What Is The Real Deal With This JVC HD Cam??
 

Please throw me a line here. I'm a regular over in the DV.com camera forums. Mention this camera over there and you are immediatley scorned. Bring up the groundbreaking footage I've downloaded here, and it is either totally ignored, or you get a response something like, "yeah, but there wasn't enough fast camera panning to prove it actually works. Landscapes are a bad test of the camera. A PD150 would serve you better because it has more manual controls" and nothing else. It's like the crowd consensus has made up it's mind.

If I say I have a 16'9 HDTV with componant inputs that I would like to match a camera to, the conversation goes around in circles, but no one ever seems to actually know anything about it.

There is a definate mind-set there and I can't figure it out. You would think that people involved in a visual medium would be excited, or at least curious about this maybe 3 times leap in resolution (plus true 16/9 AND 30 fps progressive scan!) camera. Even if it is a single chip, the subtle difference in color response is a small negative compared to all the other groundbreaking features you are getting for the price. Nope, they don't want to hear anything about it, except scorn.

What am I missing here? I am at least very curious about this camera. For those of you who have it (and most of you like Steve Mullen sound like professionals)please tell me the truth once and for all - is it good, does it hold up compared to digital HD broadcast material on an HD monitor, or is it a "fake single chip microHD joke for rich people that outputs like VHS on an HD monitor"...

Yikes! What's a thinking person to do?? The simple truth please...

Could someone please explain "extreme latitude limitations" in reference to this camera. It seems to be mentioned the most and I don't really understand.
Thanx

it's a hard camera to define at the moment.
it is the 1st consumer camera that takes us towards (affordable) HD.
the clips that i've seen from the camera are not consistant.
sometimes they are excellent , other times so-so.
i've notice that if the lighting is controlled ( studio) the clips tend to be very good. if lighting is NOT controlled ( general every buliding lighting ) they just don't stand out as i would think HD should. many clips that are posted tend not to be HD but SD off the HD files or they've been down converted to streaming files and that seems to be where the images falls apart if not done correctly. also many are NOT viewing on their computers at 1280x720 ..and most are viewing on SD TV's ...

it seems to be at present the fall down of this HD format is mpeg format. it can look very good off the original tape but once you have to render seems to pick up alot of artifacts. perhaps in time there will be better codec's that will address it.

i think it is a starting point. we get a camera that is native 16x9 , HD & SD. i not totally sure on this but i think the 30p (no 24p) was an agreement by several manufacturers for the consumer 720p market?

lets not forget that this is low end ( cheap ) HD camera when you consider that the next one up the ladder is 65K just for the body (85 -90K by the time you are ready to roll tape) .
just like you can't expect a $2500 dv camera to match a 60K digibeta camera we should not expect this camera to match the the sony 900 HD, varicam 27 or thompson viper.

Here's what I am thinking: if this camera is even CLOSE to a broadcast HD camera, the jump in resolution, (PLUS 16/9 with progressive scan) would be enough to get my skin tingling. Wouldn't other videographers be wondering about that too?When I think of what I could do with it, compared to the SD DV technology we've been stuck in for so long....

Please keep the input coming. I am starting to doubt myself for even being interested in this cam after some of the responses I've gotten. Hopefully I will be able to see it for myself somewhere near Milwaukee, WI on a real HD monitor, so I can make up my own mind for myself.

PS> I just discovered that JVC had their reps demo it for the Milwaukee Independent Film Society a few weeks ago, and I missed it. I heard that almost no one showed up!

From the discussions I've had, I feel like I am one of the only video guys in the world that actually owns an HDTV and has experienced direct digital HD broadcasts. One look at our locally produced "Outdoor Wisconsin" done with handheld HD cameras, and you are changed forever. It's mind-blowing!

It seems like most people on the forums are very content watching their video footage on the old familiar 21'' TV they bought in college. They're used to it, and that's it. They'd rather talk about and discuss the most minute technical improvements about this years' $4000 DV cam than even LOOK at an HD TV signal. Anything different and they get really upset and angry. You would think it would be just the opposite. I really just don't get it. Then again, I hate modern radio music, listen to classical and jazz, and enjoy reading and speculating about the crop circle phenomenon, and zero point energy theories....

