View Full Version : Split screen technical explanation


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

John Mitchell
September 28th, 2005, 10:54 AM
For those interested (and I was one) a JVC engineer in Sydney explained the technical cause of the split screen phenomenon. It may have already appeared here but in case it hasn't, here it is with the following disclaimer - I'm not a technician - this is my layman's explanation from what I was told.

Because the image is captured progressively from such a large sensor (well in terms of pixel count), there were no existing technology designed to capture the information the sensor was sending out in a single pass. JVC decided to use two existing circuits to scan each half of the chip separately. Despite the fact that they have a comparator type arrangement for supply to these circuits, minute differences in voltage can manifest as a difference in black levels.

JVC is working on trying to cure the split screen with a firmware update.

My guess is the Sony will never suffer from this because they scan their sensors using an interlaced method, therefore they only ever have to scan half the chip at any moment in time, hence they need only the existing technology to do that.

Chris Hurd
September 28th, 2005, 12:17 PM
Thanks John -- a firmware upgrade should be easily implemented by the end users. Seems to me as though you should be able to download the firmware file, save it to an SD card, insert it into the camera and have it read and implemented that way. Otherwise... sounds like a trip to the dealer.

Steve Mullen
September 28th, 2005, 12:20 PM
Your explanation is correct. A high pixel count (both V & H), progressive CCD, at 60Hz -- requires a VERY high H. clock rate.

High clock rate = higher voltage = higher current = higher heat = harder time dissapaiting it on a small (1/3in.) CCD.

My tests show that both gain and white balance interact and can lead to split screen at much lower than +18dB. How much lower -- and how to prevent -- are the subject of my on going tests.

I know of no future firmware fixes for this problem. And, I have to wonder how Panasonic will solve this? But, it does explain why Sony and Canon don't offer 24p. :)

Michael Maier
September 28th, 2005, 01:42 PM
And, I have to wonder how Panasonic will solve this? But, it does explain why Sony and Canon don't offer 24p. :)

And, it does make you wonder how the canon 24f can be as good as real 24p then.

Craig Donaldson
September 28th, 2005, 02:28 PM
My camera had the split screen. Took it back to dealer and was given the option of a new camera or a firmware update. New camera was the quicker option.
Overall a no hassle exchange. JVC obviously know it's a defect and are trying to please their customers.

Stephen L. Noe
September 28th, 2005, 03:29 PM
This makes perfect sense in that if you gain up then more voltage/current is applied to the CCD and therefore it is running hotter. Also white balancing could force the overall voltage one way or another on the CCD block so I could see how white balance would have a bearing on split screen. I think a firmware update will help but they may have to get a closer tolerance on the split circuit at the factory (resistance wise).

make a mental note and limit the gain to +9db max. It's extremely rare (for me) to go into gain at all or register +3 db without adding light or reflected light to try and keep the gain @ 0.

How about you? Do you consistently shoot with gain?

John Vincent
September 28th, 2005, 03:58 PM
Howdy everyone. As I've said on other forums, the JVC is the camera, of all the new uber-cams, that most fits my needs...But then there's this split-screen problem that most people are assuming will get fixed.

I hope that's true. It's nice to know the problem's being worked on. It's nice that we now know (probably) why the effect happens.... But as much as I want to buy this camera, I can not until there is some official acknowlegment of the problem, and an announcement that it's fixed.

What if firm-ware is not enough to fix the initial batch of cameras? How many actual cameras are effected? Just the ones in Europe? Canada? How many have been returned to be fixed? None of these important questions are answerable - except by JVC corporate.

I will not rely upon what various dealers say - this is something that should come from corporate. Why? Because while silence may be golden, it's not where dropping 6 grand is concerned - especially when there are so many more options available.

JVC answers some questions, and I'll place and order - 'till then.... I don't know. Wait + see I suppose....
John

Steve Mullen
September 28th, 2005, 06:14 PM
But as much as I want to buy this camera, I can not until there is some official acknowlegment of the problem, and an announcement that it's fixed.

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.

