PDA

View Full Version : Spent time with the HD100



Barry_Green
04-21-2005, 08:18 PM
Man, Thursday is *the* day to go to NAB. On Monday the line was six to eight deep to see the HD100, but today you could walk right up to it. And ask questions, and get answers, instead of fighting crowds.

First things first -- the live analog out display was HOT! It looked great. They had a ring of HD CRT monitors above the cameras, and they had various camera configurations -- one was stock, one was with the wide-angle lens, one was set up for 24p shooting, etc. It looked really good on the monitors. It was totally high-def, I could see these cameras being used in a studio setting or in a low-cost HD field truck. You could get 60p or 24p live, so it's totally flexible.

Second: lenses. The included lens is, indeed, a truly manual lens. I think people who are wanting to get a camera to impress the neighbors will be a little disappointed, 'cause it's TINY -- it was very reminiscent of the Angenieux on my old Beaulieu 7008 Super8 cam. But it felt good, it was smooth, it was fast (iris opens to 1.4) and it had a nice range (16x, 5.5 to 88mm). That's the same range as the Canon XL1 16x, so you could get some very shallow DOF looks with it.

The optional wide-angle lens was, comparatively, the bomb. It was a class act, no wonder it's 10x the price. Much bigger, more pro, very nice. Very usable focal range too, from 3.5mm up to 46mm. That was a nice lens. That's the one you want.

Third: usability. Nice little camera. It's tiny, but that doesn't stop it from being usable. Lots of switches and dials where you expect them to be, that work the way you expect them to. Can't comment on the menus because these cameras had the menus locked-out, but as for base functionality, it was great!

Fourth: VF/LCD. The viewfinder and LCD are 4:3. That seemed odd, because they didn't seem to be taking advantage of the letterbox bars the same way as on the HVX -- info still covers up the image. But it looked good, didn't really get to delve into how high-res they are, but the peaking is superb, you can dial it in from mild to wild. Focus Assist was scary, it put red bars on the top and bottom and put the peaking info in red. Between those two, I think you'd stand a pretty good shot of getting the shots in focus in the field, something that just wasn't possible with the prior HD1 and HD10.

Fifth: hard disk recording. I'd heard a lot about hard disk recording on the JVC, I was expecting more than it is. What it is, is a rebadged Firestore FS-4. I thought it'd be an integrated solution, like they offered on the DV5000, but it's not. They said it had more control/integration than a regular FireStore, but if you were hoping for user-interchangeable hard drives, this isn't it. It's a $1500 option, and it sits on top of the camera shoe, tethered by a firewire cable. Not what I was expecting.

Sixth: HD-SDI. Nope. No digital output over HD-SDI. What they instead had was an $800 AJA box (I think it was AJA) that converts analog component into HD-SDI. So you won't get a digital output from the camera, you instead get analog output which gets converted by this third-party accessory and turns it into HD-SDI. Nothing wrong with that, that's how the Panasonic and Sony have to do it as well, but I had thought I'd heard reports that the JVC has actual HD-SDI, and it doesn't. No loss there, as the competition can't do it either.

Seventh: 60p. Not gonna happen. No way, no how, not going to happen, this camera will never be able to record 60p (or 50p) on tape or on hard disk. Even though 60P is part of the HDV spec (and the JVC rep argued that it wasn't), it's irrelevant: the NTT encoding chips they're using cannot output 60p, so it *will not* have 60p or 50p. The only way to record 60p would be to plug the camera into a DVCPRO-HD deck, which will cost at least 4x as much as the camera, or to capture it into a dedicated RAID-based computer.
(the HDV press release, specifying 60p and 50p, is at: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200307/03-0704E/)

"Motion Smoothing": no way to tell. None of the prototype mules had motion smoothing enabled, and the footage they were showing on the plasma didn't have it enabled either. It would have been really nice to see how effective the motion smoothing filter is in recreating a look that approaches 60p, but it's not ready yet.

