Uncompressed signal out .. what does it mean ?

[Mediacre]

The Panasonic wil offer the same type of output that the other cameras offer.

Best,

jan

Yeah, but with a fixed lens

That's basically what's attracting people to the JVC. The professional form factor, the exchangeable lens and the much better looks.

 

[fomoDVXpal]

The exchangeable lens will easily sway buyers.

Looks can be forgiven.

Uncompressed SDI will bring high-end customers.

Shoulder mount will accommodate news, documentary and event videographers.

Sad but true: specs may be great but practicality wins overall.

 

[Barry_Green]

Exactly my point -- practicality will triumph.

And when people see that they can only shoot 30p, not 60p, they'll probably find that it's not practical for live events, news, conventions, reality TV, all sorts of types of shooting.

Then when they find that the lens is a $1300 "HD" lens, they'll have to consider how "practical" it is to upgrade that lens to the other option, which costs over $12,000 by itself. All of a sudden, to have an HD-caliber lens, you're talking about a $17,000 purchase. That still won't shoot 60p or 60i.

I think it may do well for documentaries, where the 30p or 24p look would be appropriate. I don't think the footage is going to work for news and event videographers, whether the camera's mounted on someone's shoulder or not. It's not practical to shoot those types of footage at a 30p or 24p-only frame rate.

I wish them the best, but I am horribly disappointed that they didn't include 60p, and I'm still puzzled as to why not -- obviously the imager runs at 60fps, and the HDV spec provides for 60p. They just didn't do it.

In the end, specs are specs, and people's perception of practicality will be answered once they have it in their hands, but the footage is what they should be basing their decision on. It'll be months before we see footage from either camera.

 

[fomoDVXpal]

"Then when they find that the lens is a $1300 "HD" lens, "


Did you mean the lens is NOT an HD lens?

The only upside you mention is that 60p is important. it may be, but here in Australia it's not...I’ve yet to hear much about it. Does it get shown much in the States? Or is it 60i?

I think wedding video guys will be happy with HDV, as it's probably very convenient. Plus the shoulder mount! I can't imagine the hard disk nightmares at 60p for prosumers.

 

[Barry_Green]

It is classified as a "ProHD" lens. The question is, how good can it be, at a valuation of $1295? That's less expensive than Canon sells its 16x manual SD lens for the XL2.

It may be phenomenal, for all we know. But the DV500 was also released with a bundled inexpensive Fujinon, and it was easily the weakest component in the whole package.

The only upside you mention is that 60p is important. it may be, but here in Australia it's not...I’ve yet to hear much about it. Does it get shown much in the States? Or is it 60i?

There is no 60i, and no 60p, no 50i and no 50p. What I'm saying is, you cannot shoot the "reality" look with the camera (for some incomprehensible reason, they left that capability off). Obviously people aren't understanding how important this is, so let me put it this way: you've seen how people whine and gripe about DVX footage, saying it "stutters"? ALL footage from the JVC will "stutter" the same way, because it has no provision for the glass-smooth "reality" look that you get from 60p or 60i. It just doesn't have it. Granted it has a "motion smoothing" filter, which actually films at 60p (or 50p) but instead of recording that, it instead blends two frames together, converting 60p into a frame-blended 30p, and 50p into a frame-blended 25p. Near as I can tell, that'll result in the look of 30p with a 1/30 shutter speed, or 25p with a 1/25 shutter speed. Think of it as kind of like "reverse CineFrame".

I guess in all the hubbub, people aren't paying attention to this. They're looking at the NAB booth, where they're *not* seeing footage from tape, they're seeing 24p or 30p or 60p out the analog outputs. And because of that, they think it's fine. But when they find out there's no 60p after they've bought it, I think they're going to be pi$$ed.

And mind you, I'm not talking about HDV here, none of this has anything to do with HDV, it's just the specific frame rates they chose to include (or, more curiously, about the one vital frame rate they chose to exclude).

We'll see how people react once the first users get it. Expect there to be a whole lot of posts saying "WAIT A MINUTE... HOW COME I CAN'T SHOOT 'VIDEO' WITH THIS THING?" and "I went to shoot a segment for our news station, but they won't broadcast it because they say it's too "jittery", etc.

