What Is The Real Deal With This JVC HD Cam??

Kevin A. Sturges · August 29th, 2003, 10:29 AM

I am not for or against this camera. I just want to know what it does. Frank, if it captures video in less resolution than DV, then please download the video files that are available farther down in this forum, and explain to us what you are seeing.

How is it possible that the video format is twice as large as DV, and the 16/9 progressive scan image detail looks amazing compared to anything that's out there DV wise? How is this being done if you are claiming that the camera actually has less resolution than the DV SD format?

Will you respond to this? Thanks for your reply!

Steve Mullen · August 29th, 2003, 11:16 AM

The camera shoots an HD image -- DV camcorders do not. You might benefit from reading through past posts because the questions you are asking were answered here 3-4 months ago.

Kris Kalapala · August 29th, 2003, 11:26 AM

I had the GR-HD1 for a week and returned it. The detail that this camera captures is awesome. I have a 720P HD TV (Toshiba 42H82). In comparision the GL2 picture looks sooo .... SD?

The reason is again like Steve said the format. HD vs DV. I use the GL2 for my work.

Barry Green · August 29th, 2003, 12:34 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : DV plays back a max of 540 lines; MPEG2 plays back a maximum of 480 lines. Correct me if I'm wrong. -->>>

There is nothing about MPEG2 that is limited to 480 lines. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not accurate. Perhaps you're thinking of DVD's, which are limited to 480 lines and also use MPEG2.

HD is broadcast over the airwaves using MPEG2. 1920 x 1080, or 1280 x 720, all encoded with MPEG2. MPEG2 is not dependent on any particular frame size and is not limited to any number of playback lines.

And the JVC camcorder is most definitely high definition, it is 1280 x 720, and the resolution is extremely high. It has its design deficiencies and limitations, but resolution most certainly isn't one of them.

T. Patrick Murray · August 29th, 2003, 12:44 PM

Kevin

I want to solve your problem.

Everyone who bashes this camera is simply wrong,
although I certainly concede that thre are people who don't have an application for it right now. or people who should not make the financial sacrifice to get it just yet...

And, I also concede that the next version (from Sony, Canon) will be vastly better than the HD10u, but then again, what isn't better the second time around.

Here's by 50 cent psychoanalysis of the neg hype- people can't get their skulls around how revolutionary it is.

It's sort of like talking about the Web in 92- people didn't understand what was about to happen- a revolution.

This camera is the harbinger of a NEW ERA IN TV AND FILM PRODUCTION.

If you want to make TV or films for viewing in a HD broadcast setting, or by using the digital projection which will be ubiquitous within 3-5 years, then this camera gives you a great head start at 720p.

I got Burt Reynolds interested in a feature using this camera. We will see if a former #1 actor in YESTERDAY'S America signs on to a film that wil be using the format of TOMORROW.

Someone said that someone is gonn amake a movie that wil get theatrical release with this film. I am not saying I am that person- BUT I AM TRYING.

I will succeed wildly or mildly, or fail spectacularly,
but the choice between getting this camera and making a HD movie
versus WAITING for the next model and NOT making that movie this fall...
well, to me there is no choice.

Also look at history. Many products come out to no fanfare- or even criticism- and yet proved to be paradigm-shifting. That's the nature of such inventions- they DESTROY the status quo and UPSET a lot of people INVESTED in the technology it rendered obsolete.

My XL1, which I made a 4 star movie with, is now a paperweight.

Kevin- get the camera- you will not be disappointed. An example of footage from it is contained in another thread.

By the way- can you elaborate about "zero point energy devices"- what you mean by that?

T. Patrick Murray

Darren Kelly · August 29th, 2003, 03:42 PM

I bought one of the first VX1000 when they came out. I remember the posts (on compuserve back then) that said this was a waste of camera, that DV would never surrvive and so on and so on.

I have had a look at this camera's image on a 720P monitor. It is very impressive indeed. IT IS NOT FOR EVERYONE! It's not a video camera, it's more like film, with all it's inherrent troubles with lighting, chuddering, etc.

You need to develop a new style to handle this format, shooting more like a film camera. I have also played with a Sony 900 HDCam and you would not like it either. It too needs proper lighting and it has film chuddering too.

The camera is not going to replace the high end market anytime soon, but it shows every promise of delivering a useable format for HD aquisition and editing to video producers and film makers who would never have the budgets to buy Sony or Panasonics top of the line.

I've made tons of money and never once have I had a budget for the big buys tools. Closest I've come is BetacamSP and DVCam. Perhaps this HD-DV is the tool for tomorrow.

