JVC BR-HD50U, Need some assistance...
 

I've determined that there is indeed noise being introduced into my BR-HD 50U when I use the S-Video or composite video in. I plan on sending the unit into JVC for servicing.

However, if anybody in the next day or two can do a simple test on their own BR-HD 50U it would be most appreciated.

Take a color bars signal from your camera (which should be running off of batteries for this test), and output the S-video signal (assuming your camera has S-video out) directly into your professional television monitor, the kind that has underscan, blue only, chroma clear, cross pulse, etc...you can use a composite signal as well.

If the color bar image is perfect on your television screen, then add the BR-HD50U between the camera and the professional monitor and see if the color bars looks identical to when the BR-HD50U was not being used.

Do you see any slight but visible thin lines of luminance picture noise? Or does the picture look perfect to you? It is important to use blue only or chroma clear when evaluating the color bars on the monitor for picture noise.

It's kind of useful if you can share your result no matter what your result is. If you have a perfect looking picture even when the BR HD-50 is connected, than I have hope that my deck will come back in that shape as well. If others are seeing the same anomaly as I am seeing, then it becomes an issue that perhaps can be rectified by JVC rather easily.

I'll try and do a test for later today.

I've gotten a confirmation from my own source that at least one panasonic lower cost dv / hd deck has the same deficiency when it comes to RF interference with the S-video input and the composite video input signal path. If I recall correctly both JVC and Panasonic have the same parent company.

What makes this issue tough to deal with is the digital inputs and outputs are probably fine. So why should panasonic or jvc care that they made their lowest cost deck with analog input problems as long as the digital aspect of it correct?

For the money, the decks offer a lot. But it still seems ethically questionable to sell something that offers certain components that actually are not up to spec. I would rather JVC and panasonic NOT include analog inputs and outputs on their decks if they can't make them be up to a decent spec.

In this situation, analog becomes the whipping boy. Somebody sees the noise in the analog input connectors and the thought process would be "Oh, that's just inferior analog" when what has really happened is the manufacturers packed a lot into their decks and in the process compromised some of the features.

Sony decks do not produce the same issues on the analog inputs, but they cost more money. In a way, this is not fair to Sony. My point is, the manufacturers can sell whatever they want to sell, but don't put something on the deck that is not being supported.

I was told I was the first one to point out this problem on the JVC deck, but then I call my contact and this contact immediately gets all pissed off and tells me that they have a panasonic lower cost deck that also has analog input issues.

JVC may try to make this right, if they officially agree there is a problem, so I'll cross my fingers that they care enough. In the meantime, I've delayed someone's documentary project by not being able to deliver a clean enough
mini-dv dub from a very clean betacam sp camera master.

And the time I lost troubleshooting to make sure I tried many many many combinations to make sure something else was or was not causing the problem is time I can't get back. JVC local in the U.S. has done an excellent job working with me. But my pre-doom and gloom has to do with finding out that Panasonic has the same issues and they both have the same parent company. Between the two companies, SOMEBODY had to know about this issue.

I see what you mean. I tested the composite I/O of the deck and it is a bit noisy. Composite though is a terrible signal to begin with and in this case its only used for what ends up on a DV tape, so I'm not really concerned, its kind a of a moot point since when looking at footage like you normally do without just the blue gun, it passes through just fine for me and none of my clients have complained.

The Sony deck I had before was noisy just like this on its composite I/O, but it wasn't the highest end sony deck of course.


For me this is not a problem, because most everything I do uses component or SDI and the signal there is top notch.

Like I said, divide and conquer. Most people will only care if their purposes are being met while not realizing the bigger picture is that not all options being offered on a hardware video device are actually within in spec. This rather basic concept is being lost in the digital age, and that's probably not a good thing.

I'm most concerned about the S-Video input, which can be a very clean signal and an acceptable compromise when component analog is not available. So the composite aspect you tested is just a small part. But your rationalization, while valid for your purposes, may haunt you down the road when a client wants a simple dub made, perhaps with a window burn, can all that be done digitally nowadays or does one need the analog ports to do a window burn?

