From another site -- JVC details?
by Steve Mullen
on
Mar 7, 2005 at 2:41:28 am
A post on another site I trust has the following information which certainly matches the JVC Teaser and the information at the JVC site. And, the 50Mbps claim is consistent with JVC's Ken Freed's public presentation in NYC last fall. So we have to treat this as "speculation consistent with JVC's public statements." Nothing more!
The Poster claims "I talk with a Jvc Manager from a photo show in Milano Italy."
1/3" bayonet mount
3 CCD -- 1280x720
24P, 25P, and 30P
First 19 Mbps (NAB 2005) -- then a 50 Mbps 24P, 25P, 30P, 50P, 60P (NAB 2006?)
miniDV
Shoulder adapter, small size (about same as dvx100)
About 5000 € with 16x Fuji lens
>>> which would make it under $6,000.
Steve Mullen
Digital Video Consulting
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
===
HDpartner Prime -- Real-time 1080i and 720p HDV Editing with FCP HD
GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 HDV Shooting Guide
AG-DVX100 Shooting Guide
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Lawrence Bansbach on Mar 7, 2005 at 3:32:21 am
[Steve Mullen]"1/3" bayonet mount
About 5000 € with 16x Fuji lens
>>> which would make it under $6,000. "
While this would be good news, wouldn't this be cheaper (with lens) than a comparably equipped Canon XL2? Is that likely? The only unfortunate thing is the imager size -- I wish they could've gone with at least half-inch.
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Lawrence Bansbach on Mar 7, 2005 at 3:56:18 am
Sure, but since when do manufacturers listen to users regarding price? I thought the Z1 was overpriced at $4,900, and Sony raised it a grand. So, for about the cost of the Z1, you'll get progressive scanning, 24p, and a higher-ratio, removable zoom lens. Sounds too good to be true.
Next thing someone will be telling me is that Sony will announce a "Z2" at NAB 2005: 2-Mpixel, half-inch CCDs, removable zoom, 1080p24 at 50 Mbps, and 4:2:2 encoding. All for $5,999.37.
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Guy Barwood on Mar 7, 2005 at 4:57:18 am
[Lawrence Bansbach]"Next thing someone will be telling me is that Sony will announce a "Z2" at NAB 2005: 2-Mpixel, half-inch CCDs, removable zoom, 1080p24 at 50 Mbps, and 4:2:2 encoding. All for $5,999.37. "
Short of the price tag, they probably will, but it will be called the DSR400 ;-)
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Steve Mullen on Mar 7, 2005 at 5:05:57 am
"Next thing someone will be telling me is that Sony will announce a "Z2" at NAB 2005: 2-Mpixel, half-inch CCDs, removable zoom, 1080p24 at 50 Mbps, and 4:2:2 encoding. All for $5,999.37"
How about a DSR-250 version of the Z1 with better CF24 and much, much, better controls for about $7,500?
Steve Mullen
Digital Video Consulting
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
===
HDpartner Prime -- Real-time 1080i and 720p HDV Editing with FCP HD
GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 HDV Shooting Guide
AG-DVX100 Shooting Guide
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Derek Antonio Serra on Mar 7, 2005 at 6:05:08 am
I like the sound of this JVC - but more the 2006 release. This may well turn out to be the replacement for the Z1 in the medium term. Will it take any 1/2" bayonet lens?
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Steve Mullen on Mar 7, 2005 at 6:14:34 am
I agree with you on this -- getting 50Mbps AND 720p60 would be wonderful.
What I wonder is -- will the 50Mbps offer 4:2:2 at 24p?
Steve Mullen
Digital Video Consulting
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
===
HDpartner Prime -- Real-time 1080i and 720p HDV Editing with FCP HD
GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 HDV Shooting Guide
AG-DVX100 Shooting Guide
JVC quality question. by karl on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:59:35 am
While it is true that 25p has been desireable in the HDV spec. How would a de-interlaced image from a sony camera compare to that of a native progressive image from the JVC?
Sure this isnt purely about resolution, but as we have no more info to go on at present - bear with me and think if 1440x1080 can be de-interlaced in software to yield about 700-800 lines at best (50i to 25p); wouldn't this still put it at a higher image resolution than the JVC at 720P?
