SDXC cards
 

I don't think the life span of this generation of cameras will be too long. Here we go with SDXC cards- capacity of up to 2 TB! Also greatly increased writing speed. Companies should take a hint from RED. These cards will make possible to record virtually without compression. ProRes 422 HQ is .82Gb/min, so long recording times without quality loss will be possible. Personally I would also like to see 24 frame rate going away, replaced with 30 or even 60p. The days of film are numbered and in the near future even movie theaters will be showing films through digital projectors.

I'm not sure if Chris posted this link somewhere already but here's my "sneak peek" review.
JVC ProHD GY-HM100 Sneak Peek by Tim Dashwood on DV Info Net

Great Tim thanks but it seems this isn't a winner at low light as V1E never was. But the look of the cam is awesome. This is a beauty in contrary with Panasonic new line.
It seems also that the files will be easily edited on MC as they use EX's codec.
Can I find some clips to download and test for myself?

JVC is very smart. The option to record mxf is just as significant as the ability to record in Quicktime. Avid edits using mxf. and edits 25 and 35mbits native. And I believe that you can edit mxf native in Adobe Premiere and After Effects. So direct injest is certainly there. You may not be able to edit straight off the card in Avid, but this is much better than converting mp4 to mxf like you do with XDCAM EX.

Good call JVC.

I wonder if I can import QT files of it into MC as it fully support it.

Sure it will import QT. However, I believe it will be a forced transcoode into DNXHD which will be a much slower import than importing native XDCAM codec mxf and editing natively in the same codec. Otherwise you would go out HDSDI, which you can do on the HM 700 but not the HM 100. But, yes if you felt the need to record in quicktime you can still get it into Avid as DNXHD.

I think from the spec it will be long gop mpeg-2 within Mpeg4 level 14 wrapper not MXF. THis is what the Sony EX1 is. The EX3 is pure MXF.

From Tim Dashwood's review linked a couple of posts earlier: "The truth is that the HM100 has two recording formats! It has Quicktime, indicated as .MOV in the menu system, and "ISO Base Media File Format," indicated as .MXF in the menu system.

According to Tim it is mxf. I take ISO to refer to industry standard file format and mxf is widely adopted.

Thanks! I hadn't seen your review, so I was wondering if there were bad news.

But, from my point of view, much to the contrary... Good News!

The very reasonable picture at 18db gain, the small camera size (and removable handle!), and other features make this seem to be a very promising camera for many uses. I still think this fits a need that is missing and has a possibility of being very successful.

Correct. Exactly like EX1 or EX3. The files themselves are in a .mp4 wrapper, even though the menu indicated "MXF." I should have been clearer about that in the article.

Keep in mind this is a pre-release engineering sample so the internal firmware will likely change before the cameras ship in April.

Tim -Caesar's Palace
 

Tim

Can you post some full rez grabs from the Caesar's Palace shots?

Or some videos?

Video clips or frame grabs would not be a good idea at this point; the camera Tim had is just an engineering sample, not complete, and not representative of the image quality from a finished, shipping unit. So it wouldn't be fair to you or to JVC, because such clips and grabs would not be accurate. We'll post samples as soon as we can get material from the same kind of unit as the ones that will ship (an engineering sample just won't cut it). Thanks for understanding,

The 35Mbps clips I shot are way to big to upload anyway (next time I'll shoot little 4 second clips to make it easier) and I'm having trouble uploading a full res tiff to the server. I'll see if Chris can post this tiff somewhere else.
It is an engineering sample and the blue/yellow flaring you see may be a non-issue by the time the camera ships but it was still very impressive how little noise there is in the picture at +18dB gain.

I understand.... but
 

would love to see a grab anyway - knowing that it is not a final version... and hoping that final will be at least as good.

Thanks

This is very true. Very minimal noise at those pics.

Some more user pics..

http://www.videoaktiv.de/images/2009/jvcpro/full.jpg

http://www.videoaktiv.de/images/2009/jvcpro/display.jpg

Tim, thanks for the time to post the first look. Other than some night shots did you do any other shooting? What were your impressions, say comparing against existing camcorders, specifically the EX1 or EX3? (or others if appropriate).

I think we all realize there are going to be some tweaks to the final version of the camcorder before release, but there should be some basic impressions (other than lack of remote wired control). I think we're all interested in the image quality. It's hard to really tell from a couple of reduced-rez frame grabs of a fairly low complexity, low texture image such as a building (although much appreciated by all for anything, even this). Will you be posting more full screen grabs or other subjective impressions on your tests with this camcorder?

Thanks much again.

He promised to post videos also and I think he will do.
One thing I missed is where is the ring for iris.
I hope they don't mean you can +/- only without f/stops.

