So for Filmmaker, V1 or HD-110?
 

Hi,

From what I've read I have the feeling that the V1 is not going to be better than the HD110. Of course it is speculation, but I'm curious to know your opinion. It's been reported through some posts here that in many conditions the V1 is not better than the Z1, and I think it's been established that the Z1 is a tiny bit inferior to the HD100?
Thanks
Andrea

You can always add the HVX200 to that mix if you have a good budget.

The V1u that’s been tested was not a final version so the test against JVC’s camcorders is worthless.

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...180#post560180

Try before you buy. I like the V1 a lot, it's a great camera and held up well. You need a little more light, but you need a little more light with HDV vs. DV.

heath

Any of these cameras cost a lot of money - IMO you've got to find a way to have hands on and shoot your kind of shots, camera in your hands, and see how the footage looks to you and edits in your systems.

Truth is, all these cameras are GREAT! It's more a question of what works best for you than which is "better".

All things being equal, it depends on your needs. But, since the V1u will have greater depth of field due to its size chips I'd say that was a strike against the V1u.

Also, the JVC has better manual control, so for finessing a shot or just knowing you are totally in control I'd say the JVC was a better bet.

As others have said though, you should look at footage produced by both and determine which look suits you and then weigh that against the practical use of the camera for your intended use.

K.

And use the camera, try it out.

hwm

My feeling is very different, the V1U sounds like the segway to movie making nirvana by most accounts.

Movie making nirvana? Hmm, I think that's a stretch. What are your reasons?

Latitude, absence of smear and full vertical resolution at 24P.

I'd go with the JVC, funds permitting...shoulder mount, bigger chips, total professional control vs. handycam style. But comparing the V1 to the JVC is sort of an apples to oranges thing. The V1 is a handycam prosumer camera, while the JVC is a fully professional camera, and there are good and bad things about both styles. I find pro cameras quicker and easier to use for most things; but there are situtations where auto focus and optical stablization are very desireable.

Latitude remains to be seen, although yeah the ClearVid CMOS does appear to have a wide lattitude although at a reduced aperture range (I think...from what I've read); does it have a wider lattitude? Has there been a direct comparison that demonstrates this to be fact?

Absence of smear, hmm...yeah that's something I also think is great but under controlled lighting it's not that big of a problem. As a filmmaker, I'd think you'd be in a more controlled environment than a run and gun situation. But, it is a great thing!

Full vertical resolution compared to the JVC; hmm. different flavors of 24 frame recording aside I don't think it's that big of a difference, especially if the JVC has better glass and resolves more at which point the JVC will lead.

I'm still with the JVC, though there is room for improvement! And it is still a matter of personal opinion.

I never use any kind of in camera stabilization, even with my consumer cam; just a tripod and years of hand held work (10+) to get a steady shot - although, as my shoulder gets tired I do agree I'm very tempted!!

All of the above are just my opinion. Feel free to disagree! :-)

K.

I pretty much agree, and I've always liked a heavier shoulder mount camera for hand held shooting. However, the handycam form has its place too. Recently I had occasion to shoot some all hand held interviews where the guy would talk and then go walk around with me following. I used a Z1, and the Z1's OIS is so good that I was able to hand hold it for the interview just as steady as with a shoulder mount camera. Then when the guy got up and walked, I was able to start following immediately, and the shot looked good. With a shoulder mount camera, I would have had to take it off my shoulder to do the walking shot, and that would have sucked. So I guess in an ideal world, there would be a handycam type camera with a quick release shoulder mount device and a viewfinder that could be repositioned forward so you could use it on the shoulder and still use the viewfinder properly.

CMOS does seem to give a more natural film like image on the few cameras I have seen that use cmos but then again the SONY Cinealta cameras use CCD's and the last time I checked there were a few projects out there done with them that looked great. I'm sure if I offered to buy you a F900 you wouldn't turn it down even though it uses CCD's.

While I think the V1 is going to be a nice camera we need to stop thinking of it as the one camera to rule them all. There is no such thing as a perfect HDV camera. The V1 just gives film makers yet another option and another style of look to use to tell their story. Thats it.

