Howdy from Texas,

I didn't have very much to go on outside of Sean Dinwoodie's initial post and my own suppositions, but here it is anyway:

Pre-Release Information About the JVC GY-HD100 (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvcprohd/hd100teaser.php)

Let me know what you think... what I've missed, or whatever. It's a start, anyway!

There's already a full picture up there!

Looks cool, kind of XL1-ish.

I'd like to see how the video looks from this little camera.

It's pretty amazing that you can get something like this for under 10K, and I belive that it could be comparable to the 40k HDCAMs.

Sean and I have a private dealers-only show with JVC on Monday 4/18 at 5pm. All the JVC folks will be there and we will be shown working units complete with playback, hands-on, etc. (we assume). We'll try to post up what we are allowed to that night after a few hours on the tables. Most specifically what the exact price is and exact shipping date. If you have any specific questions please let me know so I can find out. See you in South Hall...

HD & 720p??????

Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you.

720p is not really HD, it's only a tiny bit better than SD really.
In PAL tearms a SD image contains 576(H) lines so you can see how 720 really isn't that much of an improvement.

1080i all the way!

Sorry JVC

Hi Tony,

Since the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) considers 720p to be High Definition, this means that around here we do so as well. Keep in mind that it's not only the height but the width that also makes a difference... 720p measures 1280 x 720 pixels, which is a substantial increase over Standard Definition regardless of whether it's PAL or NTSC.

You might want to read up on Ben Waggonner's excellent article, "Understanding HD Formats (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/UnderstandingHDFormats.aspx#theinfamoustable3)." Hope this helps,

Since when does 2.67 times as many pixels (I'm talking NTSC SD here) represent a 'tiny' difference?

More importantly, anyone who has actually looked at the two formats side by side on decent monitors will realize what bollocks that comment was.

Oh and .... interlaced material really sucks IMHO!

'm not that interested in a 720p only camera.
I shoot HD, and I really could use something switchable. The Varicam and F900 are too expensive for me to own, so I have to rent. However, JVC is coming out with a switchable 1080i and 720p camera called the HD7000, which will cost $27,000 with lens.
This is interesting, and makes me want to buy one. It will have 2/3" chips and HD SDI output. Seems pretty nice. I have been dissapointed with JVC in the past, but an affordable, high-end JVC of HD caliber just might fit the bill...

I'm hoping that it is at least 50 mb/sec 4:2:2, because Discovery HD and other channels won't take 25 mb/sec 4:2:0 HDV due to it's inadequacey for compositing and graphics work, which you see often on these programs....

..That's why most HD channels won't take HDV footage, and probably never will, untill it gets bumped up to a higer data rate...

Sorry guys, but I have done my homework on this and have actually compared the two side by side.

1080i is a far superior format resolution wise. Yes, you indy kids might want a 24p camera but I want a camera and format with superior image quality and if I want 24p, can perform the convertion later.

With my 1080i camera I can shoot sports, drama anything you like really. Try shooting sports with 24p???? Looks bloody terrible.

So why buy a camera that is only good at one thing when you can by one that is good at everything and if you then need progressive perform the conversion later.

Not to mention any partuculars but I work for a large UK broadcaster and have used HD for everything from OB sports, Drama, EFP, Live music......... so am not just plucking crap out of what I have read in the magazines.

Oh, and all those years ago you would have gone along with the National Television Systems Committee but look at what they came up with NTSC!

Tony,

These are interesting comments especially since the premier HD Sport channel (FOX HD) shoots and broadcasts all the sport events in 720p.

Frederic

Yes, but it's 720/60p, which looks fantastic. Sports in 720/24p would be dodgy.

720p is used by two of the four networks (ABC/FOX), 1080i is used by the other two (NBC/CBS). It all looks like high-def. 720p looks and acts and feels like high-def, because it is. It provides 2 million pixels per second of info. 1080i looks and acts and feels like high-def, because it is. It also provides 2 million pixels per second.

Selling 720p short is a mistake, I think -- especially in Europe, where it looks like the EBU will make its formal recommendation that 720/50p will be THE broadcast standard across the continent, and 1080i won't even be endorsed. They're going with one or the other, and all indications point that they're totally sold on progressive.

I do agree with Tony that "why buy a camera that is only good at one thing when you can by one that is good at everything " (which is why I plan on getting an HVX200, which does 1080i, 1080p, 720p, 24p, 60i, and 60p!) But I do wonder about the JVC's lack of 60p, that seems like it will definitely limit the type of live event/news type of coverage you could do with it. 24p is wonderful, but it's not appropriate for all types of shooting, sometimes you *have* to have to "immediate" look, which means either 60i or 60p.

Barry,

How about Varicam 24p? It is being used widely for indie filmmaking.

Just comparing resolution (not color space or bit rate), the HDV 24p is superior to the varicam format.

Varicam 24p: 960 X 720
HDV 24p: 1280 X 720

The reality of this format is that it is the very first true progressive HD (Assuming one doesn't consider 960 X 720 HD) under $100K.

I am working with HDV 24p now and I must tell you, it's cool to have true progressive 24p!

Frederic

I'm with Barry on this one... 720p 60 looks amazing. The higher numbers aren't everything. I mean, when you're done deinterlacing 1080i, you've pretty much the resolution of 720p. But, the HVX, letting you shoot both, seems to be the most versatile camera in it's price range...

Frederic...

