LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I have been considering the JVC LS300 for some time. It's really between the Ursa Mini 4.6K and the LS300. I'm very concerned about the image quality, reliability and QC issues with the Ursa Mini (FPN, magenta, crosshatching, black lines, audio, etc), so am reluctant to go that route. And at about half the price the LS300 is very attractive.

I would mainly be using it for narrative projects (shorts, commercials, music videos, maybe even a micro-budget feature). The problem is that it seems very rare that anyone is shooting with the LS300 in narrative situations, so I don't really know what to expect. I can only find 3 shorts online, the 2 Heist shorts and another. And no reviews about using the LS300 in narrative shooting.

I'm sure the LS300 is great in documentary and corporate situations as I've seen plenty examples of those. But I think narrative situations can push a camera to different extremes and in different ways than a documentary or corporate shoot can, especially when doing grading and VFX work in post.

Does anyone have any narrative projects shot with the LS300 that they could point me to view? It would be a great help in my decision-making. And any feedback and reports of your experiences of shooting with the LS300 in narrative projects would be helpful as well. Thank you.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Mike,

5:00 am thoughts before coffee.. I'm not sure yet but here is my rambling thoughts. My apologies if it doesn't make a lot of sense.

I just got my JVC LS300 2 weeks ago for narrative indie work straight to DVD/BluRay and 4K downloading and maybe if I'm lucky send to film festivals in 1-2 years from now.

My first thoughts is that my shot in the dark for a new camera will be good enough. I had intended to purchase the Digital Bolex D16 Cinema 2K camera about the time they stopped making cameras. I as well looked at the Black Magic Ursa Mini. I chose the JVC due to MFT to Nikon and other lens adaptability (I have a dozen Nikon lenses laying around) instead of the Ursa Mini that was PL and Canon only. Also the JVC 4K at 150mbps is about 50 gigs per hour on cheap SDUHS cards. 64g for $32 for instance and edits fairly easy on 1 external spinning HDD on my macbook. Cinema 4K/2K/1080p raw well not so much. far more data per second and far more CPU/GPU intensive to edit raw. Probably easiest at the moment to use Adobe Premier (lease per month) for editing raw and faster external HDD's (RAID or fast SSD?). JVC 4K 150 MB/s, Ursa mini 4K CinemaDNG Raw265 MB/s (3:1) 125MB/s. Or easier to edit (not needing to deal with raw) Apple ProRes 444XQ 312 MB/s all the way down to ProRes Proxy (yuck) 22.4 MB/s. Also Ursa Mini shooting on more expensive CF2 cards. So about twice the data per second with cards that cost 5x as much per gig. So the cost of running the Ursa mini is more. But all of that you probably already know from doing your research on B&H and Adorama.

So thoughts on using the JVC?

1. The rumors of it feeling CHEAP in your hands is NOT exaggerated. It is plastic housing and care should be used when handling it. If you were working with a crew for months I would buy a few of them for the the grip smacks into it with a C stand. Then again we lost a Arriflex overboard one day in Mexico while on Titanic so anything can happen.

2. J-Log I'm experimenting with takes the JVC from being a ho-hum 8 bit camera to pushing the limits of 8 bit image. dropping in the LUT in FCPX (with addition of Color Finale plug in $99) to enable FCPX to use Luts ballparks the image nicely. Issues is enhanced gain in shadows makes noticeable noise in dark areas. This usually looks like grain, but if I don't like I can use Color Finale plug in to use curves adjustment and crus the blacks just a little so the digital grain look goes away in the shadows.

3. Easy to use, light and small compared to my OLD JVC HD110 with IDX battery and HDD recorder.

4. Post work in FCPX? Easy, fairly fast with my 15" MBP 2014 model. Mini display port to Dell 27" 4K monitor both at 60hz pretty good. The color balance and gama looks like the older the JVC ProHD cameras (which I like) not nearly as video as Sony or as garish as Canon.

5. Image quality? Much more latitude than my Nikon DSLR's, more data per second than my friends GH4's (so should be cleaner?) and I swear more DR than either DSLR's.

6. It's 8 bit. It's not 12 bit raw or even 10 bit QT. No 10 bit output via connectors. However uncompressed 4K live output via the HDMI to say a Blackmagic 4K video assist or Atomos Ronin recorder/monitor (I hear the Atomos now has a JVC LUT so you can see what your footage will look similar too after grading live on the monitor as your recording 10 bit less compressed from the 8 bit uncompressed live image.

