What Is The Real Deal With This JVC HD Cam?? at DVinfo.net

Kevin A. Sturges · August 28th, 2003, 09:22 PM

Please throw me a line here. I'm a regular over in the DV.com camera forums. Mention this camera over there and you are immediatley scorned. Bring up the groundbreaking footage I've downloaded here, and it is either totally ignored, or you get a response something like, "yeah, but there wasn't enough fast camera panning to prove it actually works. Landscapes are a bad test of the camera. A PD150 would serve you better because it has more manual controls" and nothing else. It's like the crowd consensus has made up it's mind.

If I say I have a 16'9 HDTV with componant inputs that I would like to match a camera to, the conversation goes around in circles, but no one ever seems to actually know anything about it.

There is a definate mind-set there and I can't figure it out. You would think that people involved in a visual medium would be excited, or at least curious about this maybe 3 times leap in resolution (plus true 16/9 AND 30 fps progressive scan!) camera. Even if it is a single chip, the subtle difference in color response is a small negative compared to all the other groundbreaking features you are getting for the price. Nope, they don't want to hear anything about it, except scorn.

What am I missing here? I am at least very curious about this camera. For those of you who have it (and most of you like Steve Mullen sound like professionals)please tell me the truth once and for all - is it good, does it hold up compared to digital HD broadcast material on an HD monitor, or is it a "fake single chip microHD joke for rich people that outputs like VHS on an HD monitor"...

Yikes! What's a thinking person to do?? The simple truth please...

Ken Hodson · August 28th, 2003, 10:11 PM

Could someone please explain "extreme latitude limitations" in reference to this camera. It seems to be mentioned the most and I don't really understand.
Thanx

Don Donatello · August 28th, 2003, 10:12 PM

it's a hard camera to define at the moment.
it is the 1st consumer camera that takes us towards (affordable) HD.
the clips that i've seen from the camera are not consistant.
sometimes they are excellent , other times so-so.
i've notice that if the lighting is controlled ( studio) the clips tend to be very good. if lighting is NOT controlled ( general every buliding lighting ) they just don't stand out as i would think HD should. many clips that are posted tend not to be HD but SD off the HD files or they've been down converted to streaming files and that seems to be where the images falls apart if not done correctly. also many are NOT viewing on their computers at 1280x720 ..and most are viewing on SD TV's ...

it seems to be at present the fall down of this HD format is mpeg format. it can look very good off the original tape but once you have to render seems to pick up alot of artifacts. perhaps in time there will be better codec's that will address it.

i think it is a starting point. we get a camera that is native 16x9 , HD & SD. i not totally sure on this but i think the 30p (no 24p) was an agreement by several manufacturers for the consumer 720p market?

lets not forget that this is low end ( cheap ) HD camera when you consider that the next one up the ladder is 65K just for the body (85 -90K by the time you are ready to roll tape) .
just like you can't expect a $2500 dv camera to match a 60K digibeta camera we should not expect this camera to match the the sony 900 HD, varicam 27 or thompson viper.

Kevin A. Sturges · August 28th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Here's what I am thinking: if this camera is even CLOSE to a broadcast HD camera, the jump in resolution, (PLUS 16/9 with progressive scan) would be enough to get my skin tingling. Wouldn't other videographers be wondering about that too?When I think of what I could do with it, compared to the SD DV technology we've been stuck in for so long....

Please keep the input coming. I am starting to doubt myself for even being interested in this cam after some of the responses I've gotten. Hopefully I will be able to see it for myself somewhere near Milwaukee, WI on a real HD monitor, so I can make up my own mind for myself.

PS> I just discovered that JVC had their reps demo it for the Milwaukee Independent Film Society a few weeks ago, and I missed it. I heard that almost no one showed up!

From the discussions I've had, I feel like I am one of the only video guys in the world that actually owns an HDTV and has experienced direct digital HD broadcasts. One look at our locally produced "Outdoor Wisconsin" done with handheld HD cameras, and you are changed forever. It's mind-blowing!

