JVC GY-HD100

[infocus]

I've just received a glossy newsletter from JVC, and not surprisingly THE main focus of it is all about their new GY-HD100 - a 720p prosumer HDV camcorder which may be regarded as a competitor to Sonys Z1, and about which a few comments have already been said in these forums.

At first sight, from a cameramans point of view, it appears to be a no brainer. One web site lists the Z1 at £3140, the HD100 at £3795 (both ex VAT), and the HD100 seems everything a cameraman would want - sensibly styled, reasonably lightweight, useful pro features like XLR inputs etc, but without the little used "clutter". Well worth the extra money.

But then look at the technical spec. It doesn't support 1080i like the Sony, but 720p is after all the format of choice of the EBU, and Sky have announced support for it as well as 1080. The camera even is claimed to output 720p/50 or 60, as would be expected. But now the big question. It will only record to tape 720p24,25 or 30, and the question I ask is WHY? If it is capable of producing a 720p/50 signal, WHY is it not able to record it? The same paper gives the specs for HDV1 and HDV2 and there seems no doubt that HDV1 is capable of 720p50 or 60, so WHY is that not what this camera puts to tape!?!

I'm prepared to believe JVC when they state that "(they) spent considerable time in Europe visiting broadcasters and consulting their cameramen as to what was essential in terms of features and functions." Fundamentally,the HD100 seems to be a true pro camera scaled down, whereas the Z1 is a consumer camera scaled up, and I know which I'd prefer to operate, especially handheld. But then again, I suspect I know which gives the best output technically. I ask again - WHY?

Probably mainly thanks to such as Alan Roberts, we on this board understand the finer differences between such systems better than many consumers. It worries me that many purchasers WON'T understand the finer differences between different flavours of 720p, will be swayed by the cameras ergonomics, and maybe not make the most sensible choice.

Bob Crabtree adds - the UK press release about this product can be accessed here (http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=33635).

[Unicorn]

I ask again - WHY?

19Mbps.

I suspect the Z1 is pushing the limits at 25Mbps for 1080i, whereas 720p at 50fps is going to be pushing even more pixels with an even lower bit-rate.

[infocus]

I don't think that's the reason - there's a table in the JVC publication which distinguishes between HDV1 and HDV2, and that lists 720/25p,50p,30p and 60p as all supported by HDV1, which is what I'd understood. Regarding data rates, two 720 frames have only about 120% more pixels than one 1080 frame, but being progressive I assume are easier to compress, so I'd not expect there to be an intrinsic problem, even allowing for 19Mbps copared to 25Mbps.

It's my belief the issue is not with the HDV1 spec, just how the HD100 implements it. Any other thoughts?

[dvcam]

Interesting.....I am waiting for the launch because of the lens issue. This camera will accept any one of the five that I use. I do beleive that it will take the 35mm lens of a Nikon stills camera.
I am sure it will not be long before JVC bring out a hard drive to fix on the camera as they did with the DV500 & 5000.

[Unicorn]

I'd not expect there to be an intrinsic problem, even allowing for 19Mbps copared to 25Mbps.

You don't think there'd be a problem compressing 20% more pixels with 75% of the bits? That would require nearly _TWICE_ the compression ratio that Sony use for 1080i... seems to me that would be troublesome.

[infocus]

You don't think there'd be a problem compressing 20% more pixels with 75% of the bits?
I think we need a post from Alan here......

Progressive is inherently more efficient than interlace, and since two frames will change more in 1/25s than in 1/50s I'd expect there to be compression efficiencies there as well - maybe longer GOPs are also possible at 50fps than 25fps, for instance? And I'd suspect more heavily compressed 50fps to be subjectively better than less compressed 25fps anyway. It's my understanding that for boadcast in the States the two most common formats are 1080i/30 and 720p/60 - both MPEG2 at the same data rate (19Mbps?), and roughly the same as HDV1. Hence I don't think there's any reason why 720p/60 can't be at 19Mbps?

[infocus]

I am sure it will not be long before JVC bring out a hard drive to fix on the camera as they did with the DV500 & 5000.
The same paper they mailed me talks of the DR-HD100 hard drive, "developed by Focus Enhancement for JVC". (See http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2005/nab/presskit/focus_release.html ) Strangely, it looks very similar to the Firestore FS4 being discussed elsewhere...... What is NOT clear from the paper is in what form the 720p/50 signal is output live, is it via the Firewire output..... or is it, perish the thought, only available as an ANALOGUE signal from the three phonos!?!

