Now there are more levels to choose out at JVC including HD-SDI options.
Which gives you exactly what you pay for.

Exactly why I chose the 200 instead of the 250 when I purchased. In my case, the addition of HD-SDI on the 250 would have cost a $3000 premium over what I paid for each of my 200's. I felt it wasn't worth THAT much to me but that the 200 was enough of an improvement (60P, BNC connectors and the Anton Bauer plate) over the 110 to make that decision a no-brainer. Each of us has to decide on our own cost/benefit analysis. Would I love to have HD-SDI? Heck yeah. Did I make the right financial decision? I think so. Am I excited about HD-SDI on the 700? Yup!

Craig,
What kind of program (exchange offer) will JVC offer to current HD200/HD250 owners towards the new HM700? I am expecting that the deal will be nice. Have you seen what RED is offering to do for their current RED ONE owners?.... full compensation towards their new line. Just wondering what JVC's ready to do for it's loyal customer base.

Just wondering.

Stunned silence Johnny.....

All the top broadcasters stipulate top broadcast cameras. The reality is very different, depending on the content of course they will all accept very well shot, high quality HDV on a great story. They may well want you to deliver on top end HD, as they want YOU to get it there successfully.

This stipulation/ reality disparity has been going on for years. Back in the days of Beta SP I used to shoot a top end BBC Network program(me) called "Tomorrow's World" (it's gone now), eventually they told me that all BBC progs' were switching to Digital Betacam and they would be among the first. I checked with my other BBC clients and heard much the same story, so I gulped, put my perfectly good Beta SP camera in the cupboard (still had clients for it who didn't want Digi beta of course) and spent a very great deal of money on a Digital Betacam.

With my hand on my heart I promise that this is true: on the very first shoot I did for "Tomorrow's World" as soon as I'd lit the first scene and was ready to shoot the Director pulled out a Sony 100 DV camera and started to shoot. I asked him what it was for and he said, "the cut aways, we're all being trained to shoot as much as we can on DV, this is the future... Digi Betacams and cameramen are a thing of the past mate."

I didn't say much, just gulped again got on with the shoot wondering whom at the BBC, I should send my new camera bill to, the worst of it was that this director kept "crabbing" artistically into my frame! He just kept doing it, so eventually I let the camera run while I told him that it was just as well that he was shooting "cutaways". "Why?" he asked, "because some 'berk' keeps wandering into my shot”. I went home at the end of the day and was literally sick.

As an ex-long term member of BBC and ITV staff I can tell you that this sort of dangerous information is still par for the course. Never trust any of them to stick with the format they last thought of, they're all extra keen to get "the best" of course and to get you to buy it. The sad truth is that most of them don't have the budgets to hire it from you so look out!

Stuart,

That's a great story and the voice of experience. And now I'm having issues with my clients on whether they want 720p or 1080i/p and what frame rate. Early last year i had a similar experience where I was "A" cam and told to shoot 1080/30p and the "B" cam was told to shoot 1080/24. I told the producer that the whoever the editor was on the project that he would probably hunt him down and hang him once he saw the different frame rates. He told me to mind my own business. Of course I heard post was a mess. And the gaffer and loved setting the exposure for 2 different frame rates. it was fun.

I think more choices have made it more confusing for some and I think that over time (at least I hope), that most shoot/post workflows will start to lock in at 1080/30p.

Cheers.

I hear that Stuart and David. Being spoiled with fully solid state cameras is something I would like very much. Tape is a pain that I wish to dissolve from my workflow.

I just want to know what we can expect to get towards a trade or if I should sell before it's worth nothing...

Will the HM700 have 'Over & Undercrank' abilities (in camera) since the codec is a version of XDCAM EX?

Hopefully we get some more information sooner than later.

about the under and overcranking, now that tape is a thing of the past, though only the higher end XDcams have this, the base model didn't, and that's worth more than the JVC, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, but never the less, good point! A great feature to use!

