Here's a sample GR-HD1 clip in WMV-HD at DVinfo.net

Tom Roper · March 8th, 2005, 12:38 AM

Clip was encoded to WMV-HD 1280 x 720p, 2 pass VBR, 6492 kbs.

The file size is 5mb. You can download it HERE

"Right Click" on the above link, then "Save Target as..." to download the file to your computer.

Jaime Corretjer · March 8th, 2005, 10:52 AM

Tom,
Why is the footage choppy? Was this a result of compression or the HD1's 30p? I ask because Im unsure as how this cam would perform when shooting surfing. Your advice will be greatly appreciated.

Jimmy

Tom Roper · March 8th, 2005, 12:28 PM

That's just what 30 fps is when there's hardly any motion blur.

Edit:
Although 30fps can seem choppy, that particular clip doesn't. It plays smooth and fluid for me. If it looks choppy, your PC may not be handling WMV9 well at high bit rates.

For surfing, I recommend .6 ND filter and a polarizer on bright sunny day, 1/60 sec shutter speed, shooting some of the footage in HD, and some of it in 16x9 SD, 480p60. Between the two modes, you can optimize for resolution, or frame rate for high motion.

Slowing the shutter speed introduces fluidity.

Patrick Jenkins · March 8th, 2005, 02:15 PM

The OSX player has trouble with it fwiw. Windows Media for OSX actually really kinda sucks ;-(

Tom Roper · March 8th, 2005, 02:33 PM

It plays really good on the I-O Data LinkPlayer2. Maybe the bit-rate is too high for OSX. I'll try compressing it down further.

Jaime Corretjer · March 8th, 2005, 03:55 PM

You are correct. The pc at work is not ready for wm9. At home Im an apple user, dual 2.5 with FCE. Im still waiting for my DV upgrade to a 3 chip like the VX2100 or canon gl2, or move to HD with the JVC. People at Camcorderinfo keep telling me to stay away from the HD1, but the stuff i keep seeing looks pretty damn good to me. Yes colors are not super staturated, but they are natural nevertheless. I find colors on the VX and Gl2 strong but artificial sometimes when over saturated. To me the HD1 has a good film look. My worry is motionj--waves and surfers all moving at the same time while panning on a high quality fluid head. Can anyone advise furthermore?

Thanks for the ND filters recommended. I write all this stuff down and will look for them once I make a decision. Often I get told wait longer for HD, but Hd is already here.

Tom Roper · March 8th, 2005, 04:18 PM

I've down-sampled the clip. It still looks very good, so I'm a bit concerned the bit rate, although it sounds low, is still too high for non-choppy playback.

If so, please let me know, and I'll reduce the bit rate even further.

As it is, the encoding is 2 pass CBR, 2942 kbs, and the file size has been reduced accordingly for faster download.

Download it HERE

"Right-Click" on the above link, then "Save As..." to download it to your PC.

Ken Hodson · March 8th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Jaime "My worry is motionj--waves and surfers all moving at the same time while panning on a high quality fluid head"

The JVC HD10/1 do not have any motion capture problems due to compression if that is what you are asking. The cam doesn't care how many waves or surfers. The speed of your pan and the shutter/frame rate are what is important. On any progressive video or film, you have to adjust your pan speed to fit your settings. Pan too fast with a slow shutter and it will look choppy. Not the cams fault but the operators.

Jaime Corretjer · March 8th, 2005, 09:29 PM

Here are two questions for you all:

First, Im aware that the camera is capable of amazing results while shooting on a good tripod. How would it perform shooting handheld with a housing while in the water near the impact zone?

Since Im an amateur with high inspirations and distribution is not really an issue for me right now, would you say that the HD1 could be a good tool for me to view some sick action at home?

I've viewed many samples of panoramic footage where nature utilized the high resolution capabilities of the cam, resulting in some awesome footage, and this is via internet, so I can't imagine uncompressed video. Another worry is how the high resolution will display the constant chop on the surface of the water.

Ken Hodson · March 8th, 2005, 11:40 PM

"Another worry is how the high resolution will display the constant chop on the surface of the water."
I don't really know what your concern is exactly? Are you worried about compression artifacts or some such? If so read my post above.

As far asunderwater shooting (if that is what you are saying)would not be my favorite task with the HD10/1. The cam requires thought out setups and lighting adjustmentment. It isn't a set it and leave it beast, nor does it excell in low light. Underwater I would guess isn't always consistant or high in lighting? 30p also wouldn't be great for the "herky, jerky" movement of underwater filming. That said, if you are a competent videographer and can handle the HD10/1, then the 60p mode would be very nice due to its better low light and amazing motion capture. The 30p mode is HD and the 60p mode SD.
If you are inexperienced with cams, I would recomend one with better low light and a top notch auto mode. Of course you will be giving up 16:9, and progressive, (unless you choose the XL2) as well as HD resolution.
With everything being said I would not recommend this cam for what you want unless you really know what you are doing.