Another thing to think about is that the pulldown method for 24p for the V1 isn't yet supported in any NLE for realtime 24p editing. I understand that the specs have been sent to all of the major NLE's but who knows how long it will take to add it in. Look how long it took to add true 24p support into Final Cut Pro and they have had the specs from JVC and Canon for well over a year. I hope this time the process will be faster but what if it isn't? What if you shoot a project after December and need to edit in 24p and find out you cannot exactly do that yet without a workaround conversion in a 3rd party tool. All the other forms of 24p from the other cameras are all pretty much supported now so you could start editing right away. Perhaps a point release of Vegas will add the feature but what if you do not use Vegas? Are you going to dump your NLE and move to Vegas? If you use FCP and they take a long time to add the 24p pulldown for the V1 you would have to a get whole new computer to use with Vegas. If you can wait with the camera it would be great to see how quickly the 24p support is added to NLE's.

Tom has a point. The only way to realize the cost savings in a cheaper camera is when your production pipeline is in place to support it. Any kind of exspensive conversion or post secondary step (time cost money too), will negate the advantage. I don't have an FCP solution, I'm a windows guys and would either have to rely on adobe responding or go switch to the next best editor that supports it, and hit the wall with a learning curve/change in my workflow.

This point applies to all cameras. Some of us tent to forget that getting the media is one thing, and what you do with it is quiet another. If this camera sells like hotcakes that would only fuel the fire for NLE programmers to get a solution out quick. The second ring of the cash register is a copy of their updated software.

I agree that workflow is critical when looking at a camera. Of course HDV is the typical focus of software upgrades these days and it seems that at least FCP and Vegas are there. 24p editing may still have some hurdles, but I don't think it will be a problem for very long. At worst, an upgrade to the next version of the software should be the only expense.

Here is why I think the V1 is the ideal choice, although there are many other cameras that look very tempting:

1. Exposure latitude is really what makes film superior to video beyond what can be done by the crew to enhance the lighting. When it is all boiled down, the crew (and their lights) is first, latitude is second, and resolution is third. I would rather have an SD camera (with true 16:9) with perfect film latitude than an HD camera with consumer video camera latitude. That said, the 3-chip HDV cameras aren't deficient with latitude, but most CCDs are far short of film. CMOS seems to bridge the gap sufficiently to make it a better choice.

2. The small form factor is a huge benefit for indie movie types. It will still be a workable size with a 35mm adapter added yet can go super-portable when guerilla shooting is necessary. Unfortunately, controlled circumstances are frequently NOT a part of independant movie-making.

Other than those factors, many of the newer cameras seem overall equal. The HD110 seems like it would be perfect for corporate video and as one of the cams in a wedding environment. For any news stations that have gone HD, it seems like a perfect cam for field work where size and cost are considerations. It is too large to cram into some of the wedding/event video scenarios, but it's real lens is very appealing for some types of work.

You should look over the posting list. You'll find EDIUS 4 supports 24p now.

As far as the specs -- 3-2 pulldown is exactly the same as used for Telicined film so it's the norm.

------------

"... although at a reduced aperture range."

I assume you mean the limit of f/11 rather than f/16. If so, then you should no that no lens should be stopped down past f/8 (1/3-inch) or f/5.6 (1/4-inch). So f/11 is more than enough.

-------------

These are such different tools that I'm not sure this question has an answer.

I'm with that - thanks for putting it so well, Thomas. I respect the people who've posted above, but... I disagree with much of what's been written in this thread about the V1 being "better" than this camera, or "worse" than that camera.

The HD100 footage I've seen displayed full-screen full-resolution on a good monitor looks very pretty indeed! It sort of put to rest for me all the ideas about 1080i being "better" than 720p, and gave me some new attitudes about evaluating cameras.

Now, all I think about is: the pictures and the ergonomics (where the controls are, and are the controls I'm interested in easy to get at).

No, I don't own an HD100. Yes, I'm VERY anxious to get my hands on a V1, have shot several days with a Z1.

While the previews and the engineering discussions of the V1 have indeed piqued my interest, that's as far as it goes. I want to shoot pictures, and see how well I can control the camera, and how MY footage looks.

The 3:2 pulldown is not the same. It is the same pattern but film doesn't use flags. mpeg-2 video will use flags so the NLE's need to know how to deal with those flags. Perhaps Edius does work with it but how could it have been tested since the V1 isn't out yet? We do not know how well it works or if the process is going to be slow. Edius may work great with it but we just do not know at this stage and this is my only concern. My concern isn't that it will never work but when will it work and how well will it work. I think it is pretty blind to just trust in a format before it has been through it's paces and worked out in the industry first. Even if Edius does work well what about the other NLE's? Not everybody uses Edius. I still think the V1 is going to be a good camera but I think it would be wise to hold off getting one for at least a few months after it comes out to see how the NLE support works out first.

