I Hate When People Refer to the New Panasonic & JVC HD Cams as the Z1 Killer!!!

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Agreed, and understood. My point more than anything is that JVC is shooting themselves in the foot marketing-wise, IMO, by confusing the market further with a "new" format. It's what? Pro HD....OK....is that "enhanced HDV?" EHDV? HDEV? HDVE?
How many formats do we need? want? supported by manufacturers?

I don't know if you know much about the music biz, but Roland tried this sort of thing with MIDI about 18 years ago. They pushed their SysEx and exclusive MIDI, proclaiming how much better it was. After years of not playing in the specifics of the format, they finally ended up abandoning anything that was exclusive, much to the chagrin of their users.

HDV is a *little* different, but the concept is the same. Trying to buck the trend as a newcomer to any format is a little odd, and usually counterproductive.

Again, i'm sure that this is gonna be a very nice cam, but there are a lot of new variables.
After spending an hour on the phone with one of their factory people, it was comical how he tap danced around many issues, not the least of which yet is price.
I can't help but wonder if JVC is willing to turn this cam into a loss-leader just to buy the market a bit?
That could definitely be harmful to the Z1 market.

[Mark Grant]

At a JVC reseller event I attended last week, the rep was able to hint a little further about the impending 100u release. He was almost giddy when he floated the idea that the new cam would be priced in the Z1 range.

But, as someone else said, it's only 720 lines... that's about half the pixels of a Z1 image.

Certainly it has its benefits, and if they do release it at Z1 prices then I'd seriously consider it as an alternative, but it's far from a Z1-killer even at Z1 prices. Indeed, for anyone who really wants 1080 resolution, it's simply irrelevant.

As far as I'm concerned, if the new JVC was released at Z1 price and could record 1080 (even if only at PAL and NTSC frame rates and not 24p), it would be pretty much a Z1-killer for me... but as it is it's just another option to consider. And one I probably wouldn't go for.

I think the fact that the BBC are telling their people to switch to Z1s from PD170s is probably a good sign that there's no obvious Z1-killer on the horizon: they must have pretty good links to the manufacturers that will tell them what's coming out in the near future.

[Heath McKnight]

I thought both the Z1 and the HD-100 had over 1 million pixels per chip. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the actual pixels (and I might be wrong here) for the Z1 in use is over 800,000 pixels. Spot will be able to confirm this for us.

Also, James Darren started this thread, but I don't believe he's made any comments since then. What are your thoughts, James?

heath

[Mark Grant]

I thought both the Z1 and the HD-100 had over 1 million pixels per chip.

Possibly, but 1280x720 is still about half as many pixels as 1920x1080 (both are anamorphic in HDV, aren't they?). The Z1 may need 'pixel shift' and interlacing to get that resolution, but it's still going to produce a picture with significantly more detail than 720 in almost every case... maybe the JVC camera would win if you were deinterlacing fast-moving footage which was shot using entirely green lighting (so the 'pixel shift' produces negligible benefits and you lose an entire field on the Z1), but that won't happen often to most people.

In fact, living in a PAL country I don't really see the point of 720 in the first place... it may be about twice as many pixels as NTSC DV, but it's only about 60% more pixels than PAL DV. Better, but hardly revolutionary.

[Steven White]

Z1/FX1: 960x1080i w/ pixel shift to 1920x1080i, resample to 1440x1080i. Each chip has a native resolution of 1.0368 Mpixels

JVC G100: 1280x720p (no pixel shift *hope*) to 1280x720p. Each chip has a native resolution of 0.9216 Mpixels

Let the images speak for themselves when the cameras come out. I suspect compression, aberration, and lattitude will play a larger role in distinguishing the two.

[James Darren]

Hi Heath,

Well the thread started going technical, which is wasn't what I really wanted so I didn't contribute much else. Plus some people seemed to mis-understand my comments & took offence to my joke in the post i made.

