[QUOTE=Tim Dashwood]Steve suggested it is caused by insufficient light, and that you will "need at least a reading of F2 - AVERAGE."

Actually, I later raised this to F4 to compensate for the possibility that you might have a statistically "non-normal (non bell shaped curve) where a few bright lights caused you to set the exposure higher than it should be for the larger dark areas. This was also a simply way to keep the F-stop at the setting where the lens offers the most rez as measured by you and/or Berry. (There's nothing wrong with F2 or F2.8 in "normal" situations, but you are scarificing resolution.)

Now my logic may be wrong, but the results I get speak for themselves. No SSE and max rez.

I'll admit I did not think about those who are not into reality shooting. And, at that time most of the discussions were about shooting reality -- weddings and docs.

You feel my "rule" would prevent creative -- dark mood -- shots. I don't think is true.

One always must set exposure with regards to either the brighter (reversal film) or darker (negative film) areas based upon the film's latitude (reversal film) or sensitivity (negative film). If one doesn't, then either the highlights burn-out or the dark areas on the negative wind-up being clear. In either case detail is lost. No matter the desired mood -- it's very rare that a filmmaker wants his/her source film to REALLY have no detail as there is no way to get back details once lost!

What they want is to CREATE the LOOK of dark. Which brings up the old confusion of film students -- sometimes they hear someone use "F-stop" to mean an amount of light (as used by a director), other times "F-stop" means a setting on a camera. I think you have confused the two meanings. I can dig out a quote from one of my Cinematography books that explains this much more clearly than I can.

Once one lights for the bright or dark area(s) in a way that keeps detail (or with the HD100, prevents SSE) -- one then lights the other area(s) to keep the light-ratios of all parts of the scene at what one wants to create the mood. There are whole chapters on how -- once you choose a negative film and know the senstivity of your film PLUS the latitude of your film, you use a light meter to compute these ratios and set a CAMERA F-stop. THEREFORE, WHEN ONE IS LIGHTING FOR MOOD, ONE WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT FOLLOW MY "F4" RECOMMENDATION.

Nevertheless, by treating the camera AS IF it has a lower sensitivity than it measures (by video testing) -- light levels will be high enough to prevent SSE while the ratios will still establish the mood you want. (Given, of course, you keep total scene contrast within the camera's latitude.)

-----------------------------------------------

"In the meantime my solution of setting the master black to -3 (on v1.14 FW) works well for me, and isn't undesirable, but I still want to make sure I get the firmware updated so that I don't have to ever think about or discuss it again."

1. I don't think that even with a firmware update you will be able to forget that SSE is a possibility if you shoot without sufficient light. Unless there is an even newer NTSC firmware than I have!

2. What I "sense" you are doing by dropping MB is forcing the darker areas to become fully black. Since at first, it seemed it was the dark, but NOT black, areas that got SSE this idea works. Until you realize that you can get SSE on a white wall if the lens reads OPEN. Clearly, lowering MB by a 3, will not bring that white wall into black.

This raises three possibilities:

1) We are both seeing "black level" as somehow very related to SEE. Perhaps we are close to a solution, but not yet there. Alternately, for example, perhaps the JVC camera unlike Panasonics doesn't do a true BB with the WB but instead, as does Sony, uses the pixels outside the CCD image area to measure black level. This may not be fully adequate under all conditions and so will limit HOW the camera is used.

2) We both have stumbled upon "solutions" but they are not universal. In which case, we have tried but failed.

3) Ideally, JVC will allow their engineers to publish a White Paper on SSE and HOW TO MINIMIZE IT. As long as the internet is buzzing with folks like us trying to solve THEIR problem without a deep understanding of the nature of the problem -- SSE will stay a thorn in their side!

Alternately, every product has "recommendations" so there is no shame in making them clear.

Here's an example: "The camera will output 100IRE at no gain, for a sensitity of X lux. However, for maximum picture quality with the fewest image artifacts, use no more than +YdB gain and at least Z footcandles of light on a 80% gray card."

The gain value would be selected by looking at: chroma saturation that remains proportional to luma level, luma noise, plus AM and PM chroma noise. There must be a point where all these values go to hell. JVC could simply choose the gain under that point.

