Capturing Hi res with JVC GR-PD1

Marco Baldo · October 6th, 2006, 07:16 AM

Hey folks,
i just want to say that I use this camera with the biuld-in vegas 6 plung in to capture the video and I work withour problems in PAL hiser mode.
Also the HD connect is very useful but no problem to edit the mpeg2 stream.
There is also Ulead MEdiastudio PRo 8 that works with this camera.
have a nice day!
Sulu.

Ken Hodson · October 6th, 2006, 04:19 PM

Yes unfortunately Apple has been less the friendly with anything non Sony HDV or Pana DVCproHD. They still don't support 24/25p from the HD100, nevermind the lowly PD1. Sad. Get a PC for input ingest. Convert to uncompressed or Quicktime or BitJazz and bring into the Mac.

Martin ODonnell · October 7th, 2006, 12:32 AM

Hey Ken,

I have read on the forum that Final Cut Pro has just released an update which supports 24p and 25p for the HD100. I haven't tried it yet but that's the scoop.
Do you have other info.?
Cheers

Martin

Graham Jones · October 12th, 2006, 10:10 AM

The PD1's claim to fame is that it is progressive rather than interlaced and that it actually downconverts from HD 'in-camera'.

These two qualities can sometimes give footage an edge - but it's a three year old, standard definition version of the HD1 so ultimately quite limited.

Martin ODonnell · October 12th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Sorry Graham,

what do you mean that it down converts 'in camera'?

Graham Jones · October 13th, 2006, 02:43 AM

Look at your manual and you'll see that in Hi-Res mode the PD1 captures with all the definition of the HD1, but outputs lower resolution.

Why?

Back when I owned the camera and dialogued with other PD1 owners, one of the things we came to accept was that the HD1 and PD1 were the same camera internally.

We believed that when JVC went to market their new HD baby in Europe they felt there would be wider pick up if the highest quality shooting mode could be viewed on SD equipment because Europe had not made the early strides into HD like America had.

We spent a lot of time hoping that the firmware could be hacked to capitalise on the PD1's potential.

Here's a old blog about the PD1 here which may be useful to you.

http://jvcgr-pd1.blogspot.com/

The blog doesn't mention Mpeg Streamclip which is free to download and can convert the PD1's Hi-Res mode into many different formats.

Ken Hodson · October 16th, 2006, 05:58 PM

If you go halfway down the blog you will see a Peter Jackson (King Kong) bit by Sanjin.

"7. The camera captures video at a resolution of 1280 x 659 pixels, with 25 progressivelyscanned frames per second. The output/capture picture size starts with 1024x576 pixels in m2t file (MPEG-TS). That size can be easy up convert to the smaller HD scan line count withthe higher resolution progressive scan of 1280x720 pixels in 10 bit uncompressed file withvery little, if any, quality loss."

Why is he believing he gets 1024X576? I debated him on this back in the day, and even had Ken Freed of JVC explain that the captured resolution is 720x576. So what is he talking about?

Graham Jones · October 16th, 2006, 06:55 PM

Unfortunately I don't know what Sanjin meant by that either.

The picture printed to tape has been downconverted to SD and this can neither be gotten around or undone.

But just like watching HD footage on SD television screens and admiring it more than SD footage, you did get a HD feel within the PD1's straitjacket.

The component out on a progressive monitor, for instance, didn't look like SD at all.

Marco Ba · October 17th, 2006, 08:45 AM

>> Why is he believing he gets 1024X576?

I think this is because if an NLE correctly displays the 16:9 HiRes output, which indeed is 720x576 non-square pixel, the NLE would use 1024x576 square pixel.

It's only the math to get from non-square footage to square pixel display without distorting the image.

Many people was mislead by that.

Marco

October 6th, 2006, 07:16 AM	#16
Marco Baldo New Boot Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: italy Posts: 6	Editing GR-PD1 materials Hey folks, i just want to say that I use this camera with the biuld-in vegas 6 plung in to capture the video and I work withour problems in PAL hiser mode. Also the HD connect is very useful but no problem to edit the mpeg2 stream. There is also Ulead MEdiastudio PRo 8 that works with this camera. have a nice day! Sulu.

October 6th, 2006, 04:19 PM	#17
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Yes unfortunately Apple has been less the friendly with anything non Sony HDV or Pana DVCproHD. They still don't support 24/25p from the HD100, nevermind the lowly PD1. Sad. Get a PC for input ingest. Convert to uncompressed or Quicktime or BitJazz and bring into the Mac. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 12th, 2006, 10:10 AM	#19
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	The PD1's claim to fame is that it is progressive rather than interlaced and that it actually downconverts from HD 'in-camera'. These two qualities can sometimes give footage an edge - but it's a three year old, standard definition version of the HD1 so ultimately quite limited. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

October 13th, 2006, 02:43 AM	#21
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	Look at your manual and you'll see that in Hi-Res mode the PD1 captures with all the definition of the HD1, but outputs lower resolution. Why? Back when I owned the camera and dialogued with other PD1 owners, one of the things we came to accept was that the HD1 and PD1 were the same camera internally. We believed that when JVC went to market their new HD baby in Europe they felt there would be wider pick up if the highest quality shooting mode could be viewed on SD equipment because Europe had not made the early strides into HD like America had. We spent a lot of time hoping that the firmware could be hacked to capitalise on the PD1's potential. Here's a old blog about the PD1 here which may be useful to you. http://jvcgr-pd1.blogspot.com/ The blog doesn't mention Mpeg Streamclip which is free to download and can convert the PD1's Hi-Res mode into many different formats. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

October 16th, 2006, 05:58 PM	#22
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	If you go halfway down the blog you will see a Peter Jackson (King Kong) bit by Sanjin. "7. The camera captures video at a resolution of 1280 x 659 pixels, with 25 progressivelyscanned frames per second. The output/capture picture size starts with 1024x576 pixels in m2t file (MPEG-TS). That size can be easy up convert to the smaller HD scan line count withthe higher resolution progressive scan of 1280x720 pixels in 10 bit uncompressed file withvery little, if any, quality loss." Why is he believing he gets 1024X576? I debated him on this back in the day, and even had Ken Freed of JVC explain that the captured resolution is 720x576. So what is he talking about? __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 7th, 2006, 12:32 AM	#18
Martin ODonnell Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Gold Coast, Australia Posts: 26	Hey Ken, I have read on the forum that Final Cut Pro has just released an update which supports 24p and 25p for the HD100. I haven't tried it yet but that's the scoop. Do you have other info.? Cheers Martin

October 12th, 2006, 08:48 PM	#20
Martin ODonnell Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Gold Coast, Australia Posts: 26	Sorry Graham, what do you mean that it down converts 'in camera'?

October 16th, 2006, 06:55 PM	#23
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	Unfortunately I don't know what Sanjin meant by that either. The picture printed to tape has been downconverted to SD and this can neither be gotten around or undone. But just like watching HD footage on SD television screens and admiring it more than SD footage, you did get a HD feel within the PD1's straitjacket. The component out on a progressive monitor, for instance, didn't look like SD at all. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

October 17th, 2006, 08:45 AM	#24
Marco Ba Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 93	>> Why is he believing he gets 1024X576? I think this is because if an NLE correctly displays the 16:9 HiRes output, which indeed is 720x576 non-square pixel, the NLE would use 1024x576 square pixel. It's only the math to get from non-square footage to square pixel display without distorting the image. Many people was mislead by that. Marco