The fact that they provide those updates proves that the companies *are* putting the customer first. In the still photo world, firmware updates for everything from digicams to digital SLR's have been a regular part of the process for several years now. It is not a bad thing. It is very much a good thing.

I heard this from a JVC Rep first hand.
 

My dealer has done no advocation. I nagged for a reply from JVC, it sounds like they simply do not want to deal with the issue. JVC has had so many cameras returned that they are exchanging defective units with other ones. They are however updating the firmware. Just cause you get a replacement unit does not mean it isn't used. Check the drum hours and fan hours on your replaced units if you don't believe me. Is this the kind of company you want to support. No I am not a sony rep, as the JVC rep who I spoke to claims that the forums are full of. I am in the process of having to cancel a bulk order for an educational institution and I don't want to burn my bridges too soon. Once I receive our deposit back on the 7 units I will share every detail that I have received.

My "brand-new" unit, which bore a "opened for QC by JVC" sticker, had 39 fan hours on it. No drum hours but 39 fan hours. I figured that might be due to them leaving it on for a couple of days to let the CCDs "burn in", but I guess it's possible that it was a return from someone else as well.

jeez Barry, 39 hours sounds like a lot for quality control testing. Are you going to query it?

Rob

That was one of the first things I checked on mine. It had zero drum and zero fan hours. It did have 2 dead pixels though.

Is there any reason to believe these figures can't be reset by JVC service if they wanted to?

Well, I guess it could.

[QUOTE=Tim DashwoodSteve. I was directly responding to your post in another thread that has propogated itself as a "rule-of-thumb" since then.[/QUOTE]

Because of your post -- thank you -- I have revised that now VERY old Sept. "Rule of Thimb". I did this in another post following yours. Hopefully, you have now found that one.

"BTW, I also know the difference between an ƒ stop and a T stop."

I never mentioned T-stop!

But, this is a good time to comment that Berry's finding the ISO drops from 250 @ F4 as the iris opens fully is a result of the T-stop not changing proportionally with the F-stop. I think the estimate of an ISO of 250 is likely a good one to use. But, it looks like he used the American 50IRE measurement rather than the EIA (Japanese) measurement of getting 100IRE. Right? The latter drops the ISO by 50%. And, I believe it is the one used when pro gear is speced as F8@2000lux. Correct?

Tim, there's no battle -- but there are two ways to use term F-stop. Your 7 director was using one way -- I'm using the other way. This is not the point to dig out the textbook and provide the quote.

You and I are in agreement about IRE being the only way to really understand this. Unfortunately, for most folks in the field, that's not a practical concept tp work with! By getting the iris to close to about F4, I was estimating that under a wide range of situations, IRE would extend from 0 to 100. (BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE HD100 MUST HAVE A FULL IRE RANGE TO AVOID SSE.) I chose F4, because that was where the lens seems to have max. rez. It is slightly softer at F2.8 and F2.

I chose F8 as the upper limit because the lens gets soft above that. So my Rule of Thumb remains shoot from F4 to F8.

By the way -- where is the firmware number to be found? I suspect I may not have 1.17. And, is 1.17 the latest for NTSC units?

I'm going to try to return it, actually. Besides the other well-documented issues, it appears mine adds a new QC question mark to the mix -- the lens is in no way delivering a high-def image. It's nowhere near as sharp, nor resolving nearly the level of detail, as other HD100's. So it must have a misaligned element or something in it.

It's delivering a final image that's barely any different than standard-def, when in high-def mode.

So, I'm going to have to try "The Perfect Experience" and see if they'll actually take it back...

They took every other camera back without question Barry, that's well documentend also... what gives you the impression they'll even ask questions - or give you a hard time about it?

I'll explain more once the process is complete...

Played around some more with the split-screen, trying to put Tim Dashwood's "Master Black" setting to the test.

Sorry to report, at least on my version 1.17 camera, Master Black doesn't do anything to help the splitscreen issue.

As I understood it, it was theorized that the splitscreen appeared in a range of low IRE. Using the Master Black, one can control the low IRE range. Setting it to -3 seems to unnecessarily crush blacks while not avoiding the splitscreen. I tried it in the opposite direction as well, going to +3... setting Master Black to +3 changes the pedestal level for how the darkest images are output; using Master Black +3 actually would make pure black video output at about 15 IRE (i.e., even if the lens cap was on, you'd get 15 IRE output). I figured that would definitely be enough to keep the video out of the dreaded low range that causes the issue.

No dice. Splitscreen just as prevalent as ever.

Thinking about it, it just makes sense -- if indeed the issue is being caused by errors between the two sampling chips, then any post-sampling DSP manipulation (such as the master black level) really shouldn't have much of an effect, if any, on whether the issue was happening. The issue was still happening, and then after the split was digitized, the DSP then added the Master Black manipulation; but by then it's too late. The low-output signal was still captured by the CCDs, and was read off by the sampling circuits -- and that's where the error is happening. I don't think manipulating menu items will ever be able to overcome the splitscreen issue, because it's already happened prior to any manipulation we have control over.

If splitscreen is to be overcome, it's going to come at the hardware or firmware level where JVC calibrates the two processors to each other better. It's not something we can influence in the menus.

Finally a voice of reason
 

Can we collaborate and put some consumer pressure on JVC to fix the problem, and replace existing units with brand NEW ones with hardware upgrades. Things will remain as they are as long as users rest on our laurels and accept, and continue to work around the issue.

