OK.. here it is.. the JVC GR-HD1

King Goldfish

King Goldfish

I been playing with it all day. it is so cool. it really is a good camera. I take back everything I said about it based on rumors.

The new Sony is cool too but has a crappy lux rating.


jvc1.JPG



I sold keyboards on ebay and saved money to buy this for the last 4 months.

and yes.. i grew a beard too. btw.. the spots and bumps on my face is on the mirror and not my skin. I used the camera to take a picture of it by adjusting the bathroom vanity mirror :D
 
The sony didnt impress me much. a few people there liked the JVC over it.


now for the bad news. The firewire just wont work. I have read tons of threads on google of people having the same damn problem. I called tech and they told me to return it and get a new one. Im going to go do that tonight.

if the new one doesnt work then I have to return that one and get my money back.

I really like this camera. 35 lux seems wrong. I know thats what they say but it picks up image better then my panasonic 3 chip that claims to be a 3 lux.

Anyways, I dont want to return my camera. I really like it but JVC should have put more into the driver problem that everyone seems to be having.

I dont see how a new camera will help. The tech guy says he solves everyones problem but mine. He says I should have a yellow exclamation mark in my device manager somewhere. But I dont. and I tried it on 3 computers. none work.

And I payed 27 hundred for this. The sony is a thousand more. I cant afford that.

im pissed off.
 
King Goldfish: have you installed microsofts Service Pack 2? People, including myself, have had ENORMOUS trouble with it. It really screws up firewire. After I installed it I could only capture about every other frame from my camera. Soon after that I was no longer even able to capture at all. This sounds precisely like the problem you are having - especially if you don't have a yellow questionmark.

What are you using for editing?
 
Shaw said:
King Goldfish: have you installed microsofts Service Pack 2? People, including myself, have had ENORMOUS trouble with it. It really screws up firewire. After I installed it I could only capture about every other frame from my camera. Soon after that I was no longer even able to capture at all. This sounds precisely like the problem you are having - especially if you don't have a yellow questionmark.

What are you using for editing?
Click to expand...


Nooooo! Its a viris. Windows is a freaken viris. I wish I could just dump it all for Redhat but i dont want to run a windows emulator for my special FX software.

It was the camera. I took it back to frys and got a new one. it was still a pain. I was lucky to find a site that taught me how to do it.

but it works beautifully now. just that its new technology so most editors wont render at 1280x720.



I finally got the yellow exclimation mark (spellcheck) and removed it.

this is what you do.. first install the MPEG edit studio CD (all 4 installs).. turned off my computer. plug the new 1394 I bought with the exchange (iogear) 6to4

then I set the camera setting to sw and not auto as it states.

then you have to switch DV to mpeg mode.

turn the camera to play mode and plug in both ends of 1394 IEEE to the pc and camcorder.

turn back on computer

then when it prompts you of new device, you click the bottom box to chose it yourself (i have the exact setup i will post as a footnote) and then you chose JVC from the list and JVC tape device or whatever its called.

do not run it in DV mode. it wont work.

then you use their HD Capture software. read the help.. its kind of tricky at first.

it makes a m2t format file. its really lame. I looked everywhere on how to convert it, then all I did was change the format name to mpg and dragged it into vegas and it worked fined. just change the name.

but you have to own the mpeg codec for vegas. Im glad I got it. it didnt work before I intalled it (obviouslly).

then comes the tricky part. you drag the mpeg file into the editor and when you render it seems to force you to render no higher then 800 lines max. but if you use uncompress and type in 1280 then hit enter it goes back to the render button.. you then hit "custom" again, go back into video and change the second (vertical box) and change it to 720 and hit "enter" and it pops you back out of the window back to the save render window.

name it and render it and it will render at 1280x720. I know its a pain in the ass but it worked. only thing is you cant view uncompressed video because its choppy. so now you have to find another way to render it. Im thinking 3D Studio Max will render it in mpeg in mov format for DVD.

alot of software hopping but it will work. I heard Pinnacle renders HDTV. I might invest in the new version.
 
I'm actually fairly surprised there's not more available for FX and such on a linux platform.. I'll have to look into that.

As for rendering goes, check out videohelp.com You might find something cheaper (or better yet, FREE) to do the job. :D
 
picks up better than your 3 chip camera

that seems to make no sense. ccds are light sensitive devices. a 3 ccd camera would most defintly be better in low light than a 1 chip camera.
 
