New JVC HM850 & HM890 cameras

[vanvideo]

New JVC shoulder mount cameras.
They look like the HM600s in shoulder mount form. Here's the codecs:

Continuing JVC’s commitment to native file workflows, the GY-HM850 and GY-HM890 record HD or SD footage as Final Cut Pro (.MOV), XDCAM EX (.MP4), AS-10 (.MXF), AVCHD (.MTS), or H.264 (.MOV) files for compatibility with most major NLE systems. Footage can be recorded using MPEG-2 or H.264 compression at a variety of bit rates, frame rates, and resolutions.
The dual codecs offer simultaneous recording of a full HD file on one memory card and smaller, Web friendly H.264 files on the other. Plus, a new H.264 Extreme High Quality (XHQ) recording mode, commonly used in HD SLRs, offers virtually lossless H.264 50 Mbps recording.

What's the Extreme High Quality codec? Used in HD SLRs? It's a 50mbps and records to a class 10 SDHC card. Is it a 4:2:2 codec?

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/specs.jsp?model_id=MDL102268&feature_id=03

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL102269

 

[Guest]

I kinda sorta like the jvc body. Haven't used it enough though. I wonder about that body shape and s35 or ff35.

 

[snowblindfilm]

Interesting quote: "virtually lossless H.264 recording"! It's a 1/3" camera using old technology. JVC- please give it up! Your gear sucks, it's a flimsy pile of crap, with 10 year old color science (XDCAM EX). Your cameras are made like someone tossed them together at five to five on Friday night.

 

[jdv]

Interesting quote: "virtually lossless H.264 recording"! It's a 1/3" camera using old technology. JVC- please give it up! Your gear sucks, it's a flimsy pile of crap, with 10 year old color science (XDCAM EX). Your cameras are made like someone tossed them together at five to five on Friday night.

Inclined to agree - the price tag, $10,000, is staggering given the market place. Used a JVC GYU100 way back in the day. Nice camera for the time period, but this thing doesn't look all that different.

 

[Bassman2003]

I would agree. $10,000 is outside of the ballpark so to speak.

 

[Finn Yarbrough]

What a shame! This camera design may always be my favorite to hold and use, but the tech inside just doesn't make the quality of picture that I need. I have to cobble together ridiculous amounts of peripheral equipment to overcome the ergonomic shortcomings of other cameras that produce a far superior result for the same price. If I were an engineer, I would chop up my PMW-F3 and house it inside a JVC!

 

[zijital]

Used a JVC GYU100 way back in the day. Nice camera for the time period, but this thing doesn't look all that different.

A XF300 doesn't look too much different than a XH-A1 on the outside; a HPX250 doesn't look too much diffferent than a DVX100... it is what is in the inside is what really counts. From the specs, this looks a lot different than the old GY HD100 when you look at the guts.

I would agree. $10,000 is outside of the ballpark so to speak.

Its about the same range as the Sony PMW-300 (successor to the EX3). Plus the HM850 is only $8k

If I were an engineer, I would chop up my PMW-F3 and house it inside a JVC!

Yeah, but you're not going to get a 20x zoom to cover a F3 sensor included in the $10k price.

It's a 1/3" camera using old technology. JVC- please give it up! Your gear sucks, it's a flimsy pile of crap, with 10 year old color science (XDCAM EX).

I'll agree that JVC cameras do not seem as rugged as other cameras & feel like they would break easily.

But, old technology?! The chips look to be the ones from the HM600, which is are only a couple years old (2012 I believe). The 1/2" chips in the PMW 300 & PMW 200 are from the original EX1 released in 2007 (with some improvements). The chips in the AC130a / AC160a & HPX250 are from the HPX300 that was released in 2009.

And while Panasonic has some great AVC-Intra & AVC-Ultra codecs, Mpeg2 4:2:2 50mbps in XDCam & XF makes a lot of people satisfied for a lot of projects. (Hell, both the C300 & C500 record with this internally, which should prove that even something "10 years old" still has life in it.)

---

This all being said, I used the HM700 when it first came out. Alright camera, but didn't blow me away.

It seemed very plastic-y & like it wouldn't hold up to abuse. I feel that nearly everyone else (Sony, Panasonic, Canon) have better engineers when it comes to making pretty colors from off the chips, but that is just my humble opinion.

But what I really, really like about JVC is the low profile shoulder mount camera. I so much wish the EX3 / PMW-300 were like this instead of the forward XL1 half-shoulder rest camera.

