I was wondering if anyone was able to find out whether video shot at 720p60 with the 200 series cameras would be accepted by Discovery HD for 100% content instead of 15% like the Z1U/HVX200 cameras. I called and emailed them but got no response.

Thanks,

Forrest

Discovery is a 1080 network, so you'll need to transcode all 720 material no matter what. I'm pretty sure they won't take any 720 material. And beyond that, I'm sure the requirements are pretty specific.

No more than 15% HDV per show. My friend is a Senior Staff editor there.

I understand Discovery is a 1080 network. But, they also accept the Varicam, which is a 720p camera, as long as the master is in 1080i. My workflow would consist of shooting with a 200, editing in uncompressed or ProRes, then cross converting to 1080 and dumping to an HDcam master with a Kona card.

The Discovery specs that I was able to find on the internet are dated June 2006, and on this forum there has been recent rumors floating around that because the 200/250 chips are 1280x720 and don't "up rez" like the Z1U and HVX200 that the JVC cameras may fall within their parameters if one follows a workflow designed to retain as much quality as possible.

Just curious...I have a potential project in Asia that would lend itself to the lighter weight of the 200.

We've discussed this topic several times before, so there are some other, longer discussions to read through. Regardless of acquisition format, all submissions to Discovery HD are on HDCAM masters. This begs the question, how is anyone to know what format the material was originated on, be it HDV or DVCPRO HD or whatever (unless a camera appears in a shot, of course).

Shoot well, and they'll most likely have no need to question it.

Because along with your masters, you must also supply source tapes so they can recut the show to clock when they want to.

Also, its not as much about the HDV compression per say as they like the better quality a 2/3" HD chip gives.

Because along with your masters, you must also supply source tapes so they can recut the show to clock when they want to.First I've heard of that. Thanks for the info.

Also, its not as much about the HDV compression per say as they like the better quality a 2/3" HD chip gives.Right on. After all, the same restrictions apply to material originated on the Panasonic HVX200, due to its 1/3rd-inch chips.

It also depends who you are. Monster Garage shot half a program with a Z1 and half with their new SDX900 (no more Varaicam).

It was interesting to see the supposed difference between pro and prosumer. The fact was, they simply looked different. The DVCPRO HD looked -- after the Z1 -- too soft. The Z1 looked -- after the DVCPRO HD -- too sharp. But, after 30 seconds, both looked perfectly fine. In fact, if they had used a V1 it would have had more rez than the DVCPRO HD and less enhancement than the Z1.

Which means a "ban" is silly on HDV itself. Moreover, since camera technology is rapidly changing -- banning a certain chip size is equally stupid.

PS: "Because along with your masters, you must also supply source tapes so they can recut the show to clock when they want to." And, if you shoot P2 or to harddisk? Somehow this doesn't seem true.

I started the original thread about Discovery HD Theater's possible acceptance of the HD200/250 cameras for full acquisition. I reason I brought the subject up was because a dealer, while extolling the virtues of the cameras, told me they did. Sceptically, I grilled the salesman further and told him he needed to supply written proof. He said he'd get back to me, and of course he never did. I think he was a bit confused and thought Discovery HD's 15% rule of HDV footage meant the whole shebang.
Discovery HD tests every new camera that comes to the market. They run it through extensive tests, checking to see how the camera's images hold up through editing, satellite uplinking, etc. So far, no 1/3" chip HDV camera has passed their strict guidelines. I've also heard if you feel clever and try to sneak HDV video past their engineers, it won't work; they'll catch it and reject your project. But don't feel too bad; even Super-16 film failed their tests.
I was hoping that the HD200 series cameras' 720/60P acquisition with proper lenses made the footage smooth enough to pass their tests, and it very well might. The video I've seen from my 200 sure looks fantastic to me. I have yet to see an D-HD guideline updated since June, 2006, before D-HD could have tested the HD-200s. Of course, there's no getting around HDV's 19 mbps compression.
There is a series shot entirely on HDV, using Canon H1s, that is, or will, air on Lifetime. They passed the network's standards by shooting in HDV, using the camera's HD/SDI link to transfer all the footage to HDCAM, then use that as their editing master. It was then sent out on HDCAM and Beta SX. That seems to have fulfilled that particular network's acquisition standards. Maybe the same can work for Discovery HD?
But say you did shoot a program on HDV and it won't get accepted by D-HD. That's not the end of your project. Downconvert it to a standard format (DigiBeta, I'm guessing) and try and market it to other cable networks, maybe even the regular Discovery channel stations. It's got to look better than regular DV.
I also look at HDV as a learning tool. We can learn all the nuances of shooting and editing in a true HD format at a much reduced cost. With this experience, we can comfortably move on to more "professional" HD formats.

