1) All models at NAB were prototypes. So all image quality reports are still "subject to change without notice." Plus, not everyone who shoots knows HOW to shoot.

2) One display was playing material shot at PMA a month ago. Its image had MPEG noise on surfaces with flat color. And on details.

Another camcorder at the camera display looked great. You could compare its image to other far more expensive camcorders. Color saturation was perfect. No image noise. With AGC on at 1/30th S, it got good color images even when they dimmed the stage lights to show how other cameras performed in very low light.

At 1/60th, it was of course, less sensitive by 1 stop. I'm not sure which shutter-speed will be correct for 30p video.

This told me the single CCD chip works fine. The real issue seems to be MPEG-2 encoding. And, this noise can't be seen in stills so all these discussions based on stills are not super valuable.

3) The software from CineForm enables editing with Premiere under Windows. Very clever design. During capture -- using Premiere -- the 19Mbps MPEG is transcoded to 75Mbps Wavelet. This is equivilent to 100Mbps I-frame MPEG-2.

Now you can edit as usual. They supply a set of filters and transitions that preview in real-time. Including a very nice color corrector.

Export to: 720p60, 480p60, DV, or MPEG-2 for DVD. Or, Print-to-Tape. You will have to render the timeline.

4) The KDD NLE was there, but I didn't look at it. Just no time. But was fully working since it is shipping in Japan.

5) Neither FCP 4 nor QT 6 support MPEG-2 editing. It will be a while till they do as FCP 4 isn't even released yet. However, Apple is very aware of the JVC.

Hi Steve,

I didn't get the chance to look at the demo at NAB, but I did play with the camcorder during a recent camera show in Boston. The footage being played was all static, meaning none of the shots had any movement such as pans or handheld, etc.

What type of footage was shown during NAB? Were any of the shots moving?

- don

This is a good example of what happens.

The camera at the Camera Company was not the JY-HD10 ProHD unit. The HD10 isn't done yet. Specifically the part that isn't done is the IMAGE. The mathmatics aren't complete.

At no time has anyone ever indicated that it is complete. Nor have we ever indicated that the image you see in a prototype is the image you would get when the camera ships, maybe July.

I of course can't speak for the consumer version, that is a different market and a different product. That was the consumer version and it was not being shown on a proper monitor.

The cameras at NAB also weren't finished products but we were very pleased with the images that our cameraman shot Tuesday night around town.

It is still a work in progress.

JVC said that both HD1 and HD10 will be released in May and that the only difference are different mic jacks and a handle -- and price -- $500 more. HD1 sells in Japan and no one has praised the image. 35 Lux rating? 100K pixel viewfinder on a 900K pixel CCD camera? How are you going to focus this thing? I'll pass. Being 1st means nothing for company reputation. Being better means everything. Sony's cheapest SD camcorder (PDX10) has a 500-line viewfinder, 7 Lux rating.

Thank you Ken for your post. Was hoping to stop by and visit at NAB, but just was too swamped during the show!

It will be interesting to see the camera again when it is finished. Iv'e had my eye on some of your monitors, looks like you have some great deals on the 14 and 20 inch models. I think I am going to go ahead and spring for an HD capable monitor. Iv'e heard that JVC has a nice model with SDI.

- don

According to some Jap websites, the differences between the HD10 and HD1 are as follows:

XLR adapter
180K Viewfinder (HD1 only has a 113K VF)
Audio Level Indicator
Color Bar Generator



Allan

Allan, Could you please be so very kind and find out when will the HD10 camera be available in Japan.

"This is what Ken Freed from JVC posted: Specifically the part that isn't done is the IMAGE. The mathmatics aren't complete." Does it mean that the Japanese HD10 will also have an improved image or does it mean that when the mathematics are done then even the consumer HD1 will have an improved image from that time on? Allan, Ken -- can you please get some clarification on that?

The HD10 will be available in Japan within this month. Unfortunately, I don't think I would see a demo unit because the marketing route of pro-cams is totally different. There is more than a month difference in release dates between the HD1 and HD10 so I guess Victor used that period not only to include the added features listed above but also to debug the mathematics as well.


"...does it mean that when the mathematics are done then even the consumer HD1 will have an improved image from that time on?"

Good point! The HD1 and HD10, having the same optic system and CCD, should essentially have the same imaging algorithm isn't it?


BTW, I don't want to sound like a broken record but has anybody actually played with the cams in NAB (panning in particular) and not simply looked at demo footages?

Demo unit of Sony's blue ray disc recorder are now available in many stores in Tokyo but official release date is on 15 April 2003. Quite an interesting device but EXPENSIVE!

Regards
Allan

Thanks Allan,

Is there any talk in Tokyo of Sony or Hitachi coming out this year with a HD DVD camcorder? Has there been any test report on HD1 in any Japanese magazine, and what they had to say? How many dB gain up does the camera have? What do you think of the image compared to HDTV broadcast?

