I'm very interested in the new JVC GYHM650 and its ability to transmit a file via WIFI to an FTP account.
I shoot events and ENG for a local TV studio in Southern Connecticut and initially, I thought that this new feature would be fantastic for sending video from the field to the studio. That is until I realized how impractical that would be. If I send an HD file (or even 1/4 HD) of a half hour or an hour event, that would likely take an hour or more to do that even with a 15Mb/sec cable modem. In the field, I'd be lucky to get a WIFI connection that's even a fraction of that speed. Could this be just a marketing gimmick that is not likely to get much use, like GPS in a video camera? Why spend another $1,000 for this feature when the GYHM600 will do?

I'm very interested in the new JVC GYHM650 and its ability to transmit a file via WIFI to an FTP account.
I shoot events and ENG for a local TV studio in Southern Connecticut and initially, I thought that this new feature would be fantastic for sending video from the field to the studio. That is until I realized how impractical that would be. If I send an HD file (or even 1/4 HD) of a half hour or an hour event, that would likely take an hour or more to do that even with a 15Mb/sec cable modem. In the field, I'd be lucky to get a WIFI connection that's even a fraction of that speed. Could this be just a marketing gimmick that is not likely to get much use, like GPS in a video camera? Why spend another $1,000 for this feature when the GYHM600 will do?

I think the idea of sending video back is to do short segments of video, like a sound bite and a little b-roll for the noon news show. It would seem to be impractical for sending back a half-hour's worth of video, but who knows.

Hi Stephen,

Just wondering if you considered the possibility that you may have a faulty AC160?

Vaughan

I did consider that, but I did not want to hassle with return/exchange. I might try an AC160A when it comes out. However, I don't think it was faulty. The sound came from the gears. I could hear the same sound if the servo switch was in the "engage" position and I manually moved the zoom ring. When the switch was not engaged, the sound was gone (other than the faint scratchy plastic sound from the zoom ring - not nearly as silky and quiet as the NX5)

I'll try to post some of the recordings.
I have never used an EX1, but the Panny was way louder than my CX550V, the NX70s, and the NX5 I tested.

I'm kind of worried by this, because all the other cams I've tested or owned did not have a zoom ring that directly engaged the lens - the ring was electronic and communicated the signal to the lens motors, similar to what happens with the rocker. I'm hypothesizing that the motors in those cases are stepper motors. On the Panny, it seems to be some kind a gear motor. I hope that the JVC and other cams I have not tried don't have the design of the Panny, where there is a little engage/disengage switch for the zoom servos.



Steve

that would likely take an hour or more to do that even with a 15Mb/sec cable modem.

Don't expect 15 Mbps upload speed ... I pay for 10 Mbps cable, but that is download. Upload is never more than 1 Mbps.

Steve

Don't expect 15 Mbps upload speed ... I pay for 10 Mbps cable, but that is download. Upload is never more than 1 Mbps.


You're right, I forgot about that. My download speed is 15Mbps, upload is slightly better than 1 Mbps, but never more than 2 Mbps.

That makes the GYHM650 WiFi upload feature even less practical than I originally thought. Anyone from JVC care to comment? Maybe I'm missing something.

Just found this review video where Philip Johnston says this is the best performing 1/3" camera he has seen (there is a low light clip of the HM600 vs Canon XF305 & the JVC blows the Canon away)

1st Exclusive Review of the JVC HM600 on Vimeo

I'm eager to see more.

if they just give it the AVCHD 2.0 standard, which is pretty "standard" these days for AVCHD cams, it will be perfect.

Nobody is perfect ;-) Don't expect to see 1080p50 or 1080p60 in the GY-HM600/650 because we were told the hardware is not able to handle it. But at least JVC is thinking about adding 1080p25 and presumably1080p30, too, in AVCHD mode which at the moment shoots only 50i or 60i. Interlaced is perfect for broadcast use but having a progressive format on board should be standard nowadays. Of course 1080p25 is available in XDCAM EX mode already, although the first production models of HM600 have a little 1080p25 bug which JVC is aware of and promised to fix it by a new firmware in a few days.

