SOMEONE POST JVCHD100 Footage!!!!

You mean, straight off the HD100U? The camera isn't even available yet...

Sorry, not possible. All of the HD100 cams on display at NAB are MT samples, meaning pre-production, and not quite finished. The menus are locked and they will not open the tape transports. Perhaps at DV Expo East in July when we're closer to the shipping date and the actual production samples are in the booth.

Does anyone know the truth about this report on the prism:

Checked this camera out at NAB yesterday - we got kicked out of their booth because we found a SEVERE flaw with this camera. The prism isnt aligned right and when any bright spots hit it it distorts - making a red and green offset on the image. their set had no visible lights to test this on but focusing on reflection on a wineglass they had revealed it. It happened on both lenses they had set up to test. I mentioned it to a sales rep and he brought out an engineer - who sheepishly admitted it was a problem with the prism that they knew about - and that it would not be fixed before release. They then asked us to leave their booth.

A shame cause i really wanted to like this camera, but it is embarassing that a company woudl release a product whose main component - the ccds - dont function.

Out of thousands and thousands of industry professionals who visited the JVC booth during NAB, doesn't it strike you as the least bit strange that there's this one single "report" someone put on the internet? Don't you think that if there was any validity at all to this, that more videographers and professional camerapersons would have noticed such an issue, and that we'd be reading more about it than this one anonymous post you found? Don't believe everything you read on the internet, my friend.

C'mon, how can ANYONE view a camera at NAB under the worst possible conditions (lots of people craning necks, weird lighting, and most of all, A DEMO CAM) and expect to make such a specific report.
I don't care for JVC at all. I think they are a very weird company, and have had bad experiences with many of their people and products. But I'm also willing to give them a chance, because this new cam is on a different factory line, and it's a very important rollout for them after having failed miserably with the previous HDV outing. So, it's important to try to keep an objective mind. The person that posted the information you refer to was either someone with a fairly transparent agenda, or they simply had too much caffeine that morning. I saw the cam, and under the conditions in which I saw it, it was impressive. Only time will tell the true tale.

It seems to be an issue with these HDV cameras that 24P really means scan at 30fps and throw 6 frames away. Hence the expression cine like which stinks in my book. The lens on this camera is not a high def lens and serious testing needs to be done to find out why it's so cheap! But thanks guys for the advice.
Ben Cole
DP on One Giant leap

C'mon, how can ANYONE view a camera at NAB under the worst possible conditions (lots of people craning necks, weird lighting, and most of all, A DEMO CAM) and expect to make such a specific report.
I don't care for JVC at all. I think they are a very weird company, and have had bad experiences with many of their people and products. But I'm also willing to give them a chance, because this new cam is on a different factory line, and it's a very important rollout for them after having failed miserably with the previous HDV outing. So, it's important to try to keep an objective mind. The person that posted the information you refer to was either someone with a fairly transparent agenda, or they simply had too much caffeine that morning. I saw the cam, and under the conditions in which I saw it, it was impressive. Only time will tell the true tale.

DSE:
Yeah, interesting. I saw the camera and really liked many of its features. Although it lacks a wide/zoom toggle on the top handle, it's otherwise nice. The worst part of the JVC booth were the people working it. Not very friendly or accomodating at all. Seemed very defensive when asked any questions, especially of legitimate concerns.

ALL:
Time will tell as always. Everyone should remember that we've been through this 'rumored flaw' mill with just about every pending camera introduction I can remember over the past couple years. Wait until the production models are shipping and the footage has been looked at before making any conclusions.

=gb=

Ben, according to their literature, it's true 24p recorded to tape, or true 30p, nothing stating about frames being thrown away.
Why are YOU spreading unfounded rumors around?

Excuse my confusion I was talking about the HDV codec the JVC HD100 is we hope true 24p. Sony HDVZ1 cameras are claiming 24 feeling cinema style but are in fact 30 NTSC interlaced frames with 6 thrown away that is I belive misleading to their literature.

Ben, the HD100 is true 24p. Each frame is 1/24th a second apart in time, and only the 24 frames per second get recorded to tape. The MPEG2 stream is a 720p60 stream, with the 24p frames layed down in a 2:3 pattern (just like the Varicam does) but the dupe frames are not recorded as whole frames, but flagged as repeats of previous frames so that NO extra image data is recorded on tape, and hence the full 19mbps is used to store the 24 images per second. It's not cheating.

As for what the image looks like - great. Looks better than the Z1 as far as I can see, comparing footage side by side, but not quite as good as Varicam, but a lot closer than any other HDV camera. It should be really good.

