DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/)
-   -   Extensive HD100 / Mini35 Hands-On Test: Articles, Photos and HD Video (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/jvc-gy-hd-series-camera-systems/49404-extensive-hd100-mini35-hands-test-articles-photos-hd-video.html)

Charles Papert August 23rd, 2005 03:35 PM

Greg,

Given that you don't have a way to adjust the focus while you shooting with a Steadicam or similar stabilizer, the long DoF of DV is a life-saver. Until you zoom in significantly, you should be able to set a medium distance on the lens and shoot away.

By the way, Steadicam is by no means limited to wide angles only--it's very common to shoot longer lens stuff, and it can look great.

Luis Reggiardo August 23rd, 2005 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Corke
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?

Hi Greg, focus is one of the most common errors when shooting, even on big Hollywood films they get some out-of focus shoots, and even some get filered up to the big screen!

On DV the DOP issue is not a factor to justify not having a good monitor or not paying attention. You must always check and double check the focusing before the shot.

If you are on a non-pro (students/indie eg.) production, please encourage your mates watching the monitor to spot out-of-focus problems.

L

Greg Corke August 24th, 2005 02:56 PM

cheers
 
Luis, Charles.

Many thanks for your input. Clear and to the point. I love this place much to my wifes consternation. I've been here only a short time but it seems Mr Papert is a pretty big hitter in these parts. This may not be the right place but I believe Charles did a pretty extensive demo on the magicam rig would you say that is the best bang for the buck at the low end?

Cheers (muchos respectas) Greg

Charles Papert August 24th, 2005 03:03 PM

Greg:

Yeah, check out the Magiqcam threads for more info on that. I haven't tried the latest version but it looks good. I don't really make recommendations on one rig over the other, although I think the Flyer is the strongest performer in its class, albeit the most expensive.

Nick Hiltgen August 24th, 2005 10:26 PM

Coming in a little late in the game, but I'm wondering if since the lenses are interchangable there will be the equivalent of a lens shading feature on the camera. This is available for the 900 and the varicam (I believe) and could well be a neccessity (sp) for any interchangable lens HD camera. Most likely this option would be buried in a menu structure some where.

Nate Weaver August 24th, 2005 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen
Coming in a little late in the game, but I'm wondering if since the lenses are interchangable there will be the equivalent of a lens shading feature on the camera. This is available for the 900 and the varicam (I believe) and could well be a neccessity (sp) for any interchangable lens HD camera. Most likely this option would be buried in a menu structure some where.

I've been as deep as the menus go, and never saw a lens shading function.

I think that's a feature that got left behind at this pricepoint.

Dennis Hingsberg August 25th, 2005 11:34 AM

Charles,

I am considering going the HD100/mini35 route over other HDV/mini35 options mainly due to ergonomics - before that I had been strongly considering the Z1/FX1 HD by Sony.

Since you have used the HD100 with the series 400 mini35 I was wondering if you could tell me what the highest f-stop you were able to achieve before seeing any ground glass (if any) - or is this "completely" eliminated now with the series 400? When you shot with the DVX100 did the series 400 eliminate all ground glass from appearing when shooting about f5.6?

Many thanks for your answers.

Michael Maier August 25th, 2005 03:28 PM

Good question.

Dennis Hingsberg August 25th, 2005 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier
Good question.

Yes good question, but apparently somehow I think my message got posted in the wrong thread? Probably because I replied to a sticky at the top of the HD100 forum.

Hopefully Charles Papert will catch this... I'll try the mini35 forum. Sorry for this mix up.

Charles Papert August 25th, 2005 08:24 PM

yup, I posted the response over there.

Chris Hurd August 25th, 2005 08:29 PM

No worries Dennis, I have peeled your posts off that other thread and merged 'em with this one.

The P+S Technik thread that Charles mentions is located at:

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

Barry Green August 29th, 2005 12:04 PM

JVC is now linking directly to the article about this footage.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/i...&feature_id=19

Tim Brown August 29th, 2005 12:23 PM

So obviously they've seen this thread. Unfortunately no one (from JVC) has taken the time to post any information pertaining to the bugs in the initial release. I hope that means they're working on fixing the issues.

