There seems like there should be more excitement for this camera.

My question is, can you shoot in the highest HD mode (16x9) and still have your final product viewable on a regular TV?

In other words, I shoot a film on 16mm and then transfered it to video to edit. So you could see it on a VHS tape or DVD, but it was still film.

Point is, can you shoot on HD, but then edit it like DV and then output to VHS tape or DVD, but still have a higher quality product than you would if you shoot just on DV.

I mean HD has a better resolution than DV, so I figure this camera would be a huge hit.

However, the DVX-100 still seems to be the weapon of choice.

Fill me in fellow filmmakers.

Thanks.

Yeah, when you downconvert it from HD to SD, it does look very good.

However, if your talking about this camera vs the DVX100, go for the DVX100, no doubt. This JVC camera is geared at people who want to do home movies and have HD sets.

Yeah, definately. You'd hate to have all that extra resolution to play with. Even better, go for VHS. There are really good deals to be had on used VHS camcorders. ;-)

OK, so that was a little sarcastic, but you should qualify these statements before you make them. You can't just make a blanket statement like that about the JVC. Neither the JVC or the DVX100 is a professional product and both of them have their strengths. The JVC certainly offers a much higher resolution, true 16:9 image, which is completely out of the realm of possibility with any other consumer camcorder. In my opinion, that makes it by far the better choice of the two, even in spite of its quirks. Of course, there are much more full-featured 3/4" U-Matic field cameras out there, "no doubt." ;-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : Yeah, when you downconvert it from HD to SD, it does look very good.

However, if your talking about this camera vs the DVX100, go for the DVX100, no doubt.

OK go render all of your "HD" sized frames into SD res, and color corrrect your entire timeline, and then hopefully that the stuff you shot will let you do a cut "exactly" on the frame you want it on. Then pray that the cam won't do any automatic exposure jumps on you while you're on the 12th take of a scene..... Then when you're finished with your movie, gotta go rent a HD-capable projector to show everyone right? Otherwise, what's the point?.....just some possible scenarios I've thrown out there.

You start out with an HD product and you've got a lot more to work with, IMO. There are already festivals and exhibitors that can project it natively.

Yes, I think we can all agree that there are things about the JVC that could be better. It displays some minor compression noise, the degree of control in the hands of the operator could be better and colors may not be as saturated as some like.

Given the choice between the images coming out of the JVC with a little effort on the part of the operator and SD images that are easier to capture, I'd opt for the HD solution. Some may not. I don't think the choice is as black and white as some like to image, though.

I don't have anything to shoot next semester or I'd buy one this summer. As it is, I have the luxury to wait until the next CES and see if anyone offers up any competition. If I was making the call today, though, I'd grab the JVC over the DVX100 in a heartbeat. I'm more interested in capturing beautiful and lasting images than convenience, though.

I'm all for making the conversion from SD to HD as soon as possible but I feel a much more usable solution is right over the horizon. Therefore, it's not worth it to jump on the gun to get this 1st incarnation of the "prosumer" HD cam. That's just my opinion though.

<<<-- originally posted by Matthew Kaplan : There seems like there should be more excitement for this camera. -->>>

Well There is a very thorough ongoing discussion. It is pretty rare to see a bunch of very technical people working in the buisness taking out their valuable time talking about a 1CCD 1/3 chip camera. We can say pretty much there is a lot of excitement but it is moderated by the plusses and minusses of the camera. It looks like 9 years ago when some (considered stupid) filmmakers started using the VX1000 wich was the first miniDV aimed at "prosumer production". People in the buisness could not agree (whatever the arguments) that a 3000$ camera was as good as the ones they used wich were more in the 30K's. But still, for some, excitement was there because it was the start of a democratisation process. The issue here is simple: HD for cheap. Of course it means having to use some annoying detours but damn.... it's pretty exciting!

Eric

I think the fact that there's no 24p mode just about says it all as far as filmmaking is concerned. How hard could it have been to have given this option?

