HD200 WOW!!!

[Walter Graff]

I just picked up an JVC HD200 and have to say wow!! Just finished two fashion videos with the camera and it is nothing less than a fantastic piece of engineering. For pros that are used to the ergonomics of a pro camera this is it, and the pictures are simply outstanding. With a 17x lens I can create fantastic shallow looking pictures without the use of any adapter. And I can not wait to try the adapter with some primes. I understand it's magical after talking to some friends who have. A fantastic purchase for the money. I may expand my use of this camera into other areas I was going ot reserve for the "bigger" cameras based on hw well it has performed. I also plan on dedicating some articles and training videos for this camera on my website as I think it really is one of The best cameras in it's class and would like to show others what I am doing with it, and what adjustments I am making to get the best images out of it so others who have it or plan on a purchase have a pro resource to turn to.

[Tony_Beazley]

Looking forward to your in depth articles and jpgs on this one Walter... :)

[Walter Graff]

I already set up a page. I hope to make it the most informative page that bases the articles on it on experience, not hearsay and a game of internet telephone. Some of the absolute crap out there is mind boggling especially the stuff buy what I would consider educated technicians who seem to have resorted to the same methods of ignorance as the hobbiests do. I've used this stuff, edited it, and delivered numerous projects for both internet, DVD and broadcast and have found much of what is written to be simply ignorance based on little actual experience. For me to invest in it means it works well. I don't take what I do for a living lightly. Check the link soon as I will be posting a few projects, the methods I used, the equipment I used, and a bunch of other articles about using primes, editing paths, internal adjustments, etc.

 

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

[Thomas James]

The complaint that long GOP HDV is not a professional format because it is overcompressed simply does not apply to 720p HDV. Yes it is true that 720p60 has a long 12 frame group of pictures simular to the long 15 frame GOP of 1080i however since 720p gives you twice as many frames the refresh rate is higher with 720p. With 720p the I frame is refreshed 5 times a second whereas with 1080i you have a new I frame only 2 times a second. Therefore I think the 1080i format rather than the HDV format should take the blame because an interlaced format cannot be compressed efficiently which results in lower picture quality.

[Walter Graff]

No offense but your spewing more mumble jumble that means little. Both 1080i and 720p are HD formats and in most cases indistinguishable to the human eye when played on a monitor.

 

These constant mumble jumble of posts are really quite funny as they tell you little about real life. Sort of like saying my cousin is 5'2" so there is no way he could win a fight with a guy 6'1" because the 6'1" guy has a longer reach, bigger muscles, and stands taller. But this mumble jumble continues to proliferate the web spawned mostly by hobbiests who do little with the art of professional filmmaking/videography so rather concentrate on the technical aspect to compensate. But the world is not about specs and in the world of video formats always have one goal in mind, to get you the information you need in a way that doesn't waste what isn't necessary. And while two formats might accomplish a goal in two different ways, often the results in the real world is the same. But the hobbiests all concentrate on what is missing rather than what is important and that is what separates them form real-world professionals. I think I have a new name for these hobbiest:

 

Jumblemouth- a person who spends his time researching equipment he will never own or use via websites and who believes that paper specs are the sole factor in determining the quality of a piece of equipment or it's performance abilities. A jumblemouth has little real-world experience with anything he talks about, yet he will take a position and speak as if he does. Spewing a mumble jumble of numbers and specs he compensates for his lack of real world experience by creating a veil of "knowledge". Professionals can see through this veil quite easily. :)

Edited April 8, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[Thomas James]

Most of my opinion does not come just out of my head but rather is based on the research performed by the United States Department of Defense when the 2 formats 1080i and 720p where evaluated as to which format delivers the best picture quality and the best compression efficiency. It was determined that the 720p format gives the best picture quality within the limitations of the 19.7 megabit broadcast bandfwidth. Of course organizations like NASA and the Department of Defense are not looking for the most film like look for cinematographers but rather they are evaluating the best picture quality in which to base their tactical battlefield decisions and they determined that the 1080i format may compromise national security because its inferior picture quality may cause errors in judgement when it comes to making important battlefield decisions. Also the United States Department of Defense does not even consider the 1080i format as having the ability to resolve 1080 lines of resolution and has proposed that the format be renamed 540i to more accurately reflect the true capabilities of 1080i.

