Is the camera useful for anything?
 

Reading all these posts makes me wonder what could the camera be good for? Weddings -- Sony PD150 is the best -- has lowest low light rating. Movies -- Panasonic DVX 100 is better -- has a lot better manual controls. HD1 and HD10 have too many bugs, too many shortcomings to make them usable for any kind of pro production. By the time everyone figures out how to overcome the shortcomings there will be a new HDV model from Sony or Canon. Sony is known to deliver finished systems and solutions -- and it owns Vegas Video, which gives it an edge. Canon has a similar reputation of delivering mature solutions.

I was thinking about buying this camcorder to make a short movie. Then I read Steve Mullen's note how much better is the picture on the new Panasonic's $25,000 SD camcorder than on the JVC's. So I'll just rent this 24 p Panasonic, or use the DVX 100. I'll buy HDV camcorder when a decent one becomes available. Lousy sound, no manual controls, bad lattitude, unusable editing software, strong edge enhancement on the consumer model, etc. Steve Mullen's report says that the chip does not provide full resolution nether vertically nor horizontally.

Does anyone know when will Sony or Canon come out with an HDV model? Is Panasonic planning to introduce an HDV model, or is the DVX so much better than the JVC that it has no reason to do so? Does anyone know if the new anamorphic lens for the DVX 100 is already available from Century Optics?

Am I missing something? Can someone explain to me why should I buy the camcorder now? Is anyone making any money with this camera? Does anyone consider this camera a good investment? Does anyone know what is the reliability of this camera? Does anyone know how do Consumer Reports rate JVC DV cameras for reliability? Is JVC planning on releasing an improved HDV model? Does anyone know anything about the new optical HD DVD format? It seems that it would be an ideal camcorder format.

Resolution Resolution Resolution!
 

If you have time to wait then it may be a good idea to wait. If you want to get a jump on HD then go now. The camera is far from perfect but if your willing to learn and work with it, bang for the buck it simply cannot be beat. If your goal is big screen 60” up then there is no comparison. I compared some demos I downloaded from the web from a Panasonic DVX 100 and the difference was huge. Yes the JVC’s have very narrow amount of latitude range but if you are willing to work, it blows away the DVX 100 in terms of resolution. If you are shooting wedding for viewing on 32” monitor then the Panasonic may be a better choice because of better manual image control and low light sensitivity but for the big screen the JVC rules. I was also very impressed on the SD anamorphic output from this camera. If you do get the anamorphic lens for the Panasonic it would bring out much more resolution but my guess that option will not come cheap.

Re: Resolution Resolution Resolution!
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Eby : If you do get the anamorphic lens for the Panasonic it would bring out much more resolution but my guess that option will not come cheap. -->>>

You can add as many things infront of the lens as you like it's not going to change the resolution. Resolution is a function of the CCD, not the glass.

As to Christopher's post, this type of post is best describe as a post from a troll.

Trolls are guys who look to stir up trouble, start fights on forums and generally have litle or no interest in the subject (in this case camera).

They either can't afford one, wouldn't know what to do with one, or ......

It's best to avoid responding.

DBK

Re: Re: Resolution Resolution Resolution!
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Darren Kelly : <<<-- Originally posted
You can add as many things infront of the lens as you like it's not going to change the resolution. Resolution is a function of the CCD, not the glass.


True, but I think he was saying to use the anamorphic lens in effect use the entire area of the CCD on 16:9 widescreen applications and create an anamorphic squeeze on the image, that in affect does improve the resolution although marginal at best.

Mike

No it doesn't.

Resolution is determined by the chip size.

Squeezing the image, as you say will not change the number of pixels the ccd is capable of seeing.

The JVC HDVcams have more resolution because they record a frame size that is 1280X720. It is higher than 720X480.

Sony HDCAM natively shoots in 1080, which is again more resolution than 720, which is more resolution than 480.

Now, once again, a lens adapter does not change simple physics or mathmatics.

DBK

Darren,
You are absolutely correct about a 720X480 CCD. What I am saying if you are shooting in 16:9 widescreen mode on a 720X480 CCD you are not using the full 480 pixels. You have black bars on the top and bottom of the image and waste about 1/3 of the CCD. With an anamorphic lens it stretches the image and you shoot in normal 4:3 mode the image looks stretched, then in post you squeeze the image back to a 16:9 aspect ratio. This is very common practice for widescreen DVD’s that are 16:9 enhanced. The 16:9 image is stretched to fill all 480 lines then the 16:9 TV has a squeeze mode that squeezes the image back to a 16:9 aspect ratio and you have more effective pixels. That being said its still only 480 pixels.

