JVC NAB Press Releases

[David Holleb]

Hi-
To introduce myself:

I'm new to this forum, but I've been doing digital video editing/post-production work since 1993 (home studio-freelance).
I'm fairly knowledgable about DV work, but totally new to HD.
You could call me a fairly technical newbie in the professional video world.

I'm getting back into videography, formerly shot 16mm.
I just ordered a JVC HD-100 this week.
I'm also finishing this June, a TV production class at a local PBS station
and the AVID editing user certicate program in S.F.

2 questions-

1. Would one of you technical (but who shoots video) people help me out
as to what 60P is used for and more importantly, what shooting types
and situations/conditions, or final output benefits from 60P vs 24P?

2. What other features of this camera (HD200) are "better" or more
advanced that I might want to weigh out vs. the HD100, and for
what kind of shooting/editing/productions?

This way I'll know my options in case I want to wait and get the HD200.

I VERY MUCH appreciate your help and if you're in Northern California or
specifically the SF Bay Area, please feel free to say hello or send email.
(send me jobs as well - LOL)

I don't know what appears in this post or my signature since this is my first,
so ...

David Holleb
http://ProHD.CoolRage.com
(under construction, but feel free to visit)

[Guy Barwood]

Hi David,

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P).

2: A new MPG2 encoder. Supposedly able to produce higher quality results with the same bit rates (this should improve the quality of standard HDV, though haven't everyone already said there is no need for improvement with JVCs 720p?). It also does the encoding to 60P for recording to tape.

3: Flip image Option: Corrects the image flip etc when using a lens designed for film.

4: Some new gamma options.

No other differences. Unless there is also a new lens to go with this HD200 I personally think the price difference is too much. Feature 3 and 4 are nice but not expensive options to include. If JVC are trying to shove 60P into 25Mbps (or god forbid 19Mbps) then the tape transport is not new so you are only paying for the new MPG encoder.

There are no details of an improved CCD block so SSF will likely be as present with these models as with the HD100.

While I like the idea of 60P recording this upgrade really doesn't attract me to taking the plunge. Give me a HD version of the DV5100 with 1/2" CMOS chips, larger body with slots for an internal swappable 2.5" HDD, large DV tape support, and higher quality codec to HDD option (4:2:2 60P @ say 50Mpbs MPG2) and high res CRT viewfinder. Price US$10,000 with a stock lens. That's where we should be IMHO.

On the other end of the scale, where are some new entry level 720p's like the HC1/HC3?

[Warren Jobe]

Indeed, where is the flood of tapeless camcorders? While I allow tape the prize for elegance in the analog realm, hard drive/memory card solutions are far more suited to the digital workflow. Indubitably, the helical scanning method of videotape is a monumental achievement worthy of reverence. But, the end is near....

And no sight of the supposed DV7000.... Any news about the Grass Valley Infinity Camera: REV disks and CF (steadily dropping in price ;) with USB 2 and ye 'ol Firewire, and also selectable compression formats (like, drum roll.... JPEG2000 ...OUSAND ...ousand ...ousand....)?

I don't think I like tape (or, um, well, yup, MPEG) :\

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

Hi David,

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P).

2: A new MPG2 encoder. Supposedly able to produce higher quality results with the same bit rates (this should improve the quality of standard HDV, though haven't everyone already said there is no need for improvement with JVCs 720p?). It also does the encoding to 60P for recording to tape.

3: Flip image Option: Corrects the image flip etc when using a lens designed for film.

4: Some new gamma options.

No other differences. Unless there is also a new lens to go with this HD200 I personally think the price difference is too much. Feature 3 and 4 are nice but not expensive options to include. If JVC are trying to shove 60P into 25Mbps (or god forbid 19Mbps) then the tape transport is not new so you are only paying for the new MPG encoder.

There are no details of an improved CCD block so SSF will likely be as present with these models as with the HD100.

On the other end of the scale, where are some new entry level 720p's like the HC1/HC3?

Good summary, but by now you know it is 19Mbps which is fine (it's the ATSC bit-rate for 720p60) when encoded by a very good encoder. And, that appears to be the missing part for the 200 and 250.

Since JVC doesn't agree that SSE is present, there's no need for a new block. Nevertheless, I would expect that normal production improvements will further decrease SSE.

I too am looking for a HD10 replacement with AF. I'm even waiting for JVC Consumer to do an HD1 replacement. But nada. Which brings-up your feeling that the 200 and 250 are upgrades and not new camcorders. It could be the new camera development is on a HD10 replacement to be announced at IBC 2006 for delivery in Oct. 2006.