At the risk of bounding dangerously off-topic, just wanted to point out that you really don't have to use the clutch to change gears in a manual transmission. All you need is a working tachometer, and to know at which r.p.m. the shift points are.


Actually Chris, unless you really don't care about your car, you will want to step in the clutch to change gears, or you will destroy your gearbox. :)

That's in a new car.

"Maybe that's why I find this "I can't shoot with limitations" talk so whimpy."

So now Steve has resorted to calling everyone who doesn't agree with him as 'whimpy'.

What were you saying about personal insults Chris?

"This "Community" seems to be filled with an overwhelming amount of negativity regarding this camera"
I disagree, it is much more directed at JVC themselves or only a single but significant to many of us issue, that in theory, has the potential to be fixed. We are angry at JVC because they have brought us so close to what we want then stuck a thorn in our side without warning. Its not like its a design feature such as a limited CCD resolution which everyone would just accept (such as Sony's half res CCD).

Also, people don't generally discuss success stories (sure you get a few) so you are much more likely to see problems and complaints in forums, its in out nature...

"and much of it by folks who don't seem to own the unit."
but not people who don't want to buy the camera if it wasn't for a particular issue, there is a big difference. If this issue didn't exist most here talking without the camera would probably be much lower.

We just want this one issue fixed so we can get on with buying one.

How many cameras are JVC replacing? that must be costing them a small fortune?

In the meantime my solution of setting the master black to -3 (on v1.14 FW) works well for me, and isn't undesirable, but I still want to make sure I get the firmware updated so that I don't have to ever think about or discuss it again.

Hey Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I am gettting my camera this week. I assume the "Master black" is a setting in the menu, correct? As a novice I am not completly clear on your settings. Can you explain it in laymen terms for me and others who are going to be using it. Maybe a step by step guide to "safe settings" to avoid SSE. What is v.1.14 FW? The lens you use?

Thanks

Duke

"I know you assumed that the chip was full 1920 x 1080 - no such luck amigo"
Actually I know the CCD specs very well, which is why I detailed Sony having only 12% extra pixels, not over 100% extra (as 1920x1080 would have calculated)

"And the irony here is that Sony make the GY-HD100 CCD"
This is the first time anyone has indicated who actually makes the CCD. You know this for a fact or just guessing? I'm just curious thats all. I think it is not the CCD iteself that is the problem, it is potentially the circuits just after the CCD, so it could be the CCD itself is just fine.

"I think it's patently unfair to accuse them of being technically incompetent"
I didn't, but I did say they weren't up to this particular task. If being innovative produces cameras with faults like this then perhaps being Innovative isn't such a great thing, and perhaps Sony are onto something.

"to date there has been no official announcement from JVC on SSE"
This is a major concern to many in here, its like publically they completely deny the issue (but in private will discuss it),and that doesn't provide any confidence in them from an end users stand point. I guess it would be worse if they came out publically and denied any problems...

1. G'day Guy - you're still missing the point - it's the horizontal that is the critical factor not the vertical (as Sony scan interlaced they only have to scan half the vertical resolution at a time, but even that is irrelevant) and the facts are that the Sony chip is not as wide as the JVC by a factor of 25%. I repeat it is not simply a problem of the number of pixels - sorry I didn't do the math on the 12%.

2. I do know for a fact that Sony make the JVC CCD, because JVC told me and I'm certainly not he first on the forums to mention that fact ( it may have been the HVX forum... I can't recall). Hey - maybe JVC lied to me for some obscure reason. You're right it's not specifically the CCD, but the technical dilemma posed by the CCD.

3. Was that you who made the technical comment - I'm losing track? If you read what I wrote I pointed out that Sony DID have an enviable field reputation precisely because they don't like to innovate too much - so you are agreeing with me, right? Mark my words - this is an innovative piece of kit, but you are perfectly entitled to wait until JVC sort out their problems. Even then if I were you I wouldn't buy it, because (as I've already pointed out to you on another thread) this is not the right camera for low available light shooting - they are significantly slower than your current camera (2 - 3 stops). You'll probably need to wait for the next generation of one third inch HD or spend the money and buy a larger chipped camera, to get anything like the same performance.