7. Being 8 bit does it scream 8 bit? Not so far, at least not too bad. Some of my DLSR work when it was perfect comes close, but most of the time my Nikon's DSLR D5200 just cold NOT handle any contrast and post work with Nikon footage had very little latitude before falling apart. I nearly always get a usable image from the JVC LS300 vs my Nikon DSLR that is hard to use.

8. Both JVC and Blackmagic have sample files for you to download and edit with on your home system. (that's great news) JVC did not at the time have any JLog footage to download but even so I was impressed enough to risk $3,000 on a camera I hadn't seen in person.

9. JVC does NOT list their camera as a cinema camera. Other companies with cameras not as good do list their cameras as a cinema camera. I would place the JVC in between a DSLR like the Panasonic GH4 and a Blackmagic Ursa Mini. Slightly more expensive than a GH4 when prepped for video and better in nearly every way. Same price as a Ursa mini, but half the price of a Ursa Mini when prepped with batteries and recording media for 8 hours of shooting on a 12 to 15 hour day. Image quality in between the two.

I'll try mixing some of the downloaded Digital Bolex 1080p raw footage with my JVC LS300 and perhaps some Blackmagic footage to see what I really think side by side.

For me getting back into video work it was probably the right choice due to cost of operation and quicker to edit and work with than raw, though the BM does shoot QT ProRes as well but at even higher MB/s than cinemaDNGraw.

Now if you are in an area to be hired out for bigger projects or have been working a lot recently on your own projects you may want the benefits of the 12 bit raw or at least 10 bit pro res for broadcast and paid indie work. If your like me who is going more indie route to get back working again, the JVC may make more sense for the film festival, broadcast and straight to DVD/BluRay amazon/itunes download as well as 4K youtube etc.

As far as real world Narrative work? I'll let you know this winter when I have time to work on my own projects, but for me for right now, it was probably the right choice.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

It's as fully functional as any modestly priced large sensor camera out there. The feature set is tilted towards a self-contained camera where many of the other options out there work better with extra audio equipment and at least one more crew member. The image is great and sure 10bit is better but so is 6K, the question is whether that makes any difference in the end. Does 8bit 4K look better than 8bit 1080 when downconverted? I don't know. I have projected 720HD (from a HD100) on a big screen and it looked great, nobody went up to me and said "That's not 1080, I hate it!".

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Alex, thank you for taking the time to give a thorough response and insightful feedback. Yes, I'm well aware of the data rate differences between Ursa Mini and the LS300. That's another reason why I'm still going back and forth. Love the lower data rate of the LS300, while at the same time would like to have at least the 10-bit ProRes and/or 12-bit compressed raw of the Ursa Mini. Both aspects definitely have their pluses and minuses. My computer is power enough to handle the raw of the Ursa Mini, so that's not a concern at all.

I'm not too concerned with the cost though. If there weren't so many complaints about the Ursa Mini (magenta, FPN, cross-hatching, horizontal black lines, audio issues) I would have bought one already. I've been waiting months for these issues to be resolved by BMD, but they haven't so I'm now considering the LS300, which actually has been on my radar for over a year. I have everything I'd need to get an Ursa Mini up and running (except for the camera and CF2 cards). For the LS300 I'd need to figure out a battery plate situation for my Gold Mount batteries and probably a more robust handle and maybe hack the XLR ports/handle connector to work. I would maybe buy an extra handle and take it apart to make my own XLR input box or something. And also the SD cards to record to.

My absolute main concern is image quality and how well the camera performs overall. I've heard the complaint about it feeling cheap, but that's really the only complaint I've heard. Does it feel cheaper than a GH4 or any other plastic camera? I haven't ready anywhere on the net about anyone having theirs break, but there's at least 2 reports of an Ursa Mini breaking, so maybe it's actually not an issue at all?

In the past I've owned a Panasonic HVX200, GH1, GH2, AF100 and a Red Epic Dragon. I don't want to be an owner of a really expensive camera anymore. I want a camera to shoot some of my own projects and maybe some projects for others. If they're happy with using my camera, whether it's an LS300 or Ursa Mini, then great. But if they want something better like an Alexa or a Red, then it would need to be rented. Here in LA though, there are so many Red owner/ops that it's difficult to get those jobs. And I've never seen or heard of anyone shooting anywhere around here with an LS300, so that could hurt me. I don't see a lot of BMD shoots happening, but they do happen. So it's a conundrum. The JVC seems more reliable and the Ursa Mini seems like a crapshoot.