Someone said that JVC and Panasonic have the same parent company. If that's true, then clearly they don't want this to replace the Panasonic 24p DV camera, and it won't.

As a matter of fact, JVC is owned at 51% by Panasonic so, yes, there is a little of that. 30P was a choice based on the fact that the consumer aimed market is more interrested in its HDTV 30p feature than the 24p conform to film process.

Doesn't mean they could not have given the option though...

Eric

"Doesn't mean they could not have given the option though..."

Exactly. Regardless of who you're aiming for, you have to know that filmmakers are going to want an affordable HD cam and they'd be dying to get their hands on this. By not including the option you basically send them the message "don't buy this camera." Why? Do they have a more expensive 24p model coming out soon? Do they not want to compete with Panasonic? Who knows?

They do have one clear market though, I bet: porn makers! :)

I believe they did not want to take a chance in aiming at filmmakers because it was so difficult in the beginning with miniDV and it was to great a risk. It was much wiser to aim at HDTV buyers/consumers whom always lurk for a new gadget to impress their neighbors. A camera with those possibilities at this price tag is really a bet because they will not have a huge margin of profit associated with it (low price, no extras or docking recorders, lenses or adapters...) so it would have been a seriously risky bet. I don't think they imagined this would happen in the first place or they thought the probability was dim. The intended "pro" market is the ENG (electronic news gathering). Japanese NHK network bought 1000 japanese units for that purpose. But you can bet that pron makers are already calculating the profits to come... As for a new camera with these possibilities, I recently talked to guys at JVC and they said that JVC has the exclusivity on the chip they use for at least two years (they bought so much that they were able to offer such a price) so if there is going to be another camera from a competitor it will have to be redesigned from the ground up.

Eric

I know it's probably a mortal sin to say it around here, but I don't think 24P is as big a selling point and a lot of people seem to think it is. I'm not slamming the DVX100, in fact I think it's a really nice camera. It has a wonderful lens, for one thing, but I honestly think the 30P mode it uses looks better than its 24P mode. The judder is just too distracting to me, and I'm used to shooting film.

Honestly, though, I don't have $30k to have a 35mm print made to take around to festivals so that's not a big issue to me. I also notice that a fair number of film transfers from Canon XL-1 masters have turned out great, so it isn't like it can't be done acceptably if there's some reason to do it down the road.

Taken as video, though, and not a low-budget aquisition tool to replace film, 30P is great, IMO. It still attains a certain "unreal" motion that makes it look very film-like and it doesn't seem to display nearly as much judder as the DVX100 in 24P modes.

That brings up a question, though, which might be better addressed outside this thread. Why does the DVX100 have such a quirky look in 24P when other 24P footage seems to look fine? Do directors like Lucas have special instructions as far as shutter speed or other settings that make the judder less noticeable or is it something else?

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : I think the fact that there's no 24p mode just about says it all as far as filmmaking is concerned. How hard could it have been to have given this option?

Someone said that JVC and Panasonic have the same parent company. If that's true, then clearly they don't want this to replace the Panasonic 24p DV camera, and it won't. -->>>

"I know it's probably a mortal sin to say it around here, but I don't think 24P is as big a selling point and a lot of people seem to think it is. I'm not slamming the DVX100, in fact I think it's a really nice camera. It has a wonderful lens, for one thing, but I honestly think the 30P mode it uses looks better than its 24P mode. The judder is just too distracting to me, and I'm used to shooting film. "

Well, it's fine to like the look of 30p more than 24p, but the fact remains that if you ever want to do a big-screen transfer you pretty much are stuck with 24p. There just aren't enough theaters with 30p projectors. 30p is fine if all you ever want to do is distribute on DVD (in fact, it's the ideal format for DVD), but if you're making an independent film and you have high hopes for it, are you going to risk going to 30p and possibly never having a good film transfer?

