You most likely didn't see it yet. It seems they all have it in some degree. Maybe somebody who has one could explain you how to to test for the split .

It is possible you have one of the more recent cameras with new software which has greatly reduced the problem.

To test:

Find a flat surface with only one colour in a room. Close the blinds. Turn on the light bulb as your only source of lighting. Fill the screen with the flat surface. Now pan across the flat surface. Try on no gain and then with gain.If you have the split screen it will be immediately evident to you. If you cant see it then great!

Rob

Robert, most probably mine has got the latest software. It arrived to Singapore on thursday and was shipped on friday...I got it today.

I will be testing again tomorrow to find out. I did something similar today...I even put gain to +18db but didnt see any sign of SSE. My biggest concern b4 purchasing this cam was SSE and dead pixels, I projected the image on a 720p projector but there was no sign of either...hopefully that remains so!

Michael Maier requested my firmware version:

GY-HD101E

SYS CPU C1590 V0112
CAM CPU C1591 V0105
VTR CPU C1594 V0108
ENC CPU L1187 V0105

PACKAGE C1615 V0105
FPGA2 C1595 V0105
FPGA3 C1596 V0100
FPGA4 C1597 V0103

That apparently is firmware 1.12

Apparently the versions on field units are: 1.12; 1.14 and 1.17

This is good news. It's been said to just turn on the camera i a low lit room an you'll start to see the split.

I hate to respectfully disagree but this is simply not how I see discussions on this board. We are all human beings here with clear slant and biased opinions. The only real honesty is to admit and fully disclose our bias and not pretend that it does not exist. Any quick reading of Steve's post over the years clearly indicates his bias and perspective on cameras and gear and his comments on this JVC are clearly minimizing the issues. But there is nothing wrong with that.

However, my posts on 24p or "filmlook vs. professional look" (yes, I started that thread) are clearly biased and skewed by my take on things as well. That's what makes this site interesting. Real people with real opinions.

Personally, as long as we can remain respectful and honest, we can benefit from hearing other's different perspectives.

But just like those that think documentaries or journalism should be "objective" (there is no such thing as "objective", especially in documentaries), it would be impossible for us to even try to be "objective".

Split screen is big issue for some shooters (respect that), and not for others (also respect that).

What we need is as much information on how, when and how much it occurs and what options people have (including returning or exchanging the camera).

I agree, but I think the reason I see this issue as "closed" is because -- as I've posted -- SSE can be prevented. If it can be prevented, then it is no longer an issue. To keep posting about it -- it simply becomes a dead horse.

[ The problem was that initially it was tied to the amount of gain. This proved posted -- last week -- to be untrue. ]

1. We all know that that image quality is best when we keep the iris neither fully open nor fully closed. That's why we add light to get an opening of at least F4 -- ideally F5.6. And, why we use ND filters to keep the iris no further closed than about F11 -- or ideally F8.

Therefore, it is our job to CONTROL light to keep an AVERAGE reading between F4 and F8 -- and the reading on the light we we will pan into or from.

2. We also know we should Manually White Balance on the light actually illuminating the subject -- and on the light we we will pan into or from.

3. We also know to keep image noise low, we should use the minimum possible gain. Not more than about +12dB with the HD100.

4. We also know that if we are using gain, it's a good idea to White Balance at the gain we will be using.

Now, if we do ALL these things we will capture a great picture.

You'll note I have not mentioned how to prevent SSE. I don't need to, because by following the standard rules of getting the best possible picture -- I have prevented SSE.

These principles are so old -- they hardly need to be said. They apply to an 35mm SLR, a 16mm camera, or any 35mm film camera. (Except, of course, gain was the film's sensitivity. And, we used a filter or chose the film, rather than the set the WB.)

[ I assume someone is protesting that they want to work with low light like they do with their SD camcorder. You're free to think that way -- which means you really have no choice of any low-cost HD camera because they all have a high-pixel count and lower sensitivity. ]

I prefer to think of the HD100 as using NEGATIVE film -- which has always meant "expose for the shadows." Further, since I also want a high quality image -- I consider I'm using a "low grain" film -- which I know means I'm using a film with low sensitivity. Therefore, I must plan my shots accordingly.

That means I can't freely shoot. So what? I haven't used any camera in over 50 years that I didn't have to do a bit of thinking before shooting. Nothing, new.

Very Interesting. JVC might have got it fixed then. Some extensive testing will tell. I like the fact yours is a PAL. Mine will be a PAL too when I buy.
Please keep us updated about you findings.

I think the SSE is more serious than that. I shoot low light wide open 35mm stills, postive and negs, some in near dark with 1.4 lenses (and used to shoot low light Super 8 negative and reversal) because I liked some of the stuff you could get as the image breaks up in a pleasing way.

