Specs for new GY-HM100 ProHD Camcorder

[Robert Rogoz]

The other question is: what kind of chroma sampling will it use? Is it still 4:2:0?
I tend to look past the hype and spin. I think without price drop this camera will have hard time competing with other products on the market. The other issue I have it caters to Final Cut Studio. With no BR support in the suite I am thinking more and more about other systems. After all why shoot HD if your output will be SD?

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

The other question is: what kind of chroma sampling will it use? Is it still 4:2:0?

Yes

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

... The other issue I have it caters to Final Cut Studio.

Not really. It seems it will be compatible with any Mac or PC NLE that is compatible with the Sony EX1/EX3.

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

After all why shoot HD if your output will be SD?

There are all kinds of benefits to shooting HD and downrez that I don't have time to get into right now in this thread but the bottom line is that in 2009 it only makes sense to have HD as a master.

[Adam Grunseth]

I am actually quite disappointed in the specs of this camera vs its price. I know an argument could be made for added value with all the different format options the camera can shoot in, but at the end of the day it is still a $4000 1/4" CCD camera. For the same price I have a lot of other options, including a second JVC-HD110 camera which gives me a real manual lens. Panasonic offers a 3 chip AVCHD camera that lists for around $2500- and the DVX100 still looks really good when blown up to HD with impressive color reproduction and latitude.

What I want is an inexpensive b-cam to compliment my HD110. I don't care what format it gives me because I can mix and match formats on my timeline- what I care about is what my output looks like in the end. For $4000 I have a lot of other options that will give me a very nice output when I'm all done editing. I especially don't get why for that much money I wouldn't just go order another HD110.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Adam Grunseth

I especially don't get why for that much money I wouldn't just go order another HD110.

Not to belabor the point, but:

--have you tried shooting with an HD110 on a Merlin?
--have you shot with an HD110 hidden under your coat?
--have you been happy with the image stabilization on the HD110?
--can you use the HD110 with the stock lens and without a wide-angle converter?
--can you shoot 60p HD with the HD110?
--have you tried putting the HD110, a tripod, a DSLR, lens, radio mics and additional accessories in an airplane carryon that meets international standards?
--have you been happy with the the auto-focus on the HD110?

Obviously the verdict is out. There may be some features not happy to all, such as the lack of a lanc connection.

But if the picture looks good and the encoding holds up, I don't think a 1/4" sensor makes any difference. It does give a smaller, more compact (and lighter weight) lens, that is very good. The 10x zoom is fine for a handheld camera. I don't know how wide the camera goes, but if it doesn't need a converter, and goes a bit wider than the XH-A1, that is great! If the lens get excellent pictures wide open, that is also very good, and if the lens is better than average stopped down, that is also good. (Maybe some of the cost goes into the lens...?) A 1/4" sensor should give better depth of field, which is appropriate for a camera intended primarily for hand-held use.

Maybe extra money has gone into the encoder, or a newly designed CCD. And the camera is true progessive CCD, not CMOS. I have a feeling that being able to shoot quickly in a particular format and quickly off-leading from and SD card will be very good for many people.

I think SAG is correct in holding out, and not giving in like the Directors and Aftra did. "New Media" is here, new delivery is here, and production styles are changing. To me the XH-A1, for example, is an old-style camera in a smaller (but still too big) package. I predict the JVC HM-100 is the first of a whole new generation camera for a new generation of production types and styles.

[Alex Humphrey]

Even at FULL $4,000 MSRP it still has a lot of value. 24p handheld in quick to edit 720p HDV/XDCAM EX Native/Quicktime as well as 1080i 1080/24p as well. Figure a $1,200 or so for a Focus Enhancements type of HDD. Think of the Canon with a FE DTE drive and mount, it would be about the same price but a lot larger and still not have the 720p 24p native HDV/Quicktime or the Sony Codex's either. Yes, 1/3 instead of 1/4 would be nice (Sony's $8,000 one is 1/2 chips), but lets see how the footage looks. Also I really think it should have some sort of wire remote. I hate working on tripods without one. But yes, it's does make a 2nd HD110 seem like a good deal.

