Hey guys,

Check this out... JVC HD 200 and 250 Camera

Press Releases:

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/pr/2006/nab/presskit/NAB06_HOME.html

Prices are all under $10k....

200 adds enhanced gammas a pl mount adapter available and 60p.

Rolls out sometimes in October...

Enjoy...

There's a note about Final Cut in there. Yay! Finally.

Enhanced Cinema Gamma?? I wonder if that is what film out was supposed to be in the first place. Hopefully you guys a NAB will get a good look at the HD 200 tomorrow. Let us know what you think.

Unfortunately I have a reshoot tomorrow, Gotta pay for my 100.

Cheers

Thanks David.

I'll have to go through our wishlist (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51147) and see how many things were actually implemented in the 200 and 250!

I notice a few things I remember suggesting like a "flip" option those using homebuilt mini35 adapters, and dual purpose BNC for YRB or TC IN and TC OUT.

This is the second mention of native 24P support in FCP, so we'll have to see for ourselves when we get there.

I'll definitely be going to the JVC booth on Tuesday afternoon after the press briefing.

Nice!

Hmm. Time to start saving for an HD250!
The HD200 looks good too.

I would like to know more about JVC's new improved codec.

No mention of GY-HD7000....

No mention of lenses either. I wonder if the len's stuff is left to Fuji or would new lens options be JVC branded. We'll see..


Ooops.. I take it back. "including the new 1/3” mount HD lenses being introduced at NAB 2006." This was listed in the HD200's info.

The Camera's put the 60p on tape? I can't wait to give that a try.

The PL mount adapter sounds like a really useful option. Can anyone think of a reason why this wouldn't work on the HD100 as well?

JVC is certainly cooking up a storm with ProHD this year. Glad to see the success of the HD100 has paid off.

They talk about "native 24p time code" - is that something new or is it already implemented in the HD100. I haven't worked with 24p yet so I am curious to know how that works...?

We've officially changed the name of this forum to JVC HD100/200/250.

The PL mount adapter sounds like a really useful option. Can anyone think of a reason why this wouldn't work on the HD100 as well?

Hi Earl,

This, in my mind, is a very significant product, especially for those of us who own super 16mm lenses. It is not just a physical adaptor but a reimager, like a mini35 or redrock, but with a frame size closer to super 16, which means better (reduced) depth of field performance than the 1/3" native. I was at the booth today during setup, and from what I heard, it will work on an HD100 as well, but the image will be flipped and upside down. Only the new cameras have a built in compensation for this. There is a lot of glass out there that may have a new life!

Hi Earl,

This, in my mind, is a very significant product, especially for those of us who own super 16mm lenses. It is not just a physical adaptor but a reimager, like a mini35 or redrock, but with a frame size closer to super 16, which means better (reduced) depth of field performance than the 1/3" native. I was at the booth today during setup, and from what I heard, it will work on an HD100 as well, but the image will be flipped and upside down. Only the new cameras have a built in compensation for this. There is a lot of glass out there that may have a new life!

That's great to hear Andrew. I wasn't able to create a "flip" hack with a magnet on the HD100, but I'm sure there is an easy fix.
I wonder if the image on tape is also right-side-up?

Do you think this re-imager is moving ground glass, virtual or stationary?

That's great to hear Andrew. I wasn't able to create a "flip" hack with a magnet on the HD100, but I'm sure there is an easy fix.
I wonder if the image on tape is also right-side-up?


Not really a fix but Serious Magic has announced that the new version of DVRack has a flip feature meant for Mini35/RedRock Micro and similar devices.

Do you think this re-imager is moving ground glass, virtual or stationary?

Hi Tim,

I got the impression that it is not moving, but I really have no idea. Will get to the bottom of it tomorrow.

There's a note about Final Cut in there. Yay! Finally.

"The JVC GY-HD100U works seamlessly with Final Cut Studio today and future 24p support will give independent filmmakers an even more flexible HD workflow"

Do I detect a slight "Jedi Mind Trick" in that sentence? I guess that means that they're supporting 29.97, but still haven't quite got around to 24 & 25. Apple, please prove me wrong...

