Report from NAB

[Maya Taylor]

Well Steve, at least we both aggree that right now the picture quality doesn't look good. Hopefully this will get improved by june/july! Although to be honest, I highly doubt it will change much! But one never knows!
But as it stands right now, the camera's picture quality is weak!

Maya

[Chris Hurd]

David,

Please don't be "suspicious" of Steve. I've known him for a couple of years now and invited him to moderate this forum because of his knowledge, background, and I must admit also his name recognition (he is a writer for Video Systems magazine).

There's nothing wrong with him selling a guide to this and other camcorders (in fact, I'll place ads for him soon on the dvinfo.net main site). I don't understand the conception that somehow it's wrong to sell a camera guide... I think that camera users are lucky to have this option available as the number one problem with most cameras is a poorly written manual. I wouldn't expect anyone to give away this kind of assistance than I would expect someone to just give away their other products and services.

I've seen this camera and liked it, especially the new direction it represents. A friend of mine who is a working D.P. in Los Angeles likes it a lot as well.

I think we're fortunate that Steve has agreed to help moderate this forum, the one person who you can say has "written the book" on these camcorders. He has written about other cameras as well; whether or not this particular one "sells" is not going to make him or break him. And knowing Steve as I do, he will tell you exactly what he thinks about it, good, bad or ugly. I trust him implicitly or else I would not have asked him to take on this position.

Many thanks and much respect,

[David Mintzer]

Chris---my apologies---I think I reacted to the fact that yes, the camera is an evolutionary step-- but certainly not a revolutionary step. All the people I know, who have actually seen it, aren't impressed. I truely believe that when one has a vested interest (in this case selling guides for 25 bucks a shot) in a product, they can't possibly give an objective review. Having said that, I will not comment further---As I said, I will wait until the product is availble and make my own judgement. Until then I will keep my mouth shut.

[Chris Hurd]

Hi David,

<< I will wait until the product is availble and make my own judgement >>

Of course, this is always the safest and most intelligent way to go. Much respect,

[Lynne Whelden]

I bet when Bell came up with his prototype version of the telephone, there were alot of telegraph operators saying the same thing. "Oh, the sound was terrible. You couldn't hardly understand a word they were saying." "And it's so bulky and ugly looking compared to this polished brass telegraph armature."
You guys are missing the historical significance of this camera. Until three months ago, NOBODY ever dreamed of an HD camera under $50,000. Now we're about to be handed a gem on a silver platter and all I'm hearing is "JVC is junk" or "It's only one chip" or "Some guy I don't know from a hole in the ground said somewhere that the image sucked so therefore I'm not buying it."
Personally I'm glad Steve Mullen is a proponent of this camera. First of all, he understands the technical end of video. On top of that, hey, he's seen the camera! And he still wants to write about it. He could have bailed out and concluded it was a piece of junk like "everyone else." Vested interest? Don't you think the company who's invested millions into R & D on this camera has a vested interest in releasing something that works? Give us consumers a little more credit than that.

[David Mintzer]

Said I wouldn't reply but I can't help myself---What I said was it was evolutionary not revolutionary---In other words, it was most likely a small step in the right direction---My sources aren't people who are not professionals---in fact they are active cinematographers and videographers--many of whom have rather impressive professional credentials. These are people I have known for years and let me assure you, they didn't pop up from some 'hole in the ground.

As far as JVC goes---companies have only one vested interest---that is making money. So the hype and the bally-hoo always proceed release of the product---In some cases (like the DVX100) the hype is validated by the product---In other cases the product doesn't come close to fufilling expectations and it dies a quick death. Again, we will wait and see if this camera is deserving of all the pre-market hype.

[Ken Tanaka]

Indeed, the proof of any such gadget is in the pudding...and there is much pudding ahead to look forward to in the HD arena.