Early adopters will both be rewarded and punished.

I have arranged a demo between this camera and a Sony F900 for next week. I know they won't compare, but I am interested in seeing how close they are.

Cheers

DBK

Don Donatello · August 29th, 2003, 04:46 PM

this is what we are going to get :

Proposal of Basic Specifications for HDV (Tentative Name) Format
That Realizes Consumer High- Definition Digital Video Recording

Canon Inc.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC)

Tokyo, July 04, 2003 - Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) today announced a joint proposal of basic specifications for "HDV" (tentative name) format which realizes recording and playback of high-definition video on a DV cassette tape. The HDV format includes 720p (progressive) and 1080i (interlace) specifications, and enables the development of products conforming to the global high-definition infrastructure. The four companies will actively promote the specifications throughout the industry and plan to finalize the specifications around September 2003.

BS digital high-definition broadcasting, which started December 2001, and digital terrestrial broadcasting scheduled to commence in December 2003 have increased anticipation toward the expansion of high-definition broadcasting in Japan. Growing sales of high-definition television sets and the introduction of digital high-definition video recorders, such as D-VHS and Blu-ray Disc recorders, have enriched customer enjoyment of high-definition video in the home.

The HDV format specifies the data recording of MPEG2 compressed high-definition signals based on the DV format, which is internationally accepted as a consumer digital VCR format. Because the new format employs the same cassette case, tape speed, and track pitch as the DV format, it can utilize mechanical parts based on the DV format. It also makes it easy for manufacturers to undertake the development of products that are highly compatible with the DV format.

The 720p specifications in the HDV format are the same specifications as adopted in the "GR-HD1" high-definition digital video camera which JVC introduced to the market in March 2003. By adopting both the 720p and the 1080i specifications, the HDV format will enable users to record high-definition video and further disseminate the enjoyment realized of high-definition video.

The HDV format records both video and audio through compression by MPEG encoding. Video signals are compressed by MPEG2 encoding (inter-frame compression) as BS digital broadcasting, making possible the recording and playback of high-definition video at a bit rate equivalent to the DV format SD (standard definition) specifications (intra-frame compression.) Audio signals are digitized with a 48kHz/16-bit quantization sampling frequency and compressed to 384kbps by MPEG1 Audio Layer II encoding.

<HDV Format Key Characteristics>

1) Ability to record and play back high-definition video on internationally accepted DV format cassette tapes

2) Adoption of 720p/1080i formats to comply with progressive and interlace specifications for high- definition recording and playback
The HDV format complies with both the 720 scanning lines (progressive)/1280 horizontal pixels 720p format (60p, 30p, 50p, 25p), and the 1080 scanning lines (interlace)/1440 horizontal pixels 1080i format (60i, 50i). This ensures the recording and playback of high-resolution video for the high-definition era.

3) Improved error correction
By changing the error correction method from error correction within a track, as specified in the DV-SD format, to error correction among multiple tracks, the HDV format offers improved error correction capability and enhanced resistance to lost data caused by dropout.

4) Data for special playback
Video signals compressed by MPEG encoding do not support image display during special playback such as fast search. The HDV format records specific data for special playback on a dedicated tape, enabling the display of video images during special playback such as fast search or slow-motion playback. (Video image quality during special playback will differ from that during normal playback.)

<HDV Format Main Specifications>
Media Same as DV format (DV and/or Mini DV cassette tape)

Video
Video Signal 720/60p, 720/30p
720/50p, 720/25p
1080/60i, 1080/50i

Number of Pixels 1280 X 720, 1440 X 1080
Aspect Ratio 16:9
Compression MPEG2 Video (profile & level: MP@H-14)
Sampling Frequency for Luminance 74.25MHz, 55.7MHz
Sampling Format 4 : 2 : 0
Quantization 8 bits (both luminance and chrominance)
Bit rate after Compression Approximately 19Mbps Approximately 25Mbps

Audio
Compression MPEG1 Audio Layer II
Sampling Frequency 48kHz
Quantization 16 bits
Bit rate after Compression 384kbps
Audio Mode Stereo (2 channels)

System
Data Format MPEG2 Systems
Stream Type Transport Stream Packetized Elementary Stream
Stream Interface IEEE1394 (MPEG2-TS)

above from:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200307/03-0704E/

Heath McKnight · August 29th, 2003, 06:24 PM

Picture, HD - It's great, I can't deny it. Especially in controlled situations.

