Jvc gy-l300

LS-300 bit rate in 4K is 150Mbps. I have the product brochure (but not at my studio right now) and I am pretty sure it states 4.2.2 under the 50Mbp 1080p setting - not sure about 4.2.2 in 4K, I think it is 4.2.0 (but someone please check).
 
I'm on the fence on upgrading my Af100 to the JVC.

I really don't have a massive use for 4k and honestly can't see how it's going to be used all that much for the majority of the population for at least another five years. Youtube and Vimeo seem to be getting up to speed with supporting it but we only get about 2mbits per second on our broadband and struggle to stream HD 720 so in till that improves it's a complete waste. Also it means that all the CG work I do is going to quadruple for render times. The only big advantage to 4k for me is that stabilizing a shot is easier so I can crop the borders for HD work. Also means you can re-frame shots in post which is nice.

But if the L300 doesn't have a Waveform monitor that's also a turn off.

I do like the size and I assume it doesn't weigh as much as the AF100. Not that the Af100 was heavy but for Gyro stabilizers it would be ideal.

It would be nice if the Dynamic range doesn't clip as harshly as the Af100 and if it did have better low light but from what I've heard so far it seems like it's very similar in both cases.

I think I'll be waiting for someone to do a comparison with both cameras before making any purchase.

In regards to the whole 4K TV debate. I walked into the Sony Centre last year as I saw they were showing off a 4K TV. I walked up to the TV and thought "Wow" it really does look so much better than HD.

It was only when I read the spec that I realised I was looking at their new range of HD TV's. I turned to see the 4K version and actually thought it looked the same as the HD. I flicked between the two and honestly couldn't tell the difference...other than the price. I was standing about 5 ft way from each. The 4k was either a 60 inch or 50 inch, I can't remember now.

So I support that idea that unless you have a huge TV or some superman eyesight, then it really isn't going to make a difference.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I also apologize for the derailing of this thread, but I honestly AM interested if you can provide
charts that contradict the 'prevailing wisdom' that I have seen on 4K.

In the interest of getting back on track, I'd ask, do we know if the LS300 is 8 bit or 10 bit?
Also wondering what the bit rate is in 4K, I'd suspect it is higher than 50mb. 50mb 4:2:2 is
good for HD, but probably not so good for 4K. And 10 bit would be a nice bonus, but I'm
suspecting it's not going to happen at this price point. Still, for all the AF100 shooters that
have some MFT glass, I'd think this would be a no brainer of an upgrade.....
Click to expand...


Okay, here is one - and my last - reference:

http://www.homecinemaguru.com/can-we-see-4kuhd-on-a-normal-sized-screen-you-betcha/

And a quick quote:
The NHK data shown above indicates that more than 160 pixels is a benefit, but 160 pixels is where the chart takes a definite turn in slope. This indicates a more subtle improvement in pixels/degree beyond 160 pixels/degree. If you want to estimate where 4K is worth it based on this limit halve the distances above. This means a 50″ display is useful for 4K to about 8.6 feet, 60″ to 10.2 feet and a 50″ 1080p display is useful to about 17.2 feet.

I told you we can chase articles across the internet defending each otter's position. I can say my data trumps yours, but I won't, because I don't know if it's more accurate than yours. But a test done by TV giant NHK is very reliable, I believe. You asked for reference data that differs with yours, and here it is. You use your charts and I'll use mine. Again, please do your own eye test. Perhaps in Alaska that might prove difficult, I'll grant you. You know that old saying: "There are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
And yeah, maybe 15' was a bit optimistic on my part. 10 feet is definitely within normal viewing distance though, don't you think?

Now, back to the LS300. I wouldn't be surprised 4K is 8-bit, or even 1080. But I've heard 4k 8-bit, 4:2:0 down sampled to 1080 makes 10-bit, 4:2:2 HD video. If so, this can still make a heck of an HD camera, with the benefits of 4K when you need it. Plus, that big S35 sensor.
And of course, there are the rumors going about of a 4K AF100 successor coming to NAB. We'll see.
 
I now have the brochure in my hand and there is definitely no mention of 10 bit (or 8 bit) anywhere in it. But, as I thought, 4.2.2 is only listed in conjunction with 1080p.
 
Since we are in March, I would think waiting to see what NAB brings up is the most prudent approach. Lets face it, if Panasonic does step into the ring with a 4K AF-200 etc... the JVC will fall off of a lot of radars. I would think that IF Panasonic does bring an AF-200 to market they will get it right.
 