4. No official announcement - once again you're just agreeing with me. Personally I think it's a public relations nightmare for JVC not to have come out an made some kind of official statement, but I was merely pointing out that someone started a thread that says "Split screen will not be fixed" based on what they were told by one person from JVC, not an official announcement. Are you disagreeing with that point Guy? Or merely stating the obvious - of course everyone on this forum would like to see an official statement from JVC, myself included. And BTW, I believe Brian is buying one.

Guy, bottom line is I have dealt with both Sony and JVC here in Australia on a professional level (and I guess you have too) and I couldn't be happier with JVC's response locally - they have been totally proactive (unlike Sony), replacing my unit with a brand new one when it developed a fault and the head service engineer personally testing a bunch of cameras until he found one that passed muster. And I repeat they are individually testing and rejecting units that don't come up to scratch when they come into Australia.

Actually Chris, unless you really don't care about your car, you will want to step in the clutch to change gears, or you will destroy your gearbox. :) That's in a new car.That is true, Michael, you are right, and I would never recommend that practice. But it is possible. Damaging, yes, but possible nonetheless. Sorry for the off-topic response -- many thanks to Tim Dashwood and John Mitchell for their excellent contributions to this thread!

1: I'm not missing the point at all, I took your point and corrected your assumption about what you assumed I thought.

2: I was only asking out of curiosity. I havn't seen it detailed in this forum before and I have previously asked if anyone knew (which went unanswered)

3: I know the problems of sensitivity, and perhaps this problem with this camera will help me in the long term by making me wait longer, possibly long enough for a more sensitive camera. Unfortunately short of manufacturers releaseing larger chips at lower prices in the next 12-24months, I can't see sensitivity improving a great deal very quickly. Even DV cameras sensitivity improvements has slowed quite a bit lately. It will continue but I think it is something we will have to live with for some time yet. Hence, why wait when I really don't think it will improve, might as well get to know how to work with it now. It's really no worse than a Z1 (better in some cases) and others are already surviving with those in weddings. Luckily I can wait, but don't want to.

4: Probably stating the obvious, but what is obvious to me doesn't always seem obvious to everyone else, so sometimes it doesn't hurt to 'state the obvious'.

I am interested in your experiences with JVC service in AU. I am still waiting for a firmware upgrade to my DV500 to stop it pulsing the iris with photographic flash's I was promised 2 years ago...

Unfortunately short of manufacturers releaseing larger chips at lower prices in the next 12-24months...Short answer: there will always be a significant jump in price between 1/3" and 1/2" (or larger) cameras.

Hence, why wait when I really don't think it will improve, might as well get to know how to work with it now.If you're waiting, you're not creating.

It's really no worse than a Z1 (better in some cases) and others are already surviving with those in weddings."Surviving" is hardly the right word... "thriving" is much more like it.

I'm thoroughly confused by the metaphorical soup, but I do know that reading Robert and Werner is a lot more FUN than most of the other posts on this thread!

Ha, thanks Marty! we're doing our best! :-)

I'll have to try that master black -3 thing. Mine is a HD101E and it should be arriving very shortly... Don't know what the latest firmware is (that it probably be on)...

By the way: I know you don't have to use the clutch, but how smooth is the drive then? (especially the 'take off'...)
On the other hand: not using the cluch DOES have nice features: lots of revving sound, smell of "almost"-burning rubber when starting, more regular stops a the garage (so your car will be in better condition?), ... but most of all: if you drive a little (too) sporty WITH your clutch, and that cluch gives in.... man that smell... It is a good thing you're saving yourself from that :-)

I'm still thinking how I can make the analogy back to camcorders....Well let's say: you can, have 2 different kinds of setups in one shot. Always a bonus... and since it's HD, you can use it for 2 different SD images

In addition, Steve suggested it is caused by insufficient light, and that you will "need at least a reading of F2 - AVERAGE," and that if there is a BG in frame that doesn't have at least F2, then we are just "SOOL" (paraphrased by me;)

That last speculation on my part was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

1) I now think one needs to look at the SSE issue by considering only the RANGE of light being imaged. Range is the Maximum signal minus the Minimum signal. The greater the Range, the less likely there will be SSE.

The Minimum level is the Black Level of the CCD and so it is approximately zero. The Maximum level is based on the brightest object in the image.

