First HD-100 Movie? "The Hitchhiker"

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Frankly, none of the shots (or grabs) I've seen posted have had the other elements one would usually see when viewing Cinealta footage, like:

Art dept.
Color correction
Good location

Which brings me to a parallel situation

I see the same thing going on in girlfriend's knitting. She'll pick a pattern for say, a top out of a book...based on a photo of a model in a setting where everything in the frame is art directed to match the color of the top. The model of course is beautiful, and the top is knitted by an expert to fit her perfectly...and suited to her type of body. The photography usually is excellent

So now I have a girlfriend that's knitted this top, and the reality of it is that the top is NOT suited to her frame, and standing in the mirror there is no expert photographer to show it at a good angle, and the rest of the house is NOT art directed. The overall impression is much of a let down.

If I had a music video coming up, I could post grabs or footage on here of that, which would be art directed, probably have a real good looking girl or guy in it, it would be lit (almost) expertly, and they would be in a setting that is interesting and looks cool. I bet $500 that everybody would be talking about how "filmic" it looked. Even if I HAD screwed up detail settings and exposure or whatever. Know what I mean?

That's a great point Nate. Most samples we have seen from the HD100 was just people randomly shooting stuff. The one test we saw which strived for some production value, looked incredible and also extremely film like. I'm of course, talking about the test with the Mini35 done by you, Charles and Barry. The L.A. footage you posted looked very film like and sharp too.. I think it's because you under exposed it a little. I think it's a matter of knowing what one is doing. If the person doesn't know or doesn't care, he can shoot with a Panaflex or Genesis and it will look like crap. Not saying the D.P. in the article didn’t know what he was doing. But, as you said too, he might not have had enough time to get to know the camera. Besides it was a pre-production model.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I think it's because you under exposed it a little. I think it's a matter of knowing what one is doing.

Charles very much knew what he was doing. Underexposing skin tones by 10 IRE (70IRE standard vs the 60 we shot) was a conscious and discussed choice while we were shooting.

...and not because he suddenly thought it was a good idea. He's shot a ton of Varicam and F900 before, and knew what it would look like.

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

That's a great point Nate. Most samples we have seen from the HD100 was just people randomly shooting stuff.

I've been dying to get that out for weeks, but didn't have the patience/skill to write it out with a diplomatic analogy.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

Charles very much knew what he was doing. Underexposing skin tones by 10 IRE (70IRE standard vs the 60 we shot) was a conscious and discussed choice while we were shooting.

...and not because he suddenly thought it was a good idea. He's shot a ton of Varicam and F900 before, and knew what it would look like.

That's what I meant. I know Charles knows his stuff. But even your L.A footage, which was casually shot, only respecting the limitations of video, looked way better than the stills from the article. It just proves two things. First, if you know what you are doing, you will get good results, if you don’t, you will get crap, and that's with any camera.
Second, this camera is capable of great images and all the nitpicking just makes no sense. Those who want a Cinealta for 5k are just dreaming. It's not gonna happen with the HD100 and neither with the H1 or HVX200. At this price point, the name of the game is compromise. But at least, the HD100 let's you shoot real progressive HD for 5k.

[Dave Ferdinand]

Nate, what I meant about the CineAlta is that people expect the same features, color rendintion, etc. of that camera, ie, they want to obtain the same results a 150k camera would regardless of the production values.

And speaking of production values, yes I do think your mini35 stuff was the best I've seen with this camera but I also think it was kind of a 'cheat'. Most people will use it without even the 13x lens, much less a *very expensive* mini35 setup. I'm not dicing your tests, they were great and are worth gold but I think the stills from this film are a better example of what the camera will do on most indie productions.

Another note on production values is that a lot of people say the camera isn't everything, you need proper lighting, etc. I agree but I have to add I saw pros shooting with a PD150 and it still looked sooo video. David Lynch's PS2 advert springs to mind and I'm sure he had all the PVs he wanted. Lynch is regarded as one of the best to handle the visual side of his work but the camera wouldn't go any further... so yes, the camera can make a big difference and the HD100 is great for its cost.

