HD100 compared to HVX200
 

For those that like to compare cameras, here is a fairly thorough analysis conducted by Walter Graff of Bluesky Media:

http://www.bluesky-web.com/HDVHVX.htm

Thanks Andrew.

It was quite a thorough comparison and I agree with his conclusions, I only wish he had compared the motion signature with the motion smoothing turned off.
Each of these cameras are superb at progressive capture, and each is ideal for different purposes.
As I told Barry Green the other day at the Panasonic booth, I'm considering having a HVX200 on the truck the next time I shoot something with alot of stunts. The small size and 60P recording would make it an ideal crash cam substitute for an eyemo or a great overcranked B-Cam for fight action. I also like that you can set a shutter angle that locks to the frame rate. I hope JVC adds a similar function to the new models.

Hey Tim,

Don't you ever sleep? The forum is lucky to have you...
Agreed. Not sure why he did that. Motion smoothing is not for me. I also agree with your likes on the HVX. There is a lot to like about that camera. The HD100 just suits me better for most appps.

Not to hijack this thread... but... I'll do it anyway. Andrew, it was *great* to meet you in Vegas, thanks for coming by my party Monday night, and I have to say in all honesty that your HD100 presentation at the JVC booth was simply amazing. That was some incredible work. I'm still shivering from all the rain, the jungle rot and the creepy-crawlies. Not to mention the slow-roasted HD100. Too bad you didn't have any fajita seasoning for that, it would have tasted better. Well done my friend,

Hey Chris,

Thanks for your comments. Great to meet you to and hats off for doing such a great service for the indie community.

While we're on the subject of veering the topic off-subject, let me do a Chris-Hurd style hijack and say: Tim Dashwood is indeed the bomb. I've said that before, but I only knew him online; I'm pleased to say that in person he's every bit as helpful, knowledgeable, and just as classy as he comes across online. What you see is what you get with him, and what you get is a patient, knowledgeable, helpful, nice guy.

I'm producing and shooting my film right now, but will try to dedicate at least 30 minutes to dvinfo each night before I go to bed. This means that over the next 3 weeks I will probably only have enough time to read the new posts and maybe respond to one or two per day.

Thanks for the kind words Barry.. and right back at ya! I wish we had had more time to hang out at NAB, but you always had your hands full answering numerous questions everytime I swung by the Panasonic booth. I thought that wolf footage was awesome by the way! Did you shoot that?


While we're patting each others backs, cudos to you Andrew for the awesome presentation of your trip to Madagascar. Nate, Chris and I stood there watching with jaws dropped during the 'leach' and 'foot rot' section. The fact that you went back later for pickups shows your ultimate dedication as a filmmaker.
It was also great to meet you in person and discuss your filmout experiences.

more filmic HVX??
 

From the images shown in that review, does anyone agree that the images shown from the HVX look more organic, softer and film-like compared to the HD100? (more so the automobile traffic, street/cyclist and the coast/benches shot)

I dident want to see this as I had my mind set that I was going to purchase HD100 over the Panasonic. Now i have to think further...

Oh, I wish -- no, that was shot by Kevin Railsback of www.silverphoenixllc.com. He's running his own stock footage distribution business, and he has an uncanny ability to get shots that are just jaw-dropping. I first met him when he wrote to me and said "I'm shooting dark wolves in the snow, what settings do you recommend?" I gave him some suggestions and said "hey, wolves -- sounds cool, show me some pics when you get back." And, well, the rest is history. He's incredibly talented.

If by "softer and more filmlike" you mean "less detail." The HVX doesn't have as many pixels, which makes it look softer. If you like that look, you can always turn the detail setting on the HD100 down. I'd rather begin with more detail and turn it down than not have enough when I want it.

I had the exact same feeling - his words said one thing, but the image spoke otherwise..

the jvc images were a bit bright and sharp - the hvx ones looked pleasing to the eye - almost as if shot thro a filter

i am confused again - i was leaning towards JVC - now i am downloading some files to see it myself...

Please don't make a choice based on anyone else's opinions (mine included.) Test the cameras for yourself before you buy and judge the results based on your personal needs.

Remember both cameras can be configured in numerous different ways to achieved the desired results. That is the fundamental flaw in trying to compare cameras when subjectivity is a factor. Comparing resolution and sharpness is easy, but both cameras were essentially set to only one or two of numerous possible configurations.
I believe, based on my extensive experience with the DVX100 and HD100, that the HVX200 could be made to match the response characteristics of HD100 and vise-versa.

