Give JVC and their Lens a break - It passed a tough test - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems
GY-HD 100 & 200 series ProHD HDV camcorders & decks.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 2nd, 2005, 05:02 PM   #16
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Hello Graeme.

At JVC, I have made contact with a very nice gentlemen named Ken Freed. Ken has been answering questions when I need them. I called him today. The MTF for the Fujinon lens is in the HD MTF specs.

I have worked with 60fps material 15 years ago. At Showscan, a 65mm 60fps format, if you don't have it right, it will be obvious very quickly at 60P.

The NAB display of 4:2:2 uncompressed at 60P on CRT was the best to see if a lens is going to fail. The next step would be on an optical bench.

That's my point, this lens achieves well beyond what it critics say.

The bi-product of JVC's NAB display of their new HD camera was the lens was getting it's butt put on the line with regards to going out to the CRT's like that. It recieved amazing feedback about the live image on CRT. That says a lot about the removable lens.

michael pappas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress
Michael - I'd love it if you can get together any facts on the MTF of SD, HD and particularly the lenses in question as it would make for some very interesting reading.

Graeme
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 06:02 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 704
"The lens did very well under the scrutiny of being displayed in 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive CRT settings."

I'm with you 100% on that Michael, I wasn't trying to refute anything you said. I only wanted to clarify your point on the signal...I thought some people might read your original post and take away from it that the HD100 could record 4:2:2 uncompressed to tape. Just trying to avoid a misunderstanding.

I think you're right, the best way to show off the lens is to use the best and cleanest signal possible.
__________________
Luis Caffesse
Pitch Productions
Austin, Texas
Luis Caffesse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 06:10 PM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 853
My question is.....why are "reps" here anyhow? and why are they hellbent on dissin'g other competitors to make their stuff look good??

Moreover, howcome Sony's official "Rep" or Canon's official "Rep" ain't here???

Whycome they don't send someone from their marketing departments on down here to the dungeons of the internet to pump up their upcoming 8-month away stuff??

Or

Hmmmm

(scracthing my head)

(rubbing my chin)

Is the reason they don't send anyone because their actions speak louder then words?

*smile*

It's kinda like a McDonald's commercial... Have you ever noticed that McDonald's never diss's Burger King? All they ever do is tell you how good the Big Mac is and how great their stuff is, but they never disrespect their competitors. however, Burger King is CONSTANTLY dissin'g Mickey Dee's every chance they get. Spending millions of dollars and sending their "Reps" to the "hood" to try and show people how they are better then Ronald McD. and always hating on them. But still in all.....McDonald's, in all their humilty and respect for their competitors.....through all the bashing and disrespect they receive....they remain #1

1. Kinda like Honda. Have you noticed Honda has never had a "REBATE" on any of their TV commercials. All their commercials simply show you how good a Honda automobile is and why you should buy a nice inexpensive reliable Honda. However Toyota, Nissan and all the rest have Incentives and Deals and always dissin' Honda and trying to prove t the people how they are better then Honda every chance they get. But through the mist of the hater clouds....Honda remains #1.

Getting my point??
Noticing anything similar here??

lol
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A bit of advice to all the young 20-something future business owners out there:

NEVER do business with someone who openly bad mouths past people they've done business with. If someone needs to talk bad about someone or bad-mouth their competition to try and prove how good they are ..... then 9 times out of 10, THEY were the true problem in that prior business relationship and/or their competitor is actually better then they are.
You can always tell your future with someone by the way they talk about their past with others. Steer clear of businesspeople who disrespect others, rather then speaking highly of themselves only.

Trust me.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
- Shannon W. Rawls

Last edited by Shannon Rawls; May 2nd, 2005 at 06:28 PM.
Shannon Rawls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 06:36 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 704
"My question is.....why are "reps" here anyhow?"

We are lucky to have representative from a lot of different companies here.
They give us great information and insight. In a forum format, where rumors can fly rampant about new and existing products, it is a luxury to have someone who can give a clear and concise answer who is speaking from a position of authority on their own product line.

