Here's all the official details.

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/CAMERA/brochure/gyhm700_kcs8407.pdf

Hi Tim,
Do you know what the lux rating is?
Is it this from the PDF
Minimum illumination: 1.25lx (typical) (1920x1080 mode,
F1.4, +18dB, with 8-frame accumulation)

Thanks

There is also a full brochure now for HM100. http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/CAMERA/brochure/gyhm100_kcs8409.pdf

Do you know what the lux rating is?
This from the PDF
Minimum illumination: 1.25lx (typical) (1920x1080 mode,
F1.4, +18dB, with 8-frame accumulation)

"Accumulation" is available on CMOS cameras because their slowest shutter-speed is typically 1/50th or 1/60th second.

I assume this is used for the LOLUX mode. When engaged, a sliding window 8-frames wide (HM700) or 16-frames wide (HM100) is employed. The image that is sent on for processing every 1/50th or 1/60th second is the sum of the previous 8- or 16-frames exposed by the CCDs.

On STATIC subjects, the image will appear as though the current shutter speed was 8X or 16X longer. Thus, the image is far brighter. And, without the terrible noise that afflicts Hyper-gain functions used by other camcorders.

If my math is correct, this means without LOLUX engaged, the lux rating would be 12lx with +18dB gain. Since one likely doesn't want to go above +12dB gain, that would make the lux rating be about 24lx. (Slightly higher for the HM100 because the lens isn't as fast.)

The reason these numbers are important is that on DYNAMIC subjects although your video will be bright and noise free, there will be significant motion blur. The faster the motion of the subject and/or camera, the more blur.

Ideally, one should be able to select the number of frames accumulated.

Hi Tim,
I have the 251 e and 101e.
I was, and still am disappointed with the 251e, noisy picture, noisy camera, to my eye less resolution than the 101.
However I love the form factor of these cameras, coming from a current affairs documentary background.
I haven't looked at the brochure, but I am interested in answers from you to the below questions if you don't mind.

Is the hm700 LESS noisy than the hd 251e? (I am more concerned about this than low light capability)

Is the picture to your eye, and is the resolution as good as, or better than the ex3?

these are the only questions I need honest answers to.
Everyone on this list values your opinion and I believe would be very grateful for your opinions on these questions

After my experience with the 251e, these questions need to be answered before I could consider a purchase.
The camera has a lot going for it on paper, including the fact that for all intensive purposes you could be shooting on a sony ex3, if the camera is as good as or better.
I have put off purchasing the ex3 purely to see how the hm700 performs up against it.

regards,

steven lyons

regards,

steven lyons.

If my math is correct, this means without LOLUX engaged, the lux rating would be 12lx with +18dB gain. Since one likely doesn't want to go above +12dB gain, that would make the lux rating be about 24lx. (Slightly higher for the HM100 because the lens isn't as fast.)

The reason these numbers are important is that on DYNAMIC subjects although your video will be bright and noise free, there will be significant motion blur. The faster the motion of the subject and/or camera, the more blur.

Considering that the PD170 is 1 lux and the Canon HV20 (which is worse than the XH-A1) is 2 lux, and neither uses "accumulation," doesn't that make the HM700 pretty poor?

And the HM100, which is supposed to be a a handheld camera," having lock down the camera so it doesn't move if shooting in the lolux mode, then still needing several stops more light than is needed for the Canon cameras... that doesn't sound good.

From your calculations then, the HM100 would need 42 lux? The HM100 could still be okay in bright lights and daylight, if the stabilization, zoom and encoder are superior.

Hope you are wrong about the LoLux concept as I will probaly never need it to shoot a stationary object while on sticks... but your explanation feels right... unfortunately...

also on a totally different note, the pictures used to demonstrate the pre-record feature on page 10 seem wrong... make me think of Sept. 11th... I wonder if that was the intent - "imagine the shot you could have gotten" or if it is just one of those things you notice after you print a few hundred thousand...

Considering that the PD170 is 1 lux and the Canon HV20 (which is worse than the XH-A1) is 2 lux, and neither uses "accumulation," doesn't that make the HM700 pretty poor?


