JVC debuts 8K / 4K prototype camcorders, moviemakers drool

Aw, snap. Just when you thought the 4K market couldn't get any more dominated by RED and the gang, along comes JVC to shake things up. For reasons unknown, the company has chosen now (and not a few weeks back at NAB) to unleash its prototype 4K and 8K camcorders, both of which boast D-ILA technology and can capture clips at a downright mind-blowing 8,912 x 4,320 or 3,840 x 2,160 resolution. There's also a more "compact" sibling which does 4K only, but even it provides plenty of pixels to zoom and pan in unprecedented clarity on. So JVC -- you, us, CEDIA 2009. It's a date, cool?

Update: More details here. Thanks, Geoff!

[Tim @ May 12th 2009 10:08AM]

I'm drooling...

[Mike G @ May 12th 2009 1:42PM]

Cant wait to watch adult-type movies filmed with this.

[loocas @ May 12th 2009 12:17PM]

Mike, here's the thing: you wouldn't want to watch adult-type movies shot with this... o_O

[Mike G @ May 12th 2009 1:43PM]

Will the sores look that bad in 4k/2k?

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:27PM]

Personally I think the resolutions are already too much for porn as it is at 720p.

[Michael @ May 13th 2009 10:17AM]

I've heard this argument before. My question is, what kinda nasty adult stars are you watching? I know the ones I'm watching I'd love to watch in real life. This is just another step toward that.

[hamster3000 @ May 12th 2009 10:13AM]

FAP FAP FAP

[Matt Kern @ May 12th 2009 10:21AM]

JVC, I know this is just a prototype, but couldn't you even try in the ID department. Panasonic and JVC are sorely lacking in this area; this looks like a VHS camcorder from the 80's.

[paragraph @ May 12th 2009 10:23AM]

Form follows function my friend.

This is not a consumer product, nor a prosumer product, this, like RED, is a professional grade super HD movie camera, and like RED looks are pointless.

It works, who cares what it looks like? have you seen current TV/Movie cameras? they essentially look the same, big black boxes with lenses on them.

[Hackettman @ May 12th 2009 10:33AM]

I actually like the design..... Its classic.... Not every new camcorder has to have the matte steel of the red..... But then again its prob just the guts inside a test enclosure and this will be all 2010'd out soon enough....

[rcarm @ May 12th 2009 10:37AM]

Too bad there's no pointy edges

[Matt Kern @ May 12th 2009 10:40AM]

@paragraph

While I agree with you that form follows function, I would have to say that form also affects function. I have worked on a huge array of cameras, ranging from 35mm to consumer HD. Ask any professional camera operator, and they will tell you first comes image quality, then comes ergonomics. The functionality of the camera is incredibly important, and companies like Sony (with their Cinealta line), Thomson (Viper), and RED have created professional grade cameras with beautiful ID, and great ergonomics. Have you ever worked with a JVC or Panasonic prosumer HD camera? It's an ergonomics nightmare. Granted, Panasonic is getting better, and their top of the line Varicam stuff isn't half bad. Point said, you are correct to some degree.

[terrylam @ May 12th 2009 10:57AM]

Matt,

I worked in Television for a number of years, and as much as camera operators would love ergonomics, it is about function before form. There have been no cameras in broadcast that were overly comfortable. All camera operators wear support belts and back braces for a reason. When you're walking around for 4 hours a day lugging around a 20-30 lb camera, this camera actually looks like a camcorder compared to what is typically used. Weight is probably the number one complain by camera operators. Then comes image stabilizing. We called it the steady cam. Good luck wearing that for more than 30 minutes without feeling it in your back.

In my experience, very few broadcast equipment is built for form... they are built to work well and to last.

[Matt Kern @ May 12th 2009 11:15AM]

@ terrylam

I totally agree with you, and I said in my post that functions comes first. I have operated a Steadicam with an F900 and a Canon HJ40x10B (which is a damn heavy piece of glass), and I have felt the back aches it gives you for wearing it for more than 30 minutes or so, but really the cameras that are exceptional are the ones that are easy to use and produce an amazing image. Sony has done this with all of their professional and prosumer products, RED has done it with the REDone, Thomson has done it with the Viper. All I was trying to say is that some work in the ID department would do this camera some good.

[Temple @ May 12th 2009 12:08PM]

@terrylam

This camcorder looks fairly small. The tripod it's mounted is a Libec LS-85. Judging by the scale compared to the tripod it looks to be very compact. Granted, this camcorder is suppose to be tethered to a machine via fiber-optic that can acquire RAW video.

[Bobfantastic @ May 12th 2009 10:25AM]

Right...