William, that's exactly one of my thoughts. In the end, the audience that you really care about watching the film won't know the difference between 8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit, or AVCHD, ProRes, raw, or digital vs film, or in some cases 4K or 1080p when they watch it streaming over the internet. I totally get that. Many people prefer 1080p from Alexa over 6K from Red Epic Dragon. That's why I'm not hooked on the resolution, codec, etc. I will say I see a difference in quality with footage from the Ursa Mini and footage I've seen from the LS300. I like a lot of the LS300 footage I've seen, but the Ursa Mini footage at it's best, looks better to me than the best LS300 footage I've seen. There's bad footage from both, just as there's bad footage from any camera. The problem with the Ursa Mini is all the issues I've read about that can creep up at the wrong time and ruin the shoot or project, and that's a big problem.

So does anyone have any narrative work they could share with me so I can see some more narrative projects shot with the LS300? Preferably at 4K? Most of the JVC footage I see online is only 1080p, even if it was shot 4K. Has anyone tried VFX work with LS300 footage? Any extreme grading cases? (I'll download the footage from JVC's website, but I don't think it's J-Log) I would love to see what everyone is doing with these to see if it's something that will really work for me. I don't really hear anyone complaining or saying they're dissatisfied with the camera, so I'm certainly leaning in the direction of the LS300 right now. I think I just need something that gives me that final push.

Thank you.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

The handle on the jvc is very solid and robust, that together with the lensmount are the strongest parts of the camera, the weakest part by far is the lcd screen as it feels very flimsy and I have seen reports of it starting to develop play in the hinges after longer use.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

BMD just released beta 4.0 update for the Ursa Mini 4.6. It addresses some of the remaining issues
of the camera.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I produced some of the most popular hacks for the GH1 and GH2, and helped develop the Leeming LUT for J-Log1 on the JVC LS300. I've also owned an AF100 and have made extensive use of high bitrate hacks on Nikon D5200 and D800 cameras. From that perspective, I can make some comparative observations on image quality.

In H.264 video encoding, there's always a trade-off between single-frame image quality and inter-frame motion picture quality. We were able to explore this at 1080p bitrates up to 150Mbps on the GH2. The best All-I-frame hacks require massive amounts of bitrate to encode each frame individually at the highest possible quality. With inter-frame motion tracking, you can greatly reduce the bitrate used in B-frames, and devote more bits to encoding higher quality I-frames at any given bitrate. Consumer grade H.264 encoders exploit this too far, with gaps between I-frames of a half-second or more. With my GH2 hacks, I used a very short GOP of just two B-frames between each I-frame, optimizing for both image quality and motion tracking at the same time. Where you can see the difference is in smooth inter-frame transitions of sharply detailed moving objects. I have yet to see another H.264 camera produce better 1080p motion picture quality than a well-hacked GH2.

Where the GH2 suffers, however, is in its limited useful ISO range and crappy shaddow details. You can't alter its REC709 gamma curve or adjust its black level pedestal, leaving you stuck with crude chroma encoding at the bottom of its dynamic range. Nikon DSLR's are significantly better in this regard, with higher ISO ranges and customizable in-camera tone curves. In practice, I use the GH2 for sunlit outdoor shooting and the D5200 for dimly lit indoor scenes. They are both virtually free of moire and the high bitrate hacks eliminate compression artifacts. The REC709 color palettes also look very good straight out of the camera.

The AF100 was disappointing in many ways, and serves mostly as a starting point for evaluating the LS300. While it did have an adjustable pedestal, its REC709 tone curves were non-customizable and its super-white highlight handling was gross. Of course, it couldn't be hacked, and its H.264 compression artifacts were horrendous with fast moving subjects. But it had all the nice pro features the DSLR's lacked, like ND filters, XLR audio jacks, and a waveform monitor. But compared to hacked GH2 and Nikon cameras, the image quality was pathetic and its dynamics were straight out of the camcoder era.

