JVC HD at CeBIT 03
 

Hi all,

just returned from Hannover where they showed the new HD cameras from JVC. Expected release according to one of the JVC guys is July for both the prosumer and consumer versions with a cost of 5000 Euro for the prosumer and 4000 Euro for the consumer. Obviously these numbers are not fixed at this point in time but rather estimates. First impressions were pretty nice. Looks like a pretty solid camera, easy to handle, well balanced.

Hopefully they will add a VTR in the future that handles the Mpeg-2 on DV tape functionality of the camera. You do not want to have to use the camera's player when editing if you can avoid it.

All in all it looked very promising and im seriously contemplating aquiring one for my 2.nd camera since it can record in HD, SD and DV.

Regards,
Henrik

Dear Henrik,

Did they say it would be in PAL format? Would it be 25P?

Thanks for the report:)

The European version will be PAL, and i assume that the SD mode will be 25p. The HD mode i am not so sure about. The rep from JVC mumbled something about HD does not differ between PAL or NTSC fps-wise and thus would be 30p regardless of system. If this is true or not i don't know.

Now i just need to finance one :)

/Henrik

Actually. some more info from the pamphlet they gave me:

Newly developed 1/3.rd mega-Pixel progressive CCD

1.18 MPixels CCD
Top grip with XLR Adapter and / or Microphone. This is removable.
Colourbarsgenerator.
All automatic can be turned off.
Manual focusring
Manual zoomring
Manual aperture & Whitebalance.
Shutterspeeds 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/500 and 1/1000
Analogue component out
FW in/out

Video:
(These were for the NTSC version as the PAL wasn't done yet)
Resolutions: 720/30p (HD), 480p, 480i (SP)
1280x720, 720x480
Chromaformat: 4:2:0
BitRate: 18.3 MBps (since it is using Mpeg-2 to store the HD format in a CBR (Constant Bitrate) )
GOP Structure: M=3, N=6/12 (IBBP)

Audio:
Mpeg1 Audio Layer II
48 Khz, 16 Bit, Datarate of 384 kbps. Stereo.

Well. thats about it, and translated from german as well as i can manage (considering im Swedish and not German nor English :)

/Henrik

<<<-- Originally posted by Henrik Bengtsson : The European version will be PAL, and i assume that the SD mode will be 25p. The HD mode i am not so sure about.>>>


The HD mode is 720p30, the same as the NTSC model.

In Australia the HiDefinition currently being test Broadcasted is 25fps [ from July 1st Full comercial HD Broadcasts will commence ] . Thus I dont know where this JVC rep get the idear that hd is only 30 fps . Unfortunately I have a sad impression that JVC will not want to offer 25fps HD in PAL countries as it is too close to film's 24fps . And we can't have consumer HD offering similar fps that the professionals pay for . Interesting is it not ?

Very interesting, Scott Billups says this is the reason "the lens is pretty mediocre or else everyone else would get on their case about killing off the pro market."

Sould we really buy from companies that knowingly degrade the quality of their prosumer product so that it can't compete against their REALLY expensive stuff? I guess all of the other companies do this to some extent.

Speaking of Scott he FINALLY updated his opinion to reflect JVC's announcement that the camera would be released ahead of schedule:

"Is this going to have any effect on what we do here in the US? Probably not because we won't be seeing this in any great quantity till 2004. Canon will introduce the XL2 by the end of 2003 and even though the JVC will throw up more pixels, the new XL series will blow it away with its native 16 X 9, third generation chips (3 instead of JVC's single chip), multiple frame rates (including 24P and more importantly 30P ), much lower compression and most importantly ... the ability to use a manual lens."

Sounds to me like Scott's been reading our XL2 wish list.

And Justin, yes we should keep buying from these companies. Faulting the JVC because it has a consumer lens is kind of like complaining that a Ford Focus isn't as good as a Lincoln Navigator. If you want bigger and better, then you pay for it. You've gotta look at it in terms of the market. The JVC HD1 is a smaller consumer piece (sure, kind of expensive but far less costly than pro gear). If they made it as good as their big iron, they'd be competing against themselves and kill their own business. Just like the auto manufacturers make different size cars for different price points and different applications, so too do the camera makers.

Canon has their broadcast video lens division, a much larger source of income for them than the XL1; that's why they're careful that the XL1 doesn't compete with their own lenses. All manufacturers do this... they pretty much have to.

