Split screen still present on new cameras in the US

Huiy Tang · October 12th, 2005, 10:44 PM

I know hd100 owners who have decided to keep the camera are doing the best with what they have-they've really been left with no other choice, if they want to have the camera as a resource. The fact of the matter is that if JVC knows what's good for business (and they do) they'll resolve the issue. I'm with Jiri, at times it appears that we are walking on eggshells with an issue that will eventually be fixed. All of mullens and dashwoods efforts though noble could all be in vane in two or three months once JVC releases a second line of HD100's without the SS. Mullen's recommendations do reduce the split screen, I agree. I've tried his and dashwoods suggestions and they do help to a adequate extent. Would I use the camera in the field for a corporate or broadcast gig? Not on your life. The issue is just too darn unpredictable and would jeopordize my relationship with a client or broadcaster if they ever asked me to turn over the raw footage gathered. Mullen-I hope JVC appreciates what you have done in protecting their interests-the book will make you a gazillion if the problem isn't fixed and you publish the solution. Dashwood, you are a genius at matching cameras, tweaking settings and your a credit to the profession. I am empathetic to each user, and wish that the SS wasn't an issue. But back to the point, it is simply a waste of time to try and tip toe around the unpredictability of the split screen. Before you go off and criticize remember this is a public forum, and if one believes that pointing out the camera's woes and sometimes even the absurdities of how desperately we want to believe and justify that our purchase has been a wise one - perhaps at the very least it will spare other users from experiencing the same woes that we have walked through. The intention with these truths are not to offend, but unfortunatly at the end of the day the truth is all we have, even if it's not pretty. Our talent as shooters can only be demonstrated clearly by the images we capture. The problem is that I've shot plenty of footage with the HD100 camera in well lit, controlled conditions, where I went to great lengths to ensure the split screen could be eliminated. I could post hours of footage and a few of you would still resist and doubt the cameras "limitations". What really kicks you in the butt is that the viewfinder and LCD are not always sufficient to observe the SS issue clearly. When you get back to your edit suite it stings when you see he SS pop up intermittently for seconds if not minutes at a time. As most of you know shooting with a monitor is not always an option in the field. Thanks to everyone for all the hard work put into the reducing the SS issue. But I'd rather just see the issue cleared up once and for all. Wouldn't it be more productive to somehow help JVC focus on creating a hardware upgrade that would remedy the SS once and for all. Mending the camera through menu settings is clearly much too limited. Let's all step back from the camera for a while and see what unfolds-even if it means getting a refund. If any JVC engineers or reps are reading this, please release some "official" explanation for the mishap, and when consumers can expect the camera to be free of the SS. It's clear that some loyalty towards the camera has been established, however it only adds insult to injury when a company chooses not to acknowledge the issue by correcting it sufficiently or even talking about what will be done in the future. Users are holding on to the hope that our makeshift methods will help, but all we really want is a camera that is free of a defect that effects our picture to such an extent. Heck I can even live with the shatty viewfinder, and mediocre lens. I don't need a "perfect experience", just one that doesn't sting by me walking on pins and needles while I'm working, or burn me when I look at the raw tape.

Spare me your critical feedback on my opinion. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. I suggest any of the naysayers or doubters try working with footage where the right side of the screen is darker than the left and try making a living with that as your product.

Greg Boston · October 12th, 2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

If I just want to shoot video -- why shoot HD? Why shoot low-temporal rate HD? We've all got DV for these situations. :)

Sorry Steve, I have to disagree with that statement. Part of what I love about HD is the increased resolution and feeling of being immersed in the actual location when watching it. It's the very first thing I noticed when watching true HD material a few years back when I got an HDTV. You are able to discern detail much as you would if you were actually there. Don't forget that there are a myriad of applications for film and video. I don't shoot motion picture film, never have, and never will. I work in the medium of video. Depending on what you do (ie: news gathering) film hasn't been used since the late 1970's. And HD is a welcome replacement for the aging NTSC system.

