Ok so I put the camera to the tests in low light indoors and it is not good. I will say for outdoor use the camera is fine howver for indoor shoots at night or in low light you will need some good lighting. My Canon XH A1 that I sold had cmos chips which are much better in low light. Secondly I am disappointed in the 17x1 Fujinon lens . Its just marginally better than the 16x1. It could be that his camera just needs more light too! I even shot some footage indoors in the daytime and I saw lots of noise . Now remember i put it through tests in low light . I will need to set up diiferent looks to see if I can get better results tomorow. i will post some of the clips later if someone tells me how . Yes agc was off ! Camera is equivalent to a 250 ASO or so digital camera in sensitivity. I will test it more tomorrow.

Doug

Hi Doug,

My Canon XH A1 that I sold had cmos chips which are much better in low light.

The A1 has CCD chips...

I was thinking of my canon hv-30 which looks better than my new JVC HM 700 (:

I was thinking of my canon hv-30 which looks better than my new JVC HM 700 (:

Yikes. I don't know if I should feel good about my hv30's or bad because the 700 isn't very sensitive...

Hopefully I will have better results tomorrow

Doug

I was thinking of my canon hv-30 which looks better than my new JVC HM 700 (:
I purchased an HV30 for my personal use. I tested it inside our local church yesterday, very dark and no lights on. Result much cleaner picture and no noticable noise. Certainly performed far better in low light than my XH-A1 (when both were compared, played back through a 42" HD panel). . Perhaps we should all forget the more expensive cams, and buy 3 or 4 consumer models for multicam shoots. How technology marches on. I am hoping to test the HM100 out as soon as it is released, but with 1/4" CCDs I am not holding my breath.

In my limited testing at night I would hazard a guess that the noise levels in the lower-IRE range of the HM700 are about the same (maybe slightly better) as the HD200 series. I don't have a HD200 here right now so I can't make an empirical comparison.
However, I am able to get some good exposure in extremely low light by increasing the gamma instead of gain, especially with the filmout curve.

I have some time today so maybe I'll collect and upload some of my tests. At 35mbps my test of the various curves, stretch levels and gain total 1GB!

I surely would like to see that, Tim! I went to see my local JVC vendor. And I have to say that I fell in love with this camera. The focus assist functions beat any handheld I've tried. I just love it! They are going to lend me one, hopefully next week. Can't wait to try it out!

Perhaps we should all forget the more expensive cams, and buy 3 or 4 consumer models for multicam shoots. How technology marches on. I am hoping to test the HM100 out as soon as it is released, but with 1/4" CCDs I am not holding my breath.

There's a reason consumer camcorders have switched to CMOS -- it's a way of getting the low-light sensitivity we used to get from 3 CCD DV prosumer camcorders in an HD camcorder. However, the price to paid are the downsides of CMOS: disruption from photo-flashes and rolling shutter. Things consumers typically don't care about.

So you have a choice to make. And, the choice includes which camera has the controls you need?

And, let's assume Pana introduces a much improved HVX200 with 1280x720 chips and AVCIntra. You get yet another choice -- EZ to edit MPEG-2 or AVCIntra.

PS: it is interesting that some obvious design choices have been ignored. Why did Sony design such an ergonomic nightmare as the EX1? Why use SxS when we now know SDHC works just as well? (OK -- we know the answer is $$$ for Sony.)

Why did Pana -- now that SDHC Flash is REALLY cheap -- not use a DVCPRO HD+ format that offered offered FullHD at 422? Why go with AVCIntra ? And, why use SD chips in an HD camcorder?

And, JVC -- now that Sony has shown 1/2 chips fit in a small form-factor camera -- why did you go with 1/3-inch? And, why 1/4-inch chips when small camcorders have long been able to fit three 1/3-inch chips?

And, Canon isn't immune. It's quasi-shoulder mount camcorders could have been packaged so they rested fully on the shoulder like Sony's DSR-250. Canon used to make a nice GL-1 and GL-2. Now they make either consumer stuff with no manual adjustments or ungodly expensive stuff that still uses tape.

It's almost as if each company purposely makes decisions that I doubt it's customers would make. (Like no VF.)

It's almost as if each company purposely makes decisions that I doubt it's customers would make. (Like no VF.)

So, should I cancel my order for the HM100 or not? I figure I have about a week left to avoid all the hassle of receiving it, trying it, and sending it back.

I've already got Sony batteries, two types of Canon batteries, AB batteries, and V-mount batteries. Do I need the JVC batteries, as well?

Seeing as the HM700 may not be much of an improvement over the HD200 for low light situations, I am beginning to really doubt that the HM100 is going to turn out an adequate picture in natural light interior and semi-interior situations -- and what is the point of a small, surreptitious high-quality codec camera, if the picture is not good in natural light interior and semi-interior situations.

Of course, outside it would be fine, but is highlight control and contrast range going to be any better than the quite capable HV20/30/40 in a spontaneous and fluid situation?

