HD100 article posted at HDV Info Net at DVinfo.net

Chris Hurd · March 11th, 2005, 02:14 AM

Howdy from Texas,

I didn't have very much to go on outside of Sean Dinwoodie's initial post and my own suppositions, but here it is anyway:

Pre-Release Information About the JVC GY-HD100

Let me know what you think... what I've missed, or whatever. It's a start, anyway!

Jacques Star · March 17th, 2005, 01:41 PM

There's already a full picture up there!

Looks cool, kind of XL1-ish.

I'd like to see how the video looks from this little camera.

It's pretty amazing that you can get something like this for under 10K, and I belive that it could be comparable to the 40k HDCAMs.

Robert Shuster · April 1st, 2005, 12:31 PM

Sean and I have a private dealers-only show with JVC on Monday 4/18 at 5pm. All the JVC folks will be there and we will be shown working units complete with playback, hands-on, etc. (we assume). We'll try to post up what we are allowed to that night after a few hours on the tables. Most specifically what the exact price is and exact shipping date. If you have any specific questions please let me know so I can find out. See you in South Hall...

Tony Sal · April 10th, 2005, 10:55 PM

HD & 720p??????

Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you.

720p is not really HD, it's only a tiny bit better than SD really.
In PAL tearms a SD image contains 576(H) lines so you can see how 720 really isn't that much of an improvement.

1080i all the way!

Sorry JVC

Chris Hurd · April 10th, 2005, 11:49 PM

Hi Tony,

Since the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) considers 720p to be High Definition, this means that around here we do so as well. Keep in mind that it's not only the height but the width that also makes a difference... 720p measures 1280 x 720 pixels, which is a substantial increase over Standard Definition regardless of whether it's PAL or NTSC.

You might want to read up on Ben Waggonner's excellent article, "Understanding HD Formats." Hope this helps,

Graham Hickling · April 11th, 2005, 12:15 AM

Since when does 2.67 times as many pixels (I'm talking NTSC SD here) represent a 'tiny' difference?

More importantly, anyone who has actually looked at the two formats side by side on decent monitors will realize what bollocks that comment was.

Oh and .... interlaced material really sucks IMHO!

Jacques Star · April 11th, 2005, 08:20 AM

'm not that interested in a 720p only camera.
I shoot HD, and I really could use something switchable. The Varicam and F900 are too expensive for me to own, so I have to rent. However, JVC is coming out with a switchable 1080i and 720p camera called the HD7000, which will cost $27,000 with lens.
This is interesting, and makes me want to buy one. It will have 2/3" chips and HD SDI output. Seems pretty nice. I have been dissapointed with JVC in the past, but an affordable, high-end JVC of HD caliber just might fit the bill...

I'm hoping that it is at least 50 mb/sec 4:2:2, because Discovery HD and other channels won't take 25 mb/sec 4:2:0 HDV due to it's inadequacey for compositing and graphics work, which you see often on these programs....

..That's why most HD channels won't take HDV footage, and probably never will, untill it gets bumped up to a higer data rate...

Tony Sal · April 12th, 2005, 05:43 AM

Sorry guys, but I have done my homework on this and have actually compared the two side by side.

1080i is a far superior format resolution wise. Yes, you indy kids might want a 24p camera but I want a camera and format with superior image quality and if I want 24p, can perform the convertion later.

With my 1080i camera I can shoot sports, drama anything you like really. Try shooting sports with 24p???? Looks bloody terrible.

So why buy a camera that is only good at one thing when you can by one that is good at everything and if you then need progressive perform the conversion later.

Not to mention any partuculars but I work for a large UK broadcaster and have used HD for everything from OB sports, Drama, EFP, Live music......... so am not just plucking crap out of what I have read in the magazines.

Oh, and all those years ago you would have gone along with the National Television Systems Committee but look at what they came up with NTSC!

Frederic Lumiere · April 12th, 2005, 10:08 AM

Tony,

These are interesting comments especially since the premier HD Sport channel (FOX HD) shoots and broadcasts all the sport events in 720p.