A few questions for the Production Show, just maybe.....?

[jayess]

What is NOT clear from the paper is in what form the 720p/50 signal is output live

It's analogue Y PB Pr (Component) via the the phonos (would much prefer BNC and HD-SDI out would have been very cool).

The hard drive recorder is an OEM FS-4 with JVC spec firmware, the normal FS-4 will have a HDV firmware soon as well.

1280x720 at 50 or 60 fps on HDV would be tough to do at the right price and power consumption and would really need nearer D-VHS data rates.

You can at least do 720x576 50p SD to HDV tape for slowmo at a pinch in the proverbial muddy field.

A developer (Graham Nattress) with some actual .m2t streams from the HD100 says they are a "touch softer" than the DVCPRO-HD from the big Varicam (10x price + lens) and the best HDV he has seen.

Jonathan Smiles
Managing Director - Digital Safari Ltd.
dCinema - HD - SD
http://www.digitalsafari.co.uk

[infocus]

There is one sentence in all the blurb which does indicate the analogue nature of the 720p/50-60 output - "live uncompressed HD can be obtained from the Component output sockets". (ie analogue output) With regard to this sort of product, I would infer "digital" from the word "uncompressed", and find it's use in this context somewhat misleading. (You don't normally refer to analogue video as "compressed" or "uncompressed", do you?)
1280x720 at 50 or 60 fps on HDV would be tough to do at the right price and power consumption and would really need nearer D-VHS data rates.

Regarding the data rates, I can only say I understood 19Mbps MPEG2 was the accepted transmission standard for broadcast HD at 720p/60 in the States, so presume it should be adequate for HDV.

If I was buying a camera imminently, I don't know which way I'd jump. It is a shame the HD100 is 25p only, but on the face of it, at this price point, it looks head and shoulders above the competition as a CAMERA from a cameramans point of view. (At least on paper!) Interchangeable lenses are important not because they are likely to be frequently changed, but because they allow the camera to be bought with a suitable and appropiate choice in the first place, and they tend to have proper direct control of focus and iris.

It does occur to me that for a camera likely to be mostly used for standard DVD in the here and now (with an element of future proofing) it has a lot going for it. It just seems to me that prosumer cameras should follow this style, OR that of the new Sony HVR-A1E - the Z1 and the upcoming Panasonic fall between stools.

[Unicorn]

It does occur to me that for a camera likely to be mostly used for standard DVD in the here and now

If you're shooting for DVD, then progressive scan is probably a bad move anyway, unless you like stuttery pans.

[infocus]

Stuttery pans Stuttery pans? That's the FILM LOOK!! ;)

Joking apart, I know what you mean, and it may not be suitable for all subjects. Then again, it's what you get on all blockbuster Hollywood DVDs at the moment, so it can't be all bad.

And it's only a neccessity if you want an element of future proofing (some sort of HD master), apparently the camera will produce an interlace output to tape, though only standard DV 576i/25. So there is a choice for "here and now" use, and of course it is a 3 chip, true widescreen camera - HD aside, that's more than can be said for any other current prosumer camera than the Z1, I think. I also feel the HDV/Firestore combination is more appropiate at the moment than the P2/DV combination Panasonic are proposing.

I look forward to seeing one in the flesh. It would be more tempting still if it did do 720p/50, as it is I'm glad I'm not about to make a purchase soon.

[gary9567]

Stuttery pans Stuttery pans? That's the FILM LOOK!! ;)

I can get pans as smooth as silk on NTSC DVDs :)

I run an SDI card with a fee program called Dscaler into a CRT projector at just under 72hz. I get motion sickness it's so smooth :)

[cstv]

Thanks infocus... i've had said newsletter on my desk for about a week and have now openned it up and had a look!

love JVC's offering on the HDV front, especially the shoulder mounting. other nice features include... 6-pin firewire port - much more solid than the 4-pin, but still could do with something to lock it in place!

JVC's DV/HDV deck looks nice too, and has ab HDMI output. It doesn't reature component input though, which is a bit of a shame. :(

looking forward to the launch!

mark.

[infocus]

I previously posted: - "Interchangeable lenses are important ....... because they allow the camera to be bought with a suitable and appropiate choice in the first place, and they tend to have proper direct control of focus and iris."

