Split Screen Effect Still Present!

[William Hess]

I've had my A revision camera for about three weeks now and have not been able to produce the split-screen effect, even when intentionally shooting horribly lit rooms with 18db gain with no proper white balance and a cold camera. At this point I'm not worried about it at all.

I did, however, have one dead pixel in the upper-left corner which only showed up when gain was applied, and was only noticable on a high definition display. The "Pixel Mask" feature in the service menu solved this problem and I'm now a very happy camper.

[Mark Silva]

We had our camera upgraded to "A" recently.

I will soon post a screenshot of SSE Horror that reared itself on a shoot outside last week. I don't believe the gain was on at all as it was full sunny/partly cloudy that day.

Does anyone know if the HD100 will show metadata on the LCD when tapes are played back? specifically the gain in db and the f/stop and shutter?

My GL1 was able to do that.

I'd like to know exactly what the shooter had it set for when it happened.

Adam Wilt mentioned the SSE could show itself if a lot of Green was in the shot. There was a rather large grassy field in 90% of this one that had a really bad SSE goin.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Mark Silva

We had our camera upgraded to "A" recently.

I will soon post a screenshot of SSE Horror that reared itself on a shoot outside last week. I don't believe the gain was on at all as it was full sunny/partly cloudy that day.

Does anyone know if the HD100 will show metadata on the LCD when tapes are played back? specifically the gain in db and the f/stop and shutter?

My GL1 was able to do that.

I'd like to know exactly what the shooter had it set for when it happened.

Adam Wilt mentioned the SSE could show itself if a lot of Green was in the shot. There was a rather large grassy field in 90% of this one that had a really bad SSE goin.

Mark, it can happen at 0db and in bright conditions. For the record and for those who insist that's it's an 18db low light thing, it isn't. It can happen in bright sunshine.
However, as I've said before, the fact that it can happen and the likelihood that it will are tow different things.
JVC is very specific about how to prevent it and how to deal with it if it occurs: make sure that the camera is warmed up for 5 minutes before shooting, re-white balance, change you exposure.
Also the fact that Adam suggests that SSE could occur against a solid green background is definteily not to say that it's likely at all. It's just that with the right (wrong) combination of elements it might appear.
I'd be willing to bet that if you took your camera back to that location under the same circumstances that you couldn't reproduce the problem.
If it did occur again, then definitely send it into JVC for calibration.

[Mark Silva]

I asked the shooter how long the camera had been on and he said at least an hour.

[Steven Thomas]

Well, I guess I'm lucky. I've owned my camera for over three months and have yet to see SSE.

[Guy Barwood]

"Its a native problem to the progressive ccds"

Not true at all. It is only JVCs implementation in this camera that cause this problem. There are many progressive cameras around and none of them except the JVC have this problem.

[Carl Hicks]

All,

This technology has been discussed at length on this forum, so I won't go into great detail, but here's a short explanation:

The GY-HD100U is a revolutional camera in that it offers full 1280 x 720 native resolution, with TRUE progressive scan. This is more pixels being scanned in one frame than ANY other HD camera in this price class, and even more than the Panasonic Varicam. This is done with CCD's that have two processors on board to divide the work load, and it's important that the two sides of the CCU be calibrated for the same output levels. Precise camibration on a camera that is mass produced can sometimes not come out as good as possible, so sometimes the calibration needs to be touched up.

As some have already said, SSE calibration is a free, warranty service. Just send it into JVC Pro Service. I recommend the Cypress service center for SSE calibration, although the other pro service centers can also do it.

Here is a link to our service center contacts:

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/support/index.jsp


And, keep in mind our "Perfect Experience" 30 day exchange policy. This can be implemented through you reseller or directly with JVC. Here is a link on this policy:

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/support/pepolicy.jsp

Regards,

Carl

[Guy Barwood]

You forgot that funny little phrase the FAQ, "At the required 74Mhz clock rate, the imager's power dissipation would be excessive and the chips would self-destruct."

Therefore the problem is related directly to the high pixel read out count not if the CCD is progresive or interlaced. Lower resolution progressive CCDs would not have this problem, neither would larger CCDs with the same pixel count. I dare say there are some ways to dissipate that heat without the need for dual processors. Perhaps a bigger body design with some decent heat piping.

This issue could have also been avoided by designing the camera as a minimum 1/2" block from the get go. So many advantages to being 1/2" its not funny:

Higher light sensivivity
Less noise (greater signal to noise ratio)
Larger surface area to disipate heat
Shared lens format to XDCAM HD (maybe only a different mount)
Existing 1/2" lens options
etc etc etc

The price difference in producing a 1/2" CCD over a 1/3" CCD would be negligable in terms of the system cost. Heck, a full Nikon DSLR has a 6MP 1.2" sensor and sells for US$650 retail even with a half decent lens. Large sensors clearly arn't expensive anymore.

[Carl Hicks]

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

You forgot that funny little phrase the FAQ, "At the required 74Mhz clock rate, the imager's power dissipation would be excessive and the chips would self-destruct."