Thus, I'm working on how to solve the TWO problems:

1) The Split-screen Division Problem (SDP) where the two sides look different.

2) The Split-screen Line Problem (SLP) which appears as a simple faint vertical line that only appears when there is a smooth surface like dark pavement or a white or gray dress. This one can bite you because it can occur at even low gain levels!

Robert Castiglione
September 28th, 2005, 06:18 PM
"I know of no future firmware fixes for this problem."

Steve can you please expand on that? Are you saying that:

(a) it cant be done given the nature of the problem;or
(b) it wont be done and suggestions that JVC is working on such a solution are misconceived.

I have the split screen issue but it made no sense to me to merely exchange it as given the nature of the problem it seems that you take pot luck and hope that the next one you are sent will not have exactly the same problem. I have read of people having to return several cameras fraying the tempers of both purchaser and supplier. I have been relying on a downloadable fix. This was suggested at least in the unofficial communication from Ken and JVC have certainly not denied that this will be possible.

Rob

Steve Mullen
September 28th, 2005, 07:11 PM
This was suggested at least in the unofficial communication from Ken -- and JVC have certainly not denied that this will be possible.

First, Ken does not speak for JVC USA in any way. Chris and I will get the word from "JVC" when there is any word.

Second, of course, it's "not impossible."

But, if JVC had a fix coming -- would they send out camcorders for review knowing they would soon be fixed?

Moreover, if the problem is in improving the CCDs -- this may be done incrementally by {Sony} on their production line.

I really do not think any product should be bought on what anyone says might/could be fixed. Buy it on what is shipping.

All this applies only to USA models. Let's face it, the non-USA units were beta models in spirit at least -- and may be able to be improved by firmware that the USA may have waited for.

Robert Castiglione
September 28th, 2005, 07:59 PM
The difficulty is that for those of us who purchased the camera in good faith from JVC based on its promotional material there was no indication at all of the problem.

I would not have purchased the camera if I had been told about the problem. I would have waited.

Having said that, I am not too concerned as the split screen defect is ultimately JVC's problem. It will have to provide some solution to people one way or another. I suppose it is quite possible it wont be able to fix up the first batch of cameras in which case JVC will have to exchange them for cameras once the the problem is sorted out.

At the moment, I am prepared to wait a few months to give JVC an opportunity to fix the issue through the rumoured software solution. That rumour has had considerable currency.

I will be interested in due course to see how JVC handles this whole problem. In my view, not communicating on an official or formal level is a poor business decision, particularly in the age of the internet and of websites such as this (thanks guys for running it).

Thanks for your comments.

Rob

PS God I hate this whole issue and would so much rather be discussing positive aspects of the camera.

Tom Roper
September 28th, 2005, 10:16 PM
That's not a flaw. It's a feature!

Kidding aside, as a JVC GR-HD1 customer I can think of a few things that should have been fixed with firmware updates too. Yet it never happened.

Michael Maier
September 28th, 2005, 11:38 PM
I will be interested in due course to see how JVC handles this whole problem. In my view, not communicating on an official or formal level is a poor business decision, particularly in the age of the internet and of websites such as this (thanks guys for running it).


The thing is that, even with all the problems being talked to exhaustion online, people are still buying. So what does that tell you? I know I'm buying one as soon as I can get my hands on one, and I know all the problems.
Somebody posted here once saying JVC doesn't think the forums would have any impact on sales and they are right. Everyday, somebody new posts saying they have the camera. The fact is that with split screen or not, the camera is a steal, and there’s nothing out there in it's price range with the same performance. The HVX200 and H1 are both almost the double when they set and done to shoot HD, and they still not do all the JVC does.
As much as I would like to see a fix to the problem, (the split screen that is, the dead pixels is a normal thing, and the CA is just a trade off), I think JVC knows the camera is still a great deal even with the split, and they might not do anything about it. They might not even be able to do anything, since the problem seem to be a design compromises.
Will I still buy it? Heck yeah! What else could I do?

