JVC releases affordable 4K acquisition/display solution

Bruce, I'm not really super techy so you might be right. But I think 1080 is here for a while, people are just now buying Blu-rays, I don't think people will be buying 4k tvs anytime soon. I don't shoot narrative, I shoot (will be shooting) wilderness adventure stuff... backpacking/climbing/kayaking, nature, landscapes, etc. I want the 'real' look for what I do, not color graded like films. I want light ENG style cameras for exploring the wilds. More than anything I'd love to shoot waterfalls and wildlife slo-mo in full 1080p resolution. I need 1080 30/60p to do that. I'm not anti-4k or 5k, I'm just worried mfgs are putting their resources more into higher rez than better specs in other areas. I don't really need massive 4k files, just good, clean 1080 60' and I'd like that in 422 if possible so I won't need an external recorder with a bit rate high enough to satisfy HD broadcasters. I may be asking for too much but when I see these new bigger cine-cameras doing it, I am just hoping they don't abandon the 1080 cameras in the process. I'd think it would be easier to make 1080 60p than 4k 60p, but it seems like there are more of the latter. In fact I'm not finding any camera yet that meets my specs in the style I want (cry me a river, ha ha!). I absolutely love the picture on my EX1... if it only shot 50 mbps and 60p at 4:2:2 I'd be happy for years. It just seems doable if they wanted to, but instead it's all about 4k this, 4k that, catering primarily to the movie-making crowd. I'm guessing in another year or so they'll have my camera unless they only push 4k.
 
Buck - here's my (optimistic) hope: these 4K cams' movies are going to be a lot less CPU-intensive than say a RED RAW file.

My hope is that (given a fast computer and the up-to-date software), you can just hit play on the Quicktime - and if you're watching on a 1080p monitor, it will scale down that 4K image to a beautiful 1080p image for you with tons of natural detail... without you even knowing that is happening.

The only difference is that if you think: hmm, wish I would have zoomed a little more... then you can scale up and it'll still look decent until you hit around 250%.

I think that that a small, lightweight 4K cam like that JVC (or more ideally: its successor, which will probably have workflow etc made easier) may just be lovely for you.

I also go out hiking in the mountains and sleeping in caves in South Africa - and I want a little 4k cam I can have with me really badly!

My computer's screen is >1080p. I don't own a tablet but it looks like both the Apple and Android ones will be >1080p this year. And laptops' screens are going to be >1080p too this year.

Anyway, that's my dream. Hope it works out because it would be awesome for both of us :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce, I'll be shooting in the field. I'm using solar panels to recharge batteries. Storage in the wilderness on multi-day treks/paddles is a big issue. Why shoot 4k huge file sizes and deal with excessive/unnecessary storage issues, longer battery drains due to longer downloads, and then still have to down convert when it's all said and done, etc., when I could shoot perfectly fine, pristine 1080 from the get go? I don't need or want 4k for my workflow and native 1080 is perfectly fine for what I'm trying to accomplish.

It's like why buy a Toyota Tacoma when you can buy a Toyota Tundra with more power but drive it as if it were a Tacoma. The answer is because I can take my Tacoma more places, narrower roads, and the smaller engine would give me better gas mileage and the stuff I'm carrying fits perfectly fine in a Tacoma.
 
I suggest that the realities of manufacturing may give us 4k displays, whether we 'need' them or not. In the HDTV market, you can only get 1080 spec sets in large sizes -- a few years ago you had a choice, now they only make 1080. I reckon we may see something similar with higher spec models -- once the line is tooled to make 4k, it isn't worth anyone's while to run a parallel lower spec run. And it is a no lose for the viewer -- my iMac does a lovely job displaying 1080 files on a 1440 vertical screen; I've no doubt my wall screen would look just fine with a double over-sampled display.

It's like audio speakers -- my ear can't hear 40k, my old tapedeck couldn't deliver it ... but the speaker was willing and able should the need arise.

Cheers,
GB
 
Buck Forester said:
Bruce, I'll be shooting in the field. I'm using solar panels to recharge batteries. Storage in the wilderness on multi-day treks/paddles is a big issue. Why shoot 4k huge file sizes and deal with excessive/unnecessary storage issues, longer battery drains due to longer downloads, and then still have to down convert when it's all said and done, etc., when I could shoot perfectly fine, pristine 1080 from the get go? I don't need or want 4k for my workflow and native 1080 is perfectly fine for what I'm trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

OK now my turn to be pessimistic / cynical: because the manufacturers are never going to give you pristine 1080 in a 1080p camera. That's my sad theory :) They will get close, but there will always be a little oversharpening, OLPF softness, etc... because:
- it's really hard to exactly resolve 1080p without aliasing, using a 1080p sensor
- they also can't resist the temptation to mess with things and/or cut corners.

Much better to say "OK manufacturer, go and do your stupid video processing stuff on these 4K pixels... and give me your semi-messed up image that you claim is "4K" on the box. At least when I average your pixels down to a 1080p image, all of your ugly compromises disappear :)"

Buck Forester said:
It's like why buy a Toyota Tacoma when you can buy a Toyota Tundra with more power but drive it as if it were a Tacoma. The answer is because I can take my Tacoma more places, narrower roads, and the smaller engine would give me better gas mileage and the stuff I'm carrying fits perfectly fine in a Tacoma.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. Moore's law should mean they should both have similar requirements. I mean, it's not like a SD camera is more portable than an HD camera?

My hope would be that 4K cameras should use the same power as an HD camera (which similarly use the same power as their SD forebears).

RE: storage... 4 x 128GB SD cards gets you 8 hours of storage. When you're done, back 'em up to your computer, then put all 4 of them in a tiny Pelican case. Put next 4 cards in camera. Shoot for another 8 hours.