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this camera, but from the limited footage I saw at NAB and what I've been reading, there's a fundamental issue with the device. It is designed essentially as a point-and-shoot device, yet it functions best under a controlled setting where logical manual controls are a requirement.

Shooting exteriors with digital video means jumping through hoops to control overexposure (and it is well-documented that this camera handles exposure no better and likely worse than the best of the SDV cameras). Yet it is not easy enough to adjust exposure on the fly. Likewise with follow focus, shutter speed etc.

My XL1s is finally getting the way I want it; with B&W viewfinder that I can trust for exposure if a monitor isn't available, with the 14x manual lens (didn't want the 16x because of the funky aperture control), decked out with mattebox and follow focus NOT because they look "cool", but because they are useful tools that get the job done. For me, that rotating mode dial has only three positions: off, manual and playback. That's my personal preference; it may not be anyone else's...but I know that even in a run and gun situation, I can precisely ride that iris with my index finger even as my ring finger and thumb are focusing as fast as I can spin the lens.

I think the HDV format is cool, and obviously the next step. I can't wait to see where Sony and Canon take this. Kudos to JVC for breaking through first, just as they did with S-VHS (and even VHS!). But I just don't hear people raving about, for instance, the DV5000 camera. In a blink of an eye, the HD10U is going to be eclipsed by some serious competition, designed from the bottom up with a feature set for DV filmmaking--not videography.

I think that most people who oppose this camera are basically afraid of change. They champion DV because they know how to use it and they probably have thousands of dollars invested in their equipment, and they don't like the idea of having to make a major change in order to stay on the (prosumer) cutting edge.

Right now things are confusing with HDV, but soon the standards will be set and it will be as easy to shoot and edit as DV. For example, right now you have to drop at least an additional $2000 (for Aspect HD and Premiere Pro) if you want to be able to realistically edit, and that is only an option for PC users, Mac users currently have no (real-time editing) solution, but perhaps with the introduction of Apple's new Pixlet codec (to be included with the release of 10.3) it might be possible to edit HDV in FCP in real-time. But honestly only time will tell if that prediction is correct.

Sure the camera has its limitations, but in many ways it is far superior to DV. If editing and compatability were the same as DV (which it will be) I think that all of those snubbing their noses at the camera would secretly jump at the chance to own this camera if someone was willing to trade them out for their old equipment. In other words, I don't believe that people are really opposed to the image quality, but rather they are simply opposed to change. Honestly, if I had just bought a DVX100 I would be upset about this new format and I would probably do whatever I needed to convince myself that the camera I just purchased was still the best option for Indie filmmakers. However, the timing just happened to work out for me and I was between cameras when the HD10 was released, and I decided to take leap into this new format.

No this format is not the equivelent to the $100k hollywood cameras, but it is amazing what you can get for $3000. It is inevitable that someone will use this camera to make a feature that gets released in theaters across the nation, it could be anyone, but it will happen, and then perhaps some of these naysayers will be hushed. But I doubt it, they'll probably find some angle to argue for DV.

In the end you're the only one that can decide if the camera is right for you, but I hope my thoughts can help you in some way.

Brad

These MPEG2 cams have a purpose. The purpose is to fill the growing nich market of the new---new age yuppies who want wide screen now, and for JVC to make money. It is not a broadcast cam. It is not intended nor designed for film transfers. It's a 1 CCD MPEG2 wide screen cam. If that's what someone wants today, like right now, well, here they are---all 2 of them. These 2 cams are not meant to replace higher resolution/lower compression DV. It's a neat cam for those who want wide screen today (like right now). What's so difficult to understand about this? :)

When I reviewed the VX1000 for Video Systems, the response inside and outside was much like Brad reports. Why should we cover CONSUMER products? NO WAY could this COMSUMER product replace $25K BataSP camcorders! No way could CONSUMER DV replace 1/2" formats!

Well BetaSP is dead. And, despite Sony and Panasonic claiming you MUST have DVCAM or DVCPRO25 to do PRO work -- Sony now allows you to select either DV or DVCAM while Panasonic now has a full line of DV25 products.