Because along with your masters, you must also supply source tapes so they can recut the show to clock when they want to.

Also, its not as much about the HDV compression per say as they like the better quality a 2/3" HD chip gives.

And if your source tapes get lost in transfer, then what? That's an unusual request. I would never release my source tapes. I'd give them an HDCAM master of all the raw video. Maybe that would do it?
Would producers of a program even allow someone else at a network to change their "baby" without their say-so? I can see D-HD requesting a project be trimmed for timing purposes, and the original creator of the project doing so, then sending back the new final master.

There's no getting around the superior resolution of 2/3" chips. But Discovery HD now allows the XDCAM HD's 1/2" chips for full acquisition (at 35 mbps). Here's hoping for our HD200s!

Of course, there's no getting around HDV's 19 mbps compression.
There is a series shot entirely on HDV, using Canon H1s, that is, or will, air on Lifetime. They passed the network's standards by shooting in HDV, using the camera's HD/SDI link to transfer all the footage to HDCAM, then use that as their editing master. It was then sent out on HDCAM and Beta SX.

The HD-SDI link did NOTHING to either preserve or improve HDV. In fact, by going to HDCAM they simply added another stage of compression.

Of course, they may have believed it improved HDV or they may have snuck one over on LifeTime. Or, they may have wanted the convenience of HDCAM ingest. But, improve on HDV -- not one "bit" better.

PS: HD2 is 25Mbps not 19Mbps.

I started the original thread about Discovery HD Theater's possible acceptance of the HD200/250 cameras for full acquisition. I reason I brought the subject up was because a dealer, while extolling the virtues of the cameras, told me they did. Sceptically, I grilled the salesman further and told him he needed to supply written proof. He said he'd get back to me, and of course he never did. I think he was a bit confused and thought Discovery HD's 15% rule of HDV footage meant the whole shebang.
Discovery HD tests every new camera that comes to the market. They run it through extensive tests, checking to see how the camera's images hold up through editing, satellite uplinking, etc. So far, no 1/3" chip HDV camera has passed their strict guidelines. I've also heard if you feel clever and try to sneak HDV video past their engineers, it won't work; they'll catch it and reject your project. But don't feel too bad; even Super-16 film failed their tests.
I was hoping that the HD200 series cameras' 720/60P acquisition with proper lenses made the footage smooth enough to pass their tests, and it very well might. The video I've seen from my 200 sure looks fantastic to me. I have yet to see an D-HD guideline updated since June, 2006, before D-HD could have tested the HD-200s. Of course, there's no getting around HDV's 19 mbps compression.
There is a series shot entirely on HDV, using Canon H1s, that is, or will, air on Lifetime. They passed the network's standards by shooting in HDV, using the camera's HD/SDI link to transfer all the footage to HDCAM, then use that as their editing master. It was then sent out on HDCAM and Beta SX. That seems to have fulfilled that particular network's acquisition standards. Maybe the same can work for Discovery HD?
But say you did shoot a program on HDV and it won't get accepted by D-HD. That's not the end of your project. Downconvert it to a standard format (DigiBeta, I'm guessing) and try and market it to other cable networks, maybe even the regular Discovery channel stations. It's got to look better than regular DV.
I also look at HDV as a learning tool. We can learn all the nuances of shooting and editing in a true HD format at a much reduced cost. With this experience, we can comfortably move on to more "professional" HD formats.

Thanks for the clarification, Glen. It falls into my original line of thinking concerning HDV and D-HD. I'm in the market for a new camera (my FX-1 is dying after many, many hours of use) and have several projects in the works. The 200 series cameras have caught my interest, and I'll be getting a demo from JVC this week. I've never owned JVC products...being a Sony guy since starting in the business 20+ years ago.

I do have concerns about the JVC 720p60 workflow after reading threads about ingest problems into FCP, but am interested in seeing for myself how smooth the video looks.