I'm not talking about putting a Panavision lens on it. Just something on par with the Canon XL1 manual lens, or at least take off the focus ring that never stops spinning. Does anyone like those things? and while we're at it, make the Pal version do 25p in HD.

I realize this will bring the price up a couple thousand. Seems to me that there are two markets for cameras, the less than $4,000 crowd and the over $9,000. The stuff I've looked at my price point 5,000 - 7,000 doesn't seem much better than the XL1 I'm using. Granted there are comparatively few in my position, so how about making a limited edition camera so that there are not enough to compete with the companies professional cameras, I can dream can't I?

By the way, is Scott right? Is Canon really going to release the XL2 by the end of 2003, or is that just sophistry? This seems a bit soon to me.

It's not sophistry, it's just wishful thinking.

<<<-- Originally posted by Justin Walter : I'm not talking about putting a Panavision lens on it. Just something on par with the Canon XL1 manual lens, or at least take off the focus ring that never stops spinning. Does anyone like those things? and while we're at it, make the Pal version do 25p in HD. >>>

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be repeated, this camcorder -- and any coming from Sony and Panasonic -- is aimed primarily CONSUMERS. People who own 16:9 TVs that can input 480p50, 480p60, 720p60, or 1080i.

Other markets include NON-BROADCAST widescreen SD or HD production to be shown on plasmas or projectors. (Not me, but others.)

IF you can make use of the camera for your purposes JVC will be happy. But, if you can't -- buy an HDCAM. Or, wait for Canon. (Which has not promised HD this year.)

And since no one has tested the lens, nor by the way the XL1 lens, how are you making the compairison?

I'm not sure why so many spend their time documenting their ideas of how a product should be different -- or cheaper. You buy what you need from what's available. And, if you have no needs now -- just wait. For example, I didn't like EIS so I wouldn't buy a Panasonic nor JVC. Now both have optical stablization.

The JVC is the first of long progression of HD camcorders. Some will be cheaper some will be more expensive. Rather than worrying about the camcorder, it might make more sense to buy an HDTV. After all, how do you plan to evaluate a product whose results you can see only at a store -- or worse as many did the DVX100, by exchanging screen-shots.

If you get HD via DBS, you might also want to buy a D-VHS deck. Now you'll have a way to save HD prograns and save your HD productions. <end rant>

<<<-- Originally posted by Gavin Paget Dullard : In Australia the HiDefinition currently being test Broadcasted is 25fps. >>>

Somehow I doubt this. Watching sports at 25p would be nearly impossible! Movies could be sent at 25p, however, but 24p would make more sense.

You need to distinguish between SD at 480p50 from HD. The former is DTV but not HDTV.

So do you really have HD downunder?

If you do, it's likely either 720p60 or 1080i60.

<<<-- Originally posted by Henrik Bengtsson : The European version will be PAL, and i assume that the SD mode will be 25p. >>>

The SD mode is 480p50.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen : I'm not sure how many times it needs to be repeated, this camcorder -- and any coming from Sony and Panasonic -- is aimed primarily CONSUMERS. People who own 16:9 TVs that can input 480p50, 480p60, 720p60, or 1080i.
...
IF you can make use of the camera for your purposes JVC will be happy. -->>>

That's my whole point, JVC won't be happy, because I'd be using this instead of their professional gear. That's why they go out of their way to really degrade their product and that's why you, JVC, and others have to keep repeating that "this camera is just only for making home videos!" What company does that? I don't care if you're buying a XL1s or a pixelvision the salesman tells you, "You plus this camera equals great movies" So when I hear people tell me that this camera is not for that I'm dubious.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Mullen :
I'm not sure why so many spend their time documenting their ideas of how a product should be different -->>>

Sorry about that, I realize that part of my argument was academic, I only made it to counter the comparative analysis made by Chris when he likened the JVC cameras to the Ford Focus and the Lincoln Navigator

Re: "this camcorder -- and any coming from Sony and Panasonic -- is aimed primarily CONSUMERS."

$3500 to $4000 for a 1 chip consumer cam? Hmmm, JVC is dreaming. For that kind of money you can buy a PD150 (with 3, 1/3" CCDs) and some gear to keep 'er company. Hitachi had a 1 chip DVD cam not too long ago with a 1/2" CCD---no where's near that price.

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,

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.

<<<-- 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.

<<<-- 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.

<<<-- 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.

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

Zac

<<<-- 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.

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

<<<-- 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.