Frederic

Barry Green · April 12th, 2005, 10:42 AM

Yes, but it's 720/60p, which looks fantastic. Sports in 720/24p would be dodgy.

720p is used by two of the four networks (ABC/FOX), 1080i is used by the other two (NBC/CBS). It all looks like high-def. 720p looks and acts and feels like high-def, because it is. It provides 2 million pixels per second of info. 1080i looks and acts and feels like high-def, because it is. It also provides 2 million pixels per second.

Selling 720p short is a mistake, I think -- especially in Europe, where it looks like the EBU will make its formal recommendation that 720/50p will be THE broadcast standard across the continent, and 1080i won't even be endorsed. They're going with one or the other, and all indications point that they're totally sold on progressive.

I do agree with Tony that "why buy a camera that is only good at one thing when you can by one that is good at everything " (which is why I plan on getting an HVX200, which does 1080i, 1080p, 720p, 24p, 60i, and 60p!) But I do wonder about the JVC's lack of 60p, that seems like it will definitely limit the type of live event/news type of coverage you could do with it. 24p is wonderful, but it's not appropriate for all types of shooting, sometimes you *have* to have to "immediate" look, which means either 60i or 60p.

Frederic Lumiere · April 12th, 2005, 10:53 AM

Barry,

How about Varicam 24p? It is being used widely for indie filmmaking.

Just comparing resolution (not color space or bit rate), the HDV 24p is superior to the varicam format.

Varicam 24p: 960 X 720
HDV 24p: 1280 X 720

The reality of this format is that it is the very first true progressive HD (Assuming one doesn't consider 960 X 720 HD) under $100K.

I am working with HDV 24p now and I must tell you, it's cool to have true progressive 24p!

Frederic

Kevin Dooley · April 12th, 2005, 11:04 AM

I'm with Barry on this one... 720p 60 looks amazing. The higher numbers aren't everything. I mean, when you're done deinterlacing 1080i, you've pretty much the resolution of 720p. But, the HVX, letting you shoot both, seems to be the most versatile camera in it's price range...

Frederic...

You can't compare just one aspect of any camera or recording format.

Varicam's 4:2:2 color space, higher bitrate, much, much better lenses, DSP's, ADC, etc. will add up to a much, much better picture than HDV can produce, even at 960x720. That said, I'm as excited as a kid at Christmas about all the HD formats and cameras that I can now afford! Long live affordable HD! But let's not get carried away with it...

Frederic Lumiere · April 12th, 2005, 11:55 AM

Kevin,

I'm just responding to Tony's comment:

"HD & 720p??????

Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you."

Following that logic, Varicam cannot be considered HD since it is even smaller resolution than HDV 24p

I disagree that interlaced generates just as good progressive frames as progressive. It all depends on the action on screen.

Frederic

Kevin Dooley · April 12th, 2005, 12:54 PM

I see, sorry about the misunderstanding.

"HD & 720p??????

Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you."

In light of that, I do find it interesting (and I've commented here and a few other boards), what people are trying to say is and isn't HD. I mean, there is a standard definition for HD--and basically, any format that's bigger than SD, be it NTSC or PAL, is considered HD, by the ATSC definitions. The problem is we keep trying to quantify different qualities of HD by saying something isn't HD. VHS was SD, it just wasn't DigiBeta. It's a fairly easy distinction to make without saying VHS is not SD--we just need to apply the same logic to the new world of affordable HD.

Ignacio Rodriguez · April 13th, 2005, 01:12 PM

Tony, if you think Sony's implementation of 1080i is so cool, then guess what, the image being sent to the MPEG2 encoder in the FX1/Z1 is actually upsampled from a single megapixel and not really 1920x1080 anyway. Most likely the image from th HD100 will be at least very similar. And judging from vidcaps I have seen from the FX1/Z1, there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of lattitude and sensitivity. Considering that the HD100 has a real proscan sensor array, it might even look better than the FX1/Z1's image. So let's keep an open mind about this little new camera. Even YOU might end up wanting to buy one!