It does seem JVC tends to show up first, not necessarily the best for a category. Anyone have customer service experience with JVC?
 
vanvideo said:
I saw a much sharper image from the 4K TV set. [...] Anyway, this thread has derailed. I apologize for taking it off the tracks. Back to: The LS300 looks like a lot of camera in a small, affordable body.
Click to expand...

alaskacameradude said:
In your link to 'prove' the superiority of 4K, they were comparing a Plasma HD set to a LED 4K set and they said most people preferred the HD set![...]I also apologize for the derailing of this thread [...]In the interest of getting back on track, I'd ask, do we know if the LS300 is 8 bit or 10 bit?
Click to expand...

vanvideo said:
This means a 50″ display is useful for 4K to about 8.6 feet, 60″ to 10.2 feet and a 50″ 1080p display is useful to about 17.2 feet. [...] Now, back to the LS300. I wouldn't be surprised 4K is 8-bit, or even 1080.
Click to expand...

Now this is funny. ;)
 
vanvideo said:
Okay, here is one - and my last - reference:

http://www.homecinemaguru.com/can-we-see-4kuhd-on-a-normal-sized-screen-you-betcha/

And a quick quote:
The NHK data shown above indicates that more than 160 pixels is a benefit, but 160 pixels is where the chart takes a definite turn in slope. This indicates a more subtle improvement in pixels/degree beyond 160 pixels/degree. If you want to estimate where 4K is worth it based on this limit halve the distances above. This means a 50″ display is useful for 4K to about 8.6 feet, 60″ to 10.2 feet and a 50″ 1080p display is useful to about 17.2 feet.

I told you we can chase articles across the internet defending each otter's position. I can say my data trumps yours, but I won't, because I don't know if it's more accurate than yours. But a test done by TV giant NHK is very reliable, I believe. You asked for reference data that differs with yours, and here it is. You use your charts and I'll use mine. Again, please do your own eye test. Perhaps in Alaska that might prove difficult, I'll grant you. You know that old saying: "There are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
And yeah, maybe 15' was a bit optimistic on my part. 10 feet is definitely within normal viewing distance though, don't you think?

Now, back to the LS300. I wouldn't be surprised 4K is 8-bit, or even 1080. But I've heard 4k 8-bit, 4:2:0 down sampled to 1080 makes 10-bit, 4:2:2 HD video. If so, this can still make a heck of an HD camera, with the benefits of 4K when you need it. Plus, that big S35 sensor.
And of course, there are the rumors going about of a 4K AF100 successor coming to NAB. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm confused. The article you linked to spent much of it's time explaining that the reason
most people give for the charts they use (like me) is that they assume 20/20 vision. Your article
then goes on to explain that there are many people with better than 20/20 vision that can get benefits
from 4k beyond the charts I have shown (which is something I have never disputed!) So they are
arguing, first, that 20/20 is the 'wrong baseline', which, may or may not be true, I really don't know.
They then go on to use 20/15 vision as their 'baseline' so of course, they will get different results.
Again, I don't know if it's true (as they argue) that 'most' people have better than 20/20 vision,
but changing the baseline is certainly going to change the results!!!!!

Secondly.....as you say........it goes on to say this....and I quote

'The NHK data shown above indicates that more than 160 pixels is a benefit, but 160 pixels is where the chart takes a definite turn in slope. This indicates a more subtle improvement in pixels/degree beyond 160 pixels/degree. If you want to estimate where 4K is worth it based on this limit halve the distances above. This means a 50″ display is useful for 4K to about 8.6 feet, 60″ to 10.2 feet and a 50″ 1080p display is useful to about 17.2 feet.'

Hmmm.....maybe you should read that again? :) Not sure if it's a joke or what. You may want to
choose your articles proving the superiority of 4k a little more carefully (sorry I'm just kidding around
here, I don't want that to come across the wrong way, but that particular quote WAS a little funny) :)

And yes, I have done my own 'eye' test as I said, at our local Costco. Largest HD and 4K
screens there were 65 inches and I couldn't tell any resolution difference once I moved back to
a distance around 10-12 feet away, maybe you have better eyesight than me, or were looking
at a bigger screen or ???? Too many variables to know, which is why I look for actual data
showing what can and can't be perceived.

