... letting the DV500 go is a big step for me.
To make you feel better, I just sold my Sony DSR-500. Fantastic camera, 16x9, CRT VF, all that. Why? A handful of reasons;
1. The world is moving to HD and there is demand for 24p
2. In my market, few clients ever paid for the DSR-500
3. We seem to be getting bigger jobs for which we rent CineAlta and for other smaller scale work (corporate, travel docs, etc.) a small HDV will do fine
4. We have some travel-related work coming and crossing the border, particularily between our two friendly countries (US-Canada) is a major pain and hassle and so I hope that with a smaller HDV camera we'll travel easier.

Yeah, it is a big step for me too. But the business and operational realities have to override emotional attachements (we all have them to our beloved gear) and one just have to move on.

Hope this helps.

I don't think JVC said "if the camera has the split screen then it is to be replaced, no questions asked"

Because all cameras have it. Maybe they said if it's visble under +18db or something, you can bring it back.

You've got it right! If you bought a PAL unit, you should get it updated. End of story.

If you got a USA model and the problem is really severe -- contact JVC as it my need "adjusting." Even the USA QC process can fail End of story.

But, SSE is acknowledged by JVC to be part of the HD100's nature. Just like the uneven timimg of the frames in CF24 is part of the CF24 mode's nature. Neither are going to be "fixed" because they are not "problems" but "characteristics" of their design. End of story.

The plain fact is SSE is prevented by adequate lighting. Repeat: SSE is prevented by adequate lighting.

I have wonderfull night time shots as the same menu tweaks that increase latitude for Las Vegas bright day shots, work for Times Square shots at night!

We all now know HD requires much more light than SD. So the decision is simply, given the requirements for more light -- can you work with low-cost HD camcorders?

But, SSE is acknowledged by JVC to be part of the HD100's nature. Just like the uneven timimg of the frames in CF24 is part of the CF24 mode's nature. Neither are going to be "fixed" because they are not "problems" but "characteristics" of their design. End of story.


I agree with this outlook. I personally believe the flaw to be a shortcoming of their design they chose to overcome realities of CCD design, and it will not be going away until the next product rev.

Instead in hollering and yelling about JVC's policy and actions, I propose we accept the reality of the situation, and move onto more useful discussions like how the effect can be minimized or avoided.

I am not a JVC apologist, I'm just simply "over it".

[p.s. I got a look at HVX footage last night, on a high-res LCD. While I admire the camera for it's forward thinking P2 design and other features, I am certainly not regretting my HD100 purchase quite yet in light of what I saw. The Canon now might be another story.]

I can see how 80-90% of a wedding reception might show this problem as well as inside some of the darker chruchs' and I can't do this to someone's wedding video.

You know, I might be totally wrong here. But something tells me JVC didn't design the HD100 with wedding videographers in mind. 24 frames per second, no interlaced mode, cine gamma. Sounds more like a camera geared towards filmmakers.

Instead in hollering and yelling about JVC's policy and actions, I propose we accept the reality of the situation, and move onto more useful discussions like how the effect can be minimized or avoided.

I am not a JVC apologist, I'm just simply "over it".

I agree Nate. Everytime I start a thread on a different aspect of the camera, it degenerates into a split-screen discussion.
Maybe Chris can just start a sticky split-screen thread, and then we'll can leave all of these comments in there.

I don't want to be a JVC apologist either, but I don't think it helps the customers for some on this board to suggest that JVC intended to release this camera with a known defect and hope no one would notice. That's just stupid.
I imagine they realized there was a big problem as soon as the European customers started reporting it in July, but it was probably too late in the delivery cycle to catch all the bad apples in the North American shipment. I was a victim of this first NA shipment - I received mine August 20.

I'm quite happy with my replacement cameras, but one still shows the problem intermittently. I will probably have to replace it again.
However, before I do that, I'm just concentrating on pushing the camera to its limits and documenting split-screen occurances so that I may be able to help JVC in some small way. I want to get this issue solved before I go into production on my next film.

Instead in hollering and yelling about JVC's policy and actions, I propose we accept the reality of the situation, and move onto more useful discussions like how the effect can be minimized or avoided.

You just beat me to the punch Nate.


Chris, I know I'm pretty new around here and I might be jumping my boundaries with this,. Or maybe I don’t even have the right of asking it. But could we get a stick thread with a title on the lines of " If the HD100 is not for you, please buy something else and leave the people who likes it alone evolve with their cameras" ?

This whole split screen bragging is really getting long in the tooth, and just wastes bandwidth and space, while we could be discussing how to get the best out of the camera.
Maybe those expecting something else could just go to the H1 or HVX200 forum and speculate about those cameras, leaving us alone here to evolve with the gear we have chosen. It’s not that people are not allowed to criticise or to point flaws in the camera. If something else comes up, it should definitely be posted and discussed. But the split has been explained and analysed to death. It has been said it’s not a defect as it’s a design compromise in order to offer an under $6,000 720p camera. Those who either can’t accept it or don’t think it’s right can move on. Just buy a HVX200 or a H1. What’s the point of beating the dead horse, if the camera is not for you? Let’s focus on developing ways to work around the limitations, to develop settings for different shooting conditions, reporting dropout frequency with the particular tape brand you are using, report what accessories you are using with the camera, and whatever move us forward in the process of understanding and getting the best of the camera we have chose to use.
Is it too much to ask?

