To paraphrase the country song, if I said I wanted a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?

Santa, here’s a wish-list for the successor to the HD10. It would be a beautiful body of a camera that supports a whole industry of add-ons.

Note that I have nothing against JVC making a buck. On the contrary, the following suggestions ought to allow them to laugh heartily all the way to the bank.

The biggest problem, I think, would be keeping up with the demand.

1. Invest in: increasing the imager size by a power of two.
2. Invest in: improving the signal processing to provide 65db S/N on both luma and chroma.
3. New profits from: a proprietary solid-state storage card.
4. New profits from: switchable between 24p, 25p, 30p capture modes—making it a single model that is harmonious with film, PAL, and NTSC.
5. New profits from: PC software to scrub out the discrete-cosine-transfer artifacts from MPEG, similar to the remarkable JPEG-artifact filter in Paint Shop Pro.
6. Cut costs by: discarding the onboard microphone. (XLR only.)
7. Cut costs by: discarding the lens. (Provide industry-standard lens threads only.)
8. Cut costs by: discarding the LCD viewer. (Output port for an LCD monitor only.)
9. Cut costs by: discarding all DV compatibility.
10. Cut costs by: discarding all interlaced capture capability.
11. Cut costs by: discarding tape storage and the tape drive altogether.

Just think of it: if JVC created its own solid-state storage interface, it could rack up enormous profits just by selling storage for this camera.

Add the same features as most prosumer cameras have, e.g. GL2, PD150. Make the lattitude equal to to these cameras too. Don't call it professional camera until you make it useable for professional productions the way the other prosumer cameras are. Using ND filters to control exposure is absolutely ridiculous. Crappy sound from a quality extra mike is ridiculous. Why claim that you're not Panasonic or Sony so you don't have the resources to have 24p. Just slow the clock down. Use CCD(s) with full horizontal and vertical resolution this format offers. Being half-way between 480p and 720p in horizontal resolution is not enough -- read Steve Mullen's report. Be clear in product description. If the mic XLR jack connection causes crappy sound, let the buyers know. Tell them that this camera is basically usable only under very controled conditions and that a set of ND filters is needed to control exposure. Make it very clear that there is no manual sound control. Why adding the edge enhancement to HD1? The video frequency response on VX2000 and PD150 is identical.

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher Toderman : Make the lattitude equal to to these cameras too. -->>>

More latitude requires a bigger imager, which is suggestion #1. (Cite further: the laws of physics.) Note this also increases S/N.

Immediate:

1. Independently controlled Shutter and Aperture settings, as on all decent DV camcorders in $2.5K class.

2. Integrated NDs.

3. Zebra (at least 100). With HD10's low latitude it's a must.

4. Port for LANC-type remote with variable-speed Focus and Zoom control, Wake, and Record start/stop.

5. 720p Component output during Recording.


Longer term:

- Fix chroma noise!

- Improve luma latitude!

- Rings. Oh God. Can rings control both focus and zoom servos... the way they suppose to, please? (I do realize there's no mechanical link.)

- Introduce 720p60 recording mode

- Replace tape with solid-state or hard-drive-based storage (am I pushing it?)

- Improve sound (most folks seem to care, although I don't - unless JVC pulls 48K 16bit at -65dB noise level and say 90dB dynamic diapason... which aint going to happen... which is why I record using double system, always...)


Things to get rid of:

- All DV and interlaced modes - agreed with Mitch on that

- Rotating handle with transport in it. Unless I'm missing something... it only introduces unreliability.

- Effects.... why all prosumer cameras have these effects that no-one will ever use at aquisition stage... except for B&W of course - this one must stay!


I do not have the camera for long, so obviously the list should be longer... HD10 owners, please pitch in!

Also I'm not covering HD1 - which has ridiculous edge enhancement for no apparent reason... I basically upgraded from HD1 to HD10 to get rid of the edge artifacts.

Judging from the camera features, we basically have a low level consumer camera, by DV standards, with a few extra features that do not bring it into the pro category. Adding XLR jack looks great, but it does not work with an external mic properly. Would Canon or Sony call this a pro camera?

It seems that some people on this board are impressed and thankful to JVC for pushing the limit. Yes, they took a step forward in one direction, then two steps back in another direction. You guys that bought this camera and are making $ with it, I admire you. While Sony and Panasonic HD camcorders are superior in all respects to their SD camcorders, the JVC is superior in one respect only to their less expensive SD camcorders, and isinferior in many respects.

I'm waiting for Canon or Sony to come out with HDV models that are decent. I think that we may see 3-chip Canon. I think that by now they already have the ability to make CMOS sensors, which aren't bad at all. They would have to buy CCD chips from Sony, Matsushita, etc. That would be too costly for a 3-chip model.

A note to JVC. Please note that HD is an improvement over SD in all respects. Just compare HDTV and TV sets, amd thir specs. So just increasing resolution and going back decades in other respects does not cut it as HD for me.

As to the ones who are thankful and appreciative to JVC: The more you'll be satisfied, the longer it will take them to come out with a decent model. You're sending them, and to the other manufacturers, a wrong signal.

JVC is sensitive to what you say. They're garding their pro image. So a little realistic criticism does not hurt anyone, except helps deflate an artificially inflated ego of a foreign company that makes a unique product. And unique does not always mean good.

If someone accepts it to be OK to use ND filters to control exposure, and he needs a dual sound sustem, because the internal sound system is faulty, even the one who designed this nonsense, defect, etc. into his camera may be laughing at you.

Copy the feature list on the DVX100. Then add HDV resolution, and a zoom-in-to-full-screen LCD for focus option (i.e., pixel-for-pixel representation on the viewfinder so you can pinpoint focus), and it'd be a phenomenal camera.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Copy the feature list on the DVX100. Then add HDV resolution, and a zoom-in-to-full-screen LCD for focus option (i.e., pixel-for-pixel representation on the viewfinder so you can pinpoint focus), and it'd be a phenomenal camera. -->>>

Yes, good ideas, all.

I would add a few things:

-720/60p Absolutely essential for broadcast. 30p just doesn't cut it. Not even close.

-greater sensitivity and lattitude. If it requires 3 chips, let it.

-better OIS - the JVC's is terrible.

-A proper lens for HD. Wider at the low end like the DVX100.

Whover brings out such an uncompromised camera, even if it costs twice or even 3 times as much, would sell tons of them.