According to the latest issue of "TV Technology," "JVC will show a prototype of a new full-size HDV camcorder that's expected to be priced in the $20,000 range, said JVC spokesman Dave Walton. 'Our message is that affordable HDV is here,' he said."

So maybe Sony will be our savior after all with their DSR 0000. The first camera out of the block with the manual controls we're asking for and that's under $5000 is going to get the lion's share of the pie. That's my guess.

$20k for a camera that I've heard will be amazing is probably cheap.

But for us low budget dudes and dudettes, yeah, the Sony HDV 3 chip with manual controls will be ace! (I'll be hanging onto my HD10 for a while longer, doing some more shoots and stuff, because I can't afford another camera!)

heath

Something tells me JVC is about to do what one former forum moderator did--jack up the price on an item that once was cheaper. Maybe someone put the pressure on JVC to get with the program...I'm guessing they're taking their old $5000 DV500 camcorder, replacing its electronics with that of the old $3000 H10 and making a really big profit. Wanna bet?

It's almost irrelevant how they do it. If they deliver a high-definition camera with full manual controls, professional lenses, etc., then they're entitled to price it competitively against the competition. Considering that $15,000 will get you a standard-def DSR570, and $25,000 will get you a standard-def SDX900, $20,000 seems like an eminently reasonable price point for a high-def HDV5000U (or whatever they call it).

If the camera is as good as a DSR570 or SDX900, but includes high-def chips, they'll sell every one they can make. Maybe not to me and you, but to the customers who are already buying $15,000 DSR570's.

What I'm puzzling over is the huge jump in pricing between successive HDV models. It makes one wonder if the H10 was an anomaly that they'd never wished had happened. It also suggests that they'll never try to fix much or any of what was wrong with it. This may be the last time you'll see an HD camcorder this cheap.

Well, you could say the same thing about standard DV cameras. There are $250 DV cameras, and there are $15,000 DV cameras.

Feature-wise, capability-wise, the JVC HD1 is about on par with the $500 handycam camcorders, other than having an HD chip in it. It should be as inexpensive as it is. But if they develop a camera that's on par with a $15,000 camcorder, but have HD chips in it, it would be worth $20,000 (providing the picture actually delivers on the promise).

The rental price for a 20k camera wouldn't be that bad either.

(Really all we're doing is biting our nails and anxiously awaiting NAB as we engage in idle chatter....)
It comes back to the old question of relativity--is the image of a camera that costs 7X more than the H10 really SEVEN TIMES better? If Sony addresses those concerns with its souped up DSR0000, JVC could once again be found to have made a disasterous move. I'm only speculating here (idle chatter) but I think at the least it portends a relegation of the HD10 to the proverbial back burner so that it won't compete with the expensive new camera.

I hate to say it, but it's not just image quality. Keep in mind, though, the HD10 is a one chip camera and the Sony is 3. We haven't even gotten a confirmation on how much the Sony will cost, and I'll believe the prices on the JVC ENG-style camera when we hear it.

Three years ago, there was a JVC mini-DV camera that cost, with lens, $15,000. Part of the Cinema line, but NOT 24P...

heath

Back to the original question, is 20k affordable?

Even if the new JVC full-size runs that high, it would be worth it to me for the lens options alone. The HD10 is inexpensive - a cam that does 720p that costs less than my car, something I never expected this soon. Take into account the time and trouble to buy/build a mini35 unit for it to use better lenses, have some depth of field without having to fake it all in After Effects, etc., and to me the new full-size camera suddenly doesn't look quite as expensive. People who don't need the features of a full-size camera, no problem. They can use with the HD10 or the Sony coming out soon (granted, I'm using soon a s a relative term here). If you need the features a full-size camera offers, 20K is just fine. Especially with my budget constraints.

A full-size camera that should do 720p that costs less than my house? Beats $60K or $100K.

Just my opinion.

Good analysis, Jeremiah!

heath

The argument of whether it's picture is 7x better is intriguing, but ultimately not accurate.

I find the JVC HD1/HD10 camera completely unusable in a professional production environment. So for me, it doesn't matter if it cost $2500 or $250. If you can't use it, you can't use it.

Now, let's compare the proposed HDV5000U (and of course that's my own made-up name, not any legit name) against, oh, say, a digital betacam camera like the DVW790. It goes for $45,000. Would it be safe to say that this standard-def camera would deliver a picture over twice as good as the new high-def HDV5000U? Sure shouldn't... yet Sony's sold quite a bit of digital betacam gear.

If the HDV5000U is priced at $20,000 I think it'll be quite overpriced, and they'll still sell every one they can make. Adding HDV chips to a $5000 camera shouldn't quadruple the price, should it? It would likely represent an obvious case of gouging, but still... a professional high-definition camera at less than half the cost of standard-def digital betacam? Less than a standard-def SDX900? A third of the cost of the next-lowest-priced professional HD camera? It would sell. I personally would expect to see the price at $10,000, and if the picture performs like it should, it's a no-brainer. The question you have to start asking at that point is, is the Varicam picture worth three to six times more than the HDV5000U...