At NAB, they featured the HD100 in different configurations including a triax output in place of the tape drive, tethered to a live eng truck. This camera is NOT for film makers and cinematographers only. When being used aa an ENG camera, there will be many run and gun, uncontrolled, unscripted shooting situations and this is where the SSE issue could really be ugly, Or for that matter, at any live event where there is only ONE CHANCE to get the shot. Granted that many of these will be set up with additional lighting for optimal exposure but other situations call for making do with available lighting.

They also featured the camera in a full blown cinematography configuration at NAB. This camera is being marketed as a multi-purpose camera so it needs to function in all those purposes it's being marketed for.

I really want this camera to have the issues resolved because it will kick some serious booty when it does. And this is coming from a Canon owner!

regards,

-gb-

Steve Mullen · October 13th, 2005, 09:56 AM

We all want it fixed, but I'm still assuming it won't be.

So I'm focusing on the HD100 as an alternative, or B roll, for CineAlta/Varicam users -- as well as those shooting Super 16 and 35mm. That's a very nice market. It's also a market that understands HOW to follow rules.

Plus, I've never seen a news crew in NYC that didn't use an on camera light and very often a second light. Sports are always well lit! In any case, HD news will need to be shot differently.

There is no reason to shoot weddings, this year, in HD. Next year there will be a whole new generation of HDV camcorders. Why not wait? And, if you can't -- shoot interlaced HD.

But. my real point is that there are two excellent Sony INTERLACE cameras. Why, if you simply want HD VIDEO, do these not meet your needs?

There is no reason to force a hammer into being a screwdriver!

Warren Shultz · October 17th, 2005, 11:50 PM

I'm as frustrated about split screen as everyone else, but heck, the dang camera is paying for itself much quicker than I imagined it would. The picture looks great, clients are asking for it even though they don't "need" HD yet. I'm getting calls that I would not have gotten a month ago. So far the camera has been rented and used on a corporate shoot, and it's scheduled for use in several commercials locally because clients want a film (24P) /HD look for much less than film costs. Knowing what I know now, even if I was waiting for something like the HVX, I'd get this camera immediately because it will have paid for itself with additional work before the HVX even gets released.

To me it's the best we can get in this price range and if it's generating the work then what do we have to lose? The split screen never appears except in weird condiitions anyway so I've just avoided the weird conditions.

If the camera is going to make you money now then go for it. I hope it will even help pay for the better camera down the road.

Laszlo Horvath · October 18th, 2005, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Shultz

I'm as frustrated about split screen as everyone else, but heck, the dang camera is paying for itself much quicker than I imagined it would. The picture looks great, clients are asking for it even though they don't "need" HD yet. I'm getting calls that I would not have gotten a month ago. So far the camera has been rented and used on a corporate shoot, and it's scheduled for use in several commercials locally because clients want a film (24P) /HD look for much less than film costs. Knowing what I know now, even if I was waiting for something like the HVX, I'd get this camera immediately because it will have paid for itself with additional work before the HVX even gets released.

To me it's the best we can get in this price range and if it's generating the work then what do we have to lose? The split screen never appears except in weird condiitions anyway so I've just avoided the weird conditions.

If the camera is going to make you money now then go for it. I hope it will even help pay for the better camera down the road.