March 11th, 2005, 02:14 AM	#1
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	HD100 article posted at HDV Info Net Howdy from Texas, I didn't have very much to go on outside of Sean Dinwoodie's initial post and my own suppositions, but here it is anyway: Pre-Release Information About the JVC GY-HD100 Let me know what you think... what I've missed, or whatever. It's a start, anyway! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 17th, 2005, 01:41 PM	#2
Jacques Star Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 68	hmm...interesting There's already a full picture up there! Looks cool, kind of XL1-ish. I'd like to see how the video looks from this little camera. It's pretty amazing that you can get something like this for under 10K, and I belive that it could be comparable to the 40k HDCAMs.

April 1st, 2005, 12:31 PM	#3
Robert Shuster Hollywood Studio Rentals Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Burbank, CA Posts: 24	Posts live from NAB2005 Sean and I have a private dealers-only show with JVC on Monday 4/18 at 5pm. All the JVC folks will be there and we will be shown working units complete with playback, hands-on, etc. (we assume). We'll try to post up what we are allowed to that night after a few hours on the tables. Most specifically what the exact price is and exact shipping date. If you have any specific questions please let me know so I can find out. See you in South Hall... __________________ Cheers and Best Wishes

April 10th, 2005, 11:49 PM	#5
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Hi Tony, Since the ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) considers 720p to be High Definition, this means that around here we do so as well. Keep in mind that it's not only the height but the width that also makes a difference... 720p measures 1280 x 720 pixels, which is a substantial increase over Standard Definition regardless of whether it's PAL or NTSC. You might want to read up on Ben Waggonner's excellent article, "Understanding HD Formats." Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 12th, 2005, 11:04 AM	#12
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	I'm with Barry on this one... 720p 60 looks amazing. The higher numbers aren't everything. I mean, when you're done deinterlacing 1080i, you've pretty much the resolution of 720p. But, the HVX, letting you shoot both, seems to be the most versatile camera in it's price range... Frederic... You can't compare just one aspect of any camera or recording format. Varicam's 4:2:2 color space, higher bitrate, much, much better lenses, DSP's, ADC, etc. will add up to a much, much better picture than HDV can produce, even at 960x720. That said, I'm as excited as a kid at Christmas about all the HD formats and cameras that I can now afford! Long live affordable HD! But let's not get carried away with it... __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

April 10th, 2005, 10:55 PM	#4
Tony Sal New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 15	HD & 720p?????? Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you. 720p is not really HD, it's only a tiny bit better than SD really. In PAL tearms a SD image contains 576(H) lines so you can see how 720 really isn't that much of an improvement. 1080i all the way! Sorry JVC

April 11th, 2005, 12:15 AM	#6
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	Since when does 2.67 times as many pixels (I'm talking NTSC SD here) represent a 'tiny' difference? More importantly, anyone who has actually looked at the two formats side by side on decent monitors will realize what bollocks that comment was. Oh and .... interlaced material really sucks IMHO!

April 11th, 2005, 08:20 AM	#7
Jacques Star Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 68	'm not that interested in a 720p only camera. I shoot HD, and I really could use something switchable. The Varicam and F900 are too expensive for me to own, so I have to rent. However, JVC is coming out with a switchable 1080i and 720p camera called the HD7000, which will cost $27,000 with lens. This is interesting, and makes me want to buy one. It will have 2/3" chips and HD SDI output. Seems pretty nice. I have been dissapointed with JVC in the past, but an affordable, high-end JVC of HD caliber just might fit the bill... I'm hoping that it is at least 50 mb/sec 4:2:2, because Discovery HD and other channels won't take 25 mb/sec 4:2:0 HDV due to it's inadequacey for compositing and graphics work, which you see often on these programs.... ..That's why most HD channels won't take HDV footage, and probably never will, untill it gets bumped up to a higer data rate...