HD110 High Def? V1 at 1080i sticking up for the little guy.
 

What gets me about the HD110 is that its still 1280x720 - this is not high definition - this is somewhere between SD and HD. I've seen first hand comparison between a HD100 and a Canon XL-H1 at 1080i downconverted to 720p - Hands down the H1 kicked its butt. Two weeks ago I was at the Video Expo in Denver and asked a JVC rep if they planned on getting into 1080 high def. She simply explained they were a progressive house and where going to stay at 720p - well what about 1080p which is aronud the corner. That's progressive. Personally I don't like any footage you have to upconvert to get the desired resolution needed. That's where the V1 comes in - it will do 1080i - SD ultra slo-mo and 24p - It will kick the crap out of any JVC product in its price range. Granted the optical-lens acquistion of the HD110 is very nice but is bumping up a lower resolution picture really what your after? If you want the sweet film look by a nice matte box with some fitlers control your lighting and shoot in 1080 - Also just on a side note, is it really fair to compare Sony's $4000 V1 "HD" camera to JVC's $6,600 "Better than SD" camera? Sony has got the upper hand and always will.... Its too bad that JVC misses the boat on what HD houses need. About NLE support, it will probable strong for professional applications like Avid and Final Cut. Heck I'm all ready editing XDCam in Final Cut with flawless results and that just came out not to long ago.

A very good point. It's always best to let somebody else be the first kid on the block with the new toy. I've rarely bought any camera until the second generation.

Jeff,

You are wrong; anything over 575 lines of vertical resolution is considered HD. 720p is high definition.

heath

What? HD Resolution
 

So your saying any old DVCam, Beta Camera that can do over 575 lines or better yet PAL at 768x576 is High Def? I think not... although the standards due say 720p and 1080 formats are high def. If you even attempt to match 720p to a 1080 image your going to notice a difference. 1080 has more spatial resolution then 720p making it a higher resolution picture with more detail than 720p. Even if you convert a 720p image to 1080i your going to lose detail. If your going for the big picture 1080 is where you want to be. To lock yourself into a JVC product that only does 720p with a lose in conversion to 1080 is not where you want to be. Start with the best resolution you can and if you decide to downconvert it will look much better than any up conversion. I don't mean to blast 720p but I have seen it first hand. Sony's V1 may not look as professional as the HD110 but for the price your better off going with something at 1080. The Z1U is even cheaper than any HD100's out there. Plus you get that awesome battery life.

Here's a link I found about HDTV Standards : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_definition_television

Appreciate the forum.

Heath is technically correct, even if off by a pixel or two. Analog resolution isn't often thought about, so it would be more accurate to say "anything above 580 lines is technically HD."

Interestingly, there are camcorders with imagers smaller than 580 v lines that are HD, due to resampling ability.

But I agree with you in that the world is a 1080 world.

So the Texas shoot out was wrong?
 

I read the results at DV.COM and the HD-100 was actually not bad at all. Actually in that shoot out, the HD 100 was considered a tad above the Z1? You seem to forget that 1080i is interlaced, that's what the i means! Sure, it occupies more space on the screen, but with a trick, if I understand correctly.

For me 1080i is like dilution. Progressive is concentrated. Beside I've heard that it's a good thing that JVC use smaller GOP to make their HD images. You are the only one who is saying that the HD 100 is not HD.

Besides by changing the lense on the JVC you might indeed get a much better picture. You can rent a $ 30,000 lens for a day, three days, a week to hook up on your HD 100 if you need it? That's an amazing advantage.

I don't own a HD 100, the only cam I've own is a DVX 100a, but I've seen footage of a HD 100 from a guy who went to Madagascar film a documentary and there is no doubt the JVC is superb.

I also saw some footage of the HD 100 transposed to film at Duart in NYC and yes, I was very impressed. This is more than enough to tell a story.

If what you're going to shoot is visually comparable to what was in Brokeback Mountains, I think Film will always be better. Cowboys riding horses with big mountains in the back will always look better on film. But I have no idea why Woody Allen still bothers shooting his stuff, mainly interiors, with anything better than a HD 110. That cam would be perfect for him. All shots are very static, no panning at all, no high speed object, no big panoramic.

That's the advantage of the Sony in that it shoots 1080P if you want. Sure, HDV format is 1080i, but the actual image is 1080P. As you are aware since you own a DVX100 a progressive image can be recorded in an interlaced format.

JVC has also been known to show more "stickiness" with the image where things stay stationary for 6 frames then jump.