Chris Hurd
September 29th, 2005, 12:14 AM
Somebody posted here once saying JVC doesn't think the forums would have any impact on sales and they are right.Absolutely correct. I've been in the tradeshow trenches for close to a decade, and maybe one out of ten non-exhibitor people I talk to will tell me that they follow the internet discussions on this stuff (and I ask just about all of 'em). The people who aren't reading this site or any of the others far outnumber those who do. And not to be meant as a dig at anybody, I mean I love you all, but presumably it's because all those other folks are too busy to spend time surfing the web... and when they do get online, it ain't to follow video stuff, but to buy from Amazon and book travel through Expedia.

Guy Barwood
September 29th, 2005, 12:33 AM
I know this issue is to be reported in our video producers association. JVC don't have a particualry good rep with most of the producers I speak to here and this will just reinforce their opinions of JVC products. It's a shame because with a product like the HD101 they could be doing the opposite, winning a lot of them over.

Very few of them really care about 24fps and it really seems the trend just to buy a Sony. With these problems a lot of these producers without the technical knowledge to understand the real difference in the cameras will just stick with 'the one and only'. Its interesting how little technical knowelgde many producers have. Its all new to them, they might know a lot about their video productions etc but not what the diff is between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 or what CA is etc But they know what they see when the get a dirty line down the middle of their screen...

Michael Maier
September 29th, 2005, 12:52 AM
I know this issue is to be reported in our video producers association. JVC don't have a particualry good rep with most of the producers I speak to here and this will just reinforce their opinions of JVC products. It's a shame because with a product like the HD101 they could be doing the opposite, winning a lot of them over.

It will change as soon as somebody puts out something great done with a HD100. Then the whole online video/film community will forget about the split screen, and the HD100 will be every filmmaker wannabe's favourite camera :D

Robert Castiglione
September 29th, 2005, 01:05 AM
The real test for me will come in November when I will be shooting a drama for two weeks with the camera under all sorts of lighting conditions. If the camera performs under those conditions, I will feel fine about it.

Rob

Tom Roper
September 29th, 2005, 01:14 PM
Absolutely correct. I've been in the tradeshow trenches for close to a decade, and maybe one out of ten non-exhibitor people I talk to will tell me that they follow the internet discussions on this stuff (and I ask just about all of 'em). The people who aren't reading this site or any of the others far outnumber those who do. And not to be meant as a dig at anybody, I mean I love you all, but presumably it's because all those other folks are too busy to spend time surfing the web... and when they do get online, it ain't to follow video stuff, but to buy from Amazon and book travel through Expedia.

Wouldn't surprise me. But the problem is it sends a message that it's okay to make no effort to know your customers since the ones you don't know do the majority of the buying and they presumably don't care or are too busy to make time for due diligence. Either way, it's a poor excuse for a business model to operate under that could put you out of luck if you were guilty of buyer's negligence.
The technology is not going to roll backwards. There will be other great camcorders to compete, without making excuses.

Jiri Bakala
September 29th, 2005, 01:30 PM
I stronly disagree. People might be too busy to casually 'surf' but I am pretty sure that when they are about to buy this kind of camera (or any other slightly more expensive equipment) they will do their research. Just think about who are the people buying this gear; mostly technically savvy guys (no offence ladies out there). Even dealers may point you to sites like this (happened to me just the other day). In my oppinion JVC (and other manufactures) need to pay attantion to sites like this one and respond to their customer base in a direct and honest fashion. Remember, most people will forgive you if you honestly admit a mistake and try to do something about it but will hold grudges forever if you lie and cheat.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
September 29th, 2005, 02:20 PM
I stronly disagree. People might be too busy to casually 'surf' but I am pretty sure that when they are about to buy this kind of camera (or any other slightly more expensive equipment) they will do their research. Just think about who are the people buying this gear; mostly technically savvy guys (no offence ladies out there). Even dealers may point you to sites like this (happened to me just the other day). In my oppinion JVC (and other manufactures) need to pay attantion to sites like this one and respond to their customer base in a direct and honest fashion. Remember, most people will forgive you if you honestly admit a mistake and try to do something about it but will hold grudges forever if you lie and cheat.