2) Whenever the iris is OPEN -- based upon the AE system measuring the light -- we know the AVERAGE light is low because that is what is being measured. We don't now HOW low, but it is not high enough to cause the lens to stop down to F2.

Mathematically, we know that an AVERAGE can result from many different types of "sample distributions." Which means, we can't know the Maximum signal from the AVERAGE.

However, since we are in a low light situation -- it's safe to assume that the low AVERAGE value indicates that Maximum value is likely to be low -- based upon the assumption the sample distribution is normal, i.e., bell-shaped. Therefore, the Range is low and the possibility of SSE is increased.

When I recommend F2, I am forcing one to have (or add) enough light to cause the iris to start closing which indicates the AVERAGE light is higher -- and hence the Maximum signal is higher, and hence the Range is greater, and the possibility of SSE is lower.

For those mathematically inclined -- the higher the AVERAGE the greater the likelihood the Maximum value is high no matter the sample distribution.

If you understand this concept, then you can use it. The more a scene has a complete sampling of different light levels, the more "normal" the distibution of sample values, and the lower the AVERAGE reading can be. F2 is fine, but soft. F2.8 is less soft. F4 is ideal.

If a scene has a only a limited sample of different values -- and if the dark areas are greater than the bright areas, the distribution is "skewed" to the low side. In this case, the F4 value is both a safer and a sharper choice.

Lastly, when a DP knows which F-stop that is sharpest -- they may demand the entire film be shot at that F-stop! Since we know that is F4 for the HD100 -- and since F4 assures a sufficient Range of light over most scenes -- I'm sticking with my recommendation of F4 to F8.

If you're waiting, you're not creating.



That's the best snippet I've heard yet on any board.

I used my HD100 as hero cam on a 9 camera (DVX) concert shoot Friday night, using Tim's settings. Any regrets? Not a one. It looks awesome, better than a 100A.

I used my HD100 as hero cam on a 9 camera (DVX) concert shoot Friday night, using Tim's settings. Any regrets? Not a one. It looks awesome, better than a 100A.

Great! Are there any .m2t files available from that night?

Great! Are there any .m2t files available from that night?

Nope. Sorry. I shot in DV mode, and I can't post that either because Warner Bros. Records owns the footage.

Thanks to everyone who is actually using the camera and sharing their info.

I'm going to buy one from one of the dvinfo sponsers as long as they will take it back if SSE presents a problem. I'm actually not very concerned about it now, thanks to Steve and Tim and others. Thanks for your efforts at fighting back against FUD.

joking/
And Werner, please don't give our lawyers new ideas for lawsuits.

As far as Swedish movie makers sleeping with their cameras, well.... what the heck did you expect from the land of 'I am Curious Yellow'?
/joking

I remember some of the bad things Robert Altman wrote about the CineAlta he used, to make his movie about dancers. Almost worthless when they moved form spotlight to near darkness on stage. Yet he still got his movie made and in the end, hoped to use the camera again.

Redrockmicro, here I come.

what the heck did you expect from the land of 'I am Curious Yellow'?.

A landmark film in the USA! But, I don't think we ever got "I am Curious Blue."

The camera really does feel good. My ONLY complaint is that I wish the Manual WB and Focus Assist were swapped. But, you can assign the FA to the RET button on the lens.

Also -- the supplied mic I'm sure has a -60dBm sensitivity but the camera default is -50dBm -- so you'll want to set it to -60.

PS. HD uses a -20dB reference not the -12dB used by DV -- so the level will be lower than you are used to. But gives much more headroom.

You'll enjoy your purchase.

And Werner, please don't give our lawyers new ideas for lawsuits.

Ah, c'mon Joe.. that'll spoil the entertainment for us Europeans... :-)

"If you're waiting, you're not creating."
That assumes you need a HD camera like the HD101 to be creative. Like most cameras, its the operator that counts isn't it?

""Surviving" is hardly the right word... "thriving" is much more like it."
In my area of work there is very little demand for HD locally, so its not a case of thriving, hence why I can afford to wait before I buy a HD camera, however with lowerer sensitivity I'll bet the few that are using them are batteling a bit harder in ther darker church's and at the reception centres, hence my term 'surviving'.

