In the section on motion smoothing, he states that since the HD200/250 can output 60p the double image from motion smoothing should not be a factor. This is inaccurate, since the CCD is scanned at 60p on the 100 as well. The only thing the 200/250 add in that regard is the ability to record 60p.

The wording is confusing, and I now realize that that section was not originally in the article when I commented on the motion smoothing before.
I'm glad he added it.
I think what he is trying to say is that oversampling at 120fps would not be possible anyway in 60P mode, and therefore the motion smoothing feature would not work, or be necessary.

The thing to remember is that motion smoothing is really nothing more than a gimmick. I don't see how having double images would be any better than setting a slow-shutter for more motion blur and an extra stop of sensitivity.

It is a shame he did not more accurately adjust their detail levels to be similar. When he says he set them "both at equal levels," I hope that does not mean both cameras were set at say -2 because each camera has different levels of sharpening & clearly these were unbalanced.

I also agree that the HVX shots were slightly more appealing in their tonal ranges, but as Tim said, there are a lot of tweaks to each camera that could greatly alter the results. It should also be noted that comparing shots of the color charts by eye is not a good way to determine good color accuracy. Video monitors are not calibrated this way because it's too subjective. They use a blue-only function to reduce it to just values of light & dark. Likewise cameras' colors should be viewed in a vectorscope or other precise instruments to determine accuracy.

Overall the images were not too far off & with the right subjective alterations, I'm still hopeful that the HD100 is just as good at getting amazing film-like imagery. Once again, Tim said it best when he said that you need to test the camera for yourself and make your decision based on the whole package & what's most important to you. Unfortunately for me that means finding someone nearby who ones either camera or driving a couple hours to a suitable store where I can test them, but I'm looking forward to finally being able to "tweak" things to my own liking.

This was certainly done and noted in the text, and I quote...

You're right, Tim. My bad. Indeed this probably accounts for why the colors & tonality DID match pretty well overall. To me it was mainly just the sharpness & black levels that did not match, but Andrew did mention those as well.

I think it’s a great review! I found it to be very accurate and mimics my own findings (just far more in depth)!

After using both cameras on the job, I’m personally objective when pointing a buyer in one direction or the other. And it's all VERY objective. If you shoot better with a handheld then you will hate the HD100. I on the other hand I prefer to shoot with the HD100 as it's more comfortable and better supported on my shoulder, but I still have a place for both cameras in our work.

Using "right out of the box" settings I noticed immediately that the HVX had very good tonality, I was surprised to find that the color reproduction was better than the HD100 right out of the box (even calibrated), IMHO. Although I could tweak the JVC to improve on this, I spent a fair amount of time "tweaking" and still was never able to match color for color as well as the HVX. Now when we want latitude or need rich color contrast, I feel the HD100 gives us more options, and in turn has been better to work with in post.

I also agree that the HVX looked softer and perhaps more film like, while retaining some of the details. We typically opt for more detail though, so I found the HD100 to be a better choice most of the time. And as mentioned, if you don't then simply turn it to minimum or off.

Both great cameras with a place. Again, good article and very well written. An "ideal" inexpensive camera arsenal would be to make room for at least one of each. “Inexpensive” is also being objective in our world.

In the article, the tester mentioned that no system handles native HDV editing well, but I thought that FCP does this well? I am in this very boat about the HVX/HD100 debate, and this is a large concern of mine.

Picture wise I have to say I like the HD100 better.

Over on what's left of the DVXuser JVC section someone posted Walter's article as well and several HVX users or hopefuls are lamenting that they liked the HD100 a little better. It's clearly subjective. It's nice to have both options available for different circumstances.

Uhoh....oh well, bought it anyway and like it!

I hope I don't get stomped on saying this, but...

Why do many associate less detail as being more filmic?

Why would one want to trade picture information off and call it more filmic?

I believe, and I'm sure most agree, you want to capture as much information as possible. If you're looking for a certain look, you will have more room to do this in post.

Steven, it's a good point and I don't think anyone here would "stomp" you for that.

Perhaps looking less ENG/broadcast, as is the case with a detail that are softer, it's more associated with a film look. But if you blow up that same picture for actual film... hands on tells me that the HVX would not hold up as well as the HD100. Regardless, I would still like to see someone go that route and compare the two. If the delivery is web or simply HDTV then I think the HVX produces very nice results.

I know I'm not alone in that I dislike the knee-jerk reaction from either side when someone says to buy a camera based off of specs alone, before they even know what they intend to shoot?!? That bugs me more than anything.

I completely agree. If you want a less detailed picture for "film-look" purposes, there's a detail setting specifically for that purpose. You can always throw away picture data, but you can't pull out more than there is to begin with. If you intentionally buy equipment that gives you less picture data to start with (HVX is basically upscaled PAL at 60p) and find you want more detail down the road, you're screwed.

Now I hope I don't get stomped on for saying *this,* but does anyone else find the whole "film look" fad a bit overblown? Everyone wants their footage to look exactly like film to the point of obsession. I always imagine people twiddling dials saying "does it look like film yet? No?" and twiddling some more. Just make the footage look good and convey the mood you want to convey. Whether it looks like film or not is irrelevant. Spend the time and effort writing a good script instead.

Well put.

I'd say the script and composition are the key.

We're so accustomed to the so called "film look", it's hard to seperate sometimes.

I do wish we could acheive a tighter DOF with these 1/3" cameras without trading to much quality. Selective focus does make it easier to tell your story. It gives your eyes some where to go.
I'm interested in learning more about the new 16mm adapter. Any more info on this?

What is film look? Have you ever looked at raw developed film projected before any color timing? You might say to yourself - hmm I don't want that film look after all.

If you want your stuff to pop then take the time to color correct it in post. Every single thing you see on tv, movie screens, etc has taken this approach. Have you ever seen what a proper telecine session goes through to just get film to tape for tv?

Ditto. I know how to get "soft and organic" if I want it... set Detail OFF or do some degradation in post. But if you need a sharper shot then the HD-100 can deliver.

If I REALLY want softer and filmic I can toss on my Micro35 adapter.

But after a bunch of side by side testing I can very easily see people going with the HVX for a few reasons (like 60p). I just didn't happen to go that way.

And Tim's right - post has a giant impact on the final look. Raw 35mm sometimes is not too impressive until after the colorist gets their hands on it. I'm continually amazed at what these little HD cameras do.