A bit more info on JVC's cam

[NoahK]

JVC Creates Buzz Teasing High Definition Camcorder with 720 lines resolution 24P, Three 1/3 in. CCDs for Under $10,000
by Robin Liss
Published on March 18, 2005


Reliable sources have confirmed that a camcorder named the GY-HD100U which JVC Professional is teasing on their homepage will have three 1/3 in. CCDs. JVC has been attempting to create buzz around their new product by placing a small ad and gradually releasing information on their website for the new camcorder which will use a new system called ProHD. The new ProHD system is compatible with the HDV format however it supports additional features including 24 frames progressive scan — a feature which the new camcorder will have.

The reliable source confirmed reports that the camcorder will include a stock lens of either 13x or 16x optical for under $10,000. The source also confirmed that the camcorder will record 16:9 aspect ratio.

People following the camcorder throughout the web have been speculating about the camcorder’s CCD size. While Canon’s XL2 and Sony’s HDR-FX1 both include three 1/3 in. CCDs, many professionals are looking for an affordable HD camcorder with larger 1/2 in. or 2/3 in. CCDs.

According to the source the new camcorder will also have dual XLR inputs, a flip out LCD screen, and features that “go beyond HDV.” While the new camcorder will be HDV compatible, it will utilize a new HDV format called ProHD.

JVC was the first company to introduce a consumer HD camcorder with their consumer GR-HD1 and prosumer GY-HD10U. The compression used by those camcorders was transformed into the HDV format which records and HD signal to MiniDV tape. Sony, JVC, Canon and Sharp have agreed to produce camcorders under the format and Sony introduced the first official HDV camcorder with their HDR-FX1.

This publication reported earlier this month that Panasonic will also be introducing a sub $10,000 HD camcorder titled the AJ-HDX100. Their new camcorder will also record 24P however the new Panasonic camcorder will not record video to MiniDV tapes with the HDV format, but rather use Pansonic’s P2 tapeless card format.

JVC had no official comment on the new camcorder.



http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-Creates-Buzz-Teasing-High-Definition-Camcorder-with-720-lines-resolution-24P-Three-13-in-CCDs-for-Under-$10000.htm

[dvpixl]

good times.

[reservoir]

From the looks of things....doesn't seem like you can go wrong by getting either the JVC or the new Panny. Seems like the Matsushita family may be taking over leaving Sony and Canon in the dust. Absolutely great the for the consumers / prosumers. ~reservoir~

[Flintstone]

I hope Panny presents the new HDX with a killer form factor. At first glance, that JVC HD100 really rocks... handling it is another matter TBD.

[reservoir]

I think the JVC looks a little big....like the XL1 or XL2. I just like the smaller format like DVX, PD150, FX-1, Z1U. Maybe the JVC is smaller than it looks in the pictures. ~reservoir~

[MattC]

Well that's why there's Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper, different tastes. Myself, I hate small form factor cameras, I'll take the bigger one (within reason) any day.

Matt

[reservoir]

What about Mountain dew or Mello Yellow? I prefer the Dew!! But Coke always takes precedence over Pepsi. Unless I ask for Coke and they give me Pepsi anyway. Don't you hate it when restaurants do that?

Back on the subject. I've never played around with a larger form camera (Unless you count my very old school Late 80's Panasonic Omniview VHS recorder). I'm not biased at all. I'd like to try them both. And if there was no such thing as Panasonic. I'd happily take the JVC over the Canon. It's just a little too funky for me. A guy that films concerts with me uses it and it just seems so awkward, but I don't know. Never used it!! It might be an absolute dream. But hey...this is coming from someone who is 6'4 / 235lbs and drives an ultra compact car because I like the tight feel and the great gas mileage. About as anti-cool as you can get in the *hip* department!! Different Strokes!! ~reservoir~

[MattC]

LMAO! I'm 5'6", 165 and I drive an SUV.... Just taste.

I find that, for me, a larger, heavier allows me to move it more cinematically, but if I had more experience that probably wouldn't be an issue. I just like when everything feels really solid.

[reservoir]

HA...that's great man!! Yeah...you should see my buddies and I out on the town in my ride. It looks like a bunch of NBA players getting out of a small clown-car. Maybe I should make a short-film about it. :)

~reservoir~

[braw]

I have no interest in either camera unless it comes with pearl paint and spinners on the sides. It's all about looks and size to me. I could care less if it actually looks better in specs, it needs to get me honies and compensate for my laughably small penis.

I only make movies so I can flex when chickenheads walk by. I'm all, "Yeah I'm a filmmaker, look at my phat azz camera biotch."

