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

[Scott Webster]

Thanks Charles, that reply was invaluable.

Barry Green has posted at dvxuser a nice piece on his experience with the mini35 and the different cameras and how they shape up against each other. Makes for good reading in relation to the HD101 test.

[Charles Papert]

I've used everything from old Zeiss Superspeeds to the Cooke S4's, and haven't seen any real problems yet--there were a couple of really funky lenses that I came across that vignetted a little bit (just slightly dark in the corners, not a full matte vignette) but those were quite obscure. This was my first time using the Mini35 with HD, previously I've just had it on SD cameras like the DVX and the XL1, so most optical issues were likely buried within the resolution of the system. I haven't had the chance to use anamorphics with the Mini35 but I think it would be fun--I've seen some of that footage, looks great! The oval highlights in the background, the horizontal flares--cool.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

've never used the Z1 so I can't report on my thoughts--Nate, you've had plenty of time with the FX1, perhaps you can share something based on what you saw with the HD100?

There's plenty of pros and cons between the two cameras, but I'll just keep this to two things:

1-Color rendition: The FX-1, especially in low-light, always imparts what i call the "Sony DV red look"...a particular quality to the reds that to me always screams DV that doesn't exist in their higher end offerings. The DVX never gives me that look, and it seems the HD100 doesn't either. I like that plenty.

2-Resolution: I recently purchased the Dell 2405 1920x1080 monitor at work to complete a large HDV project, so over the last month I've gotten to see the FX-1 at it's best and at it's worst...the issues with resolution loss in the CF modes, MPEG compression blocking when using gain, etc. All problems become painfully visible on this monitor. It's like a microscope for HDV.

It's difficult to tell which camera has the upper hand with resolution, but I'm leaning towards the HD100. If nothing else, it's very close, and that says a lot about the FX-1 using 1080i vs the JVC's 720p...it tells me that the Sony is not using even close to all available pixels in the HDV 1080 format.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Scott Webster

Can you explain to me the decision making process in using the mini35 as opposed to putting the money into a digibeta or imx camera with 2/3' lenses?

Well -- first, there's the mindset that says to someone "I already own the camera, so let's shoot on what I own". And that leads them to wanting to add a mini35 to get the film look from it.

On the HD100, the choice is 1/3" high-def vs. the DigiBeta/IMX choice of 2/3" but standard-def. Plus you're talking about genuine 24p, vs. interlace-only.

Basically, people want to make footage that looks like film. The two inventions that most make that possible, from a gear standpoint, are 24p and mini35. And the higher resolution of HD makes the image hold up better on the big screen. So quite obviously there's a lot of interest in all three technologies, especially when they're all used together (as in this test).

I take it the DOF provided is worth the trade off in using a 1/3' camera?

To some people, not to all. But I think a lot of people are of the mindset that all they can ever afford is a 1/3" camera, so they don't seriously entertain the idea of using an IMX or SDX or DigiBeta. So coming from that perspective, there's not really a tradeoff to them -- they're going to use 1/3" no matter what; the question becomes with-or-without-mini35.

I would imagine the combined cost of the mini35, camera and lens choices must make for some interesting budget vs gear considerations.

Oh no doubt. The mini35 is $11,000. Then you need lenses to go with that. But, that's where rental comes in! A mini35 at $250/day or so becomes downright reasonable.

Of course, you could also look at it in the context that an entire mini35+connecting kit is *less* expensive than the optional wide-angle lens for the JVC HD100...

Do you think the lack of a fixed lens has increased the performance of the mini35 on the HD100?

Definitely. If the mini35 had to shoot through the HD100's stock lens, I don't think it would hold up nearly as well. Now, keep in mind there's still a lens between the HD100 and the mini35. All cameras need a lens there. On the HD100 and the XL2, the mini35 comes supplied with a small relay lens. So it's always going to be camera/lens/mini35/35mm lens. But the small, simple relay lens is much less complex (and much less convoluted) than a multi-element zoom lens!

The 2nd camera still has the split screen effect but not to the same degree as the first.

Very interesting. Very interesting indeed. And good news -- sounds like something can indeed be done about it.

The other major concern with the camera is the chromatic aberration on the supplied Fujinon 16x lens. Purple fringing is chronic on the long end of this lens, left and right of frame. It is clearly visable in moving video, not just stills.

The chromatic aberration in the stock lens is, to me, completely unacceptable. Not happy about that at all. And yes, it's worse at full zoom, and it's not just purple fringing, you also get green fringing on the other side. And the lens breathes worse than a pervert making an obscene phone call. Resolution is quite sharp, but the aberration and breathing are very significant. Not what one would expect from a high-def lens, in my opinion.