My first choice is a camera that won't hit the market until fall at the earliest...the XDCAM EX. But, the projects are now! I may buy a V1U to get me by, or possibly rent for awhile.

The HD-SDI link did NOTHING to either preserve or improve HDV. In fact, by going to HDCAM they simply added another stage of compression.

Of course, they may have believed it improved HDV or they may have snuck one over on LifeTime. Or, they may have wanted the convenience of HDCAM ingest. But, improve on HDV -- not one "bit" better.

PS: HDV2 is 25Mbps not 19Mbps.

Well, if they were doing HD-SDI out of the camera live, if it's like the JVC 250, then there is no HDV compression. To be honest, for most "reality/home improvment" shows HDV would look fine.

And JVC's HDV rate is 19Mbs with a 6 GOP.

Matthew

Forrest,
I also was in the market for a new camera - and ended up purchasing an HD200 after doing much research and hands-on experience. It's also my first JVC camera. If you've been in the business for over 20 years like myself, then you'll appreciate the camera's control layouts. It's very much in the style of Beta SP-type camcorders, with a real honest-to-gosh lens.
The XDCAM EX willl have 1/2" chips, so that might be the small format camera that finally gets accepted by Discovery HD. I'm not sure if it'll record at 35 mbps (D-HD's requirement).

As far as ingesting 720/60p, my buddy has FCP 6 on a G5 Mac, with Black Magic. We were able to ingest 60p, 30p and 24p with no problems. He had to try a different route to ingest the 60p, but it worked flawlessly after he figured it out. (I can ask him how he did it, if anyone likes). The different frame rates also edited seamlessly together. It looked fantastic!

Steve, I never said the Lifetime project preserved or improved the HDV video. That was the workflow they chose, for whatever reasons. Personally, I love the way HDV looks. Doesn't outputting HDV through HD/SDI come out at 4:2:2 color sampling? If so, maybe that's why they chose to use HDCAM as their editing master.

Forrest,
I also was in the market for a new camera - and ended up purchasing an HD200 after doing much research and hands-on experience. It's also my first JVC camera. If you've been in the business for over 20 years like myself, then you'll appreciate the camera's control layouts. It's very much in the style of Beta SP-type camcorders, with a real honest-to-gosh lens.
The XDCAM EX willl have 1/2" chips, so that might be the small format camera that finally gets accepted by Discovery HD. I'm not sure if it'll record at 35 mbps (D-HD's requirement).

As far as ingesting 720/60p, my buddy has FCP 6 on a G5 Mac, with Black Magic. We were able to ingest 60p, 30p and 24p with no problems. He had to try a different route to ingest the 60p, but it worked flawlessly after he figured it out. (I can ask him how he did it, if anyone likes). The different frame rates also edited seamlessly together. It looked fantastic!

Steve, I never said the Lifetime project preserved or improved the HDV video. That was the workflow they chose, for whatever reasons. Personally, I love the way HDV looks. Doesn't outputting HDV through HD/SDI come out at 4:2:2 color sampling? If so, maybe that's why they chose to use HDCAM as their editing master.

Glen,
I'd be interested in your buddy's route concerning 60p. I'm currently running FCS 2 on a Mac Pro with a Blackmagic Intensity card, but am considering a Kona LHe or Blackmagic Multibridge Pro. The mixed timeline option in FCP 6 is great. I've been playing around with it and it does seem to work very well.

...I called and emailed them but got no response.


They are going through a transition period w/ new leadership and some layoffs.

Supposedly, the XDcam source material is acceptable (1/2" chip, HDV compression).

You would think that allowing quality video from the JVC200 series would allow them to continue to pursue other cost saving avenues.

However, there is a bit of Sony snobery that is ingrained in the system.

My friend worked for the company that produced Rides & Overhaulin for Discovery and I have seen their content submission guidelines:

YES, yo do have to give them ALL the masters. If you shoot P2 you transfer to tape (althought they may have since started to accept hard drives).

No more than 15% HDV (or HVX200), ALTHOUGH they do accept XDCAM HD (because the bigger chips, better glass and higher bitrate).

It will be interesting to see what they say about XDCAM EX (which WILL feature 35mbs compression but with a fixed lens), but I do not think they wil accept our JVCs as primary cameras (again, low bitrate and noisier 1/3 " chips).

