I don't see where I apologized for the camera or its flaws.

Look at the footage that spawned this thread and tell me that it's not impressive. Tell me that mentioning the CA when so many things look great is not bitching?

Sure, it has dead pixels (that can be fixed) and split screen at 18db... wow, who cares? In the end of the day the footage I've seen from the HD100 here and on Nate's tests beats anything I've seen with the Z1 so far. And I doubt it will change.

Has to the glass it's removable. It's more expensive to do it that way, hence the lens having problems for being so cheap. It's not an excuse, I would like Sony to do the same at the same price tag with no problems.

Tricked out? CF24 is as tricky as it gets...

I think it is important to point out errors with a camera. It seems crazy not too. Many people here have said they didn't notice the CA, and now they do.

People can decide what they think of the picture, how it looks is subjective. Issues like CA and dead pixels are objective.

Overall, I think this camera looks like a pretty strong contender. I can live with CA in such a cheap lens, but you should certainly be aware of it. As far as dead pixels and split-screen, that is unexcusable on JVC's part. They have obviously realised this and are working hard to put the problem right. I am not sure how they missed the problem before Europe realease, probably lack of time.

I was the first in this thread to mention the green CA on the front of the car, however I don't care, these CAs don't bother me at all. Dead pixels are normal and can be fixed, the only thing that really concerns me in this camera is the split screen under 18db. There are some reports of the split with no gain, I saw a pic of a sunset posted by someone shot at 0db with a horrible split screen. This is a serious issue even on a cheap amateur camera. However I'm loving this cam and I believe the split issue will be corrected by the time I'll have mine... in a few weeks I hope!

I got an official statement from JVC that there should be no split screen without gain, moreover: it could only be 'lightly' visible at +18 dB. If not they said I should bring the cam in...

Yeah, I read that too. I doubt think if there's a problem with the first batch of cameras it will be fixed soon.

Pointing out flaws is one thing, being nit-picking and fussy is another. How can someone moan about some CA that can only be seen on a still at close inspection? It's like saying 'the Z1 is crap because it won't do 24p'.

I don't see a single problem in this camera that could turn it into a dead fish.

That's kind of ironic because when I got the m2t's to my timeline they looked underexposed to me so I brought the mids up to compensate for her skin tone.

I think it's relevant to say, if the intent of the director or DP is captured and it suits them, then it is a success. I personally though the skin tones were underexposed and would have brought them up in camera, but that's me.

There is a huge difference between getting skin tones 5 or 10 IRE off to getting all highlights pushing 100 IRE. Nate, on your shot's, the highlights were just below 100 IRE consistently and I found no need to adjust them. The scenario with the HD-100/mini combination's waveform was no where near the dynamic range it could have been. Once again, this may be the intent of the DP or Director.


On another note, I took the corrected screen caps (from Hitchhiker) and made a montage out of them and burned it to DVD. The results were fabulous. Scaling the images 200% and getting closups on the faces came out really well. This is another great advantage of shooting HD resolution for SD delivery. Scaling gives you even more choices when editing. If the intended delivery method is DVD, I can't see going wrong with the HD-100. Really, I can't see going wrong with the HD-100 in any delivery media. I've said it before and I'll say it again, JVC has done a fabulous job with their implementation of the HDV codec. I'd be willing to lay odd's that Canon can not surpass JVC's implementation. They may match it but with a 15 GOP like the Sony, I doubt it (although I hope they do!).

I received a call a few weeks ago from JVC Spain after sending a email. They didn't know anything about split screens, no complains by spanish clients yet. I found it a bit strange, I'd prefer him to tell me that they know about the issues and and are working to fix them.

Diogo,

Send them a copy of Ken's email.

Rob

I would, but Ken's mail was not sent as a JVC authorized spokesman. He decided to post it on his own risk, I'd have to ask him first. Anyway, my mail to JVC was about authorized deallers, but when they called me I took advantage of the opportunity to ask them about these issues.

When I first raised the problem I was met with considerable and very irritating scepticism so this is what I did. I said I would send (a) a tape showing the split screen effect actually recorded in a number of different conditions including 0 db (b) an independent report prepared by a technician friend of mine (I am still having this prepared this just in case) (b) a folder with many examples of reports in pdf format of the problem from all over the world.

Scepticism disappeared.

Rob

So, what were their answer? Is your problem fixed?

I was just about to ship the camera back when Ken's email came through. The supplier also said that he had been told that there would be some downloadable fix so I am prepared to show some faith in JVC and wait for that.

