> Since JVC says they use a slightly modified version of HDV on this camera

If that makes it incompatible with HDV, why would they do this? Isn’t HDV a STANDARD? More importantly, why would you reward this behavior by buying this camera? Manufacturers need to understand that standards are IMPORTANT!

I’m talking more as a software developer now than as a videographer. Everyone who modifies a standard breaks the software of everyone who knows how to read a specification and conform to it, YET it’s the software developers that the customers come down on for not supporting the non-standard hardware!

I say boycott the camera and send a letter to JVC letting them know that you would have bought their camera had it not been for their incompatibility with the HDV spec! (sorry, I’m in a rather rebellious mood this morning... long week) ;-)

~jr

I understand what you are coming from but you answer with the assumption that it is indeed incompatable with HDV when that has yet to be answered in this thread. The reason the camera is of interest to me is because it records in true 24p in 720p (which I prefer over 1080i). The camera specs do indeed say it works with HDV and it has a firewire port for that purpose, but what I'm unclear on is if once you put it in 24p mode etc, does it still work?

The problem is how the camera manages the 24p. There are"repeat" flags that need to be recognized for the 24p. JVC packages the 24p in what the NLE sees as a 60 frame stream.
You can't capture the 24p with Vegas (or any other NLE) at this time, but once you have it, Vegas correctly sees it.

Interesting. So say I had the JVC, shot some footage in 24p and wanted to edit it in Vegas. What do I do to go about capturing it? Someone mentioned Connect HD earlier. What is that exactly?

Connect HD works, there is a freeware app that gets it too, CapDVHS. I'd recommend CineForm, as it's the only reliable way of correctly capturing this footage at the moment. Once it's captured, Vegas sees it correctly, removes pulldown, etc. Both Barry Green and I shot footage at WEVA, and both of us have had great experience with the footage in Vegas. Barry's looks better n' mine does though. :-)
Read a bit about the cam before buying...caveat emptor and all that.
There are some issues (one significant one, IMO) with the camera, but if you know what they are, and are aware of how to best deal with them...you'll be OK.

"Someone mentioned Connect HD earlier. What is that exactly?"

Connect HD is software developed by my company to enhance the HDV workflow on the Windows platform for multiple editing and compositing applications; it has particular features designed to work esspecially well with Sony Vegas. CineForm today is the only commercial software to support the JVC ProHD cameras (allow Vegas and Premiere users to use their HD100s in 24p before anyone else.) You can read about Connect HD and download a trial from CineForm here http://www.cineform.com/products/ConnectHD.htm.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

Thanks for the info. Connect HD sounds pretty cool. DSE, what are some of the "issues" you speak of with the JVC? I'm not purchasing one just yet, as I want to wait until the new Canon HDV is out on the market and people have had a chance to play with it. I like Sony cameras, but I'm not crazy about the lens on the Z1U (nor the inability to change it).

The split screen issue with the JVC is a big, big deal. The cheap lens is a reasonably big deal, lots of issues there. JVC says they'll have the split screen issue resolved sometime soon.
Sony might not have interchangeable lenses, but frankly, no one really seems to care much. Sony dodged a HUGE bullet by avoiding the problems JVC is having. You can't deliver great glass for the price these cams are being delivered at and have interchangeable lenses. I have footage from both, and I'll absolutely take a Z1 over the JVC any day, but the Canon on the other hand....looks really great. And Canon, unlike JVC, has a very long history with HD, glass, and great engineering. So, I'm very excited to see this Canon cam.

Thanks for all the input. The only thing that concerns me about the Canon is the rumored 9K price tag.

Well...It's 4K more than anything else, but if 4K buys the kind of glass that I suspect is on the front end of that camera....it's well worth it.
Aside from that, look what JVC is going thru with their cheap glass...to really get the joy from the JVC, you need a 10k lens in addition to the 5K body. Plus you'll need a battery option, because their batteries don't last at all. 20 mins, if you're lucky.
So, trick out a JVC for 17K, spend a little more and get the Panny HVX when it ships, or spend even just a tad more and buy the Sony XDCAM HD, which will be the real screamer in that particular price range, I suspect.
Or, realize that you can do better than the JVC and probably not quite as good as the Canon, in the Z1.