It seems like most people on the forums are very content watching their video footage on the old familiar 21'' TV they bought in college. They're used to it, and that's it. They'd rather talk about and discuss the most minute technical improvements about this years' $4000 DV cam than even LOOK at an HD TV signal. Anything different and they get really upset and angry. You would think it would be just the opposite. I really just don't get it. Then again, I hate modern radio music, listen to classical and jazz, and enjoy reading and speculating about the crop circle phenomenon, and zero point energy theories....

Charles Papert · August 28th, 2003, 11:24 PM

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this camera, but from the limited footage I saw at NAB and what I've been reading, there's a fundamental issue with the device. It is designed essentially as a point-and-shoot device, yet it functions best under a controlled setting where logical manual controls are a requirement.

Shooting exteriors with digital video means jumping through hoops to control overexposure (and it is well-documented that this camera handles exposure no better and likely worse than the best of the SDV cameras). Yet it is not easy enough to adjust exposure on the fly. Likewise with follow focus, shutter speed etc.

My XL1s is finally getting the way I want it; with B&W viewfinder that I can trust for exposure if a monitor isn't available, with the 14x manual lens (didn't want the 16x because of the funky aperture control), decked out with mattebox and follow focus NOT because they look "cool", but because they are useful tools that get the job done. For me, that rotating mode dial has only three positions: off, manual and playback. That's my personal preference; it may not be anyone else's...but I know that even in a run and gun situation, I can precisely ride that iris with my index finger even as my ring finger and thumb are focusing as fast as I can spin the lens.

I think the HDV format is cool, and obviously the next step. I can't wait to see where Sony and Canon take this. Kudos to JVC for breaking through first, just as they did with S-VHS (and even VHS!). But I just don't hear people raving about, for instance, the DV5000 camera. In a blink of an eye, the HD10U is going to be eclipsed by some serious competition, designed from the bottom up with a feature set for DV filmmaking--not videography.

Brad Hawkins · August 28th, 2003, 11:52 PM

I think that most people who oppose this camera are basically afraid of change. They champion DV because they know how to use it and they probably have thousands of dollars invested in their equipment, and they don't like the idea of having to make a major change in order to stay on the (prosumer) cutting edge.

Right now things are confusing with HDV, but soon the standards will be set and it will be as easy to shoot and edit as DV. For example, right now you have to drop at least an additional $2000 (for Aspect HD and Premiere Pro) if you want to be able to realistically edit, and that is only an option for PC users, Mac users currently have no (real-time editing) solution, but perhaps with the introduction of Apple's new Pixlet codec (to be included with the release of 10.3) it might be possible to edit HDV in FCP in real-time. But honestly only time will tell if that prediction is correct.

Sure the camera has its limitations, but in many ways it is far superior to DV. If editing and compatability were the same as DV (which it will be) I think that all of those snubbing their noses at the camera would secretly jump at the chance to own this camera if someone was willing to trade them out for their old equipment. In other words, I don't believe that people are really opposed to the image quality, but rather they are simply opposed to change. Honestly, if I had just bought a DVX100 I would be upset about this new format and I would probably do whatever I needed to convince myself that the camera I just purchased was still the best option for Indie filmmakers. However, the timing just happened to work out for me and I was between cameras when the HD10 was released, and I decided to take leap into this new format.

No this format is not the equivelent to the $100k hollywood cameras, but it is amazing what you can get for $3000. It is inevitable that someone will use this camera to make a feature that gets released in theaters across the nation, it could be anyone, but it will happen, and then perhaps some of these naysayers will be hushed. But I doubt it, they'll probably find some angle to argue for DV.

In the end you're the only one that can decide if the camera is right for you, but I hope my thoughts can help you in some way.

Brad

Frank Granovski · August 29th, 2003, 01:48 AM

These MPEG2 cams have a purpose. The purpose is to fill the growing nich market of the new---new age yuppies who want wide screen now, and for JVC to make money. It is not a broadcast cam. It is not intended nor designed for film transfers. It's a 1 CCD MPEG2 wide screen cam. If that's what someone wants today, like right now, well, here they are---all 2 of them. These 2 cams are not meant to replace higher resolution/lower compression DV. It's a neat cam for those who want wide screen today (like right now). What's so difficult to understand about this? :)

Steve Mullen · August 29th, 2003, 02:09 AM

When I reviewed the VX1000 for Video Systems, the response inside and outside was much like Brad reports. Why should we cover CONSUMER products? NO WAY could this COMSUMER product replace $25K BataSP camcorders! No way could CONSUMER DV replace 1/2" formats!

