Comments

wcoxe1 wrote on 10/10/2002, 11:41 PM
Here goes, again. To me, High Def in 16:9 is 1920 x 1080, not the 1280 x 720 max (or lower) of this unit. Wish someone would normalize definitions.
John_Cline wrote on 10/11/2002, 12:47 AM
Alright, how about "MidDef"? Although 1280x720 progressive is nothing to sneeze at.

John
David_Kuznicki wrote on 10/11/2002, 1:18 AM
Jeez... I'm surprised that ANYONE would complain about this! Especially for the price. It, at least from first look, really beats the snot out of anything at its price point, or even for a few thousand dollars more.

I, for one, am going to keep an eye out for more info.
swarrine wrote on 10/22/2002, 10:07 PM
I heard (3rd hand from someone at NAB) this cam has some problems that are unresolved.

Just a rumor though. Anyone else heard anything?
wcoxe1 wrote on 10/23/2002, 8:48 AM
Don't get me wrong, John. Advancement is great. I just don't like replacing tape formats and camcorder formats every few years. Too much conversion problem. I'd just as soon go straight to true HD. But, there are problems in la la land.

The JVC DV1000u will require just about 2 2/3 times the throughput of current DV. The main problem seems to be that it takes a VERY special tape. And it is not yet in production. Expect it to be VERY expensive. Much more so than top grade tapes (pro- and consumer) have EVER been, to-date.

It also requires IEEE1394s next edition, too. But, by that time, it should be available, at a price. More hardware, ugh!

For true HD; remember, true 1920 x 1080 will require SIX times the throughput of current DV. Thats 77.4 GBytes per hour, 1.3GB per MINUTE. I don't have the specs on the proposed new 1394 spec handy, but will it DO 6 or more times current 1394's throughput? I hope (and believe) so.

Maybe the throughput problem is why Sony, for one, dispares of EVER being able to use the current size and style DV tape for HD. They hint that they may have to completely abandon it for something new, but will not even speculate as to what. That would be the pits. BluRay, anyone? Who knows? BluRay may not even be enough.

You can get more (a very little bit more, for now) info on the JVC starting in the October 2002 section on:

www.supervideo.com

Enjoy the wait. Life is short.
Paul_Holmes wrote on 10/23/2002, 12:13 PM
I was wondering if a camera like this would transfer standard DV through a standard fire-wire port. You would still have the advantage of filming at a much higher resolution, even if you end up at 720 by 480. I would think this would eliminate a lot of stair-stepping and give you better color information in a one-chip camera. Anyone have any opinions or knowledge on this?
altphase wrote on 10/23/2002, 2:21 PM
I believe that 1280x720 @60fps is one of the HD resolutions among a few others. What I see as the problem with this camcorder is the fact that it records to a miniDV tape using MPEG2 compression. What does one do with that footage? Can't play it in any existing miniDV equipment, probably will not work with any of the current DV editing programs using firewire and even once in a computer how does one edit HD MPEG2 video (it's hard enough to work with SD MPEG2). I think this camcorder will become a record&play consumer format just as will the microMV from SONY. Too non-standard to interface with any existing equipment.
mitteg wrote on 10/25/2002, 1:28 PM
I agree alternatphase. I think that this camera is not prosumer at all. It's just a consumer camera. And remember it has one CCD !! To my mind it has nothing to do with the PD150 or the Sony VX2000. This JCV cam has a 1/3" CCD, and with so many pixels I imagine that will record horrible pictures in low light conditions. And as others said it records in MPEG2 and I imagine that it will be compressed a lot. So do not expect a Betacam SX Mpeg2. I suppose that it's like the MICRO MV Mpeg2 but with a lot more pixels.

This is just my non-objective opinion ;-) I do not have one unit to test it. Will see...
riredale wrote on 10/25/2002, 6:49 PM
720 progressive is roughly equivalent to 1080 interlaced, as measured qualitatively by viewers. Back 10 years ago when Japan was pushing 1080i (originally 1035i), Zenith came out with 720p, claiming it was "about the same." I have never seen a side-by-side comparison.

The 1280 horizontal resolution is quite a bit worse than the 1920 horizontal resolution of the official HD standard.
wcoxe1 wrote on 10/25/2002, 7:52 PM
Not quite 1/2 the pixel resolution, to be exact.
Avene wrote on 10/26/2002, 9:26 PM
This being the Vegas Video forum, lets not forget that Vegas Video can't output anything larger than 800x600. Unless I'm missing something?
seeker wrote on 10/26/2002, 10:14 PM
Avene,

"...lets not forget that Vegas Video can't output anything larger than 800x600..."

Well, technically it could be 800x800 but that would be totally non-standard. But this is yet another reminder that Vegas Video 4 should go bigger than 800x800.

-- seeker --