Now we have the LS300, a true successor to the AF100, lacking only its waveform monitor. While it's not hackable, its 50Mbps @ 1080p and 150Mbps @ 4K bitrates are high enough to handle all but the most highly detailed scenery. ISO range is pretty good and in REC709 mode, both pedestal and gamma can be adjusted. The great leap forward, however, is J-Log1 mode, which eliminates all in-camera settings other than white balance and highlight exposure. It produces well-balanced dynamics that are pale and modestly flat, not as extreme as the log curves used in other cameras. It also makes Panasonic's GH4 V-log L debacle look like a self-inflicted trainwreck. OTOH, while JVC nailed its log firmware update, it dropped the ball with its funky LUT package, leaving users to eyeball tweak their J-Log1 footage. That's why I requested an LS300 LUT from Paul Leeming that matches the look of the GH4 in Cinema-D mode. (It also intercuts well with the GH2.)

With LS300 J-Log1 footage, cinematic vs video quality is almost entirely a matter of post-production esthetics. Using the footage straight out of the camera is no longer an option, even with a LUT you still need to sharpen it to bring out the details. If you shoot in 1080p, I recommend the 422 codec, it does make the gradients smoother, avoiding a major pitfall of the GH4. With 4K footage, you need a very sharp lens, because the camera adds no sharpening at all and the encoder will neglect edges that don't appear sharp to begin with. Most of the edge contrast you see in consumer grade video is courtesy of artificial sharpening and compression artifacts. Also, with J-Log1 there is no longer any excuse for overexposing your highlights, you have zebras and can see the highlights spike right in the LS300's histogram.

One final observation - the LS300's VSM is literally a dream come true, a perfectly parfocal, fixed aperture electronic zoom using any prime lens! Too bad the optical image stabilization works only on the latest Panasonic lenses...

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

@Mike Halper I had your same dilemma, choosing between the Ursa 4K and LS300, as they were in the same price range. I ended up getting the LS300 because I too heard a lot of issues with QC of the Ursa. Not to mention the added overhead cost of batteries and media with the Ursa. The Ls300 is not perfect, but it has advantages... I just had a shoot last weekend where the action was happening in a very small room and all was tight and crampy. Managed to get all the angles I wanted as the LS300 is rather lightweight and small. Don't think I could have done it with the Ursa

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

@Alex Humphrey if you are NOT doing work for film festivals, but your main medium of showing off your work is youtube/vimeo, does the 8bit limit matter after all? I did some experimentation myself, and find that even using 150mb/s compression is overkill. I'm getting good results in my eyes using the 70mb/s compression. What's your opinion on that?

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I'll jump in here with my opinions and experiences.

The final result of bandwidth and compression rates is so open to interpretation and needs that it's really hard to quantify it. What we see and what is seen by the audience (and I'm including sub-conscious effects) can be two different things. Yes a shot of a duck on moving water looks worse at 24mbps than 50mbps, than 70 mbps than 150 or 4K ProRes. Are you making a sit down interview doc or a handheld action film? The doc might work perfectly fine at 24mbps even when transferred to the big screen. A handheld film could work at that rate but would probably be better at 70 and above. With the difference between 10 and 8 bit recording, a panorama of the skyline with a clear blue sky might work better at 10bit than at 8bit but sometimes it is the camera itself that could cause a banding problem.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

It seems a bunch of us are in the same evaluation mode between these cameras. I echo that statement about the URSA Mini -- it would be a no-brainer if there weren't so many complaints. The LS300 sounds like a safer choice. The biggest problem for me is that I've been unable to find one to demo in the Vancouver, BC area, whereas the URSAs are everywhere.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

BlackMagic need a couple more years to finetune the Ursa and make a good name with indie makers... just like RED did all those years back... in the meantime, if i start making thousands of $ from video production, I will get one :) :)

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I would say 8 bit is fine for youtube and vimeo without question. IF you plan to go to Bluray or DVD or higher bitrate (paid download 1080p/4K) and have done much color grading/effects etc, you may wish you had shot at 150mbs to start with. But I only say that not having tried the 70mb/s settings. Since I was planning on the Digital Bolex or Ursa Mini by comparison the JVC's 150Mb/s on cheap cards and edits easily with a lot of wiggle room in post (not as much as raw of course but still tons more than HDV or Nikon DSLR) I just shoot the 150 Mb/s. The Digital Bolex for instance was 1080p and 512g was about 1.5 hours of recording. Looks phenomenal by the way. I still may track down a used Digital Bolex in a 1T in a year, but I missed my opportunity to custom order one plus their monochrome one (BW sensor). So temper everything I say with knowing that I was looking at 12 bit raw 444 art house indie cameras.