[taubkin]

I Hate Dr. Pepper.

and Can't get enough of Mountain Dew, the sweetest memory from my trips to the US...

About the camera, It looks gorgeus, unfortunately, it's HDV. And why have interchangeable lenses if the mount is unique to that camera? I'm sorry, I'm not very good at engeneering (I dropped out), but it seems a little strange to me.

[reservoir]

I'll tell you what. At this point, if I could just get a good camera like a DVX / HDX with an affordable DOF solution like the upcoming Micro35 and a good Follow Focus (preferably cheap and homemade like the Micro35) I'll have died and gone to indie film heaven. Until then I'll just keep dreaming. ~reservoir~

[mr._guiyotinne]

Reservoir, i´m waiting for the same solution and it´s less than a year to come... Better to have a nice fixed lens with sweet focus, zoom and iris controls than lot of expensive pack of lenses for the same DOF. And don´t forget 4:2:2 and uncompressed audio. Yes, i had to say it... It´s the best option. And you can always use it for news gathering; just put the mattebox and shoulder mount and it will looks as professional as XL2.

I saw one like this in F1 Australian Grand prix and make me smile thinking he could be one of the fellow mates here. It was next to a big JVC and i imagined he dress it like this to look more like the big toys. I loved it.

And in between i have lot of things to do, so the wait won´t be so bad, at least after darn NAB comes! It´s getting me nuts how slowly time goes!

[Flintstone]

About the camera, It looks gorgeous, unfortunately, it's HDV. And why have interchangeable lenses if the mount is unique to that camera?
Quite right! But I assume that more cameras with 1/3" mounts will follow, and more lens options will follow too. I'd probably assume that the HDX could possibly come with such a lens. When you think about it, it's not too far fetched. Both cams are announced to be under $10K. This implies many things, but the similar price range is strangely too coincidental. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Jan confirmed nor denied anything about the lens assembly of the HDX. Add to that the fact that both companies are Matsushita... Makes you wonder.

I would also assume that with such a lens (on the JVC HD100), you could actually get decent shallow DOF. I'm not sure you can get auto focus though. Auto iris maybe, but auto focus seems unlikely (referring to pro 1/2" and 2/3" lenses). Optical image stabilization might be another issue too. But then again, these specially designed 1/3" lenses could be totally different then the pro 1/2" and 2/3" ones. Noah, Barry, what's your take on that?

[redindian]

And why have interchangeable lenses if the mount is unique to that camera? I'm sorry, I'm not very good at engeneering (I dropped out), but it seems a little strange to me.

The leaked press release said it has optional 1/2" adapter.

[MattC]

Braw,

I never said I didn't care about image quality. I said that I like the form factor of the XL2 which is one of the reasons I bought it. I don't like small, light cameras. Maybe my opinion on that will change over time, but I certainly didn't buy it to impress anyone. So far only three people have seen it and the only hot chick that's seen it is Wendy, and she just thinks I'm an overgrown child...

I would not have purchased the camera if I thought it produced inferior images. I think it produces beautiful images.


Matt

[Barry_Green]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Jan confirmed nor denied anything about the lens assembly of the HDX.
Jan has neither confirmed nor denied any aspect of the physical attributes of the camera, other than to call it "the little camera" in one of her posts. Other than that, no mention, so we don't know if it's fixed-lens, removable-lens, shoulder-mount, palmcorder, anything like that.


I would also assume that with such a lens (on the JVC HD100), you could actually get decent shallow DOF.
Nope. Just because the lens is removable, it'll still be governed by the field of view restrictions imposed by its 1/3" chips. Any 1/3" chip camera, at equivalent focal length, will deliver identical depth of field, regardless of whether it's using a fixed lens, a removable lens, a pro lens, a 35mm still-camera lens (i.e., Canon XL2 using an EOS adapter)... if the focal length is the same, the depth of field is the same (assuming equivalent aperture and distance to subject, of course).

In short, the JVC will not be able to deliver any different DOF than any other 1/3" camera, unless it has an extraordinarily telephoto lens (going beyond 110mm). In that case, if you could back up far enough to use it, and assuming that the maximum aperture doesn't stop down too much, then yes it'd be capable of some shallower DOF effects, just like the XL2 can deliver at the long end of its telephoto lens.


I'm not sure you can get auto focus though. Auto iris maybe, but auto focus seems unlikely (referring to pro 1/2" and 2/3" lenses).
They could certainly do autofocus, but probably at the expense of manual focus (a la Canon). Autoiris can be incorporated on pro cameras as well.