As far as a representatives opinion on a competitors product is concerned, I think it's fair to expect that they would point out what they view as shortcomings on a competing product.

As with anything that you read, see, or hear...consider the source, do your own research, and make up your own mind.

All in all we are lucky to have the variety of opinions, experience, and knowledge that we have here and elsewhere.
__________________
Luis Caffesse
Pitch Productions
Austin, Texas
Luis Caffesse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 06:47 PM   #20
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Hey Shannon,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
My question is.....why are "reps" here anyhow?
I've always strongly encouraged all variety of official manufacturer's representatives to come in and post here, because I'd like for this place to be (among other things) a conduit between the manufacturer and their customers. Having that sort of interaction benefits everybody, and the ability to get info "straight from the maker" cuts the B.S. factor way down. It's definitely a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
and why are they hellbent on dissin'g other competitors to make their stuff look good??
Woah -- that has NOT happened here! And most likely never will happen here. What you've read from Michael Pappas is something he's pulled from some other site. I feel like I've already said this five times today, but what the heck -- I guess I'll say it again! What happens at other sites does not concern us here at DV Info Net. It's strictly their problem, not ours. My response to Michael was (a little higher up in this thread):

"Michael:

<< My point is that Panasonic rep attacks the Fujinon lens >>

I've looked through our HVX board and our HD100 board, and I can't find any evidence of such an attack happening here. If this happened on some other site, then that's their problem, not ours. Please don't bring the politics of some other site into DV Info Net. Thanks in advance,

CH"


Michael just got a little confused as to what happened where, but allow me to repeat... no rep has attacked any other rep at DV Info Net! That did not happen here. That incident should be discussed at whatever site it happened at, but I don't want DV Info Net used for that purpose (that's not what we're about).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
Moreover, howcome Sony's official "Rep" or Canon's official "Rep" ain't here?
Well, actually Dennis Adams from Sony Media Software is here. Canon Inc. unfortunately has a strict corporate policy which expressly forbids anyone from the video division posting in online message boards (however, on the professional photo side, Chuck Westfall of Canon USA is very active on the net). I've told them numerous times that this policy is a serious mistake which does them more harm than good, so hey, at least I tried to make a difference there. They lurk but they do not post, which is unfortunate for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
Whycome they don't send someone from their marketing departments on down here to the dungeons of the internet to pump up their upcoming 8-month away stuff?
Actually the ones you see on our boards are from their marketing departments. Hope this helps!
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 07:34 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 853
ok, ok.

But...I have heard, read, seen, felt.....these "reps" basically bad-mouthing other cameras, technology and companies. Even here on this site Chris my man. I don't feel like doing a serious search, but I have seen it here. I personally don't think it's cool coming from a manufacturer. It's ok coming from end-user trash talkers who just be funnin' around like me and barry and a few others, but not from someone who represents a commercial product that they wish me to buy.

If you are a rep...then rep. I'm not interested in your 'personal' opinion because I don't look at you that way. I look at you as a walking talking brochure...nothing else. if you want to give a personal opinion, then take your company name out of your signature and profile and denounce your representation of them, and then announce your representation of yourself!

If you represent a company, I don't think should go saying "Well in my opinion" or "what I think is".....(shakin' my head) nah man. it's ain't your opinion anymore. AFAIC, it's your COMPANY'S opinion now, not yours. And if you say something wrong, then that reflects on your company.

I personally like the way Honda & McDonalds handles their business. But that's just me. I trust companys like that. I beleive in people who beleive in themselves and their products and do not have to resort to showing me how their competitor is inferior to them just to get me to buy their stuff.

Ken Freed from JVC is a classic example. I have watched him talk on MANY different topics in this web forum and others, and EVERYTIME....I mean 100% of the time I seen him talk, he does it in a classy mature and professional manner. He only promotes JVC. He never disses SONY or PANASONIC or CANON or IKEGAMI or SHARP or anybody. He only talks about JVC and how wonderful they are, that's it. He never gets in arguments with other forum users, or condencends them or belittles them. He never ridicules anybody or makes them feel 'dumb' cause they didn't know something and he never bashes their opinion. This is what I have experienced from Ken Freed...

