Kommentare

Spot|DSE schrieb am 07.04.2005 um 19:24 Uhr
It's JVC's "addendum" to the HDV format. It offers non-compliant PCM audio on dual tracks, and also offers 24p
It's still a 720p cam, using 960 pix chips. This is where (imo) the Z1 kicks it's butt. Interchangeable lenses are nice, but if the chips aren't very good, which JVC is famous for....who knows. It IS a different factory than the initial HDV cams from JVC, and a totally new design. I've seen limited footage, it's not bad, but it's not nearly as good as the 1080i image. It does purportedly offer 1080p out of the component out, but if it's a 960 pixel chip, then it's still uprezzed chips, AND not many people can handle a 1080p stream on their computer. If they can, they're not likely using a 8K camera, but that's my opinion. I'm excited to handle it. We're having a 1080i vs 720p shootout at NAB, and this cam is part of it. Mark Dileo (Hulk on this forum) is presenting the JVC, and I'll present the Z1.
Yoyodyne schrieb am 07.04.2005 um 19:25 Uhr
But is it Pro?....It's like video cards. The jargon has started to eat itself - when your old video card was marketed as Super HyperX Extreme XXX GraphiXXX - where do you go from there?

I think this "PRO" everything is gonna backfire. Isn't it the JVC DV500 cams that had a sticker that said "for Professional use only" on them?
BarryGreen schrieb am 07.04.2005 um 21:17 Uhr
ProHD is an extension of HDV. The JVC is fully HDV compliant, but it has extended the format some too -- it offers a true 24p acquisition mode in addition to its 30p mode, and uncompressed audio instead of MPEG-1 Layer II compression.

Apparently it can only record 24p and 30p, and cannot record 60p. The camera can apparently (I'll use that word a lot, since the announcement isn't formal yet) run at 60p and 48p; it employs what it calls a "motion smoothing" filter to optionally smooth out 24p and 30p motion; in 24p mode it can shoot at 48fps and blend the frames together, and for 30p it can shoot at 60fps and blend the frames together (still ending up with 24p or 30p on tape). No 60p on tape, but it can output 60p on the analog component outputs.

The ProHD format is backwards-compatible with HDV, but HDV is not necessarily forward-compatible with ProHD. So a ProHD deck should be able to play all HDV content, but an HDV deck may not (okay, probably won't) be able to play ProHD content. What that means is, if you want HDV compatibility, you'll shoot in 30p mode. If you want to use 24P, recognize that you won't be able to play that tape back in an HDV camera or deck.

I don't know where Spot's getting the 960 pixel idea from; the Sony's the one with the 960-pixel CCD. The JVC claims that it has three newly-developed 1280x720 CCDs, recording the full 1280x720 progressive-scan frame.

The JVC is also a shoulder-mount form factor, although I think people are going to be shocked when they find out how small it is. From all indications it's about the same size as a Z1, a little smaller than an XL2, maybe a hair bigger than a DVX. But it does have the capability for interchangeable lenses.

What we don't know yet is what the video looks like, and what the price will be. The only indication of price was "under $10,000". That could mean $9999, or it could mean $3000, we don't know yet.

The biggest drawback I see to the JVC camera is that it doesn't have any provision for recording a "reality" look -- either 60i or 60p. While I'm the biggest 24p fan around, I'll readily admit that there are many types of jobs that need the "reality" look -- news, live events, sports, etc. With no provision for recording 60p, I think they made a mistake -- especially because HDV provides for 720/60p recording as part of the standard. Hopefully that's something they'll rectify before shipping it.
Spot|DSE schrieb am 08.04.2005 um 00:25 Uhr
Barry, apparently I'm wrong. I keep reading the discussion on the various forums that it's really 1280, but in the info sent to us by JVC for the NAB event, it clearly says 960 on it. Which is why I'm confused.
I hope it's a good cam. JVC just doesn't have a good rep from my particular point of view. I've had two of their cams, neither was assembled well. Although the 500 has a GREAT uncompressed picture out the analog. BTW, we do know what the picture looks like, it's not bad, but it's also not what I've been expecting. However, I didn't shoot it, and the images they sent don't explain the acquisition settings. It's just a WMV HD file we were given. You've probably seen the same one by now.
BarryGreen schrieb am 08.04.2005 um 07:15 Uhr
I only know what I've seen in the various press releases and news articles, and I thought they clearly stated that the CCD images at 1280x720. But, like with all this stuff, we won't know for sure until we see the actual announcement about 10 days from now!
farss schrieb am 08.04.2005 um 09:50 Uhr
Man I gotta agree, the 500 takes great video and the build quality looks OK but it's beast to use, must have the most confusing menu of anything I've tried to use and it's the most unreliable of cameras. Ours has been back to be fixed so many times and it's still not right.
Based on that experince alone JVC could offer as a CineAlta grade image for $5K and we still wouldn't touch it.

Interesting comment from Barry re 24p. I know quite a few guys who've bought DVX100s, they love them to death (only XL1 owners are more rabid), I asked one if he'd tried shooting progressive as he delivers a lot of content via the web. He'd tried it and found it useless, he shoots mainly sports and in real close.
Bob.
BarryGreen schrieb am 08.04.2005 um 18:22 Uhr
24p is not what you'd want for sports, no. For sports or live events or news, it's got to be 60i or 60p. That's what people are used to seeing, that's what they want to see... MTV tried broadcasting their movie awards or vma's or something in 24p and everyone hated it.

But 24p for dramatic or commercial work is *the bomb*. It's the only way to go. My DVX stays in 24p mode about 75% of the time, only reverting to 60i for convention or event coverage. For anything dramatic or scripted, it's 24p all the way.
farss schrieb am 08.04.2005 um 22:17 Uhr
Well down here being PAL 24p isn't of a whole lot of interest. It's either 25p or 50i. I'm suspecting that the difference between 25p and 50i isn't as dramatic as the difference between 24p and 60i which might explain a few things. I know at least one local DVX100 owner who tried covering boxing at 25p and gave that away as very bad idea. But here's the odd thing, his output is relayed world wide via webcast and viewed at 25p.
Our national broadcaster did a major series shot at 50i and de-interlaced in post using an expensive hardware solution to produce a 'film look' and they seemed more than happy with the results and it was one of their highest rating shows.
However one of their cameramen did some tests on both the DVX100 and XL2 at 25p and concluded that shooting 25p was not an option for general purpose television coverage.
None of this is surprising to me, cinematographers are well versed in the limitations of their medium and shoot accordingly. Shooting extended coverage of sports or news at 25p (or24p) isn't unpopular because of what people expect to see it's because of well understood limitations. This used to be done in the days before TV, our only news footage was seen in the cinema but that was shot by cinematographers. I'm curious to know though if full coverage of say the Superbowl was ever offered in cinemas and if so how it was shot, I'd suspect it was nothing like the way it's covered for broadcast today.
All that aside though, offering a true progressive scan HDV camera makes a lot of sense to me, the limitations of shooting 25p goes very nicely with the limitations imposed by the HDV compression system, learn to shoot well from either of those aspects and you're covered in both directions.
Bob.