what am I missing?
- Thread starter brianluce
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Why would anybody buy it? Because it's the first 24P HD camera under $70,000. Sure appears to have growing pains, but by the time the issues are sorted out it could turn out to be a very nice little camera. Of course, if they take too long to fix the issues, it will lose a lot of the lead time it was going to have against the HVX, so there's obviously a limited window of opportunity.
But if you need high-def and interchangeable lenses, there are no other options. If you need to shoot an hour on tape in HD/24p, there are no other options. There's a market slot for the camera. It's just up to JVC to make sure that the camera performs.
But if you need high-def and interchangeable lenses, there are no other options. If you need to shoot an hour on tape in HD/24p, there are no other options. There's a market slot for the camera. It's just up to JVC to make sure that the camera performs.
Why wouldn't anyone want it? Even if yoiu don't like the HD, it still seems an incredible compact professional SD camcorder for its price. An XL2 with all the design flaws filtered out... albeit somewhat more expensive - twice the price - , but hey, you already have a pro 16x lens, what would cost an extra 1000 on the XL2....
You have to remember though that the camcorder is a 17Watt power consumer, so the ability to use consumer-grade-batteries is rather a gimmick. Add to the price of the JVC another 1500 or more for a battery-kit (as with all pro-camcorders)...
You have to remember though that the camcorder is a 17Watt power consumer, so the ability to use consumer-grade-batteries is rather a gimmick. Add to the price of the JVC another 1500 or more for a battery-kit (as with all pro-camcorders)...
Jaime Valles
Veteran
brianluce said:
I agree completely. Seems like this is one of those cameras that are great on paper, but simply cannot provide the results a lot of us were expecting. I understand that the camera is cheap compared to most HD cameras, and I'm not expecting Varicam or CineAlta quality out of the thing. But I DO expect a clean, usable HD image. If most all user reports so far include the strange split-screen effect, dead pixels, aberrations, and dropouts... It just doesn't seem like a trustworthy camera. I really wanted this to be a great success, but with problems like these, I can't see how it will be. Sure, it fills a niche... but if it can't perform without these problems, then it DOESN't really fill the niche, because it's fairly useless.
Unless they figure out a way to fix all this, I see no point in buying the HD100. :thumbdown
Nate Weaver
Veteran
What are you missing?
Maybe the perspective provided by viewing some footage yourself? From your post it sounds like you haven't seen anything on a proper viewing device...if you had, you'd understand why somebody WOULD want the camera, even if it does have a few warts.
[edit: I just realized this may sound harsh. I'm not trying to be, I was just giving the question an honest answer.]
Maybe the perspective provided by viewing some footage yourself? From your post it sounds like you haven't seen anything on a proper viewing device...if you had, you'd understand why somebody WOULD want the camera, even if it does have a few warts.
[edit: I just realized this may sound harsh. I'm not trying to be, I was just giving the question an honest answer.]
Zack Birlew
Veteran
Ummmm, Barry, I don't remember if you went to NAB 05', but didn't the test footage on the screens look fine? I remember the demo units shooting fantastic stuff and not having these weird image problems people have been experiencing. I don't know about dead pixels though, I don't look for those things unless they're noticeable but the stills I've been looking at are pretty noticeable! What do you think could have happened?
Barry_Green
Moderator
At NAB things looked fantastic. What could have happened? Well, keep in mind that at NAB the only way to see what the cameras were outputting was on little 13" (I think they were 13") monitors high overhead. No close examination possible. I have no doubt the dead pixels and split-screen were happening, but at the small viewing size and distance from the monitors, it was impossible to see.
The difference is that now we have the cameras in our hands, now we have the ability to examine the footage in detail, now we can see exactly what's going on. So I don't think there's anything different other than how we can view the footage.
I still have high hopes. I think the dead pixels can be worked around, I think Ken Freed already said as much on another forum that there is a masking procedure. Someone's said the split-screen effect can be fixed with a firmware update (is this true? don't know, but hoping). The lens -- I don't think there's a thing that can be done for the lens, but at least you can remove it and use something else!
I'm willing to call the issues "warts", as Nate said, rather than "disaster", as brian said. Growing pains. There's some great potential here, hopefully they can just smooth out the rough spots and get us a good, solid, reliable product.
But: if it turns out the dead pixels aren't fixable/maskable, then the product is dead in the water. That's one that's just not forgivable. So while I have hope, I'd love to hear direct confirmation from somebody official, as soon as possible. There are already many cameras out in the field with dead pixels, so there are plenty of customers who would be plenty willing to be the guinea pig to try the process. Hopefully we'll hear reports soon from someone who's learned the procedure and applied it.
The difference is that now we have the cameras in our hands, now we have the ability to examine the footage in detail, now we can see exactly what's going on. So I don't think there's anything different other than how we can view the footage.
I still have high hopes. I think the dead pixels can be worked around, I think Ken Freed already said as much on another forum that there is a masking procedure. Someone's said the split-screen effect can be fixed with a firmware update (is this true? don't know, but hoping). The lens -- I don't think there's a thing that can be done for the lens, but at least you can remove it and use something else!
I'm willing to call the issues "warts", as Nate said, rather than "disaster", as brian said. Growing pains. There's some great potential here, hopefully they can just smooth out the rough spots and get us a good, solid, reliable product.
But: if it turns out the dead pixels aren't fixable/maskable, then the product is dead in the water. That's one that's just not forgivable. So while I have hope, I'd love to hear direct confirmation from somebody official, as soon as possible. There are already many cameras out in the field with dead pixels, so there are plenty of customers who would be plenty willing to be the guinea pig to try the process. Hopefully we'll hear reports soon from someone who's learned the procedure and applied it.