Any answers would be very appreciated.

SB

I played with the cam at NAB and overall I was very disapointed. I sure hope it's not the final version cause the picture quality wether in DV or HD, looked pretty average. I did some panning and zooming on the live lit woman model that they had and it was ok. The shot they showed on an HD TV looked very weak and had some visible compression artifacts. Overall, the cam is pretty average and not revolutionary at all. For the same price range, you would be much better with a DVX-100.
Just my 2cs

Maya

<<<-- Originally posted by Maya Taylor : For the same price range, you would be much better with a DVX-100.
Just my 2cs Maya -->>>

Maya, I think you are missing something. The weakness -- at this point is low-bit rate MPEG-2 encoding. Nothing suggests there is any problem recording with DV encoding.

So your comment is a bit like saying you looked at a Land Rover, but decided a sports car like the Boxster was "better" because -- at the same price -- you could race it. If you want to race (shoot NTSC) buy a race car. If you want to go on a Safari, you by the 4WD (JVC).

So what do YOU want to do?

Do you own an HDTV? Are you planning on buying one soon? Do you have use for HD or SD? Can you make money shooting HD?

If all your answers are YES -- how could a DVX100 be "better" for you?

The only thing better than the JVC starts at $55K and goes to $100K. Can you afford one of these? Does it come bundled with an HD NLE? Can you afford an HD VTR?

The whole point of this camera is to exit from the NTSC/PAL world to the SD/HD world.

The real question for JVC is can the "post-processing" of the CCD be optimized to get the most of the 18Mbps video encoding? If not, the JVCs will not be succesful. If it can, then there will be a good market.

We went through this same process with DV.

Some examples of tuning:

1) Making sure edge enhancement is at an acceptable (to the eye) minimum.

2) Shaping the high frequency response of the CCD output to provide the maximum visible fine detail while minimizing very high frequencies.

3) Reducing chroma noise, especially on red and blue areas. The original VX700 had no chroma noise reduction. It did not work well with red flowers! But, it made great images otherwise.

The other issues are non-issues. All 24p and 30p video can strobe or blur. If you like film-look, this will be fine.

By the way, what DV and HD footage did you see? Was it the PMA footage shot on a consumer protype a month ago?

"I did some panning and zooming on the live lit woman model that they had and it was ok. "

Maya,
Are you referring to HD mode as well? I knew panning under DV mode is Ok. SD mode is still a little bit jittery but acceptable.

Thanks
Allan

Hello Steve,

MPEG2 is indeed a weakness like you said. You're supposetly recording in HD but yet you are compressing the footage so much that it looses all the beauty of HD...so what's the point? As far as normal DV goes, again in my opinion, the footage quality was not better than a DVX-100 or a PD150. (I am talking about normal DV 60i here)

I am not dogging the JVC cam here, I am just pointing out that he HD quality on this cam is simply not that great....it doesn't even look close to HD. (it looked more like DV to me!)
I saw a footage that was suposetely shot outside the day before NAB. I also tested the cam on live models (if you were at NAB, you know what I am talking about) and to be honest I didn't not find this cam to be impressive at all! (Trust me, I really wanted this camera to be good!)

While a DVX-100 does not have what I call at this point "fake HD", it does overall have a better picture quality in 60i (or 30P) and is an overall better camera in my opinion.

I guess I am not sure I understand the point of having this JVC cam for HD when the HD quality looks so bad so far. And if you were to use it just for 60i then you're better off with another camera that offers more in this mode.
Maybe you can help me understand the point of this camera....


Thanks

Maya

<<<-- Originally posted by Maya Taylor : Hello Maybe you can help me understand the point of this camera.... -->>>

1) It offers much better than NTSC resolution. And this is measured not claimed.

3) Why does one want this resolution? So we can see good quality on big (6' to 10') screens from front projectors. Only at this size does one get true HD. Blowing NTSC to this side simply doesn't work.

3) MPEG-2? How do you you watch HD at home. How does Blu-ray HD DVD works? All are MPEG-2 as is Sony's IMX.

4) The issue isn't simply one CCD nor is it MPEG-2. The issue is HOW the signal is processed before encoding. Unless that is done right, the encoder will generate noise as artifacts. Until we see the final HD10 -- there is no way to judge. Right now it doesn't look good. But it's a long time to June/July.

I'm sorry but I am a bit suspicious of Steve Mullens' posts---He is selling a guide to JVC's new camera on his website---25.95---Most of the people at NAB who saw this camera were terribly disappointed----I trust them before I trust someone who has a vested interest in selling this camera. I will await its release and come to my own judgement.

Well Steve, at least we both aggree that right now the picture quality doesn't look good. Hopefully this will get improved by june/july! Although to be honest, I highly doubt it will change much! But one never knows!
But as it stands right now, the camera's picture quality is weak!