 

[joelnet]

I wish them the best, but I am horribly disappointed that they didn't include 60p, and I'm still puzzled as to why not -- obviously the imager runs at 60fps, and the HDV spec provides for 60p. They just didn't do it.

Hmmm... I'm kinda guessing it might be easier for JVC to add 60P at this point than it will be for panasonic to make P2 cards bigger and cheaper or make their tape drive record in HD.

If JVC adds 60P don't they win event videographers over P2?

I think when JVC came in at $6250 MSRP instead of $10k they pulled a head fake that really stole Panasonic's thunder at this NAB. I walked into NAB "knowing" I was getting the Panny, I walked out saying... damn that $6k JVC was awesome and they had 10 of them on the floor working. And the side by side against their $100,000 cam was impressive.

JVC stole the show for anyone actually there to compare those cameras because they had a bunch of working units on the floor. Sony came off looking good. I was really impressed by what I saw at their booth. And reflecmedia was using the component out of the Sony to do live keying at their booth. I'm sure you saw that, and it looked great.

I do think Jan will have time to make the HVX200 the best video quality camera on the market when it hits the street and that'll be worth a lot. But Sony and JVC aren't in a vacuum. What are they up to right now? Will we see a very quick upgrade cycle? I'd bet on it.

 

[Aaron Koolen]

Regarding the "HD"ness of the lens, can we really assume that the Panasonic lens will be any better than the JVC. The HVX will be a cam in the same price range, the lens can't really be that high end can it? Or does making it a fixed lens mean we can get vastly superior quality for the same price?

Just curious cause I've seen a few people state that the JVC lens must be pretty bad for an under 10K HD camera, without mentioning why the HVX would be any better.

Aaron

 

[Barry_Green]

Hmmm... I'm kinda guessing it might be easier for JVC to add 60P at this point than it will be for panasonic to make P2 cards bigger and cheaper or make their tape drive record in HD.

If JVC adds 60P don't they win event videographers over P2?

Oh, definitely it would be easier to shoot longform events on ProHD. Whether the footage holds up is one question, but for ease of use, I'd say yes, the longform event shooter will have an easier time. If they just add 60p, they overcome 90% of my objection to the camera.

I do think Jan will have time to make the HVX200 the best video quality camera on the market when it hits the street and that'll be worth a lot. But Sony and JVC aren't in a vacuum. What are they up to right now? Will we see a very quick upgrade cycle? I'd bet on it.

I don't know about that... I mean, it depends on what you mean by "quick". Most manufacturers (other than Canon) seem to be working on about a three-year cycle. Three years from the VX1000 to the VX2000, three years from the VX2000 to the FX1. Three years from the DVX to the HVX. How long was the DV500 out? I'll bet it was three years. Canon seems stuck in a much longer cycle, but everyone else replaces in about three years. So you might see a response from Sony and JVC in 2008. They'll all have bigger, more expensive shoulder-mount 2/3" versions sooner, probably next year, but in this price range, it'll be years before there are replacements (if past patterns are any indication of future actions).

 

[joelnet]

JVC lens must be pretty bad for an under 10K HD camera, without mentioning why the HVX would be any better

Good point. All I can say is it looked pretty good to me on the HD monitors. The Sony looked great at their booth too. I think modern optical engineering and manufacturing is capable of pretty amazing things so I'm not really suprised.

35mm print lenses have been resolving beyond HD for a long time. (OK, I know there are breathing issues when zooming etc. - but still Nikon and Canon have great lenses relatively cheap)

We're adding manufacturing volume so that should drive the price of high quality lenses down, right?

We may simply be looking at lenses that compete well with lenses from 5 years ago that are 10 times the price. Or I might be full of it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Regarding the "HD"ness of the lens, can we really assume that the Panasonic lens will be any better than the JVC. The HVX will be a cam in the same price range, the lens can't really be that high end can it? Or does making it a fixed lens mean we can get vastly superior quality for the same price?

