hd100 vs HVX200 vs ???

paul pardue · April 12, 2006

Okay, so let me start off by saying that I am a film student, and I am getting a student loan for about $7,000. I am looking into a nice camera, and really would like to step into HD if I can. I had at one time been looking at the XL series from canon, but the xl h1 looks like more then I can afford. Reading this and other boards, I really like both the hd100 and the HVX200, and am having a though time deciding.

For me, the following is what I like,

HD100

Interchangeable lens

Shoot to tape

720p at 24fps

Price of camera

DVX200

1080p at 24fps (though not sure on this, rumor has it it's up converted?)

Variable frame rate

What I don't like,

HD100

Not higher then 720p

Possible split screen effect?

No special frame rates...

DVX200

Can only achieve 1080p and variable frame rates with p2 cards

Price of p2 cards

Fixed lens

Price of camera

So, here's the question, which do you think is a better camera? I have heard that if you really want to learn cinematography, having a lens with better control is the way to go. I like the concept though of shooting tapeless and having the under/overcrank ability and the higher frame size. I really won't consider a interlaced camera cause I think it looks like bad (sorry Sony). I though don't like spending 6 grand on a camera and another couple grand to make use of all of it's features (p2 cards 1500 each?)... In the other hand, I can save a bit on the camera and a lot on media with the HD100 if I give up the larger frame and the variable frame rate.

I really could do with some help here, anyone have any suggestions? Or maybe I missed something...

Brian Drysdale · April 12, 2006

None of the 1/3" cameras shoot 1080p, the HVX shoots 720p like the HD 100. However, you do have an option of 1080i, which the HD 100 doesn't have.

I haven't used the HVX 200, so I can't comment on it.

The HD 100 does have extremely good ergonomics and if you want to get used to (or if you're used to using) the layout of the higher end cameras the HD 100 is very similar. The spilt screen effect seems to have been sorted by JVC during quality control and they've now got their A version out.

You'll need more than just a camera body, so factor in things like batteries into your budget.

CineDigital · April 12, 2006

For filmmaking I would go with the JVC GY-HD100, unless I could afford a Varicam of F900. It?s the best of the low cost HD bunch in my opinion.

The Sony Z1 is not the only interlaced one. The Canon Xl-H1 is also interlaced. It does a pseudo progressive, but it?s not 24p. It loses resolution when in 24f (kind of like an improved version of the old frame movie mode), so it?s really pointless to have the 1080 lines if you want ?progressive? because you won?t get full 1080 lines. Besides the ?extra? resolution, the other advantage of the Canon is the HD-SDI, but I hear it has no sound. I don?t know if this is a problem for you or not.

Between the HVX200 and HD100 then. The HVX200 advantages are supposed to be codec, frame rates and color space. I say supposed because the color space for example is more like 4:2:0 than real 4:2:2 as advertised, so not really than the HD100. Codec is ?better? but DVCPRO-HD has some minor disadvantages compared to HDV, but it still overall better. Frame rates, yes, it has more (the HD100 does 50p and 60p if you don?t know. To tape it only record those in SD rez, but uncompressed it records full 720p) but you need to pick your priorities. Will extra frame rates at lower resolution cut it for you? Because the HVX200 uses low resolution chips and so produces a lower resolution image than the HD100. The HD100 is a full spec HD camera with full 1280x720, the HVX200 doesn?t even meet the 720p specs, so I don?t know how can they claim 1080 24p. It?s all uprezed, which you can do in post with the HD100 and at least you are starting from a higher resolution since the HVX200 CCDs are not even 1280x720. But for me, at this point, real 720p is enough.

Note that I don?t list P2 as an advantage or disadvantage. It?s just not ready. Too expensive and cumbersome for now. In the future it may be the ticket. The HVX200 is also said to be noisier.

So trying to address your point about each camera:

?What you like?,

HD100

Interchangeable lens:

Sure a great advantage.

Shoot to tape:

Cheap and still efficient for the time being.

720p at 24fps:

Exactly. Full HD specs at progressive rates.

Price of camera:

It?s dirty cheap if you ask me. Before buying a HVX200 plus two P2 cards, for the price I would buy two HD100?s.

