Many of you have had this camera for a long time now. Can someone please post some clips shot from this camera, including the automatic exposure problem? I think a lot of us wondering about the HD1 would like to see it. Thanks

<<<-- Originally posted by Yang Wen : Many of you have had this camera for a long time now. Can someone please post some clips shot from this camera, including the automatic exposure problem? I think a lot of us wondering about the HD1 would like to see it. Thanks -->>>

Well, I'm pissed; I can't pick up my HD10 until Monday. And by the time I do that, I have to go to work. So much for the weekend. I've let the company know I'm pretty pissed off. What can you do, though?

I'll try to pick it up early enough Monday to shoot and post some stuff, of course, I need to figure out how to do it with my FCP system....

heath

Paul Mogg has footage of the Golden Gate Bridge etc that Chris Hurd was to put up assuming Paul got the footage to Chris. Paul if you have not got the footage to Chris, I suggest within a day you do so. Chris won't have the High Speed line to upload and download your clips after that.

Michael Pappas
www.pbase.com/PappasArts9

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : Paul Mogg has footage of the Golden Gate Bridge etc that Chris Hurd was to put up assuming Paul got the footage to Chris. Paul if you have not got the footage to Chris, I suggest within a day you do so. Chris won't have the High Speed line to upload and download your clips after that.

Michael Pappas
www.pbase.com/PappasArts9 -->>>

I believe he's at work (Calif?) and can't do it until night, which I'm assuming is 8 or 9 PM, Chris' time.

heath

Chris is in LA for another day while he works the show. Chris has access to a High Speed line in LA. They are in the same time zones at the moment.
Sorry to hear you can't get your camera, I know how it feels. Worse of all your going to see a lot more shots this weekend then mormal and the voice in your head is going to say " That would make an awesome shot, if only I had the camera to get it" I have been there before. Best medicine is to lock yourself in a closet, but then you might find a good shot in there and want to make your version of the Panic Room. Oh well!

Michael

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : Sorry to hear you can't get your camera, I know how it feels. Worse of all your going to see a lot more shots this weekend then mormal and the voice in your head is going to say " That would make an awesome shot, if only I had the camera to get it" I have been there before. Best medicine is to lock yourself in a closet, but then you might find a good shot in there and want to make your version of the Panic Room. Oh well!

Michael -->>>

Ha ha ha! It's true, that's how I feel! ARGH! But seriously, I'm so hardcore about picking up my camera, I moved a meeting from one area to the area near where I'm grabbing the camera. That's dedication! Man, I'm cheesed, what a day! I was so thinking I was picking it up. Oh, well...I'll hit bed early Sunday (ie, before 3 am) and head down around 9:30 AM. Grab the camera, and pray to God we don't lose our Film Festival (the meeting I mentioned). It will be a bittersweet day.

heath

Hi Folks,
I've had a bunch of great footage sitting here for a week now ready to upload somewhere, but I have nowhere to upload it to. I tried emailing the clips to Chris Hurd but his email wouldn't accept the stuff, (24-40mb attachments. Anyway, if anyone has an FTP adress and a site for me to upload to, just post it and I'll post the footage (let me know how many clips you want). I have about 20 or more clips ready to go (about 8 secs each) , and I think they really show the cameras capabilities well. They include a scene from an outdoor wedding that blew me away as to how well this camera reproduces flesh tones and human faces.
I'm a little depressed today as I came home from work to find that my nice new Monivision 32" HD monitor that was supposed to arrive, did arrive, but the delivery men dropped it off the back of the truck and broke it trying to get it into my garage. So now I have to wait another god-knows-how-long to see my footage on a real HD TV.
Anyway, I'm filming a wedding with the JVC today as my second camera, my first being my Ikegami, so that should make a good comparison.
I mentioned that I have some footage of the Golden Gate Bridge that I downloaded from the Heuris site, that was shot by the guys at emotion studios here in SF. and that I copied that shot exactly with the JVC as a comparison. Well by chance I ran into the guys that run emotion studios at Dolby labs here on thirsday and they confirmed that it was shot with a Sony FW-900 camera, then compressed to MPEG2-TS using the Heuris encoder. They also gave verbal permission to post the clip if we want to.
So, again, if anyone has a site I can post to, please post the FTP adress of it or send me an email, ((or email me their adress and I'll snail mail it) and I will upload all of this.

Cheers
.

