JVC HD at CeBIT 03

Jacques Mersereau · March 21st, 2003, 06:40 PM

As many of you know, I am no fan of Canon *video* glass.
Although Canon claims that lens like the 3x can resolve 500 lines,
personally I don't believe it. 250 lines would be my *guess*
from seeing personally how sharper the XL1 is hooked up
with EOS adapter and L series 35mm lens.

With real HD glass going for well over $20K, more like $40K, and solid
focus being a big issue amongst pro HD shooters, I can only conclude
that this jvc HD cam cannot possibly produce great HD images.
(Believe me, I would LOVE to be wrong on this one.)

If you have a hard time finding focus with a big CRT viewfinder and super
clean glass, why would anyone think that some cheapo fixed lens and
low res LCD could even come close to being workable?

That is one reason I put into my XL1HD wish list the ability to use
Canon 35mm glass. At least with that, you have a better chance of
producing usable HD images with lens that are very affordable(comparatively).

My two steaming pounds,

Steven-Marc Couchouron · March 22nd, 2003, 03:18 AM

From what I've heard officially from JVC reps here in France there are no plans for a PAL version of this camera in Europe.
They may have told you a different story at the CeBIT but that is probably just to hype the product. There would be no sense to market a PAL version since there is no HD in Europe, nor will there be in the near future.
Australia is the only country with PAL and HD but I doubt JVC would go to the trouble of making a PAL version just for Australia since the market for an HD consumer cam would be really small (at least until HD becomes mainstream).
By the way, I believe HD in Australia is still at 50 Hz, meaning the broadcast format is 1080i50.

Steve Mullen · March 22nd, 2003, 04:16 PM

<<<-- There would be no sense to market a PAL version since there is no HD in Europe, nor will there be in the near future. -->>>

You are missing that it is a 16:9 480p50 and PAL camcorder. The SD mode is perfect for making DVDs and for non-broadcast progressive video.
It's not clear what the Aussies is using for HD. It may, in fact only be SD 480p50.

If HD, then it's likely 1080/50i.

Steven-Marc Couchouron · March 23rd, 2003, 03:36 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen :
You are missing that it is a 16:9 480p50 and PAL camcorder. The SD mode is perfect for making DVDs and for non-broadcast progressive video.
-->>>
You seem to be implying that there is a PAL version, when JVC France has told us that there won't be (they may be wrong or not fully aware of what JVC R&D is up to, of course).
I'd agree that even a PAL SD version would be useful for the progressive and 16/9 capabilities, but that's it. There is no equipment in Europe for playing back 480p50.

Steve Mullen · March 25th, 2003, 01:48 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven-Marc Couchouron : <<<
I'd agree that even a PAL SD version would be useful for the progressive and 16/9 capabilities, but that's it. There is no equipment in Europe for playing back 480p50. >>>

When you play back a PAL DVD on a progressive DVD player what scanning rate is being used in your 16:9 TV? Unless Europe has no such TVs or DVD players -- it should be 480p50 just as in the USA it would be 480p60.

Certainly PAL plasmas must offer 480p50. Right.? If so, the JVC will playback perfectly.

Zac Stein · March 25th, 2003, 01:53 AM

Pal is 576p @50hz not 480p @50hz.

Zac

Steve Mullen · March 27th, 2003, 01:01 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Kermie Klien : Pal is 576p @50hz not 480p @50hz.

Zac -->>>

Quite correct. Except its not clear if there is "SD" in Europe. Maybe only interlace PAL.

Looked through a UK mag tonight. Without seeming negative -- it looked like things are "way behind." Yes, the TVs were 16:9. But often small. They were reviewing 27" and 32" TVs.

The big deal seemed to be 100Hz refresh PAL. It wasn't clear if this was progressive or interlace.

Progressive DVD players seemed exotic and there were warnings some only worked with NTSC discs to multi-system TVs???

Not clear what the advantage of DTV is -- especially the discussions that it was hard to get a solid picture.

Not clear if DBS offers a higher res. image. Also didn't see anything on DBS or broadcast 5.1 audio. Can't believe this isn't part of DTV. Must have missed it.

Not clear how UK viewers expect to get the definition to feed 6 foot plasmas (in 2004) or DLP/LCD projectors. Maybe resolution isn't needed because small widescreen are the norm.

Thus it's not clear there will be much of a market for the JVC in the UK.

Clarifications welcome.

Zac Stein · March 27th, 2003, 01:23 AM

Interesting you would talk about europe, well the UK, being behind with the times.

They are the first, and one of only few national broadcasters that broadcast nearly all their free to air, as well as cable shows, in 16x9 and have been for quite a while.

Do you rememmber the row over non 16x9 enhanced dvds in the USA when in the UK they were all coming out 16x9, that is because over 70% of people who own a dvd player also own a 16x9 tv, in the UK and that is 2 year old information.

In the UK most digital signals come in as 16x9 DTV, at 720x576 and the recievers interlace them. Also this signal is a digital mpeg2 stream, which only becomes analogue either just before the tv or in the tv itself. This is for futureproofing for when they go HD, they can simply up the rez to 720, but the facilities are ready.