Do I detect a slight "Jedi Mind Trick" in that sentence?

The optimists like would say it means they can't spill the beans on Apple's goods. The pessimists would say they're worming their way out of something.

Both will know for sure in about 9 hours. Man, I gotta get to sleep.

I'll definitely be going to the JVC booth on Tuesday afternoon after the press briefing.

You don't have to wait for Tuesday as the HDV@Work Newsletter will have my story on both new camcorders. It will go out to subscribers at about noon PST on Monday.

Approximate prices and delivery date will be included. (Hint, you don't need to worry, as some have done, about any immediate impact on your HD100.)

The report will also deal with the 60p concerns that some have had.

Still don't know if 60p will go to DTE at greater than 19Mbps or if PCM audio will be supported. We'll all know in 8 hours.

HD200 = $7995
Due October 2006
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/press_res.jsp?model_id=MDL101623&feature_id=08

HD250 = $8995
Due October 2006
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/press_res.jsp?model_id=MDL101625&feature_id=08

Folks should note the HD200 data are still marked "Tentative" in the JVC press release available at 1:30AM PST. That's because the issue of the shipping configuration(s) was still not set last week when I talked to JVC for my story.

So before folks run-off upon reading Barry's post feeling they now know the final information, remember things may or may not change when the show opens. Which is exactly why I published and posted what I called "approximate" information.

I wonder how good the compression is on 60p then, it sounds like a sweet deal, hopefully in the near future I could trade in my HD100 for one of these babies. How much was the HD100 in america when they officially released it at NAB? Also will new fujinon lenses come out for the ProHD family, and would the new HD200 or HD250 use the same stock lense as the HD100? oooh I can't wait to find out.

There's gotta be a good selection of lenses on the way. Good!

It sounds like the front end is the same as the HD100 and just the recording and outputs have been upgraded.

Is the HZ-CA13U – 1/3” bayonet mount to PL mount going to have some form of correction for the prism block?

Film camera lenses aren't designed for use on video cameras with a prism block and this is the reason for the interest in the single sensor cameras.

Impressed!! Is this the only hdv camera that will do 60p? If so the canon will get a run for it's money. I wonder if they have an upgrade coming out soon.

720p60 on tape? This option, imo only for recording to DR-HD100U.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/press_res.jsp?model_id=MDL101631&feature_id=08

I'm impressed. JVC has a boat load of stuff for a full work flow... Even monitors..

Hm, tempting.

I made a few wiki pages to collect hard data:
http://www.showiki.com/wiki/GY-HD200U
http://www.showiki.com/wiki/GY-HD250U

(re: PL adapter) I was at the booth today during setup, and from what I heard, it will work on an HD100 as well, but the image will be flipped and upside down.
Even so, that's still great. Anyone like myself using Aspect HD can flip the image during capture. Monitoring the image isn't too bad either because the viewfinder could be mounted upside-down with a bit of tinkering.

Really looking forward to this, and the other 1/3" lens options purportedly coming.

Hi all, been trying to post these details since around 10am CST at FresHDV.com, but stinkin Blogger is down (again) and I can't publish...but I digress.

Here's what I (think) I know:
*4:2:2 10-bit directly off the chip (none of this Panny-like colorspace upconverting hanky-panky)
*Shoots 60P all the time (just like the Varicam)
*Enhanced Cinema Gamma (whatever that means, we shall see)
*HD-SDI out with embedded audio, time code synch, genlock. HD-SDI completely bypasses MPEG-2 processing ("right off the chip")
*Improved MPEG encoder ("twice as good" is what I heard)
*Optional HZ-CA13U 16mm Film Lens Adapter to allow the use of PL mount 16/35mm lenses directly on the camera. This adapter allows the use of standard commodity SLR lenses as well. Note that this has no effect on depth of field, this is simply an to fill the gap of no existing line of high-quality 1/3" lenses. You would still want to use a 35mm adapter like the RedRock Micro for DOF...which brings me to my next bullet point.
*Optional image flip built-in the camera (Image Inversion). The flip happens ON CHIP, and is activated with a menu setting. This is a direct result of collaboration with RedRock, and is perfect for those that use RedRock and other variety of 35mm adapters.
*Optional DR-HD100U Hard Disk Drive Recorder, records to tape and disk at same time. 80GB drive = 7+ hrs of HD. Open files directly into FCP using native .mov structure.