Paul

I tried emailing the clips to Chris Hurd but his email wouldn't accept the stuff, (24-40mb attachments.

I had no idea. I'll ask Jeff Kramer to set up an temporary FTP account for you to allow you to upload those clips to the dvinfo site, a server in the San Francisco bay area. Give me about 24 hours to accomplish this (I'm far from home at the moment, at the ETW show in L.A.) -- back in Texas I have only "fake" broadband via satellite, which is high-speed down, low-speed up. Hope this helps,

Thanks Chris, tell me how many clips you'd like, as I don't want to overwhelm your site, I kept the clips pretty short ( about 8 secs each).

Thanks again.

Paul, can you send me your email addy? pdmogg@attbi.com returns as inactive. We can use several clips, just choose your best ones, I should have plenty of bandwidth to cover it (fingers slightly crossed). Thanks,

Hello Paul. I can't wait to see the footage. Did you get to project HD10 footage? That's great that emotion will alow the HD footage to be used for comparison. Sounds like this outdoor wedding footage really looks awesome. Which Ikegami do you have?

By the way, you live in my favorite city My girlfriend and I drive up there all the time. You must take that camera to Muir woods to shoot and some Sausalito shots as well, but for sure Muir woods.


Michael Pappas



<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Hi Folks,
I've had a bunch of great footage sitting here for a week now ready to upload somewhere, but I have nowhere to upload it to. I tried emailing the clips to Chris Hurd but his email wouldn't accept the stuff, (24-40mb attachments. Anyway, if anyone has an FTP adress and a site for me to upload to, just post it and I'll post the footage (let me know how many clips you want). I have about 20 or more clips ready to go (about 8 secs each) , and I think they really show the cameras capabilities well. They include a scene from an outdoor wedding that blew me away as to how well this camera reproduces flesh tones and human faces.
I'm a little depressed today as I came home from work to find that my nice new Monivision 32" HD monitor that was supposed to arrive, did arrive, but the delivery men dropped it off the back of the truck and broke it trying to get it into my garage. So now I have to wait another god-knows-how-long to see my footage on a real HD TV.
Anyway, I'm filming a wedding with the JVC today as my second camera, my first being my Ikegami, so that should make a good comparison.
I mentioned that I have some footage of the Golden Gate Bridge that I downloaded from the Heuris site, that was shot by the guys at emotion studios here in SF. and that I copied that shot exactly with the JVC as a comparison. Well by chance I ran into the guys that run emotion studios at Dolby labs here on thirsday and they confirmed that it was shot with a Sony FW-900 camera, then compressed to MPEG2-TS using the Heuris encoder. They also gave verbal permission to post the clip if we want to.
So, again, if anyone has a site I can post to, please post the FTP adress of it or send me an email, ((or email me their adress and I'll snail mail it) and I will upload all of this.

Cheers
. -->>>

No, unfotunately at Dolby Labs here they don't have a digital projector yet, and I didn't want to show it to everybody at 480i, so no go.
I will post some footage as soon as I get the FTP adress from Chris, I'd imagine that won't be until late tonight.
Yes, San Francisco is a beautiful city, and you're right I should go and get some Redwoods footage some time, but for today it'll just be a wedding.

Cheers

Looking forward to it paul. As you had mentioned in another post Paul, At some point we should cordinate a res/color chart test if you don't have access to a DVX100.

Paul Check out this SkyDive that this guy posted; shot with JVC HD.

http://www.andrevideo.com/3D/AndreVideo3D.zip

Thread link:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=274217

PS: I tried to send you an email Paul, but it didn't work. Can you send me the correct one.


Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com

Yes guys, go to: http://www.andrevideo.com/3D/AndreVideo3D.zip and get 12 seconds of skydiving video. It's zipped mpeg2 file 28 MB long.

You can see this jump in 3D when you cover left eye with a dark glass. The 3D effect obtained with a GR_HD1 camcorder is based on the Pulfrich effect where one can convert motion parallax to normal stereo parallax. In the skydiving freefall, I had to circle around a formation to get motion parallax and then, on the ground everybody had to watch a video with the left eye covered by a sunglasses. In this, the first skydive of this type I made only one circle around a formation and it is how I showed it to skydivers with a small exception. I repeated it six times in raw using an editor with music playing continuously. So loop it yourself and have fun.

