Jvc Gy-dv500u

Bill Pryor · February 6th, 2003, 10:37 AM

I don't know anything about that tripod, but if it's big eough it should handle the camera OK. As far as filters, I also don't know that the lens thread is, but you can probably look it up on the Fuji or B&H web site if you know the number of the lens.

Should you buy it? IF it is in good condition, IF the head hours are in line with the age of the camera, IF there are no dead pixels, IF the transport mechanism looks good, and IF you try it out, shoot a test, play the test back on another deck...then maybe you should buy it. Check it out thoroughly first! Sometimes there may be one thing on a specific camera that is a deal-killer to a specific person. I, for example, would not want that camera unless I could afford the pro viewfinder, but that may not matter to you. So you really need to use it a bit before you commit your money. Then if you like it, I'd say go for it.

If you find yourself around Sony snobs, just cover up the JVC logo with gaffer tape and use Sony mini DVCAM tapes when you shoot and nobody will know the difference. Keep in mind that there is an art to covering JVC logos with gaffer tape. You can't just put a nice, neat little piece of gaffer tape over the JVC...that will look like you're trying to hide the logo. Instead, stick several pieces of tape randomly over the camera, on one use a marker and write "Cam. A," or something like that. It will look as if you have more than one camera, and provide an excuse for having one or more pieces of gaffer tape on the camera; and of course, one of the pieces of tape would cover the logo. This will also give you a seasoned professional look.

Dan Holly · February 6th, 2003, 12:11 PM

"Most of the stuff I do is in situations where I have no control over lighting. "

I'd say that 90+% of the footage I shoot, I have zero control of lighting......

I'd be interested in your findings Dylan if you decide to go this route......

Frank Granovski · February 6th, 2003, 02:15 PM

Bill, I took your gaffer tape advice some time back, and lo and behold, everyone thought I was a Sony Handycam man. Worked great with the cheeks. I forgot about using the Sony tape, though. Next time.

Should you buy the cam? I would if I had the money and wanted to make more money with event stuff---and maybe with other stuff. The low lux is a big plus. Never underestimate this.

Jeff Donald · February 6th, 2003, 02:43 PM

Just by going to a 1/2 inch chip camera, all of your shots will not drastically improve. I used 1/2 inch and 2/3 inch chip cameras for years. Under good lighting conditions the larger CCD cameras will not produce a demonstrably better picture. Today, much of my DV footage (shot on XL1) passes for (is mistaken for) Beta SP footage (shot on larger CCDs). Not just by average viewers, but experienced camera operators, editors and producers.

So, why buy a larger CCD camera? Simple, the larger cameras will allow you to get shots that will be acceptable (not great) under very harsh conditions. Under the same conditions, smaller CCD cameras would fail. Very high contrast, in all or part of the scene will be useable. Your shadows block up and the highlights washout with small chips. Larger CCD cameras will capture subtle detail better. Feathers in birds for example, will loose a little detail and have a moire pattern with small CCDs. Larger CCD cameras can capture the detail and not produce the moire pattern as easily. Why, more bits, higher S/N ratio and somewhat better standard glass.

Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? For most people probably not. Somewhat higher resolution will make for better transfers to film. Better images when you encounter extremes in lighting conditions can help. But will it produce noticeably better images under all conditions? No, most of the time the images will be difficult to tell apart.

edited by Jeff Donald 2.6.03

Bill Pryor · February 6th, 2003, 04:22 PM

Jeff, your post confuses me (but then a lot of things confuse me). You seem to be talking about DV as if all DV cameras are small chip cameras "...Simple, the larger cameras will allow you to get shots that will be acceptable (not great) under very harsh conditions. Under the same conditions, DV would fail." What if the larger camera is a 2/3" chip DV camera?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and that is entirely possible since I've been buried in editing a 4 hour audio program that's turning what's left of my brain to mush, but I've seen others talk about the differences between DV and Betacam when they really are talking about the differences between small chip "prosumer" cameras and larger chip professional cameras. Under almost all conditions if you record something with, say, a DSR500, simultaneously to DVand to Betacam, the DV tape would look as good or better. If you compare a PD150 to a BVW600, then the 600 is going to look better under those extreme conditions whether it's recording to DV or to Betacam.

Where bigger chip cameras look obviously better is in wide shots, regardless of lighting conditions. "Tadpole" is a good example--all the medium and closeups look really nice for a PD150 transferred to 35mm and projected on a full size theater screen, but all the outdoor wide shots look soft. Had the producer rented a 2/3" chip camera for those shots, they would have looked much better, I think.

Jeff Donald · February 6th, 2003, 04:35 PM

My age is showing, Bill. Exactly as you are supposing. I mix DV and Betacam in my examples. I'll edit it for easier and more concise reading, thanks.