Like the man said, when it comes to quality you always have to pay ten times more for that last five percent.

Right on, Betsy :)

I can see clearly now.....and I appreciate the flow of discussion. HD gear in general has been way overpriced. However, they were able to "get away with it" because it was the only game in town, R & D costs, low sales volume, yada...Meanwhile, the HD10 for all its shortcomings was probably priced right where such cameras should be priced. I mean, they sure weren't losing money on the product. So now that we've seen just how nice a picture a mere $3000 can buy, for JVC to suddenly produce as their successive entrant a $20K camera seems to be the result of a smoke-filled backroom threat from the others (not to be overly dramatic or to insinuate anything). You know what I mean? It just doesn't make sense from a relative point of view.
Keep in mind this is mini-DV mechanicals inside that JVC perfected with their SD DV500 camcorder priced at a mere $5000. (I'm assuming that's what this new camcorder will look like.)
I think lots of folks expected a $10K camera as the logical successor....

I expect the HDV5000U to be $10k as well. If it's $20,000, like I said, it will look grossly overpriced and like market gouging. But still 1/3 the cost of the next-least-expensive pro HD camera, so still it could be viewed as a screaming bargain, it's all in the eyes of the beholder/buyer.

But, as far as I know there hasn't been a press release or any official statement from JVC as to a) whether the camera will actually exist, and b) what it will cost. There's been some mention of somebody supposedly from JVC, who floated a trial balloon about price, but no mention as to whether it would be 1/3", 2/3", based on the DV500, anything. It might be an HDV version of their excellent Digital-S lineup, which would definitely make it worth more than an HDV5000.

But there's no press release that I know of, no factual statement that I know of, no actual announcement yet.

So we are, as Lynne said, engaging in idle chit-chat until next week... :)

What's the exact date of the convention? When will we put out of our JVC/Sony mystery?

April 17-22

But will the mystery end then? Who knows? On Sony's web site they have an NAB preview and they list a lot of products that they'll be introducing. But none of them are an HDV camera. Are they not showing it? Or are they just planning on "surprising" us, even though everyone's been reading about it for a month...

This wacky world will continue to turn. Other than that, there's no guarantees.

I have been watching this thread and have to put in my 2 cents now. For all those wondering if this is going to be a 1/2 or 2/3" camera, look at how many people complain that their 1/2" lens is not good enough for SD resolution and imagine throwing that on a camera with almost 3 times the quality. The only way a 1/2" lens would work with an HDV camera would be if canon/fuji, etc. came out with a lens specifically for the HDV camera. Unfortunately that won't happen for a while if ever. Our only solution at this point in time is to use a 2/3" HD lens made by canon or fuji. Those start in the upper single thousands and into the low tens. There is no such thing as a cheap HD lens. Now, if you take into account that JVC might be able to work deals with Fuji as they did with the DV500, 5000, etc.. they could probably sell a HDV camera for around 20k packaged with the cheapest "relative term" HD lens on the market. Then again, if the camera itself is 20k you are looking at another 10k for a lens. As stated by many others, that may seem like alot to prosumers, but when you consider that you can have a 20k HDV camera that is at least comparable to a 63k Varicam, that 20k doesn't seem like a whole lot. If JVC decides to add 24p to this camera then you will definitely see alot of people, including myself, buying one of these and being very happy with their purchase.

JVC already has 2 cams with 2/3 inch chips. The dv700 and the dy90W. IF they can come out with 2/3 progressive 480p or 720p for 20K, and it supports 4:2:2 color (not HDV 4:1:1) it will be a bargain compared to other pro rigs. If it's an upgrade to the 700 and is HDV only, well, have to wait and see.

Minor correction, HDV isn't 4:1:1, it's 4:2:0.

You know, JVC's always had a "cheap" version of HD on the market. The very first HD demonstration I saw was back in the early 90s in NYC at an Expo. I don't remember the model # but it was some sort of analog camera and tape system aimed mainly at medical markets. So who knows, maybe they'll borrow from that technology.... at least for a cheaper lens to put on this new version. That camera was marketed for around $40,000 when everyone else was $100,000 or more.

If JVC's cam is priced at 15 -20k it's because it will be allowing great lenses and WON'T be using mpeg2 compression. I hope.

I can see the Sony kicking everyone's ass at 5k untill panny drops 3 HD chips into the SDX or the DVX.

This is almost like waiting for Christmas, adult version ;-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Struthers : If JVC's cam is priced at 15 -20k it's because it will be allowing great lenses and WON'T be using mpeg2 compression. I hope -->>>

It's HDV, which is mpeg2.

heath

Hmmm you're right. Guess we'll have to wait to see how it looks.