April 12th, 2005, 05:43 AM	#8
Tony Sal New Boot Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 15	Sorry guys, but I have done my homework on this and have actually compared the two side by side. 1080i is a far superior format resolution wise. Yes, you indy kids might want a 24p camera but I want a camera and format with superior image quality and if I want 24p, can perform the convertion later. With my 1080i camera I can shoot sports, drama anything you like really. Try shooting sports with 24p???? Looks bloody terrible. So why buy a camera that is only good at one thing when you can by one that is good at everything and if you then need progressive perform the conversion later. Not to mention any partuculars but I work for a large UK broadcaster and have used HD for everything from OB sports, Drama, EFP, Live music......... so am not just plucking crap out of what I have read in the magazines. Oh, and all those years ago you would have gone along with the National Television Systems Committee but look at what they came up with NTSC!

April 12th, 2005, 10:08 AM	#9
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Tony, These are interesting comments especially since the premier HD Sport channel (FOX HD) shoots and broadcasts all the sport events in 720p. Frederic

April 12th, 2005, 10:42 AM	#10
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Yes, but it's 720/60p, which looks fantastic. Sports in 720/24p would be dodgy. 720p is used by two of the four networks (ABC/FOX), 1080i is used by the other two (NBC/CBS). It all looks like high-def. 720p looks and acts and feels like high-def, because it is. It provides 2 million pixels per second of info. 1080i looks and acts and feels like high-def, because it is. It also provides 2 million pixels per second. Selling 720p short is a mistake, I think -- especially in Europe, where it looks like the EBU will make its formal recommendation that 720/50p will be THE broadcast standard across the continent, and 1080i won't even be endorsed. They're going with one or the other, and all indications point that they're totally sold on progressive. I do agree with Tony that "why buy a camera that is only good at one thing when you can by one that is good at everything " (which is why I plan on getting an HVX200, which does 1080i, 1080p, 720p, 24p, 60i, and 60p!) But I do wonder about the JVC's lack of 60p, that seems like it will definitely limit the type of live event/news type of coverage you could do with it. 24p is wonderful, but it's not appropriate for all types of shooting, sometimes you have to have to "immediate" look, which means either 60i or 60p.

April 12th, 2005, 10:53 AM	#11
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Barry, How about Varicam 24p? It is being used widely for indie filmmaking. Just comparing resolution (not color space or bit rate), the HDV 24p is superior to the varicam format. Varicam 24p: 960 X 720 HDV 24p: 1280 X 720 The reality of this format is that it is the very first true progressive HD (Assuming one doesn't consider 960 X 720 HD) under $100K. I am working with HDV 24p now and I must tell you, it's cool to have true progressive 24p! Frederic

April 12th, 2005, 11:55 AM	#13
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Kevin, I'm just responding to Tony's comment: "HD & 720p?????? Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you." Following that logic, Varicam cannot be considered HD since it is even smaller resolution than HDV 24p I disagree that interlaced generates just as good progressive frames as progressive. It all depends on the action on screen. Frederic

April 12th, 2005, 12:54 PM	#14
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	I see, sorry about the misunderstanding. "HD & 720p?????? Can't realy use the two in the same sentence can you." In light of that, I do find it interesting (and I've commented here and a few other boards), what people are trying to say is and isn't HD. I mean, there is a standard definition for HD--and basically, any format that's bigger than SD, be it NTSC or PAL, is considered HD, by the ATSC definitions. The problem is we keep trying to quantify different qualities of HD by saying something isn't HD. VHS was SD, it just wasn't DigiBeta. It's a fairly easy distinction to make without saying VHS is not SD--we just need to apply the same logic to the new world of affordable HD. __________________ Kevin Dooley Media Director, Pantego Bible Church

April 13th, 2005, 01:12 PM	#15
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Tony, if you think Sony's implementation of 1080i is so cool, then guess what, the image being sent to the MPEG2 encoder in the FX1/Z1 is actually upsampled from a single megapixel and not really 1920x1080 anyway. Most likely the image from th HD100 will be at least very similar. And judging from vidcaps I have seen from the FX1/Z1, there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of lattitude and sensitivity. Considering that the HD100 has a real proscan sensor array, it might even look better than the FX1/Z1's image. So let's keep an open mind about this little new camera. Even YOU might end up wanting to buy one! __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.