Has there been any information of the sensor resolution yet ?
I really don't worry too much about the small 1/4" CCD-size as long as the native resolution is HD (1920x1080) and not SD (960x540).

I think the pixel shifting is a clue that it wont be 'true' 1920x1080. (Otherwise why would you have to mess about shifting pixels!- its a resolution enhancement thing)

the 1/4" CCD doesnt scare me either - you've gotta remember 1/4" CCD IS NOT the same as 1/4" CMOS - CMoS sensors are inherently more noisy than CCD for any given size.

The fuse has been well and truely lit with this baby, i am an EX1 owner and there's been chatter about this cam over in that forum. So now - bring on the fireworks.

Wish we could see 'some' footage from the pre prod. model just to keep us happy

Some more user pics..

http://www.videoaktiv.de/images/2009/jvcpro/full.jpg

http://www.videoaktiv.de/images/2009/jvcpro/display.jpg

The display and some of the icons look exactly like the ones currently on the HD7. It even uses the same batteries which are data batteries. The main difference is the CCD';s on the HD7 are 1/5 inch vs. 1/4 inch.

The display and some of the icons look exactly like the ones currently on the HD7. It even uses the same batteries which are data batteries. The main difference is the CCD';s on the HD7 are 1/5 inch vs. 1/4 inch.

And, the physical package seems very close the HD1/HD10.

These photos were taken at the pre-NAB 2003 Press Briefing at JVC.

This was the beginning of "Affordable HD."

Back then the "alpha dogs" all proclaimed MPEG-2 "couldn't be edited" or if it could -- you would go crazy waiting for the "missing" frames to be re-created as you jogged through footage, or if you didn't go nuts -- the edits simply couldn't be frame accurate. Long GOP formats simply couldn't be edited.

Gee -- that sounds like what Panasonic still claims. :)

Then there were attacks on "HDV" based upon those who tried the Z1. Hollywood types seemed to have zero understanding that there were two types of HDV and that 18Mbps 720p24/720p30 had half the compression as 720p60 which was used to deliver both sports and Hollywood movies.

And, after folks screaming 30p couldn't be used -- the Avid list-serve now has folks coming forward to admit they now use 30p rather than 24p because they don't want to hassle with pulldown.

Which, I guess, makes the HD1/HD10 6 years ahead of its time.

Great perspective Steve. And I agree. I think too many people thought 24p would offer some huge advantage because it was compressing fewer frames, which is true. But, some had their faces so close to the monitor they were missing the obvious issues with judder and such. And I think so many of the Avid editors where initially thinking 24p HDV would pull down as easy as 24pa DV. But I'm glad the myth of 24p being the only framerate to shoot in has finally passed.

I will be interesting to compare the different bit rates in terms of overall quality when these cameras start shipping. For standard def delivery, I'm betting 35 mbps 720/30p will look Mr. Clean as can be.

Cheers.

...For standard def delivery, I'm betting 35 mbps 720/30p will look Mr. Clean as can be.

Cheers.

Don't forget any SD output will have to be done in post as the codec only outputs HD frame sizes - see page 1

Don't forget any SD output will have to be done in post as the codec only outputs HD frame sizes - see page 1

Such as in Avid MC. Edit in Native XDCAM 35mbit VBR MXF 720/30 in 720/30 sequence preset, transcode into MXF 720x486 1:1, change tab to 30i, export QT reference into Sorenson or Adobe Encore, etc. etc.?? Or if you prefer transode into Avid DV, export QT reference, check "use Avid DV Codec" box and you can follow from there.

Cheeeeers.

I will be interesting to compare the different bit rates in terms of overall quality when these cameras start shipping. For standard def delivery, I'm betting 35 mbps 720/30p will look Mr. Clean as can be. Cheers.

YES - 720p is great for SD. And, it will be a sweet spot if the chips are 1280x720. And, perhaps, even more of a sweet spot if the chips are 920x540. (It will be interesting to see if/how JVC pixel-shifting differs from Panasonic's.)