Well BetaSP is dead. And, despite Sony and Panasonic claiming you MUST have DVCAM or DVCPRO25 to do PRO work -- Sony now allows you to select either DV or DVCAM while Panasonic now has a full line of DV25 products.

And, JVC which hated everything but Digital-S, now has no Digital-S and survives on DV25.

Likewise, when I mentioned on the Avid list that DV50 would be supported by FCP via 1394 eliminating SDI, it went nuts. Now where are those $$$ Media Composers?

This reaction is, therefore, predictable. But it's not the pros who are paniced. They will wait until the PRO HD products come down in price.

It's the small guys who saved-up for a VX2000 or XL1S. It's the vast education market that just converted from analog to DV. It's those who have invested their last pennies on a hot R-T NLE for DV25.

And, it's not the JVC camcorder. The JVC is hard enough to use that many won't bother. Point-and-shooters can't use the JVC. Only filmmakers need apply.

It's the format, not the camcorder.

Perhaps that's why Panasonic, with it's hot -- and wonderful -- DVX100, has not joined the HDV group.

Despite the negative reactions, the JVC camcorders are selling well. A major rental house in Hollywood has pre-ordered a quantity of my 4HDV package because they have sold so many HD10's to FCP users. One major film studio just bought a dozen HD10s.

Oh, and by the way, you can edit in real-time with FCP with 4HDV.

Kevin A. Sturges · August 29th, 2003, 02:52 AM

So it's true then that the JVC GR-HD1/JY-HD10 records in LESS resolution than a DV camera? It simply records a lower resolution picture in widescreen?

Frank Granovski · August 29th, 2003, 03:02 AM

Recording is usually higher res than playback with a cam. MPEG2 playback is 480 max. However, if higher resolution was recorded, it would reflect on the quality of the footage. The 1's and 0's would be more accurately placed on the storage media.

John Eriksson · August 29th, 2003, 05:28 AM

There is a bunch of it going on here right now.. What are you saying? That the JVC -High Definition- GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U -camcorders are NOT really offering HIGH DEFINITION? Is there any truth about this? Or is it just hoopla? The high resulution is the ONLY argument for this camera, and belive me it is a STRONG argument. I have been saying this before: I hate the DV´s LOW resulution and I am about to by the JY-HD10U to solve my problem. But if it is FAKE in somehow, I like to know about it! Does anybody know something about this "records in LESS resolution than a DV camera" -stuff?

Frank Granovski · August 29th, 2003, 05:42 AM

Quote:

What are you saying?

I'm saying that " Recording is usually higher res than playback with a cam. MPEG2 playback is 480 max. However, if higher resolution was recorded, it would reflect on the quality of the footage. The 1's and 0's would be more accurately placed on the storage media."

Quote:

That the JVC -High definition- GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U -camcorders are NOT really offering HIGH DEFINITION?

There are, what, 15 or so different HD standards?

Quote:

The high resulution is the ONLY argument for this camera, and belive me it is a STRONG argument.

DV plays back a max of 540 lines; MPEG2 plays back a maximum of 480 lines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

John Eriksson · August 29th, 2003, 06:03 AM

I cannot correct you, cause I just don´t know.
The only thing I want is a REAL 1280*720 res.
*And I am sorry if you took my latest post as a personal insult that was not my intention, I was more like a shout-out to all who is reading on this thread.
...I just want to konw, I dont want to spend my money on the wrong product!

Ken Hodson · August 29th, 2003, 06:09 AM

MPEG2 is simply a recording compression, not a set resolution broadcast standard, limited by resolution. Why do you think it is limited to 480 lines?
There are digital cable TV that is mpeg2 compressed and delivered at that resolution. But that does not mean all mpeg2 content is such.
The resolution this camera affords is simply fantastic. Nothing touches it for another $50,000!

