Reading info on the JVC GY-HD100U, I came across this (at the very bottom of the page):

quote:

JVC's exclusive smooth motion function captures images at double the normal rate when shooting in 30p or 25p (that is, at 60p or 50p). When the doubled images are merged, they are passed through a newly developed filter that smoothes out the subject's motion by retaining a small percentage of residual image. This eliminates the motion judder that typically appear in images shot at 30p or 25p.

Can anyone explain what this means? It sounds to me as if they're interlacing progressively-captured frames.

Also, I'd appreciate your opinions on this matter: Let's say you have $6000 (which I don't, momentarily); do you buy this JVC GY-HD or the Panasonic AG-HVX? Or some other similarly-priced HD cam? Tick tock. Tick tock.

Thanks,
Harris

Dam Dirty Apes

users have reported the "smooth motion function" can make fast-moving objects have ghosting, which is not good. Haven't tried it myself, but definitely seems suspicious.

If I had $6K, I'd save some more and get the hvx200 (It looks like it's gonna cost 8-10k to get the thing up and running). I'm not a fan of HDV, unless it comes to home movies. I am a fan of 1080p or variable frame rate 720p dvcpro HD.

If you dont plan on earning back the money you spent on your camera, it doesnt really make any sense to spend 6,000 on a camera when a 3,000 one will do serve the exact same purpose and leave your wallet 3,000 richer. I know people with 10K to 20K cameras and massive editing suites that are just as far up the filmmaking-status ladder as other filmmakers that have $300 consumer cameras and windows movie maker.

quote:

If you dont plan on earning back the money you spent on your camera...

I plan on it. The trouble now is earning the initial money, which is proving difficult with pesky tuition and living expenses.

Apologies for the double post.

quote:

Joren said:
It looks like it's gonna cost 8-10k to get the thing up and running

Yi. I wasn't aware of this. That'll put it in the price range of the XL H1. Maybe I'll just buy a jet ski instead.

I have to agree with braininabox. You can spend thousands on a camera, but what's really important is what's in front of the camera. Put your money where it can be seen. For $6000, you could buy a 16mm camera and over 3 hours of processed, transferred film - enough to shoot a feature if you're careful.

Three hours raw footage is cutting it a bit tight for a feature, isn't it? But the point is indeed valid. Past a certain quality level the camera does not matter as much anymore.

What does this have to do with HD camera comparisons? Anyway, continuing off topic, it's extremely short-sighted to say that past a certain quality the camera doesn't matter, a $3k camera is just as good as a $6k camera, or 3hrs of transfered (to Standard Def) 16mm is just as good as buying a HD camrea. In the next year or so, we'll have some form of HD-DVD (other than quicktime's), congress just announced they will finally enforce the mandatory switch to high Def broadcast starting in '09. And as I write this, I'm watching "Raging Bull" on my 105" High Def home theater. HD is here, or will be very soon. Obviously there will be some value in producing to a high def format. And clearly from a qualitative standpoint, the HDV cameras in the $3k range won't compare to what dvcpro HD or other HD formats can do ... especially if you want to color grade or do vfx shots with lots of compositing.

I totally agree that what is in front of the camera is much, much more important. I'm all for buying a $300 dollar Digital 8mm camera and a 500 dollar macMini to edit it with, but to use that as an excuse for why you're not shooting with a much higher quality ($$$) camera is only kidding yourself. I, myself want to adopt to HD as quickly as possible. That doesn't mean my content will become any better, but I do believe it will be more valuable than SD material in the very near future.

You're watching "Raging Bull" on HD? Is it being broadcast or something? AFAIK there is no better quality version than the DVD available (not sure if it's out on D-VHS).

Anyway, I don't necessarily produce for TV distribution. I just think it's a huge mistake to invest a lot of money in a video camera which will be obsolete literally within a year, if not months, for the purpose of content creation and distribution in the HD marketplace. There's so much unwarranted buzz right now that it's ridiculous. I highly doubt any HD-originated material will have enough additional "value" to offset the cost of tens of thousands of dollars in cameras, workstations, and support equipment, at least in the near future.