Charles Papert August 29th, 2005 01:40 PM

It's listed under their article section as well:

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/a...&feature_id=09

Steve Mullen August 29th, 2005 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren
I think you are missing my point. The lens shipping with could have been substantially better for a few thousand more.

We are not missing your point. You simply have no basis for making it except for your claim of what someone else "should have done."

"If you you can buy a better car, buy it."

Steve Mullen August 29th, 2005 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Green
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.

Of course, you have to compare them at the same focal-length and at the same aperature.

Stephen van Vuuren August 29th, 2005 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen
We are not missing your point. You simply have no basis for making it except for your claim of what someone else "should have done."

"If you you can buy a better car, buy it."

Steve:

I very clearly stated that my basis was as a possible buyer not as a camera or lens engineer. JVC may have very good engineering and or business reasons that they have bundled a problematic, cheap lens with this camera, but JVC has not clearly articulated to buyers why they chose the lens and price point they did.

But as a buyer of cameras and lenses, I am certainly entitled to express my dissatisfaction with lens choices for a camera purchase. That's the only reason I did not buy a XL2 and bought a DVX100a instead.

If I'm an aberration, than JVC can ignore me completely. If not, then my point is very valid. Sales numbers and industry support over the the next couple of years depend on how potential buyers feels about the choices.

Right now, I'm very much waiting for the HVX200 to see how the platform compares. Since I'm still not sold on the value of mini35 ownership or rental for my indie film needs, I also want to see what other lens choices crop up for the HD100.

Perhaps I'm too focused on lens choices when buying a camera :)

Charles Papert August 29th, 2005 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren
But as a buyer of cameras and lenses, I am certainly entitled to express my dissatisfaction with lens choices for a camera purchase. That's the only reason I did not buy a XL2 and bought a DVX100a instead.

Stephen, were you dissatisfied with the Canon 16x (or earlier gen. 14x) manual lenses available with the XL2...?

Stephen van Vuuren August 29th, 2005 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert
Stephen, were you dissatisfied with the Canon 16x (or earlier gen. 14x) manual lenses available with the XL2...?

Charles:

It was not so much the individual glass but the fact the XL series lens choices present too many compromises. I had the 14x manual with my XL1 but it was not well intergrated with the XL1 electronics and lacked OIS, so did not fully replace the 16x standard. The 3X lacked manual controls and OIS.

The XL2 continued this basic design idea (long telephoto servo with OIS, manual lens without OIS, and wide with no manual). I really expected something like a 5X manual wide zoom and a much wider 3X.

The DVX lens is telephoto enough for me for 95% of shots, just as wide as the Canon 3X, OIS is alwasy an option and focus/zoom is a breeze. And it's a nice piece of glass to boot. As I had a DVX100 and XL1 before my current DVX100a, I felt the 24pa thin in squeeze mode was nearly as sharp as 16:9 in the XL2 and not having to buy two more lenses made it almost half the money.

It's bang for the buck that matters to me and I'm now worried about the lens options on the HD100. The image certainly is a major bang for the buck - 24p HD with less artifacts than the Sony series. But if you have to drop another $10K for a decent lens, hmmm. It suddently is much less attractive.

Now if someone find a good way to use 16mm or similar lenses with decent to good result, sure. But for me, mini35 is just not a good option although I realize for some, they can make it worth their while.

Michael Maier August 30th, 2005 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren
Charles:

It was not so much the individual glass but the fact the XL series lens choices present too many compromises. I had the 14x manual with my XL1 but it was not well intergrated with the XL1 electronics and lacked OIS, so did not fully replace the 16x standard.

I'm sorry Stephen, but no manual lens has OIS, unless the extremely expensive high end ones, which if you are complaining of 10k for a HD lens, you would sure complain about the prices of SD broadcast OIS lenses, which cost way more than that. So, I don't see your point.

If everyone will start asking their particular needs, companies will have to start to make "build your own camera kits". John would like the zoom to be 3.33mm wider than it is, and doesn't care for the telephoto. But Joe would like the Zoom to be 20.5mm longer because he doesn't care for the wide angle, since he's nature videographer. Burt on the other hand, think the camera should have a fixed lens and sell for 2k cheaper, because he doesn't care about quality, only cares for the best price. I mean, that's impossible. The camera is what it is. One buys it if it fits his needs. If it doesn't, just buy something else, rather than asking for the impossible.