And, JVC which hated everything but Digital-S, now has no Digital-S and survives on DV25.

Likewise, when I mentioned on the Avid list that DV50 would be supported by FCP via 1394 eliminating SDI, it went nuts. Now where are those $$$ Media Composers?

This reaction is, therefore, predictable. But it's not the pros who are paniced. They will wait until the PRO HD products come down in price.

It's the small guys who saved-up for a VX2000 or XL1S. It's the vast education market that just converted from analog to DV. It's those who have invested their last pennies on a hot R-T NLE for DV25.

And, it's not the JVC camcorder. The JVC is hard enough to use that many won't bother. Point-and-shooters can't use the JVC. Only filmmakers need apply.

It's the format, not the camcorder.

Perhaps that's why Panasonic, with it's hot -- and wonderful -- DVX100, has not joined the HDV group.

Despite the negative reactions, the JVC camcorders are selling well. A major rental house in Hollywood has pre-ordered a quantity of my 4HDV package because they have sold so many HD10's to FCP users. One major film studio just bought a dozen HD10s.

Oh, and by the way, you can edit in real-time with FCP with 4HDV.

So it's true then that the JVC GR-HD1/JY-HD10 records in LESS resolution than a DV camera? It simply records a lower resolution picture in widescreen?

Recording is usually higher res than playback with a cam. MPEG2 playback is 480 max. However, if higher resolution was recorded, it would reflect on the quality of the footage. The 1's and 0's would be more accurately placed on the storage media.

What are you saying?
 

There is a bunch of it going on here right now.. What are you saying? That the JVC -High Definition- GR-HD1U / JY-HD10U -camcorders are NOT really offering HIGH DEFINITION? Is there any truth about this? Or is it just hoopla? The high resulution is the ONLY argument for this camera, and belive me it is a STRONG argument. I have been saying this before: I hate the DV´s LOW resulution and I am about to by the JY-HD10U to solve my problem. But if it is FAKE in somehow, I like to know about it! Does anybody know something about this "records in LESS resolution than a DV camera" -stuff?

I'm saying that " Recording is usually higher res than playback with a cam. MPEG2 playback is 480 max. However, if higher resolution was recorded, it would reflect on the quality of the footage. The 1's and 0's would be more accurately placed on the storage media."There are, what, 15 or so different HD standards? DV plays back a max of 540 lines; MPEG2 plays back a maximum of 480 lines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I can´t!
 

I cannot correct you, cause I just don´t know.
The only thing I want is a REAL 1280*720 res.
*And I am sorry if you took my latest post as a personal insult that was not my intention, I was more like a shout-out to all who is reading on this thread.
...I just want to konw, I dont want to spend my money on the wrong product!

MPEG2 is simply a recording compression, not a set resolution broadcast standard, limited by resolution. Why do you think it is limited to 480 lines?
There are digital cable TV that is mpeg2 compressed and delivered at that resolution. But that does not mean all mpeg2 content is such.
The resolution this camera affords is simply fantastic. Nothing touches it for another $50,000!

John, sorry I can't give you a technical answer, but I've seen the HD1 in person, and it is HD. No DV camera can do (detail wise) what this camera does on a large screen.

I am not for or against this camera. I just want to know what it does. Frank, if it captures video in less resolution than DV, then please download the video files that are available farther down in this forum, and explain to us what you are seeing.

How is it possible that the video format is twice as large as DV, and the 16/9 progressive scan image detail looks amazing compared to anything that's out there DV wise? How is this being done if you are claiming that the camera actually has less resolution than the DV SD format?

Will you respond to this? Thanks for your reply!

The camera shoots an HD image -- DV camcorders do not. You might benefit from reading through past posts because the questions you are asking were answered here 3-4 months ago.

GR-HD1 vs GL2 Picture
 

I had the GR-HD1 for a week and returned it. The detail that this camera captures is awesome. I have a 720P HD TV (Toshiba 42H82). In comparision the GL2 picture looks sooo .... SD?