You can get an Aaton A minima for 17k, which still smokes most HD cams...

> You know what I mean? It just doesn't make sense from
> a relative point of view.

It depends. If it has CMOS chips, if it writes 24p 1920x1080 MPEG2 into a DV format tape at, say 50 Mbps, if it has a good sensitivity to light and lattitude, no vertical smear, very little noise, custom transfer curves, interchangeable lenses... it will be one heck of a camera.

And it doesn't need to use those expensive high-end HD video lenses to get a great image, it can use photo lenses with Canon SLR mounts you can buy in the street today and still be much much better than any SD DV camera you can buy up to now.

Granted, video lenses are not photo lenses and are expected to zoom without losing focus and focus without changing image angle... but it's very rare that you actually zoom during a shot... and you focus only as a last resort and in small ranges if the tape is running, at least I rarely do... so a lot of of us would pay $10k for such a cam and then some more for a set of photo lenses, or $20k if it comes with a killer multipurpose big bucks zoom lens.

It will most likely not be anything less than 1/2", becasue you would not get enough light onto the chips (I am the happy user af PDX10 so I know what I am talking about, more resolution, less photons on each pixel).

Remember, this is CMOS, not CCD, so the sensors might be like those nice big ones on the new Canon digicams. Hopefully even bigger. The perfect camera would be one that has a sensor array the size of a 35mm frame and uses 35mm photo lenses. Doubt this will be it, but we seem to be going in that direction.

Oh and by the way... I read somewhere that for non-interlaced video 4:2:0 is really very very good, much better than 4:1:1.

I wonder if this is $20K for the camera head and $8K for the lens?

People cannot compare the new JVC HDV camera to the dv500 that costs $5000. if it is a 2/3 inch camera then it would have to be compared to the dv700 which can costs around $12,000.00 for a 2/3 inch mini dv camera. Comparing a 1/2 camera to a 2/3 camera is comparing apples to oranges.

$20,000 for a Hd version of a $12,000 camera isn't as much of a jump. It may also be more on the lines of the dv5000 that uses full size tapes instead of just the mini tapes of the 500 or 700.

If they are going to run the tapes at 2X to get 50 Mbits then having full size tapes would be nice opposed to just getting 30 minutes on a mini tape.

Also it is kind of hard to compare a 2/3 3 chip camera to JVC's 1/3 single chip camera in terms of price. Comparing a $300 SONY dv camera to a SONY DSR570 is pointless. They use the same DV recording format but the image quality is light years ahead of the cheap camera.

Now considering that the JVC 2/3 HD camera is only slightly more expensive than the 2/3 SONY SD camera makes the price seem not so bad. Clearly the new camera as well as the DSR570 is not meant for the indie producer on a McDonalds budget.

My only concern at this point is that regardless is you have 25 Mbit, 50 Mbit, or 100 Mbit HDV it is still at 4,2,0 unlike SD video where 50 Mbit is 4,2,2 opposed to the 25 Mbit 4,1,1. If JVC expands the HDV standard into a new color standard for 50 Mbit then that would be great.

Since JVC created the HDV standard I am sure they can modify it as well

> Since JVC created the HDV standard I am sure
> they can modify it as well

I am sure they can. However as I undertsand it the format was codeveloped by JVC and Sharp.

Where did you hear about the JVC/Sharp connection? I may have missed it.

heath

Sorry I don't have the link at hand. It seems that this codevelopment explains why there are two different resolutions in the HDV format. I don't remember any more details, but I recall having read something about Sharp working on a Viewcam-like HDV prototype for the Japanese market and then dropping the project.

In that case, we'll just leave it as a rumor, sorry to say. Let's do some research and find out about it! :-)

heath

There's a bit of info on Sharp/JVC connection on this page (scroll down to the GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 specifications):

http://www.geocities.com/mammacow3

You know, I tried re-freshing the site and I got a generic Geocities page. Is that legit?

heath

It appears they've gone over their transfer limit. Anyway, here's what the page said:

Another interesting tidbit in the rumor mill is that originally (a couple of years ago) JVC and Sharp were working together to build the platform which has become the GR-HD1. But when Sony came along negotiating LCD panels with Sharp, they also opened the door to license their own HDV technology, the design for a 1080i solution. Sharp bought into it due to fewer motion artifacts and more resolution, leaving JVC alone to continue developing their 720p technology. Around the same timeframe, Sony welcomed the work that JVC had done so far as part of the HDV spec, making for a more well-rounded standard to include both 720p and 1080i resolutions. For a year now I've been wondering why in the world the HDV spec defined 720p as using a transport stream and 1080i instead with Packetized Elementary Stream (PES). This tidbit, if true, completely explains that discrepancy!