Remains to be seen. The point people are making is that the cheapest fully-manual, professional-style HD lens out there is probably the new $12,000 Fujinon 3.5 wide-angle. B&H carries a couple of 2/3" high-def lenses, one's $27,000 and the other's $65,000.

Even a standard-def broadcast lens can run easily $4,000 to $8,000.

So the question is, how much of a "professional, interchangeable, fully manual, high-def" lens can you expect for a value of $1295? When you compare it against other products that supposedly fit that same category, well, people are naturally concerned.

As to how a fixed-lens camera can compare, I don't know, we'll find out when we test 'em. The FX1/Z1/HD1/HD10 all have fixed HD lenses, and they deliver HD footage... and the FX1 is down to almost $3,000 street price... that doesn't necessarily mean anything, as the JVC may smoke all of 'em. We'll have to see.

I'm not specifically knocking the lens, I'm saying that there are concerns about it: concerns that may be alleviated, or validated, once we test it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Good point. All I can say is it looked pretty good to me on the HD monitors. The Sony looked great at their booth too. I think modern optical engineering and manufacturing is capable of pretty amazing things so I'm not really suprised.

35mm print lenses have been resolving beyond HD for a long time. (OK, I know there are breathing issues when zooming etc. - but still Nikon and Canon have great lenses relatively cheap)

We're adding manufacturing volume so that should drive the price of high quality lenses down, right?

We may simply be looking at lenses that compete well with lenses from 5 years ago that are 10 times the price. Or I might be full of it.

Actually, I think those are all good points. Especially about manufacturing volume.

Gotta test it to know.

 

[joelnet]

Three years from the DVX to the HVX.

I guess I'm looking at the still camera market - which is a little quicker. My thinking is IF (big IF) they can use the same HD design and drop the latest CCD in THEN we may see some quick upgrades.

If not - then I think you're right. We might be waiting 3 years as you say.

This has just been such a dramatic year with the under $10k HD cameras and camera like that $50k tapeless Ikegami coming out. Really seems like quantum leaps are happening right now. A lot of forces are coming together to drive HD.

I really appreciate you staying on top of this stuff for us at NAB. I know I was pretty overwhelmed going through it all.

 

[Gibby]

See my new thread post a few minutes ago for a Fujinon engineers take on the 1/2" and 1/3" lenses used on the HD100. Anyone who is already putting down the T16x5.5 lens on the HD100 needs to go to the JVC booth and take a long look at the images in the HD monitors over the cameras. Granted it is uncompressed analog component 720p60 at 4:2:2 that is piped into the monitors, but after spending alot of time tickering with the cameras at the booth, It is apparent that no matter how good the analog component output is, and how good the monitor is, the inexpensive 16x and the more expensive 13x do an outstanding job of resolving the images. I've looked at footage for 27 years now while editing TV programs, in SD, and more recently in HD. I shoot with HD900's and Varicams. I'm not saying the footage from the HD100, with either the 16x or the 13x lens matched an F900 or a Varicam, but it looks outstanding, and the "cheap" lenses resolve the images extremely well.

As for the camera not being any good for news, reality, sports, etc. I don't buy that either. I've produced, directed, edited, and shot over 700 national TV programs in exactly those genres. The 30p footage, FROM THE CAMERA, with motion filter applied, as demonstrated at the Lumiere HD space on FCP5, and at the Avel Link space, was SMOOTH. In my judgement, so far, footage from the HD100 at 30p with motion filter applied, with be easily smooth enough for televising sports, news, reality, etc. The uncompressed analog component out at 720p60, and 4:2:2, through an HD-SDI converter, which I personally verified through JVC engineers at the JVC NAB booth this morning, will be excellent for hardlining into Fox Sports and and ABC sports.

I'll probably purchase a few HD100's. I'll probably also buy a few HVX200's when they ship, because they both do different things. I'm brand agnostic. Whatever works best for the particular project is the one to use. After three straight days at NAB checking through tons of tech toys, including the HD100 in depth, I'm quite impressed with the camera, the technology, and the excellent images. When the HVX200 is operational, I'll chack it out just as close...