With that in mind, I wondered what the choice was going to be, and eventually found the following in a JVC release:-

"Specially developed by Fujinon for this new 16:9, 1/3" CCD is the new 16x zoom lens which comes fitted as standard to the GY-HD100. This lens has full and precise manual control of all lens functions and utilises mechanical end stops. A wide-angle converter is available for the 16x lens, or a dedicated 3.5mm wide-angle, 13x lens can be fitted. An adaptor from JVC gives the cameraman the facility of using existing ½" lenses."

Errr, wow! A 13x3.5 for 1/3" equates to a 13x7 for 2/3" chips, comparable to what I use, and very repectable in terms of wide end coverage. What it doesn't say is how much this alternative lens costs, nor whether it has a built in doubler. I can only say when comparisons are done with the Z1, this gives this camera a huge edge from a cameramans viewpoint. I look forward to Alans take on all this from the engineering viewpoint.

On the other hand the "standard" lens appears to be 5.5mm at the wide end - tighter than the Z1 - interesting JVC don't quote this figure directly, it takes a little hunting for...... ;)

[DV_Ed]

5.5mm wide isnt too bad, I have to say though it looks a whole lot more appealing than Sonys offerings. At least from my point of view as a Canon XL user of cameras I love the way I can change lenses, and the fact for me that the Z1 etc cannot do this totally puts me off that camera before I've even picked it up (perhaps unfairly so). The JVC however I'm very interested in even if it doesnt support all the high res HDV formats the Z1 does. I think its now totally killed what time the XL2 has left and I can say I am so glad I didnt get one!

[Alan Roberts]

I can confirm that this camera does not do 720/50 image rate. The camera runs as though it's film, making two output images from each camera image. It makes for easy recording because MPEG works well on film (doesn't actually bother to encode the copied frames).

I've said this before about JVC, to make this mistake once is perhaps forgivable (the 10), but to make it again seems distinctly careless.

Although the EBU is happy with 720/p, it's going to be a lot happier with 1080/p (at 50, that is). The arguments are all about how best to get there, via 720/p or 1080/i. For my money, I'm happy with both, but not with either for all source material. 720 is great for sport, but 1080's far better for drama and film stuff. There's room for both, and both are acceptable to Sky and the EBU members. I can't see any European broadcaster insisting on using one and only one format, it's simply not necessary becvause all the systems can handle both transparently.

[PaulD]

Hi
Is the DV 50i a proper 2-field recording, or are the two fields derrived from one 25p original?
Also from where I come the lack of an optical image stabiliser puts it out of the running - 'The Thick of It' nicely shows the problem.... :(

[infocus]

I've said this before about JVC, to make this mistake once is perhaps forgivable (the 10), but to make it again seems distinctly careless.

I think this is what I'm wondering about - is it a "mistake" on their part, or rather that they just don't have the technology yet to produce a 720p/50 camera? From aspects of the PD1 I'm led to suspect the latter. But unlike the PD1 I can't help feeling that in the case of the HD100 they've really made the best of what technology they have, and made up for technical deficiencies with physical and styling advantages.

Yes, a 1080p/50 prosumer camera would be the thing, but that's barely there at the top end. 1080i/25 and 720p/50 are next best (even at the top end), but what I wonder is how much worse off are we with 720p/25? Are the lower frame rate disadvantages bad enough to outweigh the significant camera advantages in this case?

And indeed, however it compares with the Z1, it must compare very favourably with the XL2.

Can I finally ask Alan about the remarks early in the thread about HDV1, and some contributors questioning whether 720p/50 could be compressed within the 19Mb? From your reference to a "JVC mistake", can we infer that HDV1 itself is quite capable of supporting 720p/50?

[infocus]

Hi
Is the DV 50i a proper 2-field recording, or are the two fields derrived from one 25p original?

There must be 50 fields within the camera as it can output 720p/50 analogue, so I can't see any reason why it can't produce a normal 50 interlaced field output. (??)

[PaulD]

Hi
Or is it that nobody has the technology to do 720p/50 to consumer DV tape without inventing new MPEG-4/H.264 encoders, and new head technology, at a time when tape is at the end of it (aquisition-format) life....

Or as Panasonic has put it about P2, make the paradigm shift ;)

[infocus]

I think HDV1 spec calls for MPEG2 to encode 720p/50 with standard DV drives, so no need for new technologies.