As with John my opinion of JVC in Australia is held fairly highly. Having dealt with Sony in the past on many occasions i find them to be totally inflexible and basically a bunch of cnuts- (excuse my lysdexia).
When i found the SSE (gee'z this issue even has a standard abbreviation now?!)- i took it back to my dealer and he had a new camera for me within a few days.

Having seen this subject posted saying that JVC were not acknowledging the problem, i sighed- here we go again........ maybe we should all believe nothing we read and only half what we see.

The camera has to date done me well and worth every cent i payed for it.

OK, so where can I find the firmware updates? I've looked allover JVC's site. Y'all got 'em? Please share 'em.

OK, so where can I find the firmware updates? I've looked allover JVC's site. Y'all got 'em? Please share 'em.

We don't even know if they can be "administered" by regional engineers. We have only been tracking firmware version numbers as customers receive new units.

I think you need to exchange your camera for one with a newer version. I don't think you can update it yourself.

Hey Tim,

Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I am gettting my camera this week. I assume the "Master black" is a setting in the menu, correct? As a novice I am not completly clear on your settings. Can you explain it in laymen terms for me and others who are going to be using it. Maybe a step by step guide to "safe settings" to avoid SSE. What is v.1.14 FW? The lens you use?

Thanks

Duke

Brian,

As new cameras are sent to customers each week, Barry and I have been asking those on this forum to report the version of firmware in their camera. We think the original release System CPU firmware was 1.12 and the latest report was 1.17. However, I have received an uncomfirmed report via email from someone in the UK that the new units being released there may be 1.2.

As I stated many times in my post, the camera I tested has firmware version 1.14. It has never shown a split on a white wall - only intermittently in very dark situations.

I only tested one camera on the scopes, but have started receiving feedback from others on firmware versions and typical SSE trigger levels.
This is hardly a test group, but the more reports I get, the easier it will be to find some commonalities.
It seems every firmware version is reacting differently. I would say that shows progress on JVC's part. There are two separate people in the UK who received new cameras on Friday and are reported zero SSE. We'll wait for confirmation to declare the problem is dead.
If the problem is solved, then I suppose the rest of us will need to visit our local JVC office to have our FW updated, or maybe they will release a downloadable update. Who knows?

I remember hearing the firmware version are reported on a not-so-dangerous service menu, right?

I remember hearing the firmware version are reported on a not-so-dangerous service menu, right?

As far as I know it is only in the ADVANCED MENU.

The North American HD100's can only have the SS issue reduced, but not completely eliminated. JVC says they won't fix it in it's first line. However, if there are enough consumers willing to wait and not purchase a camera from the defective line, they will have to upgrade the chips, and modulator. Please do not purchase a camera that will require ongoing software updates to work out the kinks. This will only encourage companies to put profit before the consumer.

The North American HD100's can only have the SS issue reduced, but not completely eliminated. JVC says they won't fix it in it's first line. However, if there are enough consumers willing to wait and not purchase a camera from the defective line, they will have to upgrade the chips, and modulator. Please do not purchase a camera that will require ongoing software updates to work out the kinks. This will only encourage companies to put profit before the consumer.

JVC says??? Where did you hear that? Please quote your source's name and/or position in the company before posting "breaking news" like this.

You don't work for Sony by any chance do you?

JVC says??? Where did you hear that? Please quote your source's name and/or position in the company before posting "breaking news" like this.

You don't work for Sony by any chance do you?
Tim, Huiy has been posting over on dvxuser.com.

Huiy-I think you said you got 4 replacements. Now that a few weeks have gone by, have you tried to get another one?

Tim, Huiy has been posting over on dvxuser.com.

Huiy-I think you said you got 4 replacements. Now that a few weeks have gone by, have you tried to get another one?

Thanks Stephen.

I thought your name was familiar Huiy. I didn't realize when I saw a new user's first post declaring some definitive information from "JVC." Sorry about the Sony comment, but this is the type of thing that got this thread on a roll in the first place. I was almost going to make a Karl Rove joke, but held back.

sorry Huiy.

Tim

I feel inclined to defend my earlier post and the responses it has received.

Steve suggested it is caused by insufficient light, and that you will "need at least a reading of F2 - AVERAGE."