Optical image stabilization might be another issue too.
OIS, on the Canon cameras, is apparently built into the lens. Which would seem to imply that they could build it into any lens, manual or automatic, but apparently they have chosen to include it only in the auto lenses. Don't know why (maybe a cost issue?) But on the Canon, lenses top out at about $1500... and those are for standard-def. How much might a small high-def lens cost? $5000? $10,000? At those price ranges, it'd probably be reasonable to expect OIS.

It's all speculation until the camera arrives, or until more official details are leaked from JVC.

[Shaw]

I really don't understand why HD lenses cost so much. It seems like a company, if they wanted to, could manufacture these for several hundred dollars. Still lenses are cheap and they are used to shoot much higher definition stuff. I know a lot of the cost goes into the specific needs of moving images but still...

That said, I never did understand why Canon didn't implement an OIS in the camera body instead of the lens. Same things goes for still photography. I only know of one camera that actually has stabilization in camera instead of the lens. Weird.

[Digigenic]

Jan has neither confirmed nor denied any aspect of the physical attributes of the camera, other than to call it "the little camera" in one of her posts. Other than that, no mention, so we don't know if it's fixed-lens, removable-lens, shoulder-mount, palmcorder, anything like that.

Actually, on the 9th page of the “Better be less than 10K” thread, http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?p=180309#post180309
Jan responds in an affirmative manner to redindian’s 1/3 fixed lens reference of the HDX. Granted, she never actually says one way or another, but her response kind of sealed off the analysis of optional lenses for the HDX going any further.

We'll see soon though...

[Digigenic]

I only know of one camera that actually has stabilization in camera instead of the lens. Weird.

Konica Minolta is the one implementing anti-shake into their camera systems.
And IMHO, it's not weird, it's pretty damn genius.
Though, with the recent announcement of their financial troubles, they'll probably be selling off licenses of that little innovative gem to Canon and Nikon before you can say Kyocera Contax.

[Shaw]

Oh I wasn't saying that their implementation was weird! I think it's weird that no one else thought to do it before!

[lebroz]

the jvc imaging will be a tweaked hdx system(pana wont admit it, so dont ask jan)

have you seen

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/JVC-Introduces-First-3-CCD-Non-Tape-Digital-Media-Camcorder-.htm

that is all thanks to pana's cheap compact 3 ccd system (started with gs70 here in us)

truth is between the pana and this new jvc, its easy to read between the lines.matsushita is targeting xl2 users, its basicaly an hdx with removeable lens, just get the hdx and dont look at the jvc unless you need the lens but then you should just wait 4 the xl3 or buy an xl2 for a nice price

nice try matsushita ripping off the front of the hdx and adding new glass...

canon the underdog making bigger corporations jump through hoops to compete with them and appeal to consumers

jan you see how good i am? i dont work for any companies i just have a crazy amount of inteligence and commen sense get a me a job yo!!

[Flintstone]

Nope. Just because the lens is removable, it'll still be governed by the field of view restrictions imposed by its 1/3" chips. Any 1/3" chip camera, at equivalent focal length, will deliver identical depth of field, regardless of whether it's using a fixed lens, a removable lens, a pro lens, a 35mm still-camera lens (i.e., Canon XL2 using an EOS adapter)... if the focal length is the same, the depth of field is the same (assuming equivalent aperture and distance to subject, of course).
I thought that lens length was another factor in acheiving shallow DoF? Not necessarily at full telephoto?

[Barry_Green]

Focal length is the determining factor, yes. Not overall focal length, but the currently-in-use focal length. So if the JVC provides a longer lens than other cameras, and you use the lens at those longer focal lengths (meaning there's space to back up and still get proper framing) then it would exhibit shallower DOF under those circumstances, whether at full telephoto or not. But if used at the same focal length, the DOF will be the same (for example, even though the XL2 is capable of about 110mm, if you use it at 10mm the DOF will be identical to a DVX at 10mm, or an FX1 at 10mm).

[Flintstone]

Ah! Got it! Thanks. :thumbsup:

[lebroz]

i said it 1 time or maybe more i'll say it again

jvc is trying to compete with canon xl series

removeable lenses 3ccd for $4000-$6000 from Japan Victor Company(JVC) ? all because canon the underdog chose to spend huge amounts of $ into r&d

canon making the big boys swettt(perspiration, nice big word)

JVC will be a Pana HDX with front ripped off and lens added a la Canon XL

Matsushita is trying, i'm sure it will be a nice cam,

Jan wassup with the job yo?