Tom Roper · March 8th, 2005, 11:41 PM

If you get it wrong, hit it again tomorrow!

Really, it just all depends on you. For what you want, its size is an advantage. The progressive frame images, 6 GOP mpeg compression structure, and fallback 16x9 480p60 mode has you covered one way or another for all high motion concerns. You have plenty of light, great scenery.

The polarizer and ND is a must.

Really, the most important addition is a better means of playing the video than hooking up the camcorder to a TV gets old fast. At least the IR remote control is there for that.

But a great addition is the I-O Data LinkPlayer2 (High-Def networked DVD player, WMV9 compatible), and TMPGEnc 3.0 Xpress to give you some basic editing, post tools, and encoding.

I'm looking forward to seeing Endless Summer III from you.

Tom Roper · March 8th, 2005, 11:47 PM

Also was watching "GET OUT" on HDNET. They were shooting an underwater shark sequence. I don't know what they used, but it sure looked like HD1/10 footage, 30fps. It would make sense to me they might not have been chancing hosing a $70,000 HDCAM. And the smaller sized means better handling.

Jaime Corretjer · March 9th, 2005, 09:39 AM

I know that half the problem is making myself clear. Maybe what Im trying to clear is that I fear that the footage could be a little hard on the eyes if that makes any sence. I've seen scenic footage with water and woods, where some overexposed areas seem hard on the eyes. Also, I've seen the motion of a water fountain and it just looked different. Im sorry if im wasting your time, I know must of you guys are pros, but I surely appreciate all of your comments and advice.

Tom Roper · March 9th, 2005, 10:38 AM

I'm not a pro, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But that's why you need the polarizer, to properly handle reflections off the water.

It's impossible to judge exactly what level of performance will satisfy you. You can only do so much when trying to make a $1600 camera imitate a $70,000 HDCAM.

I know that *I* would be delighted with the result, far beyond anything I would get even with a professional (but low resolution) SD cam with perfect latitude and 3 CCD, because I want it in High-Def! SD cams, no matter how perfect the exposure, lack the WOW factor.

Jaime Corretjer · March 9th, 2005, 04:11 PM

That was funny Tom. Now coach me on this!
I'll need a polarizer, nd filter and a telephoto. Help me set this up the order they'll be attached to the camera's lens. If posible include some model recommendations. Would you worry about shooting through so much glass? That's why I hesitated so long. With the Gl2 I'll have a good zoom and nd filter, but of course no "wow" factor which really interests me. I just don't know how the whole set up will perform. Thank you.

March 8th, 2005, 12:38 AM	#1
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	Here's a sample GR-HD1 clip in WMV-HD Clip was encoded to WMV-HD 1280 x 720p, 2 pass VBR, 6492 kbs. The file size is 5mb. You can download it HERE "Right Click" on the above link, then "Save Target as..." to download the file to your computer.

March 8th, 2005, 04:18 PM	#7
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	Same Clip, lower bit-rate I've down-sampled the clip. It still looks very good, so I'm a bit concerned the bit rate, although it sounds low, is still too high for non-choppy playback. If so, please let me know, and I'll reduce the bit rate even further. As it is, the encoding is 2 pass CBR, 2942 kbs, and the file size has been reduced accordingly for faster download. Download it HERE "Right-Click" on the above link, then "Save As..." to download it to your PC.

March 8th, 2005, 08:47 PM	#8
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Jaime "My worry is motionj--waves and surfers all moving at the same time while panning on a high quality fluid head" The JVC HD10/1 do not have any motion capture problems due to compression if that is what you are asking. The cam doesn't care how many waves or surfers. The speed of your pan and the shutter/frame rate are what is important. On any progressive video or film, you have to adjust your pan speed to fit your settings. Pan too fast with a slow shutter and it will look choppy. Not the cams fault but the operators. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

March 8th, 2005, 11:40 PM	#10
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"Another worry is how the high resolution will display the constant chop on the surface of the water." I don't really know what your concern is exactly? Are you worried about compression artifacts or some such? If so read my post above. As far asunderwater shooting (if that is what you are saying)would not be my favorite task with the HD10/1. The cam requires thought out setups and lighting adjustmentment. It isn't a set it and leave it beast, nor does it excell in low light. Underwater I would guess isn't always consistant or high in lighting? 30p also wouldn't be great for the "herky, jerky" movement of underwater filming. That said, if you are a competent videographer and can handle the HD10/1, then the 60p mode would be very nice due to its better low light and amazing motion capture. The 30p mode is HD and the 60p mode SD. If you are inexperienced with cams, I would recomend one with better low light and a top notch auto mode. Of course you will be giving up 16:9, and progressive, (unless you choose the XL2) as well as HD resolution. With everything being said I would not recommend this cam for what you want unless you really know what you are doing. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

March 8th, 2005, 10:52 AM	#2
Jaime Corretjer New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 17	Tom, Why is the footage choppy? Was this a result of compression or the HD1's 30p? I ask because Im unsure as how this cam would perform when shooting surfing. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. Jimmy

March 8th, 2005, 12:28 PM	#3
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	That's just what 30 fps is when there's hardly any motion blur. Edit: Although 30fps can seem choppy, that particular clip doesn't. It plays smooth and fluid for me. If it looks choppy, your PC may not be handling WMV9 well at high bit rates. For surfing, I recommend .6 ND filter and a polarizer on bright sunny day, 1/60 sec shutter speed, shooting some of the footage in HD, and some of it in 16x9 SD, 480p60. Between the two modes, you can optimize for resolution, or frame rate for high motion. Slowing the shutter speed introduces fluidity.

