JVC 110 Vs. 200/250

[Matt Marich]

I'm looking to buy a HD-110 or 200 in the next few months, are there any big advantages to to step up to the 200? Our end product will be direct to video release features but I want to keep my blow-up to 35mm options open.

[Phil Rhodes]

The 200 has a more fully digital image processing backend and is (reportedly) less likely to suffer from the localised shading errors which can occasionally bug 100s.

 

Beyond that the differences are all on the spec sheet. I'd buy a 250 on the basis that I'm a stickler for uncompressed images and I have done a bit of work related to recording the HD-SDI outputs uncompressed. The 250 can look shockingly good in this situation and it's how I'd want to work. However, the options for doing it are either expensive or bulky or both; depends what you're doing. I suspect unless you're a real nut (like me) you won't need the SDI, but whether to go for the 200 or save a bit and live with the original 100 is a less clearcut decision.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

but whether to go for the 200 or save a bit and live with the original 100 is a less clearcut decision.

 

Have they fixed the over-saturated reds and poor shadow detail with the 200's? Even with the black stretch all the way up I felt the 100 didn't give enough in the shadows.

[Phil Rhodes]

All I can do is cite some images:

 

720p24

720p60

Siemens star 720p24

Siemens star 720p60

 

Notice how godawful the default lens is.

 

Compare the XLH1

 

Doll 1080i50

 

Whether the deinterlace is sufficiently bothersome to make it less good than the JVC, I don't know. I don't think the pictures are subjectively as nice, although the XL lens is head and shoulder above that nasty Fuji.

 

Compare and contrast:

 

Siemens star XHG1/JVC[ comparison

 

I know these aren't quite the cameras we're talking about, but hopefully they'll add something to the debate :)

 

Here we go editing again - this one has some red in it:

 

HD251 collection-o-bits

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

Sorry, I don't speak "dpx" or "cin"....

[Phil Rhodes]

XnView does.

 

Phil

[Michael Nash]

"The version for MacOS X is no more available, too many problems. Please come back in december 2007 for the new version."

 

If their code is like their grammar, I'm not surprised :P . Guess I'll try again later...

[Phil Rhodes]

Oh, !*&@ing mac users, there's no placating them is there?

 

Try the Quicktime component:

 

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/23977

 

Then QT should be able to view them (though that'll be in a demo mode).

 

Or this:

 

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/24740...otlight-plug-in

 

...which should make the default OSX image viewer capable of seeing DPX and Cineon.

 

Phil