What about the JY-VS200U Mini DV Camcorder at DVinfo.net

Vinson Watson · September 29th, 2002, 03:18 PM

These are the features:

JVC "Indie" Progressive Scan Single-CCD DV Camcorder, with FireWire and USB interfaces • 300:1 digital zoom, 10:1 optical, 2:1 stills • 1.92 Megapixel Digital Stills, 1600x1200 (UXGA, XGA, VGA resolutions • Automatic/ Manual focus lens • Dual Optical Low Pass Filters • 16:9/ 4:3 switchable, Color.

I hear Progressive scan is important to the film look but the problem is I can get a three chipper for a grand. I mean think about it. And the DVX100 is $4000 for $2000 I can get two cams but it's still 3 versus 1 on the chips. This is another question, where can I email the R&D departments of these companies. If the the JVC "Indie" was a three chip model I'd wait to buy the DVX100, but why make such a cheesy model of camera to sale to indie filmmakers when Sony and Panasonic sell a three chip for about $200 more. Has anyone used this cam? Are there any reviews of it?

-Vinson

Joe Carney · October 4th, 2002, 08:35 AM

artstar, the DV3000U is the succesor to this camera, and it is better and cheaper to boot. 2 british mags gave the camera an overall good review (don't like the bottom loading tape is all).
Buydig.com has the DV3000U for 894.00 after rebate. thank Panasonic for getting everyone to lower their prices. hehehe.

Chris Hurd · October 4th, 2002, 08:46 AM

There used to be an extensive write-up on the 200 by my friend Adam Wilt, over on DV Central. That site seems to have folded, so I guess I'll tap him and see if I can run the article now.

Joe Carney · October 4th, 2002, 09:26 AM

Chris, the reviews I read about the 3000 say the picture quality is much better than the 200u, especially on low light. Seems they got rid of the vertical smear problem too.

Vinson Watson · October 5th, 2002, 06:51 PM

I think I might buy two of these instead of 1 DVX100 if I find out that it got good reviews and can do 16:9. That might be a better idea and less expensive. You think I can get a good picture on a 1 chipper like this?

-Vinson

Joe Carney · October 6th, 2002, 09:59 AM

I didn't read anything about 16:9, at least in the NTSC version. This camera is designed to compete with the Panasonic 702 and 852 in a similar price range. I think they added the tech they originally put into the 200U indie, but not sure about the 16:9.

If you plan on using a tripod, you might want to look at the panasonic 702 or 852. The 852 is available for under 1K and is a top loader instead of a bottom loader. Both the 3000U and the 852 can be found in consumer electronic stores.

I think you hit the nail on the head. You don't need a 3 chipper to make a DV feature. There are even anamophic lenses from Century Optics for these cameras (with adaptors).

the celebration, the idiots and I think Julian Donkey boy were made with single chip cameras.

Vinson Watson · October 6th, 2002, 12:46 PM

This is true but my only problem is picture quality. I've freakish about buying a 1 chipper because I'm not sure about the quality. I want this to be as professional as possible. True it's not going to film but I want it to be good quality, especially the low light shots and a lot of these camera's don't have mic jacks.

Right now I'm really looking at the GL2, XL-1s, VX2000 and of course the new Panny 24p. (The Sony SONY DSR-PDX10 looks interesting too). I plan to go straight to DV with a lot of my stuff but 30p always seems slower than than 24p. I mean for me the difference is noticeable sometimes but I think I can work around it. I'm saving up and in 3 - 6 months I hope to have money for the camera and a new editing system.

-Vinson

Joe Carney · October 6th, 2002, 01:11 PM

think Vegas Video and use the difference between that and FCP to get your 3chipper. Plus, you won't need pro tools to get great audio, since multitrack audio recording and mixing is built into Vegas Video at up to 24/96 resolution. sorry, couldn't resist.

Vinson Watson · October 6th, 2002, 05:41 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by jojolimited : think Vegas Video and use the difference between that and FCP to get your 3chipper. Plus, you won't need pro tools to get great audio, since multitrack audio recording and mixing is built into Vegas Video at up to 24/96 resolution. sorry, couldn't resist. -->>>

FCP #3 will only cost me $300 and I have Pro Tools already. Plus I don't think they make Vegas for Macs (I could be wrong). FCP, Premiere and now Avid are the big Mac standards and many say FCP is better than the new Avid one.

-Vinson

Jeff Donald · October 6th, 2002, 06:03 PM

FCP is the standard for Mac editing. A good review of FCP and Avid Xpress DV is here

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/09_sep/features/cw_fcp_vs_xdv_shootout.htm

FCP for $300 is better than what Xpress will cost ($1500). My opinion of 3 chip cameras is they win every time, except in low light. The light gets split for each chip so it can't do as well. If your doing weddings and need a good low light camera , get a 1 chip. Other wise 3 chips is the only way to go.