March 8th, 2005, 02:15 PM	#4
Patrick Jenkins Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 382	The OSX player has trouble with it fwiw. Windows Media for OSX actually really kinda sucks ;-(

March 8th, 2005, 02:33 PM	#5
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	It plays really good on the I-O Data LinkPlayer2. Maybe the bit-rate is too high for OSX. I'll try compressing it down further.

March 8th, 2005, 03:55 PM	#6
Jaime Corretjer New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 17	You are correct. The pc at work is not ready for wm9. At home Im an apple user, dual 2.5 with FCE. Im still waiting for my DV upgrade to a 3 chip like the VX2100 or canon gl2, or move to HD with the JVC. People at Camcorderinfo keep telling me to stay away from the HD1, but the stuff i keep seeing looks pretty damn good to me. Yes colors are not super staturated, but they are natural nevertheless. I find colors on the VX and Gl2 strong but artificial sometimes when over saturated. To me the HD1 has a good film look. My worry is motionj--waves and surfers all moving at the same time while panning on a high quality fluid head. Can anyone advise furthermore? Thanks for the ND filters recommended. I write all this stuff down and will look for them once I make a decision. Often I get told wait longer for HD, but Hd is already here.

March 8th, 2005, 09:29 PM	#9
Jaime Corretjer New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 17	Here are two questions for you all: First, Im aware that the camera is capable of amazing results while shooting on a good tripod. How would it perform shooting handheld with a housing while in the water near the impact zone? Since Im an amateur with high inspirations and distribution is not really an issue for me right now, would you say that the HD1 could be a good tool for me to view some sick action at home? I've viewed many samples of panoramic footage where nature utilized the high resolution capabilities of the cam, resulting in some awesome footage, and this is via internet, so I can't imagine uncompressed video. Another worry is how the high resolution will display the constant chop on the surface of the water.

March 8th, 2005, 11:41 PM	#11
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	If you get it wrong, hit it again tomorrow! Really, it just all depends on you. For what you want, its size is an advantage. The progressive frame images, 6 GOP mpeg compression structure, and fallback 16x9 480p60 mode has you covered one way or another for all high motion concerns. You have plenty of light, great scenery. The polarizer and ND is a must. Really, the most important addition is a better means of playing the video than hooking up the camcorder to a TV gets old fast. At least the IR remote control is there for that. But a great addition is the I-O Data LinkPlayer2 (High-Def networked DVD player, WMV9 compatible), and TMPGEnc 3.0 Xpress to give you some basic editing, post tools, and encoding. I'm looking forward to seeing Endless Summer III from you.

March 8th, 2005, 11:47 PM	#12
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	Also was watching "GET OUT" on HDNET. They were shooting an underwater shark sequence. I don't know what they used, but it sure looked like HD1/10 footage, 30fps. It would make sense to me they might not have been chancing hosing a $70,000 HDCAM. And the smaller sized means better handling.

March 9th, 2005, 09:39 AM	#13
Jaime Corretjer New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 17	I know that half the problem is making myself clear. Maybe what Im trying to clear is that I fear that the footage could be a little hard on the eyes if that makes any sence. I've seen scenic footage with water and woods, where some overexposed areas seem hard on the eyes. Also, I've seen the motion of a water fountain and it just looked different. Im sorry if im wasting your time, I know must of you guys are pros, but I surely appreciate all of your comments and advice.

March 9th, 2005, 10:38 AM	#14
Tom Roper Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 1,891	I'm not a pro, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But that's why you need the polarizer, to properly handle reflections off the water. It's impossible to judge exactly what level of performance will satisfy you. You can only do so much when trying to make a $1600 camera imitate a $70,000 HDCAM. I know that I would be delighted with the result, far beyond anything I would get even with a professional (but low resolution) SD cam with perfect latitude and 3 CCD, because I want it in High-Def! SD cams, no matter how perfect the exposure, lack the WOW factor.

March 9th, 2005, 04:11 PM	#15
Jaime Corretjer New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Honolulu, Hi Posts: 17	That was funny Tom. Now coach me on this! I'll need a polarizer, nd filter and a telephoto. Help me set this up the order they'll be attached to the camera's lens. If posible include some model recommendations. Would you worry about shooting through so much glass? That's why I hesitated so long. With the Gl2 I'll have a good zoom and nd filter, but of course no "wow" factor which really interests me. I just don't know how the whole set up will perform. Thank you.