Jiri,
you're welcome to disagree, but Chris is 100% correct. People that are buying these cams aren't researching this, or anything else in depth.
Often times, community members get caught up in the microcosm of the on-line world but rarely is a community any more than 5% of the total market.
The things we know in the communities take forever to filter down to the general masses, as evidence by what we see/hear at roadshows, tradeshows, and emails from people requesting information/techsupport/assistance.
That's true for most any part of our industry.

Nate Weaver
September 29th, 2005, 02:42 PM
Agree with Chris and Spot.

Make no mistake. We are a small subset of uber-camera-nerds. Most people simply don't care about this stuff to this degree.

If I DP a shoot with the HD100 and I manipulate the shots and lighting so it's shortcomings are not seen, then everybody I work with will think it's an amazing camera...and they'll be right to a degree.

All I know is I'm better off with it than the DVX, and that's all I care about for the time being.

Terry Nixon
September 29th, 2005, 03:02 PM
the JVC rep for my dealership discussed the split screen issue with us today. He acknowledged that some models early in the production run experienced this issue and that newer models now being shipped should work fine.

He indicated that if we sold a GY-HD100U that has the split screen issue, that we as the dealer should DOA it with JVC and provide a new unit to the customer. JVC would then exchange the defective unit with the dealer.

JVC also has a "Perfect Experience" policy that provides for new replacement products directly from JVC for DOA and related performance issues. I have had customers that were out of state use this policy to speed an exchange on a DOA.

Here's the link: http://pro.jvc.com/prof/support/pepolicy.jsp

Terry Nixon
Texas Media Systems

Chris Hurd
September 29th, 2005, 04:49 PM
(Tom refers to my observation that the majority of buyers in this market do not surf the web researching this stuff:)Wouldn't surprise me. But the problem is it sends a message that it's okay to make no effort to know your customers since the ones you don't know do the majority of the buying and they presumably don't care or are too busy to make time for due diligence. Either way, it's a poor excuse for a business model to operate under that could put you out of luck if you were guilty of buyer's negligence.Sorry but I strongly disagree with you. I said that the majority of end-users aren't reading these sites, and therefore aren't aware of potential issues with various products. I didn't say anything about the manufacturers, and now I will.

*All* of the four major video camera manufacturers, Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC, follow the discussions on this site (and others) very closely. I know for a fact that one of them has an employee whose job description involves surfing DV Info Net every Monday morning. Two of them have either a product manager or someone at nearly that level actually posting here on the forums. One of them prints a bound copy of pertinent DV Info Net discussions every week for boardroom review. They do this because they are keenly interested in their customers, and these web sites give them a very convenient avenue of research. It's only too bad that the online communities haven't attracted a bigger part of the market they're serving -- the manufacturers would love for that to happen, because they would have a much better understanding of the demographics they're dealing with.

All of the major hardware and software makers really do care about this stuff and they're definitely making the time for due diligence. After all, it's in their best interest to do so. They want to sell and keep on selling, so they'll do whatever they can to get to know their customers better, and the internet provides one of the best ways to do that. Trust me, the manufacturers follow these online communities very closely, it is very much a part of their business model these days and if they didn't care about it then they wouldn't be in business for very long. My point was that not enough of the end users, not enough of the customers are following it. Here at DV Info Net we have close to 20,000 members (well, maybe 3/4 of them have been active within the past two years), and that's not even the tip of the iceberg for this market... that's barely a tiny percentage of the total number of regular customers and potential buyers in the market that DV Info Net represents. And a lot of our members are also members of other online communities as well... so among the top five sites for digital video, there's a chunky core of the same people who are frequently involved with most or all of them. It's only a very small group overall that are regularly talking on the web, with a ring of silent lurkers who regularly follow. But it's certainly the most vocal and definitely the best-read portion of that market, so you better believe that all the manufacturers care a great deal about what goes on with them.

