JVC GY-HD100U vs. Canon XL H1

[Jared Isham]

Any insights as to which camera is a better choice. I am shooting a feature in June and will be purchasing a camera but I am uncertain as to which one I will be going with. The main issue that I see is the Progressive vs. Interlaced. Any insight would be greatly appricated.

 

[Digigenic]

When compared to the HD100, the XLH1 appears to have the upper hand.
Not only with regard to specs, but also in the overall build quality of the camera, lens, processing power, and of course, the images it produces.
I don’t believe anyone has conducted an actual head to head comparison review of the two cams yet, but we can certainly expect to see a few nasty battles published in the upcoming months.
The one I’m looking forward to is the 4-way shootout between the Sony Z1U, Panasonic HVX, Canon XLH1, and the JVC HD100
.
As far as your concerns for progressive versus interlace, it’s been widely reported that the 24f mode of the Canon looks virtually indistinguishable from a true progressive frame rate. Although, this particular reviewer had a different take. Couple that with the fact it’s 1080 as oppose to 720, has a slightly more powerful lens than the JVC, produces more vivid colors than the JVC, and well you see where this is going.

It all comes at a price though.
The Canon is currently marked significantly higher than any other camera in this class, even the HVX.
IMO, the Panny HVX will produce a superior image to any of the current HDV offerings from Sony, Canon, or JVC. The only snag, and a rather critical one for the HVX is how quickly the price of P2 cards drop over the next year. I believe that in order to really generate interest and increase the adoption their proprietary workflow, the 4GB P2 cards must drop to $150-$250 and the 8GB cards significantly below $1000.

 

[Jared Isham]

There actually has been a test done on the XLH1, HD100U and the protoype HVX by Panasonic (which does not even have their 24p option working yet from what I've been told). My concerns are more with resolution. Especially when you are deinterlacing a 1080i signal as opposed to working with a 720p signal. The XLH1 has a deffinate jutter to it and has been defended by saying it is just typical 24p jutter.

The excuse for the jutter seems a bit sketchy when the JVC does not have the same jutter and is shooting actually 24p. When I was looking at the cameras I noticed that the lenses are different sizes, it also comes down to preference I suppose. Some people hate Canon lenses and love Fujinon lenses while others are the complete opposite. I did notice that the Fujinon had a macro and back focus capabilities while I did not notice that with the Canon. I do see a benifit with the Canon being that you could rent a deck hook up the HD-SDI out to the the deck along with Timcode and Genlock and have both a HDV source and a HDCAM source for much cheaper than the $100,000 F900.

The focusing on the XLH1 looks like it would suck without an external monitor, the viewfinder really sucks, while on the JVC has the flip out display and a much higher resolution viewfinder as well as the focus assist feature - it works pretty darn well.

I have also heard some issues with the Canon having poor latitude. I haven't gotten a chance to se for myself. When I was at the CineGear Expo in June I saw the JVC shooting into shadows as well as having to deal with the intense sun. I would say that it looked like it had at least 7 stops of lattitude in either direction.

So my decision is still undecided.

Which would be a better choice.

 

[Digigenic]

There actually has been a test done on the XLH1, HD100U and the protoype HVX by Panasonic (which does not even have their 24p option working yet from what I've been told).

Yeah, I'm aware of some of those preliminary tests, but nobody has done a thorough, scientific review of all the actual production models. There are simply way too many unanswered questions and unexplored avenues in how these tests were conducted that would make the results fall very short on the scale of reliability with any half decent review. At this time, nobody can provide any conclusive evidence as to which camera handled and performed better than the other until they're using full production models of each camera, and providing footage with the same settings, same subjects/scenery, same times, shot by the same person(s).

My concerns are more with resolution. Especially when you are deinterlacing a 1080i signal as opposed to working with a 720p signal. The XLH1 has a deffinate jutter to it and has been defended by saying it is just typical 24p jutter. The excuse for the jutter seems a bit sketchy when the JVC does not have the same jutter and is shooting actually 24p.

I, along with many other people share your concerns about resolution and progressive frame rates.
And based on what other professionals have observed, it's difficult not to agree with what many of the preliminary tests have attempted to conclude. However, I have to reserve my final judgment until I can see it with my own eyes with the applied conditions mentioned above. I will not be surprised though, if after some more tests it is accurately concluded that Canon’s 24f/30f modes are just as poor a substitute for true progressive frame rates as Sony’s cineframe rates are.