But, you are missing the noise levels these old cameras had. And, to keep noise low these camcorders typically reduced chroma. Looking at lux specs. really is useless as it doesn't tell you how the video will really look.

The real issue is how do the cameras look with +9dB or +12dB gain.

PS: the idea the HM100 wouldn't be used with sticks seems wrong to me. IF I really want a noise free pix in very low illumination, I would use what I needed.

Am I seeing this right? The HM100 has a minimum illumination of 5lux? Yikes. Other than that it seems impressive. Anyone seen some prices on these cameras?

I finally saw this camera on Friday. The build quality is very nice, I love the multi-colored menu ring (changes color when you change mode), and the LCD IS HUGE. That's the first thing everyone will say when they see this camera.. it's bigger than any LCD I've ever seen on a camera. The menu system is nice and easy to use. Really it's the best JVC camera I have ever seen. Missing are TC and Genlock but I imagine that will be the HM-750..

Andy

Hi Tim, when you recorded the overcrank and undercrank footage did you record to SxS or SDHC?

Anyone seen some prices on these cameras?
Here they are at B&H:
gy-hm700 | B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=gy-hm700&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=submit)

$6500 - camera body only
$7000 - body with stock lens (either 17x or 14x - 14x avail June)
+$500 - to either setup to add the SxS recorder

The real issue is how do the cameras look with +9dB or +12dB gain.

PS: the idea the HM100 wouldn't be used with sticks seems wrong to me. IF I really want a noise free pix in very low illumination, I would use what I needed.
Of course. Yet it seems just a bit at cross-purposes when JVC says the HM100 is the perfect camera for hand held and surreptitious shooting -- the situations most likely being in low light -- and then possibly setting up a situation where a tripod is needed in low light. I hope that LOLUX is not a feature like "motion smoothing" that requires a sticky at the top of the forum saying something like: "Please, before you post, turn off LOLUX and check your results!"

It will be interesting to see how "accumulation" compares to running a slower shutter speed.

PS: Perhaps "accumulation" will come with a second feature called something like "Time offset and recapture" that does motion estimation and comparison, then resets frames used for accumulation at each recorded frame position so there is no blur.

In any case, as you say, only seeing the actual output will reveal facts.

I finally saw this camera on Friday. The build quality is very nice, I love the multi-colored menu ring (changes color when you change mode), and the LCD IS HUGE. That's the first thing everyone will say when they see this camera.. it's bigger than any LCD I've ever seen on a camera. The menu system is nice and easy to use. Really it's the best JVC camera I have ever seen. Missing are TC and Genlock but I imagine that will be the HM-750..

Andy

How would you compare it to the HPX300? They both have 1/3" chips though different codecs and recording formats. Just curious.

Daniel Weber

Hi Tim, when you recorded the overcrank and undercrank footage did you record to SxS or SDHC?
SDHC. I didn't have a SxS card, but the KA-MR100 unit was attached to the demo camera.
Hi Tim,
Do you know what the lux rating is?
Is it this from the PDF
Minimum illumination: 1.25lx (typical) (1920x1080 mode,
F1.4, +18dB, with 8-frame accumulation)

I wouldn't rely too much on any manufacturers' lux ratings. The camera can be tweaked in a few different ways for very different results.
I should have a camera in my hands this week and then I'll do some real-world testing.

Sorry I don't have any EX1/3s or HPX300 available for comparison.

I hope that LOLUX is not a feature like "motion smoothing" that requires a sticky at the top of the forum saying something like: "Please, before you post, turn off LOLUX and check your results!"

I knew I had pix of hyper-gain and accumulation. They are in my article on CCD and CMOS in Broadcast Engineering:

CCD and CMOS (http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/ccd-cmos/index.html)

See pix below.

uggg....at least hypergain provides one with an image that is watchable - especially if the content is compelling...

accumulation provides you with audio and mush....

still hoping beyond hope that you are wrong... even though you've got the pics to prove it....

thanks....

uggg....at least hypergain provides one with an image that is watchable - especially if the content is compelling...

accumulation provides you with audio and mush....

If you were a photographer you would find nothing odd -- even if there were motion in one part of a scene -- in using a long exposure to capture a noise-free image. For you, accumulation provides a very compelling image.