Specs for new GY-HM100 ProHD Camcorder

[David Parks]

Originally Posted by Matt San

Don't forget any SD output will have to be done in post as the codec only outputs HD frame sizes - see page 1

Such as in Avid MC. Edit in Native XDCAM 35mbit VBR MXF 720/30 in 720/30 sequence preset, transcode into MXF 720x486 1:1, change tab to 30i, export QT reference into Sorenson or Adobe Encore, etc. etc.?? Or if you prefer transode into Avid DV, export QT reference, check "use Avid DV Codec" box and you can follow from there.

Cheeeeers.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by David Parks

I will be interesting to compare the different bit rates in terms of overall quality when these cameras start shipping. For standard def delivery, I'm betting 35 mbps 720/30p will look Mr. Clean as can be. Cheers.

YES - 720p is great for SD. And, it will be a sweet spot if the chips are 1280x720. And, perhaps, even more of a sweet spot if the chips are 920x540. (It will be interesting to see if/how JVC pixel-shifting differs from Panasonic's.)

One workflow issue is getting 720p to BD. The BD spec. doesn't seem to support p25 and the inexpensive Windows/OS X applications assume only 1080i50 or 1080i60 video. So far I've been making 1920x1080i BDs from the JVC HD7.

My task for Feb. is to go back through the multiple applications I've been testing and check them for 720p support.

------------

Curious how folks feel about using DVCPRO HD as a 720p intermediate rather than DNxHD, PRORES 422, or AIC. I does seem to cut resolution a bit, but really plays much more smoothly on laptops.


PS: Walmart has 720p30 DXG camcorders on-sale at $129.99.

[Robert Rogoz]

I also wish manufacturers stop selling cameras with stock shotgun microphones and charging us for it. Usually they are quite crappy and add unnecessary cost. I find stock microphone on my GY-HD 100 quite bad and I ended up replacing it anyway.
Also a side note. I just had a few clients dropping out of a picture for cash flow reasons. I predict hard times ahead, as people and companies don't have the credit lines they used to have. I will hang tight with a new purchase. So it might be prudent on JVC part to look into cost saving measures to attract people like me.
Bite rates, specs and tapeless workflow are cool, as long as they pay the bills.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Robert Rogoz

I also wish manufacturers stop selling cameras with stock shotgun microphones...

Then you'd have a lot of people complaining about how it doesn't come with a microphone.

[Robert Rogoz]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Then you'd have a lot of people complaining about how it doesn't come with a microphone.

DVX100 did not have a shotgun and I don't think people complained about that too much. On that note they also can complain about the lack of extra batteries, filters or a tripod. My point is that most of us have already good sound equipment, and don't need to pay for an item that will sit at the bottom of the closet till you decide to sell the camera.

[Matthias Krause]

I totally agree with you, Robert. Especially since the HM100 will have two mics, on build-in stereo mic and the shotgun...

[Alex Humphrey]

Hmmm.. i personally would rather save $100 and not have a stock mic and get a better one. The stock mics I have I use to hold toilet paper in the bathroom. Well OK, not really, it didn't fit, but the point is they are better than nothing, but not by much... you should quickly replace it.

I am surprised honestly how often I see people using many different cameras with the stock shotgun mic in the field. So obviously there are many people who haven't upgraded. I picked up a ME66 that most audio engineers say is basic decent starter mic, but often point to the next mic up in the Sennheiser line. The standard mic by nearly every camcorder company sounds like a tin can on a string compared to something decent from Sennheiser or Rode in the $500+ range. An Audio Engineer will probably turn their nose up at a ME66 and so on. I know more than a handfull of Audio Engineers turned video producers that don't touch a mic under $2,000. So everyone has their yardstick.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Alex Humphrey

I am surprised honestly how often I see people using many different cameras with the stock shotgun mic in the field. So obviously there are many people who haven't upgraded.

When i lived in NYC I surprised by how many people would pickup a camcorder from B&H only a few days before going on some long journey for a shoot. I think they felt that if JVC put the mic on the camera -- at least they could be sure it would WORK.

Were they to consider a different mic -- not only would they not be sure it would work -- they would enter the land of "Audio Engineers will probably turn their nose up at a ME66 and so on."

