First, to get back on track...I'm grateful for Chas, Barry and Nate for conducting this test. Unfortunately it's led me to some other questions.

One of the reasons I was interested in the camera was it's relative affordability in terms of camera, equipment and computer costs. Now it seems the included lense is almost unusable and there requires considerble expense to make the hd100 able to produce quality video.. (ps teknik plus rented 35mm lenses, or the 13x 12K dollar lense) which in fact makes it more expensive than the upcoming Pana and far more expensive then the Z1. At least as far as using it straight out of the box. Had the above mentioned been options instead of requirements I wouldn't be bothered at all.

Just wondering out loud about this. Hope someone can step in and offer a differing point of view.

I'm very aware that my comments can be construed as cheerleading, but rest assured I'm trying to be fair and balanced when I say that:

I'm not nearly as bummed out by the 16x as Barry. I absolutely knew that for Fuji to make a lens that passed X amount of lines, and be included at the price it's selling at, there were going to be compromises.

Optics are one of the few things that haven't been following the same light-speed advances in electronics as for quality/price. Great glass costs a lot, and I suspect it will for a long time to come.

Before I spent time with the camera on the test, I was really dissapointed by the clips on the web, in addition to reservations I already had about the build quality. I seriously was considering cancelling my order.

Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.

Joe, just think about it. Before the HD100, if you wanted to shoot 720 24p, your only option was the Varicam. Now how much does it cost? How much for a lens alone? One thing people seem to forget when judging the HD100 and the HVX200 is that their are made to meet a price point. Some times, I have the impression people just expect JVC and Panasonic to give them Varicam's and Cinealta's for XL2 prices. That's not happening. We are not that far yet. There will be the day we will have it. But not yet. I think the fact we can now shoot HD for "under" 10,000 is just so great. I remember in 1997, when the XL1 came out with the frame movie mode, how excited independent filmmakers were. Just some short 7 years ago. Compare the HD100 with the XL1. I know video is not going as fast as the computer industry, but then again, what is? The fact you can grab an affordable digital camera today, and produce a movie which will rival 16mm quality is just great. 10 years ago, that was not possible. Video was just not on pair and 16mm cost way more even today. Specially back then. Think about it. I think we are just getting to spoiled. :)

Another thing people seem to forget and I'm not specially talking about you, is that HD is not DV. Even HDV is not DV. HD production comes at a cost. It's not just the camera. I see some people complaining that it doesn't matter the camera is cheaper, but he can't afford the rest of the gear (like decks, monitors, NLE) anyways. But they say that in a way which sounds like they are blaming JVC and Panasonic for it. It's just not right. HD has got cheaper and simpler. But it’s not DV cheap and simple. If one wants to get into HD, he needs to be willing to pay the price for it. If one wants more quality, he needs to pay more. ;)

Coming back to the HD100, it seems there is nothing out there right now in it's price range, which offers better performance. Even with the stock lens. Which to be honest, is not what I'm worried about. As Nate said, I was also expecting that for that price, the lens would have compromises. If JVC can workout the other problems, like the split screen etc, I'll be a happy boy. The lens, as said many times here, is just a give away. Now which one would you prefer? The HD100 selling for the price it does now, with a less than optimal lens, or the HD100 selling for $800 less(which seems to be the price difference without lens) without the lens, and the only option you had was the over 10,000 lenses? The idea is to give you a cheaper option. You don’t have to go for it. You can also go for the better lens. But that is gonna cost you. But what is not happening is Fujinon giving away top notch HD lenses for the cost of beans(remember that the cheapest HD lens before the HD100 was around 15,000, so 800 bucks is dirty cheap and 10,000 is already cheaper). It’s just a compromise.

Yes, if you add the optional lens the HD100 will cost more than a HVX200 with 2 P2 cards. But, and that’s a big but, you will have a true HD lens, which most likely the HVX200 will never offer in that price range, for the same reasons JVC didn’t. The difference is that with the HVX200, you are stuck with it.

