Has the HVX Stolen JVC's Thunder?
 

I used to see posts on Craig's List all the time for JVC100U Camera OPs/DPs, and now, 9 times out of 10, they are only looking for people with a HVX 200.

Have any of you guys noticed this trend in your markets?

To me, it seems the resounding popularity of the DVX has made the laymen think the HVX is the holy grail of HD, which it is not.

Too true. I notice this a lot. For some reason a lot of Indie film guys swear by the DVX/HVX as if everything else was just "video." It seems like it has some sort of force field of coolness or otherness that bends the minds of the film crowd towards its will.

To put it simply:
The HVX is to video cameras what the iPod is to MP3 players.
It might not be the best, but you feel like you got to have one.

No I completely disagree, I work for Panavision Australia and one of our sister companies rent out the HVX along with the HD101, and the ratio of rentals to models is predictable, the HD101 gets rented out 3 times more than the HVX, I should know because this week I had to settle with the Z1p because the HD101's were booked out, and we have several. They even asked me to sublease mine because they wanted more Hd100s.

I agree with both of you.
I think that the general public, if they want to make a film, likes the word HVX.
The people who do the renting are usually DP's (or advized by)...who the JVC works.

Though I must say the HVX 4:2:2 is super sweet

The HVX was the beneficiary of an incredible amount of pre release hype and buzz. The JVC was released earlier and suffered some setbacks because of reports of split screen effect and because so many people were chomping at he bit for the HVX.

Also, the HVX shoots DVCPro, which is a well-established format. I'm not trying to get into which is better, just suggesting that people like to stick to trusted workflows. Having said that, in the UK the DVX/HVX thing is not nearly so strong and most professionals stick to Sony.

You're right.
I think this is simply the legacy of the DVX100, and not an indication of the quality or popularity of any of the HD cameras in the $4000 - $8000 price range.

If you are a short film director and you are looking for "film look" for free, then it would be pretty easy to find someone with a DVX100 willing to rent it in exchange for a producer credit. The next logical step up for a producer/director who does limited research is the HVX. "The HVX200 is just a DV100B that shoots HD, right? I know how to shoot good looking stuff with the DVX, so I'm sure I can handle the HVX!"

I run into directors all the time who have worked with me and the DVX100 and start talking about how great the HVX will be to shoot with, but don't truly realize what workflow is involved with P2. Usually after I explain the various options (including XDCAM and HDCAM,) HDV is almost always the format of choice for filmmakers with very low budgets.
BTW, short film director/producers who post on Craigslist almost always have much less budget than they claim they do!

"If I only had a Ferrari, I would be rich"

That's how people think; their film will be more successful if shot on a HVX. Or if it had guns, or yuppies, or zombies, whatever.

I've purposely shot test footage for free just to show some producers that the HD-100 is perfect for their needs.

Who knows, in ten years people might be doing the same thinking with JVC cameras when Panasonic comes out with something better.

Regardless of "trends" and "sales" I had the option to buy any HD camera under 10k this year. I looked at everything......and bought the jvc hd 100. I like the way the footage looks. Some people might not like the noisy film look of the camera. but I do. Also it was the only camera available that I could shoot from my shoulder. I didn't like the way the cannon balanced and the jvc was way cheaper, and again, imho, looks better, (cooler) than the cannon.
So there you go, my 2 cents.....
Jon

I totally agree with you Jon. The reason I chose the JVC over the HVX is because I think the JVC's 24p footage looks way better; it's more filmic IMHO, the colors are more reminiscent of 35mm film than those from the HVX. I'm not fond of the greenish-vynil-leathery colors you get from the HVX .

hvx 200 for sale on CraigsList - bought an HD-110
 

I had the HVX200 for a few months, and as soon as Apple came out with the FCP 5.1.2 update, I bought the JVC HD-110 and the DT-HD100.

I find the image quality to be equal and the form factor of the HD100 is far superior for controlling the camera.

I don't know how people can do follow focus with iris adjustment while recording on the HVX200. I guess all their scenes are perfectly evenly lit and they have a focus puller/assistant.

And, after one all day shoot where we went thru all 9 of our P2 cards and still had to reformat/archive/copy in the field for a 10th and 11th - never again!

So, my HVX200 is now posted on Craigslist for sale. Pass it along to all those indie film directors!

regards,

bt

Oh yeah, the manual lens.......... you just can't screw up a shot with an auto lens. That means that yes, all your shots will be in focus and the exposure will be ok, but it also means you will never learn how to use a camera and you will never get any happy mistakes along the way.
Jon

PS I'm not saying the other cameras are no good, they just aren't what I like or need, I'm a filmmaker, I like the JVC. If I were rich I would have a bunch of different cameras...but as I said I'm a filmmaker.....lol

Personally I find that this is more of a case of "this is a catchphrase I know" with so called "directors" or "producers" (because they know little else about filmmaking in general). Just like "24P", as in they interview a DP and ask "do you shoot 24P?" which is in itself a stupid question (I have been asked) like that's a make or break defining moment for them to make a decision on one DP or another. It usually comes from inexperienced "filmmakers" who know lingo like 24P! HVX200! DVX100! and they have no idea what they're talking about. I have seen many relatively expensive feature films (!) that hired DP's based on equipment they owned (HVX200) that look total crap. In my opinion the producers deserve what they bargained for. Reap what you saw. These films look so bad they will NEVER get distribution (just like the other 500,578 independent feature films out there) - that is even without considering acting, direction, story, entertainment value... I just giggle... :-)

Have to disagree there. Autofocus tends to hunt, and autoexposure does very badly on scenes with an excess of highlights or shadows.

Well, I've always been partial to the JVC, I guess you could say that I fell in love at first sight when it was introduced at NAB '05. The image quality was just amazing and the 24p demo footage was simply stunning. When I saw the HVX200 at NAB '06, not so much. The Canon XLH1 footage was impressive though, I remember. But I've always liked the JVC cameras, even the ol' HD10U, just something about their cameras is really spot on.

However, if I were to choose today, I'd still have to choose the HVX200 for the 4:2:2 color space and variable frame rates alone, I'm planning to do a lot of greenscreen and other special effects work with my films, so every little bit helps.

(But oops! Looks like I went elsewhere with my camera choice *cough*look at sig*cough*) ;)