And if you like it, may be one of you send me an .ax filter to mux this file back to an mpeg2 transport stream so I can copy it back to the camcorder!

jsut bought a dvx100 was that a bad decision? it is not here yet and I could sell it ASAP as New before I open the box, I would LOVE to have somthing BETTER res then 640x480 but is this the thing? I shoot lots of tv spots with budgets from $1500-$10,000 in SD, would I have a good tool to SELL on a bigger budget spot with the HDcam? or is it to crappy for that? what is the use for it? can you produce stuff for DiscoveryHD and sell it really easy right now because they dont' have much to put on that channel yet? what is the deal? how can this camera make me more money ans well as get me a better pic quality?
thanks guys and PLEASEEEEE set some footage on a FTP for us all!!

No it was not a bad decision. The DVX100 is a very good SDTV camera which I own too. The HD10 will require a lot more attention from the user to obtain very good results. The DVX-100 still needs attention, but has more controls to shape the image in camera. Ofcourse the HD10 has more pixels, which translates into more resolution, which I want since SDdv has hit it limits for me, I need more res. More will be known over the next few months as more users spring up. So in the meantime use your DVX100 to enhance your craft and if down the line the HD10 will work, sell the DVX100 to get it.

Check out my site that shows sample pics and tests of the JVC HD camera:
http://www.Pbase.com/PappasArts9

Michael Pappas
http://www.Pbase.com/arrfilms


<<<-- Originally posted by Obin Olson : jsut bought a dvx100 was that a bad decision? it is not here yet and I could sell it ASAP as New before I open the box, I would LOVE to have somthing BETTER res then 640x480 but is this the thing? I shoot lots of tv spots with budgets from $1500-$10,000 in SD, would I have a good tool to SELL on a bigger budget spot with the HDcam? or is it to crappy for that? what is the use for it? can you produce stuff for DiscoveryHD and sell it really easy right now because they dont' have much to put on that channel yet? what is the deal? how can this camera make me more money ans well as get me a better pic quality?
thanks guys and PLEASEEEEE set some footage on a FTP for us all!! -->>>

Originally posted by Paul Mogg : Thanks Chris, tell me how many clips you'd like, as I don't want to overwhelm your site, I kept the clips pretty short ( about 8 secs each).

Thanks again.
Paul,

I can host about 2 gb of bandwidth per day for awhile if it helps. I know Chris is out of town and may be a little hurd... ah, hard ;>) for him to setup until he gets back. I can setup a temp FTP anytime. Let me know if its needed.

-Rodger

Nah, the DVX100 is a very smart buy(Under $3000 currently!!). The HD1 I think we can all agree has many flaws associated with it. It is hardly the ideal camera, well neither are other $3000 cams but this one has many critical flaws associated with it. The JVC miniDV-HD cams is not in the same league as the DVX100 and the likes... The JVC is great if you own a nice HDTV set and shot family vacations and hook up your camera to the TV to watch them. Simple editing can be done but at the cost of loosing frame-accuracy. For us who make money doing video, the HD1 I think is a good buy if you can afford to get a secondary camera or have the $$ to buy a new piece of technology to play with. It'll be very hard to fit the camera in any sort of project because how will the client see your HD-res video? And we all know how bad it is in SD mode. I think if you wait out for another 3 or 4 years, we're going to see a real usable prosumer "money-making" HD format and HD cameras that will become everyone's 1st choice cam.

I saw this yesterday. I don't know if anyone has mentioned it here yet:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20030514/zooma108.htm

Looks pretty nice to me, even though it's not full-resolution.

-Rob (long-time lurker, first-time poster...heh...)

The problem with the videos and frames I've seen from this camera is that although each frame definitely has more pixel count than any SD format, it does not look better than many other $3000 SD cams. Lemme clarify what I mean, if you crop a 720x480 image from a HD frame from the JVC cam, and think of it as an image from a NTSC video, its quality is right on par with $600 1-chip miniDV cams. I feel the JVC MPEG2 HD format allows much more pixels per frame but its CCD+optics in real-life can't really amount to enough data to make good use of these pixels. This is clearly a case where added resolution doesn't add much benefits.

this is soo true, looks like a high res 1ccd 450$ wallmart minidv camera and the compression is WORSE then DV! I think this thing totaly SUCKS and I bet sony will come out with a WAY WAY better cam, EVEN if they use 1ccd I KNOW you can get GREAT images outa it just look at 1ccd STILL cameras ! they look totaly AWESOME!

