Why has no one commented on or posted DV images from this cam? That would allow easy apples to apples comparison test, especially if someone has a PD150, XL1s, DVX100 or other $3500 range DV cam so we can better see it's CCD and lens performance without the extreme MPEG artifacts.

Because that would not ne an "Apples to Apples" test. The JVC's optimum performance is as an HD camera, not as a DV camera, so if any comparisons are made it should be at HD resolutions, and viewed on HD monitors. I don't think you would want to take footage from your DV cam, deliberately reduce the resolution by 3/4 then make a comparision with another camera at full resolution, would you?

All the best

On the contrary, even when looking at my DVX100 footage on VHS dubs or highly compressed web-clips, the differences are clearly apparent.

Plus, see my response in the main thread about HD monitor red-herrings.

If HD is the optimal performance of this cam, generating a DV image should tax it much less, therefore generate a image with less artifacts? I fail to see why DV clips from this cam are irrelevant in looking at CCD and lens performance.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : If HD is the optimal performance of this cam, generating a DV image should tax it much less, therefore generate a image with less artifacts? I fail to see why DV clips from this cam are irrelevant in looking at CCD and lens performance. -->>>

Because DV is an entirely different format involving a large amount of DSP firmware inside the camera that is not involved in HD mode. It's DV performance is not relevant when discussing its HD capability.

If you intend to use the camera in DV mode, then its performance in that mode is of interest to you. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

Why don't you compare the still picture performance of the HD1 to that of a Canon 1Ds? It's just as important.

I think people are protesting to much. What's the big deal about not seeing DV clips from this cam? If they suck, fine, but why did JVC include DV in the camera if it's do bad?

Anyway, after perusing the threads here, this cam is clearly not for me. So I'm not interested in DV images anyway.

The autoiris and control issue would be deal-breakers anyway, even if the picture was better. But the auto-iris combined with extremely narrow, even by video standards, exposure latitude is a serious flaw in my book. Even the couple of people here in love with the extra pixels find in pretty frustrating.

I'll return to my DVX100 world and await the next uber-cam...

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : I think people are protesting to much. What's the big deal about not seeing DV clips from this cam? If they suck, fine, but why did JVC include DV in the camera if it's do bad?
-->>>

I imagine it's because no one has wasted their time testing it. Those truly interested in the camera are using its HD mode, not testing its lowest-res format so that you can compare it unfavorably to the DVX100.

As to why JVC included it you would need to ask JVC. I doubt there's a single person interested in the JVC for its DV capability.

I moderate over in the DVX100 forum. If you visit there, you will notice the issues with the Panasonic anamorphic adaptor. I (and perhaps others) who shoot 16:9 came over to investigate this cam and to see if it was worth switching to get true 16:9.

But I found it lacking for my needs. I don't plan to post here (except for this clarification :) unless JVC improves this model or introduces this a new one. I can live with the letterbox mode in the DVX100 as for me, it produces a more pleasing image.

Per "crippling" the camera, many of us do not consider the DV format crippled. Anymore than Super 8mm is crippled. Choice of mediums is just that, choice of mediums.

Camera choice is pretty personal - I'm passionate about my needs and choices, but I don't expect others to share them.

I'd say restricting the JVC to DV mode is crippling it regardless of how good the DV format is.

So what's wrong with posting stills in high quality JPEG format. It would give some idea of image quality without the DV/HD issue.

This whole argument seems to reinforce the fact that this camera has nothing going for it other than high resolution. Without that feature, it'd be no better than your typical $500 1-chip DV camera.

I've owned my HD1 for about a week and I've yet to use the DV mode. I don't suppose I ever will. I'm not even curious what it might look like. I may try the 60p SD at some point though.

The DV mode is not what I bought this HD camcorder for.

Anyways, if you are really curious about the performance of an HD1, go to a local store and check it out. Everything is speculation until you see it with your own eyes.

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : This whole argument seems to reinforce the fact that this camera has nothing going for it other than high resolution. Without that feature, it'd be no better than your typical $500 1-chip DV camera. -->>>

There is no argument here. Come back with your DVX100 720p frame grabs then we'll compare.

The Canon 1Ds is a single chipper and I've never heard anyone complain about its color or resolution.

"The Canon 1Ds is a single chipper and I've never heard anyone complain about its color or resolution."

I believe that is a CMOS sensor, a different type of technology than a camcorder CCD (charge couple device). I used to know what CMOS stood for but I can't remember. :) Anyway it's apples and oranges.

CMOS stands for Complemetary Metal Oxide Semiconductor. If you think that makes a difference then I'll change my example to the Kodak 14n, the Nikon D1/D100, the Fuji S2, etc.

Using a single chip in no way suggests that good color can't be achieved. All the above cameras use a single CCD and achieve far greater resolution and color detail than any video camera.

Incidentally, CMOS sensors used to be considered a poor man's CCD until Canon proved they could be as good if not better. Curious that you now suggest it matters in this discussion.