Has there been any information of the sensor resolution yet ?
I really don't worry too much about the small 1/4" CCD-size as long as the native resolution is HD (1920x1080) and not SD (960x540).

I think the pixel shifting is a clue that it wont be 'true' 1920x1080. (Otherwise why would you have to mess about shifting pixels!- its a resolution enhancement thing)

the 1/4" CCD doesnt scare me either - you've gotta remember 1/4" CCD IS NOT the same as 1/4" CMOS - CMoS sensors are inherently more noisy than CCD for any given size.

The fuse has been well and truely lit with this baby, i am an EX1 owner and there's been chatter about this cam over in that forum. So now - bring on the fireworks.

Wish we could see 'some' footage from the pre prod. model just to keep us happy

The display and some of the icons look exactly like the ones currently on the HD7. It even uses the same batteries which are data batteries. The main difference is the CCD';s on the HD7 are 1/5 inch vs. 1/4 inch.

And, the physical package seems very close the HD1/HD10.

These photos were taken at the pre-NAB 2003 Press Briefing at JVC.

This was the beginning of "Affordable HD."

Back then the "alpha dogs" all proclaimed MPEG-2 "couldn't be edited" or if it could -- you would go crazy waiting for the "missing" frames to be re-created as you jogged through footage, or if you didn't go nuts -- the edits simply couldn't be frame accurate. Long GOP formats simply couldn't be edited.

Gee -- that sounds like what Panasonic still claims. :)

Then there were attacks on "HDV" based upon those who tried the Z1. Hollywood types seemed to have zero understanding that there were two types of HDV and that 18Mbps 720p24/720p30 had half the compression as 720p60 which was used to deliver both sports and Hollywood movies.

And, after folks screaming 30p couldn't be used -- the Avid list-serve now has folks coming forward to admit they now use 30p rather than 24p because they don't want to hassle with pulldown.

Which, I guess, makes the HD1/HD10 6 years ahead of its time.

Great perspective Steve. And I agree. I think too many people thought 24p would offer some huge advantage because it was compressing fewer frames, which is true. But, some had their faces so close to the monitor they were missing the obvious issues with judder and such. And I think so many of the Avid editors where initially thinking 24p HDV would pull down as easy as 24pa DV. But I'm glad the myth of 24p being the only framerate to shoot in has finally passed.

I will be interesting to compare the different bit rates in terms of overall quality when these cameras start shipping. For standard def delivery, I'm betting 35 mbps 720/30p will look Mr. Clean as can be.

Cheers.

Don't forget any SD output will have to be done in post as the codec only outputs HD frame sizes - see page 1

Such as in Avid MC. Edit in Native XDCAM 35mbit VBR MXF 720/30 in 720/30 sequence preset, transcode into MXF 720x486 1:1, change tab to 30i, export QT reference into Sorenson or Adobe Encore, etc. etc.?? Or if you prefer transode into Avid DV, export QT reference, check "use Avid DV Codec" box and you can follow from there.

Cheeeeers.

YES - 720p is great for SD. And, it will be a sweet spot if the chips are 1280x720. And, perhaps, even more of a sweet spot if the chips are 920x540. (It will be interesting to see if/how JVC pixel-shifting differs from Panasonic's.)

One workflow issue is getting 720p to BD. The BD spec. doesn't seem to support p25 and the inexpensive Windows/OS X applications assume only 1080i50 or 1080i60 video. So far I've been making 1920x1080i BDs from the JVC HD7.

My task for Feb. is to go back through the multiple applications I've been testing and check them for 720p support.

------------

Curious how folks feel about using DVCPRO HD as a 720p intermediate rather than DNxHD, PRORES 422, or AIC. I does seem to cut resolution a bit, but really plays much more smoothly on laptops.


PS: Walmart has 720p30 DXG camcorders on-sale at $129.99.

I also wish manufacturers stop selling cameras with stock shotgun microphones and charging us for it. Usually they are quite crappy and add unnecessary cost. I find stock microphone on my GY-HD 100 quite bad and I ended up replacing it anyway.
Also a side note. I just had a few clients dropping out of a picture for cash flow reasons. I predict hard times ahead, as people and companies don't have the credit lines they used to have. I will hang tight with a new purchase. So it might be prudent on JVC part to look into cost saving measures to attract people like me.
Bite rates, specs and tapeless workflow are cool, as long as they pay the bills.

Then you'd have a lot of people complaining about how it doesn't come with a microphone.

DVX100 did not have a shotgun and I don't think people complained about that too much. On that note they also can complain about the lack of extra batteries, filters or a tripod. My point is that most of us have already good sound equipment, and don't need to pay for an item that will sit at the bottom of the closet till you decide to sell the camera.