Glenn Gipson · August 29th, 2003, 06:37 AM

John, sorry I can't give you a technical answer, but I've seen the HD1 in person, and it is HD. No DV camera can do (detail wise) what this camera does on a large screen.

August 28th, 2003, 09:22 PM	#1
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	What Is The Real Deal With This JVC HD Cam?? Please throw me a line here. I'm a regular over in the DV.com camera forums. Mention this camera over there and you are immediatley scorned. Bring up the groundbreaking footage I've downloaded here, and it is either totally ignored, or you get a response something like, "yeah, but there wasn't enough fast camera panning to prove it actually works. Landscapes are a bad test of the camera. A PD150 would serve you better because it has more manual controls" and nothing else. It's like the crowd consensus has made up it's mind. If I say I have a 16'9 HDTV with componant inputs that I would like to match a camera to, the conversation goes around in circles, but no one ever seems to actually know anything about it. There is a definate mind-set there and I can't figure it out. You would think that people involved in a visual medium would be excited, or at least curious about this maybe 3 times leap in resolution (plus true 16/9 AND 30 fps progressive scan!) camera. Even if it is a single chip, the subtle difference in color response is a small negative compared to all the other groundbreaking features you are getting for the price. Nope, they don't want to hear anything about it, except scorn. What am I missing here? I am at least very curious about this camera. For those of you who have it (and most of you like Steve Mullen sound like professionals)please tell me the truth once and for all - is it good, does it hold up compared to digital HD broadcast material on an HD monitor, or is it a "fake single chip microHD joke for rich people that outputs like VHS on an HD monitor"... Yikes! What's a thinking person to do?? The simple truth please...

August 28th, 2003, 10:11 PM	#2
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Could someone please explain "extreme latitude limitations" in reference to this camera. It seems to be mentioned the most and I don't really understand. Thanx __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 28th, 2003, 11:24 PM	#5
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I'm trying to keep an open mind about this camera, but from the limited footage I saw at NAB and what I've been reading, there's a fundamental issue with the device. It is designed essentially as a point-and-shoot device, yet it functions best under a controlled setting where logical manual controls are a requirement. Shooting exteriors with digital video means jumping through hoops to control overexposure (and it is well-documented that this camera handles exposure no better and likely worse than the best of the SDV cameras). Yet it is not easy enough to adjust exposure on the fly. Likewise with follow focus, shutter speed etc. My XL1s is finally getting the way I want it; with B&W viewfinder that I can trust for exposure if a monitor isn't available, with the 14x manual lens (didn't want the 16x because of the funky aperture control), decked out with mattebox and follow focus NOT because they look "cool", but because they are useful tools that get the job done. For me, that rotating mode dial has only three positions: off, manual and playback. That's my personal preference; it may not be anyone else's...but I know that even in a run and gun situation, I can precisely ride that iris with my index finger even as my ring finger and thumb are focusing as fast as I can spin the lens. I think the HDV format is cool, and obviously the next step. I can't wait to see where Sony and Canon take this. Kudos to JVC for breaking through first, just as they did with S-VHS (and even VHS!). But I just don't hear people raving about, for instance, the DV5000 camera. In a blink of an eye, the HD10U is going to be eclipsed by some serious competition, designed from the bottom up with a feature set for DV filmmaking--not videography. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 29th, 2003, 02:09 AM	#8
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	When I reviewed the VX1000 for Video Systems, the response inside and outside was much like Brad reports. Why should we cover CONSUMER products? NO WAY could this COMSUMER product replace $25K BataSP camcorders! No way could CONSUMER DV replace 1/2" formats! Well BetaSP is dead. And, despite Sony and Panasonic claiming you MUST have DVCAM or DVCPRO25 to do PRO work -- Sony now allows you to select either DV or DVCAM while Panasonic now has a full line of DV25 products. And, JVC which hated everything but Digital-S, now has no Digital-S and survives on DV25. Likewise, when I mentioned on the Avid list that DV50 would be supported by FCP via 1394 eliminating SDI, it went nuts. Now where are those $$$ Media Composers? This reaction is, therefore, predictable. But it's not the pros who are paniced. They will wait until the PRO HD products come down in price. It's the small guys who saved-up for a VX2000 or XL1S. It's the vast education market that just converted from analog to DV. It's those who have invested their last pennies on a hot R-T NLE for DV25. And, it's not the JVC camcorder. The JVC is hard enough to use that many won't bother. Point-and-shooters can't use the JVC. Only filmmakers need apply. It's the format, not the camcorder. Perhaps that's why Panasonic, with it's hot -- and wonderful -- DVX100, has not joined the HDV group. Despite the negative reactions, the JVC camcorders are selling well. A major rental house in Hollywood has pre-ordered a quantity of my 4HDV package because they have sold so many HD10's to FCP users. One major film studio just bought a dozen HD10s. Oh, and by the way, you can edit in real-time with FCP with 4HDV. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