 

It may seem that the Department of Defense was very rude in trashing the 1080i format however when the lives of its soldiers are at stake as well as the possibility of loss of civillian lives there is simply no room for politeness.

[Walter Graff]

You definitely need to get outside more often.

 

Below is a link to one of the places where the information you extrapolated is from. It means very littel to this site, the cinematography we do and viewing television. The DoD concerns related to formats wee mostly efficiency, compatibility, and cost and that is what you are reading about related to HD. i say were because it's so old and outdated as to be non sequitur. It's a lot of mumbo jumbo that has little to do with most any thread on this website or any relevance in most any discussion here. Unless someone has anything to say that is relevant to this discussion, I'm done.

 

http://www.atd.net/HDTV_faq.html

[Craig Hollenback]

Walter...I'm glad to hear how pleased you are with the 200. I'm considering the 200 but would like to know why you didn't choose the 250? I don't plan on studio use but would like to get "hired" with the camera. Any input would be helpful. thanks Craig btw...$ are an issue for me

Edited May 1, 2007 by Craig Hollenback

[Walter Graff]

Walter...I'm glad to hear how pleased you are with the 200. I'm considering the 200 but would like to know why you didn't choose the 250? I don't plan on studio use but would like to get "hired" with the camera. Any input would be helpful. thanks Craig btw...$ are an issue for me

 

The 250 offers TC and SDI out. That's the difference. Since I am not using mine with other cameras on the same shoot (hooking them up via SDI to a switcher) I don't need those features. The 200 offers analog composite outs. I'm feeding directly to a DVR attached to the back for the most part. I have used the camera extensively in both DV mode and HDV mode since I got it. Just finished two fashion projects in 16x9 SD DV and the look fantastic. The camera worked very well handling what was at times very high contrast ranges and in dark scenarios at 6db gain I had a lot of room on the lens to open up with no grain whatsoever. I have not found any problems with the camera other than a bit of vertical smear on hi contrast situations with points of very bright light against darkness but in those rare instances just zoom out a bit.

 

I definitely suggest a few things. I'm using the 17x lens. Great zoom but lacking on wide angle so a wide angle zoom through is nice. Also for audio since XLRs are on the side making them stick out a bit I suggest making right angle adapter cables or putting right angle adapters on all audio cables you feed from the cam. Also battery wise I am using the heavier anton bauer bricks rather than the light ion ones as I find it makes a perfect balance on your shoulder. Also BH sells a cover for it that wraps the cam body. For $150 it's a great buy. Also, don't wimp out on a tripod. This is more pro than prosumer and as such you'll do best with a 22 pound limit tripod rather than an 18 pound or under. Over all this cam performs no different than my 100k cam in terms of feel. A really impressive design and none better for the money.

[David Sweetman]

Is it bigger than the 100? What I can't stand about the 100 is it's so dang small that it's really akward to handhold. I've thought about making a custom baseplate to screw it onto, with two handles extending to the front, to give it more size/balance/weight. How do you find that aspect with the 200?

[John Mastrogiacomo]

The 250 offers TC and SDI out. That's the difference. Since I am not using mine with other cameras on the same shoot (hooking them up via SDI to a switcher) I don't need those features. The 200 offers analog composite outs. I'm feeding directly to a DVR attached to the back for the most part. I have used the camera extensively in both DV mode and HDV mode since I got it. Just finished two fashion projects in 16x9 SD DV and the look fantastic. The camera worked very well handling what was at times very high contrast ranges and in dark scenarios at 6db gain I had a lot of room on the lens to open up with no grain whatsoever. I have not found any problems with the camera other than a bit of vertical smear on hi contrast situations with points of very bright light against darkness but in those rare instances just zoom out a bit.

 

I definitely suggest a few things. I'm using the 17x lens. Great zoom but lacking on wide angle so a wide angle zoom through is nice. Also for audio since XLRs are on the side making them stick out a bit I suggest making right angle adapter cables or putting right angle adapters on all audio cables you feed from the cam. Also battery wise I am using the heavier anton bauer bricks rather than the light ion ones as I find it makes a perfect balance on your shoulder. Also BH sells a cover for it that wraps the cam body. For $150 it's a great buy. Also, don't wimp out on a tripod. This is more pro than prosumer and as such you'll do best with a 22 pound limit tripod rather than an 18 pound or under. Over all this cam performs no different than my 100k cam in terms of feel. A really impressive design and none better for the money.

