JVC's back, back again, JVC's back, tell a friend...

Nathyn

Nathyn

Low Budget Ninja
New JVC pro HDV camera. Is it a good idea when we can get DVCPro HD for $6,000? At $27,950 I don't think it's a smart move. And I think people will be weary of spending this kind of money for HDV even if it is 2/3 chips. If this was selling for about $12,000 I think it would be gone in a heart beat. And what, no internal HD? For $27,950? C'mon guys. http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/press_res.jsp?tree=&model_id=MDL101476&itempath=&feature_id=08. Right now is the time to write anyone you know at JVC and tell them what you want!

-Nate
 
what I want is "not HDV." Is the camera still goning to use the 19mb standard? Honestly, I don't think I'd want it even if it was 50mbps.

I guess I'm just hooked on DVCPRO HD and the idea of P2 cards. Interframe compression is SOO last year. :grin:
 
I have no problem with the camera, I have a problem with price. If someone said here's $27,950 for you buy only video stuff for production I'd buy an HVX, the JVC (assuming the SSE problems are fixed) a FS for each, the highest end Mac G5, FCP Studio, a 1TB HD. This comes up to roughly $20,800. Add an HD monitor for $1000. That leaves about $7100 to make a film. I could fly a particular B-actress in from Holly, pay her her $500 day rate and have about $5000 for everything else. The JVC is just my love of the form factor so if I drop it from the list I could higher another well known B-actor for a day. Pay his day rate (he lives in the city so no housing needed) and come out with about $10G to shoot with and pay cast and crew. If I want to avoid SAG (having to get insurance ect) I could get well known SAG core actors adding more money for straight production. So again why would I buy this camera when I could do all that for the same price and I'm sorry 2/3 CMOS chips don't do it for me when I could do so much more for the money. It's just not a good investment. Now a shoulder mounted HVX with an on board 250 Gig drive and 2/3 or even 1/3 CMOS chips, now you're talking. That's worth about $10 - 15,000 to me add interchangable lens then I may work $20,000 into the budget for a camera but $27,950 isn't worth it.

-Nate
 
The chips on that thing are apparently amazing: Rockwell Altisens CMOS with amazing dynamic range, resolution, and S/N ratio. I think it also does 50mbps HDV which isn't bad, or at least that was rumored earlier. If it does do 24p/1080 at 50mbps I wouldn't discount it at all, otherwise I'd just say it's a shame that such great hardware has to record to such an inferior format. It looks like a killer camera for a lot less than the varicam with possibly even better image quality directly from the chips. If HDV doesn't kill it, it looks pretty sweet to me.

Of course, if Panasonic gets around to releasing their P2 only 2/3'' camera which is rumored to cost about the same amount, things might be interesting. 2/3'' chips are worth a lot more than you'd initially think.
 
FatBird19 said:
what I want is "not HDV." Is the camera still goning to use the 19mb standard?
Click to expand...
For 720p, yes it uses the same 19mbps standard.

For 1080, though, they're going to make their own format. I talked with a JVC engineer for a while at WEVA and their plans sounded quite interesting. The 1080 mode will not record to tape, it goes to hard disk only. Because they're not bound by tape's limitations on bandwidth and compatibility, they're pretty much free to do whatever they want. So they're talking about 1920x1080, at 4:2:2, both progressive and interlaced! That could be promising. It's still MPEG-2, and he wouldn't disclose what the bandwidth would be, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was 50mbps.

2/3" chips (and CMOS at that!) could provide a substantial boost in image quality above and beyond the 1/3" class of cameras. $27,950 is a very low price for a camera that has those types of capabilities (keep in mind Panasonic's HDX400 is $15,000 more expensive, and it's 1080i-only!) With that said, I've been bitten by JVC on this HD100, so I would *not* be the first to shell out cash on the GY-HD7000U, I'll let someone else be the guinea pig.

But it is definitely interesting.
 
CMOS or not considering what I could do with $27,950 I wouldn't buy HDV for that price in a time when I can get HD for $6000 ($8000 with FS). I'll give you $15,000 for it no more no less and that's because of the 2/3 CMOS chips and lens (which I'm assuming is higher quality). As for the HDX400 you're going to see cameras like these drop in price. And what's up with the internal HD? For the price I think they should've fit that in. I too am with you on the whole split screen thing. I don't see how JVC could've let that happen knowing the climate is the way it is.

-Nate
 
CMOS or not considering what I could do with $27,950 I wouldn't buy HDV for that price
Click to expand...
That's rubbish! Altisens was supposed to be the featured chip in Kinetta for crying out loud!
Go uncompressed!
 
