JVC releases affordable 4K acquisition/display solution

Well, it goes both ways… I've had a lot of arguments with projector folks who rented XGA (1024 x 768) as 1080p…
(not to mention for an XGA projector: "i can project 1080p but only from DVDs" or "but only through the composite input")
 
Barry_Green said:
Interesting from several angles. First is that it's 4K on a 1/2" chip, so some will dismiss it immediately as "not cinema", whereas others who were begging for a 16mm-sized Scarlet might think "hmmm..."
.
Click to expand...

I find the "not cinema" thing illogical. Not all cinema has shallow DoF.

But a 1/2" 4K sensor IS stupid, just for a different reason: insane pixel density. Maximum usable ISO is gonna be way too low.
 
Lee Saxon said:
I find the "not cinema" thing illogical. Not all cinema has shallow DoF.

But a 1/2" 4K sensor IS stupid, just for a different reason: insane pixel density. Maximum usable ISO is gonna be way too low.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this is a back illuminated CMOS sensor, which is something you cannot do with larger sensors. I am really interested to see how well it performs. I don't think it's going to be an F3/FS100/C300, but I also don't think it's going to be an HVX200 :)
 
...and to clarify- I didn't think JVC's HD1 was less-than usable because of the camera itself. I just found it too soon for NLE support / HD viewing. It was a step in the right direction- as I'm sure this new model is.
 
I heard this camera actually use a single CMOS, achieve 3920X2160 through de-bayering process.
That is a downer!
 
And we'll see soon a JVC 4K2K cam with 1,25" sensor & Nikon mount :
interchangeable2.jpg
 
Jaspion said:
And we'll see soon a JVC 4K2K cam with 1,25" sensor & Nikon mount :
interchangeable2.jpg
Click to expand...
so thats smaller than a 4/3" sensor... why not just make it a m4/3 mount? existing technology, lots of option for lens mount. spell out the obvious?
i do think that 4 sd card is a pretty clunky workflow.
they had a choice of
CF - xqd - p2 - sxs
and they choose... 4 sd cards. brilliant!
 
4 SD cards. Really!??

How big is 1.25" anyway? Is it between 1/3 and 1/2 or between 1/2 and 2/3?
 
dcloud said:
so thats smaller than a 4/3" sensor... why not just make it a m4/3 mount? existing technology, lots of option for lens mount. spell out the obvious?
i do think that 4 sd card is a pretty clunky workflow.
they had a choice of
CF - xqd - p2 - sxs
and they choose... 4 sd cards. brilliant!
Click to expand...

They choosed nothing : the interchangeable cam is a prototype and not a single word about codec/storage.
 
KINOKS said:
4 SD cards. Really!??

How big is 1.25" anyway? Is it between 1/3 and 1/2 or between 1/2 and 2/3?
Click to expand...
Potentially bigger than those. Do the math and you get:

1/3" = 0.333
1/2" = 0.500
2/3" = 0.667
1.25" = 1.250
4.3" = 1.333

So it should be about 3.5x the surface area of a 2/3" chip, and close to the same size as a m43 or Four Thirds chip.
 
Jaspion said:
1,25" = larger than a super 35 mm sensor and of course larger than a 4/3" sensor. It's almost a FF sensor.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily the case, and in fact not likely, it's likely smaller than 4/3.

You have to remember, the "inches" listed in a sensor size are not actually in any way related to actual measurements at all. They're just a "type" of sensor, not an actual "size" of sensor.

So a 1.25 is likely going to be quite a bit bigger than 2/3 but not as big as 4/3.
 
If 1.25 is almost as big as a m4/3 then pixel density won't be so awful. AF100 sensor has what? 50% more pixels? and the pictures are o.k...and that's from a sensor that isn't designed for HD or 4K.
 
Jaspion said:
And we'll see soon a JVC 4K2K cam with 1,25" sensor & Nikon mount :
interchangeable2.jpg
Click to expand...

1.25" sensor sounds very similar to Aptina's UDTV1 4K2K sensor (as its not a very common sensor size). They also have a UDTV2 sensor that is 4122x2168 (8.9MP).

PDF:
goo.gl/yVKwi

So I wouldn't be surprised if this sensor is related to the 4K Ikegami GFcam as well (which also uses Aptina sensors).

But this is merely my conjecture based on the specifications...
 
If Panasonic did a 4K or QuadHD version of the AF100 with with a 14-stop dynamic range and minimally 12-bit encoding for $5K, I think they'd eclipse Red and virtually every other manufacturer.
 
Tzedekh said:
If Panasonic did a 4K or QuadHD version of the AF100 with with a 14-stop dynamic range and minimally 12-bit encoding for $5K, I think they'd eclipse Red and virtually every other manufacturer.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Then again, if anyone does that, they'll open up a whole new market. Problem is, I think we're still waiting on 14-stop dynamic range and minimally encoded 12-bit feeds from HD in the $5K category...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top