Maya

David,

Please don't be "suspicious" of Steve. I've known him for a couple of years now and invited him to moderate this forum because of his knowledge, background, and I must admit also his name recognition (he is a writer for Video Systems magazine).

There's nothing wrong with him selling a guide to this and other camcorders (in fact, I'll place ads for him soon on the dvinfo.net main site). I don't understand the conception that somehow it's wrong to sell a camera guide... I think that camera users are lucky to have this option available as the number one problem with most cameras is a poorly written manual. I wouldn't expect anyone to give away this kind of assistance than I would expect someone to just give away their other products and services.

I've seen this camera and liked it, especially the new direction it represents. A friend of mine who is a working D.P. in Los Angeles likes it a lot as well.

I think we're fortunate that Steve has agreed to help moderate this forum, the one person who you can say has "written the book" on these camcorders. He has written about other cameras as well; whether or not this particular one "sells" is not going to make him or break him. And knowing Steve as I do, he will tell you exactly what he thinks about it, good, bad or ugly. I trust him implicitly or else I would not have asked him to take on this position.

Many thanks and much respect,

Chris---my apologies---I think I reacted to the fact that yes, the camera is an evolutionary step-- but certainly not a revolutionary step. All the people I know, who have actually seen it, aren't impressed. I truely believe that when one has a vested interest (in this case selling guides for 25 bucks a shot) in a product, they can't possibly give an objective review. Having said that, I will not comment further---As I said, I will wait until the product is availble and make my own judgement. Until then I will keep my mouth shut.

Hi David,

<< I will wait until the product is availble and make my own judgement >>

Of course, this is always the safest and most intelligent way to go. Much respect,

I bet when Bell came up with his prototype version of the telephone, there were alot of telegraph operators saying the same thing. "Oh, the sound was terrible. You couldn't hardly understand a word they were saying." "And it's so bulky and ugly looking compared to this polished brass telegraph armature."
You guys are missing the historical significance of this camera. Until three months ago, NOBODY ever dreamed of an HD camera under $50,000. Now we're about to be handed a gem on a silver platter and all I'm hearing is "JVC is junk" or "It's only one chip" or "Some guy I don't know from a hole in the ground said somewhere that the image sucked so therefore I'm not buying it."
Personally I'm glad Steve Mullen is a proponent of this camera. First of all, he understands the technical end of video. On top of that, hey, he's seen the camera! And he still wants to write about it. He could have bailed out and concluded it was a piece of junk like "everyone else." Vested interest? Don't you think the company who's invested millions into R & D on this camera has a vested interest in releasing something that works? Give us consumers a little more credit than that.

Said I wouldn't reply but I can't help myself---What I said was it was evolutionary not revolutionary---In other words, it was most likely a small step in the right direction---My sources aren't people who are not professionals---in fact they are active cinematographers and videographers--many of whom have rather impressive professional credentials. These are people I have known for years and let me assure you, they didn't pop up from some 'hole in the ground.

As far as JVC goes---companies have only one vested interest---that is making money. So the hype and the bally-hoo always proceed release of the product---In some cases (like the DVX100) the hype is validated by the product---In other cases the product doesn't come close to fufilling expectations and it dies a quick death. Again, we will wait and see if this camera is deserving of all the pre-market hype.

Indeed, the proof of any such gadget is in the pudding...and there is much pudding ahead to look forward to in the HD arena.

But I have to say that, new cameras aside, the immediate prospects for HD's accelerated public adoption, on which such cameras ultimately depend, are extremely poor from an economics perspective. Consumer HD sets are still very expensive amidst sharply rising unemployment (and even more sharply rising under-employment) and the highest consumer debt levels in history. Even barring major negative national economic events (of which several loom at this writing) it will be optimistically 2006-2008 before HD will have a chance of becoming mainstream.

I think that JVC will be remembered as the 1st but the camcorder is a joke. 35 Lux sensitivity! Still the CCD has the ability to pick up a quality picture. DV format has a 25 Mbps stream. JVC, instead of increasing it, lowred it to 19 Mbps. Still 720/30p MPEG2 picture should look excellent; there is a lot more bandwidth than needed for HDTV. I assume the MPEG2 encoder must not be very good.

Would Sony come out with a camera like this just to be first? Of course not. But JVC is not Sony. At all shows, and especially NAB, the companies make siure that the prouct performs at it's best. If what people reported on is the best that JVC can do, I feel sorry for them. HD1 is selling in Japan already. HD10 will be sold there next month. Both use the same MPEG2 encoder chip.

I'll wait for Sony when they come out with their Blu-Ray MPEG2 HD DVD camcorder. I'm sure that it will not be 35 lux and the Blu-Ray format has a 36 Mbps stream.

Yeah. With 35 LUX, indoor shooting under "normal" lighting is out. JVC should have used a 1/2 CCD, like one of the older Hitachi MPEG2 cams, coupled with a wider lens. I can't understand why these 2 JVC cams are gonna go for so much money. As I wrote before, I'm excited about upcoming consumer HD cams. But I think I'll have to wait a bit longer---mind you, all my TVs are only 4:3!