I expect the street value to drop to about the street value of the HD110 (maybe a little less in time), combine that with the DTE SD cards I think a lot of HD100/200 series users as well as Sony XDCAM-EX users would be snapping these up. If the price could hover just above $3,000 street and have a good lens and good CCD's, it might be a real money maker for JVC and a camera many of us would use to add to our bigger cameras as well as Film/broadcasting students first pro camera in or just out of college.

[Robert Rogoz]

Originally Posted by Jack Walker

Not to belabor the point, but:

--have you tried shooting with an HD110 on a Merlin?
--have you shot with an HD110 hidden under your coat?
--have you been happy with the image stabilization on the HD110?
--can you use the HD110 with the stock lens and without a wide-angle converter?
--can you shoot 60p HD with the HD110?
--have you tried putting the HD110, a tripod, a DSLR, lens, radio mics and additional accessories in an airplane carryon that meets international standards?
--have you been happy with the the auto-focus on the HD110?

Obviously the verdict is out. There may be some features not happy to all, such as the lack of a lanc connection.

But if the picture looks good and the encoding holds up, I don't think a 1/4" sensor makes any difference. It does give a smaller, more compact (and lighter weight) lens, that is very good. The 10x zoom is fine for a handheld camera. I don't know how wide the camera goes, but if it doesn't need a converter, and goes a bit wider than the XH-A1, that is great! If the lens get excellent pictures wide open, that is also very good, and if the lens is better than average stopped down, that is also good. (Maybe some of the cost goes into the lens...?) A 1/4" sensor should give better depth of field, which is appropriate for a camera intended primarily for hand-held use.

Maybe extra money has gone into the encoder, or a newly designed CCD. And the camera is true progessive CCD, not CMOS. I have a feeling that being able to shoot quickly in a particular format and quickly off-leading from and SD card will be very good for many people.

I think SAG is correct in holding out, and not giving in like the Directors and Aftra did. "New Media" is here, new delivery is here, and production styles are changing. To me the XH-A1, for example, is an old-style camera in a smaller (but still too big) package. I predict the JVC HM-100 is the first of a whole new generation camera for a new generation of production types and styles.

Have you ever carried HD100 3000 feet up and hung on a rope all day with it? At 3.2 lbs (most likely without a battery) and 5.5 x 7 x 14.4" it's not an "undercoat" type camera. It's smaller and lighter, but not really all that small and all that light. Hd110 or 100 are older types, but they are proven and produce quality picture. Yes, the image stabilization could be better, but we don't know if the new camera will be much of a progress. I flew recently to Canada a few times with HD100. Porta Brace bag will hold all the junk (including AB battery, mics, firestore and SLR). Tripod will never meet carry-on standard, even for security reasons.
Other major issue I have is 4:2:0 and lack of wide angle lens. 39 mm is not wide angle! So again falling short in this department.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

Have you ever carried HD100 300 feet up and hung on a rope all day with it? At 3.2 lbs (most likely without a battery) and 5.5 x 7 x 14.4" it's not an "undercoat" type camera. It's smaller and lighter, but not really all that small and all that light. Hd110 or 100 are older types, but they are proven and produce quality picture. Yes, the image stabilization could be better, but we don't know if the new camera will be much of a progress. I flew recently to Canada a few times with HD100. Porta Brace bag will hold all the junk (including AB battery, mics, firestore and SLR). Tripod will never meet carry-on standard, even for security reasons.
Other major issue I have is 4:2:0 and lack of wide angle lens. 39 mm is not wide angle! So again falling short in this department.

We are talking to different things.

Carry on size is 22x14x9 inches, with a weight limit of 13 pounds (Virgin) though most airlines give you a little more weight:
Baggage Policies for Virgin Atlantic

Then jumping on and off of trams in Germany, dodging traffic in Moscow, shooting inside a compact rental car, quickly dropping the camera in a large purse or tourist shoulder carry bag, holding the camera overhead in a crowd with ois and auto-focus, not appearing as a news reporter in a riot, running at full speed... the HD110 doesn't excel at this type of shooting.