And finally, the footage: yes, they did have some footage playing there. You couldn't record footage from the cameras and play it back, so the only way to see footage was from a pre-recorded tape they had, shots of flowers and fountains, basically a lot of static shots with people walking through them in downtown. But the footage they were playing back from tape looked pretty bad. It was very soft, *really* noisy, and flat. Now, I don't think any judgement can be made based on that, for a number of reasons. First, these are pre-production prototypes, and who knows what may change between now and release. Second, the footage was playing back from D-VHS onto a plasma screen. The live footage was playing back on CRTs, and it looked great... so I would *really* have wanted to see the playback footage on the same kind of CRT, so we could make a fair comparison, but they only had it on a big plasma. So I don't know if the noise and "blah" of the footage was due to the compression or if, instead, it was just because of the plasma (something I'm willing to bet contributed to the look). Adam Wilt said about the same thing, and there's a guy on 2-pop (NBCShooter) who said the same thing about the footage, although he said he watched it on a CRT--? Don't know how, didn't see one playing back that footage. The difference between the live output and the playback was night and day, so I'm completely content to wait and see what footage comes forth. On the plus side, at least they *had* footage, something that of course the HVX doesn't have.

There was not really any way to judge motion from the playback footage, they didn't have any "motion smoothing" footage on display, so it was all straight 24p, but it looked blurry (another term the NBCShooter guy used as well). Don't know if they had a slower shutter speed active, or what. In short, I expect a lot more from the camera than what that footage showed, and I'm sure once we get functional models to play with we'll see better resuls. At least I hope so.

Finally: the HDV format. Or should I say "formats". For those who are considering going HDV you should be aware that the 1080 HDV and the 720 HDV are basically mutually incompatible. If you buy a JVC cam, and a post house hires you to shoot some HDV, and they only have Sony decks, they will *not* be able to digitize your footage! And vice versa. JVC has a new HDV deck that supports ProHD, DV, DVCAM, and HDV... but it *cannot* play 1080i HDV out the firewire port, so no digitizing of Sony HDV footage is possible.

We really should call the formats HDV1 (for 720p) and HDV2 (for 1080i), because they're not compatible. A Sony deck can play back an HDV1 tape to analog output on a television, but it *cannot* play it out the firewire, so you cannot digitize and edit that footage. And that's not for ProHD's 24p mode, I'm talking regular HDV here.

So basically there are three MPEG2 formats out there, all basically fundamentally incompatible with each other. There's 720/30p HDV1, 1080/60i HDV2, and 720/24P ProHD. No HDV1 or HDV2 deck can play ProHD material to firewire, no HDV2 deck can play HDV1 material to firewire, no HDV1 or ProHD deck can play HDV2 material to firewire, but ProHD decks can play HDV1 material to firewire.

Got that?

Basically, if you go JVC, and someone else goes Sony, even though you're both shooting "HDV", you're not going to be compatible and you will not be able to digitize the other guys' footage. Might as well be shooting two different formats (which, in effect, you are).

Okay, now to the summary: looks great, feels great in the hands, it's usable, and the live output looks good. If the output on tape looks as good as the live outputs, JVC will sell a ton of these. If, by some unimaginable disaster, the output on tape actually looks like what they had on display on the plasma, they'll have trouble giving these things away.

(speaking of which -- while I was there, they had a raffle or drawing, where they gave away a prize... and the prize was: a JVC HD10 high-def camcorder!)

Overall impression: quite impressed, and willing to give the footage the benefit of the doubt. It can only get better.

Antoine_Fabi
04-21-2005, 08:43 PM
Barry,

at first glance, was the dynamic range comparable to the DVX ? or better ?

Barry_Green
04-21-2005, 08:52 PM
It looked pretty good, but there's no way to tell without seeing the two side-by-side. It didn't look overly compressed, I'll say that. But again, there's no way to judge unless you have them side-by-side.

Editor321
04-21-2005, 09:50 PM
Barry,

Question:

I dont use a deck, I go straight from Cam to Computer through firewire into my NLE. If my NLE supports Sony HDV, are you saying that it will not support JVC HDV? Or, are you just talking deck support?

