Jump to content

SOny pmw ex3 or JVC gyhm 700


inge lichtenberg

Recommended Posts

i have to choose between the Sony PMW ex3 and the JVC gyhm 700.

 

i will use the camera for both documentary and fiction/narrative.

 

the sony is 1080, what is the JVC? from the B&H specs it seems the JVC is 720. how much of a difference is this in image quality?

 

apparently the 1/2 inch sony sensor and the 1/3 inch JVC sensor differences are pretty much equalised once you put on the Letus lens converter and other lenses. is this true?

 

i'm desperate to know ASAP, as i HAVE to buy the camera buy this coming tuesday, 29th for shoot starting sun 4th.

 

please HELP, i'm drowing in indecision.

 

Thanks all :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the Sony EX-3 produces a higher quality image with native 1080 half inch chips. The JVC uses one third inch 720p chips pixel shifted to 1080 resolution. However the ergonomics of the JVC are infinitely superior and it may be a nightmare to try to struggle with holding the Sony because it is very front heavy while the JVC is perfectly balanced. So if I were buying a camera I would go for the JVC because it will make your job a lot easier and that makes a lot of sense if you want to make it to the end of the shift without killing yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Of course the Sony EX-3 produces a higher quality image with native 1080 half inch chips. The JVC uses one third inch 720p chips pixel shifted to 1080 resolution. However the ergonomics of the JVC are infinitely superior and it may be a nightmare to try to struggle with holding the Sony because it is very front heavy while the JVC is perfectly balanced. So if I were buying a camera I would go for the JVC because it will make your job a lot easier and that makes a lot of sense if you want to make it to the end of the shift without killing yourself.

 

i spent the last year shooting documentary and wildlife with the ex3. i eventually got used to the design, shooting all day and into the evenings, but i always wished i had a shoulder mount.

 

i bought the hm700 a few weeks ago. despite the slight decrease in image quality compared to the ex3, the camera--for the price range--seemed superior in design and functionality. the media is far cheaper and the canon stock lens is sharp though not very wide.

 

but if resolution is really an issue, you can shoot straight to a nanoFlash on a cf card at about 100/mbs--this method should give you killer quality but at an added cost of 2k (still cheaper than a few sxs cards).

 

http://www.convergent-design.com/

 

because the ex3 uses a cmos chip you will find that image blur is bad and jumping will occur often while filming motion, or are in motion. the ccd chips do not have this problem.

 

also, be sure to tweek the picture/scene files before shooting with the hm700. it looks like dog doo out of the box.

Edited by gabriel deloach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also one thing to remember is that when you are shooting in the 720p60 mode, which is the best high definition for fast action sports, when you are shooting with the Sony you are not using the full half inch chip but rather your chip size is only about one third inch because the chip is letter boxed. So if both the Sony and JVC have effective chip sizes of only one third inch for 720p I think the JVC with its CCD will handle motion a lot better than the Sony CMOS with its rolling shutter problems.

 

I think people rave about the Sony because when there is little motion the native 1920x1080p chips will do a good job when displayed on a 1080p television. However for fast action sports all bets are off and the JVC comes out ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Also one thing to remember is that when you are shooting in the 720p60 mode, which is the best high definition for fast action sports, when you are shooting with the Sony you are not using the full half inch chip but rather your chip size is only about one third inch because the chip is letter boxed. So if both the Sony and JVC have effective chip sizes of only one third inch for 720p I think the JVC with its CCD will handle motion a lot better than the Sony CMOS with its rolling shutter problems.

 

I think people rave about the Sony because when there is little motion the native 1920x1080p chips will do a good job when displayed on a 1080p television. However for fast action sports all bets are off and the JVC comes out ahead.

 

Just came across this thread. This statement is simply not true - the EX3 does not letterbox in 720 mode, it downconverts from the full 1/2" chip. If it letterboxed then the effective magnification of the lenses would change and they don't.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say is true that the Sony scales the 1080p image and converts it to 720p that still does not solve the problem because all that creates is scaling artifacts. To properly downconvert to 720p without artifacts you need to start with a 1440p image. However if all you want is a full high definition 1080p image then the camera has to be able to record 1080p at 60 frames per second otherwise it is not full high definition and you are better off sticking with native 720p.

Edited by Thomas James
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you say is true that the Sony scales the 1080p image and converts it to 720p that still does not solve the problem because all that creates is scaling artifacts. To properly downconvert to 720p without artifacts you need to start with a 1440p image. However if all you want is a full high definition 1080p image then the camera has to be able to record 1080p at 60 frames per second otherwise it is not full high definition and you are better off sticking with native 720p.

 

1) Please point out the commercial broadcast or distribution standard which defines 1080/60P.

 

2) Please show us examples of an EX displaying scaling artefacts in 720P.

 

Bet you can't do either. Your making them both up.

 

Neither Blu-Ray or DTB does 1080/60P, so they must not be full HD I guess.

 

I have _never_ heard or read about a single person ever complaining about the EX series 720P.

 

Baseless assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To meet the original International Telecommunications Union specifications for high definition a format must have both better spatial and temporal resolution than standard definition. Interlace 1080i60 and progressive 1080p30 fails to deliver better temporal resolution than standard definiton therefore these formats are not true high definition but had to be grandfathered into the ITU specifications. 720p60 barely meets the ITU specifications for high definition because the 720p60 format has both better spatial and temporal resolution than standard definition so no grandfather clause was necessary for 720p60.

 

For those that insist on using 1080p, the 1080p60 format is the only 1080 format that can meet the original unadulterated ITU specifications which existed before the ITU modified their specifications with grandfather clauses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To meet the original International Telecommunications Union specifications for high definition a format must have both better spatial and temporal resolution than standard definition. Interlace 1080i60 and progressive 1080p30 fails to deliver better temporal resolution than standard definiton therefore these formats are not true high definition but had to be grandfathered into the ITU specifications. 720p60 barely meets the ITU specifications for high definition because the 720p60 format has both better spatial and temporal resolution than standard definition so no grandfather clause was necessary for 720p60.

 

For those that insist on using 1080p, the 1080p60 format is the only 1080 format that can meet the original unadulterated ITU specifications which existed before the ITU modified their specifications with grandfather clauses.

 

Whether or not that's theoretically correct I don't know, but it's pedantic for sure. We all accept 1080/25P or 30P as full HD.

I take your point about downscaling 1080 to 720 though, I know engineers would point out that theoretically it's not ideal - they will always point to the best 720 being from dedicated 720 chips.

Like David says though, I don't think there has been much if any complaint about 720 from the EX cams. I'd still go for the JVC though due to the lack of CMOS issues (I shoot wildlife).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...