For a carry-on tripod I use the Gitzo Traveler and 2180 fluid head. Together they are about 3 pounds or less. I also carry a Gitzo monopod in the same bag (see size above).

It's a tight fit, but here is what goes in the carry-on:
Canon XH-A1
Pentax K200
4 Pentax lenses
Gateway 12" Laptop
500 GB hard drive
SD Cards
A few tapes
Century .6x WA adapter (for XH-A1)
Gitzo Traveler tripod
Gitzo 2180 fluid head
Filters
Remote zoom controller
Cable release
2 pcs. 22x14" foam core
Sometimes 1-3 Electronic Flash units
Small flash light
Some clothes (for padding and emergency)
A few little things I've forgotten


Admittedly, this is a tight fit. The bag is an old Samsonite (worn, not standing out). It will expand when off the plane. The new HM-100 should give me a much better packed bag.

When off the plane I will split the gear into a second bag and I'll probably leave the computer where I am staying.

This isn't possible with the JVC HD-110.

The Canon shoots 60i and 24f, which I use. But I frequently have to use 1/100 shutter speed, because of old lights. The PAL upgrade for the XH-A1 is over $500. However, it is built into the HM-100, giving me the ability to shoot 25p at 1/50 at the least, I suspect.

No matter what one does, the HD-100 is not great for complete inconspicuosity.

It appears to me that if one needs the new features (especially size, formats, PCM audio, SD recording) on the HM-100, it's worth the price.

On the other hand, if one wants a cheap second camera, there's the Canon HV-30. It will shoot 24p, though one has to jump through hoops to remove pull-down, etc. etc.

[Robert Rogoz]

Jack, while growing up in Poland in the 70's and 80's I participated (both by choice and by chance) in more riots then most people ever will. So even not as a journalist then I know how it is. However this in not the issue. The point is (and this is only my opinion) this product falls short right at the starting line as far as features-quality-price category. For me 4:2:0 chroma sampling and lack of wide angle (28 mm) lens, (and no Lanc) are major issues. This camera is supposed to be targeted for ENG's, so maybe ditching 24p and beefing up other options would be a better idea.
It's obvious to me JVC reps are luring on this website. I would hope they treat this forum not as piss and vinegar board, but as constructive criticism. I would like to have for once a camera that fits my needs 100%. This is a tool, complex and intricate, but a tool only.
BTW according to B&H the dimensions of HM100 and XH-A1 are almost the same, Canon being only about 1 lbs heavier.

[Jack Walker]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

BTW according to B&H the dimensions of HM100 and XH-A1 are almost the same, Canon being only about 1 lbs heavier.

The pages I saw show the weight of the JVC camera a little more than 2 lbs. lighter. The weight of the JVC is a bit lighter than the Sony V1U, which is about the size of the PD150.

As far as dimensions, the JVC about an inch smaller in both heighth and width, which is fairly large amount in volume. I think the length is misleading since it seems to include the mic mount on the JVC.

But as you mention, the Canon lens is wider, etc.

I don't know if there will every be one camera for everything. Perhaps the new Red comes closest, with all it's options.

However, remembering back when I worked on movies, several different cameras were always used: one for shooting in the studio on the pedestal, another on the steadicam, another for slow-motion, and so forth.

I'm also not sure that ENG is the intended use for the HM-100. I think multi-camera narrative shot for new media might be a target market. I also think there might be an upgrade already planned for this camera that would explain some of the choices made on the initial camera in the line... perhaps some sort of wireless synch system or low-cost time-code jamming?

One note, if the camera did not have 1280x720/24p and 60p, I would not be interested.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Keith Moreau

After all a 1/3" sensor, which is now the 'gold standard' of the prosumer camcorders is only about 25% larger than a 1/4" sensor.