I'm not sure I understand your statement that "to use that as an excuse for why you're not shooting with a much higher quality camera is only kidding yourself." The situation is this: you have a relatively fixed amount of money to spend on a production. It's no excuse to say that most of that money is put in front of the camera, where it will be the most visible. If budgets were unlimited everyone would shoot Super 35 or even 65mm.

Budgets are limited, though.

The reason why I brought up 16mm (I meant to write Super 16) is because the quality is superior to, or at the very least equal to, HD. The reason why I included how much processed film you could pay for with the price differential is because if I had simply stated "you can buy a very nice 16mm camera for $1500" someone would surely write an intelligent response to the effect of "YEA BUT VIDEO IS LIKE $5 FOR 90 MINUTES DUDE." I think it's worth looking at all options and realistically considering how much footage needs to be shot, how little you can get away with shooting, and whether your project merits the incredible elevation in legitimacy and production values that will be acquired from shooting on real film. The quote in your tag even says as much

It was off the DVD, which like most all dvds is progressive scan, which is HD (or enhanced I think they're calling it now). Sure, just by a technicality, but I'm able and ready for higher quality HD-DVDs.

What you all said is fine, and I think you have good points. You clearly think film will give you the best bang for your buck given the kind of projects you do. Braininabox shot a project on XL1s', indicating he thought that would be the best considering his resources. Clearly both of you hold value to the quality of the format for your projects. But, as you said, there are other formats that could be of better quality(i.e. 35mm, 65mm). And as you stated, you generally don't shoot on those because of the cost, not some notion that it wouldn't increase the production value of your project. That was my point. And although HD isn't a good choice for you because you think it will get outdated, it still holds quality improvements over SD-based projects and for others (myself included) is a good choice. You say you don't shoot for broadcast. And that's fine, but what do you shoot for? Do you project your films on film? Probably not since you said you're transferring them. So, when you've shown up with your film, that was mastered to ntsc-DV, and others are showing their HD video-based films on a HD or better viewing source, all of the sudden you may not have the best quality anymore (speaking in resolution, at least). Now, you've got to go back and retransfer and remaster your film to hd. Yes, this is just one possibility, but for some people and some projects (and some budgets), HD as an acquisition format isn't a bad choice.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: joren,

If someone can afford HD origination, a 2k scan of 16mm film should be possible also. Furthermore, you don't have to own an HD camera to have film transferred at a very high resolution

I just think the digital thing has turned into a resolution pissing contest reminiscent of the PC megahertz wars of the late 1990s. Color space is orders of magnitude more important than resolution - that's why Panasonic's new camera that will record on P2 cards is more exciting than other HD cameras which are limited by long-GOP MPEG's relatively high compression rate. In the film world, Super 16 is considered a legitimate alternative to 35mm despite having around 1/4 the imaged area - because its effective resolution is still high enough, and the color space is the same, assuming the same film stock.

The other issue is that frankly picture "quality" in the commonly understood sense is not that important to me. Authenticity is far more significant than the appearance of "sharpness" or "detail." My most recent finished short originated on Super 8. Each frame is less than six millimeters wide. Do you think that's a lot of emulsion to view projected on an eight foot wide screen? What about a twenty-five foot screen? The amazing thing is that it looks significantly better than direct DV footage projected at the same size. At a recent screening where mine was the only project not originating on DV, a dozen people came up to me afterwards to comment on the perceived picture quality, even though there were occasional flecks of dust or hairs. Some thought it was shot on 16mm.

That said, if it is accepted at Sundance, I'll definitely have it retransferred to digibeta and remaster it

Just to defend my argument. When I say that past a certain quality level the camera doesn't matter as much anymore, what I mean is this. Once you're in the realm of 3CCD, HD/HDV/High-res/whatever-else-they-have-now cameras the difference between $3000 and $9000 isn't really worth it. At this point you've got a camera that can do what you need, and look gorgeous while it's doing it. It's better to concentrate on the other aspects of a film then to save up an extra $3000 for a slightly better camera.

Of course ALL of these cameras can be blown away by the next level up in prices - $25-$100k.

Thanks for the input. I already bought a jet ski.