Totally agree. The only thing that seems to influence SSE is exposure. We know it never occurs when there is a high contrast, well illuminated picture.

I don't believe they will change the arrangement of the CCD block (ie 2 in 1). I do believe they are working on (or have fixed) the comparitor circuit. You would think, if you are in (all) manual mode that the voltage would be set but instead the chips are reacting. You can not be sure that it is all post processing because some settings may be controlling the sensitivity of the chips themselves.

JVC has said (to me) it is the comparitor circuit that is not updating fast enough, in which case you are right. There needs to be tighter specs on the comparitor circuit (ie diodes, resistors etc) or the firmware logic that controls the circuit would have to be simplified to speed up the process between the two.

Lately there has been less and less talk about split screen, particularly out of Europe and UK.

It's too bad crushing the blacks a little don't get rid of it on your v1.17. I just got an email from someone else with a 1.14 where the method worked.

I'm now wondering if I should bother getting my 1.14 updated if 1.17 really is the latest firmware available for the NTSC version.

It seems that the comparitor circuit processes the data first, then the camera processors do their thing. That's why increasing master black doesn't trigger SSE.
Dialing the MB down on my camera is masking SSE that was already sent down the signal path. I'm guessing the upper trigger limit is lower on v1.14 than 1.17.

So the question is: what is the upper and lower IRE trigger limit of SSE in v1.17?

I had heard the latest firmware is 1.2
The issue is, I don't know if that was for the 100u or the 101.
Barry, you are still on the first cam?

I was told that too, but no one has confirmed it yet. The last report I got from a UK HD101E that shipped last Friday was 1.17, but there is no sign of SSE. Barry has 1.17 on a HD100U and he has prominent SSE.

That leads me to think they've made a hardware change or PAL 1.17 is a different animal than NTSC 1.17

Dashwood and whomever else has made a purchase of the HD100,and is disatisfied... Yes yes yes, JVC will replace units. They will in-fact replace units with other defective and at times used and refurbished units until they are blue in the face. Please get your money back before it's too late. This will really burn consumers when they learn that an expiry date exists on the cameras warranty. If they release an official stance of informing that the consumer should expect to have to "cope the split screen" in exchange for HD quality footage it will only make matters worse. Take the cash and don't let the dealer charge you a restocking fee for a defective camera. The whole lot of North American HD100's should go back to JVC for this debacle.

I plea and stress this with any unsatisfied user of the HD100 to request a refund. I am not saying boycott JVC or the HD100, I would simply like to see the responsibility placed back on JVC's shoulders (NOT the consumer beta testers) to correct the problem properly and once and for all. A software update is not nearly sufficient enough. It's an economical alternative to having to recall hundreds of cameras. Enough is enough already.

I would not call an HD100 buyer a "consumer," and expiry dates exist on *all* camera warranties. This is an educated group which is already aware of that.

If a software update fully resolves the problem, then of course it is perfectly sufficient.

By the way your duplicate of this post has been removed (see the cross-posting policy). You're new to DV Info Net. Please observe and learn our code of conduct and how it works, as this is a different kind of message board. We all work together here to solve problems just like this one but we don't launch crusades. Thanks in advance,

Still on the first one, yes. Going to try to send it back tomorrow (fingers crossed).

Expecting a full report on how that goes, Barry! Thanks for the updates as always,

What I heard was that U.K. cameras were coming with 1.2, but honestly, I think it's a rumour. I got my HD100 this week and it has 1.17. I'm not in the U.K., but in continental Europe, and the cameras are the very same. My camera even comes with two power cords, one with U.K. plug and another with continental European plug, so that should tell you all cameras are the same for Europe. On the top of that, I don't think JVC sub-divisions in the countries do the firmware updates. I think it's done by JVC Japan. So it makes no sense U.K cameras having the so-called firmware 1.2 and other countries not. I will only believe a 1.2 version exists, when multiple known users start reporting it, or if somebody post a screen capture of the advanced menu showing the firmware data. Till then, I think this is purely fabricated.

We have quite heard it by now, I guess...

I don't think it is fair to comment their strategy in resolving the problem, because I'm sure they work hard at it (I know). I COULD understand someone commenting on their strategy to give official info about it.... (although I can understand some reasons why they don't)

Report will have to wait until tomorrow -- it's just after 2:00 here, and I tried calling, and while someone answered, they had no idea what I was talking about. Turns out that it was after 5:00 there, so there's no "Perfect Experience" to be had today... I'll have to try tomorrow morning...

Can someone please share why JVC won't comment officially?

How would anybody know?
Why don't you give them a call and ask it?

Well, marketing of course. You wouldn't like to tell of customers of your store that the products are not completely up to snuff if you try to push the envelope with them...

This is nothing new and nothing weird. It is understandable. That it is regrettablke I can understand. But it is just the way of the world. You would do the same and all companies have done the same (Panasonic, Sony, Canon, ...) at one point or another with some product. Virtually all cams had some sort of issue with their first release. And how 'public' were the statements about that?

The DVX100 had an audio-issue if I remember correctly, canon had a severe back-focus-prolem with their original XL1 (that was never fully fixed), ...

Anyhow, The JVC dealer should and will give you all info he knows. You just need to remember that they're not per se having a very technical knowledge of the problems/solutions...

But they know the policies and will give you another cam if you ask so. Or a refund without a problem as well...