They've only announced a 4k camera, and 8k and 4k projectors.
Sorry!

[Emily @ May 12th 2009 11:23AM]

What he said.

[offtheheezi @ May 12th 2009 10:41AM]

i don't want a cam that looks like a fucking spaceship. i want one that produces the goods. keep it up jvc.

[Bluecold @ May 12th 2009 10:50AM]

Is that a nikkor up front?

[kadajawi @ May 12th 2009 11:45AM]

I wonder what size the sensor has...

[loocas @ May 12th 2009 12:22PM]

"This compact camera features a single 1.25-inch CMOS image sensor of 3840 x 2160 pixels, capable of producing live images with 4 times the resolution of full HD."

[nick @ May 12th 2009 12:14PM]

that looks like a typical JVC 2/3 lens on that mount..... if JVC came out with this without a full 35mm sensor and no PL mount support, you can call this DOA as far as the "film industry" is concerned.
it will serve zero purpose for us.

[adam.fred @ May 12th 2009 10:17PM]

Well this is just great. The dinosaurs of the film industry are still producing 24fps slow blurrovision but we can have it in higher resolutions. Well color me unimpressed but 24fps at 4K is still slow and blurry and thats with you film guys using all the tricks in the book to cover it up. I really cannot wait for the film era to DIE.

[loocas @ May 12th 2009 12:19PM]

Has anyone actually read the press release? This camera has a different purpose than what it might seem as an obvious choice:

Other 4K cameras on the market, such as RED and Arri, are primarily used for cinema applications which do not require live signal output. This makes JVC the unique choice for high-end applications including:

* Teleconference - Corporate/military conference systems can fully utilize 4K display systems (already installed) with cameras that can bring a new level of realism to remote conferencing.
* CAD/Design
* Distance Learning - 4K imaging can provide the ultimate real-time experience in a learning situations especially those involving live demonstrations and procedures.

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:31PM]

That just means it's freaking expensive and nobody has the displays to show it so they have to market it to those markets mentioned.
That does not mean it's all set in stone, if you are loaded to the brim like a recently laid-off CEO of a bankrupt bank for instance I'm sure you can purchase one to make moving pictures of your stacks of money :)

[Schlawenzer @ May 12th 2009 12:51PM]

While the Red is not primarily used for live applications, there is no reason i cannot be used for it. There are "real time output for display or transmission" on the Red One as well, and you can buy it now.

I fail to see what's so novel about this cam.

[marooned @ May 12th 2009 12:58PM]

Wow, JVC fail.

"Less than $200,000"

So it's ten times the price of a basic RED system.

As has been pointed out, RED cameras DO have realtime output (maybe not at 4k) - but that brings me to my next point - who the h*ll needs a 4k camera for videoconferencing?

I predict JVC will sell exactly zero of these.

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:32PM]

LOL@self-censoring hell.
lol and sigh too.

[xconan @ May 12th 2009 10:19PM]

Of course they'll sell because JVC will realize that they have recoup profit for R&D and sell at market price.

[Marshall @ May 12th 2009 1:15PM]

@marooned

Do enjoy flaunting your ignorance?

Are you part of the same naysayer gang that said we didn't need HD.

4K VideoConferencing -- Telepresence (via Cisco and others) will catapult into the public consciousness.

I was grateful to partake in the AARNET consortium --

look here --

http://www.aarnet.edu.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?id=147

Marooned, were we wrong to execute this?

The ultra definition (UD) 4K visuals were ABSOLUTELY mindblowing!!!

People who demonize 4K have not experienced 4K ---

[marooned @ May 12th 2009 1:39PM]

@Marshall: I work with 4k footage from RED cameras on a daily basis in post-production. It's superb. For filmmaking, digital cinema, etc. I have no qualms against 4k, and I'm not sure how you read that from my post.

My problem, if you read my post, is that I think 4k for these other applications (eg videoconferencing) is absolute overkill and I can't imagine why anyone would buy a $200k camera (plus of course you need the projection system on both ends) for this task when HD is more than enough and probably less than one twentieth the price. It would cost a business nearly a half million to get set up if you include the infrastructure.

As a production camera, this JVC unit is too expensive because RED will do exactly the same thing for a fraction of the price. RED even has a cheap projection system coming for 4k. There's no way JVC can compete with that as far as filmmaking goes. There are no advantages to this system that I can see.

[Josh @ May 12th 2009 1:45PM]

By my calculations a 1.5 hour movie at 60 FPS (worst case?) would be about 45.8 TB using this. Assuming any actors agree to be filmed with it.