To tell you the truth I am wanting to look beyond the split screen business - I am simply going to assume based on what I have been told that downloadable fix will emerge.

Make no mistake about it, this is a serious camera and you should not be put off by this glitch. I just shot a show last night in a club and the results look great.

Rob

Any vertical smear? I am noticing those on just about every night shot; a club would presumably have lots of spot light sources and therefore the likelyhood of smearing would be quite high. Can you post some stills, please?

I've been shooting rock shows for the last 2.5 years...you're right lots of extremely blown out spot sources (especially from the cameras I put in the barricade pointing straight up into lights).

I can't recall a single streaking shot with all these I've done with a DVX, or the one I did with FX-1/Z1s. I'd expect the HD100 to be at the very least no worse, and maybe even a bit better.

I'd like to see an example if you can get something put up online to view.

Ok I will try and get some clips to put up. It will take a couple of days.

Rob

If I may jump in the discussion and have a say. I work part time as a projectionist in cinema and I can tell you that 90% of the ppl going to cinema will never ever point fingers and say "Oh, did you see the CA on that shot?". They wont even notice nor care as long as the story and the acting is good, IMO sound is more important than CA or a dead pixel.

We (indie filmmakers) have reached a stage where we are very close to the real 35mm filmlook at a very low pricerange (HD and 35mm adapters). I shot my first short using a XL1 in 1998 thanks to Canon Sweden sponsoring me with a camera but I couldnt even affort a DV editing system back then so the whole movie was captured with my very cheap analog video card (composite and S-VHS only), edited on a 320 x 240 timeline with a total budget of about 400kr ($50), that was for the gas money to give the actors a ride home. I managed to convince the actors (a few famous swedish actors) to play bc they liked the script. The movie was later tele-cined (sp?) with a 16mm camera by my photography teacher at filmschool and I managed to show it at gothenburg filmfestival...and I promise you that nobody said anything about the quality. That was the cheapest film ever shown at gothenburg filmfestival!

Year 2005, now we have 720p and 1080i (compare to 320x240 50i), we have access to Mini35 along with a set of primes at a low rental cost and cheap editing as HDV doesnt require any super computer. Countless movies have been made and distributed with much less...so I think ppl need to stop looking and comparing specs and take advantage of this golden time in our hands!

On 4th of october I will be at the swedish filminstitute to discuss my first feature (have only done shorts, documentaries and musicvideos so far). I have decided to go with the JVC and either use my current M2 along with Nikons or rent a mini35 and use Carl Zeiss superspeeds (T1.3) depending on the budget. Im also still keeping an eye on the Canon but I will only consider it if its the real deal (24p) and if I get a budget as I wont be able to afford the 9k myself...and if I can convince Canon maybe they will lend me one for the movie like last time!

Im glad for indie filmmaking today, we can have so much better quality for not much more money than we had to spend a few years ago. Any HDV camera today are good enough for filmout if you have the script and the know how, so stop wasting your times on CA´s and stuff and go out and shoot...the average Joe wont notice much diffrence between DV and CineAlta as long as you can take good advantage of your chosen format and feed them a good story!

Bravo, encore!

I am in agreement with Soroush.

Of fundamental importance is the quality of the scriptwriting.

In fact I would go a little further and say that audiences seem to have no particular interest in the so called "film look". There is a very mannered style of independent film making that emphasises capturing shallow depth of field as a kind of holy grail. Also the camera seems to be constantly on the move on a track even to film the simplest of scenes.

There is a lot to be said for a simpler shooting style which is not so obsessed with the "film look" or aping certain production values. The thing is that a poor script will be immediately exposed by this simpler approach.

I am very excited by the JVC because I believe that its quality is certainly sufficient (at this stage in my filmmaking at least) for me not to have to worry about renting expensive cameras anymore and thus actually be independent.

Rob

Storytelling
 

hello hello, long time since i posted here.

i agree with Nate Weaver.

man. these stills arent good. serious. i looks like nothing at all.
it is a film?

by looking at the first pic, i can tell it will be something like U-TURN (oliver stone),but cheap made. and the HD100 wont help it bringing everything in just a camcorder. there's the missing art dept, missing actors looks, missing actress looks, etc.

ive made a short with the HD10 that i hope everyone in here could watch soon. i cant make it online cause its 20minutes. but, with anyone its interested, tell me where i upload it.

Can you post some stills?

Well, indeed, post some stills...

i can send someone over the email, i dont know where to post, i dont have the place to post it.

ciao