>>If that makes it incompatible with HDV, why would they do this? Isn’t HDV a STANDARD?<<

You're kidding, right? A "standard"? HDV is the most irritating hodgepodge bodge of incompatible standards all lumped under the same name, it totally boggles the mind how they can call it a "standard" with a straight face.

A "standard" would be where you'd expect equipment to just work, right? For example, a VHS tape can be recorded on a VHS deck and played back on another VHS deck, right? Doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, right? Or BetaSP -- can you record a tape in an Ampex deck and play it back on a Sony deck? Of course you can!

But not with HDV. You basically have three different manufacturers promoting three almost completely incompatible formats, all recorded to the same tape and all using the same name!

You cannot play an "HDV" tape from one manufacturer on another manufacturer's "HDV" gear (with a few rare exceptions).

If you record your tape on a JVC camera, you cannot play it back on a Canon HDV camera AT ALL, and you have limited compatibility with playing it back on a Sony camera.

If you record the tape on a Sony camera or deck, you cannot play it back on any JVC camera or deck.

If you record the tape on a Canon camera, you cannot play it back on any JVC camera or deck. And, if you record the tape in the Canon's 1080/24F mode, you cannot play that back on any Sony camera or deck! Not only have JVC and Sony produced incompatible formats, but at least those are different broadcast standards (even though they share the HDV name and tape!) But now Canon has gone and created its own incompatible format even though it's also 1080! Will the Canon play back Sony tapes? I would have thought so, but now I wouldn't go assuming it!

It's nuts. And it gets worse. JVC's HDV format isn't even compatible with JVC's other HDV gear -- if you shoot 24P on an HD100 you cannot play that back on an HD1 or HD10 or CU1 deck.

And then you get to editing -- some HDV formats are supported by HDV editors, but not all. FCP cannot see or handle JVC 24P HDV, and I'd bet $50 that it can't handle Canon's 1080/24F format either. Vegas can't capture 24P HDV, and would probably choke on the Canon too.

It's absurd.

You'd do far better to give up on the idea of even using the term "HDV" at all, and just stick with the manufacturers to have an idea of whether it'll work -- JVC high-def, Sony high-def, or Canon high-def. They're all formats that record MPEG-2 to DV tape, but that's about where the compatibility ends. They really are pretty much three separate, incompatible formats.

LOL, great comments, Barry.
One point of clarification; you can playback JVC tape on Sony decks IF it's not 24p.
And the Canon will playback on the Sony deck (according to the folks at Canon) if it's not 24f. And the Sony tapes will playback on Canon, again according to Canon. JVC is the most oddball out there.
Sony is the *most* compatible, only be default of
a-having the most gear/product out there
b-having been the first to market, therefore *should have* established the benchmark.

But you're right, HDV is supposed to be a format, not a format war.
The one common denominator, is Vegas plays it all. Most likely even the 24f.

That's what drove me batty -- I've actually got a tape of Canon 24F footage here we shot at RESFest, and I can't digitize it anywhere! Argh.

Probably the most-sought-after bit of footage in the whole web community, and here it sits... because no HDV gear will play it...

Regarding Sony playing back JVC -- only to analog; you can't digitize JVC tapes off of Sony.

Yes, Sony is the most compatible, in that it can play Sony stuff, plus it can sort of play back JVC stuff, and we're assuming (but at this point I'm not willing to say more than just "assuming") that it'll play back Canon tapes. The Canon won't even try to play the JVC tapes, even though the Sony can play them back to some degree...