Now, I’m not saying the HD100 is a better camera, because it’s impossible to say either way now. The HVX200 is 4 months away. All we know now is that the HVX200 will record in a superior codec. That doesn’t make it better. Yes, it will record 1080p, but will the CCDs be native 1080? If it will upsample, you might as well upsample the HD100 too. It will have more frame rates which is great. Really is. Only the Varicam can do that. But the DVCPRO-HD codec and variable frame rates won’t make it superior if the images are not. It has great chances of being the best sub 10k camera. But right now, it’s just that, chances. We already know the lens won’t be a top notch HD lens. For that price, you can’t ask that from Panasonic. We already know it will have compromises. You can’t expect Panasonic too offer a Varicam for $6,000.

So, all I’m saying is, to ditch the HD100 because it doesn’t come with a top notch HD lens, and comparing the price of the HD100 plus a real HD lens with the HVX200, a handheld, fixed lens camera, is not really apples to apples. It’s like complaining a DSR370 with a good Fujinon lens is more expensive than a DSR250. Or to be more fair, complain a Panasonic D215 with a good fuji lens cost more than a DSR250 or XL1.

The final point is, all those cameras are made to meet a price point. The HD100 offers the option to use basically any lens you want, probably the option of using a different viewfinder, the flexibility of not being obligated to bring a computer to the set to record, the flexibility of not being obligated to buy and store dozens of HDDs and just buy cheap and practical DV tape instead, but records to a more compressed codec. Which quite frankly has surprised me with it’s great performance, to the point of not making much difference anymore. A solid proof that specs alone doesn’t make a camera.
The HVX200 offers a less compressed codec, superior colour space, variable frame rates. (not considering 1080p yet, since we don’t know if it will be native or upsampled). But it’s a handheld camera, meaning fixed lens and viewfinder. Meaning it is what it is. You can’t improve it. You don’t even have the option.

Which will perform better is yet to be seen. The HVX200 sure has the edge in the paper. In the paper is the key word here.

Bottom line is. Affordable HD, at this point in time, doesn’t exist without compromises. One needs to pick the compromises which better suits his needs. ;)

I'd like to see a test between the stock 1/3" lens and a quality 1/2" lens with the adaptor. This distinction between HD and SD lenses bothers me..

I'd assume that using a 1/2" lens on a 1/3" chip camera would result in the 1/2" lens operating as if it were a longer focal length lens. Not as much difference as between a 35mm lens and a 1/3" chip camera, but still a magnification factor.

I'm thinking about renting this camera for a day once it's available at our local dealer. My main interest is in seeing if its 720p is as good as Sony's 1080i. Professionally-shot footage I've seen from the Z1 looks great, much better than I expected for 1/3" chips.

That is an interesting comparison. I was one of the indie filmmakers excited about the XL1 and frame movie mode. I bought the XL1 and all three lenses in 1999 but ended up selling in 2002. The XL glass choices were unsatisfactory, frame mode looked shockingly soft on film festival sized screens and the XL1s was a letdown as unless you were a sports/nature shooter, the XL series was not a good price-performance buy.

I sold my XL1 kit, I bought a DVX100 instead. Then came the XL2 but despite 24p and native 16:9, lens choices got no better. I bought a DVX100a instead.

My point is that I don't care for JVC decision to sell the camera with a throwaway lens - what's the point of the waste? Especially at HD resolutions, cheap glass is a killer for many shooters. Why not develop simple 8X or 10x lens for release with the camera and price the cam at $7-9K?

I think JVC has limited their market by the lens situation. Unless a bunch of adaptors for other reasonable lenses choices and they solve the CCD issues (which should be much easier than the lens stuff), it looks like a nice mount for the mini35 but others like me will sit tight for awhile and see how the HVX turns out and if Sony decides to join the 24p camp.

It was really an exemple of how far we have come in a short 7 years. From the bad frame movie mode to true 720 24p.
Not really a comparison with the XL1.


Stephen, I'm sure there are many who care and think different from you. I'm sure many are glad they can have a HD camera for under 6k.