JVC make quite a lot about harddrive stores with this camera, and even seem to have their own badged version of the FS4. For the next few years working off harddrive with a tape backup seems preferable to me than P2, but further into the future.......

[PaulD]

Hi
You're right infocus, its 720/24p that is not in the HDV specification as far as I can see - 50/60p are indeed part of the spec, compressable within the 19mb/s stream.
www.expandore.com/product/Sony/Proav/model/HDV/QNA.htm#HDV%20Specifications

[Alan Roberts]

Paul's right, getting MPEG2 to do 720/50p inside 25Mb/s (with a short GoP) is just too tight, it needs H264 or similar to do a decent job. The head technology's trivial. But the point about end-of-life for tape is spot on, nobody's interested in getting new or better tape formats onto to market now, tape has no future.

[infocus]

Doh - I'm even more confused now! It (50p) does indeed appear to be in the chart, but.... Hopefully there'll be a chance to see an HD100 in the flesh next week. Maybe an "XL3" will be 1080i?

[PaulD]

Hi
I assume that JVC's preferred Gop length of 6 frames makes things more difficult for them to achieve HD 60p than Sony's HDV2 12-15 frame Gop.

The JVC camera is indeed impressive, going on the hand-built model on show at the IOV show.

[Alan Roberts]

As far as I'm aware, in HDV mode, the camera runs at 25fps and drops two copies of each frame on the tape, like film. Except that the dupliacte frame is much easier to code because it's a copy.

[Richard Payne]

John Kelly from JVC tells me there should be a real one at the production show next week.

[infocus]

What are the channes of DVC getting a demo model, Richard? Have you seen any real life pictures from one yet, and any idea how it compares with the Z1? I now know I'll be working away all next week, and doubt I'll make it to the show.

[Unicorn]

But the point about end-of-life for tape is spot on, nobody's interested in getting new or better tape formats onto to market now, tape has no future.

Presumably you're talking about replacing tape with DVD-style disk recording? I don't see our grannies recording to P2 cards, capturing to hard disk and making DLT backups any time soon...

[Richard Payne]

What are the channes of DVC getting a demo model, Richard? Have you seen any real life pictures from one yet, and any idea how it compares with the Z1? I now know I'll be working away all next week, and doubt I'll make it to the show.

Just been offered a demo one, but I want to see the pictures first (even UK JVC haven't yet).

I'm worried about the 'jerky pans' so I'm reserving judgement.

[jayess]

I'm worried about the 'jerky pans' so I'm reserving judgement.

In the UK we see lots of progressive shot material, high end drama, feature films and commercials. These are shot on 35mm, 16mm and HD, the camera operators have the necessary skill and experience along with panning tables to know the speed limits for pans.

I only have one client that shoots HD in interlace, everyone else prefers the 24p, 25p look for their material. Even my clients who shoot with the Varicam, shoot 24p and 25p and only use the higher shooting speeds for slowmo.

Shoot with the HD100 like a film camera and you won't have a problem.

[Unicorn]

Shoot with the HD100 like a film camera and you won't have a problem.

It'll be a big problem for all the people who don't know how to shoot with a film camera...

[Richard Payne]

In the UK we see lots of progressive shot material, high end drama, feature films and commercials. These are shot on 35mm, 16mm and HD, the camera operators have the necessary skill and experience along with panning tables to know the speed limits for pans.
Shoot with the HD100 like a film camera and you won't have a problem.

Thanks for that, my critisism may well be totally unjustified, I have no experience of shooting film or progressive video.

However if shooting actuality, you can't get that car to drive past at the right speed or can you. Like Alan Roberts I have a loathing of the sort of false filmlooks the Beeb seemed to experiment with on programs with Gary Rhodes ? Am I remembering correctly?

I really want to play with one for myself, and maybe borrow a film cameraman to show me what to do.

[jayess]

Real progressive scan looks nothing like the majority of "film look", effects which seem to chuck away half the vertical res, remember how bad Casualty looked!

For reality and sport the classic interlaced "video" look is what you expect and where the Z1 will fare better being more point and shoot friendly.

For "arty" productions where a film look is required the HD100 wins over the Z1 in Cineframe mode, but the HD100 will require skill and a degree of talent to operate.

[SimonMW]

For some reason the BBC still deinterlace in post from what I know (shooting on Digibeta for shows such as Top Gear. Dunno about HD).