I am a big believer in the HD10/HD1 camera and as I said in my original post for the money you can’t beat for large screen applications, it just that simple.

Mike

Darren Kelly says:
>>>You can add as many things infront of the lens as you like it's not going to change the resolution. Resolution is a function of the CCD, not the glass. As to Christopher's post, this type of post is best describe as a post from a troll. Trolls are guys who look to stir up trouble, start fights on forums and generally have litle or no interest in the subject (in this case camera). They either can't afford one, wouldn't know what to do with one, or ......<<<

Reply:
1. Couple of world leaders said in the past "you're either with us or against us". So if I do not think that this camera is suitable for me to purchase and I name some of the reasons, which are all true, and ask for opinion, then I am a troll. If I am a troll, which of the two leaders do you, Darren, identify yourself with?
2. Of course anamorphic adaptor increases resolutuion substantially if your CCD is 4:3 and project 16:9.

Attention guys, an anamorphic adapter does not (as Darren stated) increase physical resolution in a sense since the chip still has the same pixel count. But it does increase the image's vertical resolution because the number of pixels used for a 16:9 image (vertically) change dramatically: for example, a 640X480 3:4 chip would store a 16:9 portion of the image as 360 vert lines by 640 horizontal lines, 1/4th of the CCD (120 lines) is useless (vertically). Now with an anamorphic adaptor you do not increase resolution of the CCD but you increase vertical resolution for a 16:9 image to 480 since the whole 3:4 chip will record one squeezed 16:9 image, you end up adding the lost 1/4th of the CCD resolution without performing a vertical upconversion.

As for Christopher multiple questions I will answer this: I tried and tested the HD10. I personnaly know what I can do with it and what I intend to do with it. I became a believer. Whatever response we would tell you does not change the fact that you should try it first and see. I don't know how you can affirm a DVX100 is better for movies just because it has better manual controls without having tested the blowup chain with both. Nobody can give straight answers to your questions because we are not you, everybody has different needs/uses for their material.

Christopher,

I don't personally care if you like or dislike the camera. I know what it will do and I know how to make money with it.

Post that begin like yours are not looking for advice or help, they are looking to start a battle. I didn't count, but you posted about 20 negative questions. Why would you think anyone would want to respond to someone as negative about the camera as you are. This is the sign of a troll.

Forums like this encourage open discission and I think thats great. Mostly I like to think of them as places people can go for assistance on using the tools, etc.

Like Eric said, you know nothing until you have spent some time with the camera, which you did not indicate you have.

As to which leader I align myself with? I'm Canadian. You can take what you want with that comment.

DBK

Re: Is the camera useful for anything?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Christopher Toderman :

1. Reading all these posts makes me wonder what could the camera be good for?

It's great for anything you want to take the time and care to shoot properly

2. Does anyone know when will Sony or Canon come out with an HDV model?

No

3. Is Panasonic planning to introduce an HDV model, or is the DVX so much better than the JVC that it has no reason to do so?

Ask Panasonic

4. Does anyone know if the new anamorphic lens for the DVX 100 is already available from Century Optics?

Not me. Ask Century Optics

5. Am I missing something?

Probably

6. Can someone explain to me why should I buy the camcorder now?

No

7. Is anyone making any money with this camera?

Yes

8. Does anyone consider this camera a good investment?

Yes

9. Does anyone know what is the reliability of this camera?

Hasn't let me down in 3 weeks?


10. Does anyone know how do Consumer Reports rate JVC DV cameras for reliability?

No. Is that important? They don't have a rating for Sony Cinealta Camera either.

11. Is JVC planning on releasing an improved HDV model?

Ask JVC

12. Does anyone know anything about the new optical HD DVD format?

Not me


DBK

Just a small note: Adding glass does NOT increase image quality - it only introduces new possibilities using different aspect ratios. We sometimes confuse "image quality" and "resolution". They are two different things. You can easily fool the eye and the mind into thinking that a 480p image is of better quality/sharpness/color depth than a 1080p image. Quality is first and foremost in the glass and in sampling and compression. 4:4:4 and 1:1 compression is of greater importance than pixel aspect ratio in a post situation. About 16x9 adapters; The gain in not having to use faux 16x9 is nothing compared to the loss of putting a thick piece of oval cut glass in front of the one you already have on. There is not a glass in the world that will increase quality of anything if it's not the only glass on the camera. Anamorphic adapters is VERY hard to focus on 1/3" CCD's and they are FAR from zoom thru. You can really only use the widest end of your zoom. Expect to be forced to use a "sharpness" plugin from time to time in your NLE. I know I do using the Optex (less vignetting than the pricey Century) on my PD150P. Believe me; I have learned this the hard way.