That's what a little bird said, anyway...

Matt, That's funny, encoder is "twice" as good. It had better be, it's recording twice the amount of frames per second!

Matt, That's funny, encoder is "twice" as good. It had better be, it's recording twice the amount of frames per second!

Hehe, insightful observation...
I realize that you are speaking tongue-in-cheek, but to clarify...I believe that was in reference to the quality of the encoder, not so much the sheer throughput. Of course, it all remains to be seen. Hopefully JVC left the "SSE option" off these models... :-)

Hi-
To introduce myself:

I'm new to this forum, but I've been doing digital video editing/post-production work since 1993 (home studio-freelance).
I'm fairly knowledgable about DV work, but totally new to HD.
You could call me a fairly technical newbie in the professional video world.

I'm getting back into videography, formerly shot 16mm.
I just ordered a JVC HD-100 this week.
I'm also finishing this June, a TV production class at a local PBS station
and the AVID editing user certicate program in S.F.

2 questions-

1. Would one of you technical (but who shoots video) people help me out
as to what 60P is used for and more importantly, what shooting types
and situations/conditions, or final output benefits from 60P vs 24P?

2. What other features of this camera (HD200) are "better" or more
advanced that I might want to weigh out vs. the HD100, and for
what kind of shooting/editing/productions?

This way I'll know my options in case I want to wait and get the HD200.

I VERY MUCH appreciate your help and if you're in Northern California or
specifically the SF Bay Area, please feel free to say hello or send email.
(send me jobs as well - LOL)

I don't know what appears in this post or my signature since this is my first,
so ...

David Holleb
http://ProHD.CoolRage.com
(under construction, but feel free to visit)

Hi David,

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P).

2: A new MPG2 encoder. Supposedly able to produce higher quality results with the same bit rates (this should improve the quality of standard HDV, though haven't everyone already said there is no need for improvement with JVCs 720p?). It also does the encoding to 60P for recording to tape.

3: Flip image Option: Corrects the image flip etc when using a lens designed for film.

4: Some new gamma options.

No other differences. Unless there is also a new lens to go with this HD200 I personally think the price difference is too much. Feature 3 and 4 are nice but not expensive options to include. If JVC are trying to shove 60P into 25Mbps (or god forbid 19Mbps) then the tape transport is not new so you are only paying for the new MPG encoder.

There are no details of an improved CCD block so SSF will likely be as present with these models as with the HD100.

While I like the idea of 60P recording this upgrade really doesn't attract me to taking the plunge. Give me a HD version of the DV5100 with 1/2" CMOS chips, larger body with slots for an internal swappable 2.5" HDD, large DV tape support, and higher quality codec to HDD option (4:2:2 60P @ say 50Mpbs MPG2) and high res CRT viewfinder. Price US$10,000 with a stock lens. That's where we should be IMHO.

On the other end of the scale, where are some new entry level 720p's like the HC1/HC3?

Indeed, where is the flood of tapeless camcorders? While I allow tape the prize for elegance in the analog realm, hard drive/memory card solutions are far more suited to the digital workflow. Indubitably, the helical scanning method of videotape is a monumental achievement worthy of reverence. But, the end is near....

And no sight of the supposed DV7000.... Any news about the Grass Valley Infinity Camera: REV disks and CF (steadily dropping in price ;) with USB 2 and ye 'ol Firewire, and also selectable compression formats (like, drum roll.... JPEG2000 ...OUSAND ...ousand ...ousand....)?