Gibby
www.cut4.tv

 

[joelnet]

I've looked at footage for 27 years now while editing TV programs, in SD, and more recently in HD. I shoot with HD900's and Varicams.

What's your take on the Sony HDV?

 

[Gibby]

I've shot with the Z1. I like it. If it is used right, the footage can be stunning. It has the MPEG2 resolution loss problems in fast pans, or with fast crossing movement. When I shoot with the Z1, I always shoot clean 1080i. In post we can then manipulate the footage as needed.

By this time next year I wouldn't be surprised if I own all three: a Z1, an HD100, and an HVX200. Each has pluses and minuses. Even though I do shoot with F900's and Varicams, I'm not hung up on the ego end of "I shoot high-end HD". I simply pull the arrow out of the quiver that is right for that particular project. If that is a smaller camera, that's fine with me. As long as I'm getting the "look and feel" that I'm after.

In answer to your question, I like the Z1. It's an excellent tool for the right project. That said, after three days of handling the HD100 at NAB, I am deeply impressed with the possibilities for the camera! Pro-style lenses give me more control over depth of field and other production issues. The Z1 and HVX200 don't give me that flexibility. I'm sure I'll buy all three though...

Gibby
www,cut4.tv

 

[Mediacre]

Regarding the "HD"ness of the lens, can we really assume that the Panasonic lens will be any better than the JVC. The HVX will be a cam in the same price range, the lens can't really be that high end can it? Or does making it a fixed lens mean we can get vastly superior quality for the same price?

Just curious cause I've seen a few people state that the JVC lens must be pretty bad for an under 10K HD camera, without mentioning why the HVX would be any better.

Aaron

Exactly. The HVX200 lens might not be any better At least with the HD100 you have the option of changing it. Renting it when you need a better lens. About 60p, if the negative buz is big enough about it, JVC might add it before release. I think it might be only a software adjustment. But the reason they might left it out is because the camera seems to be market for the indie filmmaking market.

 

[Mediacre]

Remains to be seen. The point people are making is that the cheapest fully-manual, professional-style HD lens out there is probably the new $12,000 Fujinon 3.5 wide-angle. B&H carries a couple of 2/3" high-def lenses, one's $27,000 and the other's $65,000.

I think the point is more like, the HVX200 probably won't be any better and you are stuck with it for good. At lest the JVC gives you an option. At least they give you a lens. They could be selling the body only for 6K. Or could have bundled a yack auto lens like canon doe with the XL2 and asked extra for a manual lens. At least they are selling it with a manual lens. That's another way to look at it.

So the question is, how much of a "professional, interchangeable, fully manual, high-def" lens can you expect for a value of $1295? When you compare it against other products that supposedly fit that same category, well, people are naturally concerned.

Well, for me the question really is, at least it is a fully manual lens and gives you the option to upgrade if you want too. The HVX200 might be the same level of glass and it will be a fixed auto lens. I mean, really, what people were expecting for a under 10K camera? Cookie digi-primes? I think complaining about the lens doesn't make much sense for me. As I said, at least JVC is giving a lens to shoot with till you have the cash to upgrade, if you ever need. I wish Panasonic would throw in a 4Gb P2 for k like JVC is throwing in the lens for 6K. Most important, they give you the option to upgrade. I wish Panasonic would have goe the same route. The lens is the strogest point in the HD100, so I thought that would be the last thing people would complain.

 

[fomoDVXpal]

Remains to be seen. The point people are making is that the cheapest fully-manual, professional-style HD lens out there is probably the new $12,000 Fujinon 3.5 wide-angle. B&H carries a couple of 2/3" high-def lenses, one's $27,000 and the other's $65,000.

Even a standard-def broadcast lens can run easily $4,000 to $8,000.

So the question is, how much of a "professional, interchangeable, fully manual, high-def" lens can you expect for a value of $1295? When you compare it against other products that supposedly fit that same category, well, people are naturally concerned.

or maybe the point is how badly have they been ripping us off!!

 

[joelnet]

or maybe the point is how badly have they been ripping us off!!