PS: and here I thought the LUX was bad with 1/6" CCD cams. Go figure.

Lux ratings are meaningless. There are probably a dozen posts here that tell newbies not to use Lux as a means of picking cameras. Yet, everyone who has not seen this camera is quick to criticize this camera for it's Lux rating. I've used three chip Sony Beta SP cameras rated at 100 Lux. So, it wouldn't be the first camera I'd pick to shoot a wedding. I don't think that is this camera's market. The one person who has seen the camera says the image is OK.

Back in the early '90's the same things were said about Avid and non-linear editing. Many pros (with a vested interest in linear editing hardware) back then said Avid would never make it, too buggy, too expensive, could never be used for on line editing. Well, todays NLE's (and most of us) are standing on the shoulders of those early pioneers.

The market for this camera is limited, as Frank and others are pointing out. But as Steve Mullen points out, if you have a need for the resolution and can make money with this HD camera, go for it.

Ken makes a great point that is seldom factored into the equation. With the economy in the condition it is in, there will definately be a slow-down in the purchase of a non-essential like an HD ready TV. THis of course will slow down development of consumer and prosumer HD cameras.

"Lux ratings are meaningless. "
Generally, I would agree, but 35 Lux certainly makes you wonder. This isn't even close.

We don't know how the lux is being measured. I used to own very expensive ($50,000 USD) Sony cameras and they were rated at 100 lux. So that must make it 3X better. There is more to a camera than a lux rating. I just can't criticize a camera for low lux performance, unless you shoot weddings, or events. If you need a camera for low light levels then look elsewhere, no big deal.

Now that my taxes are done -- I can relate to comments about the economy! :)

1) At NAB I looked at several under $2K (one under $1500) projectors that are great for HD. I saw multiple ads for HDTVs under $2000 in the Sunday paper. I can't understand how anyone can call this expensive. My current Toshiba 35" I bought 6 years ago cost $1500.

2) Many of the comments (why not 1/2"?) (why MPEG2?) (35lux!!!) (Only 1 CCD!) (I saw jitter on pans!) show so such -- sorry -- technical ignorence that there is no point in answering them. Moreover, I suspect most of these comments come from those who don't own an HDTV of any kind and have no business model for shooting HD. In short we are seeing the same kind of BS that was posted (mostly by Sony and Canon owners) on the DVX100 lists. It would be nice to not have that happen. If you don'y know -- ask.

3) My Guide is not focused on the JVC camcorders. It's focused on prosumer HD shooting and production. It doesn't depend on the JVC, but on the trend to HD. My interest in HD comes not from the JVC, but from HD itself.

Frankly, I can't see spending any money on anything that uses NTSC or PAL. Five years from now, everything shot on DV will look to our eyes the way Hi8 does now. And, DVDs will look like just what they are, NTSC on optical media.

4) Having said that, I don't expect to have the money to buy a Varicam or HDCAM. Therefore, the JVC becomes intertersting. Because like it or not, the technology employed in them will be very much the model of what's coming from anyone else.

5) All prosumer camcorders will be MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 based. All will be limited to 20Mbps to 30Mbps. Since MPEG-4 is 3X more efficient than MPEG-2, we could well see data rates falling to under 8Mbps. And that means HD can be recorded on DVD discs using red laser. (But there are no HD MPEG-4 compression chips, so that can't happen for awhile.)

Of course, many will protest HD can't be done using MPEG-4. But Sony's new SUPER HD, HDCAM SR, is MPEG-4 based. The camera and deck cost nearly $200,000.

In short, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 will be used for everything from consumer to super pro. DV will go the way of Hi8 and S-VHS.

6) Pushing the trend to highly efficient compression will be the move to optical discs and solid state recording. Sony's pushing disc and Panasonics pushing SD. Tape will go away. (Frankly, I like tape and think JVC was wise to use it. But, a camcorder that uses discs could be used for shooting AND editing AND presentation -- just the way Hi8/DV was used before Sony released decks. One need not buy anything else!)

7) Based on the success of digital photography, 3 CCDs will be seen as old fashoined as tube-based cameras. The push will be toward 1 CCD because the encorder/decorder chips will be very expensive to start.

8) As far as I know, the only commercial MPEG-2 chip than can handle HD is the NTT chip used by JVC. It has a maximum capability of 720p30. So for those who want p60 or 1080i -- you'll have to wait for someone to develop a chip with 2X greater clock-speed. (These will require a huge amount of power and disipate a lot of heat!)

9) There are 2 assumptions I make about this trend:

a) DV must be made obsolete because without a new trend there will be no revenue growth as DV has become a commodity. That's Economics 101.

b) The future is to larger and larger screen sizes. I do not consider anything that doesn't fill your eyes when viewing, as "true" HD. Most HD that folks see, is simply better images on a "TV."

