DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Techniques for Independent Production (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/)
-   -   What about the JY-VS200U Mini DV Camcorder (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/techniques-independent-production/3981-what-about-jy-vs200u-mini-dv-camcorder.html)

Vinson Watson September 29th, 2002 03:18 PM

What about the JY-VS200U Mini DV Camcorder
 
These are the features:

JVC "Indie" Progressive Scan Single-CCD DV Camcorder, with FireWire and USB interfaces 300:1 digital zoom, 10:1 optical, 2:1 stills 1.92 Megapixel Digital Stills, 1600x1200 (UXGA, XGA, VGA resolutions Automatic/ Manual focus lens Dual Optical Low Pass Filters 16:9/ 4:3 switchable, Color.

I hear Progressive scan is important to the film look but the problem is I can get a three chipper for a grand. I mean think about it. And the DVX100 is $4000 for $2000 I can get two cams but it's still 3 versus 1 on the chips. This is another question, where can I email the R&D departments of these companies. If the the JVC "Indie" was a three chip model I'd wait to buy the DVX100, but why make such a cheesy model of camera to sale to indie filmmakers when Sony and Panasonic sell a three chip for about $200 more. Has anyone used this cam? Are there any reviews of it?

-Vinson

Joe Carney October 4th, 2002 08:35 AM

artstar, the DV3000U is the succesor to this camera, and it is better and cheaper to boot. 2 british mags gave the camera an overall good review (don't like the bottom loading tape is all).
Buydig.com has the DV3000U for 894.00 after rebate. thank Panasonic for getting everyone to lower their prices. hehehe.

Chris Hurd October 4th, 2002 08:46 AM

There used to be an extensive write-up on the 200 by my friend Adam Wilt, over on DV Central. That site seems to have folded, so I guess I'll tap him and see if I can run the article now.

Joe Carney October 4th, 2002 09:26 AM

Chris, the reviews I read about the 3000 say the picture quality is much better than the 200u, especially on low light. Seems they got rid of the vertical smear problem too.

Vinson Watson October 5th, 2002 06:51 PM

I think I might buy two of these instead of 1 DVX100 if I find out that it got good reviews and can do 16:9. That might be a better idea and less expensive. You think I can get a good picture on a 1 chipper like this?

-Vinson

Joe Carney October 6th, 2002 09:59 AM

I didn't read anything about 16:9, at least in the NTSC version. This camera is designed to compete with the Panasonic 702 and 852 in a similar price range. I think they added the tech they originally put into the 200U indie, but not sure about the 16:9.

If you plan on using a tripod, you might want to look at the panasonic 702 or 852. The 852 is available for under 1K and is a top loader instead of a bottom loader. Both the 3000U and the 852 can be found in consumer electronic stores.

I think you hit the nail on the head. You don't need a 3 chipper to make a DV feature. There are even anamophic lenses from Century Optics for these cameras (with adaptors).

the celebration, the idiots and I think Julian Donkey boy were made with single chip cameras.

Vinson Watson October 6th, 2002 12:46 PM

This is true but my only problem is picture quality. I've freakish about buying a 1 chipper because I'm not sure about the quality. I want this to be as professional as possible. True it's not going to film but I want it to be good quality, especially the low light shots and a lot of these camera's don't have mic jacks.

Right now I'm really looking at the GL2, XL-1s, VX2000 and of course the new Panny 24p. (The Sony SONY DSR-PDX10 looks interesting too). I plan to go straight to DV with a lot of my stuff but 30p always seems slower than than 24p. I mean for me the difference is noticeable sometimes but I think I can work around it. I'm saving up and in 3 - 6 months I hope to have money for the camera and a new editing system.

-Vinson

Joe Carney October 6th, 2002 01:11 PM

think Vegas Video and use the difference between that and FCP to get your 3chipper. Plus, you won't need pro tools to get great audio, since multitrack audio recording and mixing is built into Vegas Video at up to 24/96 resolution. sorry, couldn't resist.

Vinson Watson October 6th, 2002 05:41 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by jojolimited : think Vegas Video and use the difference between that and FCP to get your 3chipper. Plus, you won't need pro tools to get great audio, since multitrack audio recording and mixing is built into Vegas Video at up to 24/96 resolution. sorry, couldn't resist. -->>>

FCP #3 will only cost me $300 and I have Pro Tools already. Plus I don't think they make Vegas for Macs (I could be wrong). FCP, Premiere and now Avid are the big Mac standards and many say FCP is better than the new Avid one.

-Vinson

Jeff Donald October 6th, 2002 06:03 PM

FCP is the standard for Mac editing. A good review of FCP and Avid Xpress DV is here

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/09_sep/features/cw_fcp_vs_xdv_shootout.htm

FCP for $300 is better than what Xpress will cost ($1500). My opinion of 3 chip cameras is they win every time, except in low light. The light gets split for each chip so it can't do as well. If your doing weddings and need a good low light camera , get a 1 chip. Other wise 3 chips is the only way to go.

Jeff

Chris Hurd October 7th, 2002 08:11 AM

Thanks to the magic of the amazing Internet Wayback Machine, here is Adam Wilt's JVC VS200 review, previously lost to the ether:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010802141230/www.dvcentral.org/Reviews/jyvs200u.html

Hope this helps,


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:09 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network