The only requirement I can see is a slight increase in disk space usage (which you'd need to get pristine 1080p anyway) and you'd need a laptop from a year in the future to process it easily?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Really don't see any point in going up to 4k when we haven't yet got the most out of 1080, mind you it was the same with SD and HD I guess
Though this camera might make some really useful 1080, by downsampling the footage in post you could get 4:4:4
 
themagickite said:
Really don't see any point in going up to 4k when we haven't yet got the most out of 1080, mind you it was the same with SD and HD I guess
Though this camera might make some really useful 1080, by downsampling the footage in post you could get 4:4:4
Click to expand...
+1
I would like to see a fast pan with this "affordable" $5.000 Machine. Please give us first 1080 4:2:2 10 bit with 60P option and without rolling shutter jello (I still see that problem in most 2012 Cameras), then we can move to the next step.
 
In stock at B&H. If your demands are not up to the Sony FS-700, this looks like a good value.
 
I'm waiting for the reviews on this camera. I'd like to read a report from someone who's been out on a shoot with one. Since they're in stock now, maybe one will be forthcoming.
 
"I need 1080 30/60p to do that. I'm not anti-4k or 5k, I'm just worried mfgs are putting their resources more into higher rez than better specs in other areas."
actually. Sony stated quite pointedly that the FS-700 , while delivering 4:2:0 and 1080p now, the down-sampling from 2k delivers exactly what you are looking for. It worries me that people are taking it on faith that '4k firmware upgrade; will deliver, but at least it delivers what you're seeking now.
 
themagickite said:
Really don't see any point in going up to 4k when we haven't yet got the most out of 1080, mind you it was the same with SD and HD I guess
Though this camera might make some really useful 1080, by downsampling the footage in post you could get 4:4:4
Click to expand...

Rollout timelines seem to be about 8-10 years but they are speeding up exponentially. It took 10 years for HD to become ubiquitous at 720p. I reckon we'll have 1080p ubiquity till around 2017 before 2k starts to become mainstream, simply because the hugest installed base is TV's and they take much longer to replace than other viewing consumer electronics. Hell I still keep my 42" CRT TV around just to test footage to the lowest common denominator and besides, 1/2 my cable stations are still SD !!!
 
Jadotch said:
is it not better to capture at a higher resolution? Much like digital photography, you only really need roughly 6-8 mega pixels to fill a standard magazine cover, yet low end dslrs are at 12 or higher. Computers will catch up for the processing power.
Resolution does not mean everything, but it helps with footage flexability.
PS, and you can stabalize footage if you don't have a steady cam, or a steady cam will not fit.
Click to expand...

To an extent this is correct however, there is some huge overkill. The very first lesson that I taught digital imaging students was titled "bandwidth conservation". Wasting natural resources is bad but digital overkill can be expensive too. It taxes processing, storage and editing suites and clogs the 'Super Highway' and soon, the cloud.
The traditional formula with images has been to over-sample at no more than twice the delivery size. Anything more results in a dearth of wasted storage and tossed data anyway. Obviously, Investment footage or stills, are in the can, waiting for the upgrade paradigm to shift in the right direction. But, I also teach student to over-sample for the future cautiously.
Imagine the Trillions of TB's of wasted storage that soccer moms and wannabbe Cecil B DeMilles will fill with 4k footage if saved in RAW format? Nonsensical.
It will usually be the case that the digital delivery format (the viewing screen) will outpace existing content. This is the forward looking strategy of 4k and beyond. To give those that can justify the file sizes- the suitable archival format. My great fear is that we end up piling gobs of meaningless and vacuous footage into archives. Then again... who's to judge?
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Rollout timelines seem to be about 8-10 years but they are speeding up exponentially. It took 10 years for HD to become ubiquitous at 720p. I reckon we'll have 1080p ubiquity till around 2017 before 2k starts to become mainstream, simply because the hugest installed base is TV's and they take much longer to replace than other viewing consumer electronics. Hell I still keep my 42" CRT TV around just to test footage to the lowest common denominator and besides, 1/2 my cable stations are still SD !!!
Click to expand...

I really doubt 2K will ever be anything the consumer wants. It's far too close to 1080p. I'm really not even sure why so many filmmakers are all about 2K. What's the difference really? 128 pixels? Big deal.

4K is the next step eventually. Even then it will be an evolutionary feature that slips its way into TV's as technology gets better. It won't be as extolled at HD was.
 
The camera is on my desk. It arrived yesterday. I should do something with it. Right? Timelapse of a day @txmedia?

I wonder if it's actually a fixed f/2.8 lens? Well, it closes to F5.6. 10X zoom.
720? No.
Time lapse is 1 second, 5 seconds or 40 seconds. No way to tell what it does at each interval however.
JVC hoped with the GY-HD100/110/200/250 that edit systems would fall in line and love 720 24p. They never did. In the end the preferred workflow was to use a BR-HD50 deck with HDMI out to capture over an HDMI card. The BlackMagic Intensity Pro hasn't always been on the market though...
I don't think they are going for "4K look at a very minimal cost." I think they are going for "4k specs at a very minimal cost".
1/2.3" Back-illuminated CMOS Sensor (8.3 million active pixels) Hmmm. Same pixel count as the C300. What is a back-illuminated CMOS sensor and what is the advantage of that? It basically lights the photosensative elements from behind so the light from the front doesn't have to penetrate as far to hit the light sensitive elements. Think of it as shining a flashlight into a well that has... nevermind... I can't finish that...

Someone said "Toyota Tacoma when you can buy a Toyota Tundra?" I love DVXuser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top