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I too am looking for a HD10 replacement with AF. I'm even waiting for JVC Consumer to do an HD1 replacement. But nada. Which brings-up your feeling that the 200 and 250 are upgrades and not new camcorders. It could be the new camera development is on a HD10 replacement to be announced at IBC 2006 for delivery in Oct. 2006.

I would expect a replacement camera for a handycam form factor to be launched at WEVA instead of NAB.

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

Hi David,

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P)

is that all 60p is good for? slomo?

[Guy Barwood]

"Since JVC doesn't agree that SSE is present"
Not quite, they did acknowlege somewhat the problem in that FAQ of theirs, but played it down as much as possible. They are in contineous damage control on this issue. Even now, with end users buying brand new A models we are still seeing reports in this forum of SSF on these new cameras. It is there and can't just be ignored when deciding if this is the camera for you.

Steve@ While I am sure a studio based HD converter can do good work with 19Mbps and 720/60p I am not so easily convinced of an encoder that has to fit into this camera, run of batteries so not consume too much power (which brings up an interesting question about battery life with these new models vs the HD100), dissipate the additional heat (which is the root of all evil with SSF) and most importantly do it all in real time. I havn't seen a lot of HD TV broadcasts but I do know that when I have watched live events like sports, they are far from the quality I would accept. The proof will be in the pudding and I will become more of a believer when these cameras are in real users hands and real world usage reports come in, not just because of JVCs press releases. Surely there is no question 30p can be encoded at a higher quality than 60p with the same data rate. So the question remains, how much of a compromise over 30p WRT compression quality is this 60p implementation? [If they can do 60p in 19Mbps, why not 30p 4:2:2?]

PS: Why would JVC not use the extra 6Mpbs anyway? It could only serve to improve the quality wouldn't it? Straight to HDD though they could use any bitrate they want. Tape seems to make it all too hard ;-( We still arn't getting that PCM audio yet are we?

"is that all 60p is good for? slomo?"
Probably not, but it is the most obvious advantage. It would also allow for very high quality conversion to real 1080i being able to base each filed on a whole frame rather than interpolating every second field or simply presenting a progressive image over two interlaced frames.

[Matt Jeppsen]

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

There are only 4 differences between the HD100 and HD200.

1: Ability to record 60p to tape. The HD100 has always been able to output analogue 60p but the HD200 can record to tape. 60p is great for perfect quality 50% slow motion for 30P playback (40% for 24P).

2: A new MPG2 encoder. Supposedly able to produce higher quality results with the same bit rates (this should improve the quality of standard HDV, though haven't everyone already said there is no need for improvement with JVCs 720p?). It also does the encoding to 60P for recording to tape.

3: Flip image Option: Corrects the image flip etc when using a lens designed for film.

4: Some new gamma options.

No other differences. Unless there is also a new lens to go with this HD200 I personally think the price difference is too much. Feature 3 and 4 are nice but not expensive options to include. If JVC are trying to shove 60P into 25Mbps (or god forbid 19Mbps) then the tape transport is not new so you are only paying for the new MPG encoder.

Guy, you have covered the major differences with the new cameras, but I think you've understated some of the features. I'm of the opinion that this camera announcement has been somewhat overshadowed by the RED ONE release and hype, and I've stated so at FresHDV.

*For starters, I see no mention of the 4:2:2 HD-SDI output. Now we've got the option of uncompressed straight off the chip at both 24p and 60p! This makes the Canon XL H1 HD-SDI option a little less attractive.
*The Image Inversion feature is worth $1000+ to users of 35mm adapters who don't need an additional (jury-rigged) HD LCD now.
*And you gloss right over the option of adding high quality "real" glass to this camera with the new HZ-CA13U 16mm Film Lens Adapter. Suddenly you've got options beyond the Fujinon, you can go with readily-available quality 16mm (and I believe 35mm) primes, SLR's, whatever.

These are pretty big developments, and while they certainly don't make the JVC HD200U the "Be All And End All" of camcorders, it is suddenly a lot more attractive for specific situations.

[Guy Barwood]

Originally Posted by Matt Jeppsen

Guy, you have covered the major differences with the new cameras, but I think you've understated some of the features. I'm of the opinion that this camera announcement has been somewhat overshadowed by the RED ONE release and hype, and I've stated so at FresHDV.