Oh and I do occasionally see 8 bit sky banding on my JVC LS300. Not terrible, I doubt anyone could see it after Vimeo and Youtube step all over it with their compression.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I shoot 70mbs 4K all the time now for speeches and church ceremonies at weddings, there is not much movement and the codec is not stressed so I"ll gladly take the benefit of getting more then twice the recording time on the same cards while visually retaining the same IQ. Pixelpeepers might see a difference compared to the 150mbs bitrate but I don't. Ofcourse I hardly do any grading on my footage but if I would I certainly would choose 150mbs over 70mbs, the same applies for footage with lot's of movement and fine detail, as soon as I would shoot a scene that would stress the codec or when I would push the footage in post it's an obvious choice to use the highest available bitrate.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I used 70mb/s in my first shoots as I was still experimenting with SDXC cards, and was buying the cheapest options, so the LS300 refused to record in 150mb/s! I did no have much problems as the final output will be youtube, so I was lucky! But hey, I'm still learning, so I have a good excuse!

Now I found some inexpensive cards that work at 150mb/s so I'm stocking on those (and will use the other cards for audio)

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Thanks for all the input, feedback, and reports everyone. I'm leaning towards not getting the Ursa Mini. Just too many problems with the image at this point... asymmetric magenta tinting, cross-hatching, audio ports and SDI ports going bad, etc. It's just not reliable enough to feel comfortable with.

I'm not too concerned with the 8-bit. Banding would be the only thing that would probably bother me, and I have ways of reducing that in post. (power window, blur, add grain, etc.) And I definitely like the idea of 150Mb/s bitrate vs. the much higher bit rates of raw and ProRes. If I need something better for a shoot it will probably be a bigger more important shoot that I'd probably need/want to rent a more reliable camera than the Ursa Mini anyway.

So I'm leaning even more towards the LS300. I have some PL lenses right now that I could get an adapter for and might get some EF lenses, zooms, etc. down the road. Seems like it might be the right option for now.

Is anyone powering the camera with Gold Mount batteries? I'd like to use my Gold Mount batteries so I have only one battery for the camera, EVF, external monitor, and wireless follow focus, but am unable to find a battery plate that either has an adapter for the battery contacts on the camera or a cable to the DC port. Even a d-tap to DC cable would work. Thoughts?

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Would having more bandwidth be something possible in a firmware update or can't the LS300 hardware handle more than 150mb/s? or is it a limitation of the SDXC card speed?

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Bang-for-the-buck wise, I don't think bitrates higher than 150Mbps would make a significant difference in J-Log1 encoding. At that rate you get about an hour of footage on a 64GB card, just enough for filming most live event performnces. I've examined the encoding of I-frames produced by the LS300 and macroblock artifacts are only rarely perceptible at 100% magnification. The H.264 encoder's motion tracking is clearly hardware-assisted (like Nikon's), making it significanty more efficient (smarter) than the software encoder used in Panasonic's GH line.

If JVC has any more firmware updates in mind, I'd much prefer they apply their skills to supporting image stabilization on a far wider range of Panasonic lenses. Second priority would be displaying both audio meter and histogram at the same time, and providing an option to display the HUD on external monitors. As for video, what would make a huge difference is any kind of 10-bit color, even if only through the HDMI port.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

HUD on external monitors + 10 bit color through HDMI would be fantastic!

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

A lot of the JVC marketing material, particularly their whitepaper about the LS300, promotes the low bandwidth requirements (8-bit, 150Mbps, etc.) as benefits rather than limitations. Not sure if that's just marketing gymnastics or a sincere objective for the product line, but it makes one doubt JVC has any plans to make this a 10-bit camera.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

from what i see, i think they don't have any more big plans for the ls300, but hopefully i am wrong

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

There is a glut of large sensor format videocamera models on the market now. There would have to be a large demand for the LS300 to inspire JVC to anything outside of incremental improvements.

Please remind me as this information isn't in JVC booklet that came with the camera: Is the SDI output also 8bit or is the camera processing everything at 8bit therefore whatever the SDI is, that's all we get?

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

There is a glut of large sensor cameras to be sure... but not of large sensor cameras with MFT mounts. The single biggest advantage that the LS300 has is its ability to be a big camera with the larger EF, PL or vintage still lenses, or to trim down with smaller, lighter MFT and even S16 and 16 lenses. Combined with the Prime Zoom, this camera is like no other.

However, I agree that its unlikely JVC will continue the line - and thats a real shame. Their marketing team should be taken out and shot, because they let this one slip through their fingers.