Thanks.

joelnet
04-21-2005, 10:41 PM
Overall impression: quite impressed, and willing to give the footage the benefit of the doubt. It can only get better.

If the footage from tape is really bad then you're right, how will they even give these things away? But the firestore might be a better short term solution than P2 in terms of cost/minutes of storage/instant editing - we'll see about that.

I'm skeptical of all these cameras. I love the Adam Wilt shootout idea you mentioned in one of these threads. I'd be really looking forward to seeing these guys vs. their big brothers. Double blind tests are the only way to know. Once someone knows what they are looking at the test is ruined. (Reminds me of speaker wires... everyone knows the spendy one's sound best but audiofiles can't pick them out of a lineup with cheaper ones. (at least in anecdotal studies I've read about)

Barry_Green
04-21-2005, 11:34 PM
I dont use a deck, I go straight from Cam to Computer through firewire into my NLE. If my NLE supports Sony HDV, are you saying that it will not support JVC HDV? Or, are you just talking deck support?
Decks. As far as I know, all NLE's that support HDV will support both flavors, and I believe that they now all support ProHD as well. The only question mark is how you get the footage into your NLE. If you're using the same camera to digitize that you used to shoot in, you should have no problem.

Editor321
04-21-2005, 11:41 PM
Thanks Barry...Yep, I just use the cam that i shot with to connect and digitize.

Nate Weaver
04-22-2005, 12:07 AM
I spent a lot of time with the camera on Monday and mostly agree with what Barry says.

In addition, I also noticed the noise when watching the demo footage on the plasma they had hanging. Also, I was thinking for a bit that it wasn't as sharp as I liked, until I watched for a good 5 minutes straight and then noticed some NYC shots were sharper than others...which led me to beleive that focus was just plain buzzed on most of the demo footage. Focus is crazy when shooting HD...you need to have practice.

So anyway, I decided that I wasn't going to make any harsh judgement calls on footage from a camera that had only been operational for maybe 2 weeks. BTW, this is no joke; reps were saying something about only having a working camera weeks prior, and Frederic from Lumiere joked about "do you really want to know how long I've had sample streams? About a week." :shocked:

BTW, I learned a lot by paying attention to what I was seeing on the giant plasmas all over the place. At Apple, they had Varicam footage on maybe a 45" Panasonic plasma, right next to the same displaying FX1 footage. The Varicam stuff was mucho richer and overall prettier of course, but I wasn't prepared for the difference in raw resolution. Today I found out that the highest res Pansonic makes in plasma is 1366 across...and Varicam footage coming from a chip that was only 960 across was SO much nicer than the 1440 FX1 stuff...it was a real eye opener.

Gibby
04-22-2005, 01:06 AM
Barry-

"The optional wide-angle lens was, comparatively, the bomb. It was a class act, no wonder it's 10x the price."

JVC quoted me ballpark retail for the lenses as $1,500 for the 16x if it was purchased individually, and $6,500 for the 13x. The 13x won't be 10x the price of the 16x.

"Motion Smoothing": no way to tell. None of the prototype mules had motion smoothing enabled, and the footage they were showing on the plasma didn't have it enabled either. It would have been really nice to see how effective the motion smoothing filter is in recreating a look that approaches 60p, but it's not ready yet."

The the FCP/Lumiere HD editing demonstration kiosk and the Avel Player demonstration kiosk, both within the JVC booth, were using footage they claimed was actual footage shot by the HD100. That's the smooth footage I referred to in earlier posts. In some parts I thought the footage looked very good - very similar to the look of the live component output images you saw on the camera demo monitors. The Avel Player outputs WM9, MPEG2TS, and Divx4. I watched the Avel Player play footage from the HD100, with a graphic tag on identifying it as such. I asked the Avel rep if it was actual footage from the HD100, and he confirmed it. The Avel Player HD100 footage was very crisp and smooth.