The not-so-manual controls - Ugh, but if you can get around it, go for it. I wish it was like any other "pro" camera, manual. (Shoot only in controlled situations until they come out with a more manual-based camera.)

Audio - Because it's unbalanced, audio sounds canned, esp. with more background noise it tends to sound more canned. (Even with an XL-1, etc., I plan on recording EVERYTHING to DAT. The HD10 doesn't have a hiss like the old XL-1 cameras seem to have, don't know if the XL-1s has that problem.)

DV mode - Use an XL-1 or PD-150; even JVC admits the DV mode isn't great.

SD mode - Seems good, but I haven't really used it.

Photo mode - Even with the pitifully small memory card, I think the high quality (1 mb) pictures with the camera are NICE.

Steady shot mode - I don't know if I used it right, but if I did, it's garbage. (I don't know if Steadicam and the others are all right, but use a tripod.)

Editing - Sucks; let's hope, for FCP users, 4HDV works out. Am waiting for others to get some good use out of it before I take the plunge. The JVC software is a joke.

Conclusion - The image is worth the price, but, personally, I think I took the plunge too early. I really was a weirdo, wanting to keep it or sell it for the last nearly 2 months since I bought it. Heck, I was ready to get rid of the camera last week, but my friend talked me out of it and is offering to pay for half of it. I just can't make any money with it, as a really low budget video (and movie) maker. But Steve Mullen's software plug-in, 4HDV, may help that. I'll probably then make more money with the HD10 than my XL-1.

I hope this helps a little bit; I'm not too technical on this stuff...

heath

Glenn Gipson · August 30th, 2003, 05:32 AM

You have to keep in mind that most DV people are wedding videographers, ENG people, documentary people, or something in between. What they want is a versatile camera because they are not strictly focused on making that great breakthrough indie movie. Now, there isn’t anything wrong with that, but their needs are very different then the hardcore low budget moviemaker whom wants to make a living making movies. The low budget movie maker is very use to working within constricted means, and this is exactly why the JVC HD cam is so exciting to him/her. Most of the guys/gals over at DV.com want a well balanced camera that can do it all, ENG, weddings, documentaries, and the occasional movie. However, the low budget indie movie maker (not the hobbyist) is use to squeezing water from a rock, and he/she actually loves to do so. So this is why you have some people excited about the JVC HD cam, while others see it as a mere junky starting point.

Frank Granovski · August 30th, 2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

...their needs are very different then the hardcore low budget moviemaker whom wants to make a living making movies. The low budget movie maker is very use to working within constricted means, and this is exactly why the JVC HD cam is so exciting to him/her. Most of the guys/gals over at DV.com want a well balanced camera that can do it all, ENG, weddings, documentaries, and the occasional movie. However, the low budget indie movie maker (not the hobbyist) is use to squeezing water from a rock, and he/she actually loves to do so.

Regarding "low budget movie maker," and "low budget indie movie maker," I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean their intention is to make movies that end up on 35mm motion film, or TV?

Heath McKnight · August 30th, 2003, 03:42 PM

A film vs. a movie. There's no difference. A film can be shot on film or video, it doesn't really matter any more.

heath

Frank Granovski · August 30th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

A film can be shot on film or video, it doesn't really matter any more.

Well we know this, but that doesn't answer my question. What I was getting at was, MPEG2 may not be the best solution if it's intended for broadcast or digital to film transfer.

Barry Green · August 30th, 2003, 06:07 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Well we know this, but that doesn't answer my question. What I was getting at is MPEG2 may not be the best solution if it's intended for broadcast or intended for digital to film transfer. -->>>

MPEG2 is the chosen format for broadcast. Digital Cable, DISH network, EchoStar, and any other DBS networks, and over-the-air HD broadcasts and DTV broadcasts are all MPEG2.

MPEG2 is a scalable compression algorithm, so if you don't allocate enough bandwidth to it it'll look lousy, and if you give it enough, it'll do an incredible job.

Regarding the JVC cam being embraced and loved by the low-budget filmmaker, that ignores the camera's biggest obstacle: the fact it shoots HD in 30P only, which is the single worst frame rate for transfer to film or to PAL for international distribution. Besides its other limitations, which can mostly be overcome, the 30P-only is a dealbreaker.

