JVC 3 Chip HDV 24 Frame Progressive Camcorder at NAB! at DVinfo.net

Christopher C. Murphy · April 11th, 2004, 07:42 PM

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...r-04_09_04.htm

It's official, but I don't have $20,000! Does anyone have any extra cash I can borrow?

Murph

Frank Granovski · April 11th, 2004, 09:46 PM

It can't be a MPEG2 cam for that kind of money, can it?

Heath McKnight · April 12th, 2004, 08:38 AM

mpeg2 is a cheap alternative; my HD10 was only $3000 (price has dropped since then). Too bad I don't use the HD10 much anymore...Mostly because of my new job as a teacher.

If this turns out to be true, we can count on other companies, like Sony and Canon, to follow suit and make it cheaper.

heath

Imran Zaidi · April 12th, 2004, 11:31 AM

I didn't realize that JVC is also a Matsushita company. That kind of stuff really peeves me for some reason. One company competing with the other, consumers throwing dollars at one or the other, getting wooed from one to the other after being taunted by one's newer product then the other's then the other's... meanwhile all the money is going into the same pocket.

Competition is good for consumers. But this type of contrived competition borders on consumer manipulation, if you ask me.

Sorry for the digression.

Ken Hodson · April 12th, 2004, 11:35 AM

"It can't be a MPEG2 cam for that kind of money, can it?"

Well its not going to be mpeg4 yet. What do you want it to be?

Ken

Ignacio Rodriguez · April 12th, 2004, 11:45 AM

With luck, they might have managed to cram 1920x1080 (real HD ITU 709 resolution) onto DV tape thanks to the lower frame rate. Up to now, HDV has presented us with a maximum resolution of 1440x1080 for a 16:9 picture, rectangular pixels, just like anamorphic DV.

> It can't be a MPEG2 cam for that kind of money, can it?

Sure it can, if they up the data rate to something a little less-lossy like 50 Mbps. Would be really great if they do that on on standard DV tape, making the tape run a little faster... say at DVCAM speeds.

For that kind of money, it has to have an interchangeable lens system, that's for sure. Unfortunately nobody makes cheap lenses for those mounts yet, oh but we don't know what kind of lens mounts are used, do we? Lobby for it to use Canon SLR mounts, anyone? <grin>

Heath McKnight · April 12th, 2004, 12:34 PM

I'd hedge a bet that it's like their more advanced mini-dv cameras: no lens! But you can probably get one for free for a limited time, but who knows. A glass lens costs a lot of money!

heath

Lynne Whelden · April 13th, 2004, 06:34 AM

I think you're right. By the time this camera gets decked out with lens, viewfinder, and disc recorder it's probably over $40K.

April 11th, 2004, 07:42 PM	#1
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	JVC 3 Chip HDV 24 Frame Progressive Camcorder at NAB! http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...r-04_09_04.htm It's official, but I don't have $20,000! Does anyone have any extra cash I can borrow? Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

April 12th, 2004, 08:38 AM	#3
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	mpeg2 is a cheap alternative; my HD10 was only $3000 (price has dropped since then). Too bad I don't use the HD10 much anymore...Mostly because of my new job as a teacher. If this turns out to be true, we can count on other companies, like Sony and Canon, to follow suit and make it cheaper. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

April 12th, 2004, 11:35 AM	#5
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"It can't be a MPEG2 cam for that kind of money, can it?" Well its not going to be mpeg4 yet. What do you want it to be? Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

April 12th, 2004, 11:45 AM	#6
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	With luck, they might have managed to cram 1920x1080 (real HD ITU 709 resolution) onto DV tape thanks to the lower frame rate. Up to now, HDV has presented us with a maximum resolution of 1440x1080 for a 16:9 picture, rectangular pixels, just like anamorphic DV. > It can't be a MPEG2 cam for that kind of money, can it? Sure it can, if they up the data rate to something a little less-lossy like 50 Mbps. Would be really great if they do that on on standard DV tape, making the tape run a little faster... say at DVCAM speeds. For that kind of money, it has to have an interchangeable lens system, that's for sure. Unfortunately nobody makes cheap lenses for those mounts yet, oh but we don't know what kind of lens mounts are used, do we? Lobby for it to use Canon SLR mounts, anyone? <grin> __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

April 12th, 2004, 12:34 PM	#7
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I'd hedge a bet that it's like their more advanced mini-dv cameras: no lens! But you can probably get one for free for a limited time, but who knows. A glass lens costs a lot of money! heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

April 11th, 2004, 09:46 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	It can't be a MPEG2 cam for that kind of money, can it?

April 12th, 2004, 11:31 AM	#4
Imran Zaidi Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 1,315	I didn't realize that JVC is also a Matsushita company. That kind of stuff really peeves me for some reason. One company competing with the other, consumers throwing dollars at one or the other, getting wooed from one to the other after being taunted by one's newer product then the other's then the other's... meanwhile all the money is going into the same pocket. Competition is good for consumers. But this type of contrived competition borders on consumer manipulation, if you ask me. Sorry for the digression.

April 13th, 2004, 06:34 AM	#8
Lynne Whelden Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: williamsport, pa Posts: 604	I think you're right. By the time this camera gets decked out with lens, viewfinder, and disc recorder it's probably over $40K.