The Sony DSR series seem to be very clean when it comes to the analog in and out ports.

CRT technology is still used to do color correction, even for HD projects. On the one hand, many are having issues hot swapping fire wire, on the other hand, it's OK if the analog inputs and outputs are well below spec???

Better the connections not be offered than be offered at an inferior spec. To sum it up, you agree with me, but so what.

Divide and conquer baby, divide and conquer.

why would they care if a window burn had a little composite analog noise in it?
The point there is for offline paper editing.


I do understand where your'e coming from and if I did a lot of freelance, I'd definitely want s-video working right because I would have equipment that would use that. So in that case I would sell the deck and get the sony. case closed.

In my production facility we NEVER use s-video and seldom ever use composite, so in THAT case its not an issue really.

I disagree. Some clients would freak out if they are handed anything in which they might notice any kind of picture degradation unless, it was an obvious low rez copy of an offline edit. But even then, some clients still get nervous.

I realize now my window burn example is not a good one because the decks actually playback the analog signals fine, what they don't do as well is record an analog signal to digital.

Anybody want to buy a nice looking JVC BR-HD50U? 120 total hours on it, never left my studio and its already had its firmware updated. Three hundred bucks off of what a new one costs at B&H and I'll throw in both power supplies. The second power supply cost me over a hundred bucks. I actually like this JVC unit quite a bit, however I have a betacam sp stock footage library that I wanted to make available in digital video and I would never in good conscience use this deck to make a betacam sp to digital video copy unless the analog to digital transcoder issue is corrected. If JVC can correct this issue, than I wouldn't sell it even if somebody was willing to pay what a new one goes for.

So all your scopes are digital?

Both, but not sure what your point is.

Maybe it doesn't matter whether your scopes are digital or analog input based, however I'm surprised you don't think it is an issue that the analog to digital transcoder is not up to spec in both lower cost panasonic and jvc digital decks.

What if a client gives you home video footage and you need to uprez it to digital. What if the vhs, 8mm, super-8 vhs or hi-8 footage is actually clean to begin with but your record deck is adding RF noise. Do you really think that won't upset some clients? Especially if those artifacts become really noticeable on a 50 inch television set. What if it's for broadcast?

At some point, a higher end client may question your integrity if you try and explain away a problem that you knew about yet brushed aside as not important. Now, I'm talking higher end client here. If you are happy only dealing with people who don't know enough to appreciate your good work and what it takes to keep it that way, then yes, don't worry about inferior analog to digital transcoding. But if every now and then you get a really well known, prestigious client, do you really want to subject them to the level of quality that is acceptable to those who only care about the money they spend and care less about the quality? If a prestigious client handed you a home movie transfer that they want incorporated into their wedding video or documentary for television and it's obvious they spent money making high quality film to tape transfer a few years ago, you would be reduced to hoping they don't notice the artifacts being induced by your state of the art digital facility.

But hey, lets just blame analog and call it a day.

Broadcast people really get offended when they are handed a tape for broadcast with built in RF noise because if they broadcast it, it may be perceived that they added the noise in by those watching their channel. Broadcast stations are constantly trying to drive their budgets down specifically to remain competitive with other forms of competition that don't seem too concerned with quality control. I don't know which sony decks you claim have inferior analog to digital transcoding but the DSR-40 looked pretty good to me.

Like I said, It's not an issue "for me" and the workflow I employ the deck for.

Sounds like you should get a new deck and be done with it.

Which gets back to "divide and conquer". As long as a device does what the majority want it to do, who cares if others who use the decks can't get what they need out of it. Divide the digital deck into making the part that is the most used work correctly, but then the part that is used less can have less than a standard minimal quality control because most people won't care, "divide and conquer" the masses a little bit at a time.

Ironically, the information I shared about how to play back the BR-HD50U in LP mode specifically came about because the JVC deck has analog to digital conversion capability so I pursued am LP playback solution and found one, and shared it on this forum. When people who are willing to share their knowledge with others don't get supported in return because the next issue isn't of concern to others, it eventually breaks the chain of sharing information and makes it an every person for themselves world.