It doesnt look that small to me, and the quicktime stuff is mostly marketing hype.
So, I dont think this cam will change everything, maybe Im just being dumb but I dont see what all the fuss is about. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Renat Zarbailov" <innom...@...> wrote: > > 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 [email protected], Brook Hinton <bhinton@> 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] > > >