True progressive scan is just fine, no problems, and nothing to worry about. People are engaged in the story. The progressive look is just a look. I haven't had a single person ever ask me about any 'jerkiness' in movement.

Now, from a technical point of view 50 frame proscan is pretty desirable. However I still feel 25 frame proscan to be superior to interlacing for all kinds of uses, including documentaries, for the following reasons.

1. Proscan encodes better to DVD and the MPEG compression used to transmit with. MPEG compression absolutely hates interlacing.

2. A full resolution picture.

3. All new LCD, Plasma, etc displays are all natively progressive scan.

4. Proscan may strobe a bit in movement, but interlacing smears movement. Horses for courses.

I think in the absense of 50 frame proscan I still believe 25 frame proscan to be superior to interlacing for a large number of production types.

Thats just my 2p worth. In the end, if you are not making stuff under dictorate for broadcast, it is a creative decision. If you are making the programme for someone else it's their decision. :)

[infocus]

I've had another aspect to this pointed out to me. Most of the attention here has focused on the "arty" uses to which such cameras are put, but what about the scientific, medical, industrial etc etc? Police might be a good example, using video cameras where public disorder may be a problem. In such cases, the combination of progressive scan and High Definition will make taking frame grabs a revolution compared with what is achieved now from 576 interlaced.

Coupled with better lenses and design, and not much more expensive, the HD100 could then be a far better bet than a Z1. I rather dismissed the HD100 when first announced - "oh, only 25p" - but the more I think about it, the better it seems. OK, it could be better, 50p being the most obvious, but at the price it's beginning to look more and more worth considering.

[Richard Payne]

We set up a police customer with a Z1 with a 1.6 Tele adaptor and we could resolve a number plate at about 300 yards. If the person or car is moving fast this would have been better with a progressive camera, but if moving slower there is more resolution in the 1080 X 1440.

Incidently Red Hawk Vision have a product called Video Paparatzzi that can pull a high resolution still out of a number of SD video frames.

http://www.redhawkvision.com/

[infocus]

If anyones interested, JVC and Adobe are having a series of roadshows - http://www.jvcadoberoadshow05.net/ .

And more info at: http://www.jvcpro.co.uk/item?item=GY-HD100E . The shutter specifications are interesting, and relevant for the reasons I mentioned earlier if there's interest in getting information off frame grabs.

Richard - interesting to note that such as the police are taking an interest. HD isn't quite as important for identifying individual items, you could get the same effect with a tighter lens and SD. Where I see a big difference is for such as filming a crowd - for a given degree of individual facial recognition, a larger number of faces can be recorded with HD than SD. Obviously when filming it may not be known where or when an incident may happen. Same applies to other industrial and commercial uses.

Coupled with choice of lenses and progressive scan, this is where the HD100 may be very powerful, and 25p be irrelevant.

[StevenBagley]

For some reason the BBC still deinterlace in post from what I know (shooting on Digibeta for shows such as Top Gear. Dunno about HD).

But that is because until NAB this year all Digibeta cameras have been (effectively) 50i only. The interlaced video is then usually pushed through a Snell and Wilcox box to give it a filmic look (usually the ARC150, though I know the new series of 'Doctor Who' is using a top-of-the-range Alchemist to do the job and it is noticeably more effective). The Digibeta 970 can do 25p, but I've no idea if lets you set a 1/50s shutter as well, which is essential for the 'film look'. 25p with a 1/25s shutter looks more like video even when projected in the cinema (see 'Collateral' for an example)

HD is usually shot progressive (it's noticeable) although at least one major drama last year was actually shot HD 50i, downconverted to SD and then filmised before transmission (which is just crazy!).

Steven

[cstv]

Well, i went to the show at Earl's Court 2 yesterday and tootled along to JVC's rather inocuous looking stand to find the HD100 sat on a tripod with various JVC staff pointing at it and extolling its virtues to passers by.

John Kelly was kind enough to let me pick it up and pop it on my shoulder and i have to say that i love it!!! :D I've never been any good at using a shoulder-mounted camcorder, largely because my shoulders are too small, but this thing fitted perfectly! I suspect it fits nicely with infocus's desires for something that doesn't stick out too much when in confined spaces.

Interestingly, my colleage flicked the power switch on it (as you do) and almost instantly one of the JVC guys pointed out that it's "not a working model" - it looked like it worked to me! They're still saying last week of june / first week of july for the release so i'll look forward to that.