My point being, if you shoot the same scene side by side with both cams (HD100 and CineAlta), I'm sure the Sony footage will win, regardless of production values or art direction. But the difference in quality won't be as big as the difference in cost...

[Michael Maier]

Of course the Cinealta will win. Why do you think it cost 30 times more?
But I think what Nate meant, is that the Cinealta also has shortcomings, but as you normally see Cinealta footage coming from productions with high production value, many tend to think the Cinealta is perfect and the HD100 is crap, because it has shortcomings. I mean, when was the last time you saw some Cinealta footage uploaded of a guy who filmed his friends at a barbecue in his house? Never! What you see from Cinealta are feature films mostly. That's the reference for most here. If somebody point a Cinealta straight to the Sun or don't watch for high lights etc, I guarantee you it will look like crap cheap video.
About the mini35 test not being fair, well, it depends how you see it. That test shows what the CAMERA is really capable of doing, without the limitations of an entry level lens. The lens is basically a give away to get you started. You shouldn't expect to get awesome results with a $800 HD lens. It's just not realistic. The indie productions out there which are thinking about going with the stock lens, should know that. That shouldn't expect too much. But the question is, what in this price looks better?

[Dave Ferdinand]

Michael, I agree with all you said, in fact I was saying the same in a different way.

It's obvious CineAlta stuff looks great because it's being used along with pro movie (or whatever) setups.

The mini35 is fair, it's just not representative of what most people will do with this camera. Don't think most people can affort to rent one and will settle with the stock lens.

In the end of the day we, and any intelligent person will agree that this cam is great and you can't really expect much more for $5k.

CA, 18db gain split screen, dead pixels, who cares. With this cam you CAN go out there and do something great.

My suggestion for JVC's new catch phrase on HD100: Quit the bitching and start pitching.

[Ken Hodson]

"Quit the bitching and start pitching."
LOL.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Dave Ferdinand

Don't think most people can affort to rent one and will settle with the stock lens.

In the end of the day we, and any intelligent person will agree that this cam is great and you can't really expect much more for $5k.

CA, 18db gain split screen, dead pixels, who cares. With this cam you CAN go out there and do something great.

My suggestion for JVC's new catch phrase on HD100: Quit the bitching and start pitching.

Myself...I find this somewhat odd....While the Z1 certainly isn't perfect, it's a damn good camera. No split pixels, no glass issues, no dead pixels that you can see. Some folks beat up the Z1, yet it's in constant daily use for television, budget motion pic, documentary, and other project uses. Other than the lack of 24p, but with the access to 25p, all of this "quit bitching and start pitching" makes no sense. Apologists for a camera? I thought that was reserved for religion and politics?
Trick out the HD100, it's a VERY fine cam. Just not many folks can afford the 15K it costs to acquire a tricked out cam.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Myself...I find this somewhat odd....While the Z1 certainly isn't perfect, it's a damn good camera. No split pixels, no glass issues, no dead pixels that you can see. Some folks beat up the Z1, yet it's in constant daily use for television, budget motion pic, documentary, and other project uses. Other than the lack of 24p, but with the access to 25p, all of this "quit bitching and start pitching" makes no sense. Apologists for a camera? I thought that was reserved for religion and politics?
Trick out the HD100, it's a VERY fine cam. Just not many folks can afford the 15K it costs to acquire a tricked out cam.

Well, the Z1 is not 25p. It's frame movie mode and it half the resolution, killing the point of shooting HD in the first place. Besides that, it's a fixed lens camera and much more limited in terms of image control and accessories than the HD100. There's no need to apologize for anything, if one understands that the lens is a give away, and meant to meet a price point, and the other shortcomings are first production run glitches, which every camera has in some extent, and are being worked on as we speak.

[Dave Ferdinand]

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...

[Mike Marriage]

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.

[Diogo Athouguia]

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!

[Werner Wesp]

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...

[Dave Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Werner Wesp

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.