One workflow issue is getting 720p to BD. The BD spec. doesn't seem to support p25 and the inexpensive Windows/OS X applications assume only 1080i50 or 1080i60 video. So far I've been making 1920x1080i BDs from the JVC HD7.

My task for Feb. is to go back through the multiple applications I've been testing and check them for 720p support.

------------

Curious how folks feel about using DVCPRO HD as a 720p intermediate rather than DNxHD, PRORES 422, or AIC. I does seem to cut resolution a bit, but really plays much more smoothly on laptops.


PS: Walmart has 720p30 DXG camcorders on-sale at $129.99.

I also wish manufacturers stop selling cameras with stock shotgun microphones and charging us for it. Usually they are quite crappy and add unnecessary cost. I find stock microphone on my GY-HD 100 quite bad and I ended up replacing it anyway.
Also a side note. I just had a few clients dropping out of a picture for cash flow reasons. I predict hard times ahead, as people and companies don't have the credit lines they used to have. I will hang tight with a new purchase. So it might be prudent on JVC part to look into cost saving measures to attract people like me.
Bite rates, specs and tapeless workflow are cool, as long as they pay the bills.

I also wish manufacturers stop selling cameras with stock shotgun microphones...Then you'd have a lot of people complaining about how it doesn't come with a microphone.

Then you'd have a lot of people complaining about how it doesn't come with a microphone.

DVX100 did not have a shotgun and I don't think people complained about that too much. On that note they also can complain about the lack of extra batteries, filters or a tripod. My point is that most of us have already good sound equipment, and don't need to pay for an item that will sit at the bottom of the closet till you decide to sell the camera.

I totally agree with you, Robert. Especially since the HM100 will have two mics, on build-in stereo mic and the shotgun...

Hmmm.. i personally would rather save $100 and not have a stock mic and get a better one. The stock mics I have I use to hold toilet paper in the bathroom. Well OK, not really, it didn't fit, but the point is they are better than nothing, but not by much... you should quickly replace it.

I am surprised honestly how often I see people using many different cameras with the stock shotgun mic in the field. So obviously there are many people who haven't upgraded. I picked up a ME66 that most audio engineers say is basic decent starter mic, but often point to the next mic up in the Sennheiser line. The standard mic by nearly every camcorder company sounds like a tin can on a string compared to something decent from Sennheiser or Rode in the $500+ range. An Audio Engineer will probably turn their nose up at a ME66 and so on. I know more than a handfull of Audio Engineers turned video producers that don't touch a mic under $2,000. So everyone has their yardstick.

I am surprised honestly how often I see people using many different cameras with the stock shotgun mic in the field. So obviously there are many people who haven't upgraded.


When i lived in NYC I surprised by how many people would pickup a camcorder from B&H only a few days before going on some long journey for a shoot. I think they felt that if JVC put the mic on the camera -- at least they could be sure it would WORK.

Were they to consider a different mic -- not only would they not be sure it would work -- they would enter the land of "Audio Engineers will probably turn their nose up at a ME66 and so on."

Not to mention that I've found many "visual" folks just don't understand audio equipment specs. Mic sensitivity in minus values makes no sense to them. Equally hard -- the concern over crowded RF space, "what can/do I use in Russia", UHF/VHF, and "what's diversity?"

Worse, as they try to become informed -- they find that many pros recommend using different mics depending on the situation. When these same experts are like those you speak of : "I know more than a handfull of Audio Engineers turned video producers that don't touch a mic under $2,000" the situation becomes way too crazy. Ultimately, it is simpler and much cheaper to put off changing the stock mic.

Moreover, I doubt that a company would really knock off $100 if they dropped the mic. In fact, whatever tiny amount it costs them for a mic is worth knowing buyers will get audio from day 1.

