JVC GY-HD100U Hi-Def Camera

PH125 wrote on 4/24/2006, 9:59 PM
Does anyone happen to own this camera? I was looking at this versus the Panasonic HVX200. Right now, I'm really leaning toward the JVC, simply because I have no desire to spend a fortune on P2 memory cards, and the JVC uses the HDV standard to record to a mini-dv. Also, the JVC uses a special process in order to record in native 720p at 24fps. Even though i'd rather have the Panasonic's 1080p/24fps recording, 720p will do for me so as not to spend money on the P2's or the insanely priced mobile hard drive they're coming out with.

My question though, is how does the camera perform? I've heard some people (including reviewers) say they love it, while others seem to disagree completely. Also, how does it work with Vegas? I'm still currently on v.5, and am not upgrading until vegas 7, so what software would I have to buy to make the camera work with Vegas 5 Capture in HD? Any help is appreciated.

PS: Please don't try to convince me to get an FX1, I hate interlaced video and I'd rather have 720p than 1080i; also, i'd really rather have the 24p option

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/24/2006, 10:17 PM
The JVC is a superior cam to the HVX in several ways, P2 not withstanding.
Full-raster sampling, they are the only HD camera in the 1/3 chip category that can make that claim.
It works great with Vegas.
FWIW, you would NOT rather have the 1080p 24 option of the HVX, it is not a sweet look. Extremely noisy, as you'd expect a camera with the smallest imager of all HD camcorders to have. JVC doesn't use a "special process," they just use double flags in the stream. Vegas can manage that just fine, and 24p is now part of the HDV spec, whereas it wasn't just 2 months ago.
FWIW, Serious Magic now supports the HVX, so if you can carry a laptop, you can record to the laptop.
Serena wrote on 4/24/2006, 11:12 PM
Good heavens! A fellow hater of interlace. Thought I was the only one around. You could get an FX1E and run the material through DVFilmMaker. Great result. But progressive recording would be better provided that this doesn't involve other quality compromises.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/25/2006, 1:13 AM
JVC just released the new GY-HD200U model at NAB.

Sounds like a replacement.

BrianStanding wrote on 4/25/2006, 7:24 AM
Doug,

Do you know if JVC ever resolved the "split-screen" issue that plagued early models of the HD100U?
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/25/2006, 9:26 AM
They have pretty well eliminated the SSE at low gain levels. If you get above +6dB of gain in high latitude shots, then you'll likely still see it to some extent.
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 4/25/2006, 5:36 PM
I must disagree. Although both cameras are lacking, HVX is still better camera. Lens on JVC is really bad -- the chromatic abbreviation is really significan and granted that the spliting colors could be used as artistic medium for the most part it will look like mistake plus the significant breating on the lens won't allow or any DOF changes. JVC is better to handle then HVX but HVX has real slow motion (60p) in HD mode and the compressor is superior to JVCs. Both cameras are nothing to rave about still as a DP i would still strongly go with Panasonic (although i have to admit JVC on the outside looks beautiful!).
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/25/2006, 10:32 PM
Having both, I'll also have to disagree. I agree, the over/under crank on the HVX is a very nice feature, one I wish Sony, Canon, and JVC had.