Is $20,000 affordable?

[Barry Green]

I expect the HDV5000U to be $10k as well. If it's $20,000, like I said, it will look grossly overpriced and like market gouging. But still 1/3 the cost of the next-least-expensive pro HD camera, so still it could be viewed as a screaming bargain, it's all in the eyes of the beholder/buyer.

But, as far as I know there hasn't been a press release or any official statement from JVC as to a) whether the camera will actually exist, and b) what it will cost. There's been some mention of somebody supposedly from JVC, who floated a trial balloon about price, but no mention as to whether it would be 1/3", 2/3", based on the DV500, anything. It might be an HDV version of their excellent Digital-S lineup, which would definitely make it worth more than an HDV5000.

But there's no press release that I know of, no factual statement that I know of, no actual announcement yet.

So we are, as Lynne said, engaging in idle chit-chat until next week... :)

[Betsy Moore]

What's the exact date of the convention? When will we put out of our JVC/Sony mystery?

[Lynne Whelden]

April 17-22

[Barry Green]

But will the mystery end then? Who knows? On Sony's web site they have an NAB preview and they list a lot of products that they'll be introducing. But none of them are an HDV camera. Are they not showing it? Or are they just planning on "surprising" us, even though everyone's been reading about it for a month...

This wacky world will continue to turn. Other than that, there's no guarantees.

[Mark Jervis]

I have been watching this thread and have to put in my 2 cents now. For all those wondering if this is going to be a 1/2 or 2/3" camera, look at how many people complain that their 1/2" lens is not good enough for SD resolution and imagine throwing that on a camera with almost 3 times the quality. The only way a 1/2" lens would work with an HDV camera would be if canon/fuji, etc. came out with a lens specifically for the HDV camera. Unfortunately that won't happen for a while if ever. Our only solution at this point in time is to use a 2/3" HD lens made by canon or fuji. Those start in the upper single thousands and into the low tens. There is no such thing as a cheap HD lens. Now, if you take into account that JVC might be able to work deals with Fuji as they did with the DV500, 5000, etc.. they could probably sell a HDV camera for around 20k packaged with the cheapest "relative term" HD lens on the market. Then again, if the camera itself is 20k you are looking at another 10k for a lens. As stated by many others, that may seem like alot to prosumers, but when you consider that you can have a 20k HDV camera that is at least comparable to a 63k Varicam, that 20k doesn't seem like a whole lot. If JVC decides to add 24p to this camera then you will definitely see alot of people, including myself, buying one of these and being very happy with their purchase.

[Joe Carney]

JVC already has 2 cams with 2/3 inch chips. The dv700 and the dy90W. IF they can come out with 2/3 progressive 480p or 720p for 20K, and it supports 4:2:2 color (not HDV 4:1:1) it will be a bargain compared to other pro rigs. If it's an upgrade to the 700 and is HDV only, well, have to wait and see.

[Barry Green]

Minor correction, HDV isn't 4:1:1, it's 4:2:0.

[Lynne Whelden]

You know, JVC's always had a "cheap" version of HD on the market. The very first HD demonstration I saw was back in the early 90s in NYC at an Expo. I don't remember the model # but it was some sort of analog camera and tape system aimed mainly at medical markets. So who knows, maybe they'll borrow from that technology.... at least for a cheaper lens to put on this new version. That camera was marketed for around $40,000 when everyone else was $100,000 or more.

[Michael Struthers]

If JVC's cam is priced at 15 -20k it's because it will be allowing great lenses and WON'T be using mpeg2 compression. I hope.

I can see the Sony kicking everyone's ass at 5k untill panny drops 3 HD chips into the SDX or the DVX.

This is almost like waiting for Christmas, adult version ;-)

[Heath McKnight]

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Struthers : If JVC's cam is priced at 15 -20k it's because it will be allowing great lenses and WON'T be using mpeg2 compression. I hope -->>>

It's HDV, which is mpeg2.

heath

[Michael Struthers]

Hmmm you're right. Guess we'll have to wait to see how it looks.

You can get an Aaton A minima for 17k, which still smokes most HD cams...

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> You know what I mean? It just doesn't make sense from
> a relative point of view.

It depends. If it has CMOS chips, if it writes 24p 1920x1080 MPEG2 into a DV format tape at, say 50 Mbps, if it has a good sensitivity to light and lattitude, no vertical smear, very little noise, custom transfer curves, interchangeable lenses... it will be one heck of a camera.

And it doesn't need to use those expensive high-end HD video lenses to get a great image, it can use photo lenses with Canon SLR mounts you can buy in the street today and still be much much better than any SD DV camera you can buy up to now.

Granted, video lenses are not photo lenses and are expected to zoom without losing focus and focus without changing image angle... but it's very rare that you actually zoom during a shot... and you focus only as a last resort and in small ranges if the tape is running, at least I rarely do... so a lot of of us would pay $10k for such a cam and then some more for a set of photo lenses, or $20k if it comes with a killer multipurpose big bucks zoom lens.

It will most likely not be anything less than 1/2", becasue you would not get enough light onto the chips (I am the happy user af PDX10 so I know what I am talking about, more resolution, less photons on each pixel).

Remember, this is CMOS, not CCD, so the sensors might be like those nice big ones on the new Canon digicams. Hopefully even bigger. The perfect camera would be one that has a sensor array the size of a 35mm frame and uses 35mm photo lenses. Doubt this will be it, but we seem to be going in that direction.

Oh and by the way... I read somewhere that for non-interlaced video 4:2:0 is really very very good, much better than 4:1:1.

[Lynne Whelden]

I wonder if this is $20K for the camera head and $8K for the lens?

[Thomas Smet]

People cannot compare the new JVC HDV camera to the dv500 that costs $5000. if it is a 2/3 inch camera then it would have to be compared to the dv700 which can costs around $12,000.00 for a 2/3 inch mini dv camera. Comparing a 1/2 camera to a 2/3 camera is comparing apples to oranges.

$20,000 for a Hd version of a $12,000 camera isn't as much of a jump. It may also be more on the lines of the dv5000 that uses full size tapes instead of just the mini tapes of the 500 or 700.

If they are going to run the tapes at 2X to get 50 Mbits then having full size tapes would be nice opposed to just getting 30 minutes on a mini tape.

Also it is kind of hard to compare a 2/3 3 chip camera to JVC's 1/3 single chip camera in terms of price. Comparing a $300 SONY dv camera to a SONY DSR570 is pointless. They use the same DV recording format but the image quality is light years ahead of the cheap camera.

Now considering that the JVC 2/3 HD camera is only slightly more expensive than the 2/3 SONY SD camera makes the price seem not so bad. Clearly the new camera as well as the DSR570 is not meant for the indie producer on a McDonalds budget.

My only concern at this point is that regardless is you have 25 Mbit, 50 Mbit, or 100 Mbit HDV it is still at 4,2,0 unlike SD video where 50 Mbit is 4,2,2 opposed to the 25 Mbit 4,1,1. If JVC expands the HDV standard into a new color standard for 50 Mbit then that would be great.

Since JVC created the HDV standard I am sure they can modify it as well

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> Since JVC created the HDV standard I am sure
> they can modify it as well

I am sure they can. However as I undertsand it the format was codeveloped by JVC and Sharp.