I don't think I like tape (or, um, well, yup, MPEG) :\

Hi David,

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P).

2: A new MPG2 encoder. Supposedly able to produce higher quality results with the same bit rates (this should improve the quality of standard HDV, though haven't everyone already said there is no need for improvement with JVCs 720p?). It also does the encoding to 60P for recording to tape.

3: Flip image Option: Corrects the image flip etc when using a lens designed for film.

4: Some new gamma options.

No other differences. Unless there is also a new lens to go with this HD200 I personally think the price difference is too much. Feature 3 and 4 are nice but not expensive options to include. If JVC are trying to shove 60P into 25Mbps (or god forbid 19Mbps) then the tape transport is not new so you are only paying for the new MPG encoder.

There are no details of an improved CCD block so SSF will likely be as present with these models as with the HD100.

On the other end of the scale, where are some new entry level 720p's like the HC1/HC3?

Good summary, but by now you know it is 19Mbps which is fine (it's the ATSC bit-rate for 720p60) when encoded by a very good encoder. And, that appears to be the missing part for the 200 and 250.

Since JVC doesn't agree that SSE is present, there's no need for a new block. Nevertheless, I would expect that normal production improvements will further decrease SSE.

I too am looking for a HD10 replacement with AF. I'm even waiting for JVC Consumer to do an HD1 replacement. But nada. Which brings-up your feeling that the 200 and 250 are upgrades and not new camcorders. It could be the new camera development is on a HD10 replacement to be announced at IBC 2006 for delivery in Oct. 2006.

I too am looking for a HD10 replacement with AF. I'm even waiting for JVC Consumer to do an HD1 replacement. But nada. Which brings-up your feeling that the 200 and 250 are upgrades and not new camcorders. It could be the new camera development is on a HD10 replacement to be announced at IBC 2006 for delivery in Oct. 2006.
I would expect a replacement camera for a handycam form factor to be launched at WEVA instead of NAB.

Hi David,

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P)




is that all 60p is good for? slomo?

"Since JVC doesn't agree that SSE is present"
Not quite, they did acknowlege somewhat the problem in that FAQ of theirs, but played it down as much as possible. They are in contineous damage control on this issue. Even now, with end users buying brand new A models we are still seeing reports in this forum of SSF on these new cameras. It is there and can't just be ignored when deciding if this is the camera for you.

Steve@ While I am sure a studio based HD converter can do good work with 19Mbps and 720/60p I am not so easily convinced of an encoder that has to fit into this camera, run of batteries so not consume too much power (which brings up an interesting question about battery life with these new models vs the HD100), dissipate the additional heat (which is the root of all evil with SSF) and most importantly do it all in real time. I havn't seen a lot of HD TV broadcasts but I do know that when I have watched live events like sports, they are far from the quality I would accept. The proof will be in the pudding and I will become more of a believer when these cameras are in real users hands and real world usage reports come in, not just because of JVCs press releases. Surely there is no question 30p can be encoded at a higher quality than 60p with the same data rate. So the question remains, how much of a compromise over 30p WRT compression quality is this 60p implementation? [If they can do 60p in 19Mbps, why not 30p 4:2:2?]

PS: Why would JVC not use the extra 6Mpbs anyway? It could only serve to improve the quality wouldn't it? Straight to HDD though they could use any bitrate they want. Tape seems to make it all too hard ;-( We still arn't getting that PCM audio yet are we?

"is that all 60p is good for? slomo?"
Probably not, but it is the most obvious advantage. It would also allow for very high quality conversion to real 1080i being able to base each filed on a whole frame rather than interpolating every second field or simply presenting a progressive image over two interlaced frames.

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P).

2: A new MPG2 encoder. Supposedly able to produce higher quality results with the same bit rates (this should improve the quality of standard HDV, though haven't everyone already said there is no need for improvement with JVCs 720p?). It also does the encoding to 60P for recording to tape.

