Why the hell didn't they just add 24p support? It would not have been terribly difficult.

Probably didn't fit into JVC's business plans, after all they're heavily invested in digital projection technology and aren't interested in supporting competing, albeit antiquated, technologies, i.e. 35mm projection.

>>Glenn, that's not just "a guy," that's Clayton Farr, who is a member here as well.<<

Oh, is he a moderator? I didn't know.

I suppose, but when you think about cost v. benefit, I find it hard to swallow that the cost of adding 24p support would not have been outweighed by the extra profit from indy filmmakers.

So where is a JVC rep to clear all this up? Or would we have better luck contacting the GODs?

Peter-"Why the hell didn't they just add 24p support? It would not have been terribly difficult."

Why is there only one camera on the market for under $20,000 that has 24p? Yes it would have been nice if this cam had 24p but JVC isn't the only player not to offer 24p. Where are Sony and Canons 24p solutions?
Ken

Ken: They're coming; they're just late, like everything else.

Glenn: I can probably get one in here, but you guys have to promise to go easy on him.

Why no 24p?
Well, because almost all the camcorders made are sold to people who don't care for 24.
Remember this sales slogan: " Does the tape play in your VCR?", from the compact VHS days.
That's the market.
It's all about money.
-Les




<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Hodson : Peter-"Why the hell didn't they just add 24p support? It would not have been terribly difficult."

Why is there only one camera on the market for under $20,000 that has 24p? Yes it would have been nice if this cam had 24p but JVC isn't the only player not to offer 24p. Where are Sony and Canons 24p solutions?
Ken -->>>

Personally I don't care about 24p. Digital projection is the future, as well, 99% of independent movies are seen on cable or rented DVD/vhs. If you have the money to go to film you probably aren't shooting on a $3000 cam. And if you make a movie on a $3000 cam that is worthy of a film transfer, the studio who buys it will have the resources to convert it to 24p.
This does leave PAL users out in the cold though.
I would be very happy to see 24 & 25 fps die away. 30 & 60p are the frame rates of the 21st century.
Ken

>>Glenn: I can probably get one in here, but you guys have to promise to go easy on him.<<

No problem, didn't mean to come off as being hostile.

>>This does leave PAL users out in the cold though.<<

Yes, the real issue with this camera is not being able to go to the PAL market. I to wish 30p could become the world standard, but it just isn't so.

Well, maybe "most people" don't care about 24p, but filmmakers clearly care about it, and filmmakers also care about having HD. So filmmakers would care a whole lot about having an affordable 24p HD camera, and JVC pretty much gave them the finger by not including 24p.

Sure filmmakers want 24p, but those insisting on it from a $3000 cam are suffering from delusions of grandeur. I mean if you have the $250,000 min for a small theatre distribution why would you be filming on a $3000 cam?
Pana made a ton off the DVX100 due to many a filmmaker thinking its 24p mode would make them a Hollywood player. Simply not true. The costs to film distribute are enormous, and the finacial return minimal. But the market for SD material that looks like it was shot on film (which our little JVC certainly does) is huge!
This isn't to say that a film shot on the JVC can't go to film. Twixtor and MagicBullet and such can convert to 24p. As well if you do create a winner, the studio who distributes it, will convert it professionally.
The bottom line is I don't think JVC is giving us the finger. It is marketing. A 24p higher end model is surely in the works as now they understand the demmand. We have to remmember that this is the very first HDV cam ever! Heck Canon has been selling its XL series to filmmakers since 1997 with huge sucess, and they still have no 24p model.
Ken

Well it is certainly true that a small number of people are going to need 24p. And it is also certainly true that this was a marketing decision. But it's still one I don't understand. :)

I suspect the XL2 is coming out soon, and will be HD, 24p. We'll see how well it does if that is the case. I just want it for the 24p "look", not because I think I'll be showing it in the googleplex. :)

Ken is 100% right on the money. Filmmakers should be concerned about content. 99% of the content is shown on video (the largest market by the way). If you make a worthy film picked up by a studio they WILL have the resources to get it on the right format, even if it means giving you the money to RESHOOT it on film.

People concerned about 24 fps are sidetracked by corporate marketing. Unless there are a bunch of alien filmmakers out there, I completely deny any notion the a human being will see the difference in 30 fps or 25, or 24 (still shown at 30p/60i or 25 fps). The vast majority of viewers will not see technical errors, or artifacts in the image. If they do, you don't have a good film. Case and point: No one can think two thoughts at the same time, if there not immersed in thinking about your story, instead of all things, your frame rate! Buddy, you need to put down the camera and step back slowly.