When I was looking at the cameras I noticed that the lenses are different sizes, it also comes down to preference I suppose. Some people hate Canon lenses and love Fujinon lenses while others are the complete opposite. I did notice that the Fujinon had a macro and back focus capabilities while I did not notice that with the Canon.

One thing that gets to me though, concerning these detachable lens alternatives is the number of lenses available, and the cost of those lenses. Right now, JVC only offers one other zoom, and I don’t remember what the initial report on cost for it was, but I think it was pretty expensive. Now, I’m not saying the lenses aren’t worth it. I’m simply pointing out that even though the stock HD lenses that come with these cameras are pretty damn nice, there should be more analysis on the issues regarding the alternatives. After all, isn’t that why people bought these types of cameras?

The focusing on the XLH1 looks like it would suck without an external monitor, the viewfinder really is bad, while on the JVC has the flip out display and a much higher resolution viewfinder as well as the focus assist feature - it works pretty darn well.

That is a very good point, more and more DV/HD/HDV shooters are relying on their flip out monitors over the viewfinders, and it really irritated me to see that Canon didn’t incorporate one on the XLH1. Canon is invested in some new display technologies that will likely blossom beautifully over the next few years, I’d like to see them incorporate that new technology in an upcoming model, be it XLH2 or the successor to the GL series.

I do see a benifit with the Canon being that you could rent a deck hook up the HD-SDI out to the the deck along with Timcode and Genlock and have both a HDV source and a HDCAM source for much cheaper than the $100,000 F900… I have also heard some issues with the Canon having poor latitude. I haven't gotten a chance to se for myself. When I was at the CineGear Expo in June I saw the JVC shooting into shadows as well as having to deal with the intense sun. I would say that it looked like it had at least 7 stops of lattitude in either direction.

Yes, the true nature of the beast within this camera is revealed in its ability to do HD-SDI out. However, I expect this feature to be lightly used by a majority of shooters. That is until an affordable large scale storage solution materializes. Yeah, I’ve also heard the Canon loses its cool with the highlights, haven’t heard any negative comments about JVC in this regard.

So my decision is still undecided.
Which would be a better choice.

Well, of course I'm partial to the HVX200, but if my arm was twisted and I had to choose between one of the HDV models I'd probably forget both the JVC and Canon and just go with the Sony. :lol: If I went into this decision knowing I had the resources to utilize all of the features of these cameras, I’d pick the XLH1.

 

[Jared Isham]

The test I was talking about was done by Birns and Sawyer in Hollywood about a week ago. From what I heard from the sales guy who was running the thing is that he thought that the JVC and Canon out performed the Panasonic by leaps and bound. He was surprised because the footage from the HVX200 was shot by people from Panasonic. He also mentioned that he liked the Canon the best. I played around with both cameras a bit but definately want to do a more intensive test.

As far as lenses, if you're n ot willing to put your money where your image is (i.e. the lens) then why even both expecting good quality.

 

[Digigenic]

The test I was talking about was done by Birns and Sawyer in Hollywood about a week ago. From what I heard from the sales guy who was running the thing is that he thought that the JVC and Canon out performed the Panasonic by leaps and bound.

Makes sense...considering it was a sales guy and all.
Not trying to be a smart @ss, it's just important to clarify here that the "opinions" coming out of a sales person's mouth are heavily influenced by how much money goes into his or her pocket. The sales of both the JVC and Canon (the most expensive cameras in this segment) will certainly ensure that much.

 

[Jared Isham]

Not trying to be a smart @ss, it's just important to clarify here that the "opinions" coming out of a sales person's mouth are heavily influenced by how much money goes into his or her pocket. The sales of both the JVC and Canon (the most expensive cameras in this segment) will certainly ensure that much.

Maybe, but I've talked with this guy before and he may run sales but he probably has more technical knowledge about the mechanics of the equipment then most of us do. I tend to trust his judgement more than most. But as I was saying there are a lot of factors to consider.

I personally am not all that impressed with the Panisonic due to the recording constraints - plus it will cost about as much as the JVC.

 

[Digigenic]

I personally am not all that impressed with the Panisonic due to the recording constraints...

Panasonic's recording constraints? It offers access to every form of media available within this segment, i.e. miniDV, P2, HDD in a variety of high quality SD/HD codecs and frame rates, which are widely supported by many NLE programs.
If by recording constraints you're referencing it's innability to shoot HDV, I'll agree that it would have been nice to have that option available, but instead they chose only to offer the higher quality HD codec [DVCPROHD].

 

[Jared Isham]

I shall explain what kind of recording restraints it has cornered itself into.