There is only one way to fill a big screen. Lots of resolution. Resolution that NTSC doesn't have no matter how much its processed. There is only one ATSC format that is free of artifacts and mates to DLP, LCD, and plasma -- and that's 720p.

I hope it's clear why the move to HD is so important. And why the JVC camcorders are of interest.

Lastly, the DVX100 Guide is my biggest seller. If I posted comments based on revenue, I wouldn't cover the JVC at all. And, I certainly wouldn't say bad things about NTSC or PAL.

I disagree with about 3/4 of our post---you lost me when you said that 1500-2000 bucks isn't expensive---For mass penetration it is very expensive and that probably explains why HD is still fairly uncommon.

I dont see that the JVC camera is the future of anything.

DV will be around for many years---see above.

You shouldn't say that DV cameras are commodities and that the major players can't make money off them. You might say that some cameras are commodities and that some others aren't. I dont consider the DVX-100 a commodity---a friend of mine at Panasonic says the margins are huge and that they can't keep up with demand---even in a bad economy.


Sure the future is HD---but it will be many years before we have a prosumer camera, in the 2500-3500 range that will really reap the benefits of what HD can do. Again the JVC Is evolutionary---at the bottom of the ladder---It might an interesting technological phenomena or perhaps a neat little gadget but it is a long way from being what the PD-150, XL1S, GL2 is to the shooters I know.

DV is in it's twilight. I'm not investing any more dollars in mini DV hardware. Most DV shooters I know are saying the same thing. The few that have invested recently, did so in the Panasonic DVX100. I was prepared to spend $10,000 + if the right new equipment had come along at NAB.

Can you still make money with mini DV? Sure you can, but it is quickly becoming and event, wedding format. I have clients that are wondering why I'm still shooting with an XL1s.

I will reserve judgement on JVC's entry level HD products until I can see it and shoot with it myself.

If your profession is video production then $1500 to $2000 is not expensive. If video is your hobby then $2000 is a lot of money. When I look around my studio, there isn't much that was less than $1500. Sure, some audio gear and soft goods (cases etc.) But all my major components are that much and more.

I have clients right now that would pay for HD production. But current gear is too costly, even rental. Medium and large corporations have the need, and equipment (viewing capability) to use HD. Only affordable equipment (either to own or rent) keep me and many clients on the sidelines. The JVC's may not be the cameras for me. But I'll approach the topics and equipment with an open mind so I can learn and better serve my clients.

Let's hope Jeff's right.

If nothing else, the JVC HD cam will inspire Canon, SONY, etc. to put out great prosumer HD cams which take the technology to the next level. (Can't wait for the XL2--!)

"DV is in it's twilight"
"it is quickly becoming and event, wedding format."

Gee! What else is there? What are the options right now? Absolutely nothing! We have a glimmer of what is coming down the road. We need a clearer definition of what will finally be accepted as a standard.

This implies that people should cease to equip because something new is coming. I stand with David on this issue. HD is coming but know one here can say when and what the final standards will be. It's only guess work right now.

A true technicrat will continue to work with present technology with one eye open to what is coming down the road. Keeping an open mind also means the good sense to realize that technology and it's standards are fickle and change with the wind. The best and most logical is not always the winner.

Now I won't be selling the farm to buy anything I don't really need but I certainly won't be betting my housecat on the success of JVC's new HD Cam.

Who will want High definition video, what will they play it on and what medium will we use. Most of the enjoyment I get from this hobby is sharing my work with others. Until the standard is clear it won't include me.

I will admit that there will be a limited market at outset of the HD cams release. This will include those that will want HD at any cost. It may well peter out when they realize that we have a way to go yet.

One last point. Because someone disagrees with certain opinions, does not make them a Sony or Canon hack. I find statements like that beneath this Forum.

When I posted my impression that the HD1 is too jittery under HD mode, I wasn�ft asking for any technical explanation at all, since all technical aspects of this cam are readily available in Jap websites and catalogues which I�fve probably read at least 10x. Even Victor �gadmits�h this issue based on the disclaimer written in their website and catalogue. I will post that sentence here both in Japanese characters and Roman alphabet (for those who cannot read kanji but can understand Japanese)

I quote:

�gHDƒ‚�[ƒh‚Å‹L˜^‚µ‚½‰f‘œ‚Í�A•bŠÔ30ƒRƒ}‚Å‹L˜^‚µ‚Ä‚¢‚邽‚ß�A�Ä�¶‚̉f‘œ‚Í“®‚«‚ª‚¬‚±‚¿‚È‚_Œ©‚¦‚邱‚Æ‚ª‚_‚è‚Ü‚·�B �h

�gHD mode de kiroku shita eizou ha�Abyoukan 30koma de kiroku shiteiru tame, saisei no eizou ha UGOKI GA GIKOCHINAKU mieru koto ka arimasu.�h

The simplest English translation is as follows:
Since the image recorded in HD mode is recorded at 30p, movement in playback image looks clumsy/stiff/awkward.