The reason is again like Steve said the format. HD vs DV. I use the GL2 for my work.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : DV plays back a max of 540 lines; MPEG2 plays back a maximum of 480 lines. Correct me if I'm wrong. -->>>

There is nothing about MPEG2 that is limited to 480 lines. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not accurate. Perhaps you're thinking of DVD's, which are limited to 480 lines and also use MPEG2.

HD is broadcast over the airwaves using MPEG2. 1920 x 1080, or 1280 x 720, all encoded with MPEG2. MPEG2 is not dependent on any particular frame size and is not limited to any number of playback lines.

And the JVC camcorder is most definitely high definition, it is 1280 x 720, and the resolution is extremely high. It has its design deficiencies and limitations, but resolution most certainly isn't one of them.

Kevin Sturges, Please
 

Kevin


I want to solve your problem.

Everyone who bashes this camera is simply wrong,
although I certainly concede that thre are people who don't have an application for it right now. or people who should not make the financial sacrifice to get it just yet...

And, I also concede that the next version (from Sony, Canon) will be vastly better than the HD10u, but then again, what isn't better the second time around.

Here's by 50 cent psychoanalysis of the neg hype- people can't get their skulls around how revolutionary it is.

It's sort of like talking about the Web in 92- people didn't understand what was about to happen- a revolution.

This camera is the harbinger of a NEW ERA IN TV AND FILM PRODUCTION.

If you want to make TV or films for viewing in a HD broadcast setting, or by using the digital projection which will be ubiquitous within 3-5 years, then this camera gives you a great head start at 720p.

I got Burt Reynolds interested in a feature using this camera. We will see if a former #1 actor in YESTERDAY'S America signs on to a film that wil be using the format of TOMORROW.

Someone said that someone is gonn amake a movie that wil get theatrical release with this film. I am not saying I am that person- BUT I AM TRYING.

I will succeed wildly or mildly, or fail spectacularly,
but the choice between getting this camera and making a HD movie
versus WAITING for the next model and NOT making that movie this fall...
well, to me there is no choice.

Also look at history. Many products come out to no fanfare- or even criticism- and yet proved to be paradigm-shifting. That's the nature of such inventions- they DESTROY the status quo and UPSET a lot of people INVESTED in the technology it rendered obsolete.

My XL1, which I made a 4 star movie with, is now a paperweight.

Kevin- get the camera- you will not be disappointed. An example of footage from it is contained in another thread.

By the way- can you elaborate about "zero point energy devices"- what you mean by that?

T. Patrick Murray

I bought one of the first VX1000 when they came out. I remember the posts (on compuserve back then) that said this was a waste of camera, that DV would never surrvive and so on and so on.

I have had a look at this camera's image on a 720P monitor. It is very impressive indeed. IT IS NOT FOR EVERYONE! It's not a video camera, it's more like film, with all it's inherrent troubles with lighting, chuddering, etc.

You need to develop a new style to handle this format, shooting more like a film camera. I have also played with a Sony 900 HDCam and you would not like it either. It too needs proper lighting and it has film chuddering too.

The camera is not going to replace the high end market anytime soon, but it shows every promise of delivering a useable format for HD aquisition and editing to video producers and film makers who would never have the budgets to buy Sony or Panasonics top of the line.

I've made tons of money and never once have I had a budget for the big buys tools. Closest I've come is BetacamSP and DVCam. Perhaps this HD-DV is the tool for tomorrow.

Early adopters will both be rewarded and punished.

I have arranged a demo between this camera and a Sony F900 for next week. I know they won't compare, but I am interested in seeing how close they are.

Cheers

DBK

this is what we are going to get :

Proposal of Basic Specifications for HDV (Tentative Name) Format
That Realizes Consumer High- Definition Digital Video Recording


Canon Inc.
Sharp Corporation
Sony Corporation
Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC)

Tokyo, July 04, 2003 - Canon Inc., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Limited (JVC) today announced a joint proposal of basic specifications for "HDV" (tentative name) format which realizes recording and playback of high-definition video on a DV cassette tape. The HDV format includes 720p (progressive) and 1080i (interlace) specifications, and enables the development of products conforming to the global high-definition infrastructure. The four companies will actively promote the specifications throughout the industry and plan to finalize the specifications around September 2003.