As said many times, the cheaper HD lens before the HD100 was 15K! JVC is selling a HD lens for 10K and giving a lower end HD lens with the camera all for under 6k(street will probably be lower). When the cheaper HD lens cost 15K, expecting Fujinon to make a HD lens for 3K is not really realistic. SD lenses cost more than that. I think it might be a case of being spoiled by the times, like I mentioned before. No matter what the companies do, people always want more. As I said in my prior post, I'm sure many prefer the camera coming with a giveaway lens for under 6k, than to buy the camera for 5k without lens and have to buy the 10k optional lens. Because a 7-9k HD camera with a good HD lens is not realistic in today's reality, when the cheapest HD lens we have cost 15k alone.


The CCDs will sure be solved as will also the achromatic aberration on future lenses.

I'm sure that's true, but my point is that I don't think I'm alone and they have limited their market by not working harder to make a more reasonable glass option available.

You don't need an adapter for more lens options. The JVC is exchangable mount. That already gives you options. You can't buy a cheaper HD lens than the 13x JVC is offering for the HD100 anyways. They are not limiting their market. They give you options. You can buy the body only if you want. You can buy the optional 13x. You don't have to go with the 16x if you don't want. Limiting is a fixed lens camera, where you are stuck with the lens forever. But anyways, adapters will sure follow.

I aware of that - my error. To clarify, I meant adaptor for 16mm cine lenses and other lenses that can be found in the $2000 - $ 4000 range. I tend to think quality 16mm glass will do just fine for HDV.

I see. You can be sure adapters will follow.
Watch Optex website. They have a huge selection of adapters available for broadcast, film and the XL series. I'm sure they will come up with something. ;)

>>Now, after having worked with it, I can't wait to get mine. I understand what it can do well, and what it can't do well, and accept it on those terms. It's a big enough leap from what I had (a DVX) that I feel it's worth the $3500 upgrade.<<

Thanks Nate, so you feel you can make quality video within the limits of the camera, as is with all cameras.

Michael, I'm aware of the tremendous drop in cost compared to existing HD, but since it's not the only game in town (never was) it's fare to compare cost issues with other brands like Panasonic and Sony.

My issue was not having to upgrade to SCSI raid drives, the latest greatest CPU, motherboard...but using this camera to get another year out of my existing equipment, plus not having to get a 35mm adaptor to make it useful. If the 16x can work for at least awhile, other adaptors like the micro35 will be out at far less cost the the ps teknik. Then renting glass becomes an affordable , even attractive option. I suppose renting the JVC 13x could be an option too....

You have the option of buying the body-only kit without that lens.

I understand, but just like the XL2 failing to ship with a new lens choice (like a nice 5X true manual lens with OIS), I feel the JVC did not make enough effort to have something else than the very expensive 13X wide available (which I don't think it is even for sale right now).

I realize true HD lenses cost big bucks, but for 720p HDV JVC could have worked with someone (Optex etc.) to have a reasonable sub $5000 option available.

Sure, it looks great with mini35 and great glass, but if you don't have it you have to deal with pretty ugly chromatic abberation until other lens choices are available. That's my beef right now.

I'm hoping to be proven wrong as I think Panasonic has a big engineering challenge with the lens and CCDs on the HVX200 delivering quality 1080p and I don't think Sony is near to releasing 24p (or any true progressive scan) cams under $10k.

I love my DVX100a but I really want native 16:9 and resolution greater than DV since 90% of my work screens on 30ft screens in film festivals.

Drifting off-topic again, but the XL2 *did* ship with a new lens choice; the L-series 20x with focus & zoom presets. Unfortunately it wasn't the lens you wanted though.

I guess the 20x was a "new" lens but I saw it just as the latest revision of the standard XL series lenses with a little more telephoto. But I haven't used it, so what I do I know :)

Stephen, the whole point is that JVC already cut 5,000 off the cheapest HD lens available which cost 15K. The 13x is rumored to cost 10K. 5,000 is already a great drop in price. Just look around. There are SD lenses which cost much more. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation)

I'm mean, we can all wish as much as we want. I wish Panasonic would sell the Varicam for 20k, I wish Sony would release a HDCAM 1/2" exchangable lens 1080p camera for 10k with lens, but that's not realistic right now.
The thing is glass is not only expensive, but hard to make and engineer. Asking a true HD lens for 5,000, which is a price range where most SD lenses are selling these days, is just not realistic. That's the problem with your approach.