 

[TomLenham]

Why Canon / Sony / Panasonic don't copy that great ergonomic design and improve it with decent build quality and internals is beyond me - it's a great form factor imo, just a shame it's made by JVC.

 

[vanvideo]

JVCs are very big with TV news. They know their market. The small, light shoulder mount design is great for hand hold shooting, better than probably any other camera. If I had to do a lot of hand held shooting, a JVC would be my choice. I've been using HM700s on sports shoots. They do feel flimsy, but they work just fine.

I still don't know what the XHQ codec is. JVC says it's the same as used by HD SLRs. What does that mean, exactly? I don't shoot with DSLRs.

 

[jdv]

I will say one thing - it's one of the best form factors in a camera I've ever seen. It hits the sweet spot for big enough to impress upon people that you're "a real production" but small enough to haul around easily.

I'm guessing that $10 K price tag doesn't include that V-mount battery (as my original GYU 100 didn't include one) which will run at least another $500 (and you will want one if it smashes batteries the way the 100 did). When you can get a similarly featured/form factor in the Sony AE50 for $2,700, that is quite huge difference.



And this camera for news? Yeah, I can see that, although you'd think that small sensor size would suck in low light (for sure the GYU 100 did). Small stations already invested in JVC would likely not want to rock the boat (although I thought this was the one area where Panasonic continues to dominate).

Perhaps the codec would sway the scales, but will your NLE play nice with it? JVC not exactly at the top of the list for most NLE developers.

 

[vanvideo]

You really shouldn't compare this camera to the JVC HD100/200 series. Those were HDV 1/3" CCD cameras with terrible low light capability. This new camera is more advanced in every way.
As far as editing, the JVC shoots in different formats to fit different editing systems. The camera adapts to editing systems, not the other way around.

 

[harddrive]

It's a 1/3" camera using old technology. ........ with 10 year old color science (XDCAM EX).

If you're choosing a codec, it's a question of striking a balance between quality, bitrate (which will determine media as well as filesize), and ease of use within computers.

As such, XDCAM EX has a lot going for it, certainly for what the EBU describes as "journalism", for which it's got full approval for. Hence more than adequate quality for such as news, relatively small file sizes with a data rate that an SDHC card is easily capable of, and easily handled natively by all but the oldest computers. (And that's not something that can be said of H264, as used by many DSLRs.)

The codec may be 10 years old, but so what, what would something far newer get you? Lower bitrate for the same quality? Yes, but at the expense of needing a lot more processing power. Higher frame rate formats than 1080i/25 or 720p/50? Yes, but they are the standard for broadcasters now, and all they are really going to be interested in for general work for some years to come.

Sony are starting to put XAVC alongside XDCAM in their newer ranges, but they make it quite clear XDCAM will have a future for a long time to come - certainly if you don't want higher resolutions/frame rates than 1080i/25 or 720p/50.

 

[gregpen]

If you don't need a pool feed or studio capability (fiber optic dock option) then the "same" camera HM-850 costs $7995, which is more in-line with expectations.

 

[jdv]

You really shouldn't compare this camera to the JVC HD100/200 series. Those were HDV 1/3" CCD cameras with terrible low light capability. This new camera is more advanced in every way.
As far as editing, the JVC shoots in different formats to fit different editing systems. The camera adapts to editing systems, not the other way around.

Certainly didn't work that way when the 100 came out - it took us nearly a year and three different work arounds to get a solution that worked. True, NLEs have come a long way since then, but if they're using a brand new codec I'd make dang sure it played nice with whatever editing system you're using before buying in. If it's using an older codec, than I bet it's a lot closer to the JVC 100 than you'd think (SD card instead of tape being the biggest obvious difference). And regardless of the camera, there's only so much magic a camera with that size chip can do in low light - a situation new gatherers often find themselves in.

"If you don't need a pool feed or studio capability (fiber optic dock option) then the "same" camera HM-850 costs $7995, which is more in-line with expectations."

Good to know. It's also close to what the last version of this camera cost. Always like the look of JVC, both in form factor and footage.

 

[harddrive]

True, NLEs have come a long way since then, but if they're using a brand new codec I'd make dang sure it played nice with whatever editing system you're using before buying in. If it's using an older codec, than I bet it's a lot closer to the JVC 100 than you'd think (SD card instead of tape being the biggest obvious difference).

