the best audio of any low-budget shoot I've edited, from Hi8 up to Digibeta and DAT with 16mm film.

Having a good mike and a sound recordist who knew what they were doing easily compensated for any minor theoretical loss of sound quality in compressed recording. HDV audio just isn't an issue as far as I'm concerned.

Actually it ALL matters. Good audio can be ruined any number of ways.

But this is obvious.

Yeah, either way would work... I wouldn't want to even contemplate the computer needed to record this direct to disk... but you could easily rent a deck and record to DVCPRO HD or HDCAM or some other higher (than HDV) standard of HD.

I am not sure, but I believe those HD decks take
HD-SDI and do not have analog component HD input.
When I get a chance I'll check on it.

I wish these HDV cameras had HD-SDI. One wire and
easy hook up to decks or CPU with card.

Even if they take only HD SDI, a simply converter will do the trick... there's plenty of them on the market now and I'm sure some are available to rent... or will be if this sort of studio/chroma key production catches on for these HDV cams...

The XL2 doesn't record 960x576, it records 720x576. So you're looking at 414,720 pixels per frame, vs. 921,600. The HD frame has 2.2 times as many pixels per frame. May not sound like much when you're comparing 576 against 720, but in reality it's over twice as much.

Well, no, it's almost exactly the same. 720P has 2.22 times as many pixels as PAL. 1920x1080 has 2.25 times as many pixels as 720P.

Oh, I hear you... trust me...
If you're editing in its native codec, it falls apart instantly. HDV is a terrible format for editing and re-rendering. Which is why many/most editing solutions transcode away from HDV at the first possible instant.

Truthfully it's really only an issue if you're doing multiple renders. If you add all your effects but don't pre-render them down, you can stay in the native codec and do one final render to whatever your delivery codec is. But if you intend to be doing multiple renders, you transcode HDV over to another codec (such as CineForm) and get away from MPEG-2 as quickly as you can. MPEG-2 can't even do a dissolve without the degradation being noticeable.

Man does not live by specs alone. If all other things are equal, obviously uncompressed is better than compressed. But if the JVC's mic preams and other circuitry are better quality than the XL2's (and, for the price tag, they should be) then the overall quality of the audio could indeed survive any degradation introduced by the MPEG-1 Layer II audio compression. Let's look at it this way -- any cheap $299 Sharp Viewcam also records uncompressed audio -- but I'd bet cash money that the JVC will record an overall better-sounding signal than that Sharp ViewCam would. There's more to it than just specs -- the components and hardware all matter, they're all ingredients in the final recipe.

With that said, I haven't tested the JVC's audio, and haven't heard of anybody doing so either. It could be superb, it could be tragic, it could be anywhere in between. Obviously we are all expecting the audio to be a good performer, given the very nature of the camera. That doesn't mean it will be though -- it needs to be tested and verified.


Most definitely. But if going to the big screen, I think having twice as many pixels in the frame will likely do more for you. I've seen XL1 projected on the big screen (28 Days Later) and it was thoroughly outclassed by DVX/24P footage. I'm expecting that having twice as many pixels again should result in a substantially sharper picture. But -- hey, that's just expectation, I could end up disappointed...

Yes MPEG-2 compression is a factor. With the JVC, especially at 24P, it's less of a factor than in the Sony cameras. The JVC/24P solution allocates the most possible bits per pixel of any of the HDV formats, so it's less likely to encounter bit-starved compression artifacts. It can still happen, that's for darn sure. But it's less likely to happen on the JVC than on Sony cameras, under the same shooting conditions. Of course, the Sony is also delivering more pixels per frame and a whole lot more pixels per second -- there's a definite tradeoff there. But for film-style work I think the JVC is the only level of HDV that may be acceptable.

But -- again -- if you're worried about all these issues, why not just wait for the HVX? The HVX will give you a DV-style workflow (because the compression is, at heart, DV compression). It gives you 50% more luma resolution, and three times as much chroma resolution, as the HD100 can. It's 4:2:2. It has four tracks of uncompressed audio. And it's only three months away. I mean, for all the concerns you have, it seems like the HVX answers them all...