Back in the days of Beta SP I used to shoot a top end BBC Network program(me) called "Tomorrow's World" (it's gone now), eventually they told me that all BBC progs' were switching to Digital Betacam and they would be among the first.
I believe the change was caused not by wanting a new tape format, but by the switch to widescreen? (Which, of course, would have created even more problems cutting in early 4:3 DV footage, but never mind!) Fifteen or more years ago I seem to recall that if you wnted true 16:9 it had to be a Digibeta, and it was that more than anything that drove the changeover, at least in the UK.

Yes, that's part of the story David, but the floundering about was really something. The BBC decided to move towards Digital Betacam, but the BBC was just a group of Programme departments that basically went their own way on their own budgets so a dictum from a faceless suit didn't mean much. The speed with which technical things changed and the "must have" from bright young things was basically beyond control.

BBC News decided to switch to the fatally flawed Betacam SX format and part equipped various offices around the world with SX before deciding to swap to DVCPro. That lasted a few weeks before they switched to DV. They still used Beta SP players and cameras though most were in dire need of repair. News never did switch to Digital Betacam, though you are right they did switch to 14x9 transmission - this was felt to be the best compromise. So 16x9 protected 14x9 was the format to shoot. That said various programmes still accepted Betacam SP and would Arc it to 14x9. One had to discover the latest thinking for yourself as the one thing we all found was that the BBC seemed to have no system to communicate to its regular freelancers.

In the meantime A major American News broadcaster stuck with Beta SP(NTSC), where I was their own camera was so clapped out that to be reasonably sure of sending a live image without dropping off air you had to strip the cameras doors off and hold various board connectors in with your fingertips and Scotch tape.

It was the same with other big name broadcasters, the state of and the variety of their equipment was shocking, the days of basically one format (Beta SP) were over, so swapping and exchanging was vastly more difficult; as was servicing the gear.

Camera construction moved towards the disposable and from Sony Digi 790 on some wiser hire companies pumped bath sealant into new camera chassis to stop the vibration and keep cards and connectors from falling out. Who knows what that did to air circulation and over heating?

These then are the people who stipulate that you must have an "XXXX" camera.... this week anyway. Next week it will almost certainly be something else. The HD(V) choices and frame rates, and what they can actually handle in post where they happen to be at any given moment simply demonstrating their own 'Circle of Confusion’ - a cynic might say “such is progress”. But hey! who would be in any other business?

I'm tempted to watch the next very few weeks, as this World Financial crisis bights deep into already battered budgets, my feeling is that well shot, well told, well constructed items, stories and documentaries delivered on a format that end users want and are equipped with at the sharp end, will prove to be key. How you get to that beautiful item's delivery point within budget is your problem.

In the end we're back to the same old problem, how the actual "end- users" re-take control in these format wars and get back to one affordable standard (of no interest to the equipment manufacturers).
Solid state? Yes that’s well possible, but which flavour would you like this week sir... why not take one of each?

BBC News decided to switch to the fatally flawed Betacam SX format and part equipped various offices around the world with SX before deciding to swap to DVCPro. That lasted a few weeks before they switched to DV.
I understood that for most of this decade in the UK, then of the main news broadcasters Sky have been using SX, ITN DVCPro, and BBC News DVCAM, with DSR500s? Of those, two have recently changed: Sky to P2, and ITN to DVCAM and DSR450s, the latter due to them needing widescreen cameras.

About ten years ago, the general feeling was that SX was the more upmarket format, but those cameras don't seem to have lasted as well as the DSR500s. The other advantage of DVCAM (over DVCPro) is that it's far more compatible with DV, useful when the latter is being used by journalists alongside crews.

Yes, that was about it David. Betacam SX was really a disaster, all sorts of edit problems, (sync and so on). As a format it seemed to be very prone to head clogging too. Then came the The DSR 500 which produced 'muddy' DSR 500 images. I guess I was used to Digi Betacam so there was really no comparison. However, the 500 did tend to fall apart too, sometimes leaving things like plastic switch covers and eye pieces trailing behind. The XLR "box" on the back was in fact part of the chassis. If, as happened, someone managed to stand on an audio cable while the operator was moving forward, instead of pulling the XLR plug off (bad enough), it tended to yank the back off the chassis off, and that was the end of camera.