Jeff the Z1 does not have any more detail then the HD100 this has been proven already. The only camera that does have more detail then the HD100 is the Canon HDV cameras which are detail junkies. Even then through a lot of tests the HD100 could hold it's own compared to the 1080i cameras. I really think you are getting wrapped up in the numbers. Yes a down scaled image from the Canon may look better but that is more based on the look of the camera and nothing to do with detail. JVC has a very interesting look to it that people used to shooting video may or may not like.

You talk about how bad it is to upscale but what about 1080i only pushing 540 pixels per field. On a progressive display each of the 60 frames per second is only using 540 vertical pixels that alternate every other line so either the in between lines are duplicated or interpolated depending on how good of a TV you have. The last time I checked 540 was smaller then 720.

Also you must remember that 1080i HDV only samples 1440 pixels which is only slightly smaller then 1280. So on a progressive display you have 1440x540 vs. 1280x720 per 1/60th a second.

Another thing that makes 720p seem not so bad is something even you said. If you downscale Canon 1080i footage to 720p and upconvert back to 1080 it still looks very good. In fact if you compared the two side by side you would see that you really didn't loose much at all. So in fact all 1080i HDV cameras seem to only do slightly better or equal to 1280x720 lines worth of detail. The Canon may go above that range by a little bit but it is very far from a clear difference. This again goes back to the look of the JVC. JVC just has a different look to it. You either like it or you do not. I can tell you that there are a lot of very high end people who have shot on film for decades compared to us who love the HD100 to death. Are you going to say those guys who have shot on film before are too blind to see how bad the JVC is?

1080i HDV is almost a waste if you think about it. maybe we get a very very slight detail edge on some 1080i HDV cameras but in the end is it really worth it for the higher level of bandwidth that is needed? Based on many tests the JVC is for the most part equal in detail to the other HDV cameras. If that is the case it would have been better for SONY and Canon to go with 720p as well. 720p is easier to work with because it doesn't waste pixels and is progressive in nature. 720p 24p uses much less bandwidth compared to 1080i 24p but has been shown to hold up almost as much detail. If all the other cameras were 720p they would all have different looks and wouldn't look the same as the JVC. The Canon would look like it does now when you scale down the 1080i footage to 720p. The same would have been true for SONY. The problem however is that the 720p vs. 1080i is more political then anything else at this stage.

ABC has a lot of TV shows in HD and they look great but guess what they are all shot at 720p. In fact they use DVCPROHD which is my opinion is in some ways worse then 720p HDV due to the fact that it only samples 960x720p pixels. It still looks great however. Pixels and resoultion are not everything. Yeah if you had a great 1080p camera that really had 1920x1080 pixels worth of detail it would look better then 720p but we do not have that yet. A Cinealta will look better but then gain we are not talking about a Cinealta. There is a reason why even the Z1 was considered "half HD" by some pros that work with the Cinealta. Because it isn't anywhere near up to the full detail potential as true 1080p HD. It is about on par with 720p HD but with a slightly different look.

Jeff you can say what you want but I know a lot of pros who have shot on 35mm that love their HD100's.

Spot,

Thanks for the correction.

And everyone, I've used amost every HDV and DVCPro HD camera below $10,000, except the news JVC offerings, but that will soon change. Of all the cameras, the Z1 is still my favorite, but the HD100 had a very film-like image; the V1 has a lot of potential, but I need more time with it, but I love what I've seen so far; the HVX is a great camera; the H1 is, too.

heath

Jeff,

Have you used either the H1 or the HD100?

To me it is more of a budget issue. The HD100 will end up 50% more expensive with accessories. I'm sure both will produce a decent image. And both would need some adapter for DOF enhancement.

One wild card not mentioned is the HDMI out on the V1. It provides a less expensive option to record uncompressed 4:2:2 video (compared to the JVC component out). I would be very interested to see the effect of this vs. all the other camera features. You couldn't use the HDMI in a run and gun, avoid the police I don't have a permit scenario, but you could indoors.

If it is true, the wider latitude and HDMI uncompressed capture would also, possibly, help when you don't have enough lights, flags, and gels to make everything work right.

Personally, I'm waiting until the spring or I need something immediately. In addition to the V1 and Canon A1, there should be a new, small, 1080p JVC, some AVCHD Panasonic, and maybe the Sony Z2.

David,

With regard to the HD100, what accessories are you referring to?

Remote focus/zoom adapters, batteries (if you go the AB route), tripod plate (which I doubt the Sony needs). My guess is filters and matte box are the same. The camera starts out 28%/$1200 more expensive.