BTW I believe the only output possible with SDI or HDMI is 8bit... Seems like this was discussed here early on.

Another BTW - many have complained of the "cheap" plastic construction. I've been using my camera, mostly handheld, in a variety of adverse conditions for over a year and haven't had a single problem. To my mind, the plastic construction makes it light, with less mass, and thus easier to handle. Football helmets are made of plastic too...

I only use the LCD as a menu (I use an EVF) so maybe that hinge is weak and would be an issue, but in my limited use it hasn't been a problem.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

JVC has always had a PR problem regarding their pro lines. And by always I mean for 30 plus years. It doesn't help that the LS300 came out after many people have settled on their camera of choice and purchased all the additional equipment to make those camera as functional as the LS300 is out of the box. Also as a freelancer I get clients fixated on "Canon" or "Sony", rarely "Panasonic", never "JVC". They have no idea why they must have that but they must. Perhaps if JVC just loaned some LS300s to a high profile project they could change that but who knows.

Personally I waited a while to get my LS300 because I had already set myself up with a GH3 and a GH2 with all the addition equipment to successfully film interviews and I have two HM600s for jobs that can't be covered properly with large format sensors. A concert shoot recently for example. When a big documentary job approached (and a potential one requiring travel) I purchased the LS300 to have a more efficient traveling package as well as some for additional benefits the LS300 gives. Now I don't need a separate audio recorder or a clumsy audio adapter for sound (unless I have an audio person with me), I removed the loupe from the GH3 so it packs smaller and the LS300 sets up quick for those sometimes impatient interview subjects.

Will JVC update the camera with a "400" or "350"? Hard to tell at this point. I'll be sorry if they drop the line entirely.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

The did the 2 Heist shorts. But that is just too little an effort

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

It's a more difficult decision now with the GH5 announcement. 4K, 10-bit, 4:2:2, probably under $2000. Add a speedbooster and you're not too far away from a Suepr 35 size sensor. I know it's a different form factor and lacks the audio inputs unless you also buy the add-on, but it's still 10-bit 4:2:2 which I feel is a bigger deal.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Had I not got the Ls300 I would have waited for the GH5. However there's still no release date for that, and if you need to start filming now, you might miss opportunities/work if you keep on waiting

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Re GH5 - I have two Pocket Cameras, and they are the best $1,500 investment I've ever made (one was $500 during a sale). Of course, once you add cages, EVF, NDs, IRs, pre-amp or external audio recorder, and the myriad of other add-ons, it starts to be way more... That would be true of the Panasonic as well...

I was attracted to the LS300 because I could use the same lenses, and not have to dick around with constantly changing filters, unexpected moire (it can be really bad) and syncing double system audio in post (often many hours of footage with hundreds of clips - I make documentaries exclusively).

The specs on the GH5 are very impressive, I've always liked Panasonic's images (I've owned 2 DVXs, an HPX500, HVX200, and an AF100) but the thought of going back to a camera that requires all that extra hassle - for my kind of work at least - isn't very appealing - plus they're saying mid '17, which usually means late '17.

I only hope another 10 bit option - with MFT, XLRs and internal NDs - jumps on this bandwagon before my LS300 dies from overwork.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

How long has the LS300 existed? 1.5 years? so far I have heard of no cases where the camera was damaged or needed repairs....

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

B.J. I haven't heard anything drastic either - some problems with QC (I had early issues and sent back two before getting a good one) and the LCD hinge, which has been mentioned a few times...

What I'm saying is, in this marketing of technology environment, everything becomes obsolete quickly (I often joke with students when I guest lecture that when you buy a new camera its already obsolete before the batteries are charged). And as a result, broadcast standards keep upping the anti (if you do that sort of thing - I do) and the trend is clearly for 10 bit, or even 12... and they're even looking past the 4K buzz word, which is ridiculous...

My comment about my camera dying from overwork was meant as a joke - which hardly ever works on the internet. But practically speaking, if there is no true successor to the LS300 (which I still consider a successor to the AF100) then what happens?

I'm 72 and still handhold after 50 years as a professional, often for 8 to 10 hours a day. I don't want an Ursa Mini or a C300 or an FS7 with the resulting bigger lenses with shorter zoom ranges and T4 maximum apertures. And I certainly don't want a poorly featured still camera.