BS digital high-definition broadcasting, which started December 2001, and digital terrestrial broadcasting scheduled to commence in December 2003 have increased anticipation toward the expansion of high-definition broadcasting in Japan. Growing sales of high-definition television sets and the introduction of digital high-definition video recorders, such as D-VHS and Blu-ray Disc recorders, have enriched customer enjoyment of high-definition video in the home.

The HDV format specifies the data recording of MPEG2 compressed high-definition signals based on the DV format, which is internationally accepted as a consumer digital VCR format. Because the new format employs the same cassette case, tape speed, and track pitch as the DV format, it can utilize mechanical parts based on the DV format. It also makes it easy for manufacturers to undertake the development of products that are highly compatible with the DV format.

The 720p specifications in the HDV format are the same specifications as adopted in the "GR-HD1" high-definition digital video camera which JVC introduced to the market in March 2003. By adopting both the 720p and the 1080i specifications, the HDV format will enable users to record high-definition video and further disseminate the enjoyment realized of high-definition video.

The HDV format records both video and audio through compression by MPEG encoding. Video signals are compressed by MPEG2 encoding (inter-frame compression) as BS digital broadcasting, making possible the recording and playback of high-definition video at a bit rate equivalent to the DV format SD (standard definition) specifications (intra-frame compression.) Audio signals are digitized with a 48kHz/16-bit quantization sampling frequency and compressed to 384kbps by MPEG1 Audio Layer II encoding.

<HDV Format Key Characteristics>

1) Ability to record and play back high-definition video on internationally accepted DV format cassette tapes

2) Adoption of 720p/1080i formats to comply with progressive and interlace specifications for high- definition recording and playback
The HDV format complies with both the 720 scanning lines (progressive)/1280 horizontal pixels 720p format (60p, 30p, 50p, 25p), and the 1080 scanning lines (interlace)/1440 horizontal pixels 1080i format (60i, 50i). This ensures the recording and playback of high-resolution video for the high-definition era.

3) Improved error correction
By changing the error correction method from error correction within a track, as specified in the DV-SD format, to error correction among multiple tracks, the HDV format offers improved error correction capability and enhanced resistance to lost data caused by dropout.

4) Data for special playback
Video signals compressed by MPEG encoding do not support image display during special playback such as fast search. The HDV format records specific data for special playback on a dedicated tape, enabling the display of video images during special playback such as fast search or slow-motion playback. (Video image quality during special playback will differ from that during normal playback.)

<HDV Format Main Specifications>
Media Same as DV format (DV and/or Mini DV cassette tape)

Video
Video Signal 720/60p, 720/30p
720/50p, 720/25p
1080/60i, 1080/50i

Number of Pixels 1280 X 720, 1440 X 1080
Aspect Ratio 16:9
Compression MPEG2 Video (profile & level: MP@H-14)
Sampling Frequency for Luminance 74.25MHz, 55.7MHz
Sampling Format 4 : 2 : 0
Quantization 8 bits (both luminance and chrominance)
Bit rate after Compression Approximately 19Mbps Approximately 25Mbps

Audio
Compression MPEG1 Audio Layer II
Sampling Frequency 48kHz
Quantization 16 bits
Bit rate after Compression 384kbps
Audio Mode Stereo (2 channels)

System
Data Format MPEG2 Systems
Stream Type Transport Stream Packetized Elementary Stream
Stream Interface IEEE1394 (MPEG2-TS)

above from:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200307/03-0704E/

My thoughts
 

Picture, HD - It's great, I can't deny it. Especially in controlled situations.

The not-so-manual controls - Ugh, but if you can get around it, go for it. I wish it was like any other "pro" camera, manual. (Shoot only in controlled situations until they come out with a more manual-based camera.)

Audio - Because it's unbalanced, audio sounds canned, esp. with more background noise it tends to sound more canned. (Even with an XL-1, etc., I plan on recording EVERYTHING to DAT. The HD10 doesn't have a hiss like the old XL-1 cameras seem to have, don't know if the XL-1s has that problem.)