And because of that, I like Ken Freed and I like JVC.

However, there are others "Reps" on here who don't handle themselves this way, and I think it reflects bad on THEM as a person and ESPECIALLY the company they claim to represent.

Check this out....

My man Neshra told me something. He owns a Z1 and we frequently talk about features and matteboxes. He went to NAB this year and he said First of all I want to express my feelings with Panasonic Saleswoman. I have never heard such an obnoxious comment any sales person to make about their competition. No one even asked her about the Sony and JVC but she just turn and look at 5-6 people surrounding the AG-HVX200 and said "let me tell you, the Sony and JVC picture looks like a crap".
He said I was so annoyed that I had to walk away in order not to insult her.

Man, that ain't cool. And maybe Michael got his web forums mixed up, but I kinda understand where he is coming from. I understand you when you say it's good to have reps around to clear thigs up answer questions and make 'official' statements...but leave it at that. No need for the disrespect to get my dollar.

I digress.

- Shannon W. Rawls
Shannon Rawls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 07:48 PM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Thanks Luis!

Graeme,

You said CRTs are not good for monitoring. What did you mean? Since 1987, and trough th 90's HD CRT's have always been how I judge the best of HD etc. Now we have Plasma-LCD. I still go with CRT in grading stage. What have you used that you like better? Is that the Apple 23" you mention? Curious...




Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Caffesse
"The lens did very well under the scrutiny of being displayed in 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive CRT settings."

I'm with you 100% on that Michael, I wasn't trying to refute anything you said. I only wanted to clarify your point on the signal...I thought some people might read your original post and take away from it that the HD100 could record 4:2:2 uncompressed to tape. Just trying to avoid a misunderstanding.

I think you're right, the best way to show off the lens is to use the best and cleanest signal possible.
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 07:59 PM   #23
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Thanks Luis!

Graeme,

You said CRTs give a rose tinted view of HD etc for monitoring. What did you mean? Since 1987, and trough th 90's HD CRT's have always been how I judge the best of HD etc. Now we have Plasma-LCD. I still go with CRT in grading stage. What have you used that you like better? Is that the Apple 23" you mention? Curious...




Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis Caffesse
"The lens did very well under the scrutiny of being displayed in 4:2:2 uncompressed 60P High-Definition progressive CRT settings."

I'm with you 100% on that Michael, I wasn't trying to refute anything you said. I only wanted to clarify your point on the signal...I thought some people might read your original post and take away from it that the HD100 could record 4:2:2 uncompressed to tape. Just trying to avoid a misunderstanding.

I think you're right, the best way to show off the lens is to use the best and cleanest signal possible.
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2005, 08:51 PM   #24
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
Ken Freed from JVC is a classic example. I have watched him talk on MANY different topics in this web forum and others, and EVERYTIME....I mean 100% of the time I seen him talk, he does it in a classy mature and professional manner.
You should see him in person! Ken was looking all classy and professional in a sharp pinstripe suit and tie on Tuesday at NAB. I only hope I'm half as stylish as that guy when I reach his age, heh.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2005, 02:09 AM   #25
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls
NEVER do business with someone who openly bad mouths their competition to try and prove how good they are ..... then 9 times out of 10, their competitor is actually better then they are.
You can always tell your future with someone by the way they talk about others. Steer clear of businesspeople who disrespect others, rather then speaking highly of themselves only.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
- Shannon W. Rawls
Perfectly said Shannon!

Chris, it is true these negative posts were not made here, but they have been spread here and to other sites. I think Shannon has properly moved the issue from rumors of lens quality -- to the correct issue. The claims of one salesperson who works for a company that has nothing to sell into the low-end HD market.

These claims involve lens defects, the supposed poor quality of long GOP MPEG-2 -- when they know the JVC uses a short GOP -- and the totally unproven claim that their $6000 prosumer camcorder is somehow going to deliver better quality from 1/3-in. chips -- for which they fail to provide any spec -- than their competitors. In fact, they couldn't even do what Sony did at NAB 2003 -- show a working model.

