Looks like there are some interesting things in the works at JVC.

See the abcdv.com news item (http://abcdv.com/article/articleview/58/1/53/).

I saw a press release about it also. The expected date of first availability wasn't until early 2004. In this business a lot can happen in a year.

Jeff

Without features demanded by filmmakers such as interchangeable lenses and XLR audio inputs, a camera that looks like their mockup won't be as embraced by the indie film community as, for example, an HD Canon XL2...

Stop it! You guys are making me drool.

I really would like to know what the prices of something like this are going to be. The guy in the article says something about 'a new way to create memories.' Are we to assume that the average joe could afford something like this? Or at least, a rich average joe? Or at least, a rich average joe without a wife or girlfriend to slap some sense into him?

It needs to be under $5,000 or they will miss there target market.

Jeff

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : Without features demanded by filmmakers such as interchangeable lenses and XLR audio inputs, a camera that looks like their mockup won't be as embraced by the indie film community as, for example, an HD Canon XL2... -->>>

There are many good cameras like the PD150 and DVX100 that don't have interchangeable lenses, that are loved by all. And don't forget the XL1 doesn't have XLR inputs, and people go goo-goo over it (as they should, it's awsome). You can always get screw on lens converters and XLR adapters for anything, so I wouldn't worry about it.


It sure is pretty. Unless the XL2 is HD, I'd consider upgrading to it, if it is in the sub-$4000 price point.

Robert,
Contrary to popular assumptions here, I doubt that the manufacturers really care much about what "indie filmmakers" want on this class of camera. Oh sure they'll politely listen to them, sponsor weekend festivals with a few loose dollars and take copious notes. But the fact is that real filmmakers (a) often have budgets to rent better equipment, and (b) are far too tiny and fragmented of a market to which to cater in this class of mass-market camera. "Aspiring" filmmakers might have a budget for, what, ONE of these camera purchases every few years?

No, the primary market drivers for this class of camera are (a) education, (b) corporate / industrial, and (c) government. These markets represent far better sales opportunities with far greater budgets than the aspiring filmmakers. These are arguably also the most influential markets on such cameras' designs and features. The fact that those features are often coincident with what an aspiring filmmaker might want is all the better.

Good points, Ken--

Still, a well-featured camera is a well-featured camera, whether you make industrial videos or works of art. Many small-time video production operations rely on prosumer gear like VX's and XL1's, but the most attractive cameras will be the ones that facilitate professional production value--e.g., nobody should use the on-camera mic to get good audio etc.

From what I've read and heard about this JVC HD camcorder, although it does
HDTV *resolution* it does NOT output a true HD signal. It is some sort of
*highly compressed mpeg* file output.

Heck, Panasonic's 720p is already compressed at like 6:1 and HDCAM is 4:1.
This peewee JVC is something like 25:1. My guess, very full of artifacts
and not too useful to anyone.

I think the real story here is with the new flavors of CMOS chips coming out,
HD isn't that far away at the prosumer price point. Right now, the Canon D-60 digital still cameracan shoot 3 images per second in an 8 image burst with a resolution of 3072x2048 (7 meg per image RAW).

Olympus is supposed to be working on an HD camcorder that is much closer
to what we on this list are interested in. The Olympus HD camcorder was
supposed to list around $10K (without lens?).

THAT would be really cool, but I see no reason
why Canon can get it together to take the lead on making a
"prosumer" HD camcorder that can take interchangeable lens. I don't care
if it is a single chip, as long as it looks good, it is good imo.

Having had a chance to check out Panasonic's HD Varicam in person, let me tell
everyone that the Varicam is SUPER, SUPER NICE!!! If I had a $100K burning
a whole in my pocket, I'd love to get a loan for $300K and put an entire
system together.

The faster NTSC and PAL die along with interlaced video, the better IMO.

Yes, I saw the MPEG2 feature also. But it thought it said there would be two recording modes, HD and MPEG2. I'll have to try to find that press release and post it.

Jeff

<<<-- Originally posted by jacques.mersereau : From what I've
The faster NTSC and PAL die along with interlaced video, the better IMO. -->>>

I totally agree with this (except that it will cost a lot of money
for everyone to get new systems, but that's a different story).
We should have one standard that allows for a couple of
resolutions and one framerate or something. Or one resolution
would be fine with me either.