CF24 concerns me less as in Europe 25P seems the best way to go.
As the first camera is only 19Mbps could it really produce better images than the Sony? 50mbps would have been great but I don't think this first NAB offering is as revolutionary as JVC seem to think it is.
Karl
PS I know the lens is important etc, but as we have no concrete info on this yet, there is no reason to assume it's better than the one on the Z1.
Re: JVC quality question. by Guy Barwood on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:19:25 am
[karl]"1440x1080 can be de-interlaced in software to yield about 700-800 lines at best "
The Z1 is not 1440 though. The Green Pixel shift is not the same as real pixels.
Is there much else you can do when you deinterlace other than throw out every other field, and interpolate to replace it in a progressive image? Interpolation can never be as good as actual pixel data. From the charts I have seen of the Z1, it is about 800 lines before you deinterlace.
At least with a native 720p 16:9 CCD block, and a 16:9 recording format, pixels are not upscaled, downscaled stretched or compressed which is never going to help quality...
Then 19Mbps is actually providing more data bandwidth per pixel to 720p than 25Mbps is with 1080i isn't it? So the compression is less.
Then I have read in here a few times (I don't know myself) that progressive compresses better to MPG2 than interlaced, so 720p maintains a quality lead here too.
I just can't see how a Z1 could provide better 720p than what JVC will release. Time will tell if I am totally off base though. These are after all just my opinions, not hard facts.
Re: JVC quality question. by karl on Mar 7, 2005 at 11:49:39 am
Hi Guy
Thanks for the opinion. I actually agree with a lot of it. But it's hard to reach definitive conclusions when there seems to be pro's and cons in each spec.
Pixel shift technology may not be the best way to get 1440, but as I understand it does produce 1440 luma pixels by sacfaficing some chroma information (a lot of the chroma is thrown away anyway due to the compression sheme; so again its debatable whether this makes any difference to chroma quality at all).
Software deinterlacers can do much better than throwing away half of the information (Ive mentioned it before but look at http://www.algolith.com/fileadmin/flash_demos/ADI/directplayer.html). Sure, its time consuming, but if an image is fairly static you'll actually get most of those 800 lines intact and preserved. On movement a software de-interlacer seems to do a very good job, and is a ton better than throwing away half of the fields.
So lets say you can get 1440x800 at best on static shots, and at worse 1440x450 on movement (and thats just by throwing away half of the fields - I suspect you can get better than that). It still doesnt seem clear to me if a true 1280x720 image would look better than this. And if so, by any visible difference?
I've heard about MPEG handeling progressive better too, but it's a lower bandwith than the Sony. There are just so many factors involved that it doesnt seem that clear to me who would be a winner. And thats the point; the JVC doesn't clearly make me think "Yes, thats what I've been waiting for".
Maybe we should stop speculating and wait to see these images side by side on a screen. I have no loyalty to any of these brands, I'm just someone who's stayed out of the HDV game waiting for it to evolve and wondering when I should jump in.
Re: JVC quality question. by Guy Barwood on Mar 8, 2005 at 3:41:58 am
No one said neither don't have heavy compression, however using 25fps:
1440x1080 = 1,555,200 pixels per frame = 38,880,000 pixels per second
25Mbps = 25,600,000 bits per second
= 0.6584 bits per pixel
1280x720 = 921,600 pixels per frame = 23,040,000 pixels per second
19Mbps = 19,456,000 bits per second
= 0.8444 bits per pixel
Even if the calculations are off a little, there is about 25% more data avaliable to encode 720p @ 19Mbps than 1080i @ 25Mbps. Honestly though, I don't understand why they didn't use the same data rate for both formats and let 720p be even better...
Then there is the supposed progressive vs interlaced etc
My belief is that in native footage on a HDTV you probably won't be able to tell the difference between JVCs 720p and the Z1's 1080i other than the inherent differences of progressive vs interlaced video (motion blur etc). If the CCD on the Z1 was native 1440x1080 then it would likely have the edge though I doubt you'll see 1080p from Sony in a camera like the Z1 for some time where JVC seem to be wanting 720/48p/50p/60p and 1080p in about 12months which is pretty good if they pull it off.
Then again its all just dribble from little old me. As I said before, lets just wait until some real world tests can be done as theory is one thing, reality is another.
