JVC 110 Vs. 200/250
Posted 19 September 2007 - 08:37 PM
Posted 19 September 2007 - 10:51 PM
Beyond that the differences are all on the spec sheet. I'd buy a 250 on the basis that I'm a stickler for uncompressed images and I have done a bit of work related to recording the HD-SDI outputs uncompressed. The 250 can look shockingly good in this situation and it's how I'd want to work. However, the options for doing it are either expensive or bulky or both; depends what you're doing. I suspect unless you're a real nut (like me) you won't need the SDI, but whether to go for the 200 or save a bit and live with the original 100 is a less clearcut decision.
Posted 21 September 2007 - 05:48 PM
but whether to go for the 200 or save a bit and live with the original 100 is a less clearcut decision.
Have they fixed the over-saturated reds and poor shadow detail with the 200's? Even with the black stretch all the way up I felt the 100 didn't give enough in the shadows.
Posted 21 September 2007 - 06:02 PM
Siemens star 720p24
Siemens star 720p60
Notice how godawful the default lens is.
Compare the XLH1
Whether the deinterlace is sufficiently bothersome to make it less good than the JVC, I don't know. I don't think the pictures are subjectively as nice, although the XL lens is head and shoulder above that nasty Fuji.
Compare and contrast:
Siemens star XHG1/JVC[ comparison
I know these aren't quite the cameras we're talking about, but hopefully they'll add something to the debate
Here we go editing again - this one has some red in it:
Posted 23 September 2007 - 06:58 PM
If their code is like their grammar, I'm not surprised . Guess I'll try again later...
Posted 23 September 2007 - 07:26 PM
Try the Quicktime component:
Then QT should be able to view them (though that'll be in a demo mode).
...which should make the default OSX image viewer capable of seeing DPX and Cineon.