Frank Granovski · August 30th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Barry, when I said broadcast, I meant "normal broadcast"---like your normal everyday local network watched by the local masses. That would be NTSC, by the way...or PAL in PALsville. :)

Glenn Gipson · August 30th, 2003, 09:16 PM

>Regarding "low budget movie maker," and "low budget indie movie maker," I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean their intention is to make movies that end up on 35mm motion film, or TV?<

Sorry for the inconsistency of words. What I simply mean by “low budget movie maker” and “indie movie maker” is any amateur movie maker who is devoting his life to launching a professional movie making career. That includes any movie medium such as theatrical, cable, or DVD (hopefully are three of these venues.)

August 29th, 2003, 11:16 AM	#17
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	The camera shoots an HD image -- DV camcorders do not. You might benefit from reading through past posts because the questions you are asking were answered here 3-4 months ago. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

August 29th, 2003, 11:26 AM	#18
Kris Kalapala New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Houston, Tx Posts: 15	GR-HD1 vs GL2 Picture I had the GR-HD1 for a week and returned it. The detail that this camera captures is awesome. I have a 720P HD TV (Toshiba 42H82). In comparision the GL2 picture looks sooo .... SD? The reason is again like Steve said the format. HD vs DV. I use the GL2 for my work.

August 29th, 2003, 12:44 PM	#20
T. Patrick Murray Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 33	Kevin Sturges, Please Kevin I want to solve your problem. Everyone who bashes this camera is simply wrong, although I certainly concede that thre are people who don't have an application for it right now. or people who should not make the financial sacrifice to get it just yet... And, I also concede that the next version (from Sony, Canon) will be vastly better than the HD10u, but then again, what isn't better the second time around. Here's by 50 cent psychoanalysis of the neg hype- people can't get their skulls around how revolutionary it is. It's sort of like talking about the Web in 92- people didn't understand what was about to happen- a revolution. This camera is the harbinger of a NEW ERA IN TV AND FILM PRODUCTION. If you want to make TV or films for viewing in a HD broadcast setting, or by using the digital projection which will be ubiquitous within 3-5 years, then this camera gives you a great head start at 720p. I got Burt Reynolds interested in a feature using this camera. We will see if a former #1 actor in YESTERDAY'S America signs on to a film that wil be using the format of TOMORROW. Someone said that someone is gonn amake a movie that wil get theatrical release with this film. I am not saying I am that person- BUT I AM TRYING. I will succeed wildly or mildly, or fail spectacularly, but the choice between getting this camera and making a HD movie versus WAITING for the next model and NOT making that movie this fall... well, to me there is no choice. Also look at history. Many products come out to no fanfare- or even criticism- and yet proved to be paradigm-shifting. That's the nature of such inventions- they DESTROY the status quo and UPSET a lot of people INVESTED in the technology it rendered obsolete. My XL1, which I made a 4 star movie with, is now a paperweight. Kevin- get the camera- you will not be disappointed. An example of footage from it is contained in another thread. By the way- can you elaborate about "zero point energy devices"- what you mean by that? T. Patrick Murray __________________ www.TheLastGame.com "The HOOP DREAMS of football..." USA TODAY (Mike Clark) FOUR STARS

August 29th, 2003, 06:24 PM	#23
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	My thoughts Picture, HD - It's great, I can't deny it. Especially in controlled situations. The not-so-manual controls - Ugh, but if you can get around it, go for it. I wish it was like any other "pro" camera, manual. (Shoot only in controlled situations until they come out with a more manual-based camera.) Audio - Because it's unbalanced, audio sounds canned, esp. with more background noise it tends to sound more canned. (Even with an XL-1, etc., I plan on recording EVERYTHING to DAT. The HD10 doesn't have a hiss like the old XL-1 cameras seem to have, don't know if the XL-1s has that problem.) DV mode - Use an XL-1 or PD-150; even JVC admits the DV mode isn't great. SD mode - Seems good, but I haven't really used it. Photo mode - Even with the pitifully small memory card, I think the high quality (1 mb) pictures with the camera are NICE. Steady shot mode - I don't know if I used it right, but if I did, it's garbage. (I don't know if Steadicam and the others are all right, but use a tripod.) Editing - Sucks; let's hope, for FCP users, 4HDV works out. Am waiting for others to get some good use out of it before I take the plunge. The JVC software is a joke. Conclusion - The image is worth the price, but, personally, I think I took the plunge too early. I really was a weirdo, wanting to keep it or sell it for the last nearly 2 months since I bought it. Heck, I was ready to get rid of the camera last week, but my friend talked me out of it and is offering to pay for half of it. I just can't make any money with it, as a really low budget video (and movie) maker. But Steve Mullen's software plug-in, 4HDV, may help that. I'll probably then make more money with the HD10 than my XL-1. I hope this helps a little bit; I'm not too technical on this stuff... heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 30th, 2003, 03:42 PM	#26
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	A film vs. a movie. There's no difference. A film can be shot on film or video, it doesn't really matter any more. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 29th, 2003, 10:29 AM	#16
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	I am not for or against this camera. I just want to know what it does. Frank, if it captures video in less resolution than DV, then please download the video files that are available farther down in this forum, and explain to us what you are seeing. How is it possible that the video format is twice as large as DV, and the 16/9 progressive scan image detail looks amazing compared to anything that's out there DV wise? How is this being done if you are claiming that the camera actually has less resolution than the DV SD format? Will you respond to this? Thanks for your reply!

