Split screen technical explanation

[David Dessel]

Yes, Steve, the menus are deep, but what a great palette to work from. After playing with the menus for about two hours while the camera was hooked up to a high def monitor, I was able to tweak the image to look like Super16 transfered to film.

Good optics will make this camera a serious piece of gear.

There is so much potential here. Let's focus on that.

-Dave Dessel

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

@Chris Hurd, I understand what Guy is saying in that Steve Mullen wrote his post as if he was speaking on behalf of JVC. That's exactly the impression I got as well.

I can acknowledge that you may have received that impression, but Steve will be the first to tell you that he most certainly does *not* speak on behalf of any manufacturer. Try to look past his choice of words and check out the message instead. Perhaps Nate Weaver did a better job of saying the same thing, either way it's an accurate and appropriate summation. It's certainly something to be aware of.

Steve Mullen is an excellent technical writer, and like I said, I know him somewhat better than most of you do. I've been to his house. His feisty overweight Siamese cat has gnawed on my fingers until they bled. We've shared more than one beer together. Do not make the mistake of reading into someone's posts that which is not there. Look past a person's writing style, try not to pass judgement on what you perceive to be some sort of authoritative position due to a certain choice of words. Instead, look at the message. Try not to get emotional about words on a screen. End of rant.

And I'm happy to post a sticky about this issue; I'm in agreement that we definitely need one. Should it be this thread? Or something more concise. I like Nate's post best. Who will write it up in a way that best serves this community?

[Michael Maier]

I vote for Nate or Steve :)

[Guy Barwood]

Not fair, you guys have had all the fun while I was sleeping then out shooting a wedding (on my DV301 as well, got to get to know that camera as more than just my backup).

Chris, I think you took me the wrong way. I didn't think Steve was speaking on behalf of JVC, but I did feel like he was, and still is telling me to just drop it because its not important to him. We each have our own opinions on this matter and should respect that. It seems that while I can understand his acceptance of the problem for his shooting requirements, he can't quite get a grip on mine.

The price on my DV500 is good, and bad.... A new DV5100 body only here would still cost about $8000+ I think if you didn't shop around too much. Its funny, I do find it quite difficult to get interest in my JVC gear. Sony sells easy, JVC doesn't. You normally get much better value buying JVC, but suffer when it comes to selling (at least here).

Michael: "You know, I might be totally wrong here. But something tells me JVC didn't design the HD100 with wedding videographers in mind."

I am afraid they did. Have a look at http://www.prohd.net, which was the very first site JVC created for this camera. It is still there, and it still clearly shows a nice photo of a wedding cake strongly implying the camera is targeted towards event shooting, not just film making. Therefore, even though the problem can be solved by adequate lighting, it is clearly marketed towards shooting in situations where their often isn't adequate lighting (events, news gathering and to a lesser degree sports shooting).

I think I am very forgiving of JVC and until this issue raised its head, I was gave this model a lot of praise to my peers. I've have two relatively late model JVC cameras and they have their fair share of problems and poor design decisions. This HD100 has a swag of its own without even mentioning this SSE. Poor battery life, bad noise in grain, low sensitivity, no simultaneous display VF+LCD, no meters on LCD like DV5000, not the best LCD and VF to start with, expensive remote focus and iris control options, bad smear (from what Steve says). However I accept these for what they are, the other benifits outweight these. Unfortunately this SSE might just be a deal breaker (for me), because when you see it, the image doesn't look grainy, or have any traits of traditional camera problems, the image just looks faulty, plain wrong. I am 99% sure any future model won't have it, and I'll bet if JVC knew it was going to happen they wouldn't have designed it the way they did, but it was all probably too late and marketing likely pushed them to market with it (just guessing though).

Maybe what I can do, is if I sell the DV500, I can buy a HD101 from someone who is willing to sell on a 100% satisfaction guarrantee return policy. If I shoot a wedding with it, and don't see the problem, then I guess it won't matter to me either. Maybe I am overreacting, but maybe I am not.

[Joe Carney]

The other problem with SSE is once you see it, you start to see it everywhere, even when it's not there. All it will take is a big name director trying then dropping the cam to turn it into the next Edsel.

I remember being hot on the 301, till I saw the slow focus issue, way slower than competitors. Made it useless in run and shoot situations, the very situations it was meant to be used in.
Yet people found uses for it outside of new gathering, under controlled situations...just don't get in a hurry.

Finally, who in their right mind wants to tell a bride and groom to just ignore the little line up the middle of the screen, the contrast and color difference between left and right...and that most people won't notice it.
No any one who wants to stay in business.

It's also obvious JVC knew about this issue before it shipped, especially with the explanatons being given. They knew it was extremely difficult to capture data off of these CCDs, yet hoped they could get away with it?.