I totally agree with you, Robert. Especially since the HM100 will have two mics, on build-in stereo mic and the shotgun...

Hmmm.. i personally would rather save $100 and not have a stock mic and get a better one. The stock mics I have I use to hold toilet paper in the bathroom. Well OK, not really, it didn't fit, but the point is they are better than nothing, but not by much... you should quickly replace it.

I am surprised honestly how often I see people using many different cameras with the stock shotgun mic in the field. So obviously there are many people who haven't upgraded. I picked up a ME66 that most audio engineers say is basic decent starter mic, but often point to the next mic up in the Sennheiser line. The standard mic by nearly every camcorder company sounds like a tin can on a string compared to something decent from Sennheiser or Rode in the $500+ range. An Audio Engineer will probably turn their nose up at a ME66 and so on. I know more than a handfull of Audio Engineers turned video producers that don't touch a mic under $2,000. So everyone has their yardstick.

When i lived in NYC I surprised by how many people would pickup a camcorder from B&H only a few days before going on some long journey for a shoot. I think they felt that if JVC put the mic on the camera -- at least they could be sure it would WORK.

Were they to consider a different mic -- not only would they not be sure it would work -- they would enter the land of "Audio Engineers will probably turn their nose up at a ME66 and so on."

Not to mention that I've found many "visual" folks just don't understand audio equipment specs. Mic sensitivity in minus values makes no sense to them. Equally hard -- the concern over crowded RF space, "what can/do I use in Russia", UHF/VHF, and "what's diversity?"

Worse, as they try to become informed -- they find that many pros recommend using different mics depending on the situation. When these same experts are like those you speak of : "I know more than a handfull of Audio Engineers turned video producers that don't touch a mic under $2,000" the situation becomes way too crazy. Ultimately, it is simpler and much cheaper to put off changing the stock mic.

Moreover, I doubt that a company would really knock off $100 if they dropped the mic. In fact, whatever tiny amount it costs them for a mic is worth knowing buyers will get audio from day 1.

I've had a great little JVC DV500 for ten years now and am sold on JVC quality and value. But I was hoping for 1/2" chips, CCD or CMOS, and a non-mpeg2 codec in the new cam. I think AVC Intra would have been fab, but costly. H.264 is the schnizzle, for the next few years, at least. And a 10x lens is pretty prosumerish these days.

However, the new 1/4" chips might be adequate if they can perform well in low light. And I really like the small size and weight. The QuickTime workflow is a big bonus for FCP users. Let's see what the images look like.

I'm actually glad this camcorder DOESN'T use AVC Intra or AVCHD. The XDCAM EX codec, in my opinion, is the best 'bang for the buck' right now for storage requirements as well as quality. I really have not read or heard of anything that compares it unfavorably to an HD Intro (non long GOP) format. And right now the workflow for XDCAM EX is really efficient on the Mac, much more so than the H.264 formats. At some point H.264 may overtake MPEG2 in quality and versatility, maybe Final Cut Pro 7 or something along with Snow Leopard taking advantage of Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) on video cards will improve the efficiency of the workflow, but for now it's not ready for prime time.

I hope this camera has good image quality, for $4,000 and lack of some simple features such as wired lens control, it really better have that good image, cause there are some awesome prosumer camcorders out there.

I you have ever seen 35mbit EX footage, you will understand that this datarate / codec is a great compromise between file handling, NLE performance and pic quality.

no problem with that.

If you need more, the cam (like the ex series) offer HD-SDI out with non-mpgged video quality.

ULI

Well said. That datarate is low enough to be easily written to cheap memory, and low enough to give decent recording times.

At the same time, with MPEG2 it's high enough to give good quality, whilst still being relatively easy to edit without transcoding.

I think AVC-HD is a good thing on consumer cameras, but in the $5,000-10,000 price range I don't think the file size saving (compared to XDCAM-EX) is worth it, given the increased difficulty of editing.

If Panasonic can release the HMC-150 for much less than the price that they quoted during the announcement than I suspect that theirs a good chance that JVC may end up doing the same by releasing the HM100 for at least $500 less and the real sweet spot would be $3000 that I‘m hoping. Still, we all know that Sony’s V1u was released for over $4,000 and it didn’t do bad at all. I still think Sony should have released it for less.

As far as lowlight capabilities compared to cameras with 1/3” chips, big deal. I mean, it can get through more places than the bigger camcorders and once you take off the microphone, it can look consumer-ish which may get you less noticed in some situations. It’s also much lighter. I see it as a tradeoff rather than a disadvantage.

Paulo:1/4" chips on the HM100...

I know that. That’s why I brought the V1u into this.

I was saying that cameras with bigger chips may have better lowlight capabilities but the HM100 does have it’s own advantages compared to them.