Maybe Chris can just start a sticky split-screen thread, and then we'll can leave all of these comments in there.

Beat me while I was typing Tim :)

Just reinforces the idea that this split screen topic is way over blown, over discussed and about ready to be put to death.

I just bought this camera. I have not discovered the split screen effect so far. That includes shooting at magic hour in NYC with lots headlights, tailights, street lights, and illumated signs.

I have been reviewing the footage on an HD monitor and I am blown away.
The image is beautiful, simply put.

This camera is a fantasitic value for the money.

Every camera I have ever owned for the past 15+ years has had limitations or quirks. I will gladly live with whatever quirks this camera has given the image it is delivering.

The lens is not perfect, but it's really quite nice and the zoom ratio is quite generous for this price point.

The ergonomics of the camera as well as its balance are first class.

The viewfinder could be better, but with Zebra Indicator will keep you out of trouble if you know what your are doing.

I am so inspired to make images with this camera.

I will make movies.
I will make commercials.
I will make TV shows.
I will make art.
I will make money.

I am very happy. I have been in the business for years and I know the value of what this camera provides. I have dreamed of a camera like this for year.

I do not own JVC stock.

Thank you JVC,

David Dessel

On Tim's footage it was like a "where's waldo" for alot of poeple. I didn't notice the split until I was really getting up close and looking for it specifically. Nevertheless, it was evident and once it was pointed it was obvious. Tim, I don't think this thread degenerated into a splitscreen discussion since it was labeled splitscreen from the beginning.

@Chris Hurd, I understand what Guy is saying in that Steve Mullen wrote his post as if he was speaking on behalf of JVC. That's exactly the impression I got as well.

@Steve Mullen, Hopefully you can see that what you've written reads like you are a person of authority at JVC. I see how anyone could misconstrue what you've written as JVC's stance on the subject of split screen. Fact is that there is nothing officially from JVC on the matter.

Anyway, all the jabbering aside, I'd like to know how many people are going to be dedicating the camera to 60 lux shots???

@Steve Mullen, Hopefully you can see that what you've written reads like you are a person of authority at JVC. I see how anyone could misconstrue what you've written as JVC's stance on the subject of split screen. Fact is that there is nothing officially from JVC on the matter.

If I came accross that way it's only because I have the camera to review and I've been talking with JVC. Frankly, I'm now focused on the magic menu controls -- some of which are clearly for film makers.

I'd love to be a "person of authority" at any company if it meant I didn't have to give back my review unit in a few weeks. I feel like Ive been given a Bolex in some respects (it feels so familar to have a hand-held camera with a real lens) and a Cine-Alta in other respects (my god there are a lot controls to master).

I'm also often simply blown away by how good stuff looks projected to 7 feet.

Yes, Steve, the menus are deep, but what a great palette to work from. After playing with the menus for about two hours while the camera was hooked up to a high def monitor, I was able to tweak the image to look like Super16 transfered to film.

Good optics will make this camera a serious piece of gear.

There is so much potential here. Let's focus on that.

-Dave Dessel

@Chris Hurd, I understand what Guy is saying in that Steve Mullen wrote his post as if he was speaking on behalf of JVC. That's exactly the impression I got as well.I can acknowledge that you may have received that impression, but Steve will be the first to tell you that he most certainly does *not* speak on behalf of any manufacturer. Try to look past his choice of words and check out the message instead. Perhaps Nate Weaver did a better job of saying the same thing, either way it's an accurate and appropriate summation. It's certainly something to be aware of.

Steve Mullen is an excellent technical writer, and like I said, I know him somewhat better than most of you do. I've been to his house. His feisty overweight Siamese cat has gnawed on my fingers until they bled. We've shared more than one beer together. Do not make the mistake of reading into someone's posts that which is not there. Look past a person's writing style, try not to pass judgement on what you perceive to be some sort of authoritative position due to a certain choice of words. Instead, look at the message. Try not to get emotional about words on a screen. End of rant.

And I'm happy to post a sticky about this issue; I'm in agreement that we definitely need one. Should it be this thread? Or something more concise. I like Nate's post best. Who will write it up in a way that best serves this community?

I vote for Nate or Steve :)

Not fair, you guys have had all the fun while I was sleeping then out shooting a wedding (on my DV301 as well, got to get to know that camera as more than just my backup).

Chris, I think you took me the wrong way. I didn't think Steve was speaking on behalf of JVC, but I did feel like he was, and still is telling me to just drop it because its not important to him. We each have our own opinions on this matter and should respect that. It seems that while I can understand his acceptance of the problem for his shooting requirements, he can't quite get a grip on mine.

The price on my DV500 is good, and bad.... A new DV5100 body only here would still cost about $8000+ I think if you didn't shop around too much. Its funny, I do find it quite difficult to get interest in my JVC gear. Sony sells easy, JVC doesn't. You normally get much better value buying JVC, but suffer when it comes to selling (at least here).

Michael: "You know, I might be totally wrong here. But something tells me JVC didn't design the HD100 with wedding videographers in mind."