The essential differences to concern yourself with in these two cameras is ergonomics, lens and recording codec/medium. Other than that, I would bet you could easily achieve equal results in colour response and latitude.

That's for sure...

Amazing. I guess the saying it's "in the eye of the beholder" is true. Without exception my eye went to the HD100 pics as more pleasing every time--before I looked to see which camera was which. Not because of sharpness but because of what I saw as apparent greater latitude. I liked the details in the mids and shadows.

edit: with the exception of the higher gain night shots. I like the lower smear on the HVX.

I'd say the HVX200 will be right for you. It does make a nice filmic look.

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.

I didn't think the HVX200 looked as good as the HD100 when it came to the night shots and the shots in the park. The HD100 has a photographic look which I love, where the HVX200 just looks like a video "still".

I think his primary point was that he felt that it was "better" to convert to 4:2:2 uncompressed. Now in two situations that is definitely true: you edit on an Avid/Premiere where Temp Renders are "reused" AND if you are moving source in and out of other applications like AE.

But with FCP, every time a frame of HDV is needed, it is decoded to 4:4:4 YUV before anything is done to it. In short, the conversion he does at the beginning for ALL his source material (resulting in the need for a huge RAID) is done by FCP on a per-frame basis. (In fact, his 4:2:2 uncompressed is also converted to 4:4:4 on a frame-by-frame basis.)

After any, and all, FX are rendered on the 4:4:4 data -- the result is sent to your monitor. When you are done, the export is done using fresh HDV frames so native is decoded ONLY once. It makes NO difference if you decoded them during capture, after capture in an application, or in the Timeline. Once is once. (In fact, it may be better to go from 4:2:0 directly to 4:4:4.)

Thus, the only re-compression or re-coding is done from the uncompressed YUV 4:4:4 data -- no matter what the source files are. If you need a movie as an Intermediate, you should export to Apple's 4:2:2 10-bit. This can be done to a FireWire drive -- no need for a RAID.

In all his wonderful myth busting -- he left this one still alive for FCP users.

whats the best way to soften the image in post?

A basic setting in an NLE? or using Magic Bullet?

Depends on your intention. If you're trying to get rid of the "video look," I don't think you'll completely succeed. From what I've seen & heard electronic in-camera edge enhancement creates little black lines around the subject to increase perceived sharpness. This is when it is set pretty high. A simple blur filter will just blur the image & leave the lines in. Best bet is to leave detail or sharpening low on the camera.

Try Nattress Film Effects before Magic Bullet. (about 1/8 the cost & still a great product). He has some diffusion filters which when set creatively can soften the image in a pleasing way. Along the lines of color-correction I pretty much use his curves filter exclusively for adjusting luminance levels. Great results. http://www.nattress.com/

I'd agree that the "Film Look" is basically just creating the most pleasing picture possible. It's not about mimicking the way actual film responds to light (though many tend to think so). So much is done in post, you really can't compare your raw video capture to a fully CC'd film production.

For CC I have found this book very helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157...Fencoding=UTF8

Steve, you have some info there I had not heard before so I would just like to clarify since I use both Avid and FCP but the HD stuff is new for me.

In summary, you are saying that the live "in the NLE" image in FCP is always 4:4:4, converted from the HDV source footage. FCP treats the HDV footage as 4:4:4 all the way through the editing process. If you were editing HDV and using a Kona or Blackmagic card, would that mean you would be sending 4:4:4 to your tape machine during mastering to a high end deck?

Also, if you are sending proxy sequences out of FCP to AE or Combustion etc,
does the footage come into AE as 4:4:4 as well or do proxy sequences with HDV footage not work in AE? Would you be forced to use an intermediate codec for effects work?

key points here. i went 'round and 'round hvx or hd100? my conclusion was the the decision should not be based on image quality. why? 1) very subjective 2) not that much difference between the two.

take a very close look at the p2 medium, i won't say if it's a blessing or a curse, but one thing for sure, it ain't cheap. in my case, i do long interviews, p2 is just not suited for that, and i don't trust hard drives. but, if you want to do features or music videos, the case for the hvx is much stronger as it's probably better for fx work and then the variable frame rate thing.