Actually, I later raised this to F4 to compensate for the possibility that you might have a statistically "non-normal (non bell shaped curve) where a few bright lights caused you to set the exposure higher than it should be for the larger dark areas. This was also a simply way to keep the F-stop at the setting where the lens offers the most rez as measured by you and/or Berry. (There's nothing wrong with F2 or F2.8 in "normal" situations, but you are scarificing resolution.)

Now my logic may be wrong, but the results I get speak for themselves. No SSE and max rez.

I'll admit I did not think about those who are not into reality shooting. And, at that time most of the discussions were about shooting reality -- weddings and docs.

You feel my "rule" would prevent creative -- dark mood -- shots. I don't think is true.

Steve. I was directly responding to your post in another thread that has propogated itself as a "rule-of-thumb" since then:
"As I've already said, there must be enough light to get at least an F2 reading. But, that reading is an AVERAGE reading from the camera system.

Imagine a white product that fills about half the frame. Behind it, a deep purple cloth. The reading is F2.8. All is fine -- right?

Maybe not. If the white reading is F4 -- the purple must have a reading of F1.4. Which means it doesn't have enough light on it.

Which leads to the obvious solution. Simply zoom into dark areas (not the full black areas) and check the F-stop. If it is F2 -- or better -- then there should be enough light to avoid any split-screen effect.
"

I was trying to make the point that the SSE in my FW1.14 camera doesn't just have a max threshold where it goes away. It has a minimum and a maximum response threshold based on IRE. IRE is the only repeatable measurement that can be used objectively when measuring the SSE. The relative exposure you used will differ depending on what custom gamma curve, gain level, shutter speed and how each operator chooses to rate the camera/curve's ASA - auto exposure included.



What they want is to CREATE the LOOK of dark. Which brings up the old confusion of film students -- sometimes they hear someone use "F-stop" to mean an amount of light (as used by a director), other times "F-stop" means a setting on a camera. I think you have confused the two meanings. I can dig out a quote from one of my Cinematography books that explains this much more clearly than I can.

I don't want this to become a battle of the brains because I think that the work both of us have done can help the community, but I don't think I confused anything. Your "purple cloth" analogy seemed pretty clear.
In my defense, I was trained by "old school" DPs, I generally shoot using a "base stop" based on how I rate a particular film stock based on push/pull/ENR/BB processing, grain and the response curve (Vision stocks pick up more detail in shadows, etc.) The same applies for video - and I have been giving different exposure ratings to my different curves. BTW, I also know the difference between an ƒ stop and a T stop.


What I "sense" you are doing by dropping MB is forcing the darker areas to become fully black. Since at first, it seemed it was the dark, but NOT black, areas that got SSE this idea works. Until you realize that you can get SSE on a white wall if the lens reads OPEN. Clearly, lowering MB by a 3, will not bring that white wall into black.

Like I said in my post, my v.1.14 camera doesn't show SSE on white walls. My tests were based on one camera only. The Master Black solution only applies to my camera (and possibly other v1.14 cameras.) I'm waiting for others to report back if it helps their situation. I have also found that the MB NORMAL wasn't anywhere near 0 black anyway, so crushing them slightly doesn't actually have any adverse effects, especially when using a wide dynamic range curve.



2) We both have stumbled upon "solutions" but they are not universal. In which case, we have tried but failed.

agreed.


3) Ideally, JVC will allow their engineers to publish a White Paper on SSE and HOW TO MINIMIZE IT. As long as the internet is buzzing with folks like us trying to solve THEIR problem without a deep understanding of the nature of the problem -- SSE will stay a thorn in their side!

I hope it doesn't come to that. Ideally this problem will be gone by the end of the month, and then it won't be a thorn in anyone's side.

Tim

Please do not purchase a camera that will require ongoing software updates to work out the kinks. This will only encourage companies to put profit before the consumer.The fact that they provide those updates proves that the companies *are* putting the customer first. In the still photo world, firmware updates for everything from digicams to digital SLR's have been a regular part of the process for several years now. It is not a bad thing. It is very much a good thing.

