Jump to content


Photo

How does the JVC500 compare...?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 icha7

icha7
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 August 2005 - 09:19 AM

hi,

just wondering what ur thoughts are on how the jvc500 compares to other cameras such as the xl1 or Sony DXC D30WS etc...?
  • 0

#2 Jonathan Bryant

Jonathan Bryant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, GA

Posted 06 August 2005 - 04:22 PM

Probably the most professional camera for the money. It has the same Sony ccds as the DSR300 DVCAM. It has a 3 filters on a wheel, the sonys usually have four which makes getting a good exposure easier. The JVC has only 2 for outdoors , one 5600k filter to change the blueish outdoor light to 3200k tungsten temperture(warmer color of studio lights) and it has a 5600k + Neutrul Density filter (like sunglasses for your camera on bright sunny day). With the third filter on outside it is usually in simple terms too dark ( the ND filter is so dark that the iris is all the way open) and on filter two with no ND filter the iris is almost all the way closed because the light is too bright for the camera. But the Sony cameras have 3 filters for outdoors, one 5600k filter and two different 5600k + ND filters. The Sonys also have better color out of the box and a more extensive DSP menu (this allows you to change the color and look of the picture). The JVC DV500 only has two settings for the color 1: Color matrix on (good for outdoors but inside peoples skin tones look to orange 2: Color Matrix off (good for indoors but overall the picture lacks color and looks alittle on the green side) JVC's color scheme is supposed to be alot like Ikegami cameras but to be honest it is on its own in terms of color. It is also not as good at handling high contrast scenes. Something Sonys excel in. The JVC has bigger 1/2inch chips so depth of field, sharpness, contrast and low light performance is all better than a XL1. The XL1 does offer progressive scan for a film look where as the JVC doesn't, but the JVC offers less depth of field (less area in focus) and manual lens options which some say is more important than progessive scan. These are all different animals, The Sony D30 is way beyond what the XL1 or the JVC DV500 offer. To be honest since you are asking how all these compare the D30 is probably out of your range. What are you looking to do? What is your experience? Maybe then you can narrow down which one is right for you.
  • 0

#3 icha7

icha7
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Student

Posted 07 August 2005 - 04:09 AM

Well, I have the dv500 available to me but was looking around to see what i can use. The dv500 is available in my film skool as well as pd150s. As th general look of the dv500 is too 'glossy' or too 'tv' i was looking around to see what other cameras i can use and to compare the dv500 with other cameras to see where it falls short. Thx for ur reply
  • 0

#4 Michael Morlan

Michael Morlan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin, Texas

Posted 08 August 2005 - 05:10 PM

I own a GY-DV500 and shoot narrative shorts with with that camera amongst others. Check out a variety of images shot on that camera at the following pages on my site:

Shades of the Past
In Between
The Hypocrite
The Real You
Haunting Kate
Candle Shop

I think it's a fine camera with good contrast latitude, rich colors, and a 1/2" chip for a bit better control of depth-of-field than most pro-sumer cameras. I believe you can achieve a variety of looks with the camera, not just "glossy." It's all in the lighting and composition. The camera's one downside at this time is a lack of progressive recording. However, I have a de-interlacing process I use as described in the following article:

De-interlacing with Vegas
  • 0

#5 JW Lee

JW Lee

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 August 2005 - 01:04 PM

I have a DV500 and the biggest thing I can suggest is to use a different lens than the stock Fujinon that comes with the camera. I switched to a Canon 19x IF lens and it's now a whole different camera. The images are far smoother and don't have quite the same stark video look.

I've been mostly doing documentary and industrial work with it, but am interested in noarrative projects. How important is it to have 16:9 capability? I can shoot with the 16:9 guides and then letterbox in post. Is this sufficient for indie type of projects? It seems that unless you have a camera the shoots 16:9 native that there is a variant of that workflow going on anyway.

Of course, one can also shoot 4:3 and just go with that.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Glidecam

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab