New JVC PX100 shoots very fast frame rates

Fast lens (F1.2) and decent sensor-size (1/2.3"), but when they say that is shoots between "120fps to 600fps", they don't specify at what resolution...
 
JVC has had prior 600fps camcorders; the GZ-X900 shoots 120fps at 480x720, 300fps at 480x116, and 600fps at 640x72. I would expect that this new PX100 would use similar windowing to get its high frame rates, but I do hope there's a bit more detail; the sample videos of the X900 at 600fps were extremely low res.

Go here and click on "main features" to see a balloon-popping video from the X900.

I'm highly interested in a consumer-priced, all-in-one, high-frame-rate camera right now. The X900 isn't quite what I want, but I'm hoping this next-gen PX100 will be. 600fps at VGA resolution would be a huge step forward, but I'm not really expecting that much. Will be quite interested to see the specs when they're released.
 
Barry_Green said:
JVC has had prior 600fps camcorders; the GZ-X900 shoots 120fps at 480x720, 300fps at 480x116, and 600fps at 640x72. I would expect that this new PX100 would use similar windowing to get its high frame rates, but I do hope there's a bit more detail; the sample videos of the X900 at 600fps were extremely low res.

Go here and click on "main features" to see a balloon-popping video from the X900.

I'm highly interested in a consumer-priced, all-in-one, high-frame-rate camera right now. The X900 isn't quite what I want, but I'm hoping this next-gen PX100 will be. 600fps at VGA resolution would be a huge step forward, but I'm not really expecting that much. Will be quite interested to see the specs when they're released.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty sweet and you can't beat the price. Used as JVC GYU 100 for a while and it was a very nice little camera, but was horrible in low light. Hopefully this gen of cameras looks a wee bit better in the dark.

Any idea what sort of memory cards it would use?
 
A report out of Japan says that the PIX100 shoots 600fps at 320x176. That's pretty small, but it's also a huge improvement over the Casio Exilim's 224x64. The Casio's 224x64 = 14,336 pixels per frame; 320x176 = 56,320 pixels per frame, so it's 4x more res. And at a more usable aspect ratio too; 224x64 is 3.5:1, whereas 320x176 is 1.82:1, almost a proper 16:9.

So if it's really 320x176, that's definitely a step forward for inexpensive high-speed cameras. The GoPro has a relatively huge frame, 848x480, but 240 fps; the PIX100's frame is 7x smaller and 2.5x faster... but if you need the frame rate, it seems like it's better than prior high-speed choices.

Two things though:
1) We don't know that 320x176 is actually legit. The only report I can find that actually makes the claim is here, from av.watch.impress.co.jp; and right in the middle of it, in red, it says "Article first occurrence, at the time of recording resolution and 600fps was wrong.
お詫びして訂正させていただきます(2013年1月11日)。​
(January 11, 2013) to allow me to apologize and correct." Does that mean that the 320x176 that is reported is wrong, and will be corrected? Or that they initially reported something else, and have now apologized and corrected it to 320x176? I don't know.

2) How does it look? The Exilim 1000fps videos are so compressed that they're unusable for anything other than as a curiousity. The PX10's 300fps wasn't really bad at all, it looks like -- well, frankly it looks aliased like 720p Canon DSLR footage, but as compared to the 1000fps from the Exilim it looks decent.

So I remain optimistic but the jury is still out until we see some samples and some verified specifications.
 
Thanks Barry. Looks to perhaps be a nice complimentary camera to a S35 or FF camera, particularly for sports or fighting scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top