You can't compare just one aspect of any camera or recording format.

Varicam's 4:2:2 color space, higher bitrate, much, much better lenses, DSP's, ADC, etc. will add up to a much, much better picture than HDV can produce, even at 960x720. That said, I'm as excited as a kid at Christmas about all the HD formats and cameras that I can now afford! Long live affordable HD! But let's not get carried away with it...

Kevin,

I'm just responding to Tony's comment:

"HD & 720p??????

Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you."

Following that logic, Varicam cannot be considered HD since it is even smaller resolution than HDV 24p

I disagree that interlaced generates just as good progressive frames as progressive. It all depends on the action on screen.

Frederic

I see, sorry about the misunderstanding.

"HD & 720p??????

Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you."

In light of that, I do find it interesting (and I've commented here and a few other boards), what people are trying to say is and isn't HD. I mean, there is a standard definition for HD--and basically, any format that's bigger than SD, be it NTSC or PAL, is considered HD, by the ATSC definitions. The problem is we keep trying to quantify different qualities of HD by saying something isn't HD. VHS was SD, it just wasn't DigiBeta. It's a fairly easy distinction to make without saying VHS is not SD--we just need to apply the same logic to the new world of affordable HD.

Tony, if you think Sony's implementation of 1080i is so cool, then guess what, the image being sent to the MPEG2 encoder in the FX1/Z1 is actually upsampled from a single megapixel and not really 1920x1080 anyway. Most likely the image from th HD100 will be at least very similar. And judging from vidcaps I have seen from the FX1/Z1, there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of lattitude and sensitivity. Considering that the HD100 has a real proscan sensor array, it might even look better than the FX1/Z1's image. So let's keep an open mind about this little new camera. Even YOU might end up wanting to buy one!

Guys,

I am not saying that the sony Z1/FX1 is the be all and end all.

I have attended a BBC HD evaluation day and must say that looking at the footage from the Sony HDV camera (on a Sony 20" HD Studio monitor), I was well impressed as was most of the engineering department. From such a small and cheap camera and all (it was the consumer version). They have placed a large order for the Z1E and while it has it's limitations (dropouts are a concern), the decision to go for 1080i is a good one.

I am eagarly awaiting the Panasonic HVX and if it lives up to what their site claim then it's the Panasonic that I will be buying.

I am not comparing cameras here, what I am more interested in is the HD recording format.
What I am saying is that limiting yourself to 720/24p is a bad decision for reasons previously stated ie. sports and anywhere you might require to do SloMo...........

Yes, in the US the large Sports Broadcasters might be transmitting progressive images but it's at 60p.

I do feel for the manufacturers.

They deliver 60p, 60i, 30p and everyone says "We want 24p!"

Then they finally deliver 24p and now people are saying, "24p isn't good enough"

If 24p is good enough for Lucas in 1080p, why isn't it good enough for Indie filmmakers in 720p?

Frederic

It is, it's more than good enough. And with Panny's new camera giving 720 60p, that's more than good enough for slo motion and motion rendering for sports too. Some people will never be satisfied until they're on a Viper or Origin, so be it...

The real fact of the matter is that the current crop of shipping and expected affordable HD cameras (be they DVCPRO HD, HDV, or ProHD) will revolutionize who, when, where, and what's about HD production. Now the answers are: anyone, anytime, any place, and anything you want to shoot.

That doesn't make any joe schmoe with an under $10k camera Lucas or Rodriguez... but it certainly lets those of us with talent and meager resources to take a big step up.

I'm not saying progressive scan is no good but that having a camera that will only do 24 or 30p in HD is a big limitation. Yes, if you are only doing indie films and know that you will never do anything else with the camera then thats fine.
As long as a camera has 60p or 1080i then I will be happy although if one can do both aswell as a few extras then thats the camera to have.

The bulk of my business is production of national television programs featuring sports and adventure travel. I produce in nearly every hi-def and standard def format. As Barry has mentioned, for hi-def, Fox and ABC use 720p, with CBS and NBC using 1080i. 720p60 is excellent for sports and adventure travel production. 1080p60 would be even better.

The posts on this thread have overlooked a key feature of the HD100 that JVC has confirmed: the camera will output 720p60 for live transmission or recording to an external video server. This feature definately includes the camera as a possible hardlined camera for Fox and ABC sports productions. For external recording of the 720p60 signal the options are reputedly to feed it to a server or an HDD. JVC has already confirmed that the Focus Enhancements Firestore FS-4 HD can be used with the HD100. If the camera will feed the FS-4 a 720p60 signal, then the camera would be excellent for use on ENG-style shooting of sports and adventure travel.

It's already been stated by JVC that in 720p the camera records to tape in 24p and 30p. What may be demonstrated at NAB is that it also can record in 720p60 to the FS-4.

Panasonic will not be shipping the HVX200 until 2006 sometime. JVC has stated that they will be shipping the HD100 sometime in June 2005. I see myself potentially buying an HD100 in June 2005, and also buying an HVC200 in 2006. Assuming the HD100 can record 720p60 to the FS-4, both of these cameras should be excellent for high-action shooting of sports, travel, etc. The added bonus with both of them is being able to also produce documentaries, indie films, music videos, etc with the same cameras. The interchangeable lenses of the HD100 are a major plus. The 4:2:2 chroma and additional resolutions/frame rates of the HVX200 are a major plus. I'll buy both...