Now back to your questions about the tv's. From what i can tell you, from reviewing a lot of the more popular tv's in the UK, as they appear in Australia as well, ALL and i mean ALL tv's, except for the absolute bargain crap cheap throw away sets, will display NTSC, PAL, SECAM, PAL-60, basically all standards.

Nearly all newer tv's post 2001 will display 480p@60hz.
Many tv's come with line doublers as well, to display 720x576i as 576P. And they are now starting to kick off the capability of 720p, either by uprez, native signal, or field blending of 1080i.

And many tv's here now, albeit more expensive ones, will also display 576p.

The reason progressive scan PAL dvd players didn't become a huge thing, was because lots of companies were producing their tv's with line doublers built in. Now it seems PAL progressive scan tv's are showing up and many more tv's are coming out with the viewing capability.

OK, onto other points, DTV offers an advantage because of signal degradation is simply not there. It is either all, perfect reception, or nothing. It also offers 5.1 sound on selected programming which they get, and live information displays such as whats on next and so on.

You're final point about the smaller tv's and so on, they have big sets there, but rear projection didn't become a huge hit, why? because it was considered crap. Same in Australia, the picture quality is horrible and they were stupidly expensive because they were big and bulky to import. Plasma is very popular, but also considered inferior, so what you had was a lot of people investing in smaller CRT sets, and/or larger front projection systems such as LCD or DLP projectors, because they were cheaper than the rear projection sets.

Anyways must be off.
Zac

Steve Mullen · March 27th, 2003, 08:01 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Kermie Klien : Interesting you would talk about europe, well the UK, being behind with the times.

They are the first, and one of only few national broadcasters that broadcast nearly all their free to air, as well as cable shows, in 16x9 and have been for quite a while. -->>>

What I hear from you is that your TVs have lots of features and are widescreen -- but everything is still at PAL resolution. Even DTV is still the same resolution, only MPEG-2 is used. (Not necessarily a virture in my mind, but good for the DBS owner's profits.)

Thus no matter what you buy and use -- there is no option for high res. to fill big screens. In fact, having lived in Japan a decade ago, there is a HUGE difference between HD even on a 32" direct view screen. For one thing the color space is much better better.

Do you have 5.1 audio on both OTA and DBS?

Also, do your 16:9 TVs have the internal bandwidth to accept and display at full-res 1080 that's coming on Bluray DVDs? I suspect not. Thus when the switch to HD DVDs come, everyone will need to buy new 16:9 TVs. That's a huge economic problem if true!

It also means that the coming generation of consumer HD cams will not be able to be used.

PAL is nice, but no match for SD or HD. I'd call that behind.

March 21st, 2003, 06:40 PM	#16
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	As many of you know, I am no fan of Canon video glass. Although Canon claims that lens like the 3x can resolve 500 lines, personally I don't believe it. 250 lines would be my guess from seeing personally how sharper the XL1 is hooked up with EOS adapter and L series 35mm lens. With real HD glass going for well over $20K, more like $40K, and solid focus being a big issue amongst pro HD shooters, I can only conclude that this jvc HD cam cannot possibly produce great HD images. (Believe me, I would LOVE to be wrong on this one.) If you have a hard time finding focus with a big CRT viewfinder and super clean glass, why would anyone think that some cheapo fixed lens and low res LCD could even come close to being workable? That is one reason I put into my XL1HD wish list the ability to use Canon 35mm glass. At least with that, you have a better chance of producing usable HD images with lens that are very affordable(comparatively). My two steaming pounds, __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

March 22nd, 2003, 03:18 AM	#17
Steven-Marc Couchouron Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 110 Images: 5	From what I've heard officially from JVC reps here in France there are no plans for a PAL version of this camera in Europe. They may have told you a different story at the CeBIT but that is probably just to hype the product. There would be no sense to market a PAL version since there is no HD in Europe, nor will there be in the near future. Australia is the only country with PAL and HD but I doubt JVC would go to the trouble of making a PAL version just for Australia since the market for an HD consumer cam would be really small (at least until HD becomes mainstream). By the way, I believe HD in Australia is still at 50 Hz, meaning the broadcast format is 1080i50. __________________ SMCproductions.com

March 22nd, 2003, 04:16 PM	#18
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- There would be no sense to market a PAL version since there is no HD in Europe, nor will there be in the near future. -->>> You are missing that it is a 16:9 480p50 and PAL camcorder. The SD mode is perfect for making DVDs and for non-broadcast progressive video. It's not clear what the Aussies is using for HD. It may, in fact only be SD 480p50. If HD, then it's likely 1080/50i. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

March 23rd, 2003, 03:36 AM	#19
Steven-Marc Couchouron Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 110 Images: 5	<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : You are missing that it is a 16:9 480p50 and PAL camcorder. The SD mode is perfect for making DVDs and for non-broadcast progressive video. -->>> You seem to be implying that there is a PAL version, when JVC France has told us that there won't be (they may be wrong or not fully aware of what JVC R&D is up to, of course). I'd agree that even a PAL SD version would be useful for the progressive and 16/9 capabilities, but that's it. There is no equipment in Europe for playing back 480p50. __________________ SMCproductions.com

