Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996
class="style7"> Extensive Look At Two HD Formats With Two Cameras
>If anyone is interested I took an extensive look at two HD formats with two cameras:
BlueSky Media, Inc.
888.435.5428 ext 31
Offices in NYC and Amherst Mass
Walter Graff wrote :
class="style8" >> The latest DV Mag states the JVC HD100 has a splitscreen like artifact
>> problem. Did you see it in your test camera? Nice article btw.
> It's sad that these guys continue propagating this.
>I think the articles we're discussing were written by Adam Wilt, and he's a rather smart and careful writer. I rarely have issue with what he writes…But that's not to say he's perfect. Walter, is there a specific bit of text in the article that you have issue with?
>...very slight pixel non-linearity at low light levels can create subtle left-right picture variation. This is not a defect. If present, these differences, a characteristic of HSTR, are visible on the LCD monitor and are easily eliminated by the user adjusting operating parameters (iris, shutter, picture content, illumination, etc.)
>And according to the FAQ JVC posts about the 100a upgrade,
>"The upgrade does not affect the picture quality performance of the camera"
>You can read the whole upgrade FAQ here:
I think it's great that JVC explains the issue, upgraded cameras for free (owners pay cost of one-way shipping), and built the HD100 in the first place. I'm not thrilled by the suggestion to that users adjust picture content an lighting to deal with the issue, but my somewhat limited experience is that the issue only crops up in low-light situations and I gotta be looking for it.
>Not a deal breaker for me. But if you're considering buying or using one of JVC's cameras, run some tests on the specific unit you'd buy or rent. Then you'll know if you can live with the issue, or if you even see an issue.
Producer, mixer, writer
Near San Francisco USA
class="style8">> It's sad that these guys continue propagating this.
>I refer to the 'split image' concern
>I was guilty of mentioning this issue in a previous magasine artical I wrote. The first early HD100 camera I got the problem didnt show up. Second camera I tried it did, in low light and 9db's of gain.
>I have to say JVC were great, they fixed the issue promtly and were very open about it.
>Problems will crop up with all technoligy we use some where, some time, one measure of a company is how they rectify problems when they do occur. Ive been in diallogue with far more prominet companies who either dont admit do obvious problems let alone fix them. So in JVC's case, I believe they have acted admirably.
>There are horses for courses, There's no doubt its a very useful camera.
class="style8">>>PS: I'm being ironic re "impressive" for those who are irony- impaired. >>Lots of that on CML these days...
>Thanks for that Jeff. I just caught myself laughing out loud when I saw this page:
>This reminds me of a little story.
>Several years ago one of my co-workers booked a XL1 and and EF adapter rental for a client who was traveling to South America to shoot a documentary. The 'DP' was totally perplexed by the 7.2x magnification of the Canon EF adapter.
>The 'DP' attracted a lot of attention because he started screaming from the prep room, "I want an XL1 Solution EF adapter not this piece of sh!t!"
>No one in the company had ever heard of the "XL1 Solution" (myself included) and the 'DP' had never requested the item before this moment. After a little searching on-line my co-worker very politely informed the "DP" that the company not own a "Xl1 Solutions EF Adapter" and we didn't know a single rental house in the area that did.
>The 'DP' turned white as a sheet and started shaking. He then pointing a finger in my co-workers face and screamed "I ordered and 'XL1 Solution', and you're going to f-cking get me one."
>Without missing a beat, my co-worker pulled the XL1 off the tripod and walked over to the door. He told the 'DP', "I'm sorry sir, but it seems we're all out of XL1 cameras. Perhaps you'd like to try another rental house." The 'DP' stormed off.
>A while later the 'DP' returned, grovelling and apologizing for his behavior.
>Turns out the 'DP' had sold the producers on how great the Documentary would look because he could use his own Canon EF lenses with the adapter and get a 35mm DOF with 1.5x - 2x focal length increase instead of the Canon EF adapters 7.2x effect.
>I then did some searching on-line but couldn't find anyone who could support this MAGICAL claim of 1.5x - 2x magnification, every other EF adapter I was aware of produced 7.2x.
>I then introduced myself to the DP and explained to him that the "1.5x - 2x effect" was most certainly hype. Because unless the image was being re-photographed, which the web-site claimed was not happening, this sounded like it was violating the laws of physics.
>The EF adapter and the 1.5x - 2x claims no longer appear on the XL1 Solutions website.
Van Nuys, CA
class="style8">>>If anyone is interested I took an extensive look at two HD formats with >>two cameras :
>The latest DV Mag states the JVC HD100 has a splitscreen like artifact problem. Did you see it in your test camera? Nice article btw.
>Joseph T McDonnell III
New Orleans, La
Los Angeles, Ca
>Thanks Walter, extremely useful. I've been testing the JVC but I haven't had a chance to have a good look at the rushes yet. I found it very easy to use.
BTW JVC are making a Super16 adapter for the new HD 200 - could be interesting. The new camera can flip the image, otherwise it will be upside down. I gather there's going to be some optics in the adapter.
DP & Steadicam
class="style8">>>The latest DV Mag states the JVC HD100 has a splitscreen like artifact >>problem. Did you see it in your test camera? Nice article btw.
>It's sad that these guys continue propagating this. Because the chipset in the camera produces such a large quantity of information JVC designed a way for the info to get down the pipe by splitting the signal into two half's. In the beginning a few of the cameras came out of the factory without the two half's being perfectly calibrated. And as a result a few folks reported seeing two levels in two half's of the picture that didn't match. Today, I know five people who own and shoot with the camera regularly and have never had the problem. I never had the problem. If someone did, JVC was aware of it and they could have simply sent their camera in for calibration. And JVC recently offered a free upgrade for all their HD100s so if no one took advantage of that , then any problem with the camera became theirs, not the manufacture. JVC has been very helpful with their new line of cameras addressing everything that folks have had trouble with and proacting so that their cameras can handle connections with future equipment.
BlueSky Media, Inc.
888.435.5428 ext 31
class="style8">>> Walter, is there a specific bit of text in the article that you have issue >>with?
>No I have a problem with folks who never use a camera going around saying it has a defect and saying all these JVC cameras have this defect. It does not have a defect. Some cameras were not calibrated properly in the beginning. From my experience and the five others I know who own the camera is is difficult if not impossible to get it to do this. I tried extensive nighttime shooting for two nights under all conditions and couldn¹t get it to happen and I tried. But all you have to do is to turn it on and let it warm up for a few minutes when its cold and white balance and doubt you can ever get it to occur or even see it if it does.
class="style8">>>"The upgrade does not affect the picture quality performance of the >>camera"
>Correct. It is to allow the camera to use such things as the Anton Bauer batteries with viewfinder info and the new Firstore drive properly. I was saying that if you had a camera with this condition and it happened to you all the time, then ask them to calibrate it what you send it in. Otherwise, I can't get the two HD100s that I have had to create this "defect".
BlueSky Media, Inc.
888.435.5428 ext 31
>Here's a company that makes lens adapters for the Canon XL series cameras.
>They have one that will adapt PL mount lenses to the XL H1.
>None for B4 though.
>Dan Kneece wrote:
class="style8">>> Here's a company that makes lens adapters for the Canon XL series >>cameras.
>They have some really impressive images here:
>Note that these are pure mechanical adapters, and you are using lenses designed for film with a prism-based camera -- not a good mix with short focal-length or zoom lenses.
>PS: I'm being ironic re "impressive" for those who are irony- impaired. Lots of that on CML these days...