I am afraid they did. Have a look at http://www.prohd.net, which was the very first site JVC created for this camera. It is still there, and it still clearly shows a nice photo of a wedding cake strongly implying the camera is targeted towards event shooting, not just film making. Therefore, even though the problem can be solved by adequate lighting, it is clearly marketed towards shooting in situations where their often isn't adequate lighting (events, news gathering and to a lesser degree sports shooting).

I think I am very forgiving of JVC and until this issue raised its head, I was gave this model a lot of praise to my peers. I've have two relatively late model JVC cameras and they have their fair share of problems and poor design decisions. This HD100 has a swag of its own without even mentioning this SSE. Poor battery life, bad noise in grain, low sensitivity, no simultaneous display VF+LCD, no meters on LCD like DV5000, not the best LCD and VF to start with, expensive remote focus and iris control options, bad smear (from what Steve says). However I accept these for what they are, the other benifits outweight these. Unfortunately this SSE might just be a deal breaker (for me), because when you see it, the image doesn't look grainy, or have any traits of traditional camera problems, the image just looks faulty, plain wrong. I am 99% sure any future model won't have it, and I'll bet if JVC knew it was going to happen they wouldn't have designed it the way they did, but it was all probably too late and marketing likely pushed them to market with it (just guessing though).

Maybe what I can do, is if I sell the DV500, I can buy a HD101 from someone who is willing to sell on a 100% satisfaction guarrantee return policy. If I shoot a wedding with it, and don't see the problem, then I guess it won't matter to me either. Maybe I am overreacting, but maybe I am not.

The other problem with SSE is once you see it, you start to see it everywhere, even when it's not there. All it will take is a big name director trying then dropping the cam to turn it into the next Edsel.

I remember being hot on the 301, till I saw the slow focus issue, way slower than competitors. Made it useless in run and shoot situations, the very situations it was meant to be used in.
Yet people found uses for it outside of new gathering, under controlled situations...just don't get in a hurry.

Finally, who in their right mind wants to tell a bride and groom to just ignore the little line up the middle of the screen, the contrast and color difference between left and right...and that most people won't notice it.
No any one who wants to stay in business.

It's also obvious JVC knew about this issue before it shipped, especially with the explanatons being given. They knew it was extremely difficult to capture data off of these CCDs, yet hoped they could get away with it?.

I have to agree with Guy on this one.

Once agian the marketing doesn't match up with the product.


To me, at least in the USA, JVC is one of the great what if's of the video industry.

I have to believe most directors don't want to see a great, maybe perfect performance in a given scene and have to yell, "Cut, got that damn split screen again, check the lighting, get the talent back on mark..."

Yes, I believe Nate and Steve about how great the images can look. But is it worth the hassle? Is it worth the extra time and resources needed to avoid a design flaw (yes, flaw, tech limitations not with standing). If one needs to do all the same things that are needed for a film camera, why not just rent a film camera instead?

John, is your camera a NTSC or PAL? When did you get it?



What is your version and the newer version of the firmware you saw from the other user's camera?

Mine is 101E (PAL), although in HD mode both cameras are identical (100 and 101). I got min efromt eh second shipment to Australia around the end of August.

Re- firmware: Ah now there's a complicated series of button presses to ge to the firmware version - I have it written down at work, I'll check tomorrow.

I'm not sure about the other user, because I found this out via the AB Batyery importer in Australia who was dealing with another customer, who was getting an incorrect voltage reading off the battery adapter and was trying to work out if it wasa firmware or a faulty adapter.

From memory (and mines not great!) mine was 1.12 and the other which was a newer camera was 1.14... I'll edit this post tomorrow when I confirm it.

Yes, I believe Nate and Steve about how great the images can look. But is it worth the hassle? Is it worth the extra time and resources needed to avoid a design flaw (yes, flaw, tech limitations not with standing).

Press the AUTO IRIS button and be sure you have at least F4 AVERAGE level of light. You should be shooting at F4 to F5.6 for the best quality from ANY lens since that's mid-way between full Open and Full Closed.

Likewise, you should check the iris isn't more closed than F8 which means engaging the ND filter as needed.

Treat this like you were shoulding negative film.

Steve, I respect you and your writings very much but I have to disagree here. There just are too many situations where one needs to go wide open, where there is no way of lighting the scene and as much as I like the camera, I have to insist that this flaw is a flaw and JVC needs to do what they can to fix it!

Yes, ideally under controlled situation you may want to go f4-5.6 but if you shoot documentaries it is without a question that sometimes you will have to go wide open and/or even add some plus gain. Same for live theater. I shoot some dance from time to time and I can tell you that often the theatrical lighting is just enough for wide open (and that is with a 2/3 SD camera). Also, when trying to achieve a shallow DOF, you will need to go as close to wide open as possible - hence, the danger of getting the dreaded split screen is still there.

We can go on and on about this but the reality is that unless JVC finds a fix there are going to be people that will simply have to pick another camera because this problem will be too severe for their type of work.

I shot a dance concert the other night which I think isn't a bad test of low light performance and also SSE. I don't do a lot of these (only three a year) as the bulk of my work is corporate, but I shot with 2 Sony's - a DSR 300 and a DSR 500 and the JVC. I also shot in SD at 575/50 4x3 to match the other two cams (also because my editing program does not support 720P25 yet).

