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

Kevin A. Sturges · August 30th, 2003, 09:18 PM

Haven't there been a lot of films that were transfered after being shot in 30fps DV? That must not have been such a big issue if they are doing it already. Isn't CinneMotion for After Effects just one of the competant solutions?

Ken Hodson · August 30th, 2003, 09:25 PM

30p is not an obstacle in this day and age. Many theaters especially at film festivals have digital projectors. An idie film maker has a far greater chance of selling his film direct to cable distribution, or distribution on DVD. The amount of films made on video that make money once transfered to film are next to none. The future is cable, DVD, web and digital projectors. Anyone dreaming of wide distribution on film from this camera or even worse a DV 24p panasonic, has extreem expectations.

Frank Granovski · August 30th, 2003, 09:36 PM

Thanks, Glenn, for clarifing that. A "movie maker" and "indie movie maker" mean different things to different people. It's like the term, "film look," or using the word, "quality." Examples: "I want to get the film look." When I read this, I wonder, which film look? "I want to buy a quality cam." Well, how much quality? What kind of quality? What price range? What do you want the cam for? Manual controls? For use with a tripod? etc etc.

Brad Hawkins · August 30th, 2003, 09:53 PM

I agree with Ken. There are numerous options available now to have your work shown other than the old standard of transfering to film. The number of theaters projecting digitally is growing all the time and more importantly many of the larger film festivals (Sundance for example) are offering digital projection as well. Transfering to film should not be a concern for anyone shooting with this camera because the odds of that happening are extreme, and if by chance the film does get picked up by a studio for wide release then the complications of transfer will be handled by whatever studio picks up the picture. I say shoot all you want and try to get your stuff shown digitally wherever possible and worry about the transfer to film when that actually becomes relevant.

Glenn Gipson · August 31st, 2003, 04:17 AM

Barry is somewhat right, 30p is a major con for this camera. Transfer houses recommend 60i, not 30p, for 35mm film transfers. For those whom don’t know, please don’t confuse 60i with 30p. And the PAL market would probably not be an option when using this cam either. But I agree with Ken and Brad (more so), a movie maker who is just starting out really shouldn’t hope for world wide domination, and so for them, 30p is just fine. After all, more people will see your movie on HBO and SHOWTIME as opposed to a limited release in some back alley indie theater.

Tommy Haupfear · August 31st, 2003, 06:21 AM

Kevin, I wish I could have found this thread earlier.

I only give you a hard time about your TV because you reference it so much. There is nothing wrong with your 38" RCA HDTV other than its lack of native 720p support, unacceptable dot pitch, and bubbled screen.

Thats also the weirdest story about your father but the lack of a positive male role model definitely explains the multiple cats. :) j/k

As for the JVC cam..

I'd like to put a word in about all the cry babies out there thinking that anyone who shuns this breakthrough cam is just doing so because they are afraid of change..

I haven't used an analog TV since 1998 and left 4:3 sets in 2000. I don't have a problem with change. I recently bought my sixth HD set and as much as I wanted a HD cam to compliment it didn't pan out when I saw the footage and the shortcomings of this cam. I hear the posts all day long but we've all been subject to blind brand loyalty (especially post purchase). So that leaves me extremely excited that HD is being introduced into the consumer realm but I'll be waiting for second generation and perhaps a 1080p set to go along with it.

Why can't someone not like the JVC HD cam for no other reason than it sucks? (my opinion of course)

Glenn Gipson · August 31st, 2003, 07:48 AM

>>Why can't someone not like the JVC HD cam for no other reason than it sucks?<<

Because what’s bad for you isn’t necessarily bad for everyone. IMO, if one truly believes that a camera is merely a tool, then one can not make a statement that the JVC camera is simply worthless. If Hitchcock or Kurbick had to use this camera they would make a better movie then an amateur with a 65mm film camera. How about just saying that the camera sucks for YOU, and not for everyone? Or maybe this is what you're saying?

Tommy Haupfear · August 31st, 2003, 08:08 AM

Glenn, the point I was trying to make is that when someone dislikes this cam its always chalked up as they are narrow minded and resisting change.