Another thing was their tendency to '500 Alzheimer’s disease', the only cure was to switch the it off and remove all power sources completely for a few minutes and then start from scratch; great fun on a live OB!
For those of us who came from BVW 400s they were very badly built, not nearly rugged enough for news work; but at that price I guess they were considered disposable.

I think you've listed the real problem David: the sheer multiplicity of formats. In the format wars there have been ‘odd’ deals being done to lure a big name broadcaster into re-equipping with a particular product. I need to be careful about what I say here, but one major French deal springs to mind. The end result has been bucket loads of incompatibility in an industry that simply couldn't afford that mistake again. It's still relentless and yet the obvious truth is that nobody can possibly afford it now.

Surely the truth is that if the program(me) is really good it isn't judged by it's format, it's watched. If it's bad, it still isn't judged by the format, that isn't going to save it. People switch away no matter what it was shot on. Most homes wind the chroma up to near bursting point and have no idea what the image shape should actually be anyway.

Ah, the much lamented SX...

To be completely fair, the images were quite acceptable when played back long form from tape. Upon edit, though...

Interesting though that Stuart had issues with head clogs. My experience with SX was working news for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation here in Canada and we got tremendous reuse out of tapes and untold hours of use without head clogs. If you watched the error correction indicator on the feeder decks (75's?), there was a lot of error correction going on with some tapes...

Please don't get me wrong: SX was NOT a production format, IMHO. But for ENG work, it was sure easier to work with than SP in a fast paced news environment.

We've been using Beta SX in our commercial productions for over 7 years now. In all that time, I've never lost video to a camera (or deck) error. Not once. It has proven to be a robust and dependable format. It has never caused any problems with our NLEs.
Not production worthy? We've certainly made our money off of it.
That said, we've gone to P2 at work, and I don't ever want to shoot on tape again.

There you go: ask 1000 people a question and you'll get 1001 answers. There certainly is something to be said about the robust nature of professional 1/2" tape...

I can't say I've seen much SX in a non-linear environment but it doesn't hold up well to linear editing. The colour seems to be the first to go. One nice thing about SX was the pre-read function that allowed you to do A to A dissolves. Pretty advanced in it's day.

Let's get this thread back to the current century!

Any news Craig? It's almost February.
You aren't holding anything back are you Tim?
You've probably already shot your next project with one of these bad boys.....

Odd that people are saying that about the photo.

It's JVC that's displaying it!

::: Welcome to JVC ::: > ????? > ProHD ???? > New GY-HM700 & HM100 Camcorder (http://www.jvcmobile.co.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=p04_news&wr_id=72&page=1&sfl=&stx=&sst=wr_hit&sod=desc&sop=and&page=1)

JVC Korea apparently
As you can see there's the 700 photo, the 100 photo beneath that. The Press Release below that in English.
Apparently JVC is OK with showing the photo.

Rather than pointing to another (possibly competing) forum I thought it wise to upload the file directly here. You can see in my previous post that the pic is coming from a currently legit JVC site so they aren't concealing it... haven't pulled it, etc. My only guess is they'd prefer people to point to the JVC site itself so I'm qualifying the pic with a post to JVC site rather than an unauthorized location.

Well I've always said that JVC has the best form factor. Besides 2 HD 200's I also own a Canon A1. I commonly intercut the JVC's and the Canon and I have always noticed that the Canon has a significantly cleaner image (less noise). So I've been wishing for a JVC camera with Canon's codec.

Fast forward to today and it looks like were getting a JVC form factor with a Sony codec which at 35 mb/s may be the best of all HDV codecs.

Very much looking forward to this camera!

Odd that people are saying that about the photo.

It's JVC that's displaying it!Regardless of the obvious inconsistency between JVC's various corporate nationalities, I pretty much have to comply with JVC America when it comes to things like this. I have a query into them right now seeking a clarification on that image, and if it disappears, then you'll know what their answer was.

I can't easily defy their requests, because they know where I live. These guys wear suits and ties and they're really polite and all, but ultimately they're corporate... which means that any decision I make about their intellectual property that goes against their wishes could easily land me bound and gagged in the trunk of Carl Hicks' Bonneville, with Lon Mass in the back seat directing him to "take a drive out to the lake."