I shot mostly around F4 - OPEN with 0DB gain, and although the backgrounds were quite often smooth and contiguous (a cyc with projected images) and at times black I have not seen one instance of SSE in this footage. Obviously the Sony's had better low light performance being interlaced and larger chips (half inch and two thirds), but the other interesting thing was the footage matched quite well (I had black stretch on two and I think I upped the chroma a couple of points). All cameras were preset to 3200K.

I did have a weird problem with my 101E - I was actually getting breakup in one half of the sensor. I thought it was the power supply so I switched to battery, but the problem stayed - it was only happening intermittently so I could edit around it, but it was a concern. I had the desk in stereo patched into the 101E and I worked out that the problem seemed to be more prevalent when the audio peaked, so I wound down the level (which was by no means excessive) and the problem disappeared. I've now spoken to JVC and this appears to be a fault with my particular unit and I'll have to get it fixed next week. We still haven't decided if it was truly related to audio or if that was coincidental.. and this is probably the subject of a new thread.

The problem as I see it for guys like Guy (wow that joke must be getting old) is that this camera may not be right for wedding videographers. Its low light performance will not match cameras with a half/two third inch SD block scanning in interlaced. But then those cameras are quite remarkable. My Nikon D70 stills camera has trouble at ISO1600 in these kinds of light conditions unless I use a fast lens. So for the time being if you consistently shoot in very low light, you are better off with an interlaced SD camera.

I think what those who own the camera have tried to articulate here are three things:

1. SSE is a technical problem and does not manifest itself at the same level on all units (ie some cameras are worse than others). As JVC produces more units there has been an anecdotal improvement in performance.
2. JVC is prepared to exchange units that exhibit excessive SSE
3. Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you, or whether (as I discovered) battery life was by far the weakest point of this model.

I'll add a fourth and that is that even if disaster struck and some key footage exhibited SSE, it isn't a problem that can't be "fixed" in post. I haven't tried but I imagine a subtle colour correction to half the image would be possible, even within most NLE's. That's not ideal but from a post production POV I've had far harder hurdles to leap.

[QUOTE=Steve Mullen]Since JVC explained the details to me and others and we've published them I certaintly think JVC USA has defined the problem and is QCing the camcorders. Since I know of no additional firmware -- I'm assuming that what I've got is it.

Nope - that's not an official response. One shouldn't have to buy a defective camera to get an audience with a JVC dealer or rep, only to have tell 'fixes are on the way'. To many potential buyers JVC's lack of comment is, considering that footage from the H1 and HVX are starting to be seen, a staggering bad business decision. A decision that, until addressed, will absolutely rule out a purchase of the JVC for myself and many others.
John

A decision that, until addressed, will absolutely rule out a purchase of the JVC for myself and many others.You're certainly entitled to express such a decision here... one time and one time only. Since you have determined that this camera is not the one for you, I will expect you to move on out of this particular board into one of the many others that we have here at DV Info Net. Meanwhile, John Mitchell's post above is the best and most realistic advice I have yet seen on this topic:

"Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, (or) whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you..."

Thanks in advance,

I got mine today, no split screen and no dead pixels. I even tried to force the split screen but couldnt find any...am I lucky or have I just not managed to see it yet?

What the h*ll is so hard about pressing the AUTO IRIS button and being sure you have at least F4 AVERAGE level of light. You should be shooting at F4 to F5.6 for the best quality from ANY lens since that's mid-way between full Open and Full Closed.

Likewise, you should check the iris isn't more closed than F8 which means engaging the ND filter as needed.

Treat this like you were shoulding negative film. And, if you can afford film -- why are you reading about a video camera?

Steve, nothing hard at all. But it sounds like I can't do natural light shooting without taking a big risk. And the question about film was rhetorical, sorry if it sounded otherwise. I actually prefer shooting in a controlled environment, but I don't want to be constrained against taking advantage of natural light or other situations. I guess spontanaiety won't be part of a HDV100 operators job description.

I'm looking forward to JVC getting this problem solved. They've always addressed issues in the past, not always to what customers were hoping for, but at least they own up eventually (anybody remember the BR3K VTR disaster? They eventually came out with an outstanding replacement, but not before a lot of customers had given up on them, hope they don't repeat that approach this time.)
I haven't ruled out getting this camera, but for now, gonna be patient and see what happens. In case I haven't said so, I really appreciate all the reports, both good and bad.

btw, has anyone tried the 101 under flourescant lights? Especially color corrected ones, or Kino flow types? LED too?

Just a couple of comments.

I own the camera and have used it quite a lot. People might see from my other posts that I am not been happy either with the SSE - in fact I was pretty cross about it at first. However, those considering purchasing the camera should definitely not be put off for the following reasons:

1. Although I can replicate the problem in very low light test situations I have not so far experienced a problem with it in real world shooting.
2. I shot in low light in a club the other night for two hours (admittedly SD) and was very surprised - no SSE. I hope to post some footage as soon as I can get my act together.
3. I understand that JVC has pretty much sorted the problem out and that people purchasing the camera now have little to be concerned about. There have been numerous software upgrades since the original camera.
4. For those with the issue (like me) it really is a question of getting the problem sorted out with your dealer/JVC which has shown no reluctance to deal with the issue at all. I have decided to do this and my seller is being helpull and will sort out the problem as soon as he can. It is a question of sending the unit back for adjustment. I dont think that there will ever just be a download fix available to the general public. It is a question of new software and some adjustment to the sensors as far as I can tell. Anyway, I understand that there is no need to actually exchange cameras. Bottom line - the problem is fixable even for those with cameras which exhibit the problem at an unacceptable level.