I have been waiting since April for this cam. I'm sitting on $5K , ready to buy, but I will NOT buy an AVCHD camera that uses the old AVCHD 1.0 spec!!

I've been exchanging emails with JCV, including Craig Yanagi, and they seem to be barely aware of the AVCHD 2.0 standard, which includes 1080 50/60p at 28 Mbps. A half-dozen or so competitors already have AVCHD 2.0 cams - heck, even some of the JVC consumer cams have it!

Panny recently saw the light when they upped the AG-AC160 to the AC-160a with 1080 60p. Other AVCHD 2.0 cams include the Sony NX70, the NX30, the VG-20, the NEX-EA50 and the Panny TM900.

JVC is NUTS to cripple an otherwise perfect cam with a 5-year AVCHD capability. Come on JVC ... AVCHD 2.0 has been out since July 2011! AVCHD INFORMATION WEB SITE (http://www.avchd-info.org/)

I'm begging everyone in this forum ... complain to JVC! JVCs chips are plenty fast enough for AVCHD 2.0. JVC needs to listen!

Frustrated and TIRED OF SITTING ON MY CASH!

Steve

I'm not going to complain to jvc, but neither am I going to buy it. I agree with all your points, jvc could have absolutely knocked this one out of the park with avchd 2.0. If they had, I would not be able to refuse it!

Also Stephen, out of curiosity which other features of the jvc missing on the panasonic ac160a would stop you from buying that cam, which otherwise is its closest competitor? For me it would be sensitivity, latitude, low light and dynamic range. But the wifi, choice of recording codecs are very interesting.

I agree with Stephen that JVC have come so close to a terrific camera. A modern update to my NX5U but not modern in the end of 2012 without AVCHD 2.0 with 50/60P and I know lots of pro guys don't like touch screen but a touch screen with touch focus would have completed the picture for me. Face recognition doesn't do it I need to specify a place on the screen for focus. So close.

Of course my NX5U has a touch screen just like my consumer Sony's but I expect the pro division chickened out on using it for anything useful !!! It is used for playback and mode selection only.

Ron Evans

I have been waiting since April for this cam. I'm sitting on $5K , ready to buy, but I will NOT buy an AVCHD camera that uses the old AVCHD 1.0 spec!!

I've been exchanging emails with JCV, including Craig Yanagi, and they seem to be barely aware of the AVCHD 2.0 standard, which includes 1080 50/60p at 28 Mbps. A half-dozen or so competitors already have AVCHD 2.0 cams - heck, even some of the JVC consumer cams have it!

Panny recently saw the light when they upped the AG-AC160 to the AC-160a with 1080 60p. Other AVCHD 2.0 cams include the Sony NX70, the NX30, the VG-20, the NEX-EA50 and the Panny TM900.

JVC is NUTS to cripple an otherwise perfect cam with a 5-year AVCHD capability. Come on JVC ... AVCHD 2.0 has been out since July 2011! AVCHD INFORMATION WEB SITE (http://www.avchd-info.org/)

I'm begging everyone in this forum ... complain to JVC! JVCs chips are plenty fast enough for AVCHD 2.0. JVC needs to listen!

Frustrated and TIRED OF SITTING ON MY CASH!

Steve

Please advise a list of camcorders that use AVCHD 2.0?

I will let Stephen reply but a good guide is most of the consumer models from Sony, Panasonic and JVC above about $500 are now AVCHD 2.0. To add to Stephens list there is also the Sony VG 30 and the new Panasonic AG-AC90 there are likely a lot more. More and more are also back illuminated cmos giving low noise performance that challenges the pro models. Like Stephen, I am looking for a replacement for my NX5U that is actually better than my consumer CX700 !!! My NX5U has a hard time competing and in full auto there is no competition the CX700 wins easily. I think the professional divisions are stuck in the middle between what is currently formal broadcast specification and the consumer products rapidly overtaking them. Clearly the technology exists in the parent companies to provide what Stephen and I are looking for but all so far have got just so close. For me the NEX-EA50 has all the features I want but I don't want the interchangeable lens or the shallow depth of field of a single large sensor. Though it is my number one choice at the moment. The EA50 with the 1/3" chip set from the PMW150/160 would be perfect, the NX5U replacement !!!! So Sony have all the technology to give me what I would like but the new version of the NX5U has yet to appear.