Not to mention that I've found many "visual" folks just don't understand audio equipment specs. Mic sensitivity in minus values makes no sense to them. Equally hard -- the concern over crowded RF space, "what can/do I use in Russia", UHF/VHF, and "what's diversity?"

Worse, as they try to become informed -- they find that many pros recommend using different mics depending on the situation. When these same experts are like those you speak of : "I know more than a handfull of Audio Engineers turned video producers that don't touch a mic under $2,000" the situation becomes way too crazy. Ultimately, it is simpler and much cheaper to put off changing the stock mic.

Moreover, I doubt that a company would really knock off $100 if they dropped the mic. In fact, whatever tiny amount it costs them for a mic is worth knowing buyers will get audio from day 1.

[John Markert]

I've had a great little JVC DV500 for ten years now and am sold on JVC quality and value. But I was hoping for 1/2" chips, CCD or CMOS, and a non-mpeg2 codec in the new cam. I think AVC Intra would have been fab, but costly. H.264 is the schnizzle, for the next few years, at least. And a 10x lens is pretty prosumerish these days.

However, the new 1/4" chips might be adequate if they can perform well in low light. And I really like the small size and weight. The QuickTime workflow is a big bonus for FCP users. Let's see what the images look like.

[Keith Moreau]

Originally Posted by John Markert

I've had a great little JVC DV500 for ten years now and am sold on JVC quality and value. But I was hoping for 1/2" chips, CCD or CMOS, and a non-mpeg2 codec in the new cam. I think AVC Intra would have been fab, but costly. H.264 is the schnizzle, for the next few years, at least. And a 10x lens is pretty prosumerish these days.

I'm actually glad this camcorder DOESN'T use AVC Intra or AVCHD. The XDCAM EX codec, in my opinion, is the best 'bang for the buck' right now for storage requirements as well as quality. I really have not read or heard of anything that compares it unfavorably to an HD Intro (non long GOP) format. And right now the workflow for XDCAM EX is really efficient on the Mac, much more so than the H.264 formats. At some point H.264 may overtake MPEG2 in quality and versatility, maybe Final Cut Pro 7 or something along with Snow Leopard taking advantage of Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) on video cards will improve the efficiency of the workflow, but for now it's not ready for prime time.

I hope this camera has good image quality, for $4,000 and lack of some simple features such as wired lens control, it really better have that good image, cause there are some awesome prosumer camcorders out there.

[Uli Mors]

I you have ever seen 35mbit EX footage, you will understand that this datarate / codec is a great compromise between file handling, NLE performance and pic quality.

no problem with that.

If you need more, the cam (like the ex series) offer HD-SDI out with non-mpgged video quality.

ULI

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Uli Mors

I you have ever seen 35mbit EX footage, you will understand that this datarate / codec is a great compromise between file handling, NLE performance and pic quality.

Well said. That datarate is low enough to be easily written to cheap memory, and low enough to give decent recording times.

At the same time, with MPEG2 it's high enough to give good quality, whilst still being relatively easy to edit without transcoding.

I think AVC-HD is a good thing on consumer cameras, but in the $5,000-10,000 price range I don't think the file size saving (compared to XDCAM-EX) is worth it, given the increased difficulty of editing.

[Paulo Teixeira]

If Panasonic can release the HMC-150 for much less than the price that they quoted during the announcement than I suspect that theirs a good chance that JVC may end up doing the same by releasing the HM100 for at least $500 less and the real sweet spot would be $3000 that I‘m hoping. Still, we all know that Sony’s V1u was released for over $4,000 and it didn’t do bad at all. I still think Sony should have released it for less.

As far as lowlight capabilities compared to cameras with 1/3” chips, big deal. I mean, it can get through more places than the bigger camcorders and once you take off the microphone, it can look consumer-ish which may get you less noticed in some situations. It’s also much lighter. I see it as a tradeoff rather than a disadvantage.

[Shaun Roemich]

Paulo:1/4" chips on the HM100...

[Paulo Teixeira]

I know that. That’s why I brought the V1u into this.

I was saying that cameras with bigger chips may have better lowlight capabilities but the HM100 does have it’s own advantages compared to them.