There's no perfect lens. That's why cameras have interchangeable lenses in the first place. So one can pick the one he needs. If he needs 3 of them, well, he has to pay for the three of them. There's no lens which will cover it all. Specially at his price point. Actually in any price point. You won't find a 2/3" lens which goes from 7 to 140mm. Unless you get one with a 2x, which besides loosing quality, would cost you a good 20k.

The good thing about interchangeable lens cameras is that they give you the option. Not everybody will need all. If you do, you have to pay for it. That's true for any camera in the market. Actually any product in the market. You can't ask Ferrari to make a car which delivers what the Enzo delivers for the price of a entry level 360 Modena.

Frankly, for somebody so picky, I'm surprised you accepted a DVX100, which doesn’t even have a professional lens. You say it covers about 95% of your needs. See it's not 100%, and the key word here is “your” needs. Most complain it's not long enough, without mentioning the huge disadvantage of an amateur fixed lens. Honestly, I wouldn't shoot with a fixed lens camera for serious work, not even if it was given for free to me. That alone is a deal breaker for me. But the point is with any fixed lens, that's it. You're stuck with it, unless you add an adapter along with more distortion.

The whole point is I don't think your point is actually a point at all. Sorry to disagree, but frankly I think you are juts asking too much. No camera today will deliver it all, specially at this price point. I know you already said you would prefer the camera would sell for 2k more but deliver what you want. Well, JVC didn't design the camera for you, you know. It needs to meet the mass demands and I think it does. At least the realistic ones.

You say JVC has not clearly articulated to buyers why they chose the lens and price point they did. Do they have too? I mean, anyway, it's obvious why. 5-6k is a crucial price point for most. Panasonic also has their HVX200 at the same price, but not HD-ready.

I see your point about the lens being problematic i.e. CA. But when you say they have bundled a cheap lens with this camera, as if complaining, I mean, you don't have to go cheap. You can go expensive if you want. You have options. Or are you complaining they are giving you a lower quality lens for the price of a lower quality lens?

As I said, I just think you are asking too much. Sorry for the rant.

Stephen van Vuuren August 30th, 2005 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier
As I said, I just think you are asking too much. Sorry for the rant.

Wow, I've really struck a nerve with the lens thing. My soapbox rant goes a little something like this:

1,2...1,2,3,4:

An "interchangeable lens system" means when I buy a camera, I have a "system of lenses" available to choose from. 2-3 lens choices is not a "system" and stretches the meaning of "interchangeable" to its limits. If you buy a interchangeable lens camera, the whole point is what different lenses you can put on it. Otherwise is smacks of marketing to people who say - ah, it must be a pro camera cause you can change lenses. But the real question is change to what...

That's why I still own my Canon SLR and various still lenses and sold my XL1 and lenses. Dozens or hundreds of lenses is a lens "system" - you need a range of primes and zooms. I waited through rumors of XL1 primes for a couple of years and the finally said real lens choices are never coming. The release of the XL2 confirmed there are now less lenses rather than more (Optex and others got out of the lens business for the XL).

JVC released the HD100 without access to even one other lens yet - the wide angle is not yet seen and no adaptors for other lenses on the immediate horizon. If you buy now, you are buying on the hope or promise of more lens choices and a dream (or fantasy) of a true lens system.

[QUOTE=Michael Maier]Frankly, for somebody so picky, I'm surprised you accepted a DVX100, which doesn’t even have a professional lens. You say it covers about 95% of your needs. See it's not 100%, and the key word here is “your” needs.QUOTE]

If I could spend as much as house or two, I would prefer a interchangeable lens camera and a mix of primes and zooms. But unlike the 16mm cine market, that's never happened in digital video. Volume and/or business and/or engineering and/or marketing place - for some reason it just never happened. Shop for a bolex and lens set on eBay - some really nice collections of cams and glass out there.

But not for DV - so I realized that fixed lens was the only way to go. The DVX lens focuses faster for me (peaking, focus scale display) that the 14x manual I had on the XL1. You can add follow focus and hard stops if you need. Zoom is full manual. Iris is not on lens, but that's not a killer problem.