It's as vanvideo says - it gives a choice of recording formats, but crucial is that in at least two cases they are well established and well supported within NLEs - XDCAM EX and AVC-HD. Unlike Sony EX cameras, it also gives that fundamental codec already wrapped to better suit Final Cut. And it has to go beyond them to support 50/60p, but even then it's using H264, which most NLEs should recognise, even if performance becomes more sluggish.

As far as the HD100, then whilst both that (with HDV) and this (with XDCAM EX) are based on MPEG2 compression, then it's totally wrong to simply think of XDCAM EX as HDV with a slightly higher bitrate. Whilst the bitrate is indeed higher, it's also allocated far more intelligently and flexibly - so the improvement of XDCAM EX is far more than simple bitrate comparisons would suggest.

(Without going into detail, think of the difference between 1-pass CBR and 2-pass VBR encoding for such as DVDs. In the latter case, you'll get equivalent quality from a much lower overall bitrate than the former, even though both systems are effectively MPEG2 with the same parameters.)

And regardless of the camera, there's only so much magic a camera with that size chip can do in low light - a situation new gatherers often find themselves in.

True, but it's competing with other 1/3" cameras in this price bracket - and at least it's far more ergonomic than them.

 

[jdv]

"As far as the HD100, then whilst both that (with HDV) and this (with XDCAM EX) are based on MPEG2 compression, then it's totally wrong to simply think of XDCAM EX as HDV with a slightly higher bitrate. Whilst the bitrate is indeed higher, it's also allocated far more intelligently and flexibly - so the improvement of XDCAM EX is far more than simple bitrate comparisons would suggest.

(Without going into detail, think of the difference between 1-pass CBR and 2-pass VBR encoding for such as DVDs. In the latter case, you'll get equivalent quality from a much lower overall bitrate than the former, even though both systems are effectively MPEG2 with the same parameters.)"

Thanks Harddrive - good stuff to know. I really did like the look of the 100, but it was very unpredictable - one night you could get nice, crisp footage. Night two, same lighting and settings, and you're looking at mud. I'm sure it's much better now in these new cameras. And, as mentioned, it looks like JVC is not aiming these cameras at narrative shooters, but rather ENG.

Love your posts BTW.

 

[snowblindfilm]

And while Panasonic has some great AVC-Intra & AVC-Ultra codecs, Mpeg2 4:2:2 50mbps in XDCam & XF makes a lot of people satisfied for a lot of projects. (Hell, both the C300 & C500 record with this internally, which should prove that even something "10 years old" still has life in it.)

Codec on JVC is not 422. It's XDCAM EX, which is a border line consumer codec at 35mb/s 420, huge difference! Even Canon XF100, which costs only $2499 gives you 50mb/s 422 codec. You can get Canon XF300 with the same XDCAM HD 422 codec for 5K, plus Canon color science. Why in the hell would I want to spend 8k on a camera, with consumer codec and zero durability? And 50mb/s 422 is a huge step up from 35mb/s 420. I owned 2 JVC cameras (HD100 and HM700) and there is no way I will purchase camera made by JVC again. Always in the shop, always something broken, bad service, repairs took weeks, always on hold, pls repeat the whole story again. JVC's rep Mr. Yanagi is nice on outside, but total DB when it comes to business dealings. Totally unprofessional and never telling you story straight. JVC is by far the worst camera manufacturer on the market.

 

[Bassman2003]

If you don't need a pool feed or studio capability (fiber optic dock option) then the "same" camera HM-850 costs $7995, which is more in-line with expectations.

Even at the $7995 price point this camera costs too much. I see no mention of 4:2:2 anywhere. It's 2014, the market has moved forward and the 35mbps XDCAM codec will just not do it for me. And touting a 50mbps "DSLR" codec is not a positive in my book either!

This is really a fixed lens camcorder because who would replace the 20x Fuji lens after buying this camera? With what? My guess is that these models are the shoulder mount versions of the recent 600/650 models which were met with a rousing round of indifference when the images were seen. Heavy noise reduction to get F11 @ 2000lux. Looked great on paper and are selling around half of the price of this camera.

Yes, it is a shame no other camera maker will run with this form factor.

 

[zijital]

If you don't need a pool feed or studio capability (fiber optic dock option) then the "same" camera HM-850 costs $7995, which is more in-line with expectations.