This is the same BS we got when 1080i HDV was claimed to be the only real HD format. Companies who make these kinds of claims need to be called -- and called hard -- on them immediately because they count on their BS spreading faster than the truth. So IMHO, every web site needs to call a spade a spade.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2005, 03:15 AM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Steve do you have any info on your site about short GOP and also on mpeg/HDV


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Mullen
Perfectly said Shannon!

Chris, it is true these negative posts were not made here, but they have been spread here and to other sites. I think Shannon has properly moved the issue from rumors of lens quality -- to the correct issue. The claims of one salesperson who works for a company that has nothing to sell into the low-end HD market.

These claims involve lens defects, the supposed poor quality of long GOP MPEG-2 -- when they know the JVC uses a short GOP -- and the totally unproven claim that their $6000 prosumer camcorder is somehow going to deliver better quality from 1/3-in. chips -- for which they fail to provide any spec -- than their competitors. In fact, they couldn't even do what Sony did at NAB 2003 -- show a working model.

This is the same BS we got when 1080i HDV was claimed to be the only real HD format. Companies who make these kinds of claims need to be called -- and called hard -- on them immediately because they count on their BS spreading faster than the truth. So IMHO, every web site needs to call a spade a spade.
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2005, 08:33 AM   #27
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Thanks, Steve -- I have always enjoyed your perspective on things!

The various marketing tactics are very interesting to say the least,
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2005, 08:55 AM   #28
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Pappas
Thanks Luis!

Graeme,

You said CRTs are not good for monitoring. What did you mean? Since 1987, and trough th 90's HD CRT's have always been how I judge the best of HD etc. Now we have Plasma-LCD. I still go with CRT in grading stage. What have you used that you like better? Is that the Apple 23" you mention? Curious...
This is what I'm using: http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_decklink.html

My story with HD goes back to 2001 when I was doing an R&D project for Panavision with their new Primo Digital lenses, working with their lens metadata. I was writing software and producing 3d animations from that lens metadata to show what was possible, to be demonstrated on the Sony booth at NAB 2001.

Back then, rendering 1080p with very extensive shallow DOF effects at high quality was very time consuming, so we decided to use a less then 1080p resolution for the renders so that they'd get done in time. I scaled up the renders in After Effects and matted them into the greenscreen footage that Panavision had shot for me.

In AE, on the old cinema display I had back then, it was plainly obvious what I'd done, but it was all we could do with the deadline looming. I put the end result on a DVD-RAM (or two) to go back to Panavision to get put onto HDCAM for the show.

At NAB, I saw the footage on the HDCAM for the first time on a CineAlta CRT display, and for the life of me, I could not tell that I'd used lower resolution CG, and I could not see a lot of the keying artifacts due to the HDCAM's low chroma resolution.

That's why, when I started to get into R&D with HD video, specifically high quality scaling algorithms, I could not use a CRT, no matter what the quality or cost, because they just gloss over that kind of fine detail that I need to see, and they will gloss over the kind of details that we're talking about here too.

Here's another take on why CRT is not the best for HD monitoring purposes: http://www.ecinemasys.com/products/products.htm

CRTs really have one current advantage over LCD technology - good blacks. They are meant to have better colour, but after speaking to the BMD guys at NAB, they told me about a high end colourist visiting their Singapore facility and calibrating a LCD with their HDLink against a CRT until he was totally happy to colour correct on the LCD, so with a good eye and calibration tools, it can be done. Currently the HDlink doesn't do a smooth job with interlaced video, but that should be a newly added feature in the next release of the firmware, and from the beta I have, it should be very good indeed.