I guess we will have to wait until every cell phone has better functionality !!!

Ron Evans

Just found this review video where Philip Johnston says this is the best performing 1/3" camera he has seen (there is a low light clip of the HM600 vs Canon XF305 & the JVC blows the Canon away).
His comparison is at 0dB, when he finds the HM600 to give a brighter image than the XF305. To draw conclusions from that about low light performance doesn't mean a lot unless you know the S/N figures at 0dB for each camera. Which is difficult outside a lab.

This is important, because if camera A was a lot less noisy than B at 0dB, you could use a higher amount of gain in A for the same level of degradation. So you may find that camera A at 6dB performed similarly to B set to 0dB in all respects. And in practice that could mean that A was the better camera, since it would have an option of a very low noise base setting (at 0dB).

And nowadays many cameras have noise reduction processing built in which can distort matters. Best known problem here was the "noise ghost" issue which got reported on the HPX371, and which can also be seen on the HPX250. The noise reduction works well on static scenes - but because it's comparing across several frames, it starts to fail on movement and the result is a slight trail of noise behind moving objects. You can now reduce the amount of processing - but then you lose the apparent low light performance.

If you want to meaningfully compare low light sensitivity between cameras, then without lab equipment the best way to do it is to take both cameras somewhere with very low lighting and put in gain (lots of it) to get comparable exposure. And compare. Both images will likely be looking poor - but is one worse than the other? Not just more noisy, but much softer etc than the other?

Sorry, but 0dB comparisons aren't much use by themselves for drawing sensitivity comparisons.

I totally agree that the AVCHD 2.0 spec should be included in this cam.
My understanding of the wifi feature is to transmit proxies for a quick cut then relink to the full res footage when able.
When i originally heard /read about it, i was excited by the idea of recording both 720p and 1080p to different cards at the same time and was disappointed by the 1/4 res proxy reality.

I think David should do camera reviews & comparisons!

Yes. noise reduction vs sensor development. It is so much easier & less expensive to put more noise reduction in the mix. This is shown in the 5DMKIII (jpegs have a full two stops over the RAW files) but it has the benefit of downsampling in the mix as well. True 1080p seems to really stress a 1/3" design. When I first read the F11 @ 2000 lux spec my first thought was to how the noise will be controlled.

It will be interesting to see the reviews.

True 1080p seems to really stress a 1/3" design.
Indeed!

The whole sensitivity/low light issue was really brought home to me years ago when I was shooting mainly with a DSR500, but had to borrow a PD150 for some in-car filming.

In the hotel room the night before I checked the PD150 over, and was impressed with the apparent low light performance. Out of curiosity, I recorded some material under the same conditions with the DSR500, and played both back on the PD150 screen. Amazing - they didn't seem much different. Both seemed to get proper exposure with similar amounts of gain.

The following day all got revealed when I looked at the tapes on a decent monitor. The DSR500 pictures just looked a bit noisy - those from the PD150 were soft, smeary, and the colours had gone completely wrong. It was obviously not just increasing gain, but bringing in processing to try to compensate. I don't doubt in-camera noise reduction has improved dramatically since then - including inter-frame techniques - but the point is that it's not the same as having a lower noise source in the first place.

In decent light, and at 0dB gain, the DSR500 and PD150 matched reasonably well. But when the light went down........ That's why any sensitivity test at 0dB is totally meaningless unless you do other scientific measurements at the same time.

I do also note that in that review the cameraman seems to find the style of this camera a good thing "compared to other models from JVC like the 700 range". I can only say that this is not what pretty well everybody else I know feels. That the small, shouldermount styling of previous JVC models was one of their greatest strengths and that the 600 styling (regardless of technical issues and quality) is a negative step.