If there are any Japanese experts in this forum, please correct the above translation as necessary.

I am particularly interested in this jittery image issue hoping that real experts would teach us how to handle this cam. As a regular home video guy who looks forward to upgrading to HD soon, I would find very limited use for a cam that would give me terrible headache/dizziness (both during recording and playback) when panning and zooming. The HD1 is afterall a consumer cam. Guys who have seen JVC�fs sample footages might have noticed that they are mostly static. I just cannot imagine myself shooting video only that way and I personally have very little interest in frame grabs. But that�fs just me. BTW, I know the HD1 can playback 1125i according to specs, but I doubt whether it will work as good as anyone can expect (given the above disclaimer). You experts tell us when you finally get hold of this cam.

Well, all I can say is don't tell a family of four with $55,000 of annual household income, $120,000 of mortgage debt, $10,000 of credit card debt and two car payments that $2,000 isn't alot of money. Sound silly? Think again. What I've described is the dead-center norm of middle America, the people on whom the adoption of HD ultimately relies. They're the "viewers" that the sponsors chase with video.

No, don't throw away your NTSC gear just yet.

Oh, well.

The first VHS VCR's were well over $1,000, the first CD players were over $1,500. But $1500 to $2,000 seems cheap for a wide screen HDTV. Early adoptees always pay a premium and they are not your average American. They have discretionary income, even during a down turn in the economy.

Several weeks ago I talked to a friend in sales at a major electronics chain and he related that sales of large screen TV's before the recent Super Bowl were extraordinary. Demand exceeded supply (Tampa was in the SB) and many people had to settle for 32 to 36 inch CRT's.

S-VHS was never popular with home users. Yet, it was used commercially from the late '80's to today and sold 100's of millions of dollars of equipment. I was an early adoptee of S-VHS. It provided better quality than 3/4 U-Matic and was considerably less expensive than 3/4 SP. It ultimately proved to be very successfull, with even Sony getting into the game.

JVC's HD format only needs to be successful with a certain market segment of commercial, industrial users. Corporate users will lead the way. The format will be picked and used first by production companies that cater to the needs of the corporate world. Then corporate users will pick it up and the cycle continues. It may never see huge numbers in the home. It would be nice, but it's success doesn't depend on that.

I would be interested in knowing which clients of Jeff are questioning his shooting in DV? What do they want you to shoot in and what market are they?

1. Why is the JVC footaage jittery? It is recorded at 30p, not 60i. It is what some call the film look -- motion artifacts on movement. 24p is even more jittery.

2. We should thank JVC for bringing out this camcorder, and Panasonic for bringing out their DVX camcorder. What should have we been thanking for Sony lately?

Sony, the most innovative company of the past is unable to create innovative prosumer products anymore. Matsushita (Panasonic, JVC) came out with DVX, HD1 HD camcorder. Sony came out with PDX10 -- 1/5" CCD camcorder. While everyone was making DV camcorders smaller, Sony came out with Digital 8, a step backwards. That size tape would be perfect for consumer HD. While JVC is coming out with HD DV, Sony is dropping Digital 8 and announced a bunch of DVD based camcorders; a long time after Hitachi and Panasonic started making them. Sony came out with Micro DV, with image that is inferior to mini DV. JVC and Panasonic have been making D-VHS recorders for a long time while Sony quit making S-VHS and started to concentrate on VHS only. Apple came out with IPOD. Sony, unable to develop its own system, is selling Palm-based organizers, in a world of Windows based organizers; even Samsung adapted the Window based system and they already announced one with SVGA screen. Sharp is selling in Japan Linux based one with VGA screen for some time.

Sony failed in Japan with their cell phones because of too many problems and defects. So they joined with Ericson instead, promising all kinds of stuff and sales that they failed to deliver.

Sony missed the boat with late introductions of flat screens displays, and unable to produce what the market needs, Samsung is producing these for Sony under private label.

JVC pro DV and D9 camcorders are a lot better bargains than Sony's equivalent products.

It is no longer Sony, it is Matsushita that is creating and delivering the most exciting and innovative products for the prosumer market.

All great things must end. I think that Sony should stick to promoting Michael Jackson's albums and making B movies and toys like Playstation. They are losing the prosumer market fast. Will the high-end market be next? There are a lot of innovative companies out there. Thomson Viper, new JVC HD CMOS box camera.

Panasonic is including 24 fps on their products, showed prototype of a tapeless camcorder. Trinitron used to be the king. Now it's everyone else but Sony in new display technologies.

While Sony claims that no one needs 480p and DVX is not hurting their sales of 480i products, the market is slipping from under their feet. It is no longer Sony that introduces products first and Matsushita copies them, with improvements. It is Matsushita that is introducing products first, and Sony is not able to copy them even without improvements. Sony's answers to DVX and HD1/10? Silence of a fatally wounded giant.