But I have to say that, new cameras aside, the immediate prospects for HD's accelerated public adoption, on which such cameras ultimately depend, are extremely poor from an economics perspective. Consumer HD sets are still very expensive amidst sharply rising unemployment (and even more sharply rising under-employment) and the highest consumer debt levels in history. Even barring major negative national economic events (of which several loom at this writing) it will be optimistically 2006-2008 before HD will have a chance of becoming mainstream.

[Steve Bell]

I think that JVC will be remembered as the 1st but the camcorder is a joke. 35 Lux sensitivity! Still the CCD has the ability to pick up a quality picture. DV format has a 25 Mbps stream. JVC, instead of increasing it, lowred it to 19 Mbps. Still 720/30p MPEG2 picture should look excellent; there is a lot more bandwidth than needed for HDTV. I assume the MPEG2 encoder must not be very good.

Would Sony come out with a camera like this just to be first? Of course not. But JVC is not Sony. At all shows, and especially NAB, the companies make siure that the prouct performs at it's best. If what people reported on is the best that JVC can do, I feel sorry for them. HD1 is selling in Japan already. HD10 will be sold there next month. Both use the same MPEG2 encoder chip.

I'll wait for Sony when they come out with their Blu-Ray MPEG2 HD DVD camcorder. I'm sure that it will not be 35 lux and the Blu-Ray format has a 36 Mbps stream.

[Frank Granovski]

Yeah. With 35 LUX, indoor shooting under "normal" lighting is out. JVC should have used a 1/2 CCD, like one of the older Hitachi MPEG2 cams, coupled with a wider lens. I can't understand why these 2 JVC cams are gonna go for so much money. As I wrote before, I'm excited about upcoming consumer HD cams. But I think I'll have to wait a bit longer---mind you, all my TVs are only 4:3!

PS: and here I thought the LUX was bad with 1/6" CCD cams. Go figure.

[Jeff Donald]

Lux ratings are meaningless. There are probably a dozen posts here that tell newbies not to use Lux as a means of picking cameras. Yet, everyone who has not seen this camera is quick to criticize this camera for it's Lux rating. I've used three chip Sony Beta SP cameras rated at 100 Lux. So, it wouldn't be the first camera I'd pick to shoot a wedding. I don't think that is this camera's market. The one person who has seen the camera says the image is OK.

Back in the early '90's the same things were said about Avid and non-linear editing. Many pros (with a vested interest in linear editing hardware) back then said Avid would never make it, too buggy, too expensive, could never be used for on line editing. Well, todays NLE's (and most of us) are standing on the shoulders of those early pioneers.

The market for this camera is limited, as Frank and others are pointing out. But as Steve Mullen points out, if you have a need for the resolution and can make money with this HD camera, go for it.

[David Mintzer]

Ken makes a great point that is seldom factored into the equation. With the economy in the condition it is in, there will definately be a slow-down in the purchase of a non-essential like an HD ready TV. THis of course will slow down development of consumer and prosumer HD cameras.

[Bryan Beasleigh]

"Lux ratings are meaningless. "
Generally, I would agree, but 35 Lux certainly makes you wonder. This isn't even close.

[Jeff Donald]

We don't know how the lux is being measured. I used to own very expensive ($50,000 USD) Sony cameras and they were rated at 100 lux. So that must make it 3X better. There is more to a camera than a lux rating. I just can't criticize a camera for low lux performance, unless you shoot weddings, or events. If you need a camera for low light levels then look elsewhere, no big deal.

[Steve Mullen]

Now that my taxes are done -- I can relate to comments about the economy! :)

1) At NAB I looked at several under $2K (one under $1500) projectors that are great for HD. I saw multiple ads for HDTVs under $2000 in the Sunday paper. I can't understand how anyone can call this expensive. My current Toshiba 35" I bought 6 years ago cost $1500.

2) Many of the comments (why not 1/2"?) (why MPEG2?) (35lux!!!) (Only 1 CCD!) (I saw jitter on pans!) show so such -- sorry -- technical ignorence that there is no point in answering them. Moreover, I suspect most of these comments come from those who don't own an HDTV of any kind and have no business model for shooting HD. In short we are seeing the same kind of BS that was posted (mostly by Sony and Canon owners) on the DVX100 lists. It would be nice to not have that happen. If you don'y know -- ask.