Doesn't outputting HDV through HD/SDI come out at 4:2:2 color sampling?

Yeah, and uprezzing MiniDV to 1080 gives you an HD picture.

Well, if they were doing HD-SDI out of the camera live, if it's like the JVC 250, then there is no HDV compression. To be honest, for most "reality/home improvment" shows HDV would look fine.

And JVC's HDV rate is 19Mbs with a 6 GOP.

Matthew

Not to be a "nit" but:

"using the camera's HD/SDI link to transfer all the FOOTAGE to HDCAM, then use that as their editing master."

And, 720p is HD1 not HD2. And the Z1 shoots HD1.

And JVC's HDV rate is 19Mbs with a 6 GOP.
Matthew
Well, actually JVC 24P is even less bandwidth when your workflow throws out the repeated frames eg when you record direct to HD on camera.
60p is 19Mbs with 12 GOP.

HDV2 is by definition 1080i (Sony/Canon) which is what the monster garage ref was about.

Pedantic, yes but keeping it clear! Plus the compression is simply far more effecient than any previous digital camera.

I would guess that standards based on certain formats are up for review on a regular basis. A great cinematographer, a great subject, an HD200 with the HZ prime lens converter - irresistable!

Claiming the original footage. there are some pretty tough deals out there, and sellers are invariably hungrier than the buyers. Plus the buyers sharks have more teeth. Just recently I had an associate tell me about the hard time he had gettiing his own footage back to use and cleared from a doc sold to Miramax years ago. It was a sicko original contract, but he wanted the deal real bad back then.

To update the info on the Lifetime show, called "Lovespring International," they "clone" the HDV video to HDCAM (via HD/SDI), so I assume they mean they transfer it to HDCAM to make an editing master source tape, correct?
The show is aired in standard def, but shooting it in HDV makes it look a lot better, or so says the DP, Laura Merians. Rule of thumb, people; always start out with the best acquisition you can.
Here's a link, and remember, she chose the Canon H1 before the HD250 came out:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/casestudies/6788.html

Still, proof positive that an episodic network program was made with HDV.

To update the info on the Lifetime show, called "Lovespring International," they "clone" the HDV video to HDCAM (via HD/SDI), so I assume they mean they transfer it to HDCAM to make an editing master source tape, correct?
The show is aired in standard def, but shooting it in HDV makes it look a lot better, or so says the DP, Laura Merians.

Depends on how they are 'cloning' to HDCAM. If they are taking the live camera feed out of HDSDI straight to an HDCAM deck, there is NO compression and true 4:2:2 chroma sampling. If they make dubs of the HDV tape to HDCAM after the fact, then the HDV compression and colorspace reduction has already happened. Using the first method allows for a high fidelity image with a lesser priced camera head. The only limitation being dynamic range in f-stops of the smaller imagers. That dynamic range is easier to manage on a set with proper lighting.

-gb-

If they make dubs of the HDV tape to HDCAM after the fact, then the HDV compression and colorspace reduction has already happened.
-gb-

Since the original post used the word "footage" I'm assuming it was from tape.

Clone means a bit-for-bit copy -- like copying a disk file. HD-SDI to "any VTR" is not a clone of HDV. There is a decode and then a recompression. Only FireWire supports cloning.

Which raises the question IS IT possible to clone, via FireWire, HDV to XDCAM HD at 25Mbps? If one can, then that's a better option than going to HDCAM. But, I suspect the HDCAM choice was made because many many more folks have a HDCAM VTR than an XDCAM HD VTR.

PS: "Well, actually JVC 24P is even less bandwidth when your workflow throws out the repeated frames eg when you record direct to HD on camera." There are no repeated frames with 24p. There are REPEAT FLAGS that require no compression. So there are only 24 frames to compress. Everything else are flags.

A year ago I did a comparison of 720p24 verses 24N. Mathematically, the 720p24 uses lower compression than 24N. Despite this, Panasonic continues to quote 100Mbps when they talk about quality -- and then when pressed about limited storage on P2, they quickly switch to talking about 24N. Drives me crazy when they do this in public and not one person objects. Keeping it clear it important because there's so much intentional FUD as well as simple missinformation about HDV. Especially 720p.