The clients are wanting higher resolution for corporate promotional work (trade shows), internal use (corporate networks, video walls). I work directly with these companies and separate promotional/marketing companies that are hired to work with specific brands.

Are they looking for HD or are they looking for 4:2:2--Are they willing to pay the price-----? My understanding is that most corporations are cutting back on media acquisition and if anything, they are looking to save money for the work they need?

Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. They would like to produce ancillary pieces, promotional work etc. at affordable prices. They want their corporate pieces to be tied together and have a similar look.

We do work in Digibeta, mini DV, HD and Beta SP. I've pretty much switched them away from Beta SP to mini DV. The next step is an affordable alternative to Digibeta and HD. I shot mini DV and occasionally Digibeta for them. I have never shot HD. The AD's use me as a consultant on many of their projects because of my long standing relationship with them.

The JVC's might not be the ultimate solution, but it might fill a need until the ultimate solution is introduced and adopted by more of the masses.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>>

Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for.

Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector.

By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes.

That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE.

With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them.

I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image.

Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE.

HD is about a lot more than the technology.

I absolutely agree. With images of such clarity that you can discern blades of grass in a wide shot, HD should cause a total re-examination of just how to assemble a story. Or to put it another way, it should cause a migration towards the same production values as 35mm film has established for Hollywood. How many theatrical releases do you see where the picture changes every two seconds? Or where you have 13 different images layered over each other? You don't see any. You hardly see any pans or zooms either, both staples in the world of SD video. There it didn't matter because everything was self-contained in a "tiny" little screen the size of a microwave your eye could assimilate in a half-second glance. Nor did it matter much since the only way you could resolve a blade of grass was to get an extreme close-up. Wide-screen HD thankfully throws all those limitations out the window. I for one will not be sorry to see 4:3 TV go. I've produced documentary-style video for years with nothing more than the occasional dissolve and white letters on black BG for titles. I'm sure some folks are just dying to break the rules in HD land but they may discover that flashing HD images in rapid-fire on the big, wide screen can be almost nauseating. As well as a waste of screen time and space when there's so much precious information contained in a single static frame.

Of course people go overboard with NLE. Cuts, fades and dissolves is all you need for a movie, or most movies. Unfortunately this is not a movie camera or a camera to make movies with. It is a consumer camera with a better handle, better microphone jacks and a better viewfinder that still has 5x less pixels than the imager. How are you going to focus this thing in manual? Hook up to a separate monitor? Only NTSC output is available during shooting. Sold by Broadcast Division!!!!!

Why talking about a stem of grass if the consensus of people who have seen the camera is that the image is lousy. Realize that this is a finished product already selling in Japan and manufacturers at shows are very good at making the image look better than it is. The same people are telling us that it is worse than it will be when the consumer will use it. They are tweaking up the image, using some math formulas? How? The processors will stay the same. There is nothing to tweak on those.

Anyone seen Russian Arc? Great movie. The whole film was made in one shot. No editing at all, shot on HD fed to hard drives. 2hrs long. Anyone knows what camera were they using? Viper? CineAlta? It is true that NLE's are overused for editing but this is a digital camera and it is ridiculous that the user should be limited to some primitive optical style effects, or that a camera sold by the broadcast division could only use the consumer version software.

Steve, it was a Cinealta--and I agree with pretty much everything you said. I just saw Russian Ark for the second time---fantastic work of art.

Here's a lengthy thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5553) on this fiilm.

Steve,

You said FCP isn't needed to do dissolves; it sounds like you say FCP is for heavy f/x and stuff. FINALLY! When I bought FCP 1.0 and a G3 PowerMac, I was told FCP was a "joke" system and only good for dissolves. You saying that any NLE can do simple dissolves proves my theory that FCP is a heavy hitter.

BTW, until we get the JVC HD in our hands, why keep debating? It goes back and forth so much, I don't know if it's a revolutionary piece of technology or "just a step in the right direction."

And does one chip mean less quality or not? A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.

Heath McKnight
Indie Filmmaker
www.mpsdigital.com

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Some of them use HD right now for major shows etc. -->>>

Jeff's talking about the customers who JVC is aiming for.

Shoot HD, edit a simple but great looking HD production that incorporates hi-res stills, xfer to S-VHS, and show on a JVC progressive HD I-DLA projector.

By simple, I mean that HD doesn't require snazzy FX to dazzle the eye. A simple mountain range or sunset shot will speak volumes.

That's why for me FCP isn't necessary. A series of geourges shots with dissolves will be fine. I can do that in ANY NLE. Toss in graphics and music. That's not rocket science in any NLE.

With images that have visual impact -- I wouldn't consider obscuring them by muli-layering them.

I hope HD will kill the MTV style s**t we see folks doing with Avid and FCP. Back to the power of the unadorned image.