In essence, notwithstanding the SSE, the footage I have taken from this camera speaks for itself. It is awesome. Videographers who want to shoot mainly docos I reckon might be better off with the interlaced Sony. If you are only used to the interlaced look then go for Sony. But for those shooting drama there is one way to go - the JVC.

It would be a great shame for the film community if early teething problems compromised sales of this camera down the track as this would be a loss to the film community.

Cheers and happy shooting!

Rob

"I was able to tweak the camera to look like Super 16"

Dear David,

Please share your settings with us - eithe here or there is another thread dealing with settings.

Rob

I got mine today, no split screen and no dead pixels. I even tried to force the split screen but couldnt find any...am I lucky or have I just not managed to see it yet?


You most likely didn't see it yet. It seems they all have it in some degree. Maybe somebody who has one could explain you how to to test for the split .

It is possible you have one of the more recent cameras with new software which has greatly reduced the problem.

To test:

Find a flat surface with only one colour in a room. Close the blinds. Turn on the light bulb as your only source of lighting. Fill the screen with the flat surface. Now pan across the flat surface. Try on no gain and then with gain.If you have the split screen it will be immediately evident to you. If you cant see it then great!

Rob

Robert, most probably mine has got the latest software. It arrived to Singapore on thursday and was shipped on friday...I got it today.

I will be testing again tomorrow to find out. I did something similar today...I even put gain to +18db but didnt see any sign of SSE. My biggest concern b4 purchasing this cam was SSE and dead pixels, I projected the image on a 720p projector but there was no sign of either...hopefully that remains so!

Michael Maier requested my firmware version:

GY-HD101E

SYS CPU C1590 V0112
CAM CPU C1591 V0105
VTR CPU C1594 V0108
ENC CPU L1187 V0105

PACKAGE C1615 V0105
FPGA2 C1595 V0105
FPGA3 C1596 V0100
FPGA4 C1597 V0103

That apparently is firmware 1.12

Apparently the versions on field units are: 1.12; 1.14 and 1.17

Robert, most probably mine has got the latest software. It arrived to Singapore on thursday and was shipped on friday...I got it today.

I will be testing again tomorrow to find out. I did something similar today...I even put gain to +18db but didnt see any sign of SSE. My biggest concern b4 purchasing this cam was SSE and dead pixels, I projected the image on a 720p projector but there was no sign of either...hopefully that remains so!

This is good news. It's been said to just turn on the camera i a low lit room an you'll start to see the split.

Please lighten up on that attitude... I don't allow this sort of thing here. DV Info Net is for the discussion of technology and technique, not for finger pointing or personal slants. Besides I know Steve personally, and I have seen him really lay into a manufacturer before, by posing very difficult and challenging questions at press conferences and trade shows. He is not on anybody's "side," he is simply being realistic about this situation, no matter how painful it may be. Let us please lay off the accusations and personal admonitions... that is the sort of thing to be expected at other web sites, but definitely not here at DV Info Net. Let's keep it focused on the gear and the technique. Thanks in advance,

I hate to respectfully disagree but this is simply not how I see discussions on this board. We are all human beings here with clear slant and biased opinions. The only real honesty is to admit and fully disclose our bias and not pretend that it does not exist. Any quick reading of Steve's post over the years clearly indicates his bias and perspective on cameras and gear and his comments on this JVC are clearly minimizing the issues. But there is nothing wrong with that.

However, my posts on 24p or "filmlook vs. professional look" (yes, I started that thread) are clearly biased and skewed by my take on things as well. That's what makes this site interesting. Real people with real opinions.

Personally, as long as we can remain respectful and honest, we can benefit from hearing other's different perspectives.

But just like those that think documentaries or journalism should be "objective" (there is no such thing as "objective", especially in documentaries), it would be impossible for us to even try to be "objective".

Split screen is big issue for some shooters (respect that), and not for others (also respect that).

What we need is as much information on how, when and how much it occurs and what options people have (including returning or exchanging the camera).

What we need is as much information on how, when and how much it occurs and what options people have (including returning or exchanging the camera).

I agree, but I think the reason I see this issue as "closed" is because -- as I've posted -- SSE can be prevented. If it can be prevented, then it is no longer an issue. To keep posting about it -- it simply becomes a dead horse.

[ The problem was that initially it was tied to the amount of gain. This proved posted -- last week -- to be untrue. ]

1. We all know that that image quality is best when we keep the iris neither fully open nor fully closed. That's why we add light to get an opening of at least F4 -- ideally F5.6. And, why we use ND filters to keep the iris no further closed than about F11 -- or ideally F8.

Therefore, it is our job to CONTROL light to keep an AVERAGE reading between F4 and F8 -- and the reading on the light we we will pan into or from.

2. We also know we should Manually White Balance on the light actually illuminating the subject -- and on the light we we will pan into or from.

3. We also know to keep image noise low, we should use the minimum possible gain. Not more than about +12dB with the HD100.

4. We also know that if we are using gain, it's a good idea to White Balance at the gain we will be using.

Now, if we do ALL these things we will capture a great picture.