The Leica glass is "pro" - sharp, clean, excellent color. Nice range that covers most needs. If glass as good as that were on a HD100, now we are talking.

Panasonic and Sony who lead the prosumer DV markets have never and I don't except ever offer 1/3" cameras with interchangeable lenses. I think they realize the lens market is just not there and they can cover the bases with a fixed lens.

I have not given up on the HD100 yet - the next year will tell a lot as far as glass options and it took me a long time to give up on the XL series (I had my XL1 for 3 years).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier
Well, JVC didn't design the camera for you, you know. It needs to meet the mass demands and I think it does. At least the realistic ones.
.

Really? I thought they got my email :)

As I've said several times before in this thread - call me an aberration. It's not the first time. If the HD100 outsells the DVX and HVX and Sony HDV's, great.

Michael Maier August 30th, 2005 06:25 PM

Hey Charles, Nate and Barry, did you have any dropouts at all from the HD100? How many hours worth of footage did you record? Thanks.

Jiri Bakala August 30th, 2005 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren
If you buy now, you are buying on the hope or promise of more lens choices and a dream (or fantasy) of a true lens system.

No. If we are buying it, it's because it has the best lens of the bunch (within the price range) and because it's the one most suitable to our individual needs. Is it 100% perfect? No, nothing is. But complaints about a non-existent 'true lens system', c'mon, that's just silly. That's not the purpose for this camera in this market.

We shot a decently budgeted weekend production with CineAlta last fall (music video) and the rental house 'threw in' a set of primes worth some $300,000. Yes, that's a lens system but now we are talking a very different market. If the production can afford to rent that kind of 'lens system', why in the world would they use this little camera? It reminds me of the ads for the XL1 where the tripod is more expensive than the camera and the accessories include everything that exists. Well, again, before I would spend that kind of dollar to rent or buy all that, I'd rather go with say a DSR500 in an ENG configuration and the images would be much better than those of the 'overkill' XL1.

This JVC seems to be a very decent camera for what it is and if there is a good quality WA adapter and possibly the wide Fujinon zoom they list as an option, that would be great. I sure wouldn't use much beyond that. As I said, if there is a bigger budget, I'll rent CineAlta with all the bells and whisles and for most other work, the HD100 will be fine.

Stephen van Vuuren August 30th, 2005 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiri Bakala
We shot a decently budgeted weekend production with CineAlta last fall (music video) and the rental house 'threw in' a set of primes worth some $300,000. Yes, that's a lens system but now we are talking a very different market.

Thats not a fair comparison - CineAlta is a completely different market and technology level.

The 16mm film world has had affordable lens systems for decades. Canon or someone else could have made primes or at least more lens options for the XL series but maybe the market does not exist. HDV needs sharper glass than 16mm, at least on paper, but if HDV is going to be the next HDV, I don't see how more lens choices would hurt the HD100 in the marketplace.

Jiri Bakala August 30th, 2005 08:49 PM

Oh I am with you. More choices wouldn't hurt. What I am saying is that the HDV market may not be strong enough for the manufacturers (budget-wise) to warrant the development of those lenses. We may be tempted to compare DV and HDV to 16 mm but that's not right either. The 16 mm market are people shooting on Arri and Aaton camera systems with zoom and prime lenses but that market is certainly in a higher budgetary bracket than your average DV/HDV. I suspect that the 'system' will be in the Mini35 and its combinations.

Jiri Bakala August 30th, 2005 08:51 PM

Ah, never mind, Michael summed it up better...:-)
Here is my signature on the "official" protest to JVC.

Barry Green August 30th, 2005 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier
Hey Charles, Nate and Barry, did you have any dropouts at all from the HD100? How many hours worth of footage did you record? Thanks.

All the recording I did was to HDV Rack. I don't remember quite how much we did, but it was probably around 1/2 hour. Some of that footage was shot to tape only, probably around 10 minutes or so. I don't recall if there were dropouts in any of that. But of the footage that was recorded directly to HDV Rack, I never saw the tape playback, so I can't verify if there were any dropouts or if it was dropout-free.