August 29th, 2003, 05:28 AM	#11
John Eriksson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 57	What are you saying? There is a bunch of it going on here right now.. What are you saying? That the JVC -High Definition- GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U -camcorders are NOT really offering HIGH DEFINITION? Is there any truth about this? Or is it just hoopla? The high resulution is the ONLY argument for this camera, and belive me it is a STRONG argument. I have been saying this before: I hate the DV´s LOW resulution and I am about to by the JY-HD10U to solve my problem. But if it is FAKE in somehow, I like to know about it! Does anybody know something about this "records in LESS resolution than a DV camera" -stuff?

August 28th, 2003, 10:12 PM	#3
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	it's a hard camera to define at the moment. it is the 1st consumer camera that takes us towards (affordable) HD. the clips that i've seen from the camera are not consistant. sometimes they are excellent , other times so-so. i've notice that if the lighting is controlled ( studio) the clips tend to be very good. if lighting is NOT controlled ( general every buliding lighting ) they just don't stand out as i would think HD should. many clips that are posted tend not to be HD but SD off the HD files or they've been down converted to streaming files and that seems to be where the images falls apart if not done correctly. also many are NOT viewing on their computers at 1280x720 ..and most are viewing on SD TV's ... it seems to be at present the fall down of this HD format is mpeg format. it can look very good off the original tape but once you have to render seems to pick up alot of artifacts. perhaps in time there will be better codec's that will address it. i think it is a starting point. we get a camera that is native 16x9 , HD & SD. i not totally sure on this but i think the 30p (no 24p) was an agreement by several manufacturers for the consumer 720p market? lets not forget that this is low end ( cheap ) HD camera when you consider that the next one up the ladder is 65K just for the body (85 -90K by the time you are ready to roll tape) . just like you can't expect a $2500 dv camera to match a 60K digibeta camera we should not expect this camera to match the the sony 900 HD, varicam 27 or thompson viper.

August 28th, 2003, 10:43 PM	#4
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	Here's what I am thinking: if this camera is even CLOSE to a broadcast HD camera, the jump in resolution, (PLUS 16/9 with progressive scan) would be enough to get my skin tingling. Wouldn't other videographers be wondering about that too?When I think of what I could do with it, compared to the SD DV technology we've been stuck in for so long.... Please keep the input coming. I am starting to doubt myself for even being interested in this cam after some of the responses I've gotten. Hopefully I will be able to see it for myself somewhere near Milwaukee, WI on a real HD monitor, so I can make up my own mind for myself. PS> I just discovered that JVC had their reps demo it for the Milwaukee Independent Film Society a few weeks ago, and I missed it. I heard that almost no one showed up! From the discussions I've had, I feel like I am one of the only video guys in the world that actually owns an HDTV and has experienced direct digital HD broadcasts. One look at our locally produced "Outdoor Wisconsin" done with handheld HD cameras, and you are changed forever. It's mind-blowing! It seems like most people on the forums are very content watching their video footage on the old familiar 21'' TV they bought in college. They're used to it, and that's it. They'd rather talk about and discuss the most minute technical improvements about this years' $4000 DV cam than even LOOK at an HD TV signal. Anything different and they get really upset and angry. You would think it would be just the opposite. I really just don't get it. Then again, I hate modern radio music, listen to classical and jazz, and enjoy reading and speculating about the crop circle phenomenon, and zero point energy theories....