Yeah - I kinda think "pro" stuff is priced way higher than it needs to be because that market has less price elasticity. Also, who are you selling to? People that will get fired if the gear doesn't perform. Maybe today's shoot is costing $100k an hour. If they buy the "best" they are protected.

Now pro gear actually is better. BUT is it so much better as to justify ten times the price to the average viewer. By that I mean, when you're done with your project does it really generate that much more revenue BECAUSE you used a $30k lens instead of a $2K lens?

If you're filming "Gladiator" maybe so. At that point the lens cost is so small in comparison to the other 100 million you're spending that you may as well get the best. Which is exactly WHY those units can be sold for so much more. They are a tiny part of a very large budget.

When it gets down to brass tacks and you do side by side comparisons on a consumer HDTV I'm not sure most of our customers are going to see the difference. They are going to see our story unfold before them and hopefully be absorbed by that.

At NAB I saw that perfectly demonstrated at the JVC booth when they did a side by side with the $100k camera. Was there a difference? Yes! Was it huge. No way - I think the average non pro would think they both looked fine. This medium is about CONTENT (as Catwoman will remind us forever).

 

[Barry_Green]

Well, for me the question really is, at least it is a fully manual lens and gives you the option to upgrade if you want too.

Well, that's one way to look at it. But isn't the whole point of the JVC the lens? That's the part I'm having trouble with.

Let's assume the lenses were identical (both removable, in fact let's pretend the HVX came bundled with the identical same lens). Would anyone, anywhere, with any sense, be buying the JVC, at 4:2:0-only, 720-only, 24 & 30-only, 19-mbps-only, vs. the Panasonic at 4:2:2, 720-and-1080, interlace and progressive, 60i and 60p, and variable frame rates and 100mbps? No. As a body-only, the JVC is woefully underperforming the Panasonic, on specifications. So the whole reason the JVC has appeal at all is because of the interchangeable/manual lens, right?

And that lens is likely not a high-quality piece, given the price and the reputation of prior Fujinons bundled by JVC. That's an assumption, but it seems like a relatively safe one.

Granted it's interchangeable, but I expect a far, far, far smaller percentage of JVC users to interchange lenses than even XL1/XL2 users. At least a few users of the XL cameras actually bought optional lenses, because they were only $900 or $1200. With the JVC, the optional lens is $12,000. So yes, it's interchangeable, but as a practical, real-world matter, I'd expect 98% of JVC users will never interchange it.

Interchangeable is better -- don't let anyone misunderstand that. Obviously more options are better than fewer options, most definitely. But understand that by going with the JVC you're also sacrificing options. You'll never have autofocus (which, while frowned upon for dramatic/narrative work, can come in very handy during certain events etc). You won't have optical image stabilization (will you? I don't think it has OIS...) There are options you will not have because you chose that lens system, just as you won't have the option to interchange if you went with the HVX.

The HVX200 might be the same level of glass and it will be a fixed auto lens.

Okay, let's discuss this. It may or may not be the same level of glass, that's for testing to determine. But let's presume it is. How much of a disadvantage is the "auto" lens vs. the "manual lens"?

There are three degrees of control we're talking about: focus, zoom, and iris. First, the HVX is going to have fully-manual, cam-driven zoom control, which I will wager will at least match the zoom control on the $1295 Fujinon. It remains to be seen if it will, but I'm predicting it will. It has hard stops, it has barrel markings, it is servo driven.

Second, iris. Both cameras offer auto-iris, and they offer manual iris. The Fujinon has an iris ring, the Pansonic an iris dial. The Panasonic will likely have precision down to 1/6 stop increments, like the DVX does (although that remains to be seen, it seems reasonable to suppose that it will be comparable to its parent camera). What does the Fujinon offer? Is it in fixed steps, a stop at a time? Or fully variable? I don't know, I'm asking (I'll find out later today at the booth). And exactly what big difference does it make to spin a ring vs. spinning a dial -- I'm not being facetious, I'm asking when you get down to it, when you're working with it, is there really so much benefit to pulling the camera away from your eye, tilting it upwards so you can read the iris dial, rotating the dial to where you want it to be, then putting the camera back up to your eye... vs. just thumbing the iris wheel and reading the iris display on the viewfinder? Is it really a drawback, or just a different way of working that accomplishes the same thing? I've used both systems extensively, and frankly, it really doesn't make a whole hoot of difference to me. Either way I get exactly what I'm looking for.