Robert Castiglione
September 29th, 2005, 05:27 PM
"the JVC rep for my dealership discussed the split screen issue with us today. He acknowledged that some models early in the production run experienced this issue and that newer models now being shipped should work fine."

This suggests that JVC is able to fix the problem right now. The concern that purchasers of the models "early in the production run" who have the problem is that they will simply be left to fight their own battles and that the rumour of a download are just fiction.

It also suggests that I might be wrong in my assumption that an exchange camera would now have the same problem if it has been fixed.

Is anyone out there able to say with certainty that JVC is in fact working on some solution for those experiencing the difficulty?


Rob

John Vincent
September 29th, 2005, 05:31 PM
*All* of the four major video camera manufacturers, Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC, follow the discussions on this site (and others) very closely.

Well, I would think so... As far as sites like this and DVXuser, I assure you that negative information about a camera plays a big role on the the most important buyer I know of - me. And there are a lot of 'me's' out there.

I know that the authorized dealers in my area certainly are aware of sites like this one, because their clients (at least myself), inform them of what's said. And they, of course, are ulitmately effected by this.

It is very simple - no official announcement + new reports of split-screen effect ='s I and a lot of other potential buyers will not be buying the JVC - and, again, this is impacted by the fact that there are/will be several choices available. Come on JVC, if you're reading this, say something - anything - to explain what's really going on with what looks like could be a great camera otherwise....
John

Guy Barwood
September 29th, 2005, 06:24 PM
I agree. It doesn't matter what a single rep says to one person in a private discussion, thats not going to make JVC in my country commit to the same level of service. A public announcement is needed before anyone who is aware of the problem is going to be satisfied they will have the issue sorted.

As for "some models early in the production run experienced this issue and that newer models now being shipped should work fine.", it just doesn't seem to be the case. People like Steve Mullen who have only just recieved their camera from backorders in the US are still getting cameras with this problem. I have yet to hear a single person say they could not reproduce the problem with their camera.

Anhar Miah
September 29th, 2005, 08:00 PM
Thats really cool Chris, you say they follow closely hey? :) ok *cough" 2/3" *cough* hehe.

I was wondering since the split screen is due to differences in voltage/current levels casuing black level to shift? could this not be some how fixed in post via some kind of clever script/plugin that dynamically shifts the LHS vs RHS levels to keep them in sync?

yes, I know is not a full solution but, its just a thought.

Anhar

Jiri Bakala
September 29th, 2005, 10:57 PM
could this not be some how fixed in post via some kind of clever script/plugin that dynamically shifts the LHS vs RHS levels to keep them in sync?
Don't even go there Anhar! That would make the ultimate 'fix it in post' on the top 10!

John Mitchell
September 30th, 2005, 01:52 AM
Well I just wanted to say that I researched this camera heavily before buying it, mainly on this forum, but on others as well. I was aware of the split screen issue, lens quality and other foibles of this camera.

I still bought it (on the grounds that if the split screen was a huge issue I'd simply return it) and I'm very pleased with it's performance. The split screen has not been a problem (barely noticeable at +9, slight even at +18). I may have one of the better units in this respect, but I'm hearing less complaints from actual owners which I think means JVC is slowly getting on top of this problem. Sure the lens may not be as good as some of the high end broadcast lenses Fujinon make but you have to weigh all these things up against budget. I've seen plenty of lenses that cost more than this whole camera kit (eg the wide angle designed specifically for this camera).

If you like the flexibility of a manual lens, a 16x zoom (as opposed to a 13x fixed zoom lens), true progressive at a budget price then this is a good starting point. I'm sure JVC will introduce an improved model in the near future and I'm equally sure Sony and Panasonic won't follow JVC's lead on the lens unless they're dragged kicking and screaming by flagging sales (no sign of that yet). Ain't competition grand.

It seems to me that a lot of people are only too happy to say they're not buying the camera because of x or y. But you can hear the frustration in their posts because they know, that right now, it's the only camera in this budget range that has the features they really want. It isn't perfect, yes it has a design defect (due to new technology) - but it's an excellent compromise between price and functionality.