Its almost like the proponents of this cam are constantly trying to justify it to themselves and label those who have a different take as bashers.

I guess I should quit chumming the water while in JVC HD territory. :)

Brad Hawkins · August 31st, 2003, 09:10 AM

Tommy, Your point is well taken. However, I think that many users in this forum would agree that most of the people who oppose this camera have not given it a chance like you have. It sounds like you know your stuff about HD and therefore have given the camera a legitimate chance and your seeming acceptance of the HDV format is also much more than most are willing to concede. For example, I think one of the most annoying arguments that continually pops up is that the MPEG compression is too limiting, some even argue that it is incapable of resolutions above 480. These arguements are inaccurate and just plain frustrating, and I think that is what leads us to take the stance that we do.

Ken Hodson · August 31st, 2003, 10:36 AM

Most of us here that like the camera are indie film makers. If you could name another camera in the $3000 range that you think doesn't suck. And give us the choice of what to make our indie film on. I think %100 would take the JVC. Not because of brand loyalty, but because all other cameras in that $ range suck in comparison, for what we want to do.

Tommy Haupfear · August 31st, 2003, 11:09 AM

I guess I'm not in touch with the indie film makers but interested in what you have to say.

Why don't you guys like the DVX100? I think it would be a stellar cam if it had 16:9 like my PDX10. Of course Century Optics is about on unveil a supposedly excellent anamorphic adapter for the DVX100.

Glenn Gipson · August 31st, 2003, 11:39 AM

Tommy, I think the camera you have, the PDX10, is awesome. The only thing is, I would have to use something like Magic Bullet to make it 25p or 24p, and I’m starting to hear complaints about Magic Bullet causing artifacts (not to mention the fact that is cuts down on resolution.) The DVX 100 is a great camera, but then us resolution freaks would have to cut the resolution on the DVX 100 even further to use it in 16:9. And if we use an Anamorphic adapter then the DVX 100 becomes almost as crippled as the HD10. Focus is a b#tch, the zoom range is limited, and no filters can be used with the Anamorphic adapter. But all these cams have their pros and cons, as everyone knows. I just really want a true 16:9 25p or 24p cam (under $4k), something like the GR-PD1. In all honesty though, the 30p only feature of the HD10 does bugs me.

Darren Kelly · August 31st, 2003, 12:08 PM

I've noticed the majority of the people who are comenting on the camera, don't own the camera.

Perhaps it would clarify things if when folks posted they identified whether they own the camera or not.

it would lend some credibility to the discussions.

DBK

(I don't own one yet, but hope to next week)

Boyd Ostroff · August 31st, 2003, 12:38 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Tommy, I think the camera you have, the PDX10, is awesome. The only thing is, I would have to use something like Magic Bullet to make it 25p or 24p -->>>

I'm using a PDX-10 for a project that will be digitally projected, and have been processing the footage with DVFilm Maker, an inexpensive standalone application that deinterlaces and converts to 30p (or 25p for PAL). The same company also does 35mm transfers. Their software tries to perserve as much resolution as possible when deinterlacing.

I don't own a JVC camera, but have been following it with interest. I could afford one today, but it just sounds a little too rough around the edges. I look forward to a time in the near future when there will be more mature products and a choice of vendors supporting the HDV format. In the meantime, you early adopters are blazing the trail that the rest of us will follow someday.

Frank Granovski · August 31st, 2003, 12:41 PM

I don't own this JVC nor have any intention of buying one in the near future. But I am interested in how people are going to use it. Personally, I don't need MPEG2 at this time, and I think that the cost of these 2 models are grossly overpriced. But I also feel that this cam may be just the ticket for some folks; and regarding its price, well, at the moment, it's the only choice in town in way of MPEG2 HD. Yes, I can see the logic with going this JVC route. But as for its use for broadcast and film transfers, no, I don't think these are logical. I believe JVC is testing the waters, and they'll be new models coming in the near future.

One important point I'd like to make is that I see this cam as being a tool for shooting weddings---especially for shooting without the intention of editing, and slapping it directly to a disk. And weddings my friends puts bread and butter on the table. With shooting 2 weddings, the income can easily pay the the cost of one of these cams, and then some, at least here in Vancouver.