Re: JVC quality question. by Steve Mullen on Mar 8, 2005 at 4:39:15 am
1440x1080 = 1,555,200 pixels per frame = 38,880,000 pixels per second
25Mbps = 25,600,000 bits per second
= 0.6584 bits per pixel
1280x720 = 921,600 pixels per frame = 23,040,000 pixels per second
19Mbps = 19,456,000 bits per second
= 0.8444 bits per pixel
My calculations show about the same: 1080i moves 1.7X more pixels using only 1.3X more bandwidth. Thus the 1080i signal is SLIGHTLY more compressed.
There is an answer to the 19Mbps question. JVC fits the 19Mbps in the Video segment of the DV track. It places TC in the Subcode area. And, it leaves the DV PCM audio segment blank. As far as I know, Sony records a non-DV track by using the whole track.
If you were subscribed to my HDV@Work Newsletter from Video Systems you would know what might be done withe DV Audio blank segment.
Steve Mullen
Digital Video Consulting
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
===
HDpartner Prime -- Real-time 1080i and 720p HDV Editing with FCP HD
GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 HDV Shooting Guide
AG-DVX100 Shooting Guide
Re: JVC quality question. by Guy Barwood on Mar 8, 2005 at 7:55:57 am
[Steve Mullen]"If you were subscribed to my HDV@Work Newsletter from Video Systems you would know what might be done withe DV Audio blank segment. "
Ah, but it's not hard to imagine for myself it being used for an extra 2 uncompressed PCM channels of audio as the area is perfect for ;-) However, if you don't need 4 channels of audio, why not use that 1.5Mbps extra for video?
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Lawrence Bansbach on Mar 7, 2005 at 1:42:00 pm
[Steve Mullen]"How about a DSR-250 version of the Z1 with better CF24 and much, much, better controls for about $7,500?"
Would it have only third-inch CCDs like the DSR-250? Would the base zoom lens be included in that price (as it purportedly will be with the JVC cam)? And by "better CF24" do you mean 24p or only 48i? If the new JVC (with 24p and removable lens) comes in at $6,000 and the Panasonic P2 cam (with 24p, DVCPRO HD, and God -- and Jan Crittenden -- knows what else) comes in well under $10,000, I don't see how the hypothetical Sony model would really offer anything superior for the price. If it had at least 1.5-Mpixel, half-inch CCDs and true 24p, sure, then it would be harder to resist. If the data rate were 50 Mbps and encoding 4:2:2, well, it would be a no-brainer. Unrealistic? Maybe. But then, until very recently, the JVC's and Panasonic's features were unheard of at their respective (and purported) price points.
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Steve Mullen on Mar 7, 2005 at 9:52:58 pm
" And by "better CF24" do you mean 24p or only 48i?"
I would at least hope 48i deinterlaced to 24fps.
However, the controls should be a lot better than the Z1 and that would make me a lot happier.
Steve Mullen
Digital Video Consulting
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
===
HDpartner Prime -- Real-time 1080i and 720p HDV Editing with FCP HD
GR-HD1 and JY-HD10 HDV Shooting Guide
AG-DVX100 Shooting Guide
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Sanjin Jukic on Mar 7, 2005 at 10:09:36 pm
And you will pay between US $ 10 000 to 15 000 for all the controls. In that case somebody can say buy Varicam or F900 and get a real HD. That's the point. Sony is still not a bunch of senile old man. Older get wiser. They have got a wise Irishman today. Not a fresh one but a still usable.
Re: From another site -- JVC details? by Lawrence Bansbach on Mar 8, 2005 at 2:40:06 pm
[Sanjin Jukic]"And you will pay between US $ 10 000 to 15 000 for all the controls."
Huh? The DSR-250 costs $5,500. I would expect to pay only a modest premium for a comparable HDV model, as that is one major direction low-end pro models are heading. True, the DSR-250 has a nondetachable zoom, but if indeed the new JVC has a detachable lens (which purportedly will be included in the rumored $6,000 price), I expect that feature to become a new standard as well. At these price points such features were unheard of until recently.
"In that case somebody can say buy Varicam or F900 and get a real HD."
Where can you buy either camera even for $10,000 to $15,000? A month's rental will cost more than that.
