<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>ccbatson -- The sample images from the article were converted directly from raw MPEG-2 transport streams recorded by the camera. I used Moonlight MPEG Stream Explorer to decompress the frames into true-color uncompressed BMP images. (See http://www.moonlight.co.il/products_pc9.htm for info about it.) I consider this software to be of adequate quality to faithfully render the frames. No other software was involved to obtain the screenshots. This is not a picture taken from a monitor, so there is absolutely no interaction with my monitor, video card, or any other display hardware. I present these frame grabs and honestly claim that this is the kind of quality you can expect from this camcorder. For a wide range of DV-camera screen grabs to compare with, check out this Japanese website: http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html.

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>man, i\'ve been dying for some direct captures of what this camera can do... i was very sceptical... but now... i\'m just amazed... great job lorin...

hey lorin, you mentioned the 30p looked jerky when panning quickly... did it look jerky like the frame mode on the canon and the 24p on the panasonic, or did it look more jerky/less jerky? could you honestly see yourself shooting at regular ntsc after this is released?

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>any chance of posting some mpegs???

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>The feel was completely the same as Canon`s frame mode and Panasonic`s 24p. I would never want to film 720p 30fps using a high shutter speed for that reason, unless I only wanted to take very clear stills from the captured video. Just like with film, any motion needs to be blurred to really look natural. I love the resolution though, so for beautiful scenes that you would find in drama, or wedding / event videography, this camera is my choice. The only lack is definitely the low-light sensitivity and color. Some of that can be fixed in post. I would pay an extra $1000 to $1500 for 3CCDs and larger CCDs in a heartbeat. Everything else is there. If I owned one of these, and I expect I will, then it`s true that my other camcorders would start to collect dust. The only reason I would shoot NTSC again is for really low-light or to get perfect color. Now on the other hand, what about filming sports / high-action? The camera can do it using the SD mode, which is 480p at 60fps. There you can capture wonderful high-motion, even making it slow-motion in post-production by doubling, tripling, or quadrupling frames. I\'ve been doing that already with some of my NTSC video by taking 480i through Gunnar`s smooth deinterlace filter that I describe above. Like everyone, I wish I could have my cake and eat it too -- 720p at 60fps would be stellar. I\'m sure the other manufacturers will take that into consideration as they prepare their offerings. I haven`t heard of any of them working on a recording format, tape or blu-ray or otherwise, that would exceed 30Mbps, so if high-def 60fps is going to happen, it will have to be with better compression. MPEG-4 is far too processor intensive to be used just yet, but MPEG-2 with 15 GOP just may be the ticket. It would require at least two of NTT\'s Super-Enc III chips to be used. The GR-HD1 uses one of those for its compression. You can find out more about the compression chip from NTT`s press release at http://www.ntt.co.jp/news/news03e/0302/030213.html. The only MPEGs I had available to take home from the show were low-motion ones. I had done all my frame-by-frame analysis of the high-motion sequences either with the computer at the booth there or by taping the sample footage being played back just on standard DV and pouring through it later at my house. Posting the MPEG streams would allow folks to test their software with the transport stream footage that the camera kicks out, but that`s about it. I will say that it`s strange how large the P-frames are in a low-motion sequence. Perhaps that could be perfected, and then we`d have the bandwidth to record full 720p 60fps on DV tape...

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>I think the samples look fantastic, and greatly comparable to any HD I\'ve seen. So for most of us the samples are most appreciated. Great job, Lorin.

<!-- Rating:</B> 3<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>ccbatson - Exactly what is it that you believe you are seeing or not seeing in the sample images?

They aren\'t exciting images and the harsh light of the Vegas strip in the daytime wasn\'t any help but they certainly are representative of camera\'s capabilities.

That every users equipment will be different is hardly an argument against providing such samples. This is going to be true no matter what we are talking about - tape decks, video monitors, cameras, etc..

I was at PMA and spent several hours in the JVC booth looking at the footage on different displays including in their private demo room. It compares very well against 3-chip DV cameras and has exceptional detail thanks to the rather unique CCD.

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>other than the fact that the menus are in japanese, why shouldn\'t i just import a japanese version today?

<!-- Rating:</B> 5<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>As far as I`m aware, the US and Japanese versions only have differences in the menus, and after May you could then pick up a US version and probably sell your Japanese version for close to the same money you paid for it originally. In my opinion, there`s no huge reason to wait to pick up the camera. Japanatronics is selling the camera on eBay, but they want the full MSRP price, plus some more for shipping. (See item number 2916121733.)There`s got to be someone reputable out there selling it for a bit cheaper than that. If the price is good enough, I`d like to pick one up sooner rather than later, too! How hard can be it be to learn Japanese, anyway?

<!-- Rating:</B> 3<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>Pwright: You make my point better than I. First, if the scene is poorly lit, or a bad example for whatever reason, why on earth use this as an example to post? Next, the point being made is that this camera stands apart and above prior products, as such, stating that the images "compare very well" with other 3 ccd cameras is damning this camera with faint praise, it should noticably exceed, not compare with the earlier product.

