JVC GR-PD1

I started what turned into a long thread about the PD-1 and the CV review here and suffice it to say that a lot of what has been written in more than one magazine about the PD-1 is very misleading. (In brief, and contrary to what's implied in the CV review, it never records any resolution higher than standard definiton 720x576.) Editing, however, is likely to get easier, as more programs support HDV as a format.

Briefly it seems to be a standard definition variant of the 60Hz High Definition HD1/HD10 models. Although the first HD consumer cameras, they have had a lot of criticism in a lot of areas, most notably for poor low light performance. The PD1 can't even claim to be HD.

Looks like I will go back to my original plan and get in a temporary camera while waiting for things to move on a bit.

Shame, it is a good looking camera :)

Thanks for the info'

Things have now moved on, the Sony FX1 is out. It's a HDV-2 camera recording 1080-line interlaced. It's 1440 pixels wide, and 4:2:0 chroma. This is just the first of a chain of such cameras that will hit the market in the next few years, this one's poised to take over from the PD170 (at least, the pro version of it, due out early next year, will).

Agreed. Though Alasdair expressed an interest in progressive, and I'm not sure the FX1 does that? If you think of getting one, make sure you physically try one first, it's very heavy for that styling of camera. In my book a camera that weight should be styled to be handheld on the shoulder.

Although the recording format is 1440 pixels horizontally, I believe each of the 3 chips is 960 across.

The FX1 is indeed interlaced. However, it has a page of "profiles" that you can select, about half of which are "film-look" and certainly give motion that looks like 25p. I'm not sure what they do or how mthey do it, but the camera is most definitely worth a look.

But talking of the number of pixels is a bit irrelevant, because, like in all 3 ccd cameras, the green ccd is precision offset from red and blue to give approximately 50% more horizontal resolution than you'd expect from the pixel count. They all do this. Resolution from the camera is well up to 1440 pixels-worth, measurements confirm this . Don't ask me for more.

This could well explain the rebates that are being offered on the PD170 right now, less than a year after its introduction. Mitcorp are selling it at less that £2100 (strange that this is the number of the VX2100) but presumably with VAT on top of that. A real steal at that price in my view. If the FX1 doesn't match the PD170's low light capability, there will be tearing of hair and knashing of teeth across the land.

tom.

Thanks for the replies.

It sounds as if things are about to rapidly move forward, so whether to jump now or to wait to see who comes out as the winner!?! Waiting is probably the wise move.

The impression I get is that the GR-PD1 doesn't live up to enough of JVC's claims to make it a wise move.

H Preston is doing the PD170 for £1999 + VAT now Tom; now that has to be a bargain! Trouble is I bought one from them less than a month ago for nearly £400 more than that (damn!) and that was about the cheapest around then. Still at that price I'm thinking of buying another one.

To be absolutely precise, I didn't come across a single claim made by JVC that was untrue. What I did find was a lot of techno speak in their advertising, which sounded impressive, was true, but in reality was often stating something quite mundane which may be found on any other camera! They must have been delighted for third parties to then misquote and/or misunderstand their sattements and make the camera sound far better than it actually is. If they'd actually made the claims themselves, they could have been held liable for misleading advertising.

As you say Chrome, the PD170 (which includes (say) a £150 wide-angle converter) comes to £2349. It's the price the VX2000 was selling for three years ago. I just want to know about the low light capabilities of the FX1 though...

tom.