DV mode - Use an XL-1 or PD-150; even JVC admits the DV mode isn't great.

SD mode - Seems good, but I haven't really used it.

Photo mode - Even with the pitifully small memory card, I think the high quality (1 mb) pictures with the camera are NICE.

Steady shot mode - I don't know if I used it right, but if I did, it's garbage. (I don't know if Steadicam and the others are all right, but use a tripod.)

Editing - Sucks; let's hope, for FCP users, 4HDV works out. Am waiting for others to get some good use out of it before I take the plunge. The JVC software is a joke.

Conclusion - The image is worth the price, but, personally, I think I took the plunge too early. I really was a weirdo, wanting to keep it or sell it for the last nearly 2 months since I bought it. Heck, I was ready to get rid of the camera last week, but my friend talked me out of it and is offering to pay for half of it. I just can't make any money with it, as a really low budget video (and movie) maker. But Steve Mullen's software plug-in, 4HDV, may help that. I'll probably then make more money with the HD10 than my XL-1.

I hope this helps a little bit; I'm not too technical on this stuff...

heath

You have to keep in mind that most DV people are wedding videographers, ENG people, documentary people, or something in between. What they want is a versatile camera because they are not strictly focused on making that great breakthrough indie movie. Now, there isn’t anything wrong with that, but their needs are very different then the hardcore low budget moviemaker whom wants to make a living making movies. The low budget movie maker is very use to working within constricted means, and this is exactly why the JVC HD cam is so exciting to him/her. Most of the guys/gals over at DV.com want a well balanced camera that can do it all, ENG, weddings, documentaries, and the occasional movie. However, the low budget indie movie maker (not the hobbyist) is use to squeezing water from a rock, and he/she actually loves to do so. So this is why you have some people excited about the JVC HD cam, while others see it as a mere junky starting point.

Regarding "low budget movie maker," and "low budget indie movie maker," I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean their intention is to make movies that end up on 35mm motion film, or TV?

A film vs. a movie. There's no difference. A film can be shot on film or video, it doesn't really matter any more.

heath

Well we know this, but that doesn't answer my question. What I was getting at was, MPEG2 may not be the best solution if it's intended for broadcast or digital to film transfer.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frank Granovski : Well we know this, but that doesn't answer my question. What I was getting at is MPEG2 may not be the best solution if it's intended for broadcast or intended for digital to film transfer. -->>>

MPEG2 is the chosen format for broadcast. Digital Cable, DISH network, EchoStar, and any other DBS networks, and over-the-air HD broadcasts and DTV broadcasts are all MPEG2.

MPEG2 is a scalable compression algorithm, so if you don't allocate enough bandwidth to it it'll look lousy, and if you give it enough, it'll do an incredible job.

Regarding the JVC cam being embraced and loved by the low-budget filmmaker, that ignores the camera's biggest obstacle: the fact it shoots HD in 30P only, which is the single worst frame rate for transfer to film or to PAL for international distribution. Besides its other limitations, which can mostly be overcome, the 30P-only is a dealbreaker.

Barry, when I said broadcast, I meant "normal broadcast"---like your normal everyday local network watched by the local masses. That would be NTSC, by the way...or PAL in PALsville. :)

>Regarding "low budget movie maker," and "low budget indie movie maker," I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean their intention is to make movies that end up on 35mm motion film, or TV?<

Sorry for the inconsistency of words. What I simply mean by “low budget movie maker” and “indie movie maker” is any amateur movie maker who is devoting his life to launching a professional movie making career. That includes any movie medium such as theatrical, cable, or DVD (hopefully are three of these venues.)

Haven't there been a lot of films that were transfered after being shot in 30fps DV? That must not have been such a big issue if they are doing it already. Isn't CinneMotion for After Effects just one of the competant solutions?

30p is not an obstacle in this day and age. Many theaters especially at film festivals have digital projectors. An idie film maker has a far greater chance of selling his film direct to cable distribution, or distribution on DVD. The amount of films made on video that make money once transfered to film are next to none. The future is cable, DVD, web and digital projectors. Anyone dreaming of wide distribution on film from this camera or even worse a DV 24p panasonic, has extreem expectations.