I do kinda think a lot of this will settle out soon, if not by mid next year, sometime shortly after that, because it's not good for the industry at any level to continue to develop around a set of 2 standards, with various players straying from the standards they themselves agreed upon. Whether they do it themselves, or whether the consumer market forces it, somewhere the dollar or demand will speak, I think.
One thing we did try with the JVC is that you can put a JVC tape in a Z1, take the component out feeding a BMD Multibridge and it looks great. Comparing the 720 capture to the BMD capture, it looks very similar, just a little hotter in the blues and greens. I liked the BMD capture better, even if it's not totally accurate to what the cam captured.
We also took the same component out of the Z1 and fed the Grass Valley IDDR system. I expected it to look terrible, but it actually looked very good. Even though it's 720p coming out of the cam, the GV scales it to 1080i. (no 720 support in the IDDR)
On the pro side, it may well be (such as Canon is hoping) that the pro market won't use HDV capture at all, but rather component out, even post compression....It certainly looks better from the Z1 than the HDV capture over iLink.

Barry,

> A "standard" would be where you'd expect equipment to just work, right? For example, a VHS tape can be recorded on a VHS deck and played back on another VHS deck, right? Doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, right?

Wouldn’t that be great. Unfortunately, if I recorded my VHS tape in LP mode I cannot play it back on a deck that only supports SP and EP mode. All standards have required and optional features. I guess HDV is just out control in that respect.

> If you record your tape on a JVC camera, you cannot play it back on a Canon HDV camera AT ALL, and you have limited compatibility with playing it back on a Sony camera.

I think it’s the same argument as the VHS tape. No you can’t playback a tape recorded in 1080i in a camera that only supports 720p no more than you can playback a VHS LP tape on an SP deck. Maybe it’s worse in HDV because there are more variables.

> You basically have three different manufacturers promoting three almost completely incompatible formats, all recorded to the same tape and all using the same name!

Perhaps HDV L1, HDV L2, etc. would be a better designation (where L1/L2 stands for Level 1=720p and Level 2=1080i and Level 3=both?) I guess you’re right, it is quite a mess in that respect.

> And, if you record the tape in the Canon's 1080/24F mode, you cannot play that back on any Sony camera or deck!

I wasn’t aware that things like CF24 or 24F were part of the standard. Are they? If they are not, then perhaps they need to be so there is one way of doing this. Unfortunately, most manufactures see this as their competitive edge (i.e., we do 24p better than our competitors) so it’s not likely it will get standardize.

I get your point. I wasn’t aware if all the incompatibilities there are already. I still hold to my comment that the last thing we need is one more manufacturer adding to the incompatibilities (but I guess we haven’t seen the last of this yet). :( Point well taken.

~jr

This shouldn't be that hard to crack surely. Unlike VHS what's written to the tape is just data and all we need to do is get that data off the tape and into a file on our computers. Certainly the computer will need appropriate software to make any sense of what's in the file but that's nothing compared to a head being the wrong gap or a cassette not physically fitting in the drive.
A comparable example is audio DAT tape. The very same tape and heads was also used to store data so why did we need an audio DAT drive and a Data DAT drive. Well as it turns out you didn't. Some of the Linux gurus cracked this one and now you can take a Data DAT drive, flash its firmware and transfer your audio DAT tapes over SCSI, no doubt faster than real time too.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a manufacturer of non video equipment build a 6mm helical scan drive that can read ANYTHING of MiniDV tapes.
Bob.

>>Perhaps HDV L1, HDV L2, etc. would be a better designation (where L1/L2 stands for Level 1=720p and Level 2=1080i and Level 3=both?) I guess you’re right, it is quite a mess in that respect.<<

Well, yeah, and some people do refer to it as that (HDV1 and HDV2). The thing that had me blowing my stack is now Canon comes along, ostensibly supporting HDV2, and they've made their stuff incompatible with HDV2. So now do we call it HDV3? Which doesn't support HDV1 at all? Canon's invented their own recording format for 24F, and they've invented their own audio format too. It records four channels (still in the same 384kbit data stream as the Z1's two channels). So you've got at least two layers of incompatibility.

I'd say anyone buying the M10 right now would be making a mistake. Check back in a year when some of the dust has settled, maybe by that time we'll have products that will support universal playback.