As others have already answered, yes -- all HD is native 16:9. If you're asking if the HD100 has a 4:3 or 16:9 CCD, I'm not sure -- I'm guessing it's 4:3, I'm pretty sure it's the same chip as in the HD1/HD10, which was 4:3 1280x960, using a 16:9 1280x720 patch for video. But that's the same thing the XL2 does -- it's a 4:3 CCD, 960x720 on chip, but it uses a 16:9 960x480 patch for 16:9 images. And that doesn't stop it from being native 16:9.

No. The European version records PAL, the American version records NTSC. The European version cannot record or play back NTSC (although it does have an HDV SD-480/60P mode) and the American version cannot record or play back PAL (although it can record the HDV SD-576/50P mode). Both versions can shoot 720P at 24, 25, and 30fps.

If all you want to shoot is HD, then yes you could do that. If you want to use it for standard-def DV work, you would find that the camera can't do PAL DV.

My gripes with the JVC are these:
1. HDV. I don't care for the format at all. I think it has some uses, but I think it's a half-baked format, they should have left it in the oven a little longer.
2. Dropouts. HDV dropouts are nasty. I intend to get around it by buying the DR-HD100 and I already have HDV Rack. I wouldn't shoot without at least one of those connected at all times.
3. WYSAWYG - or, What You See Ain't What You Get. You don't see the effects of MPEG-2 compression on the viewfinder or LCD, and you don't see the effects of motion smoothing either. You also won't see those effects on the analog output. The only way you know whether your footage is good or not is to rewind it and play it back from tape. If you don't do that, you may think you got a great shot, only to find out that you overdrove the MPEG-2 compression and what you have on tape is actually a blob of macroblocked compression artifacts. You just don't know until you play it back.
4. The lens. Ugh. Nasty, nasty, nasty chromatic aberration. I'm seriously considering not even getting it -- I mean, it'd be convenient for ENG shooting, but I would never want to use that on a production where you're trying to get the best image. I'm looking into having a custom mount made so I can use my Arri Bayonet-mount Zeiss 16mm camera lens, or of course the mini35. The stock lens on the JVC is unacceptable.
5. Dead pixels. Dead pixels are bad. Dead pixels are completely unacceptable to me, and every camera report I've heard of has mentioned them, and every camera I've used, and every camera I've seen footage from, has them. That's a definite quality-control issue that JVC must address or this camera may end up DOA. Dead pixels recorded in your footage are a dealbreaker.
6. Fixed Noise Pattern/Gain issues. The camera has a weird split-screen fixed noise pattern issue. It's most noticeable under gain, but can be observed at 0dB of gain as well. JVC apparently is aware of the issue and apparently has some way to fix it. They should. They better.
7. Battery life. The stock battery only lasts about 40 minutes, and the biggest heavy-duty battery they offer only lasts an hour. I'm spoiled by the 6-hour DVX and 8-hour PD150 runtimes. You can get anton-bauer batteries, yes, but those are quite expensive and very heavy.
8. Unknown issues due to JVC's rep. Let's face it, JVC doesn't have a great reputation. They've made some good products -- I think the DV500 was a great little camera, and the DV300 got blindsided by the DVX -- had the DVX not come out with 24p, the DV300 would probably have been a big hit. And the HD100 looks like it might be a smash hit, pending the resolving of QC issues. JVC cannot afford to "blow it" with this camera. If they get it right, I think they'll have a big hit on their hands. But quality must be job 1, to borrow a line from Ford.

Yes, but that night shot was done with 440 watts of fluorescent light and 575 watts of HMI. You cannot shoot without lights. No video camera does a decent job without some lights. Lights are not optional, they are mandatory.

Avid's support is not yet released, but it's coming. Vegas 6 can do it, yes. Premiere Pro can, and FCP can, and Pinnacle Liquid probably can, and I'm sure Canopus Edius can too.

Presumably. I don't know. But if you're exporting to AE, you'll want to do that through an intermediary codec anyway.

Regarding the 4:2:2 issue, other posters have brought up the uncompressed analog outputs. If you had some way to record that, you could obviously pull superb keys from the JVC, far superior to what you could get out of the XL2. But recording uncompressed analog HD is neither easy nor cheap. And IMX is a standard-def format.

Barry, are you sure about that? 720x576 is a 4:3 frame.
On Canon’s spec sheets for the XL2 it says 960x576(PAL) and 960x480(NTSC)


Again, I might be wrong, but it seems it is 960x576 according to Canon. In this case, it’s less of a difference. But as I said in the prior post, the difference is still there.