One thing about the JVC that can cost more is batteries, as you mention. You can use the standard small "prosumer" type batteries the camera comes with. However, my understanding is that if you want the flip out LCD screen to be on without turning off the viewfinder, you need to use professional lithium ion batteries such as IDX. A couple of batteries and charger will probably be around $1500 or more. Even so, the JVC is an amazing camera for its price.

The JVC HD110 and HD200 bring some capabilities to the table--potentially higher quality lenses, manual lens adjustment, a more professional look and field, no extra lens in front of the adapter, and with the HD200, potentially 60 frames/sec for sports, etc.--for a price.

Until now, the HD100 was the least expensive higher end prosumer progessive solution. The V1 and Canon A1 move that price point down with excellent quality.

I'm sure future cameras will expand the capabilities in the $2500-$5500 market even further.

The JVC is really in a different category, I think. It's a fully professional camera, while the Sony V1 and Canon A1 are more "prosumer" in their handycam form. As such, they have all the auto stuff and OIS the JVC does not. So really the choice depends more on the type of thing the individual user wants to do.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Bill. Thanks for stating it better than I could. It's a serious mistake to look at the current HD camcorder offerings in a linear good-better-best fashion, especially the two subjects of this thread (the Sony V1 and the JVC HD100). They're in two completely different classes. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they'll both record an image on a Mini-DV cassette. The similarities pretty much end there.

Determine your budget... pick your format... then choose the camera, and by all means, try before you buy.

I've been meaning to post that you have in the past mentioned this and it is critical. Every camera has a "feel" and most folks have a preference for how a camera should "feel." And, these "debates" ignore this critical issue.

It's hard for me to imagine comparing technical details when one is talking about two such different cameras.

I also reject the notion that have OIS, AE, and AF means the camera is not "professional." For many in the V1's target market, these features are critical to coming home with perfect HD footage.

I'm not trying to dis the cameras that have OIS, etc., and not saying you can't use them professionally. But the generally accepted version of a "professional" camera is one that has all manual control, interchangeable lenses and standard things like all the switches located on the outside, etc. But that's probably getting to be an obsolete definition because the lines are pretty blurred between "prosumer" and "professional" anymore. Still, the electronic lens, in my opinion, takes a camera out of the "fully professional" category. Which doesn't mean I don't use them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
I recently shot two long events. One with a 570 and the second with a 250, the footage I was able to bring home with the 250 was way better than what I got with the 570.
For sure the 570 is a much, much better camera and the mate who owns it gets gorgeous results from it but he has that camera on his shoulder every day. The reason I do a lot of work for this guy is he's so busy driving the camera his audio is usually a bit of a mess.
With the 250 in auto everything I was able to get perfectly acceptable images and have the wits left to worry about other things like audio levels, 'helpfull' people moving my mic out of the way, stopping the wandering public getting in front of the camera etc.
To suggest you're not a pro because you use AE etc is bunk, a pro uses the best tool for the task and one that he can work with given his own limitations and the ones the shooting environment dictates.

I’m going to have to agree with Steve Mullen on this one.

Why would a camcorder with a lot of automatic features not be considered professional? I’m one of those people that loves to use camcorders in almost manual everything but there are situations where having auto features is a must for example you could be in a building with many different types of light sources and your tasked to walk around, well it would not make sense to white balance every minute. Another situation is in a battlefield where you’re running with the camcorder while trying to manual focus at the same time. Its always best to use manual features more so than automatic features but as I already mentioned, having auto features can sometimes be very useful. Just look at the latest and most expensive Digital SLR cameras, they have extremely good auto focusing and I don’t hear anybody calling them Prosumer cameras.

To me the V1u and the top JVC HD camcorders are equally professional just like the Panasonic HVX200 and the Sony Z1u. It can be argued that the HD110 is more professional than the HVX200 because of the interchangeable lenses but people will tell you that the HVX200 is more professional because of the 720 60p DVCPRO-HD recording.

Each camcorder has their own strong points and weaknesses and you can’t really say that one is a professional camcorder and the other is a prosumer camcorder based on auto features, manual features, interchangeable lenses and having 720 60p. If I was in a battlefield I’d much rather have a V1u than the HD110 or HD250. In this case I can consider the V1u as being better.

If I was in a battlefield i'd much rather have full ceramic-plated body armour, NO camera as it could look a bit like an RPG from a distance, and I'd like a ticket outta there ASAP.