Split screen technical explanation

[Michael Maier]

f4? Well, that proves Steve's f2 theory doesn't always work then.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Until recently, weddings were also shot with extra light -- so if someone wants an HD wedding they need to accept more light no matter what camcorder they use. But, I can't honestly see why a wedding would be shot at anything other than 60i. There is no real reason for a 24p wedding!

Hang out at WEVA, on the videouniversity fora, on TheKnot, or one of several other popular wedding boards, and you'd instantly change your comment. LOTS of DVX shooters in the wedding world, lots of people that were excited about the JVC for weddings, many, many Z1/FX1 owners.

Why 24p for weddings? Aside from the fact that a lot of videographers like the cadence of 24p, it also allows them to put longer videos, higher bitrates on a single layer DVD. That's pretty important to them too. Many are using HDV, very happily so. To quote Doug Graham of EventDV magazine, "I've yet to hear of anyone buying an FX1/Z1 for weddings and taking it back due to low light problems."

Weddings are much like film productions these days, view a few of the videos that people like Glen Elliot, Tim Ryan, Ken Erhardt, Mark and Trish VonLanken, and other reasonably well-known videographers are doing. And why they're making big money doing it. Mostly in 24p at either acquisition or delivery.

In fact, I'll wager serious cash that WEVA/4Evergroup carry more influence than any other single group of camera/software buyers out there. I was just at a GPVA meeting where virtually everyone shoots weddings, and the room was packed with nearly 200 people. And a high number already own HDV.

Even though I would never consider shooting a wedding, I have tremendous respect for those that do. Some of their 60-90 minute works are incredible, given the lack of ability to control the shoot and set.

Spend a little time in the DVInfo.net wedding/event forum, you'll quickly get an "honest idea of why someone would want to shoot 24p" at a wedding.

[edit] Failed to mention that Ken Freed has been spending a lot of time presenting/talking to groups of wedding videographers, even though it's a crowd that you think wouldn't be interested in 24p [/edit]

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Mikael Widerberg

Here is a tiff image with a split screen example.

http://www.plonk.se/splitscreen_nogain_f4.tif

Mikael, would you mind if I added that image to our HD100 gallery here on the site?

[Mikael Widerberg]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Mikael, would you mind if I added that image to our HD100 gallery here on the site?

Not at all, of course you can.

[Marty Baggen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I'll grant that CCD circuitry design may be an interesting topic for some (and it is not an uncommon topic around here), but what can you *do* with that information? What does it accomplish? How about another thread discussing how to actually use this thing. How about discussing technique and usability, setting up scene files and sharing them, the practical applications of the camera, and even more importantly, what you're creating with it and how.

I guess there are folks to whom the guts appeal to, but my original intention for DV Info Net was for it to be a *usability* forum. Who is using it, what are you doing with it and how. To me those are conversations far more stimulating, more interesting and ultimately of far greater relevance than dissecting innards.

Well, okay... I appreciate the explanation. Consider for a moment that this forum has been up and running many months prior to the camera's release. There were no users during that timeframe.

I'm just trying to be an informed buyer. This just seemed like a logical place to be.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

f4? Well, that proves Steve's f2 theory doesn't always work then.

This was a PAL model and I make no claims about anything but USA Inspected HD100's.

Moreover, F4 is only a recommendation that so far has worked for me in the real-world.

This is like the famous banding from the XL1 when someone shot a blank wall. Never seemed to bother those who bought the camera.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Marty Baggen

Consider for a moment that this forum has been up and running many months prior to the camera's release. There were no users during that timeframe.

You're absolutely right about that, of course. I didn't mean to sound flippant; my primary concern here is in keeping the noise level down and the information level up.

[Marty Baggen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

You're absolutely right about that, of course. I didn't mean to sound flippant; my primary concern here is in keeping the noise level down and the information level up.

This is ironic.... I always hate it when threads drift off topic, but here I am doing my best to do just that.

Just a word of thanks for taking the time to explain your objectives for the forum. I'm still not quite sure what to do to conform, but I will figure it out.

[Chris Hurd]

My apologies for the off-topic chatter. When in doubt, keep posting. Many thanks,

[Stephen L. Noe]

I really think that JVC is surprised by the split screen and their engineers must be scrambling to work out the math to fix the issue. Think about it. If their was ever any intent to mask the problem, why would they allow the camera to open past f2? Why even put gain on the camera at all?

