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

Correction Barry (with all respect). It seems to sample 1080p of the chips via pixels shifting at the very least. That is some kind of uprezzing. The ONLY way to draw 1080p natively from your chips is when you have 1920x1080pixels on each CCD.
 
LOL, okay, so there is some kind of 'pixel shift uprezzing' going on or what? Bottom line is it will not have 1920x1080 pixels on each CCD. This sounds iffy to me. Of course the camera will probably pop out and blow me away and I'll put my HD100 on eBay. :P
 
Yeah, but he borrowed the camera and most of the equipment from people. With a borrowed HD100 it would have cost considerably less. Probably just the cost of tape stock.
 
And that's just the PR figure thrown around, because it looked like crap and they had to build a buzz on the low budget movie...

It was more than 7k.
 
Zig_Zigman said:
And that's just the PR figure thrown around, because it looked like crap and they had to build a buzz on the low budget movie...

It was more than 7k.
Click to expand...
I assume you're talking about El mariachi, and if so the $7K figure doesn't reflect the million dollars worth of sound and lab work the studio did.

-Nate
 
The movie "The Brown Bunny" was shot on 16mm too but the JVC DV5000 I use (hell, even the DV500) looks better than that. And what I saw was a Superbit disc (data rate never fell below 5 MB/s.) I think they pushed the film (even outdoors) because it was overly grainy and I KNOW Super 16 can look better than that. I guess they were going for the "gritty" look...who knows? The film was a piece of crap anyway.
 
Chance White said:
LOL, okay, so there is some kind of 'pixel shift uprezzing' going on or what? Bottom line is it will not have 1920x1080 pixels on each CCD. This sounds iffy to me. Of course the camera will probably pop out and blow me away and I'll put my HD100 on eBay. :P
Click to expand...


LOL..... That would be my guess!
 
Barry_Green 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.
Click to expand...

Barry, I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this... I too have reservations.
 
Regarding the HD100 experience? Basic overview is that my particular unit had a few issues that were clearly defects that could likely have been repaired, and some (like the split-screen effect) that I found made the product unsuitable for the type of uses I had bought it for (but that JVC does not consider a defect) thus rendering it ineligible for repair/exchange. Which meant the product could not be reliably used for my particular purposes.

What I learned from this is two main things:
1) check with your dealer and be very, very clear about return/exchange policies before you plunk down $5500 or so. Some dealers allow no returns at all on cameras, some allow returns with a 15% restocking charge, etc. Walk out of the showroom with it and you may be committed, and 15% of $5500 means you'd pay an $825 fee if you decide to return the product!
2) Make *very* sure you know what the product does and doesn't do before plunking down said $5500, because your dealer may not allow you to return it (at least, not without paying a 15% restocking charge).
3) Go down in person to the dealership and inspect and test the unit in question before accepting delivery. Not easy for me in Vegas, but for those who are near dealers, it's vital to do so.

And finally, recognize that there are risks involved in being an early adopter. If you don't have a specific business need for the product right away, you have nothing to lose (except avoiding inconvenience) by waiting and seeing how other buyers report on and handle the initial growing pains that can happen when a new product comes to market. And that's not limited to JVC, that would apply to any manufacturer.
 
You gave us all the reasons, very clear, detailed and direct why you should NOT buy an Panasonic HVX200 in pre-order. Thank You for sharing your experience.

@Barry Green quote:
"What I learned from this is two main things:
1) check with your dealer and be very, very clear about return/exchange policies before you plunk down $5500 or so. Some dealers allow no returns at all on cameras, some allow returns with a 15% restocking charge, etc. Walk out of the showroom with it and you may be committed, and 15% of $5500 means you'd pay an $825 fee if you decide to return the product!
2) Make *very* sure you know what the product does and doesn't do before plunking down said $5500, because your dealer may not allow you to return it (at least, not without paying a 15% restocking charge).
3) Go down in person to the dealership and inspect and test the unit in question before accepting delivery. Not easy for me in Vegas, but for those who are near dealers, it's vital to do so.