"..the only way to see footage was from a pre-recorded tape they had, shots of flowers and fountains, basically a lot of static shots with people walking through them in downtown. But the footage they were playing back from tape looked pretty bad. It was very soft, *really* noisy, and flat."

I disagree. As I mentioned above, Lumiere and Avel Player both were demonstrating some good footage that they claimed was shot by the HD100. The live component out images we both saw, and the images I saw demonstrated at the Lumiere space and the Avel Player space, took me by surprise. Maybe you saw a different reel of images that I did.

"There was not really any way to judge motion from the playback footage, they didn't have any "motion smoothing" footage on display, so it was all straight 24p, but it looked blurry (another term the NBCShooter guy used as well). Don't know if they had a slower shutter speed active, or what. In short, I expect a lot more from the camera than what that footage showed, and I'm sure once we get functional models to play with we'll see better resuls. "

Again, the Avel Player and FCP/Lumiere footage, in 24p, looked like what I would expect from 24p. The Avel Player footage, tagged as HD100 footage by an on-screen graphic, looked to be 30p, and judder was very low in faster moving objects.

"The only way to record 60p would be to plug the camera into a DVCPRO-HD deck, which will cost at least 4x as much as the camera, or to capture it into a dedicated RAID-based computer."

In very short order there will be workarounds for this limitation - faster & cheaper raid arrays, affordable clamshell HDV decks, etc. As you've noted, 720p60 is included in the HDV specifications, so including 720p60 recording in future decks should be expected.

"What it is, is a rebadged Firestore FS-4. I thought it'd be an integrated solution, like they offered on the DV5000"

Since JVC has a history of integrated HDD solutions, like the DV5000 you mentioned, expect a HDD solution for the HD100 to be produced rapidly. The demand is there, so the supply will follow.

Summary:

Barry, thanks for taking the time to check out the HD100 at the JVC booth. I respect your opinions, even when they differ from my own. When we can get our hands on one of the cameras a lot of questions will be answered. So far, I feel that JVC has a winner on their hands.

Post script : Yesterday while I was at the JVC booth checking over one of the cameras, a group of five executives from A&E Television, was being briefed on the HD100 by JVC executives. A&E is just one of 12 TV networks I've done work for. Expect TV networks to acquire the HD100 early and often. Today the CMP Information NAB 2005 Awards were announced. In the "Television Broadcast Top Innovation Awards" category, the JVC HD100 and Panasonic HVX200 recieved awards. These two cameras are poised to make some serious inroads into the TV, indie film, commercial, documentary, and business media worlds.

Sanchez
04-22-2005, 08:18 AM
Barry, when you refer to ProHD you're talking about Pro100 right ?

Batutta
04-22-2005, 08:35 AM
I thought the footage on that Plasma monitor looked awful too, but I honestly think it was the monitor they were using. There were scaling artifacts all over the image and the contrast was horribly calibrated. It might have even been an EDTV and not a true HDTV monitor. Maybe JVC was trying to save some bucks but you think they'd use the best, most well calibrated monitors at their own booth. In comparison, Sony was showing Z1 footage on a gorgeous 70 inch rear projection unit and its footage looked phenomenal...The CRT's at the JVC booth did look amazing though, and I'm glad to hear the motion smoothing wasn't enabled because the 24p looked a little strobey, although not nearly as bad as the Z1's pseudo 24p...However, the most amazing footage I saw at NAB was the 4k presentation in the Sony theater...Holy Frak! Better than IMAX quality.

Barry_Green
04-22-2005, 03:37 PM
Barry, when you refer to ProHD you're talking about Pro100 right ?
No, "ProHD" is the name that JVC's given to their extended version of HDV. It's basically identical to HDV (same MPEG-2 compression, same bitrate, same group of pictures), but they extended it by allowing for 24P frame rates and, in future versions, they'll add four channels of audio.