3: Flip image Option: Corrects the image flip etc when using a lens designed for film.

4: Some new gamma options.

No other differences. Unless there is also a new lens to go with this HD200 I personally think the price difference is too much. Feature 3 and 4 are nice but not expensive options to include. If JVC are trying to shove 60P into 25Mbps (or god forbid 19Mbps) then the tape transport is not new so you are only paying for the new MPG encoder.

Guy, you have covered the major differences with the new cameras, but I think you've understated some of the features. I'm of the opinion that this camera announcement has been somewhat overshadowed by the RED ONE release and hype, and I've stated so at FresHDV (http://www.freshdv.com/2006/04/more-musings-on-new-jvc-hd200u-and.html).

*For starters, I see no mention of the 4:2:2 HD-SDI output. Now we've got the option of uncompressed straight off the chip at both 24p and 60p! This makes the Canon XL H1 HD-SDI option a little less attractive.
*The Image Inversion feature is worth $1000+ to users of 35mm adapters who don't need an additional (jury-rigged) HD LCD now.
*And you gloss right over the option of adding high quality "real" glass to this camera with the new HZ-CA13U 16mm Film Lens Adapter. Suddenly you've got options beyond the Fujinon, you can go with readily-available quality 16mm (and I believe 35mm) primes, SLR's, whatever.

These are pretty big developments, and while they certainly don't make the JVC HD200U the "Be All And End All" of camcorders, it is suddenly a lot more attractive for specific situations.

Guy, you have covered the major differences with the new cameras, but I think you've understated some of the features. I'm of the opinion that this camera announcement has been somewhat overshadowed by the RED ONE release and hype, and I've stated so at FresHDV (http://www.freshdv.com/2006/04/more-musings-on-new-jvc-hd200u-and.html).

*For starters, I see no mention of the 4:2:2 HD-SDI output. Now we've got the option of uncompressed straight off the chip at both 24p and 60p! This makes the Canon XL H1 HD-SDI option a little less attractive.
*The Image Inversion feature is worth $1000+ to users of 35mm adapters who don't need an additional (jury-rigged) HD LCD now.
*And you gloss right over the option of adding high quality "real" glass to this camera with the new HZ-CA13U 16mm Film Lens Adapter. Suddenly you've got options beyond the Fujinon, you can go with readily-available quality 16mm (and I believe 35mm) primes, SLR's, whatever.

These are pretty big developments, and while they certainly don't make the JVC HD200U the "Be All And End All" of camcorders, it is suddenly a lot more attractive for specific situations.

Since when has the HD200 had HD-SDI out?

The flip option is great for some users, but the fact we are working with 1/3" sensors kills the option for many. The crop factor is so large it makes working with such lens close to impossible in many cases. I'd love to be able to mount my swag of Nikon SLR lens on a HD200 (I have some great Nikon glass) but with a 7x effect and no iris control on Nikon G lens it kind of defeats the purpose.

Since when has the HD200 had HD-SDI out?

Well, that's a good question. The sources I've got haven't expounded much on the differences between the 250 and the 200...and I am operating under the assumption that they both sport HD-SDI taps. The press release doesn't make that very clear, neither does Mullen's article.
But I could be way off-base (wouldn't be the first time), and I'd sure as heck like to know if I am... :-\

The flip option is great for some users, but the fact we are working with 1/3" sensors kills the option for many. The crop factor is so large it makes working with such lens close to impossible in many cases. I'd love to be able to mount my swag of Nikon SLR lens on a HD200 (I have some great Nikon glass) but with a 7x effect and no iris control on Nikon G lens it kind of defeats the purpose.

Again, I could be misinformed here...but I've been told that the new PL lens adapter uses some variety of magnification to facilitate the use of these lenses, which I have taken as a fix for the crop factor...standard YMMV disclaimer applies. :-)

I think if the 200 had SDI out it would say so in the press release, which it doesn't appear to.

