The GY-HD100, JVC's ProHD 3-CCD camcorder
By Peter Rojas 
posted April 4th 2005 6:06AM
posted April 4th 2005 6:06AM
Sony's stolen a bit of their thunder lately, but JVC is hitting back with the GY-HD100, a new compact high-definition camcorder that's aimed at the professional end of the market. This one sports a 3-CCD sensor, interchangeable lenses (it ships with a 16x lens), a removable hard drive (!), and records in ProHD, a new standard based on the same MPEG2 compression standard used in consumer-grade HDV camcorders, but that adds more pro features like support for 24p and timecoding. Only records up to 720p (1280 x 720), but support for both 1080i and 1080p is planned for future ProHD cameras.
The link appears to be broken. Cool camera!
Professional end of the market? I was under the impression professionals used FILM. I must be beind in the times! :)
cool camera... yeah i agree that the link is broken.. hehehe.. but that, i think, does not stop my mouth from watering... i want that
Yay, more crappy indie films shot on video trying to look like film!
If you guys look at the latest wired article (from the magazine), they have an article about digital distribution, and they talk about how filmmakers are weary of actual digital filmmaking, but all of the benifets it will have on the digital editing and (future) digital distribution sides. Get into the future already, you filmmakers out there, and get into the digital world.
well i know how to use film 35mm 16mm and 8mm and ive used several formats of digital video, mini dv and dv and i can tell u one thing, oh yeah if your pro you would go all the way with a film camera right? are u paying for it? no...the producer hooks it up for you, in the real world if you were to buy a film camera you would pay through the a$$ and spending so much time to edit on film is a pain, honestly any transitions and you would have to send them to the lab?? so are you seriously comparing a camera that can run 24 frames and is so much more efficient because all the editing can be done through the pc or mac? compared to a traditional film camera that would take for ever for you to finish production and post production?....its not even in the equation yeah
the real question is how will this camera compete with sonys high def hdr-fx1 and canons xl2? i reckon this camera could be it. it can run 24 frames like canon but has the high def capabilities of the sony! lets just see how much this thing will be
compact....oh right its hd
Quote:
"Yay, more crappy indie films shot on video trying to look like film!"
28 Days Later was shoot entirely with Canon XL-1s.
Digital film is the future and even film did-hards like Tarantino was impressed with the digitally shot Sin City. Grayson, the fanfilm trailer cost $17,000 to make and $11,000 of it was spent on film cost alone. If you don't have a backer and want to make a movie, DV is the only way to go.
Sure, begbie, but Sin City was not shot on pro-sumer or even professional cameras. Rodriguez and Lucas and all other professional directors who shoot digital features use proprietary cameras that record a much higher resolution image (4k and even 2k easily beat all HD standards) with a higher dynamic range (16-bit or floating point) as an uncompressed file.
And resolution aside, that higher dynamic range is what is required to duplicate film's richness. If a format can't even get a controllable gamma curve onto 10-bit color, it isn't ready for feature work. And the compression is really what kills you, especially if you need to do any compositing or grading afterwards. If a format is compressed, it's not what the pros use. Especially if it's as lossy as MPEG2. 25m per second is JUST passable for SD broadcast work, but that's it. DVC50 is better.
Also, note to Engadget staff; the HDV tape format also supports 24p and true SMPTE timecode. Pro features, not pro material.
FX-1 better... Sony always better when it comes to cameras
Targ8ter,
What are your thoughts on the GY-HD100? As I was thinking of shooting a low budget feature on it. Then making it pay for itself with TV docs.
To comment on Sony FX vs JVC, Sony is not necessarily better. It's different. Almost everyone serious about digital moviemaking will go for progressive camera like Canon XL2 or Panasonic DVX. By their nature, Sony's FX1 and Z1 target TV-like applications, documentaries, music videos etc. And take it easy on HD in general, it will take at least 2 years before it gets decent popularity. Until then 99.99% of us will end up downscaling it to SD after shooting and editing in HD. Unless you plan to transfer your production to film and show it in theaters, don't get exited about 24p either, especially Panasonic's 24p which is not real. Bottom line: it's good that technology is progressing, we should push for it. It's very good digital camcorders are getting closer and closer to film in terms of resolution and dynamic range, but technology is not what matters the most.
Film is on its way out. Period. Just like Vinyl records and film photography. High budget films may be only ones using proprietary high resolution digital cameras, but that's not really the point is it? It's simply a matter of days before film quality digital gear is common place. Film is awkward and expensive, which places limits on young talent. Perhaps we should be applauding advances which level the field, instead of boo hooing technology releases; repeating the same ole broken record phrase "it's not good enough".
It is now November 2005. The GY-HD100 from JVC
is proving to be a very good option compared to the FX-1 from Sony. My particular interst is 3D
stereo. If you are going to shoot in 3D you need
a genlock capability, The JVC camera will soon have that due to the efforts of a third party vendor, For-A, that is well know for timebase correction devices. Progressive scan is also a better way to go for 3D. I suggest some kind of dual camera approach with this camcorder. I'm
building such a rig for a producer in Europe right now.