I have to agree with Guy on this one.

Once agian the marketing doesn't match up with the product.


To me, at least in the USA, JVC is one of the great what if's of the video industry.

I have to believe most directors don't want to see a great, maybe perfect performance in a given scene and have to yell, "Cut, got that damn split screen again, check the lighting, get the talent back on mark..."

Yes, I believe Nate and Steve about how great the images can look. But is it worth the hassle? Is it worth the extra time and resources needed to avoid a design flaw (yes, flaw, tech limitations not with standing). If one needs to do all the same things that are needed for a film camera, why not just rent a film camera instead?

[John Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

John, is your camera a NTSC or PAL? When did you get it?



What is your version and the newer version of the firmware you saw from the other user's camera?

Mine is 101E (PAL), although in HD mode both cameras are identical (100 and 101). I got min efromt eh second shipment to Australia around the end of August.

Re- firmware: Ah now there's a complicated series of button presses to ge to the firmware version - I have it written down at work, I'll check tomorrow.

I'm not sure about the other user, because I found this out via the AB Batyery importer in Australia who was dealing with another customer, who was getting an incorrect voltage reading off the battery adapter and was trying to work out if it wasa firmware or a faulty adapter.

From memory (and mines not great!) mine was 1.12 and the other which was a newer camera was 1.14... I'll edit this post tomorrow when I confirm it.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Joe Carney

Yes, I believe Nate and Steve about how great the images can look. But is it worth the hassle? Is it worth the extra time and resources needed to avoid a design flaw (yes, flaw, tech limitations not with standing).

Press the AUTO IRIS button and be sure you have at least F4 AVERAGE level of light. You should be shooting at F4 to F5.6 for the best quality from ANY lens since that's mid-way between full Open and Full Closed.

Likewise, you should check the iris isn't more closed than F8 which means engaging the ND filter as needed.

Treat this like you were shoulding negative film.

[Jiri Bakala]

Steve, I respect you and your writings very much but I have to disagree here. There just are too many situations where one needs to go wide open, where there is no way of lighting the scene and as much as I like the camera, I have to insist that this flaw is a flaw and JVC needs to do what they can to fix it!

Yes, ideally under controlled situation you may want to go f4-5.6 but if you shoot documentaries it is without a question that sometimes you will have to go wide open and/or even add some plus gain. Same for live theater. I shoot some dance from time to time and I can tell you that often the theatrical lighting is just enough for wide open (and that is with a 2/3 SD camera). Also, when trying to achieve a shallow DOF, you will need to go as close to wide open as possible - hence, the danger of getting the dreaded split screen is still there.

We can go on and on about this but the reality is that unless JVC finds a fix there are going to be people that will simply have to pick another camera because this problem will be too severe for their type of work.

[John Mitchell]

I shot a dance concert the other night which I think isn't a bad test of low light performance and also SSE. I don't do a lot of these (only three a year) as the bulk of my work is corporate, but I shot with 2 Sony's - a DSR 300 and a DSR 500 and the JVC. I also shot in SD at 575/50 4x3 to match the other two cams (also because my editing program does not support 720P25 yet).

I shot mostly around F4 - OPEN with 0DB gain, and although the backgrounds were quite often smooth and contiguous (a cyc with projected images) and at times black I have not seen one instance of SSE in this footage. Obviously the Sony's had better low light performance being interlaced and larger chips (half inch and two thirds), but the other interesting thing was the footage matched quite well (I had black stretch on two and I think I upped the chroma a couple of points). All cameras were preset to 3200K.

I did have a weird problem with my 101E - I was actually getting breakup in one half of the sensor. I thought it was the power supply so I switched to battery, but the problem stayed - it was only happening intermittently so I could edit around it, but it was a concern. I had the desk in stereo patched into the 101E and I worked out that the problem seemed to be more prevalent when the audio peaked, so I wound down the level (which was by no means excessive) and the problem disappeared. I've now spoken to JVC and this appears to be a fault with my particular unit and I'll have to get it fixed next week. We still haven't decided if it was truly related to audio or if that was coincidental.. and this is probably the subject of a new thread.

The problem as I see it for guys like Guy (wow that joke must be getting old) is that this camera may not be right for wedding videographers. Its low light performance will not match cameras with a half/two third inch SD block scanning in interlaced. But then those cameras are quite remarkable. My Nikon D70 stills camera has trouble at ISO1600 in these kinds of light conditions unless I use a fast lens. So for the time being if you consistently shoot in very low light, you are better off with an interlaced SD camera.

I think what those who own the camera have tried to articulate here are three things:

1. SSE is a technical problem and does not manifest itself at the same level on all units (ie some cameras are worse than others). As JVC produces more units there has been an anecdotal improvement in performance.
2. JVC is prepared to exchange units that exhibit excessive SSE
3. Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you, or whether (as I discovered) battery life was by far the weakest point of this model.