I've had a great little JVC DV500 for ten years now and am sold on JVC quality and value. But I was hoping for 1/2" chips, CCD or CMOS, and a non-mpeg2 codec in the new cam. I think AVC Intra would have been fab, but costly. H.264 is the schnizzle, for the next few years, at least. And a 10x lens is pretty prosumerish these days.

However, the new 1/4" chips might be adequate if they can perform well in low light. And I really like the small size and weight. The QuickTime workflow is a big bonus for FCP users. Let's see what the images look like.

I've had a great little JVC DV500 for ten years now and am sold on JVC quality and value. But I was hoping for 1/2" chips, CCD or CMOS, and a non-mpeg2 codec in the new cam. I think AVC Intra would have been fab, but costly. H.264 is the schnizzle, for the next few years, at least. And a 10x lens is pretty prosumerish these days.

I'm actually glad this camcorder DOESN'T use AVC Intra or AVCHD. The XDCAM EX codec, in my opinion, is the best 'bang for the buck' right now for storage requirements as well as quality. I really have not read or heard of anything that compares it unfavorably to an HD Intro (non long GOP) format. And right now the workflow for XDCAM EX is really efficient on the Mac, much more so than the H.264 formats. At some point H.264 may overtake MPEG2 in quality and versatility, maybe Final Cut Pro 7 or something along with Snow Leopard taking advantage of Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) on video cards will improve the efficiency of the workflow, but for now it's not ready for prime time.

I hope this camera has good image quality, for $4,000 and lack of some simple features such as wired lens control, it really better have that good image, cause there are some awesome prosumer camcorders out there.

I you have ever seen 35mbit EX footage, you will understand that this datarate / codec is a great compromise between file handling, NLE performance and pic quality.

no problem with that.

If you need more, the cam (like the ex series) offer HD-SDI out with non-mpgged video quality.

ULI

I you have ever seen 35mbit EX footage, you will understand that this datarate / codec is a great compromise between file handling, NLE performance and pic quality.
Well said. That datarate is low enough to be easily written to cheap memory, and low enough to give decent recording times.

At the same time, with MPEG2 it's high enough to give good quality, whilst still being relatively easy to edit without transcoding.

I think AVC-HD is a good thing on consumer cameras, but in the $5,000-10,000 price range I don't think the file size saving (compared to XDCAM-EX) is worth it, given the increased difficulty of editing.

If Panasonic can release the HMC-150 for much less than the price that they quoted during the announcement than I suspect that theirs a good chance that JVC may end up doing the same by releasing the HM100 for at least $500 less and the real sweet spot would be $3000 that I‘m hoping. Still, we all know that Sony’s V1u was released for over $4,000 and it didn’t do bad at all. I still think Sony should have released it for less.

As far as lowlight capabilities compared to cameras with 1/3” chips, big deal. I mean, it can get through more places than the bigger camcorders and once you take off the microphone, it can look consumer-ish which may get you less noticed in some situations. It’s also much lighter. I see it as a tradeoff rather than a disadvantage.

Paulo:1/4" chips on the HM100...

I know that. That’s why I brought the V1u into this.

I was saying that cameras with bigger chips may have better lowlight capabilities but the HM100 does have it’s own advantages compared to them.

Sorry, I didn't get that from your post. My apologies.

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/CAMERA/brochure/gyhm100u.pdf

New brochure on HM 100.

If Panasonic can release the HMC-150 for much less than the price that they quoted during the announcement than I suspect that theirs a good chance that JVC may end up doing the same by releasing the HM100 for at least $500 less and the real sweet spot would be $3000 that I‘m hoping. Still, we all know that Sony’s V1u was released for over $4,000 and it didn’t do bad at all. I still think Sony should have released it for less.

As far as lowlight capabilities compared to cameras with 1/3” chips, big deal. I mean, it can get through more places than the bigger camcorders and once you take off the microphone, it can look consumer-ish which may get you less noticed in some situations. It’s also much lighter. I see it as a tradeoff rather than a disadvantage.