If sensor size is measured across the diagonal then the area is proportional to the square of this measurement and a 1/3" sensor should have almost twice the area of a 1/4" one. In any case, it's clear from currently shipping cameras that 1/4" sensors tend to fall short for serious use while 1/3" is barely adequate, especially in low-light situations. $4000 is too much to pay for an HD camera with a 1/4" sensor when there are better alternatives available at that price; $3000 or even $2500 would be more realistic.

[Keith Moreau]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

If sensor size is measured across the diagonal then the area is proportional to the square of this measurement and a 1/3" sensor should have almost twice the area of a 1/4" one. In any case, it's clear from currently shipping cameras that 1/4" sensors tend to fall short for serious use while 1/3" is barely adequate, especially in low-light situations. $4000 is too much to pay for an HD camera with a 1/4" sensor when there are better alternatives available at that price; $3000 or even $2500 would be more realistic.

Yes, you're correct if you do the math. However, I've used a 1/4" sensor (the Sony V1U) and it would match up to a 1/3" camera such as the HVX200 (which I have also used), and in fact in many ways I thought it was much superior in overall sharpness (HVX200 users - don't flame me). That's not even talking about 1/3 or even 1/2" sensors of previous eras ---technology and time marches on.

To me the main relevant issue with 1/4" vs 1/3" isn't necessarily with low light, or other factors. It's with being able to limit the depth of field. You can't do it that well with a 1/3" sensor and really can't much with a 1/4" without going telephoto.

Also, as you increase the sensor size so you usually need to increase the size of the lens. To get the equivalent on a 1/3" sensor would also increase the lens, the size of the overall camera, and the weight, taking it out of the smallish prosumer realm.

The proof will be in some test footage in original EXCAM EX format that this camcorder will produce. I can't wait and if it's good enough I'll get one because it really fits with the 'B' camera role especially you have a Sony EX series which has a great workflow for me.

[Harry Pallenberg]

We'll really have to just wait and see the footage ourselves. But what is for sure is that its amazing to have any of these sub 10K HD Cameras - they all look pretty good, and as long as they have good audio (which this one seems to) any will do.

In fact with all the compression in the delivery downstream, and the way most home viewers have there TV's set up, MANY of the spec / chip size / DOF / 4:2:0 / HDVCAMDVCPROACC whatever is a wash... as long as you have good audio. People will watch it if its compelling, but not if they have a hard time hearing it.

Eagerly waiting to give this camera a try. Fingers crossed for the LoLux.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Keith Moreau

However, I've used a 1/4" sensor (the Sony V1U) and it would match up to a 1/3" camera such as the HVX200 (which I have also used), and in fact in many ways I thought it was much superior in overall sharpness (HVX200 users - don't flame me).

But that's not really comparing like with like, as the V1 is CMOS, the HVX200 CCD. As far as sharpness goes, the V1 has approx 1Mpixel sensors, the HVX200 0.5Mpixel (though they should be considered about 0.75Mpixel equivalent because of pixel shift) so the V1 should be sharper. That and the smaller overall chip size makes every individual pixel smaller than for the HVX200, so you'd expect sensitiviy to suffer - in practice, being CMOS v CCD allows it to hold it's own with the HVX200.

That said, and apart from DOF issues, an undesirable feature of sensors getting smaller are diffraction effects, which can effectively limit the smallest aperture that can be used.

[David Parks]

I'm very excited about the edit workflow that these cameras represent. I was leaning heavily towards buying the HMC 150 although the AVCHD workflow isn't there. But not now.

The prospect of editing native files from SD card into Avid or Final Cut Pro or Premiere without transcoding should have everyone shouting from the mountain tops.

Everything else considered, I think this is a great concept overall. I'm glad I waited. I have money in hand and plan on buying both.

Cheers.

[Theodore McNeil]

Craig's Supermeet GY-HM100 presentation is online... MacVideo - Camera Technology - Features - JVC introduce the GY-HM100; the world's first camera to record high quality native QuickTime files for immediate editing within Final Cut Pro