Hi

I have been vewing the sample HD1 footage from DVinfo. It may not be 3CCD but is it good enough anyway? I know that the footage doesn't really show latitude, low light performance, or complex compression artifacts, but it looks good, and if it were downscaled to DV resolution will it be much worse? Colours seem natural except for bright ones, but what do causcasian skin tones look like (the wedding footage was pale and slightly blotchy like indoors cold weather people).

What does everybody think, it may not be broadcast but is it good enough to use compared to 3CCD in it's own right?

Bye the way, I've read lux figures for the JVC or 3.5 Lux, instead of 35 Lux, does anybody know it's true Lux in 720p?

Thanks

Wayne.

Were you watching HD footage on an HD monitor? If yes, the the answer should be easy...yes it is good enough (and then some). As to SD viewing, I would imagine that the results are mediocre and significantly inferior to 3 ccd cameras (particularly for color rendition).

"As to SD viewing, I would imagine that the results are mediocre and significantly inferior to 3 ccd cameras (particularly for color rendition)."

ccbatson,

This is a rather presumptuous and troubling statement, especially for someone who has never seen the JVC's output on an SD or HD tv for that matter.

Why assume instantly that 3 chips are always better than one? Why would anyone buy the TRV80 over the GS80 then? The Sony costs twice as much but only has 1/3 the number of ccd's. Given your logic, Sony is outmatched completely and absolutely by the Panny.

Care to guess which product will sell more units?

As for the JVC's color rendition, it's debateable how much "inferior" it is to 3 chippers in it's price range. Today's prosumer 3 chippers tend to oversaturate colors artificially and in post, I would dial this down to produce more natural looking colors anyways. Oversaturated colors tend to contribute to the "videoish" look of DV.

As for the skintones, in proper lighting, the JVC is fine. In darker rooms, the quality diminishes, but that's consistent with any video camera.

35lux isn't something you should be concerned with. Lux ratings are absolutely subjective, and aren't worth the paper they are written on. For all those who have 3 lux sensitivity out there, have you ever used your camera in a room lit by 3 candles? Was the image adequate?

I don't disagree with you in theory, however, HD aside, from what I have seen (almost everything) I would take the 3 ccd over any 1 ccd (remember, HD aside) camera any day, and twice on Sunday. I have not been able to get saturation/rendition close to a decent 3 ccd camera, even with gain/exposure/saturation levels turned all of the way up (in pre, and post). They never match the 3 ccd cameras output, and then overshoot to look strange when tweaked up. I wholeheartedly agree on the issue of low light performance (and have argued till I was blue in the face to that end). What I have always found is somebody comes back with the argument that they must shoot in low light (dark night clubs, and numerous other scenarios).......as if.......I think they are just yanking my chain, and could/can easily shoot in adequately lit settings, if they thought it through just a little first.

Rather than which one is superior, I'm interested if the HD1 is professionally (budget TV documentary/commercial/production) passable. I hear lots of debates on the 3chip issue, but if the image is passable then, what are we worrying about, people will still warm to the footage.

I have veiwed it on my computer monitor, in both high def and standard def modes, looks good (a little oversaturated in bright colours, and normal looking otherwise, mind you Los Angelos is a bit dry in the footage, bright wet lush greenery would tell better). If saturation remains over the top (which looks a little better) in all lighting conditions then ok, unless the color correctness, lattitude, and colour definition is out. The skin tone look pale and a bit blotch (red) though. I find it remarkable actually, seen movies like this.

Wouldn't HD footage down converted into SD be better than shooting in SD in the first place for colour correctness?

I've done some wedding videography and I wouldn't like to take a 35 Lux camera to a job like that. You have limited lattitude with lighting especially at the reception (and especially in the dimmed dance floor) and optimal results at these lighting levels are what people want/expect. Apart from that you have to follow that photographer around, who has first call on conditions, gets paid x times more for that coushy job. A 3.5 lux camera and a little lighting for good footage, a 35 lux and what am I going to have to fry them with? Imagine, "Yes Mabel, it maybe high definition but he's the one with all those glaring bright lights!" . Then comes the remarks "Do you have a high definition TV anyway?", and Mabel's off to talk to her daughter about the video guy. People are picky, they may not care what they turn up with for a Birth, but at a wedding.

The other thing is, I have heard bad reports about the component out of the camera, unless your playing back pre-recorded footage (and I'm not certain about pre-recorded either). So it is hard to judge instore, and the downloaded footage is probably the most garanteed.

For my part, converted (up, or down) data is less desirable than native data capture. Adding steps, unless it is done meticulously, detracts from the final quality. At best, it is the same.