My dealer has done no advocation. I nagged for a reply from JVC, it sounds like they simply do not want to deal with the issue. JVC has had so many cameras returned that they are exchanging defective units with other ones. They are however updating the firmware. Just cause you get a replacement unit does not mean it isn't used. Check the drum hours and fan hours on your replaced units if you don't believe me. Is this the kind of company you want to support. No I am not a sony rep, as the JVC rep who I spoke to claims that the forums are full of. I am in the process of having to cancel a bulk order for an educational institution and I don't want to burn my bridges too soon. Once I receive our deposit back on the 7 units I will share every detail that I have received.

My "brand-new" unit, which bore a "opened for QC by JVC" sticker, had 39 fan hours on it. No drum hours but 39 fan hours. I figured that might be due to them leaving it on for a couple of days to let the CCDs "burn in", but I guess it's possible that it was a return from someone else as well.

jeez Barry, 39 hours sounds like a lot for quality control testing. Are you going to query it?

Rob

That was one of the first things I checked on mine. It had zero drum and zero fan hours. It did have 2 dead pixels though.

Is there any reason to believe these figures can't be reset by JVC service if they wanted to?

Well, I guess it could.

[QUOTE=Tim DashwoodSteve. I was directly responding to your post in another thread that has propogated itself as a "rule-of-thumb" since then.[/QUOTE]

Because of your post -- thank you -- I have revised that now VERY old Sept. "Rule of Thimb". I did this in another post following yours. Hopefully, you have now found that one.

"BTW, I also know the difference between an ƒ stop and a T stop."

I never mentioned T-stop!

But, this is a good time to comment that Berry's finding the ISO drops from 250 @ F4 as the iris opens fully is a result of the T-stop not changing proportionally with the F-stop. I think the estimate of an ISO of 250 is likely a good one to use. But, it looks like he used the American 50IRE measurement rather than the EIA (Japanese) measurement of getting 100IRE. Right? The latter drops the ISO by 50%. And, I believe it is the one used when pro gear is speced as F8@2000lux. Correct?

Tim, there's no battle -- but there are two ways to use term F-stop. Your 7 director was using one way -- I'm using the other way. This is not the point to dig out the textbook and provide the quote.

You and I are in agreement about IRE being the only way to really understand this. Unfortunately, for most folks in the field, that's not a practical concept tp work with! By getting the iris to close to about F4, I was estimating that under a wide range of situations, IRE would extend from 0 to 100. (BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE HD100 MUST HAVE A FULL IRE RANGE TO AVOID SSE.) I chose F4, because that was where the lens seems to have max. rez. It is slightly softer at F2.8 and F2.

I chose F8 as the upper limit because the lens gets soft above that. So my Rule of Thumb remains shoot from F4 to F8.

By the way -- where is the firmware number to be found? I suspect I may not have 1.17. And, is 1.17 the latest for NTSC units?

jeez Barry, 39 hours sounds like a lot for quality control testing. Are you going to query it?
I'm going to try to return it, actually. Besides the other well-documented issues, it appears mine adds a new QC question mark to the mix -- the lens is in no way delivering a high-def image. It's nowhere near as sharp, nor resolving nearly the level of detail, as other HD100's. So it must have a misaligned element or something in it.

It's delivering a final image that's barely any different than standard-def, when in high-def mode.

So, I'm going to have to try "The Perfect Experience" and see if they'll actually take it back...

They took every other camera back without question Barry, that's well documentend also... what gives you the impression they'll even ask questions - or give you a hard time about it?

I'll explain more once the process is complete...

Played around some more with the split-screen, trying to put Tim Dashwood's "Master Black" setting to the test.

Sorry to report, at least on my version 1.17 camera, Master Black doesn't do anything to help the splitscreen issue.

As I understood it, it was theorized that the splitscreen appeared in a range of low IRE. Using the Master Black, one can control the low IRE range. Setting it to -3 seems to unnecessarily crush blacks while not avoiding the splitscreen. I tried it in the opposite direction as well, going to +3... setting Master Black to +3 changes the pedestal level for how the darkest images are output; using Master Black +3 actually would make pure black video output at about 15 IRE (i.e., even if the lens cap was on, you'd get 15 IRE output). I figured that would definitely be enough to keep the video out of the dreaded low range that causes the issue.

No dice. Splitscreen just as prevalent as ever.