You guys are right about that . We should already have cameras that are more cost effective and its seems cameras of later years were better. With the advent of HD HDV and more its seems we have more confusion and the cost of p2 cards and sonys cards thats why I went with the 700. Am I picky ? Yes I think when you spend over 8000 you have a right to want something thats good. In the mean time I will probably keep it so I can make money since I have work which is good . And what other camera
would I get ? Maybe the scarlet if it was available

Steve Mullen should be on the board of every camera manufacturer on earth as Global President, Common Sense.

Perhaps we should reverse the market dynamic. At the moment the companies dangle their offerings in front of us and we hand over our cash despite all the built-in flaws. Maybe we should dangle our cash in front of them until they respond with what we really need. A camera that...... (in fewer than 30 words).

Ah, well I guess this was coming, soon as I saw Tim's footage of his kids running in the forest I sorta new.
It's a real pity that there wasn't more "noise" made about the 200 series, maybe then, surely, JVC would have listened and made this a priority, well they fixed one major headache,workflow in the post environment, but apparently picture quality ain't that big a concern, sounds great though 35meg, 1080, xdcam ex codec.

I just don't get it, my 101 is virtually noiseless, what happened, did the 101 have sony ccd technology and sony got pissed that jvc might get too successful and left jvc to use their own technology which resulted in the 200 series?

Anyway, it is still a great camera, great form factor, but if only....

It's almost as if each company purposely makes decisions that I doubt it's customers would make. (Like no VF.)

Amen brother! For my purposes, JVC gets closer to what I want and need. I wish JVC would do a clone of the Canon HV30 that does 24p in 720p HDV on SD cards for $500. I would pick up 5 of them for my band shoots and place them around the stage for cutaways. Maybe I'll just break down and pick up a half dozen Canon HV30's and cross convert at home in my NLE.

I was able to get some new looks that I created by going into the menus . Finding the sweet spot of the lens dialing down the detail to -7 and so on .My results are much better and I feel confident at the shoot on Wednesday. The jury is still out for me on low light capabilities but I still am dialing in the settings and it does look better. I haven't tried the white shading for the lens yet so thats next. I think at this stage i will keep the
camera since there are no other cameras I see yet! (maybe scarlet ?)

Doug

I just don't get it, my 101 is virtually noiseless, what happened, did the 101 have sony ccd technology and sony got pissed that jvc might get too successful and left jvc to use their own technology which resulted in the 200 series?.

I think I can set you mind at ease. The 100 series uses two 640x720 sensors mounted together so each sensor only had to run at half the data rate as would a single 1280x720 sensor. Less speed = less power = less heat = lower noise BUT, getting both halves to match = not EZ.

I believe the 200 switched to a 1280x720 sensor which eliminated the matching worries, but reversed the equation: 2X faster = more power = more heat = more noise.

Nothing to do with JVC vs Sony.

There is a way to avoid the noise problem. Move to a 1/2-inch sensor because the package surface area provides greater heat dissipation and -- in theory -- less noise. Or, switch to CMOS which uses far less power so less heat so less noise. Although, CMOS has it's own inherent noise problems that EXMOR tek tries to fix.

The only generalization is that when it comes to CCDs -- bigger is better. But, for the last decade all companies have been pushing for greater profits by using very tiny sensors which given an 8" or 10"or 12" production disc makes each chip really really cheap. I'd love to know the cost difference between 1/3" and 1/2". Is is dime? A dollar? Would a 1/2" 3CCD optical block with CCDS cost more than $5 more than a 1/3". Everything camerawise else is the same. I'm wondering why anyone builds a "pro" camera with less than 1/2" CCDs and why any "prosumer" camera has less than 1/3" CCDs. The smaller chips FORCE so many compromises in design that need not be.

There is a reason why pro SD camcorders had 2/3" CCDs. With HD, it seems odd that buyers now accept that 2X or 4X more pixels can be put on a 1/3" chip. And, the use of i/5th and 1/6th inch chips forces one to believe in magic. :)

But isnt the pixel size another important factor? Not so much with noise but with sharpness @ small iris? I have the HVX 201 and the HV20 and am just editing footage shot with both.
It mixes well! the HV20/ HV30 are truly incredible!!!

I think I can set you mind at ease. The 100 series uses two 640x720 sensors mounted together so each sensor only had to run at half the data rate as would a single 1280x720 sensor. Less speed = less power = less heat = lower noise BUT, getting both halves to match = not EZ.

I believe the 200 switched to a 1280x720 sensor which eliminated the matching worries, but reversed the equation: 2X faster = more power = more heat = more noise.

Nothing to do with JVC vs Sony.

Steve, well I don't know if you really believed you would put my mind at ease.. but you have, although I thought JVC, in early propoganda promoted the 101e as true 1280x720
sensors.
it was important to me to try and make sense of what appears to be a decline in image quality from hd 100 to hd 200 series cameras and appears to continue through to the HM series, I mean I could dial in + 6db on the 101e and hardly notice any difference in noise.