JVC has always made great cameras. Years ago, I had a JVC KY-20 that I loved. The problem I have always had with JVC is getting service and parts. Maybe that's changed now.

[Craig Hollenback]

Walter...thanks for all that positive info. I am really looking fwd to getting the 200. BTW, I own a DV 500 from its' introduction and 3 BY100U's from last century! Best, Craig

Edited May 2, 2007 by Craig Hollenback

[Walter Graff]

Is it bigger than the 100? What I can't stand about the 100 is it's so dang small that it's really akward to handhold. I've thought about making a custom baseplate to screw it onto, with two handles extending to the front, to give it more size/balance/weight. How do you find that aspect with the 200?

 

The 100 uses a consumer batt. These are ENG style cams that use a real Anton Batt. It is a bit longer than the HD100. Weight wise with an anton bauer on the back the handheld balance is magnificent. Id say center of gravity is exactly on your shoulder so weight distribution is as good as any pro cam. Length wise its as long as my Varicam from lens to batt so not prosumer in design.

[Craig Hollenback]

Walter,

Can you tell me how important the SDI output feature of the 250 is? It was mentioned to me that it would be worth the extra money to have that feature so as to be able to cature 4:2:2 to an external recorder down the road. As cost is important to me, and I could use that extra money for accessories I welcome your input on this. I wouldn't want to not get a job because my camera lacked this feature, but I frankly don't know enough about how important the SDI interface is.

Thanks, Craig

BTW...as I am in Key West and can't easily compare products....am I better off with a Chrosziel mattebox (worth the extra money) vs: a Cavision?

Thanks again.

[Johan Moeskops]

I just picked up an JVC HD200 and have to say wow!! Just finished two fashion videos with the camera and it is nothing less than a fantastic piece of engineering. For pros that are used to the ergonomics of a pro camera this is it, and the pictures are simply outstanding. With a 17x lens I can create fantastic shallow looking pictures without the use of any adapter. And I can not wait to try the adapter with some primes. I understand it's magical after talking to some friends who have. A fantastic purchase for the money. I may expand my use of this camera into other areas I was going ot reserve for the "bigger" cameras based on hw well it has performed. I also plan on dedicating some articles and training videos for this camera on my website as I think it really is one of The best cameras in it's class and would like to show others what I am doing with it, and what adjustments I am making to get the best images out of it so others who have it or plan on a purchase have a pro resource to turn to.

 

 

Hi Walter.

 

I'll get mine next week. I have read also you test about the HVX 200 and de JVC. ( very good !! ) I have been switched, I've solled my HVX, and go shooting with the JVC.

I'm edit on FCP 5.1.4 and I wonder if you give me a step by step workflow for the JVC and FCP

What is the best way to capture with a Firestore in FCP. I will running shootings on 720P 50

 

Thanks in advance

 

regards, Johan

[Thomas James]

I know but can the JVC HD-250 handle fast motion as well as the Panasonic HVX200? I seriously doubt it. The JVC in the 60p shooting mode uses 12 frame long GOP. With the Panasonic each frame is individually compressed. People have tested the JVC in the 60p shooting mode for fast action shots and the footage is so severely compressed that the footage ended up looking worse than the 30p footage comming from the JVC. The JVC has a bandwidth of 19.7 megabits per secound while but DVC Pro HD has a bandwidth of 100 megabits per secound. The people that say HDV is indistiguishable from DVD Pro HD are usualy reffering to 720p shot at 24 frames per secound. And HDV may be broadcast quality high definition if you shoot at lower resolutions. But if you shoot at high resolutions like 720p60 or 1080p24 all bets are off. The fact of the matter is the 1280x720 at 60p is too much resolution for the HDV codec to handle. With the Panasonic you can aquire DVC Pro HD at 960x720 at 60 frames per secound with a 4:2:2 colorspace. Then for delivery you can convert DVC Pro-HD to 19.7 megabit MPEG-2 with a 4:2:0 colorspace.

[Phil Rhodes]

> The JVC in the 60p shooting mode uses 12 frame long GOP.

 

Yes.