Adding some more that I like:

Ergonomics:

Basically the best of all 1/3? cameras.

The HVX200 in particular is a really fat camera and not the easiest to handhold.

Professional controls:

All controls are where they should be, like a pro camera.

Filmic feel:

I have seen footage from all four 1/3? HD cameras and I feel the HD100 has the most filmic feel to it. That has to do with the way it render progressive and gamma/color curves/latitude.

HVX200

1080p at 24fps (though not sure on this, rumor has it it's up converted?)

Yes, it is upconverted. It uses lower resolution CCDs.

Variable frame rate.

Indeed a great and useful thing.

The extra frame rates is pretty much all I like about it.

?What you don't like?,

HD100

Not higher then 720p:

Yes, 1080 24p like the F900 would be nice, but none of the 1/3? cameras do it so not really an option. At least the 720p is full spec and not uprezed.

Possible split screen effect?

I haven?t heard anybody complaining about if for a long time now.

No special frame rates:

As I said it does 50p and 60p but not as many as the HVX200.

Adding some more that I don?t like or would like to see improved:

I wish the XLR connectors were on the rear like the XL2 or XL-H1 and pretty much all the pro cameras. But compared to the HVX200 that?s not a point since that camera also has the XLR?s on the side. Not a major grip though.

I wish it had a HD-SDI, just for good measure.

I would like it to have variable frame rates. I don?t really care much for 1080 because it?s a challenge at this point, at least real 1080 24p. But frame rates at 720p would be nice.

HVX200

Can only achieve 1080p and variable frame rates with p2 cards:

Actually it can only shoot HD (720p or ?1080?) in any frame rate or DVCAPRO50 with P2 cards. Without P2 all you get is old DV.

Price of p2 cards:

I hear you.

Fixed lens:

A no-no for me.

Price of camera:

The camera is not that expensive. But without the very expensive P2 cards it?s basically a over priced, over grown DV camera that you can get a dongle to turn it into a HD camera when you win the lottery.

Adding some more that I don?t like:

Ergonomics.

Controls.

Lower resolution.

That?s just my opinion of course.

Edited April 12, 2006 by CineDigital

CineDigital · April 12, 2006

Forgot to mention about the HD100 16x stock lens. Not a good lens. But I understand it's basically a give away.

paul pardue · April 12, 2006

Forgot to mention about the HD100 16x stock lens. Not a good lens. But I understand it's basically a give away.

the point though with this is even if that lens isn't great, I can use another one once my limited budget allows for it. And it's good enough right now right?

Brian Drysdale · April 12, 2006

the point though with this is even if that lens isn't great, I can use another one once my limited budget allows for it. And it's good enough right now right?

The stock should be OK for docs, but the quality does seem to vary from lens to lens. Unfortunately, they don't let you pick out your own lens. However, I know people who are very happy with the pictures.

The Fujinon wide angle is a lot better and you can also get 1/2" and 2/3" adapters, so you can use the lenses for high end cameras. If the prices are right, some of the lens for the new 1/2" HD cameras might be worth looking at, or you could rent one for a particular production.

Miklos Philips · April 12, 2006

The basic configuration/ lens is good to shoot many things with (the one out of the box). I use it to shoot docs, interviews, standard DV stuff, whatever. If you want to move up to a nice looking HD short or feature I would rent other lenses, either get the wide-angle, get a 1/2' - 2/3 " adapter and use other broadcast HD lenses or primes, or get a 35 mm cine lens adapter, such as the mini35 adapter and rent 35 mm cine primes.

At this point the weakest link in this camera is the stock lens it comes with. Otherwise the images are spectacular and most film-like compared to others from what I've seen, and believe me I researched the hell out of this for months before I decided to go with the JVC vs. HVX200.

A disk-based recording system is soon to come as well as many other options for this camera, it's barely a year old. A heavy duty power system is also a must as the stock camera batteries will not last you very long.

Check out the user forums here where you can learn a lot about the camera and even see footage shot with it;

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=67

cheers

Edited April 12, 2006 by Miklos Philips