I don't have the money for uncompressed, but DVCpro HD is doable. I wouldn't my HDv as everyone knows but I won't pay $20,000 for. Give me an HD100 style body and an internal 100 - 250GB harddrive, 720p/24p and 1080i/24p, plus SD recording at 60i, 30p and 24p and go ahead and ship with the $500 lens but attach it to a mount that takes 35mm lens. I'll truly consider HDV for $9,000. And if I don't buy many more will and feel good about it. Is it possible? Look at what Canon has to offer for $9000. Add CMOS chips and the don't over $15,000 and it's money in the bank. Oh and JVC may want to ask how Canon, Panasonic and Sony get such a good image without the split screen. (I know it was low but how long has JVC been in the business and they can't figure out the image basics). I wouldn't pay over $9000 for HDV unless it had all this.

But again if Panasonic can do HD for $6000 once again it makes me question HDV at any cost above $6000. HDV is low cost HD but if HD itself is low cost then what. Outside of the tape back up the taste of HDV is quickly losing it's flavor and JVC seems to be the biggest problem. Frankly the body rocks, but this should've been a Panasonic camera with CMOS chips and everything the HVX has going for it, with interchangeable lens at $27,950. I guess that's the trade off. Panasonic won't give you a hot body like this to save it's soul and JVC won't give you Panasonic technology.

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
I'll give you $15,000 for it no more no less and that's because of the 2/3 CMOS chips and lens (which I'm assuming is higher quality).
Click to expand...
Um, try again -- that's $27,950 *without* a lens. If you want an HD lens, add another $25,000 to $60,000 on top of it.
 
Barry_Green said:
Um, try again -- that's $27,950 *without* a lens. If you want an HD lens, add another $25,000 to $60,000 on top of it.
Click to expand...
That's just comedy. I'll give you $15,000, figure out how Canon does it. That's my best adivce. :)

-Nate
 
Nathyn said:
That's just comedy. I'll give you $15,000, figure out how Canon does it. That's my best adivce. :)
Click to expand...

Full size cameras always cost more. Partly they're more expensive. Partly they're aimed at a different market. As was previously mentioned 2/3in chips make a WORLD of difference. More flexibility with depth of field, much better low light sensitivity, far less noise.

I used to own a JVC GY-DV700W... It had a gorgeous picture... But I sold it to buy smaller (less conspicuous) cameras. <sigh> Every time I struggle to get shallow depth of field, or a decent image in a poorly lit environment I miss it.

It's about more than just the cost of the camera.
 
Oh, c'mon! So the Varicam isn't worth any more then the HVX either with that argument?

The size of the chips does matter, the robustness will be in a whole different league, ....
$27.950 + lens is not a bad deal for something that will probably surpass the varicam (I)...
 
Then give me DVCPro HD versus HDV. For $20G you gotta give me something. But again I've been spoiled by Panasonic.

-Nate
 
or just biased towards panasonic. You'll need something like varicam or cinealta to have quality like the new JVC will be my guess...
 
If their MPEG-2 recording system is a high-enough data rate, it's not unreasonable to expect that the camera could rival the $100,000 CineAlta. This isn't an XLH1 fighter, it's a full-fledged 2/3" camera. It's cheaper because of the recording formats (streaming to external hard disk, or internal on the $5/tape HDV deck). But the rest of it is probably thoroughly industrial.

Don't forget, an SDX900 is about the same price, and it's not HD, it's standard-def only.
 
Well indeed. And MPEG2 ist that expensive technology anymore... So I guess that'll make up for the price as well.

Panasonic is the only one with DVCPRO-HD, so they needed to pay all of the R&D of that. On MPEG2 there's already a whole lot available. R&D just needs to find the right finetuning.
 
mezelf27 said:
or just biased towards panasonic.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm one of the least biased people here but I do know Panasonic does what it says and puts out a product that I can use at a decent price which always makes me wonder why others can't.
mezelf27 said:
You'll need something like varicam or cinealta to have quality like the new JVC will be my guess...
Click to expand...
That better be the case for HDV for that kind of money. If it's hot it's hot.

-Nate
 
Nathyn I'd love to see what you'd like to see arrive but I think it's gonna be a while unless you wanna spend the aforementioned chunk of change.

I'm happy with my HD100 at the moment, though I'll probably get an HVX next summer... Especially since I was lucky enough to get one of the 'good or better' cams as far as the problems, plus, since the HVX doesn't really shoot full 1080p apparently, just 720p with some kind of uprezzing, I can live with not having an HVX immediately. (Barry or someone, feel free to correct me on this if that is not entirely accurate, heh)

I do wish the 2/3 inch chips would go down... maybe next year we'll see more affordable cams with bigger chips?
 
That's funny. As far as I know neither camera has been released yet...all of these criticisms are based on assumptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top