Check this lenses. They are 1/2" SD lenses. Not even 2/3". They all cost over 5,000. Some well over:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

Asking for a 5,000 top HD lens in this day and age is just asking too much. I think a 10k HD lens is already very cheap. I remember not long ago, HD lenses costing 4 times as much.

I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more. Not for $10,000 more, just a few thousand more.

e.g. Make it 10x rather than 16x and increase the price by a $1500.

Unless Barry and others have exaggerated the problems with chromatic aberration, it seems like the bundled lens was engineered poorly.

Look at this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

Now how do you expect a HD lens for 5k? You say Optex. Well, they can't do miracles I'm afraid. If Fuji can't, a smaller company sure can't.

The issues you talk about will be worked out. If not in the first bash of cameras, the second. I don't see how they wouldn't. But besides the chromatic aberrations, the lens seems to be fine for it's price. if all you have against it is the chromatic aberrations, then you will be alright after they work it out. But honestly, that's not how your posts come across.
Now you are saying you just would like it be slightly better and slightly more expensive. Well, you know, they can't make one lens grade for each person based on what they want to pay vs the quality they expect. The very botom line is, the HD100 is here and offer 720p. If you don't like it, wait for the HVX200. We will see if it's fixed lens is any better. if it's not, buy a Varicam or Cinealta. If you can't afford them, well, there's only SD left for you then. if you prefer SD than the HD100, go for it ;-)

I think Stephen is right. Eneryone seems to bite on this "true HD" lens talk, forgetting that in digital photography you can get excellent 8 megapixel "HD" pictures from a $600 zoom prosumer. That's 3x HDV resolution. I see good glass as good glass, no labels attached. Besides, 1/3" lens is not in the same category as 2/3". It's like comparing 35mm to medium format glass. Less glass should cost less money. I bet my 1/2" 20x fujinon (with adaptor) is better than the stock lens. Only problem is, the lens is longer than the body.

Thanks Chris - I don't buy the "true HD" lens thing either. I've used plenty of nice lenses on 16mm motion and 35mm still that cost $500 to $1500 and had excellent results. The 1/3" inch chips pose challenges, for sure, but I think th FX1 and ZR1 seem to do okay with much less than $10K glass.

The ZR1 fixed glass does fine and clearly it's not $10K glass. I guess we have a design value difference of opinion. I really don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. However, I don't design camera and camera price points for a living - just speaking as a potential buyer. The lens issue is real for me. Perhaps I'm an "aberration" about chromatic aberrations :)

We shall berate you for your abberations, Stephen. Abbreviated,

I always get a little antsy when people declare what a manufacturer could or couldn't do. Let's keep in mind that we're not lens engineers. It may turn out that they couldn't do any different with a few thousand; it may turn out that as far as Fujinon was concerned, the 13x lens at $11,995 *is* the lowest-cost full-spec lens they could deliver.

I'm in agreement with most of your points Stephen, I'm just saying that we don't know the lens manufacturing business, and to put words in their mouth isn't necessarily fair to them.

I've posted clips, and I have a lot of stills that someone sent me that I'm not necessarily free to post. I prefer that everyone reach their own conclusion, rather than base it off my opinion -- that's why I conduct tests and post the results. If you see the aberration and think "that's acceptable", then you're empowered to move forward. If you see the aberration and say "holy crap, that's outrageous", then you have a basis to seek alternatives. I think it's outrageous, and that's why I'm pursuing getting a camera engineer to custom-make an Arri Bayonet lens adapter so I can use my Zeiss 10-100 on the HD100... perhaps it'll perform better...

Speaking of which -- is there nobody in England/Wales who has an HD100, who'd be willing to let said engineer handle the camera for a few hours to do some measurements and photos?