 

> With the Panasonic each frame is individually compressed.

 

Yes, but compressed a lot more. Each has advantages depending on the subject.

 

> People have tested the JVC in the 60p shooting mode for fast action shots and the footage is so severely compressed that the footage ended up looking worse than the 30p footage comming from the JVC.

 

You'd expect that - it's twice the per frame bandwidth.

 

I have done direct comparison tests recording the HD250 to a disk array. The frames that break up are the I-frames and at 60p it is quite nasty.

 

> The JVC has a bandwidth of 19.7 megabits per secound while but DVC Pro HD has a bandwidth of 100 megabits per secound.

 

Not always - at 24 frames it's only 40, ergo twice the bandwidth - and a much dumber codec.

 

> The people that say HDV is indistiguishable from DVD Pro HD are usualy reffering to 720p shot at 24 frames per secound.

 

Who are these people, exactly?

 

> The fact of the matter is the 1280x720 at 60p is too much resolution for the HDV codec to handle.

 

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. One I happen to share, but it's still not a fact.

 

> With the Panasonic you can aquire DVC Pro HD at 960x720 at 60 frames per secound with a 4:2:2 colorspace. Then for delivery you can convert DVC Pro-HD to 19.7 megabit MPEG-2 with a 4:2:0 colorspace.

 

Who on earth is delivering HDV?

 

Phil

[Thomas James]

For delivery one of the biggest selling points for HDV is that it can be live broadcasted on network television without the use of expensive MPEG-2 encoders as the HDV 19.7 megabit bandwidth exactly matches the ATSC 19.7 megabit broadcast standard. However a raw HDV stream will require the full bandwidth of the digital channel and will not allow any subchannels to be broadcasted alongside the main channel. HDV may not be regarded by some as a professional format but the quality is a lot better than what these broadcasters get away with when they broadcast overly compressed interlaced standard definition material at the bit starved 5 megabits per second bandwidth which looks horrible when displayed on a progressively scanned high definition television.

[Walter Graff]

Walter,

Can you tell me how important the SDI output feature of the 250 is? It was mentioned to me that it would be worth the extra money to have that feature so as to be able to cature 4:2:2 to an external recorder down the road. As cost is important to me, and I could use that extra money for accessories I welcome your input on this. I wouldn't want to not get a job because my camera lacked this feature, but I frankly don't know enough about how important the SDI interface is.

Thanks, Craig

BTW...as I am in Key West and can't easily compare products....am I better off with a Chrosziel mattebox (worth the extra money) vs: a Cavision?

Thanks again.

 

 

For me the SDI feature is uselss. If this was a $100k camera that I needed to record to some fancy recorder then it would be great. The 250 was designed for ENG. So it has SDI out so you can send the signal to a truck or a switcher.

 

As for 4:2:2, I see lots of discussions but never anyone that does anythign but see 2 ratehr than 1 and think better. Color wise, it would be tough for anyone to tell you what's 4:2:2 and what's 4:1:1 from an aquisition.

Here's the quyestion, have you ever needed to record to some recorder in 4:2:2 for any reason? No, then why plan on something you don't need, or will never use. Most folks seem to steer people like you with this quesiton but these peopel are only imagining senarios that most don't use. If I really needed such a thing, which I don't with this camera (hense why I bought it) I could easily use an AJA HD10 and run 1080 or 720 componant out of the camera. So that solves all those who spend their days dreaming up senarios.

 

As for Matte boxes, they all do the same thing so get what you can afford. And since you are in a high sun area make sure to get additional ND filters. You never want to shoot HD on a 1/3 inch camera with the lens anything but near open down to 5.6. With the 200 and the most internal ND applied a bright sky still gives you a f11.

[Walter Graff]

I know but can the JVC HD-250 handle fast motion as well as the Panasonic HVX200? I seriously doubt it. The JVC in the 60p shooting mode uses 12 frame long GOP. With the Panasonic each frame is individually compressed. People have tested the JVC in the 60p shooting mode for fast action shots and the footage is so severely compressed that the footage ended up looking worse than the 30p footage comming from the JVC. The JVC has a bandwidth of 19.7 megabits per secound while but DVC Pro HD has a bandwidth of 100 megabits per secound. The people that say HDV is indistiguishable from DVD Pro HD are usualy reffering to 720p shot at 24 frames per secound. And HDV may be broadcast quality high definition if you shoot at lower resolutions. But if you shoot at high resolutions like 720p60 or 1080p24 all bets are off. The fact of the matter is the 1280x720 at 60p is too much resolution for the HDV codec to handle. With the Panasonic you can aquire DVC Pro HD at 960x720 at 60 frames per secound with a 4:2:2 colorspace. Then for delivery you can convert DVC Pro-HD to 19.7 megabit MPEG-2 with a 4:2:0 colorspace.