And finally, recognize that there are risks involved in being an early adopter. If you don't have a specific business need for the product right away, you have nothing to lose (except avoiding inconvenience) by waiting and seeing how other buyers report on and handle the initial growing pains that can happen when a new product comes to market."
 
Xray, I know you think you're being cute in trying to twist my words, so I hate to deflate your bubble, but over on DVInfo someone asked "should I pre-order the HVX now" and I basically said "no, because pre-order means you're an early adopter and run all these same risks."

So yes, I would extend that to an HVX, or an XLH1, or any other entirely-new product. To do otherwise would be foolish. I don't think it's foolish to get on the list, but to extend money and take delivery sight-unseen on an unproven product, well, that involves risks. As long as the buyer manages those risks (by doing the things I listed above: checking on the return/refund policy, and if at all possible, inspecting the unit before taking delivery) then they've done the best that can be expected. But buying any $6,000 product sight-unseen is not necessarily wise behavior.
 
Barry, there's got to be something you can do. Maybe we can all email JVC and tell them their Perfect Eperience is BS. They didn't give you a new one? You should demand that JVC do the right thing and fix this camera. I was a runner at several different law firms and I know this is a defect! How do I know? Exhibit A: It's been fixed/minimized. Exhibit B: It was not mentioned prior to being sold. Exhibit C: No other HDV camera has this problem. Threaten a lawsuit! (Bad press). t's not rocket science, all JVC has to do to avoid the suit is stand behind it's product! Common sense should say fix the product versus facing legal problems. It's sad they won't just fix the thing.

-Nate
 
A few things have been touched on in this thread:

if Panasonic can do HD for $6000 once again it makes me question HDV at any cost above $6000


To be clear, Panasonic cannot 'do HD' for $6000. For $6000 you can shoot DV.
You're looking at around $8K to shoot HD on the HVX.

Also, as far as the higher cost of the JVC 2/3" cam, don't underestimate the value of larger chips. 2/3" chips give you a higher dynamic range and more control over DOF than the 1/3" chips. Also, they are much more expensive to produce (mainly due to lower yield).
I don't think the JVC mentioned at the start of this thread is overpriced much at all.

Lastly, on the point of the indie movie budgets people always seem to want to point to some sort of conspiracy when it comes to the PR about budget numbers. I don't see why it matters how much money Columbia put into Mariachi after they picked it up, or how much money was put into primer after it was picked up. The point is that these filmmakers were able to put a project together for $7,000 that was good enough to be picked up for distribution, and isn't that the goal for most indie filmmakers? Isn't that what matters?

It seems sometimes that we want to find something wrong with these projects to make ourselves feel better.
 
Nathyn said:
Barry, there's got to be something you can do. Maybe we can all email JVC and tell them their Perfect Eperience is BS. They didn't give you a new one? You should demand that JVC do the right thing and fix this camera.
Click to expand...
Whoa, let's hold up here. No lawsuits or anything like that are necessary! I have no interest in punishing JVC, I think they're a fantastically innovative company who has produced some very interesting products!

My situation was a bit unique, in that it had issues other than split-screen. I outlined my issues with my dealer and asked for a return, and was told that a return was not likely to be authorized for a new-unit exchange by JVC through the dealer; rather JVC would prefer that I look into using "The Perfect Experience" to exchange the unit for a different one. I had some difficulty getting ahold of them (it turns out they had incorrect instructions on their website). As soon as I relayed my frustrations to the dealer, the dealer took my situation to their JVC rep and things started to happen very quickly -- JVC exhibited exemplary customer service at that point. I was contacted directly by several top people at JVC, all wanting to make sure that I had excellent customer service, and it was. Exchanging the defective camera for a different one would have been no problem whatsoever -- the manager of JVC's Perfect Experience program called me personally to facilitate the easiest exchange process!

I have no doubt that for anyone who has a clearly defective HD100, the JVC Perfect Exhange process will work quickly and painlessly for everyone who uses it (especially now that the website's instructions have been updated to show the proper option # to choose.) I don't think JVC would allow a Perfect Experience exchange if the customer's sole issue is split-screen, however.