Valid point Barry. I did mention in a later comment that I'm not a lens engineer and only speaking as potential buyer. However, based on the Sony HDV lens performance it seems reasonable that JVC/Fujinon might have done better. But then again, you are right, maybe not.

When Panavision (who were first and foremost a lens manufacturer before they got into the camera building business) tackled the F900 conversion a few years back, the challenge they set themselves was to build lenses that could resolve as well as their 35mm lenses within an image area 1/4" the area of 35mm. That took a LOT of engineering--they were essentially doubling the resolution of their previous designs. SD optics have always resolved more than the format; now HD optics have to do the same, which means several times better resolution than the SD versions. It's an interesting challenge.

Yep. That goes with what I heard about lenses. The smaller the CCds are, the more complex and expensive to make. Because of the smaller target area.

Anything less than a HD (true spec as Barry puts it) will be basically what the stock lens is. The Aberrations will be corrected most likely.

Your analogy with still cameras doesn't really hold. Moving images is a whole different thing. You say 1/3" lenses are not in the same category as 2/3". You mean price? The smaller the CCD the lens is for, the more complex and expensive it's to make. So a 1/3" HD lens is harder to engineer. You can't just count the size of the glass, which is not really smaller anyways. I wouldn't be sure your Fuji S20x6.4 (is that what you have? I'm just guessing by the 20x factor) which is actually an industrial/professional lens, will out perform the stock lens. Maybe it won't have the chromatic aberrations, but that's a defect. It will most likely be corrected. But I think your lens would look softer. I have used this lens with a DSR500 and it looked softer than when I used one of the Fuji true Broadcast lenses with the same camera. I remember it, because we were trying to find out if there was really a difference between the professional/industrial series and the Broadcast series. There was.

So if it didn't match a higher SD lens, I think it wouldn't match a lower HD lens either. As Charles points out, a lens needs to resolve more than the format. Of course, it's impossible to tell for sure without testing.

But the curious thing is that the stock lens for the HD100 cost about $800 while your 1/2" SD lens cost alomost $3,000.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

When you say it does a fine job, I'm thinking you mean with no chromatic aberrations? As I said, fuji will most likely correct that. Otherwise, I can't see how the Z1 lens would out perform the HD100.

Find an NAB Handbook and Peter Gloeggler's contributions on lens and CCD relationship. It's brilliantly written, and whether you're an engineer or layperson, (or in between), it makes a lot of sense and is very informative. I'll see if he'll allow it to be posted, but it deals with why and how lenses resolve the way they do with various CCD sizes and types. You might be able to Google it, as it might be online already. I'm on a slow connection overseas, or I'd have a go at it.

The Z1's lens looks like it already outperforms the HD100's. The Z1 has its share of chromatic aberration as well, but it looks downright mild compared to the HD100's Fujinon.

Sample pics of Z1 (well, actually FX1) aberrations are available on the eidomedia site, at http://eidomedia.com/hdve/ziess_fuji.htm

When you say that Fuji will correct it -- do you have basis for that? Do you know of examples where such a thing was corrected in a past product? I'm thinking that at the price point they engineered to, there's not likely going to be any correction for it. But I'd love to be wrong about that.

lots o f questions
 

hi all
got a few questions if anyone can help

What would happen if you used the standard hd 100 lens with the mini 35?

Would it be possible to use the mini 35 on a magiqcam steadycam rig or would the fact that you would have to use a fairly wide lense to keep focus without need of a focus puller make the employment of the mini 35 redundant

Also would the mini 35 be too heavy?

If you shot footage on the longer end of a long lens would this narrow your DOF even though the angle of view would not be the same.

Sorry if these questions sound dumb I'm just dunmb and curious I guess

Basically is there any way of acheiving filmic Dof without using mini 35

Thanks Guys

me again
 

Anyone know the best way to focus on a steady cam rig if you are using hd would you have to have an hd monitor I heard an sd would not be sifficient
Thanks

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean using the mini35 over the stock lens, no you can't, and why would you want that? If you mean mount the stock lens in front of the mini35, the answer is probably no as well. Unless somebody makes a 1/3" bayonet to PL adapter. But again, why would you want to do that? That would defeat the whole purpose of the mini35.