While I agree that comparing a 720x480 segment of one of these frame captures and comparing it to a comparable frame from an XL-1 or DVX-100 isn't going to convince anyone to switch to the JVC, I think that kind of misses the point.

When I downloaded those clips I was expecting to see some really ugly compression artifacting. I ended up impressed at how smooth it all seemed, especially the scene of the duck on the water where the sunlight was sparkling off the water. I assumed that when that much movement was present in the entire frame that things would get really blocky because of the extreme compression, but it looked acceptable to me.

Personally, I think the extra resolution and the wide aspect ratio is the juice here. Yep, it isn't as impressive an image taken in 720x480 chunks as high-end Mini-DV cameras, but nothing else close to its price can capture at 1280x720 progressive and that extra resolution may not mean much to some people, but Mini-DV looks so blocky to me that it's really refreshing to see something capturing at an acceptable resolution.

I agree that the JVC seems a little half-baked and that a lot of its design is flaky, but I'd use it tomorrow if I had a student film to shoot and I'd just deal with the flaws. Hopefully we'll see more HD offerings from the majors by the time the next CES rolls around. I can hardly wait to hear the first news about other new HD cameras, but until then you've really got to hand it to JVC for getting something on the market. It's far from perfect, but it sure isn't as bad as everyone seems to think, IMO.

Sorry to be so long-winded, BTW. I've just been reading these threads for a while and it seems like the common theme among a lot of people is to knock the JVC for what it doesn't do and ignore what it does do.

-Rob

Rob i can see your the type that sticks up for the under dog, that is fine but I would never use this camera as a professional shooting rig for making money with It's not even close to good enough unless you use what you shoot without any color work in post. I guess you could use it for DOC work and it would be fine as the story is key above all .....still it looks like a highress 1ccd cheapo cam, I think they should have just put it in a small consumer box and sold it that way for say $1500, beats all other consumer cams out hands down....I do wish I could use it but the quality is just not in it to use like that;(

I'm curious about what aspect of the image is so unusuable? The compression is acceptable, which was the biggest problem I was expecting. The color rendition isn't bad. I realize the bar has been raised a lot in the past few years, but there's nothing about those images that seems "not even close to good enough" to use in a production to my eye. So be specific, if you can. What about those images is unacceptable for production work?

It's not the images that the camera delivers that I see being problematic. It's the actual camera in use that's likely to be a problem. It seems almost impossible to adapt to a follow focus setup, the manual zoom is in all likelihood unusable and the image stabilization is apparently problematic. Those are all real considerations if you don't have time or the inclination to work around them. The images themselves, though, seem very acceptable and at that resolution and with minor color correction they should provide really stunning results, IMO.

-Rob

Robert, I can't agree with you more, these guys are really clutching at straws trying to put down this camera in any way possible. What a ridiculous argument, that if you took one small section of the HD1's picture it wouldn't look any better than a $600 DV cam! Can't they think of anything better than that to dis it with? Now if they were to talk about the zoom or focus controls on this camera as not being good, I'd definately agree with them.
Oh well, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions.
I've been using this camera for a couple of weeks now, and I don't know of any other DV cam that can produce such quality pictures as I'm seeing, and that's the bottom line.

Paul,

I'm glad to read your bottom line.

"I've been using this camera for a couple of weeks now, and I don't know of any other DV cam that can produce such quality pictures as I'm seeing, and that's the bottom line."

As a consumer I intend to use this camera for personal use. If I feel that my current DV footage looks 60% as good as broadcast NTSC than I'll be more that pleased if the HD10 footage looks 60% as good as broadcast HDTV.

Paul, when i see HD or hear HD, expected the clarity and full color dynamic range usually associated with it, grant that was with large pro cams with huge CCDs. Maybe there will eventually be consumer HD cams with HD frame sizes but none of the dynamic range, sharpness, and color fidelity. Perhaps this JVC is the first one of such bred of cameras. Before samples from the JVC came out on the web, i was expecting a very sharp picture and good color to go with it. However what I saw was a large HD frame that let you see more things in a shot but without additional details, rather a loss of detail in many examples. My NTSC crop example is perfectly valid in directly comparing how capable this camera really is at capturing good images. As the image dimension increase, there are naturally more pixels, so theoretically, more details should be captured, but not so in this case. To tell you the truth, if the camera captured beautiful images, even in auto mode, I can care less about the control flaws.