Thinking about it, it just makes sense -- if indeed the issue is being caused by errors between the two sampling chips, then any post-sampling DSP manipulation (such as the master black level) really shouldn't have much of an effect, if any, on whether the issue was happening. The issue was still happening, and then after the split was digitized, the DSP then added the Master Black manipulation; but by then it's too late. The low-output signal was still captured by the CCDs, and was read off by the sampling circuits -- and that's where the error is happening. I don't think manipulating menu items will ever be able to overcome the splitscreen issue, because it's already happened prior to any manipulation we have control over.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

Can we collaborate and put some consumer pressure on JVC to fix the problem, and replace existing units with brand NEW ones with hardware upgrades. Things will remain as they are as long as users rest on our laurels and accept, and continue to work around the issue.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

Totally agree. The only thing that seems to influence SSE is exposure. We know it never occurs when there is a high contrast, well illuminated picture.

Thinking about it, it just makes sense -- if indeed the issue is being caused by errors between the two sampling chips, then any post-sampling DSP manipulation (such as the master black level) really shouldn't have much of an effect, if any, on whether the issue was happening. The issue was still happening, and then after the split was digitized, the DSP then added the Master Black manipulation; but by then it's too late. The low-output signal was still captured by the CCDs, and was read off by the sampling circuits -- and that's where the error is happening. I don't think manipulating menu items will ever be able to overcome the splitscreen issue, because it's already happened prior to any manipulation we have control over.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.
I don't believe they will change the arrangement of the CCD block (ie 2 in 1). I do believe they are working on (or have fixed) the comparitor circuit. You would think, if you are in (all) manual mode that the voltage would be set but instead the chips are reacting. You can not be sure that it is all post processing because some settings may be controlling the sensitivity of the chips themselves.

JVC has said (to me) it is the comparitor circuit that is not updating fast enough, in which case you are right. There needs to be tighter specs on the comparitor circuit (ie diodes, resistors etc) or the firmware logic that controls the circuit would have to be simplified to speed up the process between the two.

Lately there has been less and less talk about split screen, particularly out of Europe and UK.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

It's too bad crushing the blacks a little don't get rid of it on your v1.17. I just got an email from someone else with a 1.14 where the method worked.

I'm now wondering if I should bother getting my 1.14 updated if 1.17 really is the latest firmware available for the NTSC version.

It seems that the comparitor circuit processes the data first, then the camera processors do their thing. That's why increasing master black doesn't trigger SSE.
Dialing the MB down on my camera is masking SSE that was already sent down the signal path. I'm guessing the upper trigger limit is lower on v1.14 than 1.17.

So the question is: what is the upper and lower IRE trigger limit of SSE in v1.17?

So the question is: what is the upper and lower IRE trigger limit of SSE in v1.17?
I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

I was told that too, but no one has confirmed it yet. The last report I got from a UK HD101E that shipped last Friday was 1.17, but there is no sign of SSE. Barry has 1.17 on a HD100U and he has prominent SSE.

I was told that too, but no one has confirmed it yet. The last report I got from a UK HD101E that shipped last Friday was 1.17, but there is no sign of SSE. Barry has 1.17 on a HD100U and he has prominent SSE.
That leads me to think they've made a hardware change or PAL 1.17 is a different animal than NTSC 1.17

Dashwood and whomever else has made a purchase of the HD100,and is disatisfied... Yes yes yes, JVC will replace units. They will in-fact replace units with other defective and at times used and refurbished units until they are blue in the face. Please get your money back before it's too late. This will really burn consumers when they learn that an expiry date exists on the cameras warranty. If they release an official stance of informing that the consumer should expect to have to "cope the split screen" in exchange for HD quality footage it will only make matters worse. Take the cash and don't let the dealer charge you a restocking fee for a defective camera. The whole lot of North American HD100's should go back to JVC for this debacle.

I plea and stress this with any unsatisfied user of the HD100 to request a refund. I am not saying boycott JVC or the HD100, I would simply like to see the responsibility placed back on JVC's shoulders (NOT the consumer beta testers) to correct the problem properly and once and for all. A software update is not nearly sufficient enough. It's an economical alternative to having to recall hundreds of cameras. Enough is enough already.