Further, on the topic of the LS300, if I was so set on 4K being superior, I don't think I would be
happy 'downsampling' 4k to get a 10 bit 4:2:2 HD signal. I'd want 10 bit 4:2:2 4K instead because
who would want to use crappy HD after seeing how superior 4K is? It's like saying
'Well, if I downsample my crappy 10mb low bitrate HD footage to SD, it will look really good for SD!'
Who would want that?
 
Last edited:
andykwilkinson said:
I now have the brochure in my hand and there is definitely no mention of 10 bit (or 8 bit) anywhere in it. But, as I thought, 4.2.2 is only listed in conjunction with 1080p.
Click to expand...

No mention of 10 or 8 bit and only listing 4.2.2 in conjunction with 1080p makes me think 4.2.0 8 bit in 4K. I hope I'm wrong!
 
Unfortunately, none of these JVC cameras have a Timecode In/Out port. Bummer, that's a good thing to have when doing multi-camera shoots.
 
vanvideo said:
Okay, Alaska, okay. Believe what you want. You're confused, I'm not.
I know what I saw.
Click to expand...

I'm confused?

'This means a 50″ display is useful for 4K to about 8.6 feet, 60″ to 10.2 feet and a 50″ 1080p display is useful to about 17.2 feet.'

So which display is useful at the furthest viewing distance again according to your article?
 
alaskacameradude said:
I'm confused?

'This means a 50″ display is useful for 4K to about 8.6 feet, 60″ to 10.2 feet and a 50″ 1080p display is useful to about 17.2 feet.'

So which display is useful at the furthest viewing distance again according to your article?
Click to expand...


Ah, OK, I see what you're getting at, I think.

I interpreted it as this: the 4K 50" is still usable as a 4K set to about 8.5 ft. away, the 60" 4K set is still 4K usable at 10.2 ft. away, whereas a 50" HD set is still usable as an HD set at 17.2 ft. away. In other words, the 4K TVs lose their resolution advantage at a quicker rate than an HD set will lose their noticeable HD resolution. By "usable" I meant the 4K resolution is still noticeable at the maximum distances given. The same with the HD sets.
So, a 50" 4K set at 10 feet will be indistinguishable from an HD set, whereas the HD set at the same distance will still be interpreted as HD. But going beyond 17 feet, and the HD set will lose its HD effect. Maybe it will look like SD, not sure.
But how will the 4K set look at 17 feet? Will it still look like HD? Or will it be indistinguishable from the HD set? The article doesn't say. Hmmm...
If it doesn't make sense, then we're both confused.

And I will agree, based on all the evidence we've presented, not all people can "see" 4K at a given distance. But some can. You could not see the benefit of a 4K TV at a certain distance, but perhaps I can. And there are most certainly more variables than just high resolution to make a pretty picture.

But I will stand by my statement that 4K is more than a "negligible" improvement, that a blanket statement claiming everyone can't notice 4K is just wrong (you didn't say this, to be fair) and it is NOT a placebo effect. In most cases, anyway.

Back to the LS300. I like to shoot in the very best image possible from the very beginning. 4K would be very nice, hence the reason for the camera. Good for archiving, too.
 
Last edited:
Tzedekh said:
As far as I know, no one is offering a prosumer 4K camera with anything better than 8-bit 4:2:0 in 4K.
Click to expand...

I think the Hero 4 Black with a 35mm modded fov lens is the best and cheapest alternative for anythng budget 4K. of course just sticking to that fov sucks. although most consumers have no idea about Protune's color flexibility.
 
Tzedekh said:
As far as I know, no one is offering a prosumer 4K camera with anything better than 8-bit 4:2:0 in 4K.
Click to expand...
Yes on your post and yes on the 4K 4-2-0 color. Also, not having a waveform or vectorscope is not that big a deal. Most decent production monitors or monitor/recorders do have both WF and V built in. Picture, codec, and functionality are much more important in the day-to-day operation.

Jim Martin
 
I hafta disagree on the lack of waveform "not being that big a deal." For the money, it should at least have a histogram. You have to have some way of monitoring exposure. Zebras aren't enough.

Makes me wonder if JVC had originally intended this to be more of a consumer camera(?) Just keep everything set to AUTO and you're good to go...
 
I agree. Histogram is the bare minimum, but waveform is the best option. I really love using it (WFM) on my C100, but sure miss it on my PMW-300, so depending on the shoot will sometimes attach my Ninja Blade to the 300 just for this feature.

But I would much rather be without an external recorder/monitor for run-n-gun (on either cam). Really think JVC need to add a histogram, at the very least - it is a very important omission...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top