Graeme

DSE:
Yeah, interesting. I saw the camera and really liked many of its features. Although it lacks a wide/zoom toggle on the top handle, it's otherwise nice.
=gb=

Greg, you need to give up the notion of the 'zoom toggle on the handle' ...you are getting a real broadcast-level lens. What you can do is to buy a zoom controller ($600-1,000) and mount it wherever you want. If you want a toggle, get Canon or Sony...

Excuse my confusion I was talking about the HDV codec the JVC HD100 is we hope true 24p. Sony HDVZ1 cameras are claiming 24 feeling cinema style but are in fact 30 NTSC interlaced frames with 6 thrown away that is I belive misleading to their literature.

Hi Ben, not to sound mean, but have you made any effort to research this before posting the question? Until someone uses a production version of the camera, JVC documentation is pretty much going to be definitive. I found these quotes at www.jvc.com after 3 clicks:
"WORLD’S FIRST AFFORDABLE 24P PRO HIGH DEFINITION CAMERA"
And
"Its true 24 frame per second capability enables recordings to be transferred to 16mm or 35mm film with full HD fidelity, without frame rate conversion."
And:
"true progressive 24 P superior quality recordings"

I'm not sure they could have been any clearer...

Good luck,

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Douglas Spotted Eagle -"having failed miserably with the previous HDV outing."

My appologies for having to go OT but I have to take exception with this comment Douglas. What did they fail so miserably with? JVC has stated that the cam has sold higher then their expectations. The cam hit the market in 2003! 2003! one more time : 2003! Revitalized the concept of a single-chip cam. Pioneered and defined HDV as a viable future format. Sure it won't go down in history as being the greatest HD cam ever, but please wether you are anti JVC or not, get a grip.

So sales determine whether the camera is good or not? Sorry, I don't buy that.
The camera wasn't the correct colorspace, it embarassed the HDV format in the eyes of most shooters. It was a flimsily made camera with poor quality output. It sounded terrible. It had no NLE support.
If that camera "defined" HDV, then I'm a monkey's uncle. It set HDV backwards more than anything, IMO. First rarely means "best" but rather a benchmark for others to shoot at, and usually do better than.
Great, they put out the first camera. It was not what the world was waiting for. Great that it sold well. Maybe JVC should have waited, and if they had, I'd wager we'd be seeing a lot less resistance or negative commentary on the HDV format.
I'm not anti-JVC by any stretch. They *have* had some serious challenges that *most* people who bought midlevel products suffered with, including me and my company. They've also had some great products.

I've defended the HD100 more than anything else, because it looks like JVC has really made strides with it. Since I've only seen it on the tradeshow floor like most folks, I'm excited to actually see it in real world use, outside of a tradeshow environment. It will probably do well. For the sake of the format, I hope it does.

"The camera wasn't the correct colorspace"

it used the SD colourspace as that was what most apps people use are geared for. JVC realized that more people would be incorporating its footage with their present SD workflows not mixing it in with their CineAlta shoot. Not a negative in anyway.

"it embarassed the HDV format in the eyes of most shooters."

Thats a personal opinion. My jaw hit the floor once I saw what the cam was capable of. Especially considering the price point.

"It was a flimsily made camera with poor quality output."

What? The HD10 is a very solid cam. It weights more than any cam of the same size I've ever held. As far as poor output quality, what are you talking about?

"It sounded terrible"

Again what are you talking about. It lacks manual audio leveling, but the auto leveling does an adaquate job, and as far as the sound quality it is as good as any HDV cam which I would not describe as terrible by any stretch of the imagination. My guess is out of ignorance you are refering to a few cams from an early production run that had some factory audio issues that were corrected by JVC.

"It had no NLE support."

Well now your not even talking about the cam, but of the HDV format in the early days. Hardly a deficiency of the HD10.

I don't mind that you don't like the cam. To each his own. But "misserable failure" and "embarassed the HDV format" and "terible sound" are all childish overstated comments. I own the cam and think it is amazing, so I feel an urge to defend it. What is your excuse for being so verbaly agressive against it?

TO DSE:
OT. Douglas Spotted Eagle, Is there a way I can get your surfing files off your site?



PappasArts Entertainment
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts.com
PAPPASARTS@HOTMAIL.COM

What is your excuse for being so verbaly agressive against it?

I bought one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael,
We just changed server systems, and I haven't been able to upload the larger files. I have our ISP's techs looking into why...but not sure what the problem is at this point. I hope very much to have this resolved shortly.
We also have some motoX footage to go up, as well as some elk dueling in rut.

