HD100U Split Screen Will Not Be Fixed?

[Barry Green]

I'll explain more once the process is complete...

[Barry Green]

Played around some more with the split-screen, trying to put Tim Dashwood's "Master Black" setting to the test.

Sorry to report, at least on my version 1.17 camera, Master Black doesn't do anything to help the splitscreen issue.

As I understood it, it was theorized that the splitscreen appeared in a range of low IRE. Using the Master Black, one can control the low IRE range. Setting it to -3 seems to unnecessarily crush blacks while not avoiding the splitscreen. I tried it in the opposite direction as well, going to +3... setting Master Black to +3 changes the pedestal level for how the darkest images are output; using Master Black +3 actually would make pure black video output at about 15 IRE (i.e., even if the lens cap was on, you'd get 15 IRE output). I figured that would definitely be enough to keep the video out of the dreaded low range that causes the issue.

No dice. Splitscreen just as prevalent as ever.

Thinking about it, it just makes sense -- if indeed the issue is being caused by errors between the two sampling chips, then any post-sampling DSP manipulation (such as the master black level) really shouldn't have much of an effect, if any, on whether the issue was happening. The issue was still happening, and then after the split was digitized, the DSP then added the Master Black manipulation; but by then it's too late. The low-output signal was still captured by the CCDs, and was read off by the sampling circuits -- and that's where the error is happening. I don't think manipulating menu items will ever be able to overcome the splitscreen issue, because it's already happened prior to any manipulation we have control over.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

[Huiy Tang]

Can we collaborate and put some consumer pressure on JVC to fix the problem, and replace existing units with brand NEW ones with hardware upgrades. Things will remain as they are as long as users rest on our laurels and accept, and continue to work around the issue.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

Totally agree. The only thing that seems to influence SSE is exposure. We know it never occurs when there is a high contrast, well illuminated picture.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Thinking about it, it just makes sense -- if indeed the issue is being caused by errors between the two sampling chips, then any post-sampling DSP manipulation (such as the master black level) really shouldn't have much of an effect, if any, on whether the issue was happening. The issue was still happening, and then after the split was digitized, the DSP then added the Master Black manipulation; but by then it's too late. The low-output signal was still captured by the CCDs, and was read off by the sampling circuits -- and that's where the error is happening. I don't think manipulating menu items will ever be able to overcome the splitscreen issue, because it's already happened prior to any manipulation we have control over.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

I don't believe they will change the arrangement of the CCD block (ie 2 in 1). I do believe they are working on (or have fixed) the comparitor circuit. You would think, if you are in (all) manual mode that the voltage would be set but instead the chips are reacting. You can not be sure that it is all post processing because some settings may be controlling the sensitivity of the chips themselves.

JVC has said (to me) it is the comparitor circuit that is not updating fast enough, in which case you are right. There needs to be tighter specs on the comparitor circuit (ie diodes, resistors etc) or the firmware logic that controls the circuit would have to be simplified to speed up the process between the two.

Lately there has been less and less talk about split screen, particularly out of Europe and UK.

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

It's too bad crushing the blacks a little don't get rid of it on your v1.17. I just got an email from someone else with a 1.14 where the method worked.

I'm now wondering if I should bother getting my 1.14 updated if 1.17 really is the latest firmware available for the NTSC version.

It seems that the comparitor circuit processes the data first, then the camera processors do their thing. That's why increasing master black doesn't trigger SSE.
Dialing the MB down on my camera is masking SSE that was already sent down the signal path. I'm guessing the upper trigger limit is lower on v1.14 than 1.17.

So the question is: what is the upper and lower IRE trigger limit of SSE in v1.17?

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

So the question is: what is the upper and lower IRE trigger limit of SSE in v1.17?

I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

[Tim Dashwood]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

I was told that too, but no one has confirmed it yet. The last report I got from a UK HD101E that shipped last Friday was 1.17, but there is no sign of SSE. Barry has 1.17 on a HD100U and he has prominent SSE.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

I was told that too, but no one has confirmed it yet. The last report I got from a UK HD101E that shipped last Friday was 1.17, but there is no sign of SSE. Barry has 1.17 on a HD100U and he has prominent SSE.

That leads me to think they've made a hardware change or PAL 1.17 is a different animal than NTSC 1.17

[Huiy Tang]

Dashwood and whomever else has made a purchase of the HD100,and is disatisfied... Yes yes yes, JVC will replace units. They will in-fact replace units with other defective and at times used and refurbished units until they are blue in the face. Please get your money back before it's too late. This will really burn consumers when they learn that an expiry date exists on the cameras warranty. If they release an official stance of informing that the consumer should expect to have to "cope the split screen" in exchange for HD quality footage it will only make matters worse. Take the cash and don't let the dealer charge you a restocking fee for a defective camera. The whole lot of North American HD100's should go back to JVC for this debacle.

I plea and stress this with any unsatisfied user of the HD100 to request a refund. I am not saying boycott JVC or the HD100, I would simply like to see the responsibility placed back on JVC's shoulders (NOT the consumer beta testers) to correct the problem properly and once and for all. A software update is not nearly sufficient enough. It's an economical alternative to having to recall hundreds of cameras. Enough is enough already.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Huiy Tang

This will really burn consumers when they learn that an expiry date exists on the cameras warranty.

I would not call an HD100 buyer a "consumer," and expiry dates exist on *all* camera warranties. This is an educated group which is already aware of that.

A software update is not nearly sufficient enough.

If a software update fully resolves the problem, then of course it is perfectly sufficient.

By the way your duplicate of this post has been removed (see the cross-posting policy). You're new to DV Info Net. Please observe and learn our code of conduct and how it works, as this is a different kind of message board. We all work together here to solve problems just like this one but we don't launch crusades. Thanks in advance,

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

Still on the first one, yes. Going to try to send it back tomorrow (fingers crossed).

[Chris Hurd]

Expecting a full report on how that goes, Barry! Thanks for the updates as always,

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

What I heard was that U.K. cameras were coming with 1.2, but honestly, I think it's a rumour. I got my HD100 this week and it has 1.17. I'm not in the U.K., but in continental Europe, and the cameras are the very same. My camera even comes with two power cords, one with U.K. plug and another with continental European plug, so that should tell you all cameras are the same for Europe. On the top of that, I don't think JVC sub-divisions in the countries do the firmware updates. I think it's done by JVC Japan. So it makes no sense U.K cameras having the so-called firmware 1.2 and other countries not. I will only believe a 1.2 version exists, when multiple known users start reporting it, or if somebody post a screen capture of the advanced menu showing the firmware data. Till then, I think this is purely fabricated.

[Werner Wesp]

Originally Posted by Huiy Tang

I plea and stress this with any unsatisfied user of the HD100 to request a refund. I am not saying boycott JVC or the HD100, I would simply like to see the responsibility placed back on JVC's shoulders (NOT the consumer beta testers) to correct the problem properly and once and for all. A software update is not nearly sufficient enough. It's an economical alternative to having to recall hundreds of cameras. Enough is enough already.

We have quite heard it by now, I guess...

I don't think it is fair to comment their strategy in resolving the problem, because I'm sure they work hard at it (I know). I COULD understand someone commenting on their strategy to give official info about it.... (although I can understand some reasons why they don't)