Well.. i have a 3CCD device but the chip set on it are small.

I like my little panasonic but it doesnt apear to have a better light sensitivity as this one does.

the grain factor on the panasonic 120 mini dv I own even gets grainy faster in low light then the one chip.

oh well.. I could bring it back and get a sony. Im happy with it. its very clear. maybe in the future when HD cams come down in price, there will be a mid range consummer version that will be far superior then the first generation prosumer brand HDR-FX1.

I want to know whats up with the guy who uses the guts of the digital camera and is hyrbiding it with the 16mm. hows that coming along? Would love to get a book on how to do that and or maybe a kit.
 
Doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult.. in theory anyway. Though it seems easier and probably cheaper in the long run to just get a "real" one. ;)
 
just for kicks. I will set up both the PV-GS120 3CCD on a tripod next to the 1 chip JVC HD1 and sinc them in vegas for a side by side view (split) of same frame settings and let you decide. if vegas cant do it, then 3D Studio max can with uncompress then take that render and mpeg it in vegas. i might lose a bit of quality but I will do everything at 100%. then Ill make a 5 second test scene of the jVC in 1280x720 in true light to let you see how grainy it is or isnt.

I like the camera. I do want to make it a bit grainy and add FX to get it to be more film like.
 
Will Vincent said:
Doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult.. in theory anyway. Though it seems easier and probably cheaper in the long run to just get a "real" one. ;)
Click to expand...


I wish I was rich :(

i mean how much film and how good of a quality film camera could I buy for 3 grand?

the film alone would cost that much for a beginer like me in just the first month or so learning how to film in different light settings.
 
Wow.. I displayed my test shots from the JVC using cinipak at 100% on a large plazma and I could see bleeding and other problems with color that didnt show up much on the monitor.

I am using Unlead MPEG for AVI and it is so much cleaner and renders about 3 times as fast.

any input?
 
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying..

Are you saying that AVI is bleeding a lot? Or MPEG? What are you editing with? Vegas? What is your workflow? Do you edit the native MPEG format or do you uncompress and work on a lossless version?
 
ok.. sorry, I thought "Color Bleeding" meant when you get a weird aura effect where different shades of color blotch up in an area. I wish I could post a picture to illustrate what i mean.

With cinipak it was causing a weird blotching effect on all things red in the video.

At 100 percent quality setting.

where as Unlead MPEG codec (for avi) was perfect as far as I could judge perfect. a person who works with a higher resolution of 1900x Im sure would disagree, but I have been able to notice alot more suttle details then I was able to several months back.

now, even though it says avi in the format name, Im guess when you chose a mpeg codec you really have a mpg or mpeg file with just avi as the format name.

but the reason I save as avi is because with vegas, I can only change the rendering settings to 1280x720 on avi files only. and it takes some manipulation to do so. mpeg wont even let me go into custom settings. it is set for good. both mpeg1 and 2.


sorry.. thats the best I know for now.

When you say "native" you mean mpg format? i dont understand that term. sorry, I havnt attended film school yet. I plan on it maybe in a few years. explain this term.. i hear it all the time.
 
Sorry to be unclear Mr. Goldfish. I'm good at confusing myself even!

native is just used to refer to the format that is recorded to tape. In this case, MPEG2. With DV it would be DV etc.

Your definition is a perfectly fine use of the term bleeding. I wasn't trying to correct you! Just wasn't entirely sure what was happening and what was causing it to happen.

you refer to cinepak - can you provide more information on this format? Does JVC provide software that has this format? Is it available through Vegas alone? I'm just not familiar with the CODEC so I can't offer much insight yet into why it looks bad.

Just a suggestion for editing though: once you capture the footage to your hard drive you may want to consider opening the file in Vegas and then immediately exporting the file to an uncompressed AVI format. This will take up quite a bit more room on your hard drive but it is a good idea if you need to do a lot in editing. Otherwise everytime you hit "render" in vegas (even just for a preview of your work assuming Vegas' doesn't show effects real time) you will loose image quality because you will be, essentially, recompressing the file again throwing away data. With a format that has no compression no data is lost.

Not sure if that made sense. Try hitting me upside the head if it didn't and I'll draw up some graphics to help illustrate this better :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top