*For starters, I see no mention of the 4:2:2 HD-SDI output. Now we've got the option of uncompressed straight off the chip at both 24p and 60p! This makes the Canon XL H1 HD-SDI option a little less attractive.
*The Image Inversion feature is worth $1000+ to users of 35mm adapters who don't need an additional (jury-rigged) HD LCD now.
*And you gloss right over the option of adding high quality "real" glass to this camera with the new HZ-CA13U 16mm Film Lens Adapter. Suddenly you've got options beyond the Fujinon, you can go with readily-available quality 16mm (and I believe 35mm) primes, SLR's, whatever.

These are pretty big developments, and while they certainly don't make the JVC HD200U the "Be All And End All" of camcorders, it is suddenly a lot more attractive for specific situations.

Since when has the HD200 had HD-SDI out?

The flip option is great for some users, but the fact we are working with 1/3" sensors kills the option for many. The crop factor is so large it makes working with such lens close to impossible in many cases. I'd love to be able to mount my swag of Nikon SLR lens on a HD200 (I have some great Nikon glass) but with a 7x effect and no iris control on Nikon G lens it kind of defeats the purpose.

[Matt Jeppsen]

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

Since when has the HD200 had HD-SDI out?

Well, that's a good question. The sources I've got haven't expounded much on the differences between the 250 and the 200...and I am operating under the assumption that they both sport HD-SDI taps. The press release doesn't make that very clear, neither does Mullen's article.
But I could be way off-base (wouldn't be the first time), and I'd sure as heck like to know if I am... :-\

Originally Posted by Guy Barwood

The flip option is great for some users, but the fact we are working with 1/3" sensors kills the option for many. The crop factor is so large it makes working with such lens close to impossible in many cases. I'd love to be able to mount my swag of Nikon SLR lens on a HD200 (I have some great Nikon glass) but with a 7x effect and no iris control on Nikon G lens it kind of defeats the purpose.

Again, I could be misinformed here...but I've been told that the new PL lens adapter uses some variety of magnification to facilitate the use of these lenses, which I have taken as a fix for the crop factor...standard YMMV disclaimer applies. :-)

[Guy Barwood]

I think if the 200 had SDI out it would say so in the press release, which it doesn't appear to.

Great if the multiplication factor isn't a 'factor' ;-) Lets see a Nikon mount version too then!


Edit: On JVCs web site the photo of the HD250 shows the HDSDI connector on the extra section at the rear the HD200 does not have so it looks more and more like the HD-SDI is HD250 territory only.

[John Mitchell]

The other obvious advantage for 60P is covering of fast moving things like sport - apart from being able to slo-mo, you also get the ability to pan faster, etc etc.

Increased definition as well, as the more frames you record the more information - it should give you a more "video" like or clearer picture ie it will compare to 60i images and look less "film like" - so you get the best of both worlds.

I guess it should compare well to the HVX depending on how savage the compression is, which is what Guy has mentioned. We wont know until we receive reports back from the field. One reason JVC stuck to 19Mb/s both with the HD100 and the new cameras is that it is far less prone to tape drop outs than 25Mb/s - it's the same philosophy Sony adopted with DV-Cam - sacrifice 33% of tape time in the interest of wider bandwidth @25Mb/s. I'm not judging one way or another which ways is "right" - I've just heard that mentioned from JVC. Which comes back to the basic question - is hard disk viable in the field? Sure would be cheaper than tape transports. Remember - not including a tape drive would limit you to hard disk only, which most users of external hard disk solutions don't recommend.. they just don't seem reliable enough yet to run without tape backup.

[Guy Barwood]

Originally Posted by John Mitchell

Remember - not including a tape drive would limit you to hard disk only, which most users of external hard disk solutions don't recommend.. they just don't seem reliable enough yet to run without tape backup.

2.5" HDDs are pretty dam tolerant with operating shock, and they are quite small as well. SATA 2.5" drives also adds hot swap capabilities.
Worried about reliability, simply add two slots like P2 and load a HDD in each. Mirror the data as you write it to both drives. More chance you'll break your camera than have 2 drives fail together. All this would easily fit into the area currently consumed by the tape transport etc.

[Earl Thurston]

Originally Posted by Matt Jeppsen

The sources I've got haven't expounded much on the differences between the 250 and the 200...

The "connector pod" at the back of the HD250, which is where the HD-SDI and genlock interfaces are located, is the major difference between it and the HD200.

[Matt Jeppsen]

Originally Posted by Earl Thurston

The "connector pod" at the back of the HD250, which is where the HD-SDI and genlock interfaces are located, is the major difference between it and the HD200.

Thanks, Earl! I just got a message back from Carl Hicks of JVC and he confirmed the same thing, that the HD-SDI faucet is only available on the HD250U. I stand corrected.