JVC GY-HM100 - 35 Mbps

Carlos Corral said:
That's a sexy camera.
Click to expand...

I agree. Looks nice. I wonder how much? Probably at least as much as the HD100 series was when it debuted, so maybe $5,500 would be my guess.

I wonder if the optional extra SxS recorder is the gray unit attached to the back? It could be a battery but it seems kinda large to me.

The only thing is that it mentions "high quality 1/3” progressive 3CCD with unique JVC’s H/V spatial offset." I wonder if this is the same thing or similar to the way the HD100 series CCD's worked, which if so means that there could be the whole split screen fiasco that affected those cameras.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread but all info on this cam can be found on macvideo.tv. It was shot at our recent SuperMeet at Macworld where it debuted. There is also a interview with JVC's Craig Yanagi.


JVC introduce the GY-HM100; the world's first camera to record high quality native QuickTime files for immediate editing within Final Cut Pro
http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/features/index.cfm?articleId=109356

Craig Yanagi, National Marketing Manager, JVC USA, talks about the GY-HM100
http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/index.cfm?articleId=109355
 
From the jvc site

"High quality 1/3” progressive 3CCD with unique JVC’s H/V spatial offset"

that sounds like pixel shifting to me. Not true 1920x1080 chips. Me thinks this might be a Panasonic on the inside. Their consumer oriented HD cameras already do pixel shifting, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case here.

If the new 100 model is much over 2K USD, I don't think it will sell very well.
 
Last edited:
1/3" CCDs are not capable of native 1920 x 1080 resolution so any 1/3" CCD camera you see is going to use pixel shifting to achieve 1080. That's why Sony had to go with 1/2" CMOS on the EX1. 1/2" CMOS is a tradeoff, much sharper, higher resolution for Jellocam and rolling shutter artifacts and in the case of the Sony, a long GOP codec.

That is what it boils down to. I shoot with the EX1 and 170 weekly and either are capable of superb pictures as I am sure this JVC will be with talented hands on it. Just depends on how much of a measurebator people want to be. The more I shoot with all of these little, cheap cameras, the less I care about specs, everything you need to know about resolution, pixel shifting, spatial offset, etc. can be seen on a monitor.

Dan
 
I don't think pixel shifting is a bad thing if the firmware iimplements it properly. People love the look of the hvx200, and jvc has a history of squeezing out the best possible color for a given codec (I own a JVC HD-100). Plus it should help with low light performance if I'm not mistaken. I'm guessing they are native 1280x720, not 960x540. I was making a joke about being Panasonic inside.

But in this current econimic climate, there will be pressure from well regarded canon prosumer cameras (HV...HF...). The HM100 will have to be significantly better to justify the higher price.

Anothe question..will the onboard LCD monitors be good enough for critical focus? If not, you will have to factor in a field monitor for professional work. The one on the HD-100 is not.
 
Last edited:
This all looks nice, but it just is a variation of things already out there, not a step-up, only an alternative!
How long do we have to wait for a HVX style camera with 2/3" chips, low compression codec and inexpensive recording media?

Did someone just say Canon...?
 
Spartacus said:
This all looks nice, but it just is a variation of things already out there, not a step-up, only an alternative!
How long do we have to wait for a HVX style camera with 2/3" chips, low compression codec and inexpensive recording media?

Did someone just say Canon...?
Click to expand...

Just sounds like an HPX500 to me, minus the cheap media...

D
 
Can't wait for Barry to chime in and tell us how they're claiming Full 1080 resolution on a 3 CCD Camera. What kinda "new" stuff could they have come up with?
 
Well, if you read the specs, it talks about:
"JVC engineers have developed a unique 1/3-inch optical block with Diagonal Offset and a patented exclusive Adaptive Pixel Correlation Technique "
Click to expand...

Sounds like pixel shifted low-pixel-count sensors to me. Probably some comparable adaptation of Sony's interpolation as used in the V1U. You can't have 1920x1080 on a 1/3" CCD, it's probably 960x540 using spatial offset. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it works very well, but it'd be kind of funny to hear them bash spatial offset for the last five years, and then embrace it. And they have embraced it; their newest consumer cameras use 960x540.

Note that in the tech specs they don't give a pixel count at all? Kinda funny how things have come full circle. There's a raging thread about HPX300 rumors about how Panasonic is going to come out with a full-raster 1920x1080 sensor, and JVC (who's bet the farm on full-raster from split chips) is now going 960x540... heh.
 
Last edited:
Full HD usually refers to format not sensor. All those 960x540 consumer cameras mention Full HD in their marketing material. You will not see any mention about native sensor resolution in these cases. Actually, you will not see any of the real high resolution sensor cameras mention Full HD in their marketing copy. A full HD 1/3" 1920x1080 progressive sensor is not a very good idea. Full HD interlaced sensors are aready pushing the limit, and without line summing (progressive) the low light would end up being worse than entry level 1/6" 3ccd prosumer because of higher clock frequencies.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, if you read the specs, it talks about:

Sounds like pixel shifted low-pixel-count sensors to me. Probably some comparable adaptation of Sony's interpolation as used in the V1U. You can't have 1920x1080 on a 1/3" CCD, it's probably 960x540 using spatial offset. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it works very well, but it'd be kind of funny to hear them bash spatial offset for the last five years, and then embrace it. And they have embraced it; their newest consumer cameras use 960x540.

Note that in the tech specs they don't give a pixel count at all? Kinda funny how things have come full circle. There's a raging thread about HPX300 rumors about how Panasonic is going to come out with a full-raster 1920x1080 sensor, and JVC (who's bet the farm on full-raster from split chips) is now going 960x540... heh.
Click to expand...

Not challengin' you! Just wanted you to come around and dispel it so that I immediately stop thinking aboutit.Still interested in seeing some footage from the camera regardless.
 
Barry_Green said:
Note that in the tech specs they don't give a pixel count at all? Kinda funny how things have come full circle. There's a raging thread about HPX300 rumors about how Panasonic is going to come out with a full-raster 1920x1080 sensor, and JVC (who's bet the farm on full-raster from split chips) is now going 960x540... heh.
Click to expand...
Panasonic poo-pooed CMOS at one time, too.
 
I'm wondering if they gave new life (firmware, processing) to their existing 1280x720 progressive chips. Pixel shifting with those should result in some decent 1080p images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top