However, with the HD100 the SSE limit creative choices at that end of exposure. For many shooter who like high key lighting - rock and roll, but for low keyers (including the 1080p film I'm shooting right now - fortunately 2/3rds of it is created in After Effects) the rest I will still shoot with my DVX100a because none of the HDV cams yet give a nice progressive image in low light (single 50W bulb edge light). The DVX100a is noisy, but for the look I need, a little levels and noise vanishes where I need it to vanish.

So, the SSE, low light issues (and the lack of appealing glass right now) keeps me shooting with my DVX100a. Deinterlacing Sony HDV might work and still might rent one, but not sure I get that much more rez with Deinterlaced Sony HDV than DVX progressive thin mode.

Low light is not just the playground of ENG and wedding shooters. Some of us are into natural light cinemetography and consider it an art. Low light behavior is a big deal. Noise does not bother me too much, though I would like the DVX cleaner.

SSE is deal breaker, though. If I can't shoot wide open and have rich shadows filling the frame, I need another cam.

Steve....

the symptoms of the issue may be closed, but I am concerend about the underlying cause.

SSE is a result of a slight mis-matching of dual circuitry. To a layperson such as myself, seems to suggest that ALL HD, progressive, 3 x 1/3" CCD pickup systems will be required (if dual circuits aren't needed, why implement them?). It has been suggested that the density of these tiny chips and the heat they generate is one of the factors in this design (at least the choice made by JVC).

Two questions:

1 - Will in fact, all progressive pickup systems of 3 x 1/3" HD chips require dual circuits? (any confirmation on how Panasonic is handling this issue?)

2 - What is the long-term effect of these hot-running CCDs? Does the heat factor have an impact on lifespan and/or performance?

"Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, (or) whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you..."

Chris - No offense, but a line down the middle of screen of a $6,000.00 professional camera not a technical problem? It would seem to be the very definition of a technical problem - and to this point, no one seems to have a fix - thus a post like mine on a forum like yours.....

Until I have my hands on it I won't know if a line down the middle of my camera is an issue? What possible purpose would a camera with a line at 0 gain have? But, again, perhaps someone has found a ready steady way to fix the problem in post, or has heard that there is fix comming, or has heard that JVC corporate has acknowleged the problem - thus a post like mine to a forum like yours.....

Although I am still interested in the camera, that interest is dwindling due to the continued reports of the effect and lack of JVC corporate response - is that not a viable subject for this forum? Is there a more appropriate place to talk about a user reported serious technical flaw that has not been addressed by the manufacturer?
John

The whole point of this discussion is to encourage JVC to work on the flaw and try to fix it. I think that most of us who insist that this is unacceptable do it because we like the camera and we don't want JVC to become complacent and think that the community accepted the problem. I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that you cannot shoot wide open without taking the risk of getting SSE. Why even bother developing faster lenses then? There are simply too many professional applications that from time to time require shooting in low light. Period.

Progress never happened by acceptance. I really don't understand why Steve of all people keeps so vehemently defending the status quo of the situation. If we as a community had that attitude we'd be still shooting on U-matic or worse: "You know, just apply the basics, don't shoot into bright sources, have an assistant to carry the recorder, what's so new about that?"

Sounds like a broken record? Well, as long as there are people who try to 'close' the issue there have to be others who will keep it alive and pounding on JVC's door. (Hey, maybe I'll get kicked out of this forum now...:-)

John, I can't speak for Chris, but the bottom line *appears* to be this:
1. JVC is very aware of the issue, and seems to be dealing with it. It's quite unfortunate, and kinda strange that they haven't made any kind of a public statement or comment from the "official" side of the company.

2. This forum has discussed this issue to death, there is no point in continually beating the horse. Either JVC will fix it, or they won't. If they don't, it's a dead-in-the-water cam. If they do, it's a serious tool for many filmmakers and documentarians.

3. Chris, nor anyone else is suggesting it's a moot/small/insignificant issue. However, it's a well-known issue, so....we might as well be discussing how the Japanese allegedly created a magnetic field to start hurricanes in the Gulf for all the good it will do. It's a real issue, but continually beating on it does'nt fix it. What will fix it is folks not buying the camera, or JVC getting enough returns that they have no choice, or JVC having a product ethic that demands that they fix it. Beating up on it constantly here doesn't support any of those three motivations. I somewhat suspect that's more Chris' and other posters points.

Believe me, I'm in total agreement with you. I prefer Sony and Canon cams on the lower end, and Sony and Grass Valley on the higher side, and so have no desire to professionally own this cam. However, I've ordered one because I'm authoring books and seminars on HDV, and want to know what's up with all the products. You think I'm happy, knowing I'll likely get a camera that has a split screen? I just have faith in my NLE and JVC that this isn't going to continue to be a big deal.
But,....hope springs eternal. :-)

I think the bottomline should include consideration of the underlying CAUSE of the effect.

I'm not a huge fan of JVC, but won't it be ironic if Panasonic has the same issue with their HVX?

..... see my earlier post.

Yeah - let's hope so! Sorry if I was beating a dead horse...
Could you let us know when you get your camera, how it looks, et al? Thanks Doug...
John