The ongoing issue for me was, even if they fixed the other defects (the slow shutter speckles, extreme chroma noise, and the lemon lens or whatever was causing my camera to exhibit such low resolution footage), it would still have the split-screen, which would still render it unsuitable for the work that I had purchased the unit. And, I had been told by a couple of dealers that split-screen is not considered a defect by JVC, and a unit returned for split-screen reasons would not necessarily qualify for replacement by JVC, which means that the dealers were not willing to take the risk of taking a camera back because of split-screen issues -- it would leave them stuck with a used unit in inventory, one that they couldn't sell as new. So I could exchange it through the Perfect Experience, and in the very best of cases I would have a fully-functional unit in all ways but one: it'd still have the split-screen, and my requirements would not allow me to shoot around it. I had purchased the unit for use in available-light convention/event coverage, and while it's rather easy to eliminate split-screen under controlled shooting circumstances, event shooting is usually anything but controlled. I felt that I couldn't risk the split showing up in footage that I sent home with a client.

So I had requested to JVC to authorize a straight return. The only response I got on that was "returns are between the customer and the dealer, we are not involved in that process." That didn't exactly match up with what the dealers had told me though -- the dealers insisted that they exchange units with JVC to get new units that are able to be sold as new to a new customer, and that JVC would not exchange a split-screen unit (that was otherwise functional) for another new unit. I don't really know how that got resolved though; all I know is that I got a call from my dealer saying that they would work a return (but no clarification on whether the dealer was choosing to do it unilaterally or whether they'd come to some terms with JVC), and so I sent it back and I told them to keep the money and apply it towards an HVX. The end result is that I have achieved what I was looking for, and all is going forward as planned -- no reason for any talk of lawsuits! At least as far as my experience goes.

I think the HD100 has a lot of potential, and I think that for the right shooting circumstances it can be a dynamite little camera. Apart from the specific issues it had, I really liked it. It is not for all shooting circumstances, and a JVC tech told me that directly, and when it became clear to me that my shooting circumstances were exactly the ones where the HD100 wasn't best suited, that's when I decided to abandon the idea of exchanging it for another unit, and went after a straight return instead. Fortunately I was able to accomplish that. But that's no guarantee as to how any other customer's experience may go; again, my circumstance was a bit unique as the camera did have other issues.

When JVC understood my issues, they leapt into action in a very impressive way. I was quite pleased with the attention and customer service I received, and while I don't know the final disposition between my dealer and JVC themselves, I do know that my situation was resolved completely to my satisfaction. I have nothing bad to say about JVC at all.


It's sad they won't just fix the thing.
Click to expand...
Well, here's how JVC looks at it: CCDs have certain characteristics, such as vertical smear. Expose a bright light against a dark background and you'll get a huge green spike or, in better cases, a huge vertical smear from the top of the frame to the bottom. Is that a "defect"? Film shooters may think so, but video shooters pretty much expect it and professional video shooters usually know how to work around it. The problem is more prevalent the smaller the pixels get, and the mini-HD cameras are especially prone to it. But it's a known factor, it's a "characteristic" of CCDs, and, frankly, it's the price you pay if you want to shoot cheap video instead of expensive film. Same thing with gain -- crank up the gain, and your picture gets noisy. Is that a defect? Or a known characteristic of gain, and one that we're expected to shoot around? Well, JVC views the split-screen in the same way: it happens in dark-lit conditions, and it can frequently be worked around if you can control your shooting environment. They view it as a "characteristic" and working around it is the price you have to pay if you want to use this product and shoot native-res 720p HD at a $5500 price point. They say it is not a defect, and there's no way to "fix" it, it's inherent in the design because they use two processors to read the chip.