March 25th, 2003, 01:48 AM	#20
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Steven-Marc Couchouron : <<< I'd agree that even a PAL SD version would be useful for the progressive and 16/9 capabilities, but that's it. There is no equipment in Europe for playing back 480p50. >>> When you play back a PAL DVD on a progressive DVD player what scanning rate is being used in your 16:9 TV? Unless Europe has no such TVs or DVD players -- it should be 480p50 just as in the USA it would be 480p60. Certainly PAL plasmas must offer 480p50. Right.? If so, the JVC will playback perfectly. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

March 25th, 2003, 01:53 AM	#21
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Pal is 576p @50hz not 480p @50hz. Zac

March 27th, 2003, 01:01 AM	#22
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Kermie Klien : Pal is 576p @50hz not 480p @50hz. Zac -->>> Quite correct. Except its not clear if there is "SD" in Europe. Maybe only interlace PAL. Looked through a UK mag tonight. Without seeming negative -- it looked like things are "way behind." Yes, the TVs were 16:9. But often small. They were reviewing 27" and 32" TVs. The big deal seemed to be 100Hz refresh PAL. It wasn't clear if this was progressive or interlace. Progressive DVD players seemed exotic and there were warnings some only worked with NTSC discs to multi-system TVs??? Not clear what the advantage of DTV is -- especially the discussions that it was hard to get a solid picture. Not clear if DBS offers a higher res. image. Also didn't see anything on DBS or broadcast 5.1 audio. Can't believe this isn't part of DTV. Must have missed it. Not clear how UK viewers expect to get the definition to feed 6 foot plasmas (in 2004) or DLP/LCD projectors. Maybe resolution isn't needed because small widescreen are the norm. Thus it's not clear there will be much of a market for the JVC in the UK. Clarifications welcome. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

March 27th, 2003, 01:23 AM	#23
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Interesting you would talk about europe, well the UK, being behind with the times. They are the first, and one of only few national broadcasters that broadcast nearly all their free to air, as well as cable shows, in 16x9 and have been for quite a while. Do you rememmber the row over non 16x9 enhanced dvds in the USA when in the UK they were all coming out 16x9, that is because over 70% of people who own a dvd player also own a 16x9 tv, in the UK and that is 2 year old information. In the UK most digital signals come in as 16x9 DTV, at 720x576 and the recievers interlace them. Also this signal is a digital mpeg2 stream, which only becomes analogue either just before the tv or in the tv itself. This is for futureproofing for when they go HD, they can simply up the rez to 720, but the facilities are ready. Now back to your questions about the tv's. From what i can tell you, from reviewing a lot of the more popular tv's in the UK, as they appear in Australia as well, ALL and i mean ALL tv's, except for the absolute bargain crap cheap throw away sets, will display NTSC, PAL, SECAM, PAL-60, basically all standards. Nearly all newer tv's post 2001 will display 480p@60hz. Many tv's come with line doublers as well, to display 720x576i as 576P. And they are now starting to kick off the capability of 720p, either by uprez, native signal, or field blending of 1080i. And many tv's here now, albeit more expensive ones, will also display 576p. The reason progressive scan PAL dvd players didn't become a huge thing, was because lots of companies were producing their tv's with line doublers built in. Now it seems PAL progressive scan tv's are showing up and many more tv's are coming out with the viewing capability. OK, onto other points, DTV offers an advantage because of signal degradation is simply not there. It is either all, perfect reception, or nothing. It also offers 5.1 sound on selected programming which they get, and live information displays such as whats on next and so on. You're final point about the smaller tv's and so on, they have big sets there, but rear projection didn't become a huge hit, why? because it was considered crap. Same in Australia, the picture quality is horrible and they were stupidly expensive because they were big and bulky to import. Plasma is very popular, but also considered inferior, so what you had was a lot of people investing in smaller CRT sets, and/or larger front projection systems such as LCD or DLP projectors, because they were cheaper than the rear projection sets. Anyways must be off. Zac

March 27th, 2003, 08:01 PM	#24
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Kermie Klien : Interesting you would talk about europe, well the UK, being behind with the times. They are the first, and one of only few national broadcasters that broadcast nearly all their free to air, as well as cable shows, in 16x9 and have been for quite a while. -->>> What I hear from you is that your TVs have lots of features and are widescreen -- but everything is still at PAL resolution. Even DTV is still the same resolution, only MPEG-2 is used. (Not necessarily a virture in my mind, but good for the DBS owner's profits.) Thus no matter what you buy and use -- there is no option for high res. to fill big screens. In fact, having lived in Japan a decade ago, there is a HUGE difference between HD even on a 32" direct view screen. For one thing the color space is much better better. Do you have 5.1 audio on both OTA and DBS? Also, do your 16:9 TVs have the internal bandwidth to accept and display at full-res 1080 that's coming on Bluray DVDs? I suspect not. Thus when the switch to HD DVDs come, everyone will need to buy new 16:9 TVs. That's a huge economic problem if true! It also means that the coming generation of consumer HD cams will not be able to be used. PAL is nice, but no match for SD or HD. I'd call that behind. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c