Great if the multiplication factor isn't a 'factor' ;-) Lets see a Nikon mount version too then!


Edit: On JVCs web site the photo of the HD250 shows the HDSDI connector on the extra section at the rear the HD200 does not have so it looks more and more like the HD-SDI is HD250 territory only.

The other obvious advantage for 60P is covering of fast moving things like sport - apart from being able to slo-mo, you also get the ability to pan faster, etc etc.

Increased definition as well, as the more frames you record the more information - it should give you a more "video" like or clearer picture ie it will compare to 60i images and look less "film like" - so you get the best of both worlds.

I guess it should compare well to the HVX depending on how savage the compression is, which is what Guy has mentioned. We wont know until we receive reports back from the field. One reason JVC stuck to 19Mb/s both with the HD100 and the new cameras is that it is far less prone to tape drop outs than 25Mb/s - it's the same philosophy Sony adopted with DV-Cam - sacrifice 33% of tape time in the interest of wider bandwidth @25Mb/s. I'm not judging one way or another which ways is "right" - I've just heard that mentioned from JVC. Which comes back to the basic question - is hard disk viable in the field? Sure would be cheaper than tape transports. Remember - not including a tape drive would limit you to hard disk only, which most users of external hard disk solutions don't recommend.. they just don't seem reliable enough yet to run without tape backup.

Remember - not including a tape drive would limit you to hard disk only, which most users of external hard disk solutions don't recommend.. they just don't seem reliable enough yet to run without tape backup.
2.5" HDDs are pretty dam tolerant with operating shock, and they are quite small as well. SATA 2.5" drives also adds hot swap capabilities.
Worried about reliability, simply add two slots like P2 and load a HDD in each. Mirror the data as you write it to both drives. More chance you'll break your camera than have 2 drives fail together. All this would easily fit into the area currently consumed by the tape transport etc.

The sources I've got haven't expounded much on the differences between the 250 and the 200...
The "connector pod" at the back of the HD250, which is where the HD-SDI and genlock interfaces are located, is the major difference between it and the HD200.

The "connector pod" at the back of the HD250, which is where the HD-SDI and genlock interfaces are located, is the major difference between it and the HD200.

Thanks, Earl! I just got a message back from Carl Hicks of JVC and he confirmed the same thing, that the HD-SDI faucet is only available on the HD250U. I stand corrected.

60P slow motion is a great benefit to independent filmmakers for dramatic slo-mo effects. The HVX200 does an excellent job of this, but if the HD200 can pull off a similar look in 1280x720 resolution, then the extra cost would be worth it. I have a project in the works, and I have been trying to decide what low-cost HD cam to purchase. The XL-H1 has the highest resolution, the HVX200 has 60P, and the HD100 allows film-like progressive shooting at a low cost. The HD200/250 may just combine all the aspects I need into one.

"I havn't seen a lot of HD TV broadcasts but I do know that when I have watched live events like sports, they are far from the quality I would accept.

I have seen lots of sports on over the air HD and 1080i definitely has more compression artifacts than 720P. 720P has very little if any.

Super Bowl XL (ABC) looked incredible compared to other football games (CBS).

I wonder how super bowl XL looked on HD Cable (getting twice compressed)

I was once watching HDNet and was shocked at how low quality the picture was. I found it completely unacceptable. If there was ever a need for broadcast standards HD needs it badly.

is that all 60p is good for? slomo?
No, 60P is used for the "live" look. American Idol is shot and broadcast in 720/60p, all HD sports events on Fox and ESPN and ABC are shot and broadcast in 60p.

No, 60P is used for the "live" look. American Idol is shot and broadcast in 720/60p, all HD sports events on Fox and ESPN and ABC are shot and broadcast in 60p.

i'm not sure what that means. is it like a video look versus a film look?

60p will give it that video look, Personally 30p is just right for the look I want.

24p looks good also but it is a pain for panning and zooming. It's just too stroby and I'm not good enough with this camera to make it look pro yet.

60p is a bit too "Live" looking.