Over on panasonic's stand we saw their offering which quite frankly looks like a housebrick with a lens on the front! i've not seen such a cumbersome looking box in a fair few years! I don't think panasonic will be selling it on its "sexiness"

mark.

[infocus]

Interestingly, my colleage flicked the power switch on it (as you do) and almost instantly one of the JVC guys pointed out that it's "not a working model" - it looked like it worked to me! They're still saying last week of june / first week of july for the release ..........
Since the first two road show dates are the 6th and 7th June (ie next week), it's to be hoped they get a working model before July......... ;)

[cstv]

That's what we'd hoped too - but John Kelly of JVC was pretty certain that they're not going to have a working model until the first production run schedualled for the end of june...

I think the roadshow is more from the angle of working with HDV rather than the HD100 specifically, hence Adobe's involvement. JVC do have a working version of their HDV deck, that they had at the show, and it seemed a bit of an odd setup...

They had the HDV deck playing back HD stock footage that had been dumped to HDV. Next to that they had footage supposedly shot on the HD100 (i assume JVC USA have a working model) in 24p being played back on a HiDef DVHS deck...

mark.

[infocus]

.......they had footage supposedly shot on the HD100 (i assume JVC USA have a working model) in 24p being played back on a HiDef DVHS deck...

Ah well...... a bit of an unfair question, but any first impressions you can share about it? Was the "judder" significant, for example? I assume the display used was up to the task?

[cstv]

The display was a 17" 16:9 CRT (http://www.planetdv.net/Pdfs/JVC-DT-V1700CG.pdf) which i thought was surprisingly cheap at under £2000 with a component input board...

The pictures looked fine. I couldn't see any obvious problems, but i don't have the best trained eyes. Nothing jumped out at me as particularly bad about it.

I had any interesting chat with someone from a hire company, who didn't seem to think the JVC HD100 would have much of an impact and would be resigned to quite a niche market. I think he was comparing HD100 vs Z1 to XL1 vs PD150, where you'd only really buy an XL1 if you wanted the removeable lens and an interesting excuse for a shoulder mount. I think the HD100 is much more useful than that, largely because it's got a real shoulder mount, rather than the XL1's shoulder pad. He also didn't rate HDV much as a whole for broadcast, but i think he was trying to compare it to digibeta and kind of missed the point! As with the Z1, the HD100 looks like it'll a great camcorder even for shooting SD, assuming the down-converters are up the job...

mark.

[jayess]

Hi All,

The footage on the JVC stand was playing on a DT-V1710 4:3 HD CRT via component from D-VHS.

The pictures with the ProHD logo burnt in are shot with the HD-100 in 24p (23.976) mode.

It was the New York material seen at NAB, colour quality and sharpness are very good.

Keep in mind that this was shot at 24p (23.976fps) with 3:2 like pulldown added to give 720p 59.94 output, so the judder that us PAL people see is pulldown related, the NTSC folks just don't see pulldown in the same way we don't see 50Hz flicker that drives Americans mad.

Now when we shoot at 25p and 30p (29.97fps) no uneven pulldown is required, just simple repeated frames/fields so the judder we see related to 24P>59.94 will disappear.

Someone asked is there a normal tripod thread on the bottom of the HD-100, yes there is.

Here's a link to the new 18 page ProHD brochure for the US 60Hz version.
http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/brochure/ProHD-NTSC052705.pdf

[infocus]

Is that a 12volt IDX battery on the photo? I thought the HD100 was a 7volt camera? It should help to further improve it's balance. Looking at the brochure, I'd have thought behind the battery would be a more sensible place to mount a Firestore for the same reason.

[cstv]

IIRC IDX 12 volt batteries can be supplied with a 7 volt adaptor - really nice feature allowing you to run consumer camcorders from pro batteries... :)

it was very well ballanced with the IDX on the back, but i can't imagine you'd get the same with the standard battery.

mark.

[infocus]

it was very well ballanced with the IDX on the back, but i can't imagine you'd get the same with the standard battery.

Interesting - the other advantage of using pro batteries would be the ability to run all the 12 volt accesories off them - headlights, Firestore etc. From what you say the way the Firestore is mounted in the picture in the brochure (cameras hot shoe) is doubly stupid - mounting it BEHIND the camera would further improve balance and be less unwieldy. I can imagine this camera being used A LOT with a hard drive, with tape for archive.