August 30th, 2003, 09:25 PM	#32
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	30p is not an obstacle in this day and age. Many theaters especially at film festivals have digital projectors. An idie film maker has a far greater chance of selling his film direct to cable distribution, or distribution on DVD. The amount of films made on video that make money once transfered to film are next to none. The future is cable, DVD, web and digital projectors. Anyone dreaming of wide distribution on film from this camera or even worse a DV 24p panasonic, has extreem expectations. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 31st, 2003, 10:36 AM	#40
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Most of us here that like the camera are indie film makers. If you could name another camera in the $3000 range that you think doesn't suck. And give us the choice of what to make our indie film on. I think %100 would take the JVC. Not because of brand loyalty, but because all other cameras in that $ range suck in comparison, for what we want to do. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 30th, 2003, 09:18 PM	#31
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	Haven't there been a lot of films that were transfered after being shot in 30fps DV? That must not have been such a big issue if they are doing it already. Isn't CinneMotion for After Effects just one of the competant solutions?

August 30th, 2003, 09:36 PM	#33
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks, Glenn, for clarifing that. A "movie maker" and "indie movie maker" mean different things to different people. It's like the term, "film look," or using the word, "quality." Examples: "I want to get the film look." When I read this, I wonder, which film look? "I want to buy a quality cam." Well, how much quality? What kind of quality? What price range? What do you want the cam for? Manual controls? For use with a tripod? etc etc.

August 30th, 2003, 09:53 PM	#34
Brad Hawkins Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Edmond, OK Posts: 38	I agree with Ken. There are numerous options available now to have your work shown other than the old standard of transfering to film. The number of theaters projecting digitally is growing all the time and more importantly many of the larger film festivals (Sundance for example) are offering digital projection as well. Transfering to film should not be a concern for anyone shooting with this camera because the odds of that happening are extreme, and if by chance the film does get picked up by a studio for wide release then the complications of transfer will be handled by whatever studio picks up the picture. I say shoot all you want and try to get your stuff shown digitally wherever possible and worry about the transfer to film when that actually becomes relevant.

August 31st, 2003, 04:17 AM	#35
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Barry is somewhat right, 30p is a major con for this camera. Transfer houses recommend 60i, not 30p, for 35mm film transfers. For those whom don’t know, please don’t confuse 60i with 30p. And the PAL market would probably not be an option when using this cam either. But I agree with Ken and Brad (more so), a movie maker who is just starting out really shouldn’t hope for world wide domination, and so for them, 30p is just fine. After all, more people will see your movie on HBO and SHOWTIME as opposed to a limited release in some back alley indie theater.

August 31st, 2003, 06:21 AM	#36
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Kevin, I wish I could have found this thread earlier. I only give you a hard time about your TV because you reference it so much. There is nothing wrong with your 38" RCA HDTV other than its lack of native 720p support, unacceptable dot pitch, and bubbled screen. Thats also the weirdest story about your father but the lack of a positive male role model definitely explains the multiple cats. :) j/k As for the JVC cam.. I'd like to put a word in about all the cry babies out there thinking that anyone who shuns this breakthrough cam is just doing so because they are afraid of change.. I haven't used an analog TV since 1998 and left 4:3 sets in 2000. I don't have a problem with change. I recently bought my sixth HD set and as much as I wanted a HD cam to compliment it didn't pan out when I saw the footage and the shortcomings of this cam. I hear the posts all day long but we've all been subject to blind brand loyalty (especially post purchase). So that leaves me extremely excited that HD is being introduced into the consumer realm but I'll be waiting for second generation and perhaps a 1080p set to go along with it. Why can't someone not like the JVC HD cam for no other reason than it sucks? (my opinion of course)

August 31st, 2003, 07:48 AM	#37
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	>>Why can't someone not like the JVC HD cam for no other reason than it sucks?<< Because what’s bad for you isn’t necessarily bad for everyone. IMO, if one truly believes that a camera is merely a tool, then one can not make a statement that the JVC camera is simply worthless. If Hitchcock or Kurbick had to use this camera they would make a better movie then an amateur with a 65mm film camera. How about just saying that the camera sucks for YOU, and not for everyone? Or maybe this is what you're saying?