I just think many prosumer/amatuer film-videomakers these days are way too focussed on their camera specifications rather than their camera skills or story telling abilities... and dont think i'm some "over the hill person who hates modern technology" or something. I'm a 24yr old Electronics Repair tech by trade. Everyday I get people in our camera store asking me for my tech advice like "is camera A better than camera B brand" or "will this camera make me a better photog" or "how do I make my video look like film" etc etc. The more I work in this trade & deal with these "tech junkies" the more I realise its not the camera that makes great images but the person behind it.

For example, the 2 best video/lighting guys in my city dont even own their own cameras. They get hired because of their great skills, not the camera they have. The have their own lighting & grip equipment because they generally dont change much & are just as important (if not more so) than your brand or resolution of your camera. Plus lighting/grip equipment doesn't depreciate nearly as much as a digital camera. There are heaps of freelence guys who own their own digi betas but get no where near as much work as these guys....

Also in my situation, i own a Sony PDX10P. Not the latest model now but I still get good sellable in demand surfing footage with it even though there's other guys shooting HDV now... wanna know why? Cos i'm a competent waterman who knows the waves & water shooting reasonably well (sorry i'm bragging here!) Thats my advantage over the guys who stand on the beach too scared to hop in the water...

Also all these people who think image quality or the latest model camera is the most important thing, please show me some of your movie masterpieces that require such superb image quality. I'd also like to see how superb your storyline, audio, composition, camera movement & lighting are too...

And i'm still standing by my point of not using the word "Z1 killer". Just because a new model comes out it doesn't mean the previous model is all of a sudden going to produce poor video now....

[Heath McKnight]

James,

Good points all around. Like I said earlier, I wanted something flashy to attract readers, hence the "killer" title (from my years in TV news, heh heh).

And I 100% agree with you about cameras--I learned the hard way (going broke) that a better camera and edit system doesn't equal a better movie. Though I will argue using a decent mini-dv and iMovie is better than a consumer VHS from 10 years ago and a camera mic (and editing between a deck and the camera) in terms of overall picture and sound (maybe not angles, lighting, etc.).

heath

[James Darren]

Good points Heath.... I too spent thousands on owning all my own equipment thinking that if I own the best equipment that all of a sudden i'll become this great filmer with heaps of work & money! Boy was I wrong! Now that i've sold a fair bit of my gear & just own the basics to get me by (I usually hire or borrow from work when I need specific gear) i'm getting more work & money because I now have more experience & knowledge.

by the way the term "Z1 Killer" wasn't directed at you personally or anything. Looking at your website & resume you're the not the type of people i'm directing this thread at.... you actually work & are active in the movie/video making scene!

I also think many manufacturers of cameras make "fear" (if thats what you call it) in regards to having the best & latest model camera. They make you believe that having the best camera will produce the best movies & if you dont have it you'll be left behind. Similar to the way the news creates hype for their stories by using the words "epidemic" & "terrorist".

[Heath McKnight]

Of course camera companies are cutthroat, that's how they survive.

heath

[Luis Caffesse]

"I also think many manufacturers of cameras make "fear" (if thats what you call it) in regards to having the best & latest model camera. They make you believe that having the best camera will produce the best movies & if you dont have it you'll be left behind"

I think that can be said of pretty much any product based industry. Just take a look at the above statement and try a little fill in the blank....seems like it could fit just about anything.

"I also think many manufacturers of (blank) make "fear" (if thats what you call it) in regards to having the best & latest (blank). They make you believe that having the best (blank) will produce the best (blank) & if you dont have it you'll be left behind"

Sad, but that's the message most commercials seem to push.
I have a hard time with that because I've been making a pretty good living shooting commercials lately.

But at least I can remember that in the end, they are all 'just tools' as we always remind ourselves. It's not a zero sum game, and just because one camera may be great, doesn't mean another one can't be great as well.

[Heath McKnight]

Apple plays up the fears of Windows XP people who are scared of viruses, etc.

heath