You'll note I have not mentioned how to prevent SSE. I don't need to, because by following the standard rules of getting the best possible picture -- I have prevented SSE.

These principles are so old -- they hardly need to be said. They apply to an 35mm SLR, a 16mm camera, or any 35mm film camera. (Except, of course, gain was the film's sensitivity. And, we used a filter or chose the film, rather than the set the WB.)

[ I assume someone is protesting that they want to work with low light like they do with their SD camcorder. You're free to think that way -- which means you really have no choice of any low-cost HD camera because they all have a high-pixel count and lower sensitivity. ]

I prefer to think of the HD100 as using NEGATIVE film -- which has always meant "expose for the shadows." Further, since I also want a high quality image -- I consider I'm using a "low grain" film -- which I know means I'm using a film with low sensitivity. Therefore, I must plan my shots accordingly.

That means I can't freely shoot. So what? I haven't used any camera in over 50 years that I didn't have to do a bit of thinking before shooting. Nothing, new.

Robert, most probably mine has got the latest software. It arrived to Singapore on thursday and was shipped on friday...I got it today.

I will be testing again tomorrow to find out. I did something similar today...I even put gain to +18db but didnt see any sign of SSE. My biggest concern b4 purchasing this cam was SSE and dead pixels, I projected the image on a 720p projector but there was no sign of either...hopefully that remains so!


Very Interesting. JVC might have got it fixed then. Some extensive testing will tell. I like the fact yours is a PAL. Mine will be a PAL too when I buy.
Please keep us updated about you findings.

That means I can't freely shoot. So what? I haven't used any camera in over 50 years that I didn't have to do a bit of thinking before shooting. Nothing, new.

I think the SSE is more serious than that. I shoot low light wide open 35mm stills, postive and negs, some in near dark with 1.4 lenses (and used to shoot low light Super 8 negative and reversal) because I liked some of the stuff you could get as the image breaks up in a pleasing way.

However, with the HD100 the SSE limit creative choices at that end of exposure. For many shooter who like high key lighting - rock and roll, but for low keyers (including the 1080p film I'm shooting right now - fortunately 2/3rds of it is created in After Effects) the rest I will still shoot with my DVX100a because none of the HDV cams yet give a nice progressive image in low light (single 50W bulb edge light). The DVX100a is noisy, but for the look I need, a little levels and noise vanishes where I need it to vanish.

So, the SSE, low light issues (and the lack of appealing glass right now) keeps me shooting with my DVX100a. Deinterlacing Sony HDV might work and still might rent one, but not sure I get that much more rez with Deinterlaced Sony HDV than DVX progressive thin mode.

Low light is not just the playground of ENG and wedding shooters. Some of us are into natural light cinemetography and consider it an art. Low light behavior is a big deal. Noise does not bother me too much, though I would like the DVX cleaner.

SSE is deal breaker, though. If I can't shoot wide open and have rich shadows filling the frame, I need another cam.

Steve....

the symptoms of the issue may be closed, but I am concerend about the underlying cause.

SSE is a result of a slight mis-matching of dual circuitry. To a layperson such as myself, seems to suggest that ALL HD, progressive, 3 x 1/3" CCD pickup systems will be required (if dual circuits aren't needed, why implement them?). It has been suggested that the density of these tiny chips and the heat they generate is one of the factors in this design (at least the choice made by JVC).

Two questions:

1 - Will in fact, all progressive pickup systems of 3 x 1/3" HD chips require dual circuits? (any confirmation on how Panasonic is handling this issue?)

2 - What is the long-term effect of these hot-running CCDs? Does the heat factor have an impact on lifespan and/or performance?

"Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, (or) whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you..."

Chris - No offense, but a line down the middle of screen of a $6,000.00 professional camera not a technical problem? It would seem to be the very definition of a technical problem - and to this point, no one seems to have a fix - thus a post like mine on a forum like yours.....

Until I have my hands on it I won't know if a line down the middle of my camera is an issue? What possible purpose would a camera with a line at 0 gain have? But, again, perhaps someone has found a ready steady way to fix the problem in post, or has heard that there is fix comming, or has heard that JVC corporate has acknowleged the problem - thus a post like mine to a forum like yours.....

Although I am still interested in the camera, that interest is dwindling due to the continued reports of the effect and lack of JVC corporate response - is that not a viable subject for this forum? Is there a more appropriate place to talk about a user reported serious technical flaw that has not been addressed by the manufacturer?
John

I agree, but I think the reason I see this issue as "closed" is because -- as I've posted -- SSE can be prevented.
The whole point of this discussion is to encourage JVC to work on the flaw and try to fix it. I think that most of us who insist that this is unacceptable do it because we like the camera and we don't want JVC to become complacent and think that the community accepted the problem. I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that you cannot shoot wide open without taking the risk of getting SSE. Why even bother developing faster lenses then? There are simply too many professional applications that from time to time require shooting in low light. Period.

Progress never happened by acceptance. I really don't understand why Steve of all people keeps so vehemently defending the status quo of the situation. If we as a community had that attitude we'd be still shooting on U-matic or worse: "You know, just apply the basics, don't shoot into bright sources, have an assistant to carry the recorder, what's so new about that?"