I'll add a fourth and that is that even if disaster struck and some key footage exhibited SSE, it isn't a problem that can't be "fixed" in post. I haven't tried but I imagine a subtle colour correction to half the image would be possible, even within most NLE's. That's not ideal but from a post production POV I've had far harder hurdles to leap.

[John Vincent]

[QUOTE=Steve Mullen]Since JVC explained the details to me and others and we've published them I certaintly think JVC USA has defined the problem and is QCing the camcorders. Since I know of no additional firmware -- I'm assuming that what I've got is it.

Nope - that's not an official response. One shouldn't have to buy a defective camera to get an audience with a JVC dealer or rep, only to have tell 'fixes are on the way'. To many potential buyers JVC's lack of comment is, considering that footage from the H1 and HVX are starting to be seen, a staggering bad business decision. A decision that, until addressed, will absolutely rule out a purchase of the JVC for myself and many others.
John

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by John Vincent

A decision that, until addressed, will absolutely rule out a purchase of the JVC for myself and many others.

You're certainly entitled to express such a decision here... one time and one time only. Since you have determined that this camera is not the one for you, I will expect you to move on out of this particular board into one of the many others that we have here at DV Info Net. Meanwhile, John Mitchell's post above is the best and most realistic advice I have yet seen on this topic:

"Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, (or) whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you..."

Thanks in advance,

[Soroush Shahrokni]

I got mine today, no split screen and no dead pixels. I even tried to force the split screen but couldnt find any...am I lucky or have I just not managed to see it yet?

[Joe Carney]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

What the h*ll is so hard about pressing the AUTO IRIS button and being sure you have at least F4 AVERAGE level of light. You should be shooting at F4 to F5.6 for the best quality from ANY lens since that's mid-way between full Open and Full Closed.

Likewise, you should check the iris isn't more closed than F8 which means engaging the ND filter as needed.

Treat this like you were shoulding negative film. And, if you can afford film -- why are you reading about a video camera?

Steve, nothing hard at all. But it sounds like I can't do natural light shooting without taking a big risk. And the question about film was rhetorical, sorry if it sounded otherwise. I actually prefer shooting in a controlled environment, but I don't want to be constrained against taking advantage of natural light or other situations. I guess spontanaiety won't be part of a HDV100 operators job description.

I'm looking forward to JVC getting this problem solved. They've always addressed issues in the past, not always to what customers were hoping for, but at least they own up eventually (anybody remember the BR3K VTR disaster? They eventually came out with an outstanding replacement, but not before a lot of customers had given up on them, hope they don't repeat that approach this time.)
I haven't ruled out getting this camera, but for now, gonna be patient and see what happens. In case I haven't said so, I really appreciate all the reports, both good and bad.

btw, has anyone tried the 101 under flourescant lights? Especially color corrected ones, or Kino flow types? LED too?

[Robert Castiglione]

Just a couple of comments.

I own the camera and have used it quite a lot. People might see from my other posts that I am not been happy either with the SSE - in fact I was pretty cross about it at first. However, those considering purchasing the camera should definitely not be put off for the following reasons:

1. Although I can replicate the problem in very low light test situations I have not so far experienced a problem with it in real world shooting.
2. I shot in low light in a club the other night for two hours (admittedly SD) and was very surprised - no SSE. I hope to post some footage as soon as I can get my act together.
3. I understand that JVC has pretty much sorted the problem out and that people purchasing the camera now have little to be concerned about. There have been numerous software upgrades since the original camera.
4. For those with the issue (like me) it really is a question of getting the problem sorted out with your dealer/JVC which has shown no reluctance to deal with the issue at all. I have decided to do this and my seller is being helpull and will sort out the problem as soon as he can. It is a question of sending the unit back for adjustment. I dont think that there will ever just be a download fix available to the general public. It is a question of new software and some adjustment to the sensors as far as I can tell. Anyway, I understand that there is no need to actually exchange cameras. Bottom line - the problem is fixable even for those with cameras which exhibit the problem at an unacceptable level.

In essence, notwithstanding the SSE, the footage I have taken from this camera speaks for itself. It is awesome. Videographers who want to shoot mainly docos I reckon might be better off with the interlaced Sony. If you are only used to the interlaced look then go for Sony. But for those shooting drama there is one way to go - the JVC.

It would be a great shame for the film community if early teething problems compromised sales of this camera down the track as this would be a loss to the film community.

Cheers and happy shooting!

Rob

[Robert Castiglione]

"I was able to tweak the camera to look like Super 16"

Dear David,

Please share your settings with us - eithe here or there is another thread dealing with settings.

Rob