I agree 100% with the wide angle statements. I'll go even further and say that no WA SD video shot looks as good as film. Its a real weak point for SD video.

Bill Pryor · February 6th, 2003, 06:35 PM

Yeah, if we could all avoid wide shots, life would be good.

Dylan Couper · February 10th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Is there a difference between the DV500 and the DV500U?
I know the "U" designated the NTSC model, just not sure if the non "U" is just people not typing in the "U", and are indeed one and the same camera.
Thanks!

Frank Granovski · February 10th, 2003, 02:14 AM

When the DV500 came out here in Vancouver, it had the U at the end.

Bill Pryor · February 10th, 2003, 09:02 AM

JVC has always been fond of putting U's at the end of their equipment for some reason, at least in the U.S.

Lou Bruno · February 10th, 2003, 11:16 AM

The DV500 is dioscontinued; it's been replaced by the DV5000

NOT SO according to JVC. Both cameras are being produced.

BTW: I tried to post my new JVC GY DV5000 review on this forum but it was not posted due to the length.

Love my 5000-the 500 was a good camera but the 5000 is GREAT!

Lou Bruno

Bill Pryor · February 10th, 2003, 12:43 PM

Hmm...I think it was our fearless moderator, was it not, who posted that comment about the 500 being replaced by the 5000? Strange that they would still be making both cameras when they're so similar.

Ken Tanaka · February 10th, 2003, 01:33 PM

JVC still makes the 500U as well as a 550U (studio version) and the 5000U.

Lou Bruno · February 11th, 2003, 08:20 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Pryor : Hmm...I think it was our fearless moderator, was it not, who posted that comment about the 500 being replaced by the 5000? Strange that they would still be making both cameras when they're so similar. -->>>

They are is NO WAY similiar. Different picture quality and menu layout---much more fesatures. See my post at www.abcdv.com

They MAY look the same in advertisements from a physical perspective.

I spoke to JVC today and the sales rep stated they have an abundance of JVc GY DV500's on hand and will manufactor more as the demand increases. The 5000 seems to be selling rapidly and so far no initial problems to report.

Lou Bruno

Bill Pryor · February 12th, 2003, 08:14 AM

What I read was that they're both 1/2" chip cameras. The 5000 has more and different features, but they both use the same chips. Is that wrong? I did recently read one reference that mentioned the 5000 as having incorporated some of the features of the Gy300. So does that mean the 5000 has 1/3" chips instead of 1/2"?

February 6th, 2003, 12:11 PM	#17
Dan Holly Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 336	this is me also "Most of the stuff I do is in situations where I have no control over lighting. " I'd say that 90+% of the footage I shoot, I have zero control of lighting...... I'd be interested in your findings Dylan if you decide to go this route...... __________________ Dan Holly Anchorage, Alaska

February 6th, 2003, 02:43 PM	#19
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Just by going to a 1/2 inch chip camera, all of your shots will not drastically improve. I used 1/2 inch and 2/3 inch chip cameras for years. Under good lighting conditions the larger CCD cameras will not produce a demonstrably better picture. Today, much of my DV footage (shot on XL1) passes for (is mistaken for) Beta SP footage (shot on larger CCDs). Not just by average viewers, but experienced camera operators, editors and producers. So, why buy a larger CCD camera? Simple, the larger cameras will allow you to get shots that will be acceptable (not great) under very harsh conditions. Under the same conditions, smaller CCD cameras would fail. Very high contrast, in all or part of the scene will be useable. Your shadows block up and the highlights washout with small chips. Larger CCD cameras will capture subtle detail better. Feathers in birds for example, will loose a little detail and have a moire pattern with small CCDs. Larger CCD cameras can capture the detail and not produce the moire pattern as easily. Why, more bits, higher S/N ratio and somewhat better standard glass. Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? For most people probably not. Somewhat higher resolution will make for better transfers to film. Better images when you encounter extremes in lighting conditions can help. But will it produce noticeably better images under all conditions? No, most of the time the images will be difficult to tell apart. edited by Jeff Donald 2.6.03 __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

February 6th, 2003, 04:35 PM	#21
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	My age is showing, Bill. Exactly as you are supposing. I mix DV and Betacam in my examples. I'll edit it for easier and more concise reading, thanks. I agree 100% with the wide angle statements. I'll go even further and say that no WA SD video shot looks as good as film. Its a real weak point for SD video. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

February 10th, 2003, 01:33 PM	#28
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	JVC still makes the 500U as well as a 550U (studio version) and the 5000U. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