It seems to me that the issue has taken JVC by surprise. What could they say? They must be speechless! I'm hoping they get the math figured out because their codec is the real deal.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

lots of people that were excited about the JVC for weddings

Spot, that post was almost word-for-word what I would have written too.

For filmmakers, I don't see where the JVC has appeal over the HVX. For people who get hired to shoot (stringers, conventions, weddings, etc), I can see where the JVC could have significant appeal over the HVX, because of the form factor and the long record times. Wedding/event shooters like to have the big camera. Wedding/event clients like to see that they're getting what they paid for. Event shooters need to shoot a lot of footage, etc.

Plus, I thought the HD100 might do well for weddings because a *lot* of wedding videos are being edited to be entirely slow-motion. The JVC's unique 480/60p mode would probably be perfect for that, and would deliver the cleanest slow-mo of any camera in standard-def; only the HVX could compete with that 60p motion rendition.

Indie filmmakers don't, for the most part, care so much about the look of the camera. Stringers and event shooters and wedding shooters do. They make their living off their camera, and the #1 most intriguing thing the HD100 has going for it is the shoulder-mount pro-style look. Paying clients like to see that they're getting their money's worth, and an HD100 doesn't look like a handycam. I don't think I've talked to a wedding/event shooter yet who wasn't jazzed about the HD100's looks.

But, as Steve rightly points out, the shooting modes and limitations in the HD100 may make it a less desirable choice for those types of shooters. Which is a frustrating conundrum.

Let me put it this way: the things that appealed to me about the HD100 were long-form recording capability, and the shoulder-mount form factor for clients who care about that. I've made a pretty decent amount off shooting conventions; the HD100 could pay for itself in less than a week of doing that type of work, and it's easy and there's no editing(!) I've been doing it with the DVX, but I figured the HD100 might take it up a notch. It seemed perfect for the task in many ways -- broadcast form factor, high-def, and long (and cheap) recording times. However, operationally, it may turn out to be the single least-suited camera for those tasks, because of the frame rate limitations and the split-screen-under-available-light situation! What good does it do to record an hour on a $15 tape, if the entire hour has the split-screen effect?

I haven't tested for SSE in standard DV mode; if it doesn't do it in DV (or 480/60p), and if I can get standard-definition video that's at least DVX-like, then I may keep it and use it for its standard-def capabilities, recognizing that high-def would need to be used only during controlled-lighting circumstances. But if it still does SSE in standard-def, then I'm really at a loss to understand what to do with the camera. (It's like a great big tease -- "its mouth is saying 'no,' but its eyes are saying 'yes' ".)

[Edwin Huang]

I just want to encourage people to keep posting about their findings with the SSE. I would have owned 2 HD100s by now if I wasn't so worried about the SSE. The thing is that so much has been posted about it that I'm slightly confused.

Numerous people posted that JVC acknowledged that it is a fault and if you find the SSE at something like +12 gain or so they'll replace it? Some say 0 gain? Other people are complaining that JVC does not acknowledge it as a problem. Which is it?

Some people post that only the 100E and 101E have the problem, the 100U is mostly SSE free because of newer firmware. This is also contradicted. In fact there are posts that claim no amount of firmware will help. Then ones that claim no new firmware has been released. Which is it?

Finally there are those that say if you do A, B, and C in x, Y, and Z situations you'll never see the SSE and you should follow these rules all the time and JVC shouldn't have allowed you to shoot with A, B, and C settings and if XYZ happens to you often, don't buy the camera.

My opinion. If they are replacing the cameras officially or unofficially, I don't care as long as they are replacing them consistantly. I can see that they would not want to officially acknowledge the issue especially if they are close to releasing a version of the camera SSE free.

Everything about this camera/deck combination is right except for this SSE. It's really a dealstopper especially because it's unpredictable and it'll add hours and hours to fix on post. Not affordable with any sort of event work.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

For filmmakers, I don't see where the JVC has appeal over the HVX.

Lens possibilities and cost comes to mind. If I think a little harder, I'm sure I could dig a couple more. When the HVX200 is actually released, the list may even grow a notch or two.

[Stephen L. Noe]

How did the HVX make it into this thread?

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

How did the HVX make it into this thread?

I didn't bring it up, I promise. :)