It's the size of the cam for what it offers, that's revolutionary. Have you seen pictures of it? The darn thing fits in a palm of the hand. This JVC HM100 uses XDCAM codec in a Quicktime wrapper. I wish they used AVCHD that Panasonic's AG-HMC150 uses for space-savings and etc. However, if having it in Quicktime is less processor-intensive when editing, I would go with it any day...
Compare the size of JVC HM100 and that of EX1/HVX200. BTW, CMOS chip(found in EX1/EX3) tends to give you wobbling effect on quick pans. I am kinda skeptical of the whole CMOS in video acquisition now... The only thing I am concerned about, and not discoverable till this cam comes out in April, is LOW LIGHT performance. I will go into debt to get this marvel if it at least offers 2lux. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Brook Hinton <bhin...@...> wrote: > > I'm skeptical. This is not revolutionary. > There are two existing camcorder lines that compete with this, albeit a > grand or two over the price (assuming this comes in around 4k) - the Sony > EX1, and Panasonic's HVX200. Both have more control and professional > features. The EX1 has 1/2 inch chips (the difference between, say, regular > 8mm and Super 16 in terms of depth of field control) and unbelievable low > light performance with a 35mbps codec similar to JVC's. The Panasonic uses a > codec that isn't subject to the perils of temporal compression (but does > have an issue re its lower res chips). With the JVC and for the matter the > Sony, you still need to transcode if you want to work efficiently in > anything but a cuts-and-dissolves only environment. Final Cut Pro already > deals with these formats natively. JVC is just finally introducing a > competing product. The whole "direct to quicktime" thing is just hype. > DVCPro HD is already FCP compatible and doesn't need transcoding. Any > temporal codec is going to need transcoding for professional use whether its > "native quicktime" or not: its just the nature of the beast - the basic > physical reality of GOP structure. > > The one fantastic, revolutionary thing is that it uses SDHC cards instead of > a proprietary and more expensive card format. But it's 1/4" chips and mpeg2. > The 35mbps codec, if its anything like Sony's, will be significantly better > than HDV though. If you're looking at ye olde classic DV equivalents, this > is a dressed up tapeless TRV900. not a tapeless DVX-100 or XL1. > > The lens is another variable. In HD, the lens is a huge factor. None of the > cams in this range have had particularly good lenses, but that's not > surprising given the cost of HD lenses. > > That doesn't mean its not good or a good value, its just not particularly > groundbreaking. I'll look at it closely when its available, but if I'm in > the market in something for this range I suspect I'll wait and save a little > bit more for something like an EX1. > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Brook Hinton > film/video/audio art > www.brookhinton.com > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