Since the original post used the word "footage" I'm assuming it was from tape. Clone means a bit-for-bit copy -- like copying a disk file. HD-SDI to "any VTR" is not a clone of HDV. There is a decode and then a recompression. Only FireWire supports cloning.

You would be correct. The HDV tapes are "cloned" to HDCAM. There is no direct H1 camera-to-HDCAM workflow, via live feed.

As far as the original question of this whole thread - will Discovery HD accept the HD200 for full acquisition?
The final answer is a definite - not sure. But more than likely, no.

Forrest, if you're set on shooting a doc for D-HD, I'd play it safe and use at least an F330 XDCAM HD. I believe that's the cheapest option out there.
If you want a light, easily portable, user-friendly HD-capable camera that takes beautiful pictures regardless of D-HD's guidelines, then the HD200 is a fine choice. It is for me, anyway. I plan on shooting my own docs with it.

Thanks, Glen. I've also been looking closely at the 330/350 cameras as an option for this project because of their acceptance by D-HD. First of all, the project has to come through along with a budget, now doesn't it?. Right now it's in the "possible" stage.

I do have my own docs that I'm considering, and the 200 would fit the bill nicely, as well as for my corporate clients. As I noted early on in this thread, I'm getting a hands on demo from JVC later this week, so we'll see how it strikes me.

I've been working in HDV since the FX-1 hit the market, and it's served me well...allowing me to make a living without breaking my bank account. Treated correctly, you can produce nice material in HDV.

But, I've been quite intrigued by the XDCAM EX since I saw it at NAB. It appears to be a camera, with its higher bit rate and more forgiving codec, that can take many of us small independents to a higher level...both in video quality and client base. Will it initiate the demise of HDV (at least on the Sony side) in the professional ranks? That's a big question, and we could go around and around about that, with opinions across the map.

There are many routes to take, with excellent equipment made by the major manufacturers. It makes things all the more difficult when considering capital expenditures. But, thanks to the people on this, and other forums out there, we're able to gather the information we need before taking the plunge.

Thanks to all that have responded to this thread. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Forrest

Forrest, if you're set on shooting a doc for D-HD, I'd play it safe and use at least an F330 XDCAM HD. I believe that's the cheapest option out there.
If you want a light, easily portable, user-friendly HD-capable camera that takes beautiful pictures regardless of D-HD's guidelines, then the HD200 is a fine choice. It is for me, anyway. I plan on shooting my own docs with it.

glen pretty much nailed it here....

all of the sub-10K HDV cams are fine for shooting your own docs or for SD broadcast purposes. i think we're all holding out hopes for yet-to-be-released XDCAM EX to meet the minimum HD broadcast standards at an affordable price. i could get two of those for less than the price of a RED....dang.

it's a great time to be in video, but it would be even greater if some of these promised land cameras could be released soon! can't wait to see what's over the horizon...

News today from Discovery Communications:

Discovery Communications has changed its official policy for HD content delivery because of it (. Up to now, the Atlanta-based company had a strict policy that no HD program could take more than 30 percent of its source footage from an HDV camera. With the JVC ProHD cameras enhanced with the LoLux software and an 18X Fujinon lens, Discovery now allows certain programs to be shot 100 percent with JVC’s ProHD (19.7 Mbps) equipment.

News today from Discovery Communications:

Discovery Communications has changed its official policy for HD content delivery because of it (. Up to now, the Atlanta-based company had a strict policy that no HD program could take more than 30 percent of its source footage from an HDV camera. With the JVC ProHD cameras enhanced with the LoLux software and an 18X Fujinon lens, Discovery now allows certain programs to be shot 100 percent with JVC’s ProHD (19.7 Mbps) equipment.

Wow, that's good news for many folks.

-gb-

News today from Discovery Communications:

Discovery Communications has changed its official policy for HD content delivery because of it (. Up to now, the Atlanta-based company had a strict policy that no HD program could take more than 30 percent of its source footage from an HDV camera. With the JVC ProHD cameras enhanced with the LoLux software and an 18X Fujinon lens, Discovery now allows certain programs to be shot 100 percent with JVC’s ProHD (19.7 Mbps) equipment.

Eric,

How did you find out about this? Was there a press release or something? Is there a link you could provide? I did a google search and couldn't find anything.

Thanks...

So no love for the stock lens. Makes sense.