Watching jitter-cam on a 6-8 foot screen can make you sick. Watching NYPD tonight I could see how dated it looked when projected large and WIDE.

HD is about a lot more than the technology. -->>>

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.
-->>>

I got to laugh twice at this comment.

1) If I had the money for a CineAlta camcorder I wouldn't waste my time commenting on a $4,000 camcorder.

2) However, if I owned a CineAlta camcorder I would be worried that my $100,000 rig had already become obsolete. As indeed it has!

I proclaim that anyone not shooting 1080x1920, 4:4:4 RGB video at 440megbits-per-second is NOT shooting "true" HD. Feel free to quote me to your friend. :)

He must immediately sell his rig and upgrade to HDCAM SR before his work is rejected as not being of high-quality. Oh, by the way his replacement rig will cost about $200,000. That may include a tiny LCD HD monitor that Sony is pricing at "less than" $10,000. But maybe not.

Your friend thinks 3-chips are necessary, but I think 4:4:4 RGB is necessary to get true HD quality. After all, if the 3-chip image is compressed to ONLY 140Megabits-per-second all the image quality will be ruined.

Now that I think about it, since so many here have claimed MPEG-2 can't be used for HD -- I guess Sony's HDCAM SR can't be HD because it is MPEG-4. That means I must reject HDCAM SR because it "can't be" HD.

Shucks! And Sony had offered me one for review. Oh well! I guess I'll wait for the next generation so it lives up to my demanding standards.

The CineAlta is the number one selling camera Sony has EVER had, period; there is a 32 week waiting period. They won't be updating the CineAlta until AT LEAST 2005, as a promise to owners of the CineAlta. This stems from a backlash of releasing the CineAlta 6 months after they released the HDW-F700 camera and owners were PISSED. Plus, they're in R&D with Lucas and Panavision on the next generation.

Therefore, the CineAlta is not outdated yet; I never said, for one, mpeg-2 wasn't HD. I'm just not used to acquiring in mpeg-2, only finishing (in DVD).

My friend also uses the AG-DVX100 and hates the quality of the 24p mode, but loves the 30p mode best. So he's using everything from an AG-DVX100 to the CineAlta. He can comment about that just like anyone else can.

This is what he said about the mini-HD from JVC:

"I haven't had the chance to read too much about the new JVC HD one chip. I read a pre-release spec sheet that was interesting, but the actual specs are just barely HD. I mean, take the very bottom of what can technically be considered HD in terms of signal level, bandwidth and all, and that's about what that camera is. Not to mention it's a one chip! Maybe useful if you are doing exlusively HD production and need to put a cheap camera in harms way or mounted on the head of a biker or something. But otherwise I don't see how this camera is doing much for the small guy. Except...one major point...It does force the consumer HD issue. It forces other manufacturers to respond. It forces other manufacturers to realize that HD is becoming more and more wide spread. And they have to meet that demand. For that, JVC gets my very sincere thanks."

Again, what I think is, we should all wait to test the camera, then comment. Otherwise, we're wasting bandwidth... :-) Of course, Steve has had his hands on it...And until an update on FCP comes out to edit mpeg-2, I'm holding off on buying. But, like what we've all said, it's going in the right direction! DV is going to die and HD will strive on. Just like Steve's website says, from Hi-8 to HD in a decade (or so). DV killed Hi-8 (BetaSP holds on!!!!) and HD will kill DV.

Heath McKnight
Filmmaker
www.mpsdigital.com


<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : <<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight A buddy of mine, who shoots regularly on the CineAlta and Varicam, said that one chip isn't good for quality.
-->>>

I got to laugh twice at this comment.

1) If I had the money for a CineAlta camcorder I wouldn't waste my time commenting on a $4,000 camcorder.

2) However, if I owned a CineAlta camcorder I would be worried that my $100,000 rig had already become obsolete. As indeed it has!

I proclaim that anyone not shooting 1080x1920, 4:4:4 RGB video at 440megbits-per-second is NOT shooting "true" HD. Feel free to quote me to your friend. :)

He must immediately sell his rig and upgrade to HDCAM SR before his work is rejected as not being of high-quality. Oh, by the way his replacement rig will cost about $200,000. That may include a tiny LCD HD monitor that Sony is pricing at "less than" $10,000. But maybe not.

Your friend thinks 3-chips are necessary, but I think 4:4:4 RGB is necessary to get true HD quality. After all, if the 3-chip image is compressed to ONLY 140Megabits-per-second all the image quality will be ruined.

Now that I think about it, since so many here have claimed MPEG-2 can't be used for HD -- I guess Sony's HDCAM SR can't be HD because it is MPEG-4. That means I must reject HDCAM SR because it "can't be" HD.

Shucks! And Sony had offered me one for review. Oh well! I guess I'll wait for the next generation so it lives up to my demanding standards. -->>>