Also interesting (from the brochure) is their announcement of ProHD XE. Quote: "ProHD XE is JVCs' next step, adding multi-format and multi-bit rate capability. And JVC will incorporatenew removable media such as Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and solid state memory when they become available and economical."

I can see this being just the thing for such as small TV stations in the States, wanting some form of HD acquisition, can't afford such as XDCAM, but want a more professional camera than such as the Z1.

[greg30]

hello,

never done this bfore so apologies if i'm breaking frum protocol. Basically a bit confused with all the terms concerning chat about hd 100.

Would anyone be so kind to take 10 mins to explain to me 1080i. 720p 1080/25
720p/24. 50. 60. and all the other variations on these seen in this forum i'm guessing it resolution and frames per second but not sure as sometimes the i and the p's are in different places.

Hope this makes sense?

Thanks guys (and gals).

P.S. or maybe someone could point me in the right direction on the web to have the questions answered.

Thanks again

[infocus]

OK - the format should take a form something like: xi/y or xp/y, with x and y being numbers, i standing for interlace and p for progressive. Matters aren't helped by nomenclature having recently been changed by the EBU (see third paragraph of http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_home.html ), but nowadays x is the number of active lines per frame and y is the number of FRAMES per second - it used to be fields.

For standard definition x is likely to be 480 (NTSC) or 576 (PAL/SECAM), for HD it's likely to be 720 or 1080. Fairly obviously more lines is likely to be better definition than less, and more frames per second is likely to give better smoothness of motion. Progressive is generally considered better than interlace, all else equal. Hence, it would seem the best we could hope for would be 1080p/50 for Europe. 1080p/60 for the US. Currently this may be seen as a "Holy Grail" for the future - the technology is generally not really yet up to it, and neither is there really the bandwidth to feasibly transmit it.

Hence the two most common standards in the States are 1080i/30 and 720p/60, with 1080i/25 and 720p/50 the European equivalents - currently the HD100 only records 720p/25 to tape, though the camera will give 720p/50 as an analogue output. Hence the criticism of it from this viewpoint. The EBU link above gives far more detailed background, and also look at http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_home.html for further EBU articles.

For HD square pixels are the norm (unlike DV), so hence the standard image sizes are respectively 1920x1080 and 1280x720 pixels respectively. Just to finally confuse matters, some recording formats (such as HDV) only record a 1440x1080 matrix to reduce the data rate, so that's back to non square pixels again!

There's also quite a lot of general background in the threads "HDTV progress abroad" and "HDTV in Europe", both in this forum. Also note that the terms PAL and NTSC are ONLY relevant in standard definition, and then only for analogue signals, they have no relevance in the HD world, though obviously there are 50/60Hz variants. Hope this helps.

[Relievo]

Stuttery pans Stuttery pans? That's the FILM LOOK!! ;)

Joking apart, I know what you mean, and it may not be suitable for all subjects. Then again, it's what you get on all blockbuster Hollywood DVDs at the moment, so it can't be all bad.


I dont suppose anyone has a good example of a stuttery pan on a well known blockbuster Hollywood DVDs??

So I can relax about the the HD100? :confused: :D

[infocus]

I dont suppose anyone has a good example of a stuttery pan on a well known blockbuster Hollywood DVDs??
To a certain extent you may find such a thing on all of them. They're nearly all likely to have been shot on film at 24fps. But the good technique of the feature crews will (should?) have meant that it's never likely have been allowed to be objectionable.

I'm fairly neutral about this whole subject - I don't really dislike 25p motion for a lot of cases, but then don't think "wow, this film look is fantastic" either. It amuses me a little that many people are worrying that "oh dear, the HD100 only does 25p for HD", whilst many more are going "wow, the HVX200 does 24P!"

As for relaxing about the HD100 - none of the current crop of HD prosumer cameras is perfect. You either have to work out which negative facts bother you least, not buy a camera at all, or buy an HDCAM. :)

[Mad_mardy]

Everyone goes on about the stuttery effect of film and do you know i've never seen it even though i used to be a film projectionist for a while , that was until a couple of weeks ago i was at the cinema watching wallace and gromit and in the opening scene there it was i could see the the stuttery effect as the camera was dollying forward.

[erich]

Could be that it was shot at 1 frame every 15minutes!!!!!!!!!