This link could help you to understand how the mini35 works and what it does for you: http://www.pstechnik.de/en/digitalfilm-mini35.php


Well, it would have to be a vest type of steadycam. A handheld one would be very heavy to hold. But, I wouldn't use a mini35 on a steadycam. I would use the stock lens. The mini35 reduces dof, so it would make the whole thing harder. Even if you used a wide angle 35mm lens, it would be just easier not to use the mini35 IMO.

Short answer is yes. Depending of the distance of the subject from the camera.

The dumbest questions are the ones which go unasked. Cliche, but so true. ;)

By shooting with the iris more open and using a longer focal length (longer end of lens), you can reduce your dof a good deal. It won't be 35mm dof and angle of view as the mini35 offers. But is what most people shooting on video (specially 1/3" cameras) do to get a shorter dof.

I'm sure somebody with more experience will chime in to add some more details. If you want information about video production cameras and etc, you couldn't have come to a better place. Don't hesitate to ask the questions you have. You will sure get your answers. Nobody here will think you dumb or anything. We are all in the same boat here. We're all learning new things everyday. Besides, people are nice and polite around here.
Another tip is to use the search function. Maybe your questions have already been asked by somebody else, and you can get your answers straight away.
Welcome on board.

Hi Greg, the Mini35 converter is designed for full-grown motion picture lenses, the ones that are used on 35mm movie cameras. The standard Fuji video lens wouldn't fit on it. Hope this helps,

Greg:

The Mini35 hovers around 15 lbs fully loaded (depends on camera, lens, accessories etc). I think the current top end Magiqcam can accomodate this, but not all models. As you guessed, pulling focus with a Mini35 for Steadicam is a can of worms. When you are working with a front end that is essentially a 35mm setup, you associate the challenges of the format, and for Steadicam that requires a wireless focus system. Any Steadicam operator who works in 35mm (and most who work in 16mm or 2/3" formats) will have the gear that is needed to fly and pull focus with this system; those who have rigs that oriented towards DV (such as the Magiqcam) will be in a bit of a pickle. Probably the easiest solution is to simply use the standard configuration of the camera on the stabilizer, then use the Mini35 for non-moving shots. I did this once while helping out on a shoot, and the footage cut in well.

Exactly - the footage I have seen on the Z1 is fine (not great, but fine). Clearly lower aberrations than the Fujinon.

Hey Barry, that's an interesting idea. Do you think such adapter would be a mechanical adapter only, or would also have to involve some sort of optical convertion? If it's just a matter of making a mechanical adapter to attach on the lens and make it possible to attach on the HD100, I might be able to machine it. If there's optical involved, then it's out of my league. I would also like to make one to use Nikon F mount lenses, but I'm also not sure if it would need to have optical convertions.

Many Thanks
 

Michael, Chris and Charles,

Many thanks for the reply. my questions were a bit garbbled but I think you guys got nuts and bolts of it. You've helped a great deal. I was particularly interested about shortening the dof on the standard hd 100 fujinon lense by shooting at the longest setting did I get that right? Anyway many thanks again. I'm paying close attention to these pages as I hope to be getting an hd 100 (when in finally turns up in Uk that is) I'm also thinking of getting the new animagiq steadycam would this be a good combo with the jvc?
Thanks for making me feel like not too much of a fool.
Greg

also
 

Sorry guys I meant to ask this yesterday.

If I had the hd 100 on a steadycam rig and I wanted to make sure I was always in focus would the monitor I use have to be hi def or would a normal lcd be sifficient or would the fact that I would be on a fairly wide setting anyway make it a thing not worth worrying about too much?

or

I guess what i'm trying to ask is - How important is focus when shooting dv given the fact that dv is always trying to flatten the dof?

Hope this makes sense love to hear your views
Greg