GY-HMQ10U...Another new cam from JVC

[Pavel Sedlak]

I have small problem with aliasing (resize from 4K to HD in camcorder) on TV, a better result can be from the blurred quad HD at postproduction (you need an JVC utility, it is only for MAC OS now). No ND filters, a lens is wide 43mm, F2,8 to F5,6 only, buttons are not friendly, EVF is 300k pixels only, it is not easy to make focus on LCD.

But picture is stunning with very nice and rich colors (I was testing this 50i record for using at broadcast).

[Aaron Holmes]

Originally Posted by Pavel Sedlak

I have small problem with aliasing (resize from 4K to HD in camcorder) on TV, a better result can be from the blurred quad HD at postproduction (you need an JVC utility, it is only for MAC OS now). No ND filters, a lens is wide 43mm, F2,8 to F5,6 only, buttons are not friendly, EVF is 300k pixels only, it is not easy to make focus on LCD.

You can easily do without the JVC utility (at least in Premiere) by just dropping the individual quadrants onto a 4K timeline and adjusting their offsets to form a complete, seamless image. I've grabbed some samples and tried it. And... it takes FOREVER to render! But that really wasn't a surprise. :)

[Barry McGovern]

I'm really tempted by this JVC 4K option. However, I am confused by the size of the sensor. Isn't it very small? If the sensor in a camera remains so small, but the resolution of the image increases so much, isn't that just software and spec? Is it really better resolution or just using more pixels?

[Barry McGovern]

Like I say, I'm really tempted by this JVC 4K option - but confused by the size of the sensor. Surely it's very small? If the sensor in a camera remains so small, but the resolution of the image increases so much, isn't that just software and spec? Is it really better resolution or just using more pixels? Or am I misunderstanding. Is each quandrant individually grabbed from the full sensor? Or am I correct in thinking that tiny sensor is giving a quarter of its size to each of the four streams? HELP!

[Finn Yarbrough]

You know what they say, "if it sounds too good to be true..."
This does not mean that the camera is bad, merely that you get what you pay for and not a penny more (I am suspicious that you may, in fact, get quite a few pennies less).

They can cram so many pixels on a tiny sensor and achieve higher resolution but suffer from low light sensitivity. They can use spacial offsetting, which I don't really understand well, to double up the pixel duty and tease a higher resolution out via software task-management, and suffer potentially from some kind of artifacting, aliasing, or lack of sharpness/practical resolution.

If I were to test this camera, I would look very carefully at the noise levels in the shadows and color detail, particularly in areas of complex detail or fine color differences. But probably I would buy a camera that shoots 1080p at a similar price and know that I was getting the top end of 1080 instead of the bottom end of 4k.

[Barry McGovern]

Thanks for your reply Finn - some of the footage I have seen just looks like an "up-res"...

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Originally Posted by Barry McGovern

If the sensor in a camera remains so small, but the resolution of the image increases so much, isn't that just software and spec? Is it really better resolution or just using more pixels? Or am I misunderstanding. Is each quandrant individually grabbed from the full sensor? Or am I correct in thinking that tiny sensor is giving a quarter of its size to each of the four streams? HELP!

It's not software and spec. 4K is about 9 MP only, and modern compact still cameras offer about 20MP on smaller sensors.

The JVC shoots 4K just like any other camera. The reason it exports via quadrants - It doesn't have to mind you - is to use the simple HDMI format in a brilliant way. If you had four recorders you can record four HDMI streams from the camera. It's a very simple solution to a complicated problem.

The result? A true 4K camera for $5,000.

I've never known JVC to kid around with their cameras - they are always top notch. But their marketing machine isn't as elaborate as Canon's or Sony's.

[Steve Mullen]

I've been shooting with the HMQ. Four things:

1) In shade you may need to use +6dB gain IF you want to use 1/60th.

2) You must use a 4X ND in bright sunlight.

3) Not for low-light shooting even though it's almost a 1/2" chip.

4) Very nice to use Ken Burns FX and Cropping to get FullHD production.

Very nice alias free image with no edge outlines. But, the PX10 LOOKS sharper which makes sense because the QHD must be downscaled to FHD. For me, I'd go with the PX10 if I could get my hands on one for an operational test.

Broadcast Engineering will have two stories on my HMQ experience in November.

[Glen Vandermolen]

That's an interesting observation on the PX10. I have one, and it is pretty sharp.

[Steve Mullen]

Can you set shutter speed to 1/60 in SP mode. Then how do you adjust aperture? When you are 1/60th and in bright sunlight -- what aperture is used? Do you use an ND filter?

[Troy Lamont]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Broadcast Engineering will have two stories on my HMQ experience in November.

Has that been published yet?

Thanks.