Charles Papert August 30th, 2005 10:57 PM

I played the tape back on the camera a couple of times at home, and didn't see any dropouts.

Michael Maier August 31st, 2005 03:10 AM

Thanks Barry and Charles.

Robin Hemerik September 1st, 2005 10:42 AM

About the footage in your review: was it all shot on 24p?

And thanks for the excellent review. Every new camera should have a review like this ;)

Barry Green September 1st, 2005 11:06 AM

Yes, everything we shot for this article was 24p.

Robin Hemerik September 2nd, 2005 08:29 AM

Does anyone know a way to convert these m2t-files to mpeg2? I tried with this program: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~balazer/H...EG2/index.html

It worked, except for one detail: most converters don't know how to handle ProHD (24 frames). They convert it to 60 frames/sec, so you see the shots accelerated with factor 2.5. (so this is REAL 24p :) )

I want to show these shots to a friend on his DVD-player, that's why.
Thanks in advance.

Nate Weaver September 2nd, 2005 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin Hemerik
It worked, except for one detail: most converters don't know how to handle ProHD (24 frames). They convert it to 60 frames/sec, so you see the shots accelerated with factor 2.5. (so this is REAL 24p :) )

The camera records real 24P, at the camera head and to tape in the MPEG stream. They did however have to be clever how they got 24fps in a 720P format, and the method they used (repeat flags) is not read correctly by all MPEG2 decoders...

Just trying to clarify that there's no "conversion" to 60fps going on, it's just the decoder reporting what the stream is at face value rather than digging deeper into the stream and realizing it's really 23.98

Robin Hemerik September 2nd, 2005 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver
Just trying to clarify that there's no "conversion" to 60fps going on, it's just the decoder reporting what the stream is at face value rather than digging deeper into the stream and realizing it's really 23.98

Allright, thanks for the info.

Michael Maier September 7th, 2005 07:38 PM

Could anybody tell me which lens and which f stop was used on the last clip with the woman walking by at night? Was gain on 0db?

Reading the article, I didn't see it mentioned.
Thanks.

Charles Papert September 7th, 2005 08:28 PM

I believe it was the 18mm wide open at T2, 0 db.

Michael Maier September 7th, 2005 08:31 PM

Do you mean the 27mm? I see no reference of a 18mm in the article. Just 27mm, 50mm and 100mm.
What's T2 in f-stops, F2?

Thanks Charles.

Tim Dashwood November 22nd, 2005 04:52 PM

This article got lost in shuffle, so I've made it a sticky.

Chris Hurd November 22nd, 2005 05:12 PM

Good on ya... thanks Tim!

Frank Farago November 25th, 2005 05:28 PM

What's wrong with this picture? (JVC blues)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd
Howdy from Texas,

This past weekend, our own Charles Papert took a crack at the HD100 combined with a Mini35 image converter for a couple of days and put the combo through its paces.

Link to Video -- Downloadable HD Clips
Help yourself to these m2t files, but do yourself a favor and watch 'em on an HDTV.

Well... I did download three or four of these clips and watched them in HD. Either the JVC camera is worhtless, or else there was some major problems in the upload/download, becase everything I saw at playback was jerky as hell. Frames dropped apparently by the dozen in these 10-20 second long clip.

I also saw the Canon X2 H1 footage that was shot in Japan this past summer by an early adopter... did not notice one single frame drop at playback in those.

I was playing both sets of clips using the VLC player and outputting to a 1920 x 1080 notice rez monitor. It was not a resolution or color spacing issue, however... it was that frames were dropped en messe like every 2-3 seconds, making the clips all but unwatchable!

I am curious as to what could have happened here with the JVC GY-HD100 test cips. Did anyone else also get the playback footage all chopped up, like I did?

It is so nice to have received a product DVD in the mail from Sony with some great looking 1080i footage shot with their HVR-Z1. I am not sure how many hundres of thousands of doaalrs would it cost for JVC to actually commission and pay for a product demo DVD and send it out to those hardy folks who contemplate purchasing the GY-HD100. But I think it would be well worth it.

So far, the only footage I could see shot with the JVC 720P camcorder all but convinced me to go with either the Canon or the Sony 1080i alternative.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:28 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network