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore :

Well, it's fine to like the look of 30p more than 24p, but the fact remains that if you ever want to do a big-screen transfer you pretty much are stuck with 24p. There just aren't enough theaters with 30p projectors. 30p is fine if all you ever want to do is distribute on DVD (in fact, it's the ideal format for DVD), but if you're making an independent film and you have high hopes for it, are you going to risk going to 30p and possibly never having a good film transfer? -->>>

Like I said, though, the transfers from 30P I've seen haven't been bad at all. 28 Days Later originated in 30P, didn't it? Full Frontal, Tadpole, Tape... It's not like a decent transfer is impossible with 30P. And again, how many people ever spend $30k to get a print made in the first place?

There are misconceptions going on here Robert: 30p is an unacceptable format for film transfer as it is difficult to conform to 24P but 60i is acceptable now. 28 days later was shot in PAL (Boyle is european anyway) because it holds 96 more lines than NTSC and probably either in 25p or 50i. 30p seems to be the problematic format for film. Even 25p has to be speed reduced slightly to achieve 24p. Ideal is interlaced but then again you lose a lot in clarity (considering that the XL1s has a 270k set of CCD's, it's pretty bad).

The flicker thing is mostly due to the electronic nature of bothe the shutter and the ccd's. In video the image is scanned thus not displayed entirely at once wich creates this annoying flicker in either 24p 25p or 30p. For example, Star Wars ep II diplayed no flicker in film but did flickered in digital projection.

Eric

Eric is right,

In terms of a film transfer, this camera is a bad investment for any serious indie filmmaker because of the 30p issue. The best way to shoot an indie, that may go theatrical, is either with 60i, 50i, 25p, or 24p. Many people confuse 60i DV theatrical films with 30p, but they are two different animals.

<<<--
That brings up a question, though, which might be better addressed outside this thread. Why does the DVX100 have such a quirky look in 24P when other 24P footage seems to look fine? Do directors like Lucas have special instructions as far as shutter speed or other settings that make the judder less noticeable or is it something else?
-->>>>

24P is exactly what youre seeing. You can't hold the camera in your hand and wave it like a flag and expect smooth looking footage. Plus if you're only judging from the LCD, it is known to shutter much more than the Video Output. Also, your shutter speed is a contributing factor to the motion artifact you will see in the end result.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Eric is right,

In terms of a film transfer, this camera is a bad investment for any serious indie filmmaker because of the 30p issue. The best way to shoot an indie, that may go theatrical, is either with 60i, 50i, 25p, or 24p. Many people confuse 60i DV theatrical films with 30p, but they are two different animals. -->>>

I just assumed that anyone shooting with an XL-1(s) would shoot using "Frame Movie Mode" or whatever Canon calls it, and I notice quite a few movies shot on Canons have had film transfers.

Here's a question, then. If you have a 30P master, why couldn't you double the frames via software rendering and arrive at a 60P master for pulldown?

In any case, my point is that transfer to film is prohibitively expensive to the vast majority of people shooting movies on video and that there are a number of theaters and festivals that can project 30P.

transfering 30p to 60p will not solve the problem since no new frames will be created in the process, there will be 2 identical frames consecutively wich will equal the 30p original footage.

Eric

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : transfering 30p to 60p will not solve the problem since no new frames will be created in the process, there will be 2 identical frames consecutively wich will equal the 30p original footage.

Eric -->>>

Ah, that makes sense. Sorry. I don't have any experience going from video to film, it's all been the other way 'round for me. Never was very good at math and patterns, anyway. I look at the pulldown processes and thank goodness it's someone else's job to figure it out. ;-)

-Rob

>>I just assumed that anyone shooting with an XL-1(s) would shoot using "Frame Movie Mode" or whatever Canon calls it, and I notice quite a few movies shot on Canons have had film transfers.<<

Frame movie mode is actually terrible for film transfers, and most XL1 to Film movies were more then likely shot in standard interlace mode.