Jeff

Chris Hurd · October 7th, 2002, 08:11 AM

Thanks to the magic of the amazing Internet Wayback Machine, here is Adam Wilt's JVC VS200 review, previously lost to the ether:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010802141230/www.dvcentral.org/Reviews/jyvs200u.html

Hope this helps,

September 29th, 2002, 03:18 PM	#1
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	What about the JY-VS200U Mini DV Camcorder These are the features: JVC "Indie" Progressive Scan Single-CCD DV Camcorder, with FireWire and USB interfaces • 300:1 digital zoom, 10:1 optical, 2:1 stills • 1.92 Megapixel Digital Stills, 1600x1200 (UXGA, XGA, VGA resolutions • Automatic/ Manual focus lens • Dual Optical Low Pass Filters • 16:9/ 4:3 switchable, Color. I hear Progressive scan is important to the film look but the problem is I can get a three chipper for a grand. I mean think about it. And the DVX100 is $4000 for $2000 I can get two cams but it's still 3 versus 1 on the chips. This is another question, where can I email the R&D departments of these companies. If the the JVC "Indie" was a three chip model I'd wait to buy the DVX100, but why make such a cheesy model of camera to sale to indie filmmakers when Sony and Panasonic sell a three chip for about $200 more. Has anyone used this cam? Are there any reviews of it? -Vinson

October 7th, 2002, 08:11 AM	#11
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Thanks to the magic of the amazing Internet Wayback Machine, here is Adam Wilt's JVC VS200 review, previously lost to the ether: http://web.archive.org/web/20010802141230/www.dvcentral.org/Reviews/jyvs200u.html Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 4th, 2002, 08:35 AM	#2
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	artstar, the DV3000U is the succesor to this camera, and it is better and cheaper to boot. 2 british mags gave the camera an overall good review (don't like the bottom loading tape is all). Buydig.com has the DV3000U for 894.00 after rebate. thank Panasonic for getting everyone to lower their prices. hehehe.

October 4th, 2002, 08:46 AM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	There used to be an extensive write-up on the 200 by my friend Adam Wilt, over on DV Central. That site seems to have folded, so I guess I'll tap him and see if I can run the article now. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 4th, 2002, 09:26 AM	#4
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	Chris, the reviews I read about the 3000 say the picture quality is much better than the 200u, especially on low light. Seems they got rid of the vertical smear problem too.

October 5th, 2002, 06:51 PM	#5
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	I think I might buy two of these instead of 1 DVX100 if I find out that it got good reviews and can do 16:9. That might be a better idea and less expensive. You think I can get a good picture on a 1 chipper like this? -Vinson

October 6th, 2002, 09:59 AM	#6
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	I didn't read anything about 16:9, at least in the NTSC version. This camera is designed to compete with the Panasonic 702 and 852 in a similar price range. I think they added the tech they originally put into the 200U indie, but not sure about the 16:9. If you plan on using a tripod, you might want to look at the panasonic 702 or 852. The 852 is available for under 1K and is a top loader instead of a bottom loader. Both the 3000U and the 852 can be found in consumer electronic stores. I think you hit the nail on the head. You don't need a 3 chipper to make a DV feature. There are even anamophic lenses from Century Optics for these cameras (with adaptors). the celebration, the idiots and I think Julian Donkey boy were made with single chip cameras.

October 6th, 2002, 12:46 PM	#7
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	This is true but my only problem is picture quality. I've freakish about buying a 1 chipper because I'm not sure about the quality. I want this to be as professional as possible. True it's not going to film but I want it to be good quality, especially the low light shots and a lot of these camera's don't have mic jacks. Right now I'm really looking at the GL2, XL-1s, VX2000 and of course the new Panny 24p. (The Sony SONY DSR-PDX10 looks interesting too). I plan to go straight to DV with a lot of my stuff but 30p always seems slower than than 24p. I mean for me the difference is noticeable sometimes but I think I can work around it. I'm saving up and in 3 - 6 months I hope to have money for the camera and a new editing system. -Vinson

October 6th, 2002, 01:11 PM	#8
Joe Carney Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Centreville Va Posts: 1,828	think Vegas Video and use the difference between that and FCP to get your 3chipper. Plus, you won't need pro tools to get great audio, since multitrack audio recording and mixing is built into Vegas Video at up to 24/96 resolution. sorry, couldn't resist.

October 6th, 2002, 05:41 PM	#9
Vinson Watson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 79	<<<-- Originally posted by jojolimited : think Vegas Video and use the difference between that and FCP to get your 3chipper. Plus, you won't need pro tools to get great audio, since multitrack audio recording and mixing is built into Vegas Video at up to 24/96 resolution. sorry, couldn't resist. -->>> FCP #3 will only cost me $300 and I have Pro Tools already. Plus I don't think they make Vegas for Macs (I could be wrong). FCP, Premiere and now Avid are the big Mac standards and many say FCP is better than the new Avid one. -Vinson

October 6th, 2002, 06:03 PM	#10
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	FCP is the standard for Mac editing. A good review of FCP and Avid Xpress DV is here http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/09_sep/features/cw_fcp_vs_xdv_shootout.htm FCP for $300 is better than what Xpress will cost ($1500). My opinion of 3 chip cameras is they win every time, except in low light. The light gets split for each chip so it can't do as well. If your doing weddings and need a good low light camera , get a 1 chip. Other wise 3 chips is the only way to go. Jeff