Michael Maier

I just think there must be a reason why the F900 costs more. It can't be just the 2bit difference.

The rental house that sold them the gear think it was with the 13x because they bought a 13x and it being the better lens they most likely used it. Not sure if they got the 16x with the camera(s) and the 13x extra or got the camera with the 13x only. Maybe they used both for different scenes.

Wishful thinking? Since when test results are wishful thinking? Did you overlook the part I said I have done my own tests or did you ignore it on purpose to favor your point? My results are that the camera indeed resolves 700 lines. I have read the post by Nate you linked to and I see he saying nowhere the HD100 doesn?t resolve 700 lines. Dude, I could just embarrass your cocky ?I?m da man? attitude right now and post links to the posted charts. It would make your all capitals ?never? look pretty goofy. But I will just let you do your homework and look for them yourself. For one, Dashwood has posted his charts and so did a couple of other people. Now I don?t even now what to say about this last moronic comment. Being a straightforward person is one thing, being a jackass is another. That was totally uncalled for and you had no right to call me a liar, specially when I wasn?t lying. Next time before you open your mouth to ditch somebody publicly do your homework. Charts have been posted. Because you didn?t see them doesn?t mean they haven?t and doesn?t give you the right to be a jackass about it. It seems you?re not only calling me a liar, but Adam Wilt as well since he said the HD100 resolves 700 lines and you seem to somehow doubt it, even though you don?t even have the camera. You may have been there in the day, but he has the results from the day with him to look at anytime he wants. I will trust his word over a compressed Internet clip file any day of the week. I didn?t watch that clip by the way. I have seen it before and as I said I trust his first hand opinion. I?m mean, he?s Adam Wilt for pity?s sake. How many can claim to know more about this stuff than he? I have nothing against Canon or you dude. I just speak my opinion (and if I?m writing it, it should be pretty clear it?s my opinion without me having to point that out, but here it is just for you) and in my opinion the Canon doesn?t look as filmic as the HD100 (you said it yourself) or the DVX100 for that matter. So I?m thinking it?s something to do with the 24f. Maybe not, but regardless I don?t like the images it makes and don?t like it?s an interlaced camcorder and don?t like it loses resolution when it tries to imitate progressive scanning. That?s all there is to it, my opinion, and that?s also my last reply to you on this matter, no matter what other acrobatic twisting comments you can come up with next. Think I?m exaggerating? Just go back to your last comment above and you will see I?m not. As I said before, don?t talk, show it. There are tons of filmic HD100 clips online. Show me a single filmic one from the H1 and I will change my mind. Your words, twisted or not, won?t change it. It?s my right to have a different opinion and so is yours. Difference is I never fought yours, just posted mine. Again, have fun with your camera.

Shannon, I think Brian beat me to it. That was what I was talking about. In 1080 24f the H1 produces 800x540 lines, so it’s obvious it loses resolution. I’m sorry but I will believe Adam Wilt before I believe a whole bunch of other people in this industry. I said I prefer a real progressive scan camera because it captures solid frames and loses no resolution. Now Shannon, I know you like to play ball and just counter any and everything people will say against your arguments, but I would like to tell you I’m not going that down that road here. To me the H1 looks like video in it’s motion rendering. That’s nothing to do with how great it’s image control is. If you think it looks like film, great for you. I just haven’t seen anything shot on it that looked filmic, as opposed to the tons of DVX100 and now HD100 footage I have seen that “looks” like it came out of a film camera. I remember Nate shooting just some shots of downtown LA with the HD100 and it looked like he was just playing around with a film camera. No lighting, nothing, just the 24 frames progressive motion at work. Having said that, I hope you have lots of fun with your XL-H1 and do some filmic stuff with it and post online. A picture is worth a thousand words. When I see something from a XL-H1 that looks filmic, I will change my mind. Words will never do it, no matte how severe, strong, persistent or enthusiastic. But about the resolution, there’s nothing really to be done, it’s just what it is. Again, have fun with your camera. As a matter of fact, it does and it's been shown several times by chart shots of many users over DVinfo. I have also done the test and got all the 700 lines, and that's with the sub-par stock lens.

I'm kinda late in the game, but fake or not 24f looks like video and loses resolution, so I would much more have real progressive scanning.

And that my friend is true to any camera, not only HD, not only 3CCD and surely not only the HVX200. The truth is, there was so much hype about this camera that it was impossible to live up to it and it didn't. Just like the Matrix sequels!

That' a great idea. Then we could use C mount primes with the HD100 as well. I wonder why JVC didn't think about that.

Just convert you m2t files to an uncompressed codec and edit it in an uncompressed environment and all this is over. Just color correct away. People are doing fine also with Apple Cinema Displays or DELL 24?. That?s for set preview also, not only editing.