Oh, ok. Sounds simple enough then.

It seems the best thing is to convert right after you capture your footage and work out of mpeg2.


Makes sense. Although the 960x576 would look extremely good. HD is HD. If the compression does not kick in, it should look way better.

Yes, the compression on the HD100 is looking really good. None of the tests has any compression artefacts. Even after compression for the web. So, it seems JVC is doing something right with the HD100’s HDV. Maybe ProHDV will be the HDV ticket.
.

Apart from the fixed lens, which kind of rends the Mini35 a little pointless IMO, the HVX200 sounds great. But unfortunately, it’s not out yet. It might be end of December or even January till it hits the streets. I need it now. Also, with the prices of P2 so high, it would cost almost the double of a HD100 and you would have to carry a laptop around, which for this project won’t always work.
But a HVX200 is on my plans. If I get a HD100, I might sell it after this project and get the HVX end of next year. But now, the HVX is not practical, for the reason I mentioned.


See, now you also say it’s 960x480. Am I missing something here? For me, a 720x576 or 720x480 was always a 4:3 frame. How can the XL2 record that in 16:9 and still be a 16:9 image?


Oh yeah. But remember HDV is a compromise. You get a resolution where the cheapest camera in the market right now capable of doing it cost 60k with a lens. But you get it for under 6k, and you can record it on under 4 bucks tapes. There are trade offs, but if wasn’t for HDV, the lower class would never be shooting HD. Even the HVX100 won’t be so practical and economical. At least not in it’s first 2 years or so. So, it’s a trade off. It always was. The difference is, that now, the HD100 seems to be making this trade off worth the trouble. That’s the way I look at it.

That’s a good back up. But frankly, I have no complains about the footage you guys got. It looks nothing short of great.
Well, that’s bad. Maybe one could get around that by using HDV Rack for preview, since it previews after the firewire compression?

I also don’t care for the lens. I wish I could get a PAL body only. But it seems it’s not available. But as Chris said, this lens is basically a give away. The real lens is the one that cost over 10K. But it’s better they give that one than no lens. Can you imagine if they sold only the body and you had to buy the 10k lens? Now at least you have the option of a cheaper lens for lower end stuff.

At least it might be a pre-production thing. Hopefully it will be fixed. Also it has a masking feature, doesn’t it?

I didn’t noticed that from that night shot you did. But hopefully it’s also a problem which will be addressed when it starts shipping.

When you mentioned before about the low time of the battery, I went to Ebay and checked the prices of them. They sell for under 10 bucks new. So one can get like 10 of them for 100 bucks. I know it’s not the same as having a single battery which lasts 6 hours, but better than nothing. There’s also the question of the charger. It would help if you got more than one. Not really a turn off for me.

Yes. That I worry about. I have never owned a JVC camera before. I know JVC is not the most reliable, but there are lots of happy users out there. So maybe I get luck too :D



Oh yeah, definitely.
For the cast and foreground, I have enough lights. About 4-5k in lights. But I just can’t light the whole city back ground. But the HD100 did very good at that in that night shot. The background buildings only had their own lights and they looked good and pretty visible.


I had forgot IMX was SD. Because I had plans of using it for greenscreen with a XL2, I forgot the HD100 was HD.
About the uncompressed 4:2:2 recording, one of those 300 bucks Decklink should do the trick, shouldn’t it? If one can put a fast enough system together to move the video that is. Storage would be an issue if filming a whole feature that way, but for greenscreen sequences, where most likely won’t be long ones, storage shouldn’t be that much of a problem.

Yes, in PAL, or 960x480 in NTSC. But this is what happens in the camera head, not what is recorded to tape, which is another thing entirely. The numbers you're quoting are for the actual image area of the CCD block, and yes it does equal native 16:9. However it must go to tape as 720x576 (PAL) or 720x480 (NTSC) because that's the limitation of the DV format. In other words, if it wasn't that size on tape, then it wouldn't be DV. Hope that's clear,

Ok, I see now. But then it happens to all DV25 and DV50 cameras, right? Like the SDX900 or DSR570 also only record 720x576 in PAL.

Something that just occurred to me. If one needs to convert HDV to another codec to finish it, what will be the deliver or distribution format?
You just convert it back to HDV? I think this would degrade the signal.

You dump it on DVD? Doesn't make much sense to use HD and then throw it back on DVD, does it?