August 28th, 2003, 11:52 PM	#6
Brad Hawkins Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Edmond, OK Posts: 38	I think that most people who oppose this camera are basically afraid of change. They champion DV because they know how to use it and they probably have thousands of dollars invested in their equipment, and they don't like the idea of having to make a major change in order to stay on the (prosumer) cutting edge. Right now things are confusing with HDV, but soon the standards will be set and it will be as easy to shoot and edit as DV. For example, right now you have to drop at least an additional $2000 (for Aspect HD and Premiere Pro) if you want to be able to realistically edit, and that is only an option for PC users, Mac users currently have no (real-time editing) solution, but perhaps with the introduction of Apple's new Pixlet codec (to be included with the release of 10.3) it might be possible to edit HDV in FCP in real-time. But honestly only time will tell if that prediction is correct. Sure the camera has its limitations, but in many ways it is far superior to DV. If editing and compatability were the same as DV (which it will be) I think that all of those snubbing their noses at the camera would secretly jump at the chance to own this camera if someone was willing to trade them out for their old equipment. In other words, I don't believe that people are really opposed to the image quality, but rather they are simply opposed to change. Honestly, if I had just bought a DVX100 I would be upset about this new format and I would probably do whatever I needed to convince myself that the camera I just purchased was still the best option for Indie filmmakers. However, the timing just happened to work out for me and I was between cameras when the HD10 was released, and I decided to take leap into this new format. No this format is not the equivelent to the $100k hollywood cameras, but it is amazing what you can get for $3000. It is inevitable that someone will use this camera to make a feature that gets released in theaters across the nation, it could be anyone, but it will happen, and then perhaps some of these naysayers will be hushed. But I doubt it, they'll probably find some angle to argue for DV. In the end you're the only one that can decide if the camera is right for you, but I hope my thoughts can help you in some way. Brad

August 29th, 2003, 01:48 AM	#7
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	These MPEG2 cams have a purpose. The purpose is to fill the growing nich market of the new---new age yuppies who want wide screen now, and for JVC to make money. It is not a broadcast cam. It is not intended nor designed for film transfers. It's a 1 CCD MPEG2 wide screen cam. If that's what someone wants today, like right now, well, here they are---all 2 of them. These 2 cams are not meant to replace higher resolution/lower compression DV. It's a neat cam for those who want wide screen today (like right now). What's so difficult to understand about this? :)

August 29th, 2003, 02:52 AM	#9
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	So it's true then that the JVC GR-HD1/JY-HD10 records in LESS resolution than a DV camera? It simply records a lower resolution picture in widescreen?

August 29th, 2003, 03:02 AM	#10
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Recording is usually higher res than playback with a cam. MPEG2 playback is 480 max. However, if higher resolution was recorded, it would reflect on the quality of the footage. The 1's and 0's would be more accurately placed on the storage media.

August 29th, 2003, 06:03 AM	#13
John Eriksson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 57	I can´t! I cannot correct you, cause I just don´t know. The only thing I want is a REAL 1280720 res. And I am sorry if you took my latest post as a personal insult that was not my intention, I was more like a shout-out to all who is reading on this thread. ...I just want to konw, I dont want to spend my money on the wrong product!

August 29th, 2003, 06:09 AM	#14
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	MPEG2 is simply a recording compression, not a set resolution broadcast standard, limited by resolution. Why do you think it is limited to 480 lines? There are digital cable TV that is mpeg2 compressed and delivered at that resolution. But that does not mean all mpeg2 content is such. The resolution this camera affords is simply fantastic. Nothing touches it for another $50,000! __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

August 29th, 2003, 06:37 AM	#15
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	John, sorry I can't give you a technical answer, but I've seen the HD1 in person, and it is HD. No DV camera can do (detail wise) what this camera does on a large screen.