I continue to campaign for the future of the LS300 because, IMHO, it is the best thought out camera of its kind in the market... and with the simple addition of an EVF like the Gratical mounted off the handle, it becomes the best light weight. big sensor camera for my kind of work. And the pictures are stunning.

When I read some of the negative comments on sites like B&H, I wonder who's behind this effort to denigrate the camera. I'm not stupid, and I'm a pro, not a fan boy - and I can tell good from bad... This is a good camera that could be a great camera with further development from JVC.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

for the time being JVC is still producing the camera as far as I know. No plans to drop it for now.... and no plans to make a successor

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

B.J. I'm curious, do you actually read the posts, or do you just make an occasional inane comment to fill a void?

I ask this because my intention here, as a 50 year award winning filmmaker with numerous national broadcast credits, is to let the people from JVC who read these posts (and there's evidence that they do) know that there are actual working professionals who really like this camera, and want to see it improved in an upgraded version.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I believe he was responding to a suggestion that the camera wasn't being produced anymore. Regardless, the comment was neutral to me.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Maybe, but no one ever said that, certainly not me...

There are some, me included, who want to see an alternative to the Pl or EF mount, and for that to be practical a camera with a more robust processor will be needed.... But these forums are getting more and more like Facebook...

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

I'm 73 and that means we have both shot on a lot of different camcorders over the years. I too am a fan of the LS300. Although picture color and clarity are very "video" in nature which is so very different than the current Canon C-series look that seems far better for narrative filmmaking. I see the LS300 as a doc camera. Perhaps someone will find a recipe for Resolve that yields a more film like look. I didn't have the time to find a way to do this.

My guts tell me that the LS300 was an in-house project by a group of top engineers. A project that doesn't fit anything else JVC sells so it has had near zero marketing and sales support. I don't blame marketing and sales. They must rationalize their time and energy. They likely concluded the LS300 sounded really neat, but it would never sell against what Sony and Panasonic offered. And, they are correct. Only a small group of folks are able to understand what the LS300 offers.

I think the best we can hope for is that JVC keeps building the LS300. This means sales must forecast the number of units they will sell. If the number is large enough JVC will place another order with whoever actually builds it. If it is not large enough, the order will not be placed. (Generally 10K units are needed to setup a production line for another run.)

The firmware released to date has been consistent with the sensor chip's capability. I doubt anything more will be released. I also have to wonder if JVC has sold any chips to anyone else. If not, the chip group could simply go away.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

Here's an example of the poor PR about this camera:

https://fstoppers.com/originals/best...natives-146526

Posted a few days ago but no mention of the LS300 however the author seems to know about the other JVC 4K cameras and provides a link to them only to disparage them as "video" cameras. How he could be ignorant of the LS300 is suspicious to me.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

@William this guy praises the Sony FS5 and FS7 which cost $5500 & $8500 respectively. I suspect that people like me who don't have that kind of budget, are a good target for JVC. This guy also praises the JVC but does not link to the LS300 but to the lower end compact camcorders from Jvc. Maybe he does not even know of the LS300?

Also, he mentions the infamous film look. This depends a lot on the lens & grading too, so you can't just blame the sensor.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

The fact that he doesn't even mention the ls300 but links to the hm170 instead only means that he doesn't know what is available today so why bother writing such an article.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

He praises the GH4 which is initially cheaper than the LS300. I have mulled logging in to post a question to this person but then the prospect of being on another mailing list dissuades me.

Update: Since Noa commented on the article, I did as well. The rest of the site is actually decent, more slanted to photographers and drone enthusiasts.

Re: LS300 for narrative filmmaking?
 

So far my search for the LS300 has come to a dead end. After a month of trying to see one, the only response my dealer got from JVC was, "There is only one demo unit in all of Canada and it is currently unavailable. If you want one, you'll have to buy one, and it's currently out of stock." The $1000 discount is scheduled to end tomorrow, and I'm simply not comfortable committing to an investment in a tool I can't see or test first, especially one that requires a very subjective evaluation. And this isn't like a purchase at Best Buy where you can return it for a 100% refund if you're unhappy with it.

I put blame squarely on JVC for this. My dealer has tried their best, and they're as frustrated as I am. I find it hard to believe that putting one demo unit in each of the major metropolitan areas of Canada would break the bank for them. It would be a drop in the bucket compared to their other marketing expenditures, and it would get the device into the dealerships where professionals could see it, get enthused about it and spread the word. Hardly anyone knows about it because it's nowhere to be seen.