Same here

Laszlo

October 12th, 2005, 10:44 PM	#16
Huiy Tang Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 37	I know hd100 owners who have decided to keep the camera are doing the best with what they have-they've really been left with no other choice, if they want to have the camera as a resource. The fact of the matter is that if JVC knows what's good for business (and they do) they'll resolve the issue. I'm with Jiri, at times it appears that we are walking on eggshells with an issue that will eventually be fixed. All of mullens and dashwoods efforts though noble could all be in vane in two or three months once JVC releases a second line of HD100's without the SS. Mullen's recommendations do reduce the split screen, I agree. I've tried his and dashwoods suggestions and they do help to a adequate extent. Would I use the camera in the field for a corporate or broadcast gig? Not on your life. The issue is just too darn unpredictable and would jeopordize my relationship with a client or broadcaster if they ever asked me to turn over the raw footage gathered. Mullen-I hope JVC appreciates what you have done in protecting their interests-the book will make you a gazillion if the problem isn't fixed and you publish the solution. Dashwood, you are a genius at matching cameras, tweaking settings and your a credit to the profession. I am empathetic to each user, and wish that the SS wasn't an issue. But back to the point, it is simply a waste of time to try and tip toe around the unpredictability of the split screen. Before you go off and criticize remember this is a public forum, and if one believes that pointing out the camera's woes and sometimes even the absurdities of how desperately we want to believe and justify that our purchase has been a wise one - perhaps at the very least it will spare other users from experiencing the same woes that we have walked through. The intention with these truths are not to offend, but unfortunatly at the end of the day the truth is all we have, even if it's not pretty. Our talent as shooters can only be demonstrated clearly by the images we capture. The problem is that I've shot plenty of footage with the HD100 camera in well lit, controlled conditions, where I went to great lengths to ensure the split screen could be eliminated. I could post hours of footage and a few of you would still resist and doubt the cameras "limitations". What really kicks you in the butt is that the viewfinder and LCD are not always sufficient to observe the SS issue clearly. When you get back to your edit suite it stings when you see he SS pop up intermittently for seconds if not minutes at a time. As most of you know shooting with a monitor is not always an option in the field. Thanks to everyone for all the hard work put into the reducing the SS issue. But I'd rather just see the issue cleared up once and for all. Wouldn't it be more productive to somehow help JVC focus on creating a hardware upgrade that would remedy the SS once and for all. Mending the camera through menu settings is clearly much too limited. Let's all step back from the camera for a while and see what unfolds-even if it means getting a refund. If any JVC engineers or reps are reading this, please release some "official" explanation for the mishap, and when consumers can expect the camera to be free of the SS. It's clear that some loyalty towards the camera has been established, however it only adds insult to injury when a company chooses not to acknowledge the issue by correcting it sufficiently or even talking about what will be done in the future. Users are holding on to the hope that our makeshift methods will help, but all we really want is a camera that is free of a defect that effects our picture to such an extent. Heck I can even live with the shatty viewfinder, and mediocre lens. I don't need a "perfect experience", just one that doesn't sting by me walking on pins and needles while I'm working, or burn me when I look at the raw tape. Spare me your critical feedback on my opinion. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. I suggest any of the naysayers or doubters try working with footage where the right side of the screen is darker than the left and try making a living with that as your product. Last edited by Huiy Tang; October 13th, 2005 at 04:19 AM. Reason: too long

October 13th, 2005, 09:56 AM	#18
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	We all want it fixed, but I'm still assuming it won't be. So I'm focusing on the HD100 as an alternative, or B roll, for CineAlta/Varicam users -- as well as those shooting Super 16 and 35mm. That's a very nice market. It's also a market that understands HOW to follow rules. Plus, I've never seen a news crew in NYC that didn't use an on camera light and very often a second light. Sports are always well lit! In any case, HD news will need to be shot differently. There is no reason to shoot weddings, this year, in HD. Next year there will be a whole new generation of HDV camcorders. Why not wait? And, if you can't -- shoot interlaced HD. But. my real point is that there are two excellent Sony INTERLACE cameras. Why, if you simply want HD VIDEO, do these not meet your needs? There is no reason to force a hammer into being a screwdriver! __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

October 17th, 2005, 11:50 PM	#19
Warren Shultz Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 248	I'm as frustrated about split screen as everyone else, but heck, the dang camera is paying for itself much quicker than I imagined it would. The picture looks great, clients are asking for it even though they don't "need" HD yet. I'm getting calls that I would not have gotten a month ago. So far the camera has been rented and used on a corporate shoot, and it's scheduled for use in several commercials locally because clients want a film (24P) /HD look for much less than film costs. Knowing what I know now, even if I was waiting for something like the HVX, I'd get this camera immediately because it will have paid for itself with additional work before the HVX even gets released. To me it's the best we can get in this price range and if it's generating the work then what do we have to lose? The split screen never appears except in weird condiitions anyway so I've just avoided the weird conditions. If the camera is going to make you money now then go for it. I hope it will even help pay for the better camera down the road.