Yes it does claim to be able to record 1080p and 1080i with options of frame rates as well as 720p and SD. The restraints lie in how it is recorded. For example, let's say you want to record 720/24p and you have two P2 cards. When you finish shooting your 12mins or so on you P2 card you then have to clear the card to record more. You have no solid state back up and if you do it is only in Standard Def and not full resolution (the mini DV tape). If for some reason you screw up your transfer from the P2 disk or even the AC does not hand you the correct card then you are toast and need to shoot all over again. The Hard Drive option my help you with that but you still don't have a solid state back up.

The Canon you can record HD-SDI to HDCAM, HDV on the on camera recorder or to Hard Drive and all simultaniously if desired. The JVC you can run Component out at 720p, on camera recorder or to Hard Drive as well as simultaniously. Each one resulting in an uncompressed version of the footage if desired.

Not that this matters any but I don't like the design of the Panasonic really. It looks like they took a step back towards the DVX1000.

 

[MarkG]

Panasonic's recording constraints? It offers access to every form of media available within this segment, i.e. miniDV, P2, HDD in a variety of high quality SD/HD codecs and frame rates, which are widely supported by many NLE programs.

You should get a job with Panasonic sales, you seem to be good at turning limitations into plus points .

Back in reality, if you want to shoot HD on the HVX200 you're forced to use expensive P2 cards or risky and/or complex hard disk recording: it doesn't give you _more_ options, it limits you. And that, it would seem from the tests posted on the web so far, in order to get a final image that's noisy and has lower resolution than competing HDV cameras.

Someone on another site was also claiming that there's a high failure rate for P2 cards right now: which would not only cripple your shoot until you get a replacement, but lose whatever video was on the card.

The Hard Drive option my help you with that but you still don't have a solid state back up.

You also lose hours of footage if that laptop drive you've stuck on the back of your camera dies. Personally I wouldn't trust hard drive recording at all without a truly redundant RAID setup.

 

[Digigenic]

You should get a job with Panasonic sales, you seem to be good at turning limitations into plus points.

Mark, I should have known you'd drop in here sooner or later. :wink:
Panny doesn't want me selling their smack, they subscribe to the street pharmacist philosophy, "never let a user be a dealer". :lol:

Someone on another site was also claiming that there's a high failure rate for P2 cards right now

Where is this source? Surrender this source immediately.

Back in reality, if you want to shoot HD on the HVX200 you're forced to use expensive P2 cards or risky and/or complex hard disk recording: it doesn't give you _more_ options, it limits you.

P2 is expensive, I can't argue with that. But, for many it's well worth it. "Risky and/or complex hard disk recording"? I assume you edit off of hard drives, are you against those too? Also, let me ask you this, if Sony releases an improved HD/HDV codec that requires recording to Blu Ray will you support that over MiniDV? If you say no, I'll believe you, but not before I laugh at you.

...it would seem from the tests posted on the web so far, in order to get a final image that's noisy and has lower resolution than competing HDV cameras.

Again, surrender your sources.8)

 

[MarkG]

Sources would be either dvinfo.net or creative cow, I think. Resolution-wise the results quoted there seem to be XLH1 > Z1 > HVX200... the theory being that the HVX200 is using 1280x720 CCDs and pixel-shifting in both directions.

As for hard disks, I just don't like the idea of sticking a laptop hard drive on my camera and hoping it doesn't crash with a few hours of footage on it. Even if my camera chews up a tape it's fairly easy to recover the rest by cutting off the chewed section and re-attaching the end to one of the cassette spools, it's a lot harder to fix a dead hard drive.

Also, let me ask you this, if Sony releases an improved HD/HDV codec that requires recording to Blu Ray will you support that over MiniDV?

Yes, though that would require a camera even larger than the Z1. And, in fact, Sony have just announced several cameras which do just that.

 

[Jared Isham]

Actually the specs are posted on dvxuser.com and it is something like a 960x540 chip while the JVC is a 1280x720 chip. I am using the RedRock adapter with a camera - still undecided about the camera to buy.

check this article out about a test the crew from 24 did with all the new cameras - Z1U, XL H1, HD100U, HVX200. http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?172. They mentioned that they were most impressed with the HD100U and said the HVX200 was the noisest of the cameras. These were all tests to see the validity of these cameras in a network drama.

The toss up now is how crisp is the 1080p footage on the HVX and it's comparison with the 720p stuff. The JVC I am not liking too much because of the length it would be with my M2 adapter and it's absence of variable frame rates. Using the Wafian device gives you better options though (60P, 48P, 30P and 24P).

Yay choices.