Anyway thanks again steve, you have given me a stable platform to work from.

I think I can set you mind at ease. The 100 series uses two 640x720 sensors mounted together so each sensor only had to run at half the data rate as would a single 1280x720 sensor. Less speed = less power = less heat = lower noise BUT, getting both halves to match = not EZ.

I believe the 200 switched to a 1280x720 sensor which eliminated the matching worries, but reversed the equation: 2X faster = more power = more heat = more noise.
Actually the HD200 series and the HM700 all still use the 2x 640x720 with each side being processed separately. How do I know? I can still invoke the "split-screen"... even on the HM700 at +9dB. The improvement happened in January 2006 when JVC QC figured out how to best calibrate the two sides so that the "split-screen" wouldn't show up except in extreme high-gain modes.

The core difference on the front end from the HD100 series to HD200 series was the jump from 12-bit A/D to 14-bit A/D. Of course it all has to go back to 8-bit for Mpeg2, but I think that the 14-bit processing simply holds on to more low-level detail (including fine noise) through the processing that eventually gets passed on to the encoder.

The core difference on the front end from the HD100 series to HD200 series was the jump from 12-bit A/D to 14-bit A/D. Of course it all has to go back to 8-bit for Mpeg2, but I think that the 14-bit processing simply holds on to more low-level detail (including fine noise) through the processing that eventually gets passed on to the encoder.

Thanks Tim, well thats interesting, same sensor set up, but the new improved 14 bit A/D with the 200 series is creating a hotter running camera, an audibly noisier camera, with a visibly noisier picture, any improvement with the hm700?

Maybe the 14 bit A/D via sdi to 8 bit 100meg 422 MPEG2 CODEC (XDCAM HD), to convergent design nano may realise that fine detail more effectively, meaning real detail and not noise. anyone tried this with hd 200's or hm 700's?

...any improvement with the hm700?

Maybe the 14 bit A/D via sdi to 8 bit 100meg 422 MPEG2 CODEC (XDCAM HD), to convergent design nano may realise that fine detail more effectively, meaning real detail and not noise. anyone tried this with hd 200's or hm 700's?
The HM700 seems to be on-par with the HD200, but I haven't tested them side-by-side yet.

I've viewed the HD-SDI output on my LCD HD monitor and the fine noise in the shadow area is still there.

Just bought a HM700 but I cannot use it because I'm waiting for the batteries, shipped separatly. As soon as they get here I'll do my tests.. but... I have an idea. I bet that this camera has better (maybe just slightly..but better) light and colour handling than the 200. Also I'm sure that fiddling with gamma and the various settings will let us take out the best from the camera. Sure I think that this camera needs light and we have to talk about that. Good things these digitals have if the ability to save on a file the settings so we could swap user settings or the camera to see which work good (and in what situation).

I have another question. In Italy they would sell me the original JVC quick release bracket to put under the camera when used on tripod (and not shoulder) for around 300 euros that is not little. Can somebody suggest a compatible bracket made by some other brand?

thanks Tim.

I have another question. In Italy they would sell me the original JVC quick release bracket to put under the camera when used on tripod (and not shoulder) for around 300 euros that is not little. Can somebody suggest a compatible bracket made by some other brand?

Well I just ordered the Sony VCT-U14 plate for mine... they're identical plates and the Sony (at least over here in the states) is about 35% less expensive.

Ha, as I was posting that the plate came - works perfectly.

I can still invoke the "split-screen"... even on the HM700 at +9dB. The improvement happened in January 2006 when JVC QC figured out how to best calibrate the two sides so that the "split-screen" wouldn't show up except in extreme high-gain modes.

I wouldn't call +9dB EXTREME high gain. In fact, I doubt one can shoot in any low light condition at less than +9 or +12dB with a camera with only 1/3" CCDs. Cetainly, not with only 1/4" CCDs. High-level of gain will be mandatory with HM700 and HM100.

The longer A/D would be a perfect way for more noise to enter. (Are you sure it was the A/D and not the DSP that became 14-bits?)

The noise really needs to be IN the values output by the A/D. Which means the CCDs or the A/Ds. And, why the need for fans in the 200 if the CCDs didn't change?

Is JVC still using split-CCDs in the HM100?

Which means the CCDs or the A/Ds. And, why the need for fans in the 200 if the CCDs didn't change?
I understood at the time that the extra heat came from encoding at 60fps in HDV.

the HD100 only did 30p in HDV and 60p was restricted to SD resolution.

For the plate.. Thanks

I'm starting to do my first tests and one thing I'm not pleased of is the noise. Not only in low light conditions, where I shoud expect it... I see noise in the picture almost everywhere. My old camera was (is) a Sony Z1 which on the paper should be much much worse but I don't get much noise out of it. Am I doing something wrong. Sure, this camera it's much more complex. Any suggestion ?