Chris,
That's why I was wondering about the image vs the link to the JVC Korea site. That's why I was thinking the link, divorced from the site, might be subject to question (and even removal) given that the USA JVC site is not showing the image.

The JVC Korea site presents a different question that they need to think about. JVC Korea could implement IP detection preventing the site from being viewed outside a country or region. Actually many media based sites do that.

Currently the JVC Korea site with the image is easy enough to find using Google in the USA so JVC Korea apparently has no interest in blocking it or JVC USA hasn't (yet?) taken any steps to prevent finding JVC Korea's site (which has the press release in English no less!) through a USA Google search.

Certainly JVC USA has a right to control use of images it owns but it would be odd for JVC USA to claim right to block a link to JVC Korea site itself (which contains the image) when the link is still very much publicly available in the USA itself.

At the very least you should point out the JVC Korea link's current availability in the USA (as a courtesy to JVC USA at least) so they can decide how to handle internally.

If both the image and link disappear at least we'll learn something about the odd communications (or lack of) between JVC USA and JVC Korea.

Regardless of the obvious inconsistency between JVC's various corporate nationalities, I pretty much have to comply with JVC America when it comes to things like this. I have a query into them right now seeking a clarification on that image, and if it disappears, then you'll know what their answer was.

I can't easily defy their requests, because they know where I live. These guys wear suits and ties and they're really polite and all, but ultimately they're corporate... which means that any decision I make about their intellectual property that goes against their wishes could easily land me bound and gagged in the trunk of Carl Hicks' Bonneville, with Lon Mass in the back seat directing him to "take a drive out to the lake."

...it looks like were getting a JVC form factor with a Sony codec which at 35 mb/s may be the best of all HDV codecs....

Justin the 35mbps codec is not HDV. While it's MPEG-2 Long GOP, it's 35mbps VBR (XDCAM) not 25mbps CBR which is part of HDV spec as is the 19mbps apparently that JVC has also used.

Not all MPEG-2 Long GOP is HDV.
Also Not all Long GOP is MPEG-2 (AVCHD is H.264/AVC Long GOP for example).
Please don't confuse codecs.

This is a flash memory-only camera, right? No tape drive? If so, I wonder why it's so long? What's on the other side of the camera from the LCD screen, where the tape drive would be if it were an HD250?

If so, I wonder why it's so long?

Electronics in the centre of the camera? Balance? If the 700 doesn't balance on my shoulder like my 200's, I won't be buying. I avoided the EX3 when I purchased SOLELY because of the balance, or lack thereof. The market NEEDS an affordable, shoulder mounted solid state recording HD camera like this IMHO.

I have picture of the other side of the camera from the JVC Korea site but I'm reluctant to post it without Chris Hurd approval.

I'm willing to post imbed direct from the JVC Korea site so there's no legal question of origin or that JVC Korea is genuinely posting this publicly and can be found on Google USA.

The pic on the other side does raise some interesting questions though.

The pic on the other side does raise some interesting questions though.

Like what? Every time I go to the Korean site, I get lost in all the swirly graphics.

Justin the 35mbps codec is not HDV. While it's MPEG-2 Long GOP, it's 35mbps VBR (XDCAM) not 25mbps CBR which is part of HDV spec as is the 19mbps apparently that JVC has also used.

Not all MPEG-2 Long GOP is HDV.
Also Not all Long GOP is MPEG-2 (AVCHD is H.264/AVC Long GOP for example).
Please don't confuse codecs.

Don't confuse codecs? After all you wrote, I'm more confused than ever!

Don't confuse codecs? After all you wrote, I'm more confused than ever!

After all it makes sense...

There's HDV1 (JVC Pro HD) & HDV2 (Canon & Sony) and then there's XDCAM.

I wonder if the camera will have an XDCAM logo on the side.

it still says 'ProHD' in the pictures.

Come on though, XDCAM is just a 'better' version of HDV....

I just wish we could mount Nikon SLRs on one of these.... (with out a 35mm lens adapter)

What would you all be happy with for a trade in value from JVC for your HD200/250 bodies?