For $2,995. it would be revolutionary, and still be "under $4000." It would be a recession-buster price. And for the 700, $5,995. would be awesome.

WE NEED FOOTAGE!
They really want to torture us with this stuff, don´t they...

Now we are talking: B&H lowered the price by $500 to $3495. Approx. arrival in April... Still no footage anywhere though...

Yes I'm seriously considering this camera as well, and everybody is quite right, some sample footage would be fantastic, pretty much the only thing for me now that will allow me to make a decision to invest in the camera or not.

And it would be better to be original media from the cards.
QT and .iso. Just 10-20 seconds will do.

Anybody have any idea what the minimum mac computer/specs would be to edit these files from this nifty camera? G5? processor?

thanks

Anybody have any idea what the minimum mac computer/specs would be to edit these files from this nifty camera? G5? processor?

thanks

My guess is at least an Intel iMac.

its only Mpeg2 so wont need much if u have a decent video card

since it will be recorded in .mov one should be able to edit on any machine that fits the specs for FCS2.

I can tell you that 35mbps 1080p struggles to maintain a constant frame rate on a 2.16Ghz Duo Core 2 Macbook with 1GB of Ram. 720p does better but the real issue is 35mbps bottlenecking with slow (5400RPM) hard drives or a slow-connection to an external drive (USB2.)
Of course dropped frame during editing doesn't affect the ultimate ability to edit XDCAM EX 35mbps on a low-end Mac, it just makes it a frustrating process.

If I judge from EX-1 files with my own Quad Core Q6600 and 4GB of ram (now I have 8) and using first Liquid and now Media Composer, I could say that those files are very very easy edited with a medium strength PC. I have tried with over 4 hours timelines and with 10 layers with two FX each. Everything went RT. About Mac I have no clue.

i agree with george - i use edius 5 on an average PC and it chomps up long gop mpeg2 with ease - sounds like FCP users love a hard time - more i hear about FCP the more i am glad i have a PC.

I can tell you that 35mbps 1080p struggles to maintain a constant frame rate on a 2.16Ghz Duo Core 2 Macbook with 1GB of Ram. 720p does better but the real issue is 35mbps bottlenecking with slow (5400RPM) hard drives or a slow-connection to an external drive (USB2.)
Of course dropped frame during editing doesn't affect the ultimate ability to edit XDCAM EX 35mbps on a low-end Mac, it just makes it a frustrating process.

I don't know about XDCAM, but my G5 (with 2.5 RAM) did just fine with DVCPRO HD footage. Correct me if I am wrong, but the bite rate in this one is somewhere in range 50mbps?

I don't know about XDCAM, but my G5 (with 2.5 RAM) did just fine with DVCPRO HD footage. Correct me if I am wrong, but the bite rate in this one is somewhere in range 50mbps?

Bit rate will affect data transfer to and from the hard drives but DVCPRO will be much easier to decode for a processor than Mpeg2 (XDCAM.)

I think too many people thought 24p would offer some huge advantage because it was compressing fewer frames, which is true. But, some had their faces so close to the monitor they were missing the obvious issues with judder and such.

Cheers.

Well I beg to differ about 30p being better than 24p. 30p is great for HD 720p broadcast or 1080i cross conversion broadcast, but fairly awful for downconversion to DVD or for international sales (Pal). NTSC DVD players decode 24p and 60i. 30p comes out as the worst of both formats rammed together in a train wreck. All the static straight lines of buildings and windows looking instead like venetian blinds buzzing in the wind at the lead edge of a hurricane.

I find it very frustrating that B & H already has the GY-HM100U listed on their web site at $3495 but nothing on the obviously much more anticipated GY-HM700U.