Barry_Green
04-22-2005, 03:39 PM
I thought the footage on that Plasma monitor looked awful too, but I honestly think it was the monitor they were using.
That's what I think too, and I think Steve's report somewhat confirms that; viewing the footage on other devices seems to have looked quite a bit better. The NBCShooter guy said that he definitely did view it on a CRT, and it definitely looked better, although he still wasn't satisfied with the noise and blur; again, I'm willing to wait for a production model, because a) who knows what might change, and b) who's to say that the guy who shot the demo footage just wasn't very good? Might be out of focus for all we know; focusing in HD is far more critical than it is in SD.

Barry_Green
04-22-2005, 03:40 PM
JVC quoted me ballpark retail for the lenses as $1,500 for the 16x if it was purchased individually, and $6,500 for the 13x. The 13x won't be 10x the price of the 16x.
I was told 12k, I sure hope what you were told is right. That 13x was a nice lens, so for a total package price of $11,000 you could have an awfully nice little camera there. Considering that the next-lowest-priced HD camera with 24p is $70,000, it's still an incredible value.

thisiswells
04-22-2005, 03:50 PM
Not so--JVC showed theirGY-HD7000U, 2/3" PROHD camera for $27,000.00. 720p/1080i capable.
Still HD100 with 13x for 11K appears reasonable to me.

Barry_Green
04-22-2005, 04:26 PM
Well, yeah, but that camera's not due out for another year.

What I was saying was, come July 1, if you want to shoot 720/24p you have two choices: HD100, or VariCam.

A year from now we'll have lots of choices: HVX, HD100, VariCam, HD7000U, plus Panasonic's teased big-brother for the HVX (2/3" CCDs, P2, etc). I was talking about *right now* (in context of when the JVC will be released), because that's where the benefit to the JVC is strongest, is that it'll be out first.

Batutta
04-25-2005, 11:54 AM
I heard a rumor that the 24p footage that was shown at the booth was shot on a DVX. Can anyone shoot this down?...I'm skeptical but it would explain why the Plasma footage looked so bad.

redindian
04-25-2005, 12:57 PM
JVC made an error in the WA lens price ...Barry is right it is 10x the price (ouch)

The total price now comes over $17K with WA lens.

harlan
04-25-2005, 01:25 PM
I heard a rumor that the 24p footage that was shown at the booth was shot on a DVX. Can anyone shoot this down?...I'm skeptical but it would explain why the Plasma footage looked so bad.


That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

harlan

harlan
04-25-2005, 01:28 PM
JVC made an error in the WA lens price ...Barry is right it is 10x the price (ouch)

The total price now comes over $17K with WA lens.


It's funny, people are so gung-ho about the notion of the JVC's removable lens. These things are expensive, and $12K for a wide angle HD lens is not remotely bad at all - considering lenses for VariCams & CineAlta's start at around $32K.

Batutta
04-25-2005, 03:04 PM
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

harlan

I agree it's stupid...but that footage looked bad.

Gibby
04-25-2005, 03:09 PM
I heard a rumor that the 24p footage that was shown at the booth was shot on a DVX. Can anyone shoot this down?...I'm skeptical but it would explain why the Plasma footage looked so bad.

Within the JVC NAB booth, Frederich at the Lumiere/FCP5 editing kiosk, and the staff at the I-O Data Avel Link Player both identified the footage they were using as having come form the HD100. An on-screen graphic, and the menu system for the Avel Link Player also identified the footage as having come from the HD100. The JVC reps at the booth also confirmed that the footage used by Lumiere and Avel came from the HD100. I think we can safely put to rest the DVX-originated footage rumor. I own a DVX and I didn't feel like it looked like DVX footage.

On the plasma Avel was using the footage looked excellent. Some of the footage used on the Lumiere plasma looked sub-standard, but other sequences looked good. Perhaps they didn't have a shooter for some of the sequences that knew how to use the camera correctly.

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

Gibby
04-25-2005, 03:12 PM
I forgot to mention that the Avel Link kiosk also had footage graphic with a graphic of " HD100" running on a good CRT broadcast monitor. It looked crisp, color-saturated, and very "filmic".

Gibby
www.cut4.tv