February 6th, 2003, 10:37 AM	#16
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I don't know anything about that tripod, but if it's big eough it should handle the camera OK. As far as filters, I also don't know that the lens thread is, but you can probably look it up on the Fuji or B&H web site if you know the number of the lens. Should you buy it? IF it is in good condition, IF the head hours are in line with the age of the camera, IF there are no dead pixels, IF the transport mechanism looks good, and IF you try it out, shoot a test, play the test back on another deck...then maybe you should buy it. Check it out thoroughly first! Sometimes there may be one thing on a specific camera that is a deal-killer to a specific person. I, for example, would not want that camera unless I could afford the pro viewfinder, but that may not matter to you. So you really need to use it a bit before you commit your money. Then if you like it, I'd say go for it. If you find yourself around Sony snobs, just cover up the JVC logo with gaffer tape and use Sony mini DVCAM tapes when you shoot and nobody will know the difference. Keep in mind that there is an art to covering JVC logos with gaffer tape. You can't just put a nice, neat little piece of gaffer tape over the JVC...that will look like you're trying to hide the logo. Instead, stick several pieces of tape randomly over the camera, on one use a marker and write "Cam. A," or something like that. It will look as if you have more than one camera, and provide an excuse for having one or more pieces of gaffer tape on the camera; and of course, one of the pieces of tape would cover the logo. This will also give you a seasoned professional look.

February 6th, 2003, 02:15 PM	#18
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Bill, I took your gaffer tape advice some time back, and lo and behold, everyone thought I was a Sony Handycam man. Worked great with the cheeks. I forgot about using the Sony tape, though. Next time. Should you buy the cam? I would if I had the money and wanted to make more money with event stuff---and maybe with other stuff. The low lux is a big plus. Never underestimate this.

February 6th, 2003, 04:22 PM	#20
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Jeff, your post confuses me (but then a lot of things confuse me). You seem to be talking about DV as if all DV cameras are small chip cameras "...Simple, the larger cameras will allow you to get shots that will be acceptable (not great) under very harsh conditions. Under the same conditions, DV would fail." What if the larger camera is a 2/3" chip DV camera? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and that is entirely possible since I've been buried in editing a 4 hour audio program that's turning what's left of my brain to mush, but I've seen others talk about the differences between DV and Betacam when they really are talking about the differences between small chip "prosumer" cameras and larger chip professional cameras. Under almost all conditions if you record something with, say, a DSR500, simultaneously to DVand to Betacam, the DV tape would look as good or better. If you compare a PD150 to a BVW600, then the 600 is going to look better under those extreme conditions whether it's recording to DV or to Betacam. Where bigger chip cameras look obviously better is in wide shots, regardless of lighting conditions. "Tadpole" is a good example--all the medium and closeups look really nice for a PD150 transferred to 35mm and projected on a full size theater screen, but all the outdoor wide shots look soft. Had the producer rented a 2/3" chip camera for those shots, they would have looked much better, I think.

February 6th, 2003, 06:35 PM	#22
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Yeah, if we could all avoid wide shots, life would be good.

February 10th, 2003, 01:03 AM	#23
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Is there a difference between the DV500 and the DV500U? I know the "U" designated the NTSC model, just not sure if the non "U" is just people not typing in the "U", and are indeed one and the same camera. Thanks!

February 10th, 2003, 02:14 AM	#24
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	When the DV500 came out here in Vancouver, it had the U at the end.

February 10th, 2003, 09:02 AM	#25
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	JVC has always been fond of putting U's at the end of their equipment for some reason, at least in the U.S.

February 10th, 2003, 11:16 AM	#26
Lou Bruno Go Cycle Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Huntington, NY Posts: 815	The DV500 is dioscontinued; it's been replaced by the DV5000 NOT SO according to JVC. Both cameras are being produced. BTW: I tried to post my new JVC GY DV5000 review on this forum but it was not posted due to the length. Love my 5000-the 500 was a good camera but the 5000 is GREAT! Lou Bruno

February 10th, 2003, 12:43 PM	#27
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Hmm...I think it was our fearless moderator, was it not, who posted that comment about the 500 being replaced by the 5000? Strange that they would still be making both cameras when they're so similar.

February 11th, 2003, 08:20 PM	#29
Lou Bruno Go Cycle Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Huntington, NY Posts: 815	<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Pryor : Hmm...I think it was our fearless moderator, was it not, who posted that comment about the 500 being replaced by the 5000? Strange that they would still be making both cameras when they're so similar. -->>> They are is NO WAY similiar. Different picture quality and menu layout---much more fesatures. See my post at www.abcdv.com They MAY look the same in advertisements from a physical perspective. I spoke to JVC today and the sales rep stated they have an abundance of JVc GY DV500's on hand and will manufactor more as the demand increases. The 5000 seems to be selling rapidly and so far no initial problems to report. Lou Bruno

February 12th, 2003, 08:14 AM	#30
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	What I read was that they're both 1/2" chip cameras. The 5000 has more and different features, but they both use the same chips. Is that wrong? I did recently read one reference that mentioned the 5000 as having incorporated some of the features of the Gy300. So does that mean the 5000 has 1/3" chips instead of 1/2"?