August 29th, 2003, 12:34 PM	#19
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : DV plays back a max of 540 lines; MPEG2 plays back a maximum of 480 lines. Correct me if I'm wrong. -->>> There is nothing about MPEG2 that is limited to 480 lines. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not accurate. Perhaps you're thinking of DVD's, which are limited to 480 lines and also use MPEG2. HD is broadcast over the airwaves using MPEG2. 1920 x 1080, or 1280 x 720, all encoded with MPEG2. MPEG2 is not dependent on any particular frame size and is not limited to any number of playback lines. And the JVC camcorder is most definitely high definition, it is 1280 x 720, and the resolution is extremely high. It has its design deficiencies and limitations, but resolution most certainly isn't one of them.

August 29th, 2003, 03:42 PM	#21
Darren Kelly Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 351	I bought one of the first VX1000 when they came out. I remember the posts (on compuserve back then) that said this was a waste of camera, that DV would never surrvive and so on and so on. I have had a look at this camera's image on a 720P monitor. It is very impressive indeed. IT IS NOT FOR EVERYONE! It's not a video camera, it's more like film, with all it's inherrent troubles with lighting, chuddering, etc. You need to develop a new style to handle this format, shooting more like a film camera. I have also played with a Sony 900 HDCam and you would not like it either. It too needs proper lighting and it has film chuddering too. The camera is not going to replace the high end market anytime soon, but it shows every promise of delivering a useable format for HD aquisition and editing to video producers and film makers who would never have the budgets to buy Sony or Panasonics top of the line. I've made tons of money and never once have I had a budget for the big buys tools. Closest I've come is BetacamSP and DVCam. Perhaps this HD-DV is the tool for tomorrow. Early adopters will both be rewarded and punished. I have arranged a demo between this camera and a Sony F900 for next week. I know they won't compare, but I am interested in seeing how close they are. Cheers DBK