A JVC rep has posted on another forum that the HD100 will get no upgrades in the near future. In his words, "The GY-HD100 is a mature product".

Problem with P2 is that it's incredibly over priced for now. A sub 10k HD camera is for a low budget market which most likely can't afford to buy several P2 cards for how much they are going for now. With 2 P2 cards, which is the minimum, one can't shoot the whole day in HD. Not even half a day in some cases. If you are shooting 1080p forget it. You better have a mule to upload your cards every 15 minutes.

You say no budget, so I would say Varicam and F900 are out of your league. I would do the short with a JVC HD100. It?s the only sub 10k full resolution HD camera in the market, it produces the most filmic 24p/25p image of all affordable HD cameras, it has a removable lens, shoulder format, a great DSP and is very affordable at $5,500. There are some shortcomings but that?s true for any piece of gear, including the F900. It' quite new, so it may be hard to find at some smaller rental houses, but for that price you may be able to buy one for your project and sell after losing less money than it would have cost you to rent one, depending on the length of your shoot. I would check it out.

I'm pretty sure that was intentional. I think it may have been even in Dylan's contract. I heard anytime his on camera he demands a lot of filtration for his close ups. Maybe the out of focus thing was just another way.

Looks realy nice. Is that a Z1 with some sort of 35mm adapter or a 750?

Thanks David. For some reason I had the impression you had updated a HD book. Sorry for the confusion. I'm pretty well versed in DV25 production. I just need to cover the HD end now. Even though HDV has a lot in common with DV, there are many differences too. I believe the same is true between HDV and other forms of HD. If I'm able to identify the main differences between let's say ProHD and HDCAM, I may be able to use a HDCAM book to learn HD cinematography and use the concepts with the HD100. If I know what doesn?t apply to HDV, a F900 based book will be more useful.

It must have been an older 300 series model. The newer 400 series doesn't have much of this problem anymore. Anyways, closing the iris too far down goes against the whole short DOF for which you are using the adapter for in the first place, so you shouldn?t want to step down anyway. Besides it's easy to handle that problem there?s too much light just by using ND filters. That?s what you do when you want to keep the DOF short in any format actually.

I always thought 50mm was normal for 35mm still photography, not motion picture, where the frame is smaller.

Problem with SLR lenses is the breathing.

Go with David, he's totally right. I asked P+S about zooms once and they were not encouraging at all.

Oh yeah, I'm sure 720p looks way better than PAL, all things being equal. But his claim was that the Pro35 softened the image a lot and up on a big screen it barely looked better than project PAL video shot without any special diffusion.

I was wondering if anybody has used the Varicam with the P+S Pro35 for something that was projected? I was discussing it with somebody who saw some material done that way project on a big screen, and he was saying it barely looked any better than clean standard def video (meaning SD shot without the pro/mini35). His explanation was that the Pro35 softens the image so much, that the slightly resolution gain of 720p over 576-25p was basically lost, making the projected Varicam material look like project SD video like from a DVX100. I have never seen anything done with the Pro35 and Varicam, so I was wondering what's everybody's opinion on this?

Hey Brian, I use a HD100. Thanks for the recommendation. David, is the Paul Wheeler book the one you updated? I know it?s too soon for specialized HDV books and that I will have to get a book geared towards the Cinealta, or maybe I should get one for the Varicam, since the HD100 is 720p like the Varicam. I would just like to know opinions on what would be different between HDCAM and HDV for example. I know I won?t be able to completely follow a book for the Cinealta. So what type of knowledge I could get from such books which would also apply to HD in general(which includes HDV) in your opinion? Is it even worth to get such a book or is HDV such a different animal that a book like that would be next to useless? I know of a couple of books for the Sony Z1 and another one for the HD100, but they were all written by video people and not a real DP, and they seem to focus in video production rather than HD cinematography. Thanks David.

No word?

I think Panavision cameras use those too. I remember seeing pictures of the Cinealta with very big matteboxes and I think they might have been 9x9 filters matteboxes since they looked too big for 6x6. If the Cinealta uses those, I'm sure their 35mm cameras do too.

What?s the best book on HD cinematography out there? I have heard of a couple, but they seem to be geared towards the F900, like the one David Mullen has updated and which I can't remember the name now. I wonder if it can be also applied to HDV, mainly speaking about the JVC HD100. I know some things probably can?t, like many who shoot on the F900 go for the ?digital negative?. In HDV that?s not very smart as the signal is not as robust and will suffer more degradation in color correction. So I think for HDV getting the look in camera is the best way. But how about the other concepts, like image control and manipulation, painting and everything else? What?s a good book to learn HD cinematography and how to get the best out of HD for feature moviemaking?

By JVC, are you talking about the HD100? Because they released all the specification on that camera.