John Mitchell
September 30th, 2005, 02:09 AM
I know of no future firmware fixes for this problem. And, I have to wonder how Panasonic will solve this? But, it does explain why Sony and Canon don't offer 24p. :)

You may be right Steve. I must admit I was surprised that the JVC rep told me they were trying to fix this in firmware, as I assumed that something as basic as a balanced supply between two circuits would have to be done in hardware. But he assured me that was one of the solutions JVC were working on.

I do know that newer cameras are coming out with updated firmware, as I already know one user with newer firmware than mine.

Re: Panasonic - there are probably better ways to scan the CCD than in two vertical halves - even if you scanned it in an checkerboard (every alternate pixel - but at the same instance in time) and put the two halves together as a progressive frame, then a difference in black levels would be much harder to pick. Or you go back to basics and design a faster method.

John Mitchell
September 30th, 2005, 02:25 AM
All of the major hardware and software makers really do care about this stuff and they're definitely making the time for due diligence. After all, it's in their best interest to do so.

I 100% agree Chris - some on this thread are concerned that JVC are not even trying to fix the split screen problem. I think behind the scenes they're working their butts off to solve a difficult technical hurdle, but like most major corporations they're wary of coming out point blank and admitting the problem.

Guy Barwood
September 30th, 2005, 02:47 AM
I have no doubt that they are aware and are working very hard. That is in a way part of the problem. Even though they have likely been working very hard for some time now there hasn't been a single update to try to help those with the cameras experiencing the problem.

My other concern is what will they do if they can't fix it with a firmware upgrade no matter how hard they try. Will they replace units or will users wear the problem? What if it takes more than a year to fix, many will be out of warranty, where will they stand.

I wouldn't be the first time a problem is fixed with a new model (HD1000 anyone?)

Werner Wesp
September 30th, 2005, 03:12 AM
I agree. It doesn't matter what a single rep says to one person in a private discussion, thats not going to make JVC in my country commit to the same level of service. A public announcement is needed before anyone who is aware of the problem is going to be satisfied they will have the issue sorted.

Ken freed posted something here. Obviously lot's of dangers are included in doing that. I can see that for business-purposes not making a comment could be wise. Since this community is relatively small, this might be the optimal place to make a public statement - if it seems the right thing to do...

Anyway, such a statement isn't an easy one to make. The fact that it needs to be clear and true is obvious. The fact that it needs to be accepted is more of a problem. If it isn't it might work the other way and 'backfire'. A video-campany doesn't need an engineer to make his statement here - for obvioous reasons - but the statement of an sales rep won't do either... It is a fine judgement that needs to be made and performed in nice coëxistence with company policy.

Anyhow, JVC is welcome to send me a mail...

Steve Mullen
September 30th, 2005, 03:16 AM
I think we may be seeing SSE as much more of a problem that it is. There are a few simple rules to follow to prevent SSE.

1. Be sure the darker areas (not black areas) when metered -- open the iris to F2 at the gain you want to use. For noise reasons, that means +12dB or under. (Alternately, be sure the average reading is about F4 and F5.6.)

2. Now -- at this gain -- manually White Balance. Now, don't switch gain.

You've got to look at the HD100 as a film camera using negative film. With negative film, you have to "expose for the dark." Unless you do so, the film will be clear -- with no details -- in the dark areas.

This is the opposite of most DV camcorders which act as though they use postive film. Here, you worry most about highlights. With film you must worry that highlights will yield clear areas with no detail.

I don't think we should expect JVC will "fix" this so-called -- by some -- problem. (Any fixes are already in the USA models. So if you are using a non-USA model, your coments simply don't apply to us!)

While looking for a faint SSE line -- moving lines of vertical smear were far more visable in my tests. Do we expect any company to "fix" these. Of course not. We either live with them or work to avoid them. And, overtime CCDs get better.

SSE is the same -- a visual artifact from the nature of the CCDs. There are dozens of artifacts in low-cost camcorders. And, plenty in DTV and HDTV. What's really new?