You make a DVCPRO-HD dub?

The best way to keep the quality and resolution up, would be dumping it on HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD I think. Or if you need to project it, do it straight from a laptop in full HD resolution. But I think you would have to convert it to uncompressed quicktime or something first.
Very confusing path. But if going back to HDV is the worse idea, maybe I should not waste my money in getting a HD101E (which is the PAL version which has DV IN & OUT and cost like 500 more). I should just get a HD100E, which is the PAL version which has DV OUT only.

That's the pixels on the chip. That's not what gets recorded. A PAL DV frame is *ALWAYS* 720x576, regardless of whether it's 4:3 or 16:9.

The pixels aren't square. The 960x576 gets sampled into a 720x576 frame.

You can never have PAL DV at any resolution other than 720x576; it just doesn't exist.

960x576 on the chip, 720x576 on the recorded frame. HD 720p is still over twice as many pixels, per frame, as PAL DV is.

It definitely can happen. It just seems less likely with the JVC, because it allocates more compression bits per pixel, and especially in the 24P mode since there are 6 fewer frames per second, but the bitrate stays the same.

Again, I must disagree. The DVX had a fixed lens, and the XL1 had interchangeable -- but the mini35 on the XL1 spanked, IMO, the mini35 on the XL2. The rest of the imaging chain was plenty strong enough to overcome any limitation caused by shooting through the Leica lens vs. shooting through the XL1's relay lens. I expect that similar results may be possible: shooting 1080/24p on the HVX with 4:2:2 color will probably (not guaranteed, but probably) far outweigh any disadvantage caused by shooting through its onboard lens. Of course a removable lens would even make it better still, but based on my experience with the DVX/mini35, I think I'm on safe ground here.

The 960x576 gets sampled off the CCD into a 720x576 grid. All DV, whether 4:3 or 16:9, uses the same grid (720x480 NTSC, 720x576 PAL). The difference is not in the # of pixels, it's in the shape of them (DV pixels are never square).

Welcome to the wonderful world of HD distribution. In other words, there isn't really any good way to distribute HD content.

If you wanted to distribute on HDV tape, that would limit you to the maybe 100 people in the world who have some sort of HDV gear that could play 24p HDV (which would be the HD100 or BR50 deck, as nothing else will play it).

If you wanted to distribute on DVCPRO-HD tape, well... there's probably only about a thousand of those decks out there, and very few are in end customer hands.

If you wanted to distribute on HDCAM, there are none in customer hands, only at larger production companies.

You could think about distributing on D-VHS, there's probably a thousand of those in the US. Versus something like a hundred million DVD players and three hundred million VHS decks...

So, basically, tape is a pointless method for distribution. I think everyone's looking at five years in the future when blu-ray or HD-DVD might have some market penetration -- probably 10%, maybe as much as 20% of households may have one or the other.

Which is why everyone looks at distributing on DVD. DVD may be standard-def only, but at least it's a universal format that everyone has. Your potential market is more like a billion or two billion people, vs. the 1,000 with D-VHS decks.

Right now if you want to distribute high-def, there are really only two ways: through broadcast (which still rules out the 93% of the US who don't have HDTVs, or the 99.99% of European customers who don't have HDTVs), or through authoring a Windows Media 9 or Windows Media 10 HD .wmv file, and expecting your customers to play back the product on their computer.

I don't see the issue with MPEG-2 artifacts. Sure, I'd prefer to be recording uncompressed HD, but unless you're shooting for a video-to-film transfer, at the end of the day your footage is almost certainly going to be shown after compression to MPEG-2 on some HD DVD format or a digital broadcast.

So it's all very well to shoot uncompressed or low-compression HD and avoid MPEG-2 compression artifacts... but if you shoot footage that would have caused MPEG-2 artifacts if you'd shot in HDV, you'll see very similar MPEG-2 artifacts when you watch your footage on a TV in its final format. So where's the benefit?

I've seen some really bad artifacting on broadcast HD using MPEG-2, when the show was shot on HDCAM or a similar high-end HD system: I'm sure the DoP and editor loved the footage they shot and edited, with trendy fast pans and three-frame cuts... but it looked like poop in broadcast MPEG-2.

So you're right: what you see in the HDV viewfinder is not what you'll see when you watch the tape. But what you see in the viewfinder on a more expensive HD camera is not what the viewer will see when it's broadcast or played from DVD either... and that's what really matters. Either way you need to be aware of the problems and avoid them by not shooting or editing in such a way that you'll cause such artifacts.