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2005, 09:38 AM   #29
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: California
Posts: 667
Graeme, Thank you for the reponse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

Last edited by Michael Pappas; May 3rd, 2005 at 10:02 AM.
Michael Pappas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2005, 09:42 AM   #30
RED Problem Solver
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Gibby
Graeme-

So if an engineer from Fujinon says the T16x5.5 is an HD-quality lens, and that the better quality SD lenses used on the HD100 will resolve in HD quality, that holds no validity to you? Ill look forward to an MTF/resolution side-by comparison when it is possible, but until then why discount educated opinions from experienced professionals?
Well, "HD quality lens" is a marketing term, not a scientific one, and is essentially meaningless. When physics says you need a sharper lens for HD on a 2/3" chip than you do for 35mm film, and that you will therefore need a sharper lens still for a 1/3" chip HD camera (going to 720p will help a little here) I severely doubt any SD lens (yes, I know, an essentially meaningless term, but you get my meaning) will be of any use on a 1/3" HD camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Gibby
Several multiple Emmy-winning television professionals, including me, Barry Green, and others, have remarked on DV Info Net how excellent the uncompressed analog 720p60 4:2:2 output looked on the CRT monitors. After viewing enormous amounts of footage on a regular basis, in SD, HD, and DVCproHD, on CRTs, LCDs, and plasmas, we each have a real good handle on the how the various formats, resolutions, and frame rates should look as per the monitor were viewing it on. When highly experienced network TV pros give you an opinion on the look of footage on a monitor, trust that they know the difference between how it should look on a CRT vs. a LCD or plasma. Im curious Graeme did you go to NAB and view the footage, or are you judging it 2nd hand?
Yes, I did go to NAB, did see the footage, and have indeed, which I suspect nobody here has, viewed the footage in their own system (http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_decklink.html), and indeed did so before NAB, this thread and associated articles / comments.

I find your words quite hurtful that you seem to invalidate my opinion while bolstering your own by appealing to the awards you and others have wone and their industry status. AFAIK, you don't get tested on your eyesight and ability to determine picture quality to SMPTE standards before they allow you to win and Emmy or hold a job in Network television.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Gibby
I'm not sure about this, but I don't think ANY HD camera with 1/3" chips is going to look totally sharp as they will all be lens limited.

Again, so if an engineer from Fujinon says the T16x5.5 is an HD-quality lens, and that the better quality SD lenses used on the HD100 will resolve in HD quality, that holds no validity to you? Ill look forward to an MTF/resolution side-by comparison when it is possible, but until then why discount valid opinions from experienced professionals?
No, it doesn't hold much validity at all, because physics says different. And as you quote me saying "I'm not sure about this, but..." I must add that I have enough knowledge about the physics of optics to know that for a given CCD resolution, the smaller the CCD, the higher the resolution of the lens needs to be. That is why I comment that it might not even be possible (or at least economically possible) to make an HD lens sharp enough for a 1/3" chip CCD camera, and even if it were, I doubt it would sell for what the stock HD100 lens sells for. I discount the opinion of someone who has seen the camera footage on show floor conditions on an CRT, when I have the footage, have looked at it closely on a higher resolution display. And indeed, my opinion is that it still looks like the best HDV footage I've seen, but that it's softer than Varicam footage I have, and is most likely, for the phyical reasons I give above, lens limited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Gibby
Please dont take my comments wrong. Every professional develops their own opinions based on their experience. I feel my first hand observations, and the similar first hand observations of Barry Green, and other experienced TV pros should be considered as valid for the amount of data we have available thus far. When the lenses ship, well be able to do some side-by tests and put some arguments to rest
I'm trying hard not to take your comments wrong, but I'm fairly well known, and also fairly well know for having very balanced, reasoned opionions, that might not always be the "party line", but at least have a lot of logic and reason behind them. I did not shoot off a post saying that everyone was wrong, but that because I have had the benefit of viewing the footage under controlled conditions (ie better access to available evidence), and to do some comparitive analysis, at least of the footage, I'd be listened to a bit more respectfully.

I think my key point is that making an affordable HD lens for 1/3" cameras is going to be very, very hard indeed. And picture quality-wise, you may be much further ahead with a 2/3" HD camera with a cheap lens, than a 1/3" HD camera with an expensive one, and I'm going to be very interested to see how a 2/3" SD camera (with decent lens) compares with any 1/3" camera in terms of real, actual, measureable detail / definition, as I suspect they might be much closer than many people think.

Graeme
Graeme Nattress is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > JVC ProHD & MPEG2 Camera Systems > JVC GY-HD Series Camera Systems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network