I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look.

<<<-- Originally posted by Yang Wen : Before samples from the JVC came out on the web, i was expecting a very sharp picture and good color to go with it. However what I saw was a large HD frame that let you see more things in a shot but without additional details, rather a loss of detail in many examples. -->>>

Try to remember that you can frame pretty much exactly the same shot with either standard Mini-DV rigs or the JVC. While it's true that you're seeing a bigger picture when you see frame captures from the JVC, try to keep in mind that they aren't going to a larger display at the end of the day. The image is bigger, not to "see more things in a shot" but because the camera is capturing additional detail. That additional detail, when shown on a monitor or projected, will equate to more detail, not the picture getting bigger. I think this is a case where you're going to have to see a full-screen image of the same subject matter from both the JVC and a regular Mini-DV rig before the difference in detail becomes apparent to you.

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look. -->>>

I really look forward to seeing this, Michael. Have you shot any test footage to deliberately cause compression artifacting? I'd love to see some worst-case footage just to see what happens.

BTW, sorry to register and post so much on the first day, but I find the prospect of shooting student films with HD pretty exciting.

-Rob

It's great to see HD at this level. My first experience working with HD started 16 years ago in 1987 when I was 18. That camera took while to warm up before you could use it. This was also the year that the first HD major hollywood film was released that was filmed in HighDef. Julia and Julia (1987): Kathleen Turner, Sting, Gabriel Byrne. I remember seeing it on the movie screen and thinking this is going to work, and this is the future. I nearly got my head cut off in the film community here in LA for even saying that. Though that was the day of tube cameras and it was a bitch to prevent streaking. But it still looked good. Now here we are 16yrs latter and we have HD in the palm of our hands. It's amazing.


Michael Pappas
www.pbase.com/PappasArts9
www.pbase.com/Arrfilms


<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Jackson : <<<-- Originally posted by Michael Pappas : I have some tests I want to post that I am waiting to finish as soon as I get more material, but it shows that mini dv breaks down far sooner in extreme post work to correct the image or adjust for a certain look. Where as the JVC can take a pretty good beating in post work to shape a final look. -->>>

I really look forward to seeing this, Michael. Have you shot any test footage to deliberately cause compression artifacting? I'd love to see some worst-case footage just to see what happens.

BTW, sorry to register and post so much on the first day, but I find the prospect of shooting student films with HD pretty exciting.

-Rob -->>>

yes please do showme this because I have taken the hd shots on the web and did some color work on them,,,,,they looked REALLY bad....

Michael, I'm uploading four clips to the dvinfo site now, and will upload more smaller ones a little later today.

Paul.

p.s. Obin, I can reccomend some very good books on color correction if you feel you need to brush up on your skills

I've been lurking around for some weeks now and I think the time is right to get into the discussion since the camera is now available and the discussion seems to get a bit more open minded. I agree totally with Robert Jackson in his comments about the actual results available on the web. The JY-HD10u is a tool, not a complete one I must agree but a very promising one if the knowledge of the operator is sufficient. Definition indeed is the major issue here. I work a lot on the images I capture and I find the lack of definition often frustrating, I believe this camera (and others to come) will improve my work for the time being.

I am curious about Paul's tests, I will wait to see them. The tests seen for the moment are in uncontrolled environments, I wonder how it will perform in a controlled one...

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Jackson : I'm curious about what aspect of the image is so unusuable? The compression is acceptable, which was the biggest problem I was expecting. The color rendition isn't bad. I realize the bar has been raised a lot in the past few years, but there's nothing about those images that seems "not even close to good enough" to use in a production to my eye. So be specific, if you can. What about those images is unacceptable for production work?

It's not the images that the camera delivers that I see being problematic. It's the actual camera in use that's likely to be a problem. It seems almost impossible to adapt to a follow focus setup, the manual zoom is in all likelihood unusable and the image stabilization is apparently problematic. Those are all real considerations if you don't have time or the inclination to work around them. The images themselves, though, seem very acceptable and at that resolution and with minor color correction they should provide really stunning results, IMO.

-Rob -->>>

I'll have some footage up either tonight or tomorrow.

heath

The only thing I guess with the JVC HD cam is that it looks very consumer like somthing you see at Walmart. It's a little too small for me. I think I'll give the another year to perfect the smaller DV cams. I just bought a DVX100. I don't have it yet. But I'll post some clips when I get it.