Guy Barwood
September 30th, 2005, 03:48 AM
Honestly Steve, I think you are just making excuses for JVC. Film never produced such problems like this. When this effect is seem it just looks plain wrong. If vertical smear is bad thats another issue, but vertical smear is not uncommon to many cameras.

"What's really new?"
'SSE' is new. Show me one single camera other than the HD10x that has this problem. This problem is new, and that is the problem.

Steve Mullen
September 30th, 2005, 05:09 AM
This problem is new, and that is the problem.

All artifacts, when first seen, are a "problem."

I find PAL 50Hz intolarable, but millions don't.

I find interlace line-twiiter a horrible problem. Obviously, lots of folks don't.

The difference -- which you seem bent on missing -- is that most artifacts can't be prevented. SSE can.

So, either learn to work around SSE -- or don't buy the JVC. But your complaints are not going to produce any changes in the camcorder. It is exactly what it is -- in the USA.

This a repeat of the Sony "better fix" the Z1 to shoot 24p postings. It wasn't fixed and is selling very well! Or, the HD10 should be "fixed" to avoid 30p strobing. It was -- in the next generation, the HD100.

Interesting that the Motion Filter is working so well we don't hear complainys anymore about 30p. But, I can still see times when it doesn't work perfectly. I'm sure someone will spot this at some point.

Those that have real HD work to do will evaluate the trade-offs and then buy or not buy. Wishing things were different doesn't make any changes.

Changes happen, these days, only when semiconductor technology allows the wanted change. Not one day earlier.

Guy Barwood
September 30th, 2005, 05:28 AM
I can see how this camera can work for a very highly set up enviroment, but that is a big limitation. Shooting a movie with this camera won't convince an event videographer to buy it if they know of this problem. Can't shoot a wedding, concert with one...

"Wishing things were different doesn't make any changes"
Sure beats the heck out of sitting back and praising manufactures for their faulty products. It takes a lot for changes to be made, but I'll guarrantee you this problem isn't in the HD100's successor, whenever that is released. That will speak volumes about the effectiveness of the voices of those who choose to speak out and complain about yet another new problem in new cameras.

Chris has already clearly discussed how manufacturers do listen to people like you and me in forums like this. Your message to them is clearly don't worry about fixing the problem, and personally, I believe that is the wrong message to be sending.

edit: By the way, I can't see any similarity of this issue with Sonys CF, but I can see a similarity with what I hear Canon went through with the XL1 with noise feedback from the tape mechanism (or was that the Sony PD170?, or both?) I believe both of these issues were fixed because they were faults with the cameras, not just a useless feature.

Michael Maier
September 30th, 2005, 02:45 PM
It seems to me that a lot of people are only too happy to say they're not buying the camera because of x or y. But you can hear the frustration in their posts because, they know, that right now, it's the only camera in this budget range that has the features they really want. It isn't perfect, yes it has a design defect (due to new technology) - but it's an excellent compromise between price and functionality.

That about sums it all.

Michael Maier
September 30th, 2005, 02:50 PM
I still bought it (on the grounds that if the split screen was a huge issue I'd simply return it) and I'm very pleased with it's performance. The split screen has not been a problem (barely noticeable at +9, slight even at +18). I may have one of the better units in this respect,

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


I do know that newer cameras are coming out with updated firmware, as I already know one user with newer firmware than mine.

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

Michael Maier
September 30th, 2005, 03:02 PM
Honestly Steve, I think you are just making excuses for JVC. Film never produced such problems like this. When this effect is seem it just looks plain wrong. If vertical smear is bad thats another issue, but vertical smear is not uncommon to many cameras.

"What's really new?"
'SSE' is new. Show me one single camera other than the HD10x that has this problem. This problem is new, and that is the problem.

I don't think Steve is making any excuses. He's just analysing from the point of view of what causes the split It seems that a firmware would not fix it, as it is a limitation of the CCD construction. So people buying the camera shouldn’t expect a fix. They should only buy if they know they can leave with it and work around it.