Barry, sorry for the confusion about the XL2 pixels. I saw my mistake when Chris pointed it out. I knew it was just too good to be true.

About the HVX200, as I said, it's a great camera and it's on my plans for the near future. It's just not out yet and I would like to wait till P2 prices get more practical. Maybe by end of next year I will buy one. Then I can just sell the HD100.

So, since I'm not going back to HDV, I will buy the HD100E which has DV out only. Or do you see any situations where I could need the DV in for HDV? For SD, I have a DV deck.

I see the point about HD distribuition.
But what would be the best format to master for video projection? Windows Media 10 HD? Since DVCPRO-HD or HDCAM would require the rental of a deck, Windows Media 10 HD seems like the only affordable alternative.

I was also thinking about monitoring HD. Unless using the HDV Rack, which might not be sharp enough for HD focus, I think one would need a HD monitor to work with the HD100? Or could you just monitor it out of the SD video out?
I think a HD-SD converter for a monitor is very expensive, isn't it? Might be one more hidden cost of shooting HD. Even if it's HDV.

Also, on your opinion, what type of system would be needed to record the uncompressed HD for greenscreen? As I said, storage wouldn't be that much of a problem, since it would only be the green screen shots.

Interesting.

Anybody cares to elaborate what would be the No's No's when trying to avoid compression artifacts while shooting HDV?

Mini35 soft or focus issue?
 

Great job on the footage all involved and very nice article. I admit to being finally impressed by HDV footage - perhaps my bias to 24p progressive is showing :) Plus, I can't say I cared for motion smoothing at any frame rate. It was also good to see images well exposed and composed - easier to see strengths and weaknesses. Though I don't have true HDTV monitoring on a CRT or plasma, it does look noticeably sharper than my DVX100a on my JVC TM-H150CGU.

It does seem JVC has improved MPEG motion artifact issues - perhaps also only having 24 frames helps? It would be interesting to see that tested.

However, if the clips labelled A-Flowerbed-xxxxx, to my eye the Fujinon looks sharper than the Mini35 - is that a focus issue, ground glass or something else? Noticing especially edges of her shirt/hair etc.

But, I have to say while the footage looks nice, the glass and CCD issues make it a difficult purchase for me. The Fujinon glass appears to be a a get what you pay for and appears to be more marketing than good value. JVC wanted a price point to make the camera seem like it's a sub-$10,000 cam, but clearly that is not really the case. You need to add quality glass for professional or indie work and that pushes it right up.

Hopefully, the will update the package with a decent lens option and keep the price at around $7-8K. The body-only option I think is the way to go and hopefully lens adaptors will start appearing. Then it becomes a much more compelling option.

I would have expected Canon XL series quality glass at least. Also, CCD quality issues are still an unknown variable. For Mini35 Rig users, perhaps it's a good setup, but for those looking for a complete setup well under $10K, I have to say it falls a little short of my needs and budget range.

However, the best HDV thus far to my eye. Unless you must shoot interlaced, the Sony's HDV seem much less well-suited for delivering filmic images.

Hi Michael,

That's really a topic for a separate thread. Could you please post this question in our HDV Acquisition Equipment forum? The link is: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=62

No problem Chris. Just wanted to avoid starting new threads. But you are right. This question calls for a new one.

Just as an FYI here, for anybody who is interested in this thread, we have a similar discussion in our P+S Technik forum... I might merge the two threads together... might not... but here it is in case you missed it:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49410

Actually I would have to disagree with Barry Green. If you are a wedding videographer and are getting 1500 bucks to shoot a wedding in high definition you can very well afford to bundle a free D-VHS deck with the package. Steven Gotz gives a free high definition AVel Link Player whenever he shoots a wedding and gets paid handsomely for his services. You guys have to learn to think outside of the box.

Forgotten... I've talked about the "A-R-Walking Hands" video, just play it out to a SD TV screen and it will look as a DVD transfered from 16/35mm film. It doesn't just have the "look", it goes beyond that... c'mon take a look at it on a regular SD TV. At least this camera would be great for DVD-oriented productions.

L

I talked to wedding videographers who are shooting standard-def weddings, on 1/3" cameras, and getting $3500 per wedding. And are booked every weekend.