Sounds like a broken record? Well, as long as there are people who try to 'close' the issue there have to be others who will keep it alive and pounding on JVC's door. (Hey, maybe I'll get kicked out of this forum now...:-)

John, I can't speak for Chris, but the bottom line *appears* to be this:
1. JVC is very aware of the issue, and seems to be dealing with it. It's quite unfortunate, and kinda strange that they haven't made any kind of a public statement or comment from the "official" side of the company.

2. This forum has discussed this issue to death, there is no point in continually beating the horse. Either JVC will fix it, or they won't. If they don't, it's a dead-in-the-water cam. If they do, it's a serious tool for many filmmakers and documentarians.

3. Chris, nor anyone else is suggesting it's a moot/small/insignificant issue. However, it's a well-known issue, so....we might as well be discussing how the Japanese allegedly created a magnetic field to start hurricanes in the Gulf for all the good it will do. It's a real issue, but continually beating on it does'nt fix it. What will fix it is folks not buying the camera, or JVC getting enough returns that they have no choice, or JVC having a product ethic that demands that they fix it. Beating up on it constantly here doesn't support any of those three motivations. I somewhat suspect that's more Chris' and other posters points.

Believe me, I'm in total agreement with you. I prefer Sony and Canon cams on the lower end, and Sony and Grass Valley on the higher side, and so have no desire to professionally own this cam. However, I've ordered one because I'm authoring books and seminars on HDV, and want to know what's up with all the products. You think I'm happy, knowing I'll likely get a camera that has a split screen? I just have faith in my NLE and JVC that this isn't going to continue to be a big deal.
But,....hope springs eternal. :-)

I think the bottomline should include consideration of the underlying CAUSE of the effect.

I'm not a huge fan of JVC, but won't it be ironic if Panasonic has the same issue with their HVX?

..... see my earlier post.

But,....hope springs eternal. :-)

Yeah - let's hope so! Sorry if I was beating a dead horse...
Could you let us know when you get your camera, how it looks, et al? Thanks Doug...
John

I think the bottomline should include consideration of the underlying CAUSE of the effect.

I'm not a huge fan of JVC, but won't it be ironic if Panasonic has the same issue with their HVX?

..... see my earlier post.

FWIW, I can *almost* guarantee Panasonic won't. I keep waiting for someone to offer a specific, technical explanation for why this is happening. It's there, I believe, I've had two different competitive manufacturers tell me essentially the same story as to the why...however, I don't believe I'm mathmatically astute nor technical enough to explain it with any degree of confidence or authority.

DSE has just saved me from an immense amount of further typing. What he just said pretty much sums up the way I feel about the situation.

I never know what motivations lies behind someone who has only a handful of posts on this site. Maybe they're a longtime lurker who knows the ropes around here, or maybe they think this is "just another message board." So it's my intention to make this point very clear:

A person cannot camp out in a forum discussing some hardware or software that they have chosen not to buy; they cannot hang out here constantly nay-saying about something they're not using. That has not happened yet; I'm not accusing anybody of actually doing that here. I'm just letting you know now, ahead of time: that game is not played here.

As has been stated, the SSE issue is very real and we're all very well aware of it and I'm looking forward to some kind of response from JVC. Meanwhile, if you've said "I'm not buying this camera," then that's great -- it's the *one* time you're allowed to do that on this board. Leave the remaining bandwidth to the users and to those folks that are genuinely interested in furthering some *productive* conversation. Hope this helps,

1. JVC is very aware of the issue, and seems to be dealing with it.

In the UK, JVC are doing another Milk Run with TouchVision. Today in Farnham - Thursday's in London with the Wide Angle on show for the first time.

Bottom line: no SSE, but then no night shots. Some room lighting, but still no SSE (one shot looked like it had in still frame, but it was part of the scene!)

An informed sauce says that there are almost weekly firmware revs from JVC, but there's no point in releasing a firmware update if it's not quite right - c.f. 'Beta testing'. I guess when they've got it licked, they'll go GM. OTOH, there was talks of adjustments over and above the firmware update, requiring a trip to the shop - maybe this is the Dead Pixel Shuffle, maybe a real need to open the unit up and do something (though that sounds very 'Analog' to me).

Chris....

Were your comments made with me in mind?

If so, I can tell you I am sincere in my curiousity, and was hoping that my questions were put in such a way that the answers would not only provide some concrete design facts, but also make potential buyers of any HD camcorder more aware of how these things are designed.

Marty, my comments are not directed towards anyone here in particular; they're meant for those people who have said (or are about to say) "I'm not buying this camera." If you are choosing not to use this equipment and feel like you need to say so, that's fine... one time and one time only. Step aside and let the actual users have this board, that's who it's for.

I am specifically discouraging "crusaders." A crusader is somebody who feels that since they're not buying a particular thing, then neither should anybody else. It is not a crusader's responsibility to make potential buyers aware of what they perceive to be deal-killing flaws. Rather it's the potential buyer's own responsibility to evaluate for themselves what the bonafide owners of that gear are saying.

Anything else consitutes noise, which is worse than useless and gets in the way of intelligent and productive discourse between the person doing some serious research and the actual users of the gear. If you *own* this camera and you have something to add about the SSE issue, then I encourage your input wholeheartedly. If you don't own this camera and you have no direct experience with the SSE issue, then what business do you have talking about it. That doesn't help anyone. I hope that's clear. We've had enough meta-discussion about this so let's please try to get back on topic.