3) My Guide is not focused on the JVC camcorders. It's focused on prosumer HD shooting and production. It doesn't depend on the JVC, but on the trend to HD. My interest in HD comes not from the JVC, but from HD itself.

Frankly, I can't see spending any money on anything that uses NTSC or PAL. Five years from now, everything shot on DV will look to our eyes the way Hi8 does now. And, DVDs will look like just what they are, NTSC on optical media.

4) Having said that, I don't expect to have the money to buy a Varicam or HDCAM. Therefore, the JVC becomes intertersting. Because like it or not, the technology employed in them will be very much the model of what's coming from anyone else.

5) All prosumer camcorders will be MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 based. All will be limited to 20Mbps to 30Mbps. Since MPEG-4 is 3X more efficient than MPEG-2, we could well see data rates falling to under 8Mbps. And that means HD can be recorded on DVD discs using red laser. (But there are no HD MPEG-4 compression chips, so that can't happen for awhile.)

Of course, many will protest HD can't be done using MPEG-4. But Sony's new SUPER HD, HDCAM SR, is MPEG-4 based. The camera and deck cost nearly $200,000.

In short, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 will be used for everything from consumer to super pro. DV will go the way of Hi8 and S-VHS.

6) Pushing the trend to highly efficient compression will be the move to optical discs and solid state recording. Sony's pushing disc and Panasonics pushing SD. Tape will go away. (Frankly, I like tape and think JVC was wise to use it. But, a camcorder that uses discs could be used for shooting AND editing AND presentation -- just the way Hi8/DV was used before Sony released decks. One need not buy anything else!)

7) Based on the success of digital photography, 3 CCDs will be seen as old fashoined as tube-based cameras. The push will be toward 1 CCD because the encorder/decorder chips will be very expensive to start.

8) As far as I know, the only commercial MPEG-2 chip than can handle HD is the NTT chip used by JVC. It has a maximum capability of 720p30. So for those who want p60 or 1080i -- you'll have to wait for someone to develop a chip with 2X greater clock-speed. (These will require a huge amount of power and disipate a lot of heat!)

9) There are 2 assumptions I make about this trend:

a) DV must be made obsolete because without a new trend there will be no revenue growth as DV has become a commodity. That's Economics 101.

b) The future is to larger and larger screen sizes. I do not consider anything that doesn't fill your eyes when viewing, as "true" HD. Most HD that folks see, is simply better images on a "TV."

There is only one way to fill a big screen. Lots of resolution. Resolution that NTSC doesn't have no matter how much its processed. There is only one ATSC format that is free of artifacts and mates to DLP, LCD, and plasma -- and that's 720p.

I hope it's clear why the move to HD is so important. And why the JVC camcorders are of interest.

Lastly, the DVX100 Guide is my biggest seller. If I posted comments based on revenue, I wouldn't cover the JVC at all. And, I certainly wouldn't say bad things about NTSC or PAL.

[David Mintzer]

I disagree with about 3/4 of our post---you lost me when you said that 1500-2000 bucks isn't expensive---For mass penetration it is very expensive and that probably explains why HD is still fairly uncommon.

I dont see that the JVC camera is the future of anything.

DV will be around for many years---see above.

You shouldn't say that DV cameras are commodities and that the major players can't make money off them. You might say that some cameras are commodities and that some others aren't. I dont consider the DVX-100 a commodity---a friend of mine at Panasonic says the margins are huge and that they can't keep up with demand---even in a bad economy.


Sure the future is HD---but it will be many years before we have a prosumer camera, in the 2500-3500 range that will really reap the benefits of what HD can do. Again the JVC Is evolutionary---at the bottom of the ladder---It might an interesting technological phenomena or perhaps a neat little gadget but it is a long way from being what the PD-150, XL1S, GL2 is to the shooters I know.