HD200 - $4000

HD250 - $5000

Come on though, XDCAM is just a 'better' version of HDV....


Just as IMAX is just a 'better version of 35mm.

What would you all be happy with for a trade in value from JVC for your HD200/250 bodies?

HD200 - $4000

HD250 - $5000

I'd be ecstatic if I could get $4000 for my HD200! Heck, I'll even throw in my 17X lens.
Don't hold your breath, though.

I have picture... but I'm reluctant to post it without Chris Hurd approval.It's not my approval you need... it's JVC's.

If it were up to me, we'd have pictures all over the place. But I'm not about to risk the associated IP / copyright violations, so the safe and smart thing to do is to respect the wishes of JVC America on this.

Besides, on the day the camera is officially launched, photos will be everywhere... and that date isn't very long from now.

it still says 'ProHD' in the pictures.Yes -- these are all part of ProHD product line. I thought we had stated that.

Come on though, XDCAM is just a 'better' version of HDV....Unclear on the format...

I just wish we could mount Nikon SLRs on one of these.... (with out a 35mm lens adapter)Unclear on the concept...

With the PL Mount the JVC HDxxx can utilize cine lenses. I simply wish we could use Nikons SLR lenses with this camera and this adaptor. Without a 35mm lens adaptor (letus, brevis, etc) we can't. Sorry for the confusion.

I just wish we could mount Nikon SLRs on one of these.... (with out a 35mm lens adapter)
Unless you want to use Nikon SLR lenses for extreme telephoto effects, you'll always need some kind of relay lens to refocus the image onto a 1/3" sensor. You can buy straight lens adaptors from Mike Tapas (MTF Services Ltd (http://www.mtfservices.com)), among others, that will let you attach a Nikon-mount lens onto any JVC ProHD camera (including, I suspect, the new HM700). However, the field of view on a 1/3" chip is roughly 7 times narrower than what you would expect for the equivalent focal length on a 35m camera. So, a 200mm lens on a 1/3" chip looks something like a 1400mm lens would look on a 35mm camera. Very, very cool if you want to shoot wildlife, the moon, or surfers a quarter-mile away. Not so useful for most other things.

Now, if you're asking if JVC could include some kind of relay lens in the body of the camera to reduce that Nikon 200mm lens image to something a 1/3" chip could handle without cropping, that would also be very cool. However, since similar after-market lens adapters run into the thousands of dollars, I expect it would be prohibitively expensive, and would price the new camera out of its intended market.

What would you all be happy with for a trade in value from JVC for your HD200/250 bodies?

HD200 - $4000

HD250 - $5000

You've been spending too much time on the Red site! Dream on! I don't recall any major camera manufacturer ever giving a trade-in allowance, let alone 3/4 of the current price of a new camera. Again, would be exceptionally cool of JVC, but I find it hard to imagine.

Brian, does the MTF adaptor address the flange focal distance issue so that infinity focus is possible with Nikon lenses? My reading has led me to believe that the Nikon lens would need to sit INSIDE the camera to allow infinite focus or non-macro focus, depending on where I read.

I don't believe it's a problem with the MTF adaptor. I certainly haven't had any difficulty focusing on infinity with mine, using a Nikkor 80-200mm lens on a JVC HD100.

Odd that people are saying that about the photo.

It's JVC that's displaying it!

::: Welcome to JVC ::: > ????? > ProHD ???? > New GY-HM700 & HM100 Camcorder (http://www.jvcmobile.co.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=p04_news&wr_id=72&page=1&sfl=&stx=&sst=wr_hit&sod=desc&sop=and&page=1)

JVC Korea apparently
As you can see there's the 700 photo, the 100 photo beneath that. The Press Release below that in English.
Apparently JVC is OK with showing the photo.

3. Newly developed 14x high-quality interchangeable lens by Canon
I can't read it clearly but I think I see 4.4 on the zoom ring, wider than 5.5 on the fuji 16x.