Douglas, you're right. The first JVC "HD" camera was terrible. Indefenseable was the lack of manual controls for anything, and the over-excessive edge enhancement that painted big black felt-tip lines around any object. I think you, more than most people, are qualified to talk audio quality, and I'm not going to disagree with you about that. Lack of manual audio controls is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, JVC have done the "right thing" about their new HD100 camera. They actually listend to people and have given them what they want. Even though their new camera is "only" 720p, it's probably, from the footage I have, offering more real detail than the Sony 1080i offering, and it is fully manual. JVC have listened. This is a very good thing and they should be praised for it. They deserve to do well with their new camera.

Graeme

Thanks Douglas!


I bought one.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael,
We just changed server systems, and I haven't been able to upload the larger files. I have our ISP's techs looking into why...but not sure what the problem is at this point. I hope very much to have this resolved shortly.
We also have some motoX footage to go up, as well as some elk dueling in rut.

The probelm with 720p is it's the starting ground for HD. 720P is softer than 1080i and ofcourse 1080p. I was working with the Varicam again a few weeks ago, and I like it, but it's no 750 or 900/950. I want as many pixels as I can have for post. I like the JVC, but a major concern for me is 720 is just above pixel starved for HD level. A 1080 image is so much larger and even after you deinterlace you still have more core res in the image.


Michael Pappas
PappasArts Entertainment
http://www.Pbase.com/ARRFILMS
PappasArts.com
PAPPASARTS@HOTMAIL.COM

HVX200 lens article
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/do_hvx200s_dream_of_lenses

ARTICLE ON JVC'S HIGH DEF CAMERA THE JVCHD100u
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/pappasarts_entertainment_

HDX-200 lens good or just functional Article....
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/hdx200_lens_good_or_just_functional_

SDX900 vs AG-HVX200 Article..
http://www.pbase.com/aghvx200/sdx900_vs_aghvx200_illustrated_pov




Douglas, you're right. The first JVC "HD" camera was terrible. Indefenseable was the lack of manual controls for anything, and the over-excessive edge enhancement that painted big black felt-tip lines around any object. I think you, more than most people, are qualified to talk audio quality, and I'm not going to disagree with you about that. Lack of manual audio controls is a disaster waiting to happen.

However, JVC have done the "right thing" about their new HD100 camera. They actually listend to people and have given them what they want. Even though their new camera is "only" 720p, it's probably, from the footage I have, offering more real detail than the Sony 1080i offering, and it is fully manual. JVC have listened. This is a very good thing and they should be praised for it. They deserve to do well with their new camera.

Graeme

There's resolution and then there's definition. 1080i has more resolution than 720p, but due to the interlace factor, it has no more definition vertically. The Z1/FX1 uses a pixel shift technique to get more resolution than it's 960 horizontal. The 720p cameras have a real 1280 resolution horizontal, rather than the 1440 from 960 resolution of the 1080i FX1/Z1. Given the above the actual definition of the Z1 and HD100 will be very equal, with even perhaps the HD100 having more real definition even with it's lower resolution.

So what you really want is lots of pixels and lots of definition and quality for those pixels. Having one without the other is not worth having....

Evan after deinterlacing you don't have more definition in the Z1 than the HD100 - indeed, you'll have less.

Graeme

Well said Graeme! :)

I agree with Graeme on this one. Starting with a high quality natural 1280 x 720 is much better for post than an interpolated beat up 1440x1080i. Pixel shift and deinterlacing are interpolations where you create pixels that were never there or change current ones. If you keep 1080 as 1080i then yes there is more detail on a CRT. Poor 1080i has to go through yet another 3rd interpolation when it is either viewed on a TV or transfered to film by scaling the 1440 to 1920 for the correct aspect ratio.

1280x720 always gets to stay as is and also happens to be one of the only true square pixel formats.

Thanks Thomas, but if you take 1080i from the Z1 or FX1 there is no more detail there than a good 720p, no matter how you view it (CRT / LCD) or deal with it.

Graeme

Thanks Douglas!

Michael,
The HDV files are back up, I won't have the motoX or elk footage up until the computer arrives here in Orlando. Finally got our new server up and running. I hate server maintenance!

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images.htm

Thank you very much Douglas. I have been looking forward to seeing these.

Michael Pappas

Michael,
The HDV files are back up, I won't have the motoX or elk footage up until the computer arrives here in Orlando. Finally got our new server up and running. I hate server maintenance!

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images.htm