 

 

I think other than what a group of DVX users tried to create by bashing HDV a lot of the internet is now like the game of telelphone, tihngs become fact even though there really is no source who actually prooved it.

 

The key to HDV is that it offers efficiency and price. It doesn't replace my HDCAM or Varicam, rather it fits a budget that offers me a great camera for most situations.

 

ANd the othe key to HDv that most peopel who have no experience with it, but talk like they are HDV experts is that it is a great aquistion format but not one I choose to use thoughout the chain of production. I transcode everytjhing I shoot to 8 bit uncomressed 4:2:2. Doing so means all the suppossed problems end after I've dumped my stuff to the computer.

 

Right now I am shoooting with my HD200 in Cape Cod on a project so can't post video, but when I return I will dedicate my first article on my web page I set up for HDV to all the myths I continuously read over and over posted by folks who either heard from a friends brothers wifes' cousins friends sisters parol officers brother about something that HDV can't do or simply heard from a website something HDV suppossedly can't do and made it fact.

 

It will be a detailed article and put to rest the crap I continuosly read all over the place mostly by people with little expereince or much knoledge of what they talk about? Or said another way, do you think someone with my expereince and techincal background would buy a camera that makes a picture that "falls apart"?

[Craig Hollenback]

Thanks again for the info Walter. I agree with the dreamed up senarios for SDI but guess I needed to hear it from one who is using the camera regularly. Re: the ND filters...you are so right. 2 Days ago I was shooting on the beach at 2 pm with a DVX100 , harsh overhead light. Internal ND 2 gave me f11-f14!!!!ouch! Re; matte box...bellows or rigid...to date I've not owned one.

Thanks, Craig

BTW...my Z1u puts out an awesome picture in HDV, no problems with drop outs as being discussed, etc. and if it had the open architecture and features of the HD200 I wouldn't be here right now. HDV has not been a problem. A friend is shooting an Everglades pieces with a Sony 790 for VOOM and intercuts with a Z1U.

Look fwd to your JVC comments.

Best, Craig

[Michael Nash]

How does the JVC's HDV compression at 24P hold up for green screen work? Especially compared to The HVX. Anyone compared them directly?

[Walter Graff]

How does the JVC's HDV compression at 24P hold up for green screen work? Especially compared to The HVX. Anyone compared them directly?

 

I've done five real-world green screen shoots with the camera and it does greenscreen as good as any other in its price range.

[Gary McClurg]

Walter,

 

In another thread (locked) you posted that you've done film out tests with the JVC... is this with the stock lens that comes with the 200 or another lens...

 

Thanks

Edited May 5, 2007 by Gary McClurg

[Paolo Ciccone]

Hi Walter.

 

I take the occasion for thanking you on the great description for the portable lighting kit, I have a Kata "coffin" now and the kit served me well in several occasions.

I mostly agree with you when talking about HDV and 4:2:0, I have an HD100 and use the XDCAM regularly and I noticed a couple of situations were th 4:2:0 encoding seems to create the same problem with both cameras. Stairstepping in chromakeying is one, digital noise in dark semi-uniform backgrounds is the another. While I agree with you that most people would not notice the difference between material acquired in 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, the two above situations can create artifacts that are easily visible with a HD TV or 2K projector.

While the dark background situation can be fixed with creative lighting, a large, good monitor and maybe a gobo pattern to break the BG up, the chromakey issue is probably the one situation where you'd like to use the component out of the HD100/HD200.

 

Interestingly enough, I noticed some image improvement when converting the HDV footage to a better codec like Sheer video. The highly-saturated reds were rendered much better. I think this has more to do with the implementation of the HDV codec in programs like FCP or AfterEffects than with real quality of the original image. Did you notice anything like this with your footage?

 

TIA