>>I wasn’t aware that things like CF24 or 24F were part of the standard. Are they? If they are not, then perhaps they need to be so there is one way of doing this.<<
Well, see, that's the whole point! CF24 is not part of the standard, but Sony implemented it in such a way that it still complies to the standard. They didn't deviate from the format. With 24F, Canon DID. So the Canon may (and I emphasize "may" because I'm not making any assumptions anymore about this whole HDV thing) may be able to play back CF24. But the Sony can't play back 24F.

So where does that leave you? Do you stick with the Sony, that can only play back most of the 1080 stuff but not all? Do you go with the Canon knowing that your footage can't be played back on any non-Canon gear? I mean, if Sony doesn't make a deck that supports this new Canon variant, then Canon shooters are SCREWED. At least as far as "24F" goes. Whether 24F is usable or not is pretty much in Sony's hands now -- if they don't embrace it, Canon's orphaned.

>>Unfortunately, most manufactures see this as their competitive edge (i.e., we do 24p better than our competitors) so it’s not likely it will get standardize.<<
Exactly what I was getting at above. If Sony decides that they don't want to give Canon a free gift, then Canon's totally on their own. Canon has never produced a deck, and likely never will. It could very well turn out that "24F" ends up being an orphan format; it's okay if you're a "closed shop" where you are the only one who ever uses or edits your own footage, but if you need to share footage, you're stuck.

Hopefully Vegas will be able to play 24F files; if it can, then that's a good sign that perhaps files can be shared tapelessly. You may just have to digitize the footage first on your own camera before you can send it (on disk) to someone else.

I may as well jump in for a bit. I agree with what JohnnyRoy said as far as VHS but I was thinking about what Spot said - about not sticking to standards in the industry. If you look around, the industry has never really stuck to one standard because someone will always take that "standard" and try to do something a bit different.

Dolby Stereo - Ultra Stero
VHS - S-VHS - VHS-C
Mini-DV - Digital 8
8mm film - Super 8 mm film
16 mm - super 16
DAT - Mini-Disk
ADAT - DA88
D1 - D2 - D4

And the list goes on. To go more along what JohnnyRoy had said - S-VHS wouldn't play back on VHS only until they started coming out with the "quasi S-VHS" decks. Now, for well under 100 bucks, you can get a VHS only deck that will play back almost anything VHS (except D-VHS) and even allow for "fake" S-VHS recording on normal VHS tapes. The HDV stuff is sort of like first gen right now with JVC having been the first out of the gate with an HDV camera. In a sense the new JVC HDV gear is the first 2nd gen of HDV out there. For Sony, Pani and Cannon it is all first gen stuff from them in a manner of speaking. At some point I can see a deck coming out that will playback all the formats - in the same way the VHS decks do now...it might not happen for another 5 years but it will happen.

Golly! Point taken and one might hope that the power of digital would enable universal compatibility. But when is a technology deviating from a standard and when is it a new standard? HDV uses the same tapes as DV, but surely that isn't a deviation of the standard. Super 8 was a new gauge, and the other variations on 16 and 35 film (Super 16, Super Panavison 35, Super Techniscope 35, techniscope, vistavision etc etc were used in production only). When you can't achieve the quality or quantity you want within an existing standard then a new standard is developed (eg. 78rpm shellac disks, 33.33rpm and 45rpm and 16.66 vinyls). I guess those who've grown up in an analogue world aren't surprised that a 1/4 whitworth nut won't screw onto a 1/4 SAE bolt. But I do have to say that we always thought it was a daft arrangement.
Clearly it's Sunday! My comments have little to do with the original question!!

Just to get back to the original issue.
As I understand it the Cannon in 24F writes 24 discreet frames to tape, the Sony in CF24 writes the 24 frames with pulldown into a 60i stream, the only thing oddball about CF24 is how it creates the 'frames' as they're not true progressive.
Which kind of leads one to ask why Canon didn't do the same thing, is there any other issue with using 24p or 24pA pulldown to achieve industry standard compatibility, as far as I know the only camera that records discreet frames to tape is the Varicam.
The ONLY thing I can see is writing only 24fps might save on bandwidth, have Canon decided to sacrifice compatibility for performance? If that's the case then it's a pretty bold move or is it that Canon do have all their ducks in a row, they're just not saying anything as yet..
Bob.