<!-- Rating:</B> 4<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>I realize that the best video quality to come from CCD-based camers (at any given generation, sensor size, etc.), has been from 3CCD cameras. However, given that MPEG2 compression as well as most others, samples chrominance at half the luminance\'s frequency or less (i.e. 4:2:2 up to 4:0:0 on some other schemes), having a 1CCD with GRGBGRGB (with luminance being modulated largely by the green component), I do not see the 1CCD chips being fundamentally and perpetually infreior. In fact, at the same (prosumer/pro) price range, if one could offer a 3CCD solution or a 1CCD solution, one could probably compromise less (sensor size wise, etc - look at Sony\'s 950!) on the 1CCD and close if not reverse the quality gap. Light sensitivity wise, the larger combined light sensitive area of a 3-CCD system is offset by light losses in the prism splitting the light into the primary colors routing it to each CCD. Looking at the min. illumination figures on the prosumer camcorders, there\'s not a huge gap vs. 1CCD for same sensor size and technology level, and taking other compromises into account (the damned "megapixel" bragging rights on non-HD units, plus smaller sensors), you could have 3CCD with inferior low light performance - just compare the 1/4.7" 3CCD Sony 950 and the 1/6" 3CCD Panny to Sony\'s older 1/4" small pixel count CCD models e.g. DCR-PC9. Clearly the manufacturers are responding to consumers thinking 3CCD=great quality, by providing models in mass-prosumer price range that flirt with 3CCD technology but show no attempt to deliver the implicit low-light performance promise.

Morale: ask not for 3CCD - ask for good low light performance (and not at the cost of vertical smear like on same HAD chips!)

<!-- Rating:</B> 3<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>The most dramatic benefit of a 3 ccd imager is the color accuracy, fidelity, and saturation, not resolution. this is where the very dramatic difference in quality is realized. MPEG2 compression does not diminish this fact. I am perhaps the biggest skeptic out here, I always consider the ultimate question which is, in a blinded controlled comparison, is there a reliable difference in perceived quality. In doing so comparing 3 ccd cameras to 1 ccd, the difference is obvious to all....nuff said.

<!-- Rating:</B> 4<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>An important part of what I said was comparing technologies at a comparable cost level. If you compare a $2.5K unit to a $800 unit, the $2.5K one being 3CCD, it would win. Did it win because of triple the CCD count or triple the price. "Both" some would say, but that is a useless conclusion in talking about technologies applied at same cost level. If you take a large, good quality CCD unit, and compare it to a 3CCD unit costing the same amount, the difference may not be so clear as you think. Look at the Panasonic 3-CCD units with tiny 1/6" CCD\'s - they may exhibit the 3-CCD advantages on a shiny day, but indoors, produce inferior images. Comparing a downsampled 720x480 image from the 1/3" 1CCD JVC GR-HD1 to an image from an equivalently priced 3CCD camcorder, I doubt the diffrence would be obvious (or at all) in favor of the 3CCD unit.

<!-- Rating:</B> 3<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>Of course you get what you pay for, an analagy being that a 250K Ferrari is not comparable to a 50K Corvetter ZO6 even if performance is similar (numbers). You seem stuck on the issue of resolution, remember DV is limited to about 530 lines of resolution. It does not matter if your ccd has 10 MP, it is still a 530 line resolution that you see. The differences lie elsewhere: Color (3 ccd wins hands down), light sensitivity (size of ccd matters, but if you have a light bulb on hand, this is remediable), optics/lenses, audio, and features. Of all of the above the one absolute, nonremediable, and visible factor is the color rendition (again 3 ccd wins). This is not to say that all 3 ccd cameras are wonderful, and that 1 ccds are awful, you can screw just about anything up, but the playing field is not level, so, in general, 3 ccds are better than 1.

<!-- Rating:</B> 4<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>After seeing the video from the GR-HD1, part of me did wish for the better color rendition available from 3CCDs. Even my cheap TRV-900, a 1/4" 3CCD camcorder, has a more pleasing gamma curve and better color saturation. But I must say that I love all those pixels! The sheer clarity of the HD and virtually zero MPEG-2 compression artifacts won me over. I\'ll take the slightly washed out color in order to have HD. Note that the single CCD used in the GR-HD1 shows some graininess when recording 720p in low-light conditions, but as ccbatson says above, if you can just throw some more light at the scene, it\'s fine. The single CCD also exhibits vertical lighter bands when filming a really bright light source, the same as all other low-end camcorders out there (again my TRV-900 comes to mind...)

<!-- Rating:</B> 1<img src="http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/icons/star.gif" width=22 height=18><BR> --><BR>i mean sure the cam shoots great, but after spending all this money on your nle, after effects, rt cards, plugins, you now have to throw it out the window and use some third rate editor from jvc...is this insane...

m i missing somethin here, jvc should have partnered up with avid or fcp, speaking of which mac users are in the dark...

this cam is nice prototype, but i think i\'ll wait for the real thing

the review on the other hand was first rate...