Finally, focus. Everyone keeps asking about hard stops, as if somehow the presence of hard stops makes for a better focusing mechanism. First, I would question that -- exactly what about a hard stop makes you focus better? Anything? Didn't think so. You can spin a hard-stop focus ring to infinity and have it "lock", or you can spin a non-hard-stop focus ring and it'll hit infinity, and either way, you're at infinity. What did the hard-stop buy you, in a practical, real-world sense? And if it's so important to you to have that hard stop, you can get a focus ring from Century Precision Optics that adds hard stops.

So let's discuss repeatable focus. The DVX has 100% repeatable focus, and so would any broadcast lens. Presumably the HVX will have it as well (I'd go out on a limb and guarantee it, but that would be going out on a limb). You turn the ring to a certain spot, and the focus distance will be set to a certain distance, each and every time. You can do the gaffer-tape-the-stops trick and rack focus equally efficiently on the DVX and on a broadcast lens. It works. It's not like a PD150 with a vague servo ring, or the XL2's auto lens servo rings... that's not what we're talking about. The DVX focus ring provides concrete discrete repeatable focus. What benefit do you get from the "manual" lens over that? In a real-world, practical sense, I'd say none. Either system lets you precisely control focus.

So, the final question is, focus markings on the lens barrel. There will be zoom markings on the zoom barrel, so how about focus markings on the focus barrel? On the HVX there will likely be none. On the JVC, there will be. Is that "game, set and match" for the JVC? Well, let's discuss. You may have focus marks on the lens barrel on the JVC, but you will also have them in the viewfinder on the HVX. Want to set the focus to exactly 10 feet? Do it. On either camera. The HVX will report when it's at 10 feet, or the JVC's lens barrel marking will line up at 10 feet. Want to set it to 11 feet? On the HVX, you can. On the JVC, presumably you'll have markings at 10 feet and also at 15 feet, so you can sort of guess between the marks as to approximately where 11 feet will be, vs. on the HVX you can set it at exactly 11 feet (for example). Oh, and with the JVC, of course you'll have to pull the camera off your shoulder, turn it around, and look at the focus ring in order to dial in that 10 feet or 11 feet setting, whereas with the HVX, you can set it to precisely 10 feet (or whatever) while shooting.

So you do have precise focus marks on the HVX, just like on the JVC, except they're even *more* precise, and more user-friendly because they're in your face instead of printed on the lens barrel where you have to move the camera (or your head) to see 'em.

It's different, yes. It's new, and not the familiar old system, that's true. But which will be a more practical system to use, out in the field? Honestly? To me, based on specs, based on the paper, the HVX lens control seems the more flexible, the more usable in real-world circumstances. In manual mode it will do everything the JVC manual lens will do, perhaps in a different way, but with benefits to that different way. And on top of doing all that, it also adds the option of autofocus and image stabilization, two options you don't have and won't ever have with the JVC.

I'm not knocking broadcast lenses, obviously. I mean, duh. All I'm saying is, to dismiss the HVX's lens as "fully auto" is a woeful mischaracterization, and when using it in the field, I predict that it will prove just as useful, just as precise, just as controllable, just as repeatable as the JVC's.

But not interchangeable, true. But for giving up interchangeability, you get 1080/24p, 1080/30p, 1080/60i, 720/60p, variable frame rates, 4:2:2 color sampling, discrete frame compression instead of 19mbps MPEG compression, DVCPRO50 for DigiBeta-caliber standard-def recording, and all the other goodies the HVX gives you. Is that enough of a bonus to make up for not being able to interchange the lens (something that, I repeat, 98% of users will likely never do?) Obviously that's for the consumer to decide. I think there's merits to both approaches.