Therefore the problem is related directly to the high pixel read out count not if the CCD is progresive or interlaced. Lower resolution progressive CCDs would not have this problem, neither would larger CCDs with the same pixel count. I dare say there are some ways to dissipate that heat without the need for dual processors. Perhaps a bigger body design with some decent heat piping.

This issue could have also been avoided by designing the camera as a minimum 1/2" block from the get go. So many advantages to being 1/2" its not funny:

Higher light sensivivity
Less noise (greater signal to noise ratio)
Larger surface area to disipate heat
Shared lens format to XDCAM HD (maybe only a different mount)
Existing 1/2" lens options
etc etc etc

The price difference in producing a 1/2" CCD over a 1/3" CCD would be negligable in terms of the system cost. Heck, a full Nikon DSLR has a 6MP 1.2" sensor and sells for US$650 retail even with a half decent lens. Large sensors clearly arn't expensive anymore.

Guy, thanks very much for your valuable input.

We wanted to give our customers as high a native pixel count as possible -a real HD native pixel count of 1280 x 720 - not a derived HD pixel count using some sort of scaling or spatial offset. Native 1280 x 720 progressive is a good thing, isn't it?

We also wanted to give our customers a light weight, compact shoulder mount design.

These two reasons dictated that the CCD size had to be 1/3"

To go with a 1/2" or 2/3" CCD would have meant much higher cost and a larger body.

From what many of our customers are telling us, and from the reaction we've had at NAB so far this year, our decision to stay with the small shoulder mount design, and to stay with the native 1280 x 720 progressive design seems to be a very popular decision.

Regards, Carl

[Guy Barwood]

Originally Posted by Carl Hicks

Guy, thanks very much for your valuable input.

We wanted to give our customers as high a native pixel count as possible -a real HD native pixel count of 1280 x 720 - not a derived HD pixel count using some sort of scaling or spatial offset. Native 1280 x 720 progressive is a good thing, isn't it?

Absolutely, indeed, without a doubt!

Originally Posted by Carl Hicks

We also wanted to give our customers a light weight, compact shoulder mount design.

These two reasons dictated that the CCD size had to be 1/3"

To go with a 1/2" or 2/3" CCD would have meant much higher cost and a larger body.

From what many of our customers are telling us, and from the reaction we've had at NAB so far this year, our decision to stay with the small shoulder mount design, and to stay with the native 1280 x 720 progressive design seems to be a very popular decision.

Regards, Carl

It takes all types, and I personally would much prefer a slightly larger and heavier camera to get 1/2 or 2/3" sensors. I am more than happy with the size of my DV500.

Specifically though:

To go with a 1/2" or 2/3" CCD would have meant much higher cost and a larger body.

I don't buy that. 5 years ago perhaps with the cost, but not anymore,now its just marketing to hold the price and margins of 2/3" cameras where they are. You do realise how small a 1/2 sensor is don't you? No bigger than the size of your thumbnail.

[Mark Silva]

Guy you should do what the "RED" camera people are doing.

Make the camera you want and at the low cost your talking about.

I'll buy it!

[Mark Silva]

Carl, if my camera is showing SSE with plenty of light and good exposure is it in need of Calibration?

It would be nice to know in concrete terms what would be considered needing calibration.

I'm damn lucky that the problem happened on a shot that wasn't important or I'd be in real trouble right now. I will be posting various screen shots from this shoot (good and bad) in a thread of my own shortly. I would like the thread to address the shortcomings and how to minimize them. I do love this camera and I'm willing to work with it.

[Jim Giberti]

[QUOTE=Carl Hicks]

And, keep in mind our "Perfect Experience" 30 day exchange policy. This can be implemented through you reseller or directly with JVC. Here is a link on this policy:

/QUOTE]


The Perfect Experience concept is another credit to JVC. They took care of us every inch of the way, and unfortunately that can be a rarity in 21st century business.

Great camera and great support, it definitely moved us from Canon to JVC.

[Carl Hicks]

Originally Posted by Mark Silva

Carl, if my camera is showing SSE with plenty of light and good exposure is it in need of Calibration?

It would be nice to know in concrete terms what would be considered needing calibration.

I'm damn lucky that the problem happened on a shot that wasn't important or I'd be in real trouble right now. I will be posting various screen shots from this shoot (good and bad) in a thread of my own shortly. I would like the thread to address the shortcomings and how to minimize them. I do love this camera and I'm willing to work with it.

Mark, if after warming up the camera for several minutes and doing a manual white balance, you are still seeing SSE at zero or low gain settings, then you probably need calibration. Send it into the Cypress, CA service center.

If you've had it for less than 30 days, you could also opt for an exchange.

Regards, Carl

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Carl Hicks

This is more pixels being scanned in one frame than ANY other HD camera in this price class, and even more than the Panasonic Varicam.

That's not accurate; the VariCam CCDs are 1280x720 as well.