$1500 for a wedding would be way too cheap. And handing out a $250 Linkplayer? May work for the actual client, but what about the 10 or 50 copies of the DVD they order? Are you going to hand out $250 Linkplayers with every copy? Sorry, that model makes no sense whatsoever. May work for a one-off where you're doing a corporate video for someone who doesn't even have any sort of high-def playback system, but for something where people order tens or even hundreds of copies, it's entirely impractical.

The only practical means of high-def distribution, right now, remains WMV-HD encoded to a computer.

My only connection with wedding videography is some shooting I do freelance... I never have dealt with a client and delivering a final copy, etc., but I would think that Avel play is a great idea for the copy for the bride and groom. For all the other copies they order, deliver in SD DVD--unless someone wants to order an Avel player and an HD copy. Just make them additional items on the order form. If someone wants it, fine. If no one does, they don't order it...

Absolutely false. Do not pretend to understand the wedding video market unless you've done it yourself (and yes, I have). What you propose is fine for the corporate / industrial sector, but not the wedding market, at least not at the low-end range of $1500, at least certainly not "for free." I can see offering it at cost, but then you're turning a $1500 invoice into an $1800 one. Not all wedding customers would be agreeable to that, especially not if they're down at the $1500 range to begin with.

Well I suppose $3500 could very well indeed be the going rate in the Las Vegas area. And it is true that wedding videographers can get away with shooting in standard definition and that providing a free D-VHS deck would indeed cut into potential profits. However one must remember that the church is not a marketplace and the decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done for artistic reasons rather than to maximize profits. I am not saying that a wedding videographer should not be very well paid for his work however I do not think it would be overburdensome for him to sacrafice 10 percent of his profits in order for his clients to watch their wedding video in high definition.

Again, I must completely disagree. First, the videographers charging $3500 weren't from Vegas, they were from California, but that's beside the point.

Giving away a $250 piece of equipment doesn't amount to "10 percent of his profits". It amounts to more like 50%! There are a lot of costs involved. $1500 for a wedding is way too cheap, first of all, because it's just too much work. But second there are a lot of fixed costs that go into that. It's not like if you charge $1500 for the wedding, that that's $1500 of profit... not by any stretch. Profit is what you get to keep after all the bills are paid (and your labor is one of the bills). Profit is what you get to build your business up with, etc. Some wedding videographers work all week, between prepping for the job, dealing with contracts, the actual shoot, then editing, then changes/revisions, etc... $1500 would leave pretty much no profit margin, and certainly not enough that you'd have to a) pay off your new high-def equipment, and b) hand out $250 worth of hardware. Not a reasonable business model at all.

Chris said it right -- offer it as an option if you want, and mark it up as such. But if someone's trying to skate by on a cheapo $1500 wedding price, there is practically no profit margin. Once you subtract out business costs and labor costs and equipment costs and taxes -- man, that would be a rough living. Unless there's no editing, I guess. If all you had to do was show up, shoot, and hand over the tapes -- then $1500 would be fine. A nice living, actually. But no way would I want to do a typical wedding job for $1500 -- way too much expense, stress, and cost!

Actually when it comes to video, it's an enormous marketplace... One trip to NRB (see the www.nrb.org site for National Religious Broadcasters, which is the largest of any number of conventions and associations centered around the church /video market) will bear this fact out immediately.

Artistic reasons have nothing to do with it. The decision to shoot in high definition ought to be done in order to meet customer demand for it, where it exists. There is nothing at all "artistic" about HD. Choice of format does not determine what is or isn't art, and shooting in high definition does not automatically create art. Poorly shot video in HD is just as bad as poorly shot video in standard definition, except wider and sharper, and just as unwatchable.

Sorry, but a $300 D-VHS player amounts to much, much more than ten percent of the profit from a $1500 wedding. In fact there's not much profit at all on a $1500 wedding.

Tommy, it's clear that you have a lot to learn about the wedding video business, so please visit the DV Info Net forum that we already have that's dedicated to Wedding & Event videography. There you'll find a lot of folks who are actively pursuing wedding and event vfideo either as a primary business or as a sideline hobby, and I think your understanding of that market will benefit greatly from browsing the discussions from that forum.

Meanwhile, we've drifted far enough off topic here, so let's please get back to those matters which specifically concern the HD100 and the Mini35. Thanks in advance,