That's not to say that the customer will agree that it's not a defect. I found it rendered the product unsuitable for the purpose I purchased it. But that's an individual decision each individual shooter needs to make. For some shooters it will never be an issue! I don't think the camera should be recalled or pulled off the market for that reason -- like I said before, Tim and Nate and Stephen and Werner and Sonisfear seem very, very, very happy with their purchases, and are more than willing to work around the "characteristic." I couldn't. There will be others who can't, or who are unwilling to try. But JVC will not "fix" it, because they can't, it's endemic to the design. They claim that they can no more "fix" split-screen than Audi could "fix" the fact that their car has a five-cylinder engine instead of a six-cylinder -- it's the way it's designed. And dealers are gun-shy about accepting returns, because if the camera is demonstrated by JVC to not be defective (by JVC's standards), that would leave the dealer stuck with a used product (or so I've been told by the dealers, perhaps Bob Mueller's recent statement will reassure dealers and let them feel more empowered to accept returns -- let's hope!) So the only solution that I can see is an enhanced educational campaign -- let the users know that the issue can occur, and let them make an informed decision as to whether it's a limitation they can work around. The difficulty comes in that the effect is unprecedented -- there's never been a video "characteristic" quite like this before, it's unexpected and it's not exactly entirely predictable. So shooters will need to be educated on what it is, how to spot it, and how to work around it, as well as being educated to the very notion that such a thing exists and that they will be expected to work around it! From where I stand, I think that's the dealer's responsibility -- they should make sure that the customer understands that the split can occur, so that the customer understands what is expected of him/her, and the customer can make an informed decision whether to proceed with the purchase.

I think if that step were implemented, it would be best for all parties involved. JVC's reputation would be intact, the dealer would have far fewer customers asking about the issue (and obviously fewer wanting returns after they "discover" the sse), and customers would be armed with the information they need so they don't get surprised in the field. Yes it's more work for the dealers, but as near as I can tell, the dealers are the ones on the front lines, they're the ones having to face their customers, so a little prevention (on their part) sure beats several pounds of cure.

At least, that's how I see it.
 
Luis Caffesse said:
To be clear, Panasonic cannot 'do HD' for $6000. For $6000 you can shoot DV.
You're looking at around $8K to shoot HD on the HVX.
Click to expand...
No, you're looking at around $6300 (assuming a 2gb card costs around $300 or so). Or, you're looking at $5995, assuming you record to a computer. The HVX is not a standard-def camera at $5995, it is a high-def camera and can be used as an HD head (just like the XL H1 argument that it's an HD camera head). It isn't a high-def RECORDER at $5995, but it is a high-def camera that shoots high-def. You do have to supply your own recording medium, whether a computer or a firestore or a P2 card, that's true.

I don't think the JVC mentioned at the start of this thread is overpriced much at all.
Click to expand...
I'd go a little further and say that it rather represents a screaming bargain, presuming that it actually delivers on the promises it's making. It's basically being presented like a high-def SDX900. The SDX900 is $27,000. The JVC is $29,000. Not exactly overpriced, for what it is!
 
Barry_Green said:
But JVC will not "fix" it, because they can't, it's endemic to the design. They claim that they can no more "fix" split-screen than Audi could "fix" the fact that their car has a five-cylinder engine instead of a six-cylinder -- it's the way it's designed.
Click to expand...

But I have to disagree with this notion. If the later models are indeed fixed (which they seem to be) then this wasn't design, it was a design flaw they won't own up to. It's more like someone making a six-cylinder engine but five and a half work, but that one half that can't poses a huge problem. The "split-chip" design isn't the flaw, but the calabration in one or the other chip is the flaw.

If cameras are coming out with split screens that cannot be seen (this is called basic decent imaging) then JVCs claim hold no weight. (You don't upgrade firmware and recalabrate cameras when a problem doesn't exist). They are simply trying to protect themselves at the coporate level and it's more than obvious. But they know if they didn't fix this camera they were going to have a problem so they fixed it while telling us it wasn't a problem.

I do think you did the right thing, go with the HVX. That's what I hope to do. Zacuto here in Chicago told me they dropped the camera from their line. They do plan to sell the HVX and the Canon. No matter what JVC have done themselves a disservice.

-Nate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top