Is there any other camera for under $10k that can take a record input? I mean I think that is pretty cool. Although if I was an operations manager I think I'd rather just put that extra $2k into a Atomos, Ki Pro, Sound Devices Pix, Convergent Design… etc. etc.

Codec on JVC is not 422. It's XDCAM EX, which is a border line consumer codec at 35mb/s 420, huge difference! Even Canon XF100, which costs only $2499 gives you 50mb/s 422 codec.

Calling XDCam EX "consumer" is fighting words… but no need to get into that endless flame war.

I shot a good amount with a HVX, and I was never impressed with the 4:2:2 100mbps DVCPro HD. I've always felt that I got just as much, or maybe even more out of a EX1 shooting 4:2:0 long GOP 35mbps. It wasn't until I got some really underexposed footage from a HPX2000 (or similar 2/3" DVCPro HD model) that I really saw how much room there was for color correction in DVCPro HD.

So while the XF100 shoots 4:2:2 it is only a single 1/3" (edit: not 1/4") chip & honestly I think you might get better color out of 3 full raster 1/3" chips recording to 4:2:0. It is never just the codec, or the chip, it is always a combo of the two & the firmware behind the chips that really make great pictures or alright pictures.

Even at the $7995 price point this camera costs too much.

That is list, I'm guessing it'll be a street price of $6,500 - $7,500 to start, and then I feel like JVC cameras often go down from there in under a year, so I wouldn't be surprised if goes lower from there. The HM750 w/ Canon 14x lens was listed at $7,450 & now is selling for $6k.

This is really a fixed lens camcorder because who would replace the 20x Fuji lens after buying this camera? With what?

There are a number of 1/3" lenses made by Canon & Fuji that would work. Or you can get an adapter for 1/2" or 2/3" ENG lenses, long 2/3" lenses would be very good if you shoot events where you need to get very tight.

When I had my Sony Z7U I got an adapter for Nikon lenses, and that was a dirt cheap way to get extreme close ups, which was great when I shot news. (I got a great medium shot of John McCain getting off a plane at the RNC in 2008 from a hell of a distance away with a Nikon 70-300mm lens. Much closer than any of the other news cameras on the press "riser" / flat bed truck.)

I wonder if JVC will offer a version of this camera w/o a lens. I'm sure there are a number of owners of HD100/200 or HM700 cams that would just be interested in the body.

My guess is that these models are the shoulder mount versions of the recent 600/650 models which were met with a rousing round of indifference when the images were seen. Heavy noise reduction to get F11 @ 2000lux. Looked great on paper and are selling around half of the price of this camera.

I was really excited about the F/11 claim of the HM600 & then disappointed when I started seeing that it was really just a man behind the curtain doing magic tricks.

 

[snowblindfilm]

Calling XDCam EX "consumer" is fighting words… but no need to get into that endless flame war.

I shot a good amount with a HVX, and I was never impressed with the 4:2:2 100mbps DVCPro HD. I've always felt that I got just as much, or maybe even more out of a EX1 shooting 4:2:0 long GOP 35mbps. It wasn't until I got some really underexposed footage from a HPX2000 (or similar 2/3" DVCPro HD model) that I really saw how much room there was for color correction in DVCPro HD.

So while the XF100 shoots 4:2:2 it is only a single 1/4" chip & honestly I think you might get better color out of 3 full raster 1/3" chips recording to 4:2:0. It is never just the codec, or the chip, it is always a combo of the two & the firmware behind the chips that really make great pictures or alright pictures.

XF100 has 1/3" chip not 1/4", which makes a huge difference. At the moment as far as ENG cameras go XF100/105 is one of the best cameras at the price point. Currently it's my go-to camera for event and doc filming. I also owned EX1 (which now I regret I sold), but color is far better out of XF100, then out of EX1. The strength of EX1 was 1/2" chip, which is way better for low light and 10bit SDI out. Even Canon XF105 is only 8bit out, so again EX1 was hard to beat in the price range.
Charging people 8 or 10K for 1/3" chip cameras with 35mb/s 420 codec is just insulting at this day and age. I also seriously question durability of JVC gear, and their customer service. I am convinced they have by far the worst service out of all camera manufacturers. This company has to seriously re-think their business model, as it is far from even acceptable.
One more note regarding codecs. Most of the current models of computers will have no problem editing 50mb/s 422 codecs- I don't see it as valid argument. Also 35mb/s 420 is a consumer codec at the moment, since even Canon or GoPro use 45mb/s in their consumer line.