Here's a little .wmv of what the chromatic aberration does. Look at the green and purple highlights around the light reflections in the glass, and how they change from green to purple (and shrink and grow) depending on whether focus is set to near or far:

http://www.icexpo.com/HD100/chroma-aberration.wmv

Those pinpoints/specular highlights should have been rendered as solid white. They were white lights shining on the glass. There should have been nothing green or purple about that shot.

The chromatic aberration in the stock lens is another reason why I'm more jazzed about the mini35...

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Luis Reggiardo

Hi Charles, and the color rendering seems more film-like on the HD100 (without too much tweaking!), whereas the Z1 looks more "DV-Video" like and you have to go through extensive calibration and post-processing to get this feel. L.

Last fall as compared projected JVC HDV to Sony HDV I had the same feeling. Of course, when I reported that the Sony delivered "hi-rez DV" I was roundly criticized as "Sony bashing."

Recently I sent uncorrected JVC stills to an award winning videographer who was deciding whether to move up to HDV. She was blown away by the JVC "look" but had only 5 days before a production started and so bought a Z1.

I think Charles has provided us with HDV video that Sony buyers really need to look at. I'm not at all opposed to Sony camcorders, but I really wish they would consider providing some way of providing a "non Sony look." I understand they want their prosumer HDV camcorders to look like HDCAM so you can use them as B-roll cameras. Makes sense.

But, if you are only shooting with one HDV camcorder -- do you really want your video to have that Sony DV look? That look is what made many folks go to the DVX100. The flat look of Sony DV drove other folks to the Canon. (And, the FX1/Z1 has that same flat look.) Extra rez is great, but that isn't the critical issue of camera quality IMHO.

And, pointing-out that there are significantly different LOOKS to camcorders that goes beyond rez and fps is not starting a camera flame-war. I'm sure there are many who will look at these clips and prefer the Sony look. But, it is important that folks not assume only one brand offers REAL HD.

These are wonderful looking clips! Yes, the Red is slightly too high in some but, but with the JVC Matrix control or with CC this can be solved.

And, Charles is corrrect -- Motion Filter should not be used when shooting 24p -- assuming you know how to shoot 24fps.

[Kenn Christenson]

The chromatic aberration in the stock lens is, to me, completely unacceptable.

It would be cool if a company like B&H would offer this camera sans the lens and maybe have the 'c' mount adapter option. There's lots of nice 'c' mount lenses out there that would most likely alleviate the the chromatic aberration problem and give you a sharper image.

[Chris Hurd]

The thing is, Kenn, that 16x Fuji lens is practically a freebie. If there was an "HD100 Body Only" kit, there wouldn't be all that much of a savings compared to the regular kit package price. Of course, all by itself, the Fuji lens has value. But you would not see that much of a dip in pricing if the HD100 was offered without it.

This isn't a knock at Fujinon, it's just the economics of camera packaging.

[Barry Green]

There is an HD100 body-only kit. It carries a retail of $5495, vs. the camera+lens combo at $6295. So yes, the lens is valued at around $800. Considering that the next-lowest-cost HD lens that I can think of is $12,000... well... draw your own conclusions.

I'm actually a little tempted by the body-only kit, putting that $800 savings towards a mini35! :)

Oh, and regarding the c-mount adapter, there's one coming. There was speculation that the flange distances wouldn't allow for it, but I talked with the product development manager and he said that it is coming, I think he said Optex was making it, and that it will have an optical element in it to correct for whatever flange-distance issue there is. So yes, you will be able to use c-mount movie lenses with the HD100 if you get the c-mount adapter.

[Barry Green]

Speaking of which... I wonder if I could talk Les Bosher into producing an Arri Bayonet adapter for the HD100... I've got a decent Zeiss 10-100 zoom in Arri B mount... hmmm...

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

There is an HD100 body-only kit. It carries a retail of $5495, vs. the camera+lens combo at $6295.

Thanks Barry, I wasn't aware of that! JVC told me at DV Expo East that they probably weren't going to offer one, but I guess they changed their minds between that show and WEVA Expo. I knew I was missing out on some news by not going out to Vegas last week.

[Barry Green]

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

[Luis Reggiardo]

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

[Michael Maier]

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 :)

[Luis Reggiardo]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

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.

[Michael Maier]

Hey Luis, I'm in Europe.