August 31st, 2003, 08:08 AM	#38
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Glenn, the point I was trying to make is that when someone dislikes this cam its always chalked up as they are narrow minded and resisting change. Its almost like the proponents of this cam are constantly trying to justify it to themselves and label those who have a different take as bashers. I guess I should quit chumming the water while in JVC HD territory. :)

August 31st, 2003, 09:10 AM	#39
Brad Hawkins Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Edmond, OK Posts: 38	Tommy, Your point is well taken. However, I think that many users in this forum would agree that most of the people who oppose this camera have not given it a chance like you have. It sounds like you know your stuff about HD and therefore have given the camera a legitimate chance and your seeming acceptance of the HDV format is also much more than most are willing to concede. For example, I think one of the most annoying arguments that continually pops up is that the MPEG compression is too limiting, some even argue that it is incapable of resolutions above 480. These arguements are inaccurate and just plain frustrating, and I think that is what leads us to take the stance that we do.

August 31st, 2003, 11:09 AM	#41
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I guess I'm not in touch with the indie film makers but interested in what you have to say. Why don't you guys like the DVX100? I think it would be a stellar cam if it had 16:9 like my PDX10. Of course Century Optics is about on unveil a supposedly excellent anamorphic adapter for the DVX100.

August 31st, 2003, 11:39 AM	#42
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Tommy, I think the camera you have, the PDX10, is awesome. The only thing is, I would have to use something like Magic Bullet to make it 25p or 24p, and I’m starting to hear complaints about Magic Bullet causing artifacts (not to mention the fact that is cuts down on resolution.) The DVX 100 is a great camera, but then us resolution freaks would have to cut the resolution on the DVX 100 even further to use it in 16:9. And if we use an Anamorphic adapter then the DVX 100 becomes almost as crippled as the HD10. Focus is a b#tch, the zoom range is limited, and no filters can be used with the Anamorphic adapter. But all these cams have their pros and cons, as everyone knows. I just really want a true 16:9 25p or 24p cam (under $4k), something like the GR-PD1. In all honesty though, the 30p only feature of the HD10 does bugs me.

August 31st, 2003, 12:08 PM	#43
Darren Kelly Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 351	I've noticed the majority of the people who are comenting on the camera, don't own the camera. Perhaps it would clarify things if when folks posted they identified whether they own the camera or not. it would lend some credibility to the discussions. DBK (I don't own one yet, but hope to next week)

August 31st, 2003, 12:38 PM	#44
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Tommy, I think the camera you have, the PDX10, is awesome. The only thing is, I would have to use something like Magic Bullet to make it 25p or 24p -->>> I'm using a PDX-10 for a project that will be digitally projected, and have been processing the footage with DVFilm Maker, an inexpensive standalone application that deinterlaces and converts to 30p (or 25p for PAL). The same company also does 35mm transfers. Their software tries to perserve as much resolution as possible when deinterlacing. I don't own a JVC camera, but have been following it with interest. I could afford one today, but it just sounds a little too rough around the edges. I look forward to a time in the near future when there will be more mature products and a choice of vendors supporting the HDV format. In the meantime, you early adopters are blazing the trail that the rest of us will follow someday.

August 31st, 2003, 12:41 PM	#45
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I don't own this JVC nor have any intention of buying one in the near future. But I am interested in how people are going to use it. Personally, I don't need MPEG2 at this time, and I think that the cost of these 2 models are grossly overpriced. But I also feel that this cam may be just the ticket for some folks; and regarding its price, well, at the moment, it's the only choice in town in way of MPEG2 HD. Yes, I can see the logic with going this JVC route. But as for its use for broadcast and film transfers, no, I don't think these are logical. I believe JVC is testing the waters, and they'll be new models coming in the near future. One important point I'd like to make is that I see this cam as being a tool for shooting weddings---especially for shooting without the intention of editing, and slapping it directly to a disk. And weddings my friends puts bread and butter on the table. With shooting 2 weddings, the income can easily pay the the cost of one of these cams, and then some, at least here in Vancouver.