August 29th, 2003, 04:46 PM	#22
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	this is what we are going to get : Proposal of Basic Specifications for HDV (Tentative Name) Format That Realizes Consumer High- Definition Digital Video Recording Canon Inc. Sharp Corporation Sony Corporation Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) Tokyo, July 04, 2003 - Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) today announced a joint proposal of basic specifications for "HDV" (tentative name) format which realizes recording and playback of high-definition video on a DV cassette tape. The HDV format includes 720p (progressive) and 1080i (interlace) specifications, and enables the development of products conforming to the global high-definition infrastructure. The four companies will actively promote the specifications throughout the industry and plan to finalize the specifications around September 2003. BS digital high-definition broadcasting, which started December 2001, and digital terrestrial broadcasting scheduled to commence in December 2003 have increased anticipation toward the expansion of high-definition broadcasting in Japan. Growing sales of high-definition television sets and the introduction of digital high-definition video recorders, such as D-VHS and Blu-ray Disc recorders, have enriched customer enjoyment of high-definition video in the home. The HDV format specifies the data recording of MPEG2 compressed high-definition signals based on the DV format, which is internationally accepted as a consumer digital VCR format. Because the new format employs the same cassette case, tape speed, and track pitch as the DV format, it can utilize mechanical parts based on the DV format. It also makes it easy for manufacturers to undertake the development of products that are highly compatible with the DV format. The 720p specifications in the HDV format are the same specifications as adopted in the "GR-HD1" high-definition digital video camera which JVC introduced to the market in March 2003. By adopting both the 720p and the 1080i specifications, the HDV format will enable users to record high-definition video and further disseminate the enjoyment realized of high-definition video. The HDV format records both video and audio through compression by MPEG encoding. Video signals are compressed by MPEG2 encoding (inter-frame compression) as BS digital broadcasting, making possible the recording and playback of high-definition video at a bit rate equivalent to the DV format SD (standard definition) specifications (intra-frame compression.) Audio signals are digitized with a 48kHz/16-bit quantization sampling frequency and compressed to 384kbps by MPEG1 Audio Layer II encoding. <HDV Format Key Characteristics> 1) Ability to record and play back high-definition video on internationally accepted DV format cassette tapes 2) Adoption of 720p/1080i formats to comply with progressive and interlace specifications for high- definition recording and playback The HDV format complies with both the 720 scanning lines (progressive)/1280 horizontal pixels 720p format (60p, 30p, 50p, 25p), and the 1080 scanning lines (interlace)/1440 horizontal pixels 1080i format (60i, 50i). This ensures the recording and playback of high-resolution video for the high-definition era. 3) Improved error correction By changing the error correction method from error correction within a track, as specified in the DV-SD format, to error correction among multiple tracks, the HDV format offers improved error correction capability and enhanced resistance to lost data caused by dropout. 4) Data for special playback Video signals compressed by MPEG encoding do not support image display during special playback such as fast search. The HDV format records specific data for special playback on a dedicated tape, enabling the display of video images during special playback such as fast search or slow-motion playback. (Video image quality during special playback will differ from that during normal playback.) <HDV Format Main Specifications> Media Same as DV format (DV and/or Mini DV cassette tape) Video Video Signal 720/60p, 720/30p 720/50p, 720/25p 1080/60i, 1080/50i Number of Pixels 1280 X 720, 1440 X 1080 Aspect Ratio 16:9 Compression MPEG2 Video (profile & level: MP@H-14) Sampling Frequency for Luminance 74.25MHz, 55.7MHz Sampling Format 4 : 2 : 0 Quantization 8 bits (both luminance and chrominance) Bit rate after Compression Approximately 19Mbps Approximately 25Mbps Audio Compression MPEG1 Audio Layer II Sampling Frequency 48kHz Quantization 16 bits Bit rate after Compression 384kbps Audio Mode Stereo (2 channels) System Data Format MPEG2 Systems Stream Type Transport Stream Packetized Elementary Stream Stream Interface IEEE1394 (MPEG2-TS) above from: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200307/03-0704E/

August 30th, 2003, 05:32 AM	#24
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	You have to keep in mind that most DV people are wedding videographers, ENG people, documentary people, or something in between. What they want is a versatile camera because they are not strictly focused on making that great breakthrough indie movie. Now, there isn’t anything wrong with that, but their needs are very different then the hardcore low budget moviemaker whom wants to make a living making movies. The low budget movie maker is very use to working within constricted means, and this is exactly why the JVC HD cam is so exciting to him/her. Most of the guys/gals over at DV.com want a well balanced camera that can do it all, ENG, weddings, documentaries, and the occasional movie. However, the low budget indie movie maker (not the hobbyist) is use to squeezing water from a rock, and he/she actually loves to do so. So this is why you have some people excited about the JVC HD cam, while others see it as a mere junky starting point.

August 30th, 2003, 06:07 PM	#28
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Well we know this, but that doesn't answer my question. What I was getting at is MPEG2 may not be the best solution if it's intended for broadcast or intended for digital to film transfer. -->>> MPEG2 is the chosen format for broadcast. Digital Cable, DISH network, EchoStar, and any other DBS networks, and over-the-air HD broadcasts and DTV broadcasts are all MPEG2. MPEG2 is a scalable compression algorithm, so if you don't allocate enough bandwidth to it it'll look lousy, and if you give it enough, it'll do an incredible job. Regarding the JVC cam being embraced and loved by the low-budget filmmaker, that ignores the camera's biggest obstacle: the fact it shoots HD in 30P only, which is the single worst frame rate for transfer to film or to PAL for international distribution. Besides its other limitations, which can mostly be overcome, the 30P-only is a dealbreaker.

August 30th, 2003, 07:28 PM	#29
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Barry, when I said broadcast, I meant "normal broadcast"---like your normal everyday local network watched by the local masses. That would be NTSC, by the way...or PAL in PALsville. :)

August 30th, 2003, 09:16 PM	#30
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	>Regarding "low budget movie maker," and "low budget indie movie maker," I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean their intention is to make movies that end up on 35mm motion film, or TV?< Sorry for the inconsistency of words. What I simply mean by “low budget movie maker” and “indie movie maker” is any amateur movie maker who is devoting his life to launching a professional movie making career. That includes any movie medium such as theatrical, cable, or DVD (hopefully are three of these venues.)