So, to sum it up, the HD100 is a great camera with a limitation. But it's price is also limited to $5500.
So, these are the alternatives;

a) take it for what it is and live with it

b) buy something else (good luck on finding another true progressive HD camera with interchangeable lens for that price)

c) Sell it and buy something else.

As easy as that.

Stephen L. Noe
September 30th, 2005, 03:30 PM
I really think the issue will need to be fixed on the hardware side. A straight answer about the progress from JVC would be great even if it was not favorable to them. Knowing they are working on it and getting the solution in place on the production line is a great step.

The question was raised whether the people who already have the camera should suffer. I think not. The policy is, if the camera has the split screen then it is to be replaced, no questions asked. That's JVC's stand on it. This policy alone and seeing what the camera can produce would make me want to get it and if I had a problem with split screen, just take it back until I got one without the issue.

People are saying JVC should come out and say something but the fact is, they already have. If you have split screen, take the camera back in exchange for another one. It's a pain but how many shoot @ 50-60 lux constantly?

Michael Maier
September 30th, 2005, 03:51 PM
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.

Guy Barwood
September 30th, 2005, 04:17 PM
Obviously there are two distinct trains of thoughts in here:

A: Bad luck, live with it or don't buy it, what do you expect for 2 months wages, a camera without design flaws?

B: It needs to be fixed as it is a design flaw in the camera and should be competely fixed under warranty and before any more are shipped. It should never have been there to start with.

Michael Maier
September 30th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Guy, have you bought one?

Jiri Bakala
September 30th, 2005, 04:40 PM
Can anybody tell me about similar grade 'flaws' or 'defects' on DSR150/170, Z1U, DVX100/100A or XL2? Like, I am talking visible 'mistake-like' image flaw, not slightly noisy audio or bad ergonomics. I can think of the DVX100 zoom being really soft at the end of its range, some people complained about noisy audio on the PD150 but other than that... nothing else comes to mind.

So yes, I think that this camera has lot going for it but one serious problem that needs to be addressed and not accepted!

Chris Hurd
September 30th, 2005, 04:51 PM
Can anybody tell me about similar grade 'flaws' or 'defects' on DSR150/170, Z1U, DVX100/100A or XL2?Off topic to this discussion. Please start a new thread in the appropriate forum.

Jiri Bakala
September 30th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Off topic to this discussion. Please start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
Not really, it was meant to bring another perspective to our on-going discussion about the split-screen. It's playing devil's advocate...:-)

Guy Barwood
September 30th, 2005, 04:59 PM
No I don't have one yet. I have a very good chance of being able to sell my DV500 for about AU$5500-6000 which means it would only be about AU$2000-$2500 for me to buy if I let my DV500 go.

So while $2000 isn't a huge amount of money, letting the DV500 go is a big step for me. I loose 3 XLR inputs (for 2 channels), CRT viewfinder, native VMount support, 1/2" SD block, nice enough 16x Canon lens, a camera with presence etc

What I would gain is native 16:9 even if just shooting DV and the option to use HDV (576 50p interests me as well.), colour LCD on the body.

What I would loose is about 1-1.5 stops of sensitivity, and the ability to shoot in anything but ideal lighting without being in serious danger of getting this split screen. 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.

So will I sell. Probably, I have to get some money back for the DV500 before it looses all value, but will I buy a HD101E. No, I won't. Not at least at the moment. I'll shoot with my DV301, hold on to the money from the DV500 and wait until either it is fixed or a better option/new model comes along. If it didn't have this split screen, would I buy it? Absolutely.

Chris Hurd
September 30th, 2005, 05:02 PM
Honestly Steve, I think you are just making excuses for JVC.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,

Chris Hurd
September 30th, 2005, 05:06 PM
I have a very good chance of being able to sell my DV500 for about AU$5500-6000 which means it would only be about AU$2000-$2500 for me to buy if I let my DV500 go.I think that's an excellent price, by the way (with my vague understanding of the AU dollar). That is a fine camera package. Seems to me like you should have no trouble finding that kind of money for it.