5. Newly developed large LCD display
Comparing it to a pic of the HD200, it looks wider. 4" inch Native 16:9 LCD?

I can't read it clearly but I think I see 4.4 on the zoom ring, wider than 5.5 on the fuji 16x.


Which would make it NEARLY as wide as the Fuji 18x 4.2... Interesting...

if they market and price towards the 17x end of the scale instead of the 18x Fujinon, it would put a higher quality WA lens into our hands at a decent price and keep the JVC HDPro camera's up there in the video quality game.

if they market and price towards the 17x end of the scale instead of the 18x Fujinon,

Actually, the 18x is a PREMIUM lens. Cost at B&H is over $9000. More than the 13x wide angle. The 16x is of course the stock lens.

And to echo the sentiment, yes, a lens comparable to (or better than) the 17x (and wider!) would certainly be welcome.

I can't read it clearly but I think I see 4.4 on the zoom ring, wider than 5.5 on the fuji 16x.

But not much wider than the Fuji 16x with the .82 converter attached (4.5 mm).

If you want a really wide 1/3" lens, it seems the Fuji 13x is still the only game in town.

any update about trading in gyhd 251
for new HM700?

Also I had heaps of problems with noise levels in underlight (or darkish) areas of footage from the 251e, very dissapointing, but since setting master black to -3 I have noticed a big difference in lack of noise, at the expense of becoming a less sensitive camera.
Anyone have any comments on this?

any update about trading in gyhd 251 for new HM700?I think the trade-in program will be either one of two industry standard
procedures: either ebay.com or our own private classifieds section.

why should they trade it in?

The demand for the new HM series will grow by itself - event from existing HDxxx users.

uli

JVC Professional Features page (http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101851)

Ok, I guess this is real now. No more skulking around foreign sites with CH wondering/worrying if all is well.

Does anyone know what the second file format extension is when using the HM100 or HM700? The cameras are obviously .mov compatible, but I'm confused as to what we get on the PC side. What does "ISO based" mean? On the HM700 page it states that it can record to XDCAM EX compatible .mp4 files only with the optional SxS recorder. What is the extension going to be when shooting to the SDHC cards?

looks SWEET... actually looks just like I expected, but the specs look SWEET.....

Can not wait to see footage....

Does anyone know what the second file format extension is when using the HM100 or HM700? The cameras are obviously .mov compatible, but I'm confused as to what we get on the PC side. What does "ISO based" mean? On the HM700 page it states that it can record to XDCAM EX compatible .mp4 files only with the optional SxS recorder. What is the extension going to be when shooting to the SDHC cards?

OUCH: $7995.00!!!!!

Good question Brian. That would be very frustrating if I have to buy a extra $1700 SXS recorder in order to get footage into Avid from the 700.

OUCH: $9600.00!!!!! with SXS!! (Although it does over and undercrank)

And I haven't even bought batteries yet.

Price is much higher than I expected. Not saying it's not worth it because we haven't seen any footage from it.

Thanks for the link Shaun!

Yes it would be really pricey if you have to buy a SXS recorder in order to use this camera with Avid. Perhaps there is a workaround to use these Quicktime files with other NLE's. Other then that, what a great camera!

Maybe I should start looking for used V-lock batteries and a charger already...

Very, very impressive. It seems priced to compete with the detachable-lens PMW-EX3 by Sony. It's $325 cheaper than the EX3 (using B&H's current price for the EX3).

It's got a marvellous set of features, the old ones that we know and love plus bigger LCD, better viewfinder, Clip View functions, Retro Start Cache (no more missed shots!), etc., etc.

As I said, very impressive. And I guess sticking with the 1/3" chips looks after their existing ProHD client base who might have already made an investment in 1/3" glass.

The main thing I'm interested in from Tim's testing today is the low light performance and resolution at 1080p - both specifically compared to that of the 1/2" chips of the EX1/EX3.

If the JVC engineers have done a good enough job with the LoLux and spatial offset technologies to place these two points "somewhat in the same ballpark" as the EX3, I would definitely favour the HM700. (I love that new, easy workflow in FCP!)

Which is why I'd also like to see Phil Bloom put an HM700 through its paces (as Phil is very experienced with both ProHD and EX1/EX3).