B & H Photo - JVC GY-HM100U - $3495 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/597842-REG/JVC_GY_HM100U_GY_HM100U_ProHD_Camcorder.html)

I called them today to see if I could get an answer as to when they would have it listed on their site and was told hopefully by April. Their web site states the GY-HM100U has an approx arrival of April. I wonder if the delivery of these new cameras is being pushed back to April instead of the original March date? Everything I've been reading on these cameras says March. Heck, March is only 10 days away! I hope we don't have to wait until April or later to see this camera in stores.

I've seen today a GY-HM100 sample in JVC Italy in Milan.
The camera is small, but has all described functions as in pdf on web site.
i can confirm that it will arrive after HM700, even if HM700 hasn't up today a defined price.

i've recorded something in 720/50p and 1080/50i.
i hope i can see these files soon.

I hate to beat a dead horse but low light perfromance is pretty much key to what I do. Has anyone played enough with this camera to see how it performs against they current GY-HD100? and how the image quality is in comparison? Is it considered a step down from a GY-HD100? or up?

I hate to beat a dead horse but low light perfromance is pretty much key to what I do. Has anyone played enough with this camera to see how it performs against they current GY-HD100? and how the image quality is in comparison? Is it considered a step down from a GY-HD100? or up?
I'm assuming your not talking about the HM100 and instead referring to the HM700 right?

The HM100 is in a different category than the HD100.
HM700 is a huge step up from the HD100.

no I meant the 100, I was just wondering. I know it only has 1/4 inch chips but they have made some advancments in chips so I was wondering how they compared. I thought they were in different classes at first but if you look at a GY-HD100 without the big lens its not that much different than a GY-HM100. The HM100 records in a higher quality format over the GY-HD100 too. You cant really compare the GY-HM700 to a GY-HD100 its a $4,000 camera vs a $7000. The HM100 is the GY-HD100s price range.

...if you look at a GY-HD100 without the big lens its not that much different than a GY-HM100.No point in doing that though, because without the lens the HD100 is useless. It's more accurate to say that the HD100 & HD200 series cameras are very similar in size and shape to the HM700.

You cant really compare the GY-HM700 to a GY-HD100 its a $4,000 camera vs a $7000.It depends entirely on the configuration. An HD110 or HD200 with the Fuji 17x lens is $7200, roughly the same price as the HM700.

The proper comparison is obviously between the HD series and the HM700 since they are similar in size, weight, form factor (interchangeable lenses, etc.).

i've seen a single file with lolux recorded by HM100.
i can't say if it's better of the HD100 files, but new chips on HM100 should be able to give a real improvement even with 1/4" size.
Another question (imho) is how much Full auto on HM100 is a good solution to get best results?
i felt you can reach the best only using manual settings.

I guess I was trying to point out the marketing side of it and what camera is replacing what camera. From where I sit it looks like the GY-HM100 is replacing the GY-HD100(110) and the GY-HM700 is replacing the GY-HD200(250) in a price point anyway. Thats why im curious to see if the HD100 is comparable to the GY-HD100 in specs.

and the GY-HM700 is replacing the GY-HD200(250) in a price point anyway

Well, not quite REPLACING. The HM700 doesn't do Standard Def. I'm holding onto my 200's for the sole purposes of instant archiving to tape and the ability to shoot SD and hand tape over to clients OR for multicamera live switched applications where SD is required.

I guess I was trying to point out... what camera is replacing what camera.The HM series does not "replace" the HD series. The HD series isn't going away just yet. The HM series is an expansion of the ProHD product line.

Chris,

I dont know if this has been answered before, forgive me if it was, but did you and Tim get to test the hm700 in dark or low light conditions?


Ted

That's a question for Tim (I held it briefly while it was powered on in a low-light restaurant, but I didn't record anything). Tim had more hands-on time with it than I did.

Bit rate will affect data transfer to and from the hard drives but DVCPRO will be much easier to decode for a processor than Mpeg2 (XDCAM.)
Tim, I just downloaded a sample in xdcam 1080/60i and G5 handles it all right.