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:39PM]

You could shoot at that resolution then cut a HD size frame where you want it in postproduction, might be liked by sloppy directors that can't decide the frame on set.
In the same vein you could put it at the airrfield (or navy carrier's flightdeck) and when there's an accident you could zoom on the details, to name some random use.
When you use it to cut zoomed bits you;d save the cost of finding a superlarge display too.

[marooned @ May 12th 2009 2:26PM]

OK, I do concede that I have thought of ONE application where this would be cool, and that's live streaming of events to cinemas. Big sporting events, concerts/gigs, etc. That would be pretty cool and I dunno if there is another system that could do that.

So I revise my sales forecast to "12 per continent."

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:40PM]

;)

12 times 200K, that's some profit I'm sure.

[Brad Fortner @ May 12th 2009 2:49PM]

I don't know if the 8K part is correct on this post. I did cover this camera in my NAB 2009 report at http://bit.ly/SzNux

....brad....
http://www.bradfortner.com

[Marshall @ May 12th 2009 2:56PM]

I attended NAB last month --

NHK had a demo of ultra definition (UD) feeding live 8K video resolution (7680x4320 pixels) from an outside location near Planet Hollywood down to NAB location, via multiple HD-SDI optical fiber links.

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_c/NAB_09.html (scroll all the way to the bottom to see the photo)

[G @ May 12th 2009 4:01PM]

the human eye can't even see in 4k and there are no normal sized monitors that can display it so this is complete overkill

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:41PM]

Not meant for normal sized.

[Danneh @ May 13th 2009 11:24AM]

"The human eye can't even see 4K"

Exactly. When we stop seeing pixels, it becomes more like reality. Take 4/8K at 240fps (UH OH HARD DRIVES), add in autostereoscopic imaging and you have virtual reality.

[Eddy Robinson @ May 12th 2009 4:54PM]

Nice specs, but at 'under 200,000' this isn't really relevant to engadget readers. I do work in this field and consider it an interesting product, but when you add in all the other stuff (big storage servers and so on) that goes with a camera of this grade it's only significant if you expect to be spending $1 million or more on the visual pipeline.

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 5:46PM]

You saying gates and the woz and branson don't read engadget? Seeing that engadget doesn't have that much competition apart from people mirroring engadget I'd say there is a fair chance some of those billionaires do actually, there's only one internet (so far) so they are left with the same sources largely that we have.
Although there are some subscription services of course, but most of those don't seem that competitive really especially for leisurely readable technews.

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 11:13PM]

Unless they all prefer gizmodo maybe.

[SupaKing @ May 12th 2009 7:46PM]

JVC did announce these at NAB, I saw them, why you guys didn't know until now I have no idea.

[adeliamusic @ May 12th 2009 9:44PM]

This camera is not that good, especially not for the 200k price tag, I mean it shoots at 4k, 4:2:2... 10bit, that is about the same as the panisonic HVX, but the hvx is only 720p, whats the point of having a super high resolution with a color space that low, even the RED ONE shoots at 4k, 4:4:4 12bit,

If they want to compete in the hi res camera world, they should think more about shooting format/post workflow, instead of just a 60p 8k picture,
With a 200k price tag, just go rent a film camera and do 150fps at whatever format you want.

pass.

[Wwhat @ May 12th 2009 11:14PM]

Film camera? You mean pre-digital?

[Benjamin Leatherwood @ May 12th 2009 11:17PM]

The new RED Epic X S35 shoots quad HD with 100 FPS at 5K for $28 grand. The wireless aspect of the JVC KY-F4000 is a stunning innovation but for 200 grand it still doesn't compete with the RED spec wise.

RED has the camera industry reeling right now and it will trickle down to consumers soon enough. Fear of what the other guy is doing drives innovation, thanks goes to Jim Jannard.

[Ug @ May 13th 2009 6:42AM]

Never mind the quality, feel the width.

The thing is, even the biggest Hollywood blockbuster, money is no object, unlimited budget films are all DI'ed at 2K.

There is absolutely no point for 4K (apart for impressing teenage boys).

None.

That is why The Genesis and F35 are 2K.

[Michael @ May 13th 2009 1:02PM]

Actually the film industry is moving into 4k DI and possibly even 6k eventually. The idea that they should stop somewhere is just silly and anti progressive.

[ih8neocons @ May 14th 2009 10:06PM]

No use for 4k?
Composites done at 4k and then resampled to 2k look much, much better than composites done at 2k.
That's just one.
Your claim busted, I don't need to list any more - and there's a myriad.

Your backwards attitude reminds me of something I heard a long time ago: "640K should be enough for everyone."