Was there a press release or something? Is there a link you could provide?I have to wonder whether this is really legitimate, or just wishful thinking out loud... Eric?

WOW!!!
This is big, big news!!

Then that makes the HFD200/250s a terrific bargain. Now I gotta spring for more cash for that $$$$$ 18X lens.
Eric, a link of some sort would be beneficial.

OK, I just got my camera. What's the LoLux software?

Wow, that's good news for many folks.

-gb-

I found the link to Studio Daily.

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/headlines/8205.html

If anyone wants to submit programming to Discovery Networks, whew...it ain't easy. You better have your act together.

http://producers.discovery.com/

If anyone wants to submit programming to Discovery Networks, whew...it ain't easy. You better have your act together.

As it should be. Discovery is dealing with millions of eyeballs, they want to make damn sure that whoever is producing programming for them is up to that responsibility.

If anyone wants to submit programming to Discovery Networks, whew...it ain't easy. You better have your act together.

http://producers.discovery.com/

Is the new firmware "LoLux" for the HD250 only? Or is a version for the HD110 also?

Weird. LoLUx is found in JVC security cameras.

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL101306

It came in an e-mail release from HD Studio magazine today.
Michael Grotticelli is the author, and here's the online link to the article:
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/8205.html

I was on the pro.jvc.com website and I cannot find this lowlux firmware upgrade anywhere. Does anyone know how to get it?

and one has to ask how does a firmware change convert a camera, surely low light performance is dictated by the hardware not software, other than cleaning up codec etc.

surely low light performance is dictated by the hardware not software...Sorry, but software has a lot to do with it. The heart of the camera is not the image sensors, but the Digital Signal Processor (DSP). And of course the processor is affected by software. So yes, a firmware update can significantly improve a camera's low-light performance.

Well I just checked the latest software at JVC and I don't see anything about a "new software upgrade" that improves low light performance.

The only option there is still the last firmware upgrade which was "VTR CPU V0101" for the 200. "VTR CPU V0105" for the 250.

What are they talking about?

I guess it's too early for JVC to have added the firmware upgrade on their website. I tried calling JVC, but after about 15 minutes on hold, I gave up. Try to be patient; we've just learned about this new info.

The previous firmware upgrades were to lessen or eliminate NLE issues between the HD200/250s and FCP (or was it Apple in general?).

There isn't even a press release on the JVC Pro site yet, so it seems that Studio Daily must have jumped the gun a little on the article. Maybe there was a presentation at Infocomm? Was anyone there?

Cinegear starts on Friday so maybe we'll hear more then.

I just talked to one of the service guys at the JVC center in NJ today and he said that they all are tied up in a day long event.

Maybe there is some training or updating on the new firmware going on.

Also, Robbie Yarish at the Midwest service center told me today that he thought there was going to be a firmware update for the HD100 like there was for the HD200 and HD250.

All of this is passed on third party, so please don't take it as gospel, just an idea of what might be coming soon.

Dan Weber

Does the LoLux reduce the noise levels on the normal gain settings?

I can only recall one occasion when I wanted more than 18db gain on a BVW 400, so the use of really high gain levels tends to be specialist. That one occasion was at night in the countryside filming a fly on the wall documentary on "the troubles" in Northern Ireland.

I've spoken with a guy in JVC's New Jersey plant about the LoLux upgrade. He had yet to hear about it, but was going to check with the engineering staff and get back to me. Here's another link to the article and a link to the author's email:

http://www.studiodaily.com/hdstudio

I tried writing to the auther, Michael Grotticelli, but my email came back as undeliverable. Perhaps someone else can have more success. I just wanted to know if Michael had more info.

Here's an interesting Q&A article about Discovery HD's guidelines.

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/issue_pdfs/def22/discovery.pdf

Here's an interesting Q&A article about Discovery HD's guidelines.

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/issue_pdfs/def22/discovery.pdf

...Footage that looks great in post is of limited use if it doesn't work well with the compression that all networks apply at the time of transmission and distribution.

Hmmmm. I wonder what the standard (if there is a standard) rate of compression is applied by networks at the time of transmission.

I got an email back from my JVC dealer (the technician who did my HD100 updates)...
This LoLux was a betatest a while ago which worked with minimum gain of 24dB, but the image was too noisy and not suitable therefore for professional usage.
Bummer... hopefully this article is talking about a newer version coming up.