It is possible you have one of the more recent cameras with new software which has greatly reduced the problem.

To test:

Find a flat surface with only one colour in a room. Close the blinds. Turn on the light bulb as your only source of lighting. Fill the screen with the flat surface. Now pan across the flat surface. Try on no gain and then with gain.If you have the split screen it will be immediately evident to you. If you cant see it then great!

Rob

Doesn't tell you anything! You must get the exposure to F2, or higher.

Step aside and let the actual users have this board, that's who it's for.

If you don't own this camera and you have no direct experience with the SSE issue, then what business do you have talking about it. That doesn't help anyone. I hope that's clear. We've had enough meta-discussion about this so let's please try to get back on topic.

Is this topic is closed to those who don't own the camera?

Is there another thread to ask about the CCD circuitry design, and the affect of heat on the chips?

I am confused about the rules here.

Steve....

the symptoms of the issue may be closed, but I am concerend about the underlying cause.

SSE is a result of a slight mis-matching of dual circuitry. To a layperson such as myself, seems to suggest that ALL HD, progressive, 3 x 1/3" CCD pickup systems will be required (if dual circuits aren't needed, why implement them?). It has been suggested that the density of these tiny chips and the heat they generate is one of the factors in this design (at least the choice made by JVC).?

I also suspect it's the fact that 6 A/Ds are used. The first several dozen pixels in each CCD's row get no light. These pixels are sampled and averaged to a Black Level and stored in the DSP. One for each color. Normally, this value is subtracted from every pixel.

But, in the HD100, this one value must serve for both halves of each CCD. Each half is being digitized by a different A/D. Since there are bound to be differences between these 2 A/Ds -- the single Black Level has a probability of being wrong for the second A/D.

Now, when a full range image is captured (say 0-100IRE) -- a tiny percent error doesn't make much difference. But, if the image is poorly lit and uses only half (0-5OIRE) or a quarter (0-25IRE) of the A/D's range -- then the tiny error will show-up as a split.

That is why:

1) We need sufficient light.

2) We need an AVERAGE exposure of F4 to F5.6 in order to cover the possibily of a statistically "non-normal" distribution of light. For example, a very bright light supplies very high value samples to the AVERAGE, yet the rest of the pixels are in low-light. If we setttle for an F2 reading, the average will be F2 -- but the majority of the scene will be way darker. By adding light until we get to F4, we have a greater chance that the rest of the scene will be bright enough.

I would have assumed that JVC would have used all black rows at the top to actually determine the A/D differences and correct the Black Value for the second A/D. That might have been the firmware fix. However, it's possible that such a single correction simply isn't adequate for the dynamics of CCDs, A/Ds, and a huge range of lighting conditions.

THE BOTTOM-LINE -- the weaker the signal, they greater the error will show-up. At least, that's my GUESS as to what's happening!

By the way -- I suspect some one will write software to SAVE critical scenes where this occurs. Simply adjust the slider until its gone.

A few things...

but a line down the middle of screen ?

It's not a "line", it's that the left half looks different than the right half; one side will look brighter (and perhaps redder) than the other. The "line" refers to the notion that there is a clear demarcation between the halves of the screen.

JVC is very aware of the issue, and seems to be dealing with it
JVC is most definitely aware of it, and they are concerned about it. I've spoken with them about it.

the reason I see this issue as "closed" is because -- as I've posted -- SSE can be prevented. If it can be prevented, then it is no longer an issue. To keep posting about it -- it simply becomes a dead horse

This is something I cannot agree with at any level. To me, trying to tell people "don't worry about it" is nearly as bad as the crusaders who have no interest other than to discredit the product. Potential buyers need to know what's happening and when (or if) they will encounter the issue. The issue is not by any means closed, nor can it be prevented in a huge percentage of circumstances, so therefore it is not a dead horse.

I assembled my camera, plugged it into my XBR960, and turned it on. First thing I saw was two completely different looks to the halves of the picture on the screen. Not subtle, but massively noticeable. And this is with a firmware version 1.17 camera, which is apparently the latest.

Can it be prevented? Apparently yes, by keeping enough light in the scene. And for those who intend to use the product specifically under controlled lighting circumstances, they may be able to do as Steve recommends and it may become a non-issue for them. For others, who shoot in available light (I'm thinking news, sports, events, wedding receptions, etc) it could be a dealbreaker.

There are a whole lot of types of shooters out there, a whole lot more than just "indie filmmakers".

I flatly reject the idea of someone declaring this a "non-issue" -- that arrogantly dismisses a whole huge sector of the market's shooting requirements. I don't think that in the history of video cameras there's ever been an issue quite like this. Experienced professionals are unprepared for this -- they haven't seen something like this before. The issue needs to be explained, not glossed over or swept under a rug.

Let's come up with a better definition for it: let's determine the light rating that's necessary to avoid it, and then be able to definitively tell people: "if you're shooting at under XYZ footcandles, then you'll see an unusual artifact in the picture, where one half will be noticeably brighter than the other."

I will conduct some testing today to try to determine what FC the situation occurs under, and how many FC are necessary before the split is no longer visible.

This is something I cannot agree with at any level. To me, trying to tell people "don't worry about it" is nearly as bad as the crusaders who have no interest other than to discredit the product.
Thank you! Well put.