Call to JVC - split screen

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

This streak is called "vertical smear" and is present on EVERY "IT" CCD camcorder. It is inherent it IT CCDs which are used in almost every camcorder.
Naturally, the higher the pixel count and the smaller the CCD -- the greater probability of smear. It can be any color

The difference between 1/3" and 1/2" must be like night and day when it comes to smear then. Because I have shoot with Sony DSR300 and Panasonic DVC200 pointed directly to car head lights and stadium spots and never got smear.

[Werner Wesp]

Or perhaps you exposed the footage somewhat less...

[Michael Maier]

Hey Werner, if you are referring to my post, I don't think I could have underexposed at all, since I wanted detail in the background, and if I had underexposed, the background would have gone dark.

[Jiri Bakala]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

When have you seen a pro shoot a sunset with vertical smear? Never!

Any time you get smear that wide from the sun -- the shot is over exposed by definition.

To do a sunset correctly one must bias the exposure for the sun which means the beach would be much darker. This guy likely did an AVERAGE exposure.

In any case, the shot could never have been used because of the smear -- the SSE was irrelevant.

It seems that you never shot a sunset, Steve. The sun will be ALWAYS overexposed. No matter what camera, what size chip, to expose for the sun, you would get nothing in the foreground, all pitch black and the sun would be still overexposed. Vertical smear is an unfortunate characteristic of CCD sensors and sometimes cannot be avoided, especially with smaller chip cameras. When I shot sunsets with my DSR500, the sun itself was overexposed but there was no smear and that's thanks to the bigger size chip. With the HD100 there will likely be some smear in sunset shots, as well as, in night-time shots with car headlights but there should not be SSE.

I am pretty tired and don't have time for your on-going defence of this particular issue and I am just gonna leave the battle to someone else.

However, I want to mention one more thing, the suggestion of white balancing in low light. One technique used by electronic cinematography is NOT to white balance for every setup and to use a pre-set WB instead. The reason is that the process of white balancing removes hues that are dominant in the shot (i.e. WB with blue gel minimizes blues and 'warms up' the image). If one manually WB in the evening (sunset) the camera electronics will attempt to 'compensate' and remove the warm hues that make a sunset what it is, giving the image a non-descript flatness. Also, in order to create a colour continuity it is important not to change WB between setups, among other settings (of course that doesn't apply when switching between daylight and incandescent lighting). So, even rental houses set up high end cameras (like CineAlta and others) to the liking of the DP/client and then the settings are not typically changed and certainly one doesn't manually white balance.

[Guy Barwood]

"The difference between 1/3" and 1/2" must be like night and day when it comes to smear then. Because I have shoot with Sony DSR300 and Panasonic DVC200 pointed directly to car head lights and stadium spots and never got smear."

One thing to remember is the smear is related to the size of the pixels right?
THese cameras have many more pixels in the same size CCD so when it comes to things like smear and sensitivity they will perform like a much smaller SD block. So a 1/3" HD CCD will proabably have pixels about the size of a 1/6" or smaller SD CCD. Your probably going to need a 2/3" HD block to get the performance of a 1/3" SD block with 1280x720.

Still, I havn't heard of the Sony 1/3" block having such bad smear and it has about the same size pixels.

Anyone know who actually makes the CCD block in the JVC?

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Guy, I haven't had any smearing with the Z1U. I haven't shot into the sun yet, but I will try this weekend.

[Stephen L. Noe]

FWIW- The XL-H1 smears in the sun too. If you download the attempted CA shot over on the H1 community you can look at a nice smear from the sun all the way to the bottom of the frame.

[Heath McKnight]

We're getting way off topic here, but one shouldn't shoot into the sun to begin with, because of all the reasons we've discussed and more.

heath

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

"Your probably going to need a 2/3" HD block to get the performance of a 1/3" SD block with 1280x720.

Still, I havn't heard of the Sony 1/3" block having such bad smear and it has about the same size pixels.

Anyone know who actually makes the CCD block in the JVC?

Sony's Hyper HAD CCDs have really, really low vertical smear. Nevertheless, trying to shoot a direct sun and keep the forground visable is exceeding the exposure latitude one would expect from a 1/3-inch CCD. It's simply not good practice as was bourne out by the results.

Guy's right -- for those tough situations there's a reason pros buy camcorders with 1/2-inch and 2/3-inch CCDs!

And, it is rumored that Sony makes the CCDs.

[Heath McKnight]

I've heard that Sony has made the Canon XL H1's chips.

heath

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Hey Werner, if you are referring to my post, I don't think I could have underexposed at all, since I wanted detail in the background, and if I had underexposed, the background would have gone dark.

No, no, I meant that if you exposed less with your 1/2 inch camcorders, you are likely to get less smear...

[Michael Maier]

I know. But I didn't expose less, since the background was not dark at all.

[Werner Wesp]

Ah, well, that clearly shows how big the difference is. Keep in mind though that the CCD's are bigger AND there are lesser pixels on each...

[Mel Namnama]

Hello Everyone,
I picked up my HD 100 from the JVC repair shop ( same unit) . The tech was able to lessen the degree of SSE but could not completely eradicate it. He basically said that it is all new technology...that SSE is inherent with this HD camera. He said he "corrected the gain" and showed me a monitor with an isoelectric line (I had no clue what it represented ), mid way through the line was a break ...he said the camera was under spec. The tech said to test it and bring it back again if I was not satisfied.

[Robert Castiglione]

Dear Mel,

Please let us know how you get on and whether you are satisfied with the result.

I must confess to coming around to Steve Mullen's point of view on the SSE. Even though I can reproduce the SSE under specific and awkward conditions, it has not (thus far) been a factor in either of the two shoots that I have done even though both were under low light conditions. I have found that the camera actually performs well under low light.

My overall impression after using this camera quite a bit (mines a PAL unit) is that it is a terrific unit with a lot of potential.

Rob