I agree that the 1080p/50 mode for AVC-HD would have been desirable, but the dual AVC-HD/XDCAM
codec possibilities may be useful for some.

Panasonic has just announced the AG-AF100A with AVCHD 2.0. Again, if you are using AVCHD these days it should be AVCHD 2.0 to compete.

Ron Evans

Tom, the HM600 on paper looks as close to perfect as I could hope for, short of the 1080 50/60p .

I grew to love 60p on the NX70, which I returned for a number of other flaws.

I'm still trying to find out if the HM600 has:

* Expanded Focus (such as the NX70 , AC160A and NX5
* Variable zoom rocker on the handle (as does the NX5 , but NOT the AC160A)

I would reject the HM600 (as I would any camera) if it has excessive fringing, aberration, poor edge focus, or noisy zoom servos.

My biggest fear is that shortly after I commit my $5K to a cam that I just don't like, someone will come out with a cam that does not lack the features I need.

Steve

I will let Stephen reply but a good guide is most of the consumer models from Sony, Panasonic and JVC above about $500 are now AVCHD 2.0. To add to Stephens list there is also the Sony VG 30 and the new Panasonic AG-AC90 there are likely a lot more. More and more are also back illuminated cmos giving low noise performance that challenges the pro models. Like Stephen, I am looking for a replacement for my NX5U that is actually better than my consumer CX700 !!! My NX5U has a hard time competing and in full auto there is no competition the CX700 wins easily. I think the professional divisions are stuck in the middle between what is currently formal broadcast specification and the consumer products rapidly overtaking them. Clearly the technology exists in the parent companies to provide what Stephen and I are looking for but all so far have got just so close. For me the NEX-EA50 has all the features I want but I don't want the interchangeable lens or the shallow depth of field of a single large sensor. Though it is my number one choice at the moment. The EA50 with the 1/3" chip set from the PMW150/160 would be perfect, the NX5U replacement !!!! So Sony have all the technology to give me what I would like but the new version of the NX5U has yet to appear.

I guess we will have to wait until every cell phone has better functionality !!!

Ron Evans

Ron, it is as if you read my mind, I second everything you said ... particularly the shallow DoF. I tried out a VG20, which had lots of problems and was not actually a real contender. But the big downer for me was the shallow DoF. It made it unusable for run-and-gun ENG or even just casual shooting out and about.

Steve

... True 1080p seems to really stress a 1/3" design. When I first read the F11 @ 2000 lux spec my first thought was to how the noise will be controlled.


Hi Tim, the Panny AG-AC160A, from what I have seen on YT and Vimeo, does fine at 60p.

The AVCHD 1.0 standard for 1080 60i is 24 Mbps. It only takes 28 Mbps to achieve 1080 60p, because at the faster frame rate, there is typically less delta between frames, so that the compression algorithm does not really work that much harder.

Regarding the JVC HM600/650, I think they just plain old missed the boat.

That having been said, if JVC would commit to a future factory hardware upgrade to AVCHD 2.0, I would probably buy one.

Kris Hill and Craig Yanagi ... are you listening to your customers? Please please please!

--------
On Tuesday, 30th October 2012 at 10:01am, Kris Hill - JVC said:

Hi James,

This is not going to be possible with the GY-HM600 series I am afraid. I had a brief discussion on the phone with my product manager as I understand it it would require a hardware change with the processor. I am meeting with a number of colleagues from Japan next week and I will try to get a proper understanding of this and report it back to you.
------

Would it be nice if this camera did 1080p60 (or 1080p50), of course. But many cameras don't, even the new Sony PMW-200 doesn't do 1080p60.

I think the HM600 / 650 should have at least AVCHD Progressive, and this really should hopefully be a free firmware upgrade.

But even with AVCHD as interlaced only, OR even if this camera didn't have any AVCHD, I think this is a very nice addition to the line up of cameras in its class.

As is, this has some unique offerings that Sony, Canon & Panasonic cameras don't have. And the same thing can be said about cameras from all the other brands.

No camera is ever going to be the most perfect best complete camera out there ever.