Thanks, Glenn, for clarifing that. A "movie maker" and "indie movie maker" mean different things to different people. It's like the term, "film look," or using the word, "quality." Examples: "I want to get the film look." When I read this, I wonder, which film look? "I want to buy a quality cam." Well, how much quality? What kind of quality? What price range? What do you want the cam for? Manual controls? For use with a tripod? etc etc.

I agree with Ken. There are numerous options available now to have your work shown other than the old standard of transfering to film. The number of theaters projecting digitally is growing all the time and more importantly many of the larger film festivals (Sundance for example) are offering digital projection as well. Transfering to film should not be a concern for anyone shooting with this camera because the odds of that happening are extreme, and if by chance the film does get picked up by a studio for wide release then the complications of transfer will be handled by whatever studio picks up the picture. I say shoot all you want and try to get your stuff shown digitally wherever possible and worry about the transfer to film when that actually becomes relevant.

Barry is somewhat right, 30p is a major con for this camera. Transfer houses recommend 60i, not 30p, for 35mm film transfers. For those whom don’t know, please don’t confuse 60i with 30p. And the PAL market would probably not be an option when using this cam either. But I agree with Ken and Brad (more so), a movie maker who is just starting out really shouldn’t hope for world wide domination, and so for them, 30p is just fine. After all, more people will see your movie on HBO and SHOWTIME as opposed to a limited release in some back alley indie theater.

Kevin, I wish I could have found this thread earlier.

I only give you a hard time about your TV because you reference it so much. There is nothing wrong with your 38" RCA HDTV other than its lack of native 720p support, unacceptable dot pitch, and bubbled screen.

Thats also the weirdest story about your father but the lack of a positive male role model definitely explains the multiple cats. :) j/k

As for the JVC cam..

I'd like to put a word in about all the cry babies out there thinking that anyone who shuns this breakthrough cam is just doing so because they are afraid of change..

I haven't used an analog TV since 1998 and left 4:3 sets in 2000. I don't have a problem with change. I recently bought my sixth HD set and as much as I wanted a HD cam to compliment it didn't pan out when I saw the footage and the shortcomings of this cam. I hear the posts all day long but we've all been subject to blind brand loyalty (especially post purchase). So that leaves me extremely excited that HD is being introduced into the consumer realm but I'll be waiting for second generation and perhaps a 1080p set to go along with it.

Why can't someone not like the JVC HD cam for no other reason than it sucks? (my opinion of course)

>>Why can't someone not like the JVC HD cam for no other reason than it sucks?<<

Because what’s bad for you isn’t necessarily bad for everyone. IMO, if one truly believes that a camera is merely a tool, then one can not make a statement that the JVC camera is simply worthless. If Hitchcock or Kurbick had to use this camera they would make a better movie then an amateur with a 65mm film camera. How about just saying that the camera sucks for YOU, and not for everyone? Or maybe this is what you're saying?

Glenn, the point I was trying to make is that when someone dislikes this cam its always chalked up as they are narrow minded and resisting change.

Its almost like the proponents of this cam are constantly trying to justify it to themselves and label those who have a different take as bashers.

I guess I should quit chumming the water while in JVC HD territory. :)

Tommy, Your point is well taken. However, I think that many users in this forum would agree that most of the people who oppose this camera have not given it a chance like you have. It sounds like you know your stuff about HD and therefore have given the camera a legitimate chance and your seeming acceptance of the HDV format is also much more than most are willing to concede. For example, I think one of the most annoying arguments that continually pops up is that the MPEG compression is too limiting, some even argue that it is incapable of resolutions above 480. These arguements are inaccurate and just plain frustrating, and I think that is what leads us to take the stance that we do.

Most of us here that like the camera are indie film makers. If you could name another camera in the $3000 range that you think doesn't suck. And give us the choice of what to make our indie film on. I think %100 would take the JVC. Not because of brand loyalty, but because all other cameras in that $ range suck in comparison, for what we want to do.