JVC GYHD100/101 users comments?

[branny]

I've read all the reviews, and I'd welcome users of this cam to post their pro's and con's of input/output experiences in real events.

[tom hardwick]

I'm not an owner, just a potential owner, so can I say something? (Thank you, Art of Noise).

I have had optical image stabilisation on my side in this game since 1995. Why would I choose a camera without it 11 years later?

tom.

[infocus]

Why would I choose a camera without it 11 years later?
Because the ergonomics of this model are so much better than recent Sony prosumer cameras that it's unnecessary.........? ;);) (He says, heading for the hills. :) )

[tom hardwick]

I just knew you'd say that (he yelled at them there far hills) and to a degree I agree with you. Now I want to crab the camera sideways through the long grass, held out in front of me at arm's length. (I'm always doing this). Time to switch on the SSSS I feel.

[The-Video-Company.co.uk]

Branny, I gave one a quick whirl at my last IOV meeting.

I have to say I was really impressed with the camera on a whole, but the lcd & viewfinder did leave a bad taste in my mouth. This became worse after I experienced the lcd & viewfinder on the Z1, which if placed on the JVC would make it a pretty unstopable camera.

Also as it was progressive, there was a slight judder in subject moving across the screen from one side to the other. I wonder if this would have stopped if I increased the shutter speed, as I experienced a similar problem with my XL1s. However, I never got a chance to capture any footage so I honestly couldn't say for sure.

Ergonomically, it was very similar to a XL1s. It was a nice size, and it felt like a nice weight to me for being stable enough for steady images, but mobile enough for those impossible shots.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about it was the price. Although, you may need to shell out a lot of extra dough for extras if you're not already set-up for this camera.

Don't know if this helps, but I thought I'd add my two pence worth. :)

[tom hardwick]

The 720p mode is inherrently more juddery than interlaced. If an object crosses the JVC screen in one second, you see 25 full res images of it. If it crosses the 1080i screen of the Z1 you see 50 half resolution fields of it, so the information is fed to you smoothed but softened. Of course different TVs (CRT, LCD and plasma) will muck about with this, as will progressive scan DVD players.

If you up the JVC's shutter speed you'll make things worse, not better. Say you go to a 1/200th sec per frame. You still have 25 frames showing the moving object, but now you've lost the smoothing effect of motion blur.

And you don't have OIS, which is where I came in.

tom.

[The-Video-Company.co.uk]

Bugger. :D

Do you think the judder would vanish if it was 50p tom?

James.

[Mad_mardy]

No of course it wouldn't, well actually i don't know for sure :)

but this has been discussed in some length the judder is because it is progressive its the "film look" you have to shoot with it like it was a film camera not video
even film stutters but you either don't notice or just acept it.
I never ever noticed it at the cinema until i watched wallace and gromit and on some of the opening shots its very noticable. there was a very good article about this on the JVC Pro site.
http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/tech/prohd2/cg?page=shooting

Also i've just noticed that in the US there is a major upgrade being offered to the HD100U
doesn't seem to have reached the UK yet though

Hopefully i shall be loaning my HD101 to Alan Roberts sometime in may or june to do some camera setup documents for it, hopefully.

[tom hardwick]

The judder wouldn't vanish if shot at 50p, but it'd be smoother. It should then be as smooth as the Z1 if both have the same shutter speed selected. Of course it'd still be only 720 lines instead of 1080 if I read JVC's spec right.

The USP is in the ergonomics of the beast, and in the interchangeable lens - neither of which Sony has. But it's good to see JVC giving their designers plain-paper freedom at last. Their GY-DV300 (PD150 clone) was a marketing failure, and the 14X zoom couldn't overcome the lack of a zoom ring, only one ND and poor low light performance.

tom.

[infocus]

Do you think the judder would vanish if it was 50p tom?
Should be the same then as a 50 field per second camera. (Only progressive, so better.) As far as 25p and judder goes, that's how much top end drama etc is now shot OUT OF CHOICE, albeit 1080p/25, or rather psf. It wouldn't be my first preference, but it's not something to get too hung up on, and should be judged on a monitor, not the viewfinder.

IMO the worst single feature is the too tight widest angle of view of the standard lens, only 6.5mm, and far tighter than the Z1 or HVX200 (neither of which is stunning themselves, by true pro standards). That said, it seems in many ways to be the most desirable of the 1/32 offerings, but a lot really depends on what it will be most used for.

[The-Video-Company.co.uk]

I wouldn't get too hung up on it either infocus, it's just that I noticed it whilst pre-captured footage was played back on a monitor. If there were only a few short scenes within a 1-2 hour production, I don't think it would really be that noticable at all.

[branny]

Much as I respect everyone's contributions, and I really do appreciate everyones time in posting their thoughts.The tech spec is open to comparison to many other cams, but I'd like to know what 'real input/output' results are obtained. Will this cams format/features stand the test of time, or disappear into the abyss that is 'todays technology' - tomorrows door stop.

[Alan Roberts]

Just to clear this up, the judder is nothing to do with 25 or 50 or interlaced or progressive. It's entirely due to image content (original eaxposures) being repeated. Film does this to eliminate flicker because the 24fps rate is too slow. So there's grown an entire industry of would-be film-makers who try to replicate the effect in video. So you shoot at 25 fps and repeat the exposed frames to the viewer, and that's when the judder comes in.

Exactly the same thing happens on 100Hz crt tv sets. To get to 100Hz, they repeat the source images. When it's interlaced, you get repetition at 50Hz which is less visible than at 25, but is certainly still there.

[MattDavis]

'd like to know what 'real input/output' results are obtained. Will this cams format/features stand the test of time, or disappear into the abyss that is 'todays technology' - tomorrows door stop.

Some of Nate Weaver's early footage postings confirmed that the HD100, in the right hands, could achieve a sort of Super16 look and feel. I've tried the settings, but had problems with ingesting the HD100's HDV at 25p - FCP doesn't support it (yet), Lumiere's still beta and that route is a nasty workflow compared to DV.

Another workflow involves capturing the analogue 1280x720 to DVCPro-HD using something like the AJA Kona LHe. As I do mostly on-site editing on a PowerBook, this won't work for me either, but it works for many others.

I've been infatuated by the HD100 since its debut. I spent a weekend with one late last year using Nate Weaver's setups, and have some footage from the wide angle lens. The combination (plus room for further tweaking) was wonderful and truly exciting, but tempered by the fact that you were getting a cameraman's camera, not a videographer's camera. Fine if you're a cameraman, with a sound man and a director to keep you company and a PA to keep you sane, but if you're on your own behind the camera...

At IBC last September there was rumour of a 2/3" version, something that could perhaps give the XDCAM-HD camp some competition. Right now, I've got my Kapok cushion set up on the fence, as one of these new puppies is the true low-end HD format. Anything before is just a workflow to get SD right on a PD150 budget.

IMHO. As a Z1 owner. :)