Jump to content
Ken Waide

gy-hd100u vs 200u

Recommended Posts

Hello, sorry if this has been asked before. I searched but couldn't find it lol.

 

I'm a college student on a college student's budget (not much, as most of you probably know). I'm very interested in the hd-gy200u and have done plenty of research on various sites but was wondering if there is enough of a difference to buy it over the 100u.

 

Looking at the specifications on pro.jvc.com the main differences that I can see is the 100 doesn't have 720/60p. Everything else to me seems to be roughly the same, except the fact that the 100 is about 4 inches shorter than the 200. And I've found it between $500-$1k less than the 200u.

 

I plan on shoot mostly short films, with a mixture between set and field. Set would have a very strong sense of color and lighting, and I can see that both cameras seem to have the same color separation, pixels, and color bars.

 

If anyone has used the two of them, is the 200u worth getting? Or should I get the 100u and save my money for other essentials like a decent tripod or monitor?

 

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the JVC HD200 would be the better choice. First of all the JVC HD200 has a 720p60 shooting mode which meets the ITU specifications for full high definition whereas the HD100 maxes out at 720p30 which is not full high definition. Also don't let anyone fool you into thinking that only the 1080 formats qualify as full high definition. The 1080i format sounds like full high definition but is an inferior format because of interlacing. Also the 1080p format usually maxes out at 30 frames per second so it will not handle motion as well as 720p60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60p feature is only important depends if you actually plan to shoot at 60p (mostly used on live action programmes like sport), or will you be shooting only at say 24p? This is pretty common on short films, in that case the 60p would be only used for slow motion. From memory are a number of other improvements eg the 14bit A/D converter as against the 12bit on the HD 100.

 

For the your films a decent tripod would go a long way if you don't already have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60p is not only for live action sports because the Blu-Ray disc format also supports 60p. 48p is supported by 2K digital cinema in which case shooting at 50p will be as close as this camera gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should point out that Thomas James is notorious on this forum at least for spouting the most irremediable bilge, and what he says is well worth ignoring.

 

I wrote an article on the 200 and 250 having previously looked at the 100. You're right; the main attraction is the full-res 60p, and that's an advantage not to be sneezed at. I'd pay $1000 for it, certainly. I also thought the 200 series had somewhat better noise, and I believe it's a different sensor (though don't quote me on it).

 

Without wanting to toot my own horn, here's the article

 

http://philrhodes.com/write_jvc.xhtml

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for posting; and Phil, that article is very well written and very informative.

 

I plan on using 24p and having an extremely low budget (poor college student :P )

 

Also, taking what you said:

"As to whether I’d recommend its purchase really comes down to whether you realistically need the additional connectivity of the 250 over the 100."

 

"The problem with these things is that unless you use it as it is, off the shelf, you are asking for quite a degree of additional trouble. Improving the optics by using a groundglass adaptor implies a focus puller and a set of very expensive PL-mount primes. Recording the HD-SDI output requires more crew and gear and has complicated implications in post. But if you don’t do these things, you aren’t really doing the camera justice."

 

I'm not sure that I would need the additional connectivity as I wouldn't be using any other sort of studio equipment. Also, I don't think I would be able to afford adaptors or much else. I would probably just use the camera as is, and maybe in the future buy some additional equipment to go along with it. I just need to make a few short films and a variety of shots.. just so I can get started and send some clips somewhere, you know, just to get started.

 

So taking all this into consideration (and expense) the 250 would be too expensive for me to buy and upgrade, and the 100 seems to be a little outdated. So I'm thinking the 200 would be the best buy for me at this moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're probably making fairly good sense with that line of thought.

 

The only thing is: the 200 is a great little camera, and HDV is a really extremely horrible recording format:

 

http://philrhodes.com/demo1.bmp

 

Since I wrote that article it's become very much cheaper and easier to dump this stuff directly to a computer, so if there's even the slightest chance you might ever realistically want to do that, then stretching to the 250 mightn't be the worst idea ever. If not then fine.

 

The first thing to spend spare money on, frankly, is better glass. The supplied lens on the review item I saw was just awful. I believe there's now something slightly better which isn't an absolute fortune, but look into this, and get charts to look at (or go see the dealer and shoot some).

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're probably making fairly good sense with that line of thought.

 

The only thing is: the 200 is a great little camera, and HDV is a really extremely horrible recording format:

 

http://philrhodes.com/demo1.bmp

 

Since I wrote that article it's become very much cheaper and easier to dump this stuff directly to a computer, so if there's even the slightest chance you might ever realistically want to do that, then stretching to the 250 mightn't be the worst idea ever. If not then fine.

The uncompressed video of HD-SDI would be amazing, but I don't think that, at this point in time, I would be able to afford the 250. I'm working just a part-time job while going to school and would have to take out a loan to get it. But I guess if I do go for the 250, the re-sale value would be much better than the 200 by the time I would be ready to upgrade.. That's something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The compression artifacts are only noticible if you are shooting 720p at 60 frames per second. If you are shooting 720p at 24 frames per second the compression engine is not overloaded so I doubt if you will see the picture block up. I have torture tested the JVC HDV format by shooting out of the side of a car window while going 70 miles per hour and I have never seen the picture fall apart as long as I did not shoot faster than 30 frames per second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, sorry if this has been asked before. I searched but couldn't find it lol.

 

I'm a college student on a college student's budget (not much, as most of you probably know). I'm very interested in the hd-gy200u and have done plenty of research on various sites but was wondering if there is enough of a difference to buy it over the 100u.

 

Looking at the specifications on pro.jvc.com the main differences that I can see is the 100 doesn't have 720/60p. Everything else to me seems to be roughly the same, except the fact that the 100 is about 4 inches shorter than the 200. And I've found it between $500-$1k less than the 200u.

 

I plan on shoot mostly short films, with a mixture between set and field. Set would have a very strong sense of color and lighting, and I can see that both cameras seem to have the same color separation, pixels, and color bars.

 

If anyone has used the two of them, is the 200u worth getting? Or should I get the 100u and save my money for other essentials like a decent tripod or monitor?

 

Thanks :)

 

Hi...i would go for the 100. Since you are planing to shoot short films its better if you shoot on 24p if you wanna have that ''film'' feeling. So i'd rather buy a tripod with what's left. Any way...important its what you can do with the camera...not what the camera can do. You can have a really good cam and very smart but if you are not creative...its just a waist of money. So go for a 100 and a tripod. you'll need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with either camera... however... If any of the packages comes with IDX or AB battery systems, make that a big deciding factor or tripod adapter plate, these things are important and worth money. Also a good tripod.. (used ones are great, and good old big heavy ones are cheap and nice to work with) Also final parting shot.. I'm using a JVC HD110, and I'm gravitating towards NOT using cinegama and doing gama correction and setting my darkest black areas in post instead of in camera. For scripted work I'm using gama Normal and sometimes cine color matrix. Just some ideas when you get your gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tai Audio



    Paralinx LLC



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Metropolis Post



    Ritter Battery



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    CineLab



    Abel Cine



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Wooden Camera



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Visual Products



    Serious Gear



    Glidecam



    Rig Wheels Passport


×
×
  • Create New...