We'll see what happens

<<<-- Originally posted by jacques.mersereau : From what I've
The faster NTSC and PAL die along with interlaced video, the better IMO. -->>>
Rob came back:
I totally agree with this (except that it will cost a lot of money
for everyone to get new systems, but that's a different story).
+++++++++

Yes, upgrading will cost, but by the time HD really comes of age (3-6 years) TVs will be $700-1K, a nice camera with interchangeable lens for under $20K,
and a Mac with FCP doing HD over firewire for another $4K.

A lot of money, but I WILL find a way to get there, because once you've
experienced HD first hand (especially projected compared to NTSC)

One word describes the feeling . . . LUST ;)

This is the same camera Scott Billups wrote about which he calls the "JVC GY-DV1000u" Check out this link (you will need to scroll down the page some). He also speculates that Canon will introduce an XL-2 by the end of 2003...

http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html

I've heard that the VX2000/PD150 will be replaced by July....www.leoscamera.com

...though they don't sell Sony's...only Panas, JVCs and Canon.


PS: don't know about the XL2.

According to Scott's site:

" Canon will introduce the XL2 by the end of 2003 and even though the JVC will throw up more pixels, the new XL series will blow it away with its native 16 X 9, third generation chips, multiple frame rates (including 24P and more importantly 30P ) and most importantly ... the ability to use a manual lens. "

http://www.jvc.co.jp/english/press/2003/gr-hd1.html

Boys, it sure looks interesting.

Mark

Good link, thanks Mark.

Working environment for application software]
<Windows®> OS:
MicrosoftR WindowsR XP Home Edition/Professional (Pre-install version)

CPU:
Intel® Pentium®4 1.3GHz or above (2GHz or above recommended)

RAM:
256MB or above (512MB or above recommended)

Terminal:
IEEE1394 (i.LINK) terminal and USB terminal (Standard equipment)

Displays:
1024 x 768 or above

Video memory:
32MB or above

****<Macintosh> Incompatible******

Macintosh incompatible (I guess this will only be true for the HD
work?) is understable since they are recoding an "illegal" signal
to the DV tape (namely, an mpeg2 stream. That stream is
probably packed within the standard DV structures/packets though)
and they only give you "PC" software. The software on the Mac
will not understand that signal (nor will any other PC software
by the way!!). Ofcourse they could have also made a Mac application.

I'm wondering what the image quality will be when recording
in HD/mpeg2 mode. Since the HD image contains 2.6 times as
much information you are looking at a 13 times compression
level (5 * 2.6) instead of the normal 5 times for DV.

Guess we will have to wait and see. Those true progressive
scan CCD's are very nice though. Wouldn't mind having those
on my Canon camera.

Keep in mind that this is a 1 CCD consumer-like camcorder with a small lens, and also geared to be a still camera, for consumers. It's just another JVC "Indie" type 1 chip cam.

Here's an interesting JVC-related article about shooting HD on miniDV tapes.

http://millimeter.com/ar/video_jvc_announces_minidv/index.htm

Mac incompatible kills it for me...

I'm not giving up years of FCP learning to get a pc to edit this cam's footage...too bad- it looks like a nice cam- we'll have to wait til Canon makes something similar and makes it Mac compatible.

I have faith Canon, Panasonic and Sony have something on their drawing boards that will rival or eclipse this JVC...
Let me grab my GL2 and go shoot something...

If there is enough demand, they might write a Mac version of their software(required for editing). Perhaps some enterprising software writer will write a Mac version, also.

Jeff

The fallacy will be that JVC will never see enough demand for a Mac version of their silly software. Most Mac users will have the same reaction that Steve had to the limitation; screw it, whe needs this thing? Sony, Canon, Panny will come along with something better.

It never ceases to amaze me how individually-intelligent people can make such slobberingly poor, bandwagon-driven decisions as a group, in this case JVC's "marketing" team.

I can understand the need to make their own software, BUT let us hope they
are also smart enough to work with Apple or Avid to get their system to work
on 50% of the market share (50% IS A GUESS!)