Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV Telegram channel! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
JVC Unveils Handheld 4K Camcorder
  • image

    http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/jvc-unveils-handheld-k-camcorder/211237

    1/2-inch CMOS imager with 8.3 million active pixels, it delivers real-time 3840x2160 footage at 24p, 50p, or 60p. Using MPEG-4 technology and a variable bit rate H.264 codec operating at up to 144 Mbps, the GY-HMQ10 records up to two hours of 4K video to economical SDHC or SDXC memory cards.

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, not excited about 1/2 inch but.....

    jVCGYHMQ10.jpg
    344 x 288 - 15K
  • 33 Replies sorted by
  • 1/2" is not really disadvantage. As small chip cameras are very handy for news, and similar stuff requiring big DOF.

  • Very true and Priced at $4,995 retail. Not Bad!

  • Right on! Let the 4K rampage floodgates begin. D4/C300 is already behind. ;)

  • http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/features.jsp?model_id=MDL102132

    Interesting: it divides the image into four quadrants, and records each one to one of four SDHC card simultaneously. Then you use software to combine the four streams into one editable 4k stream.

    Of course we GH2 owners already have recording around 144 Mbps with a single SDHC card. ;)

  • Very cool. The ability to resize in post would allow very clean greenscreen and stabilization. Slightly more expensive than buying four GH2's and mounting them on a rig of some sort...and can it do HDR in 3D?

    @balazer With the 4 x quadrant idea, a very similar technique was used in the first broadcast HD cameras (not camcorders, obviously!) - using 4 x digital tape machines to record HD images.

  • Very interesting. I suppose they just went after the broadcast market since that's more of their thing already. They teased about this camera earlier last year. It makes me wonder if Canon will really release their 4K DSLR and how they'll manage the processing in camera. I'm assuming they'll use the newest CF technology rather than the SDHC route.

  • unless they came up with a miracle from last I saw it, it will have very few professional adopters who care about the image-quality actually contained in those 4K miages.

    that said, I am happy JVC came to market with it and hopefully this allows other manufacturers to start selling 4K camcorders with S35 chips sooner than later

    JVC last said it would cost 5K more to create an interchangeable S35 version, so there's your next possible iteration of this tech at $10K

  • Basic question ... what are you going to watch this on? Does anyone know what the current state of 4K monitors is? There are no 4K computer monitors that I know of. 30 inch monitors top out at 2560 x 1600, well short of 4K.

  • I guess that's the basic model. Great as a B camera for 4k production. 1080 and 2K at 422 would be great.

  • @Ralph_B AMD just released the Radeon 7970 that supports 4K output, and AJA and BlackMagic have 4K cards. So the computer video card is already there waiting for a monitor.

    Interestingly, Panasonic announced they have a 20" 4K IPS panel. So, theoretically the tech is there- just need someone like LG or Samsung to stick it in a computer display and charge the right 4 figures...

  • I really think offering 2.5k res 2560 x 1600 in our cameras would be great. We have monitors able to display that res. We can recompose or down sample to 1080p. And I'm guessing the bandwidth would not be out of spec from our SD cards. Plus our m43 sensors can surely output a 2560 x 1600 x 24f signal. Anyone know if larger res. are possible within AVCHD? or is 1080p max?

  • @disneytoy I agree. 2.5k makes a lot of sense for real-world production.

  • I think they are trying to go after the "Future Proofing" market, not to mention the hype they will get.

  • You can get 2.5K or near 2.5K on MJPEG and a fast card. I think I was able to do around 2.3K 16:9, without it telling me the card isn't fast enough etc.

    News and broadcast @ 4K? Doubt it, esp with annoying post workflow of recombining files after dumping 4 cards.

  • I would like to know who is going to buy this camera. I mean news guy won't be bothered with 4k for a very long time, more so with the awkward workflow. Most filmmakers won't be bothered by the small size sensor. So apart from some niche niche market, like people with dof adapters, and some extreme early adopters that are going to buy this. They would have got a big hit by doing a 2k camera in at least m43 size with this 144 mbit codec. Some company are really clueless.

  • Well.. if you want to composite shots a small sensor and large DOF can be quite helpful. So are the 4k, even if its only 4:2:0 it should carry at least the color information of 1080p 4:2:2. So if you aim for 1080p output this should be perfectly keyable. Last but not least the large resolution allows you to shot very wide and reframe+stabilize in post in a way we can only dream of. I would not jump onto this specific cam, I remember JVC where the first with handheld HDV recorder as well, and it sucked. But in general I believe many people are interested in these high resolutions. Even if they are never displayed on a 4K screen. http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/15/tvlogic-debuts-56-inch-lum-560w-4k-x-2k-lcd-a-few-years-ahead-of/

  • I don’t care if it has a 4K label on it or not. What I want to know is how much resolvable resolution does it actually have. I would be surprised if it actually shows more lines of resolution than the Panasonic camcorders or even the GH2.

    Remember just because the frame of the video is 4K wide doesn’t mean that it is any more than upscaled 1080p. In reality our mighty GH2s resolve less than 720p(1280x720) even in hacked 1080p mode and we seem pretty happy with that.

  • @mpgxsvcd

    Very strange post from you :-) Calm down. It is not very hard to make thing that'll resolve even 8k.

  • Thinking about it further, 2.5K is an ideal size for filmmakers. You could shoot 2.37 aspect with square pixels - 2560 x 1080 - no need for anamorphic lenses.

  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev

    It may not be hard but I see people post time and time again that 1080p means it resolves 1920x1080. Just trying to make it clear that 4K doesn't mean it is any better. It is the same thing as what Bloom tested. All of the cameras were 1080p cameras. However, some of them had a whole lot more actual resolution than others did.

    I am skeptical of how much actual resolution this camera has. It is too easy for them to say it is 4K when it is less because they know most people are not actually going to test it. I know I couldn't test it. I don't have a monitor or printer that could do anywhere near that resolution on a normal piece of photo paper.

    So what camera actually resolves 8K resolution? I would love to see how much that runs.

  • It looks like a raid stripe recording system, which means that if there is a problem, you are toasted trying to reconstruct the image.

  • @mpgxsvcd Just because you don't have a monitor that can go that resolution doesn't mean you can't tell it's sharp or not. I edit on a Lenovo T500 laptop from my job that only has a 1280x800 screen and if I view footage at 100% it is still a 1 to 1 ratio even if I can only see a small part of the image at once. It does however make want an old T61 instead with 2048x1536.

  • I'd be happy even if it only resolves around 2,500 x 1400 (Making up numbers). That's still more than the norm.

  • I'd rather have a 720p camera that shoots clean, sharp, artifact free images and has good color, minimal skew and Jellovision. I'm much concerned about a clean image with noise, moire, aliasing, banding and other nasties reduced to nominal levels as opposed to super duper resolution. And the workflow for that thing, like most 4k systems, doesn't look fun.

  • @brianluce From my RED 5K/4K point of view.. it's fun!