JVC GS-TD1 3D-Capable Camcorder - Page 47

I agree with both Don and Joe: the point of the "Shaw's Garden" video is to show the garden; it is not about people. And, Joe is correct that the video is a bit static, and I would add, well, boring.

It has been suggested to use videographers tricks to liven things up - essentially move the camera to make the video dynamic, with dollies, slides, cranes, steadicams, elevators. Maybe putting the camera on the ground, or in the water!

I do not think any of that will make the video any more interesting, frankly. In fact, all those things may detract. I think the basic problem stems from two facts:

1. The 3D camera in wide-angle has a 4-20 foot 3D window, yet Shaw's garden is about a big setting. It does not make for an effective 3D video with this equipment. Wrong camera for this type of environment.

2. More fundamentally, the subject is rather boring - it's a pretty garden. Even in IMAX 3D, it is not going to be very interesting. Indeed, IMAX videos of places (the Galapagos) have many subjects moving around.

It seems to me there are two types of videos people will want to see:

1. A record, artfully shot, of something really interesting. Example: I shot a 3D video in a natural history museum in 3D (TD10). This was ideally suited to the camera: the exhibits were limited in space and size, so the 3-20 foot window meant the 3D was almost always effective. And, the exhibits are really interesting - dinosaurs or dino parts of all types, live snakes and poisonous frogs, a giant squid, mummies, rocks that glowed in the dark, colorful giant sculptures of insects. So, a 12-year old with a 3D Bloggie could make an interesting video (if he could hold the camera steady). In this case, no zoom or telephoto was necessary, so the 3D is good, the people are just inicidental, and the video is not boring - no one complains about it being static because what is viewed is one amazing thing after another. All I did was make sure exposure was right, and avoid window violations. I am sure others could do better.

2. A pretty place, like Shaw's garden. Well, a pretty place by itself is nice to be in to walk around in, but it is not really interesting to watch from a couch. Example: I was at such a place - it had a pond, decorative bridges, flowers, a gazebo. I know from experience that not even diehard 3D fans or my closest buddies are going to sit still for pretty shots for very long. So what I did was film people enjoying the place - photographers with big lenses stalking fowl, a family feeding the fish, families posing for their own photos. And there were inhabitants of the pond to watch in action as well - a fish feeding frenzy, turtles eating, and a crane fishing (the latter was shot with a telephoto - and guess what - there was 3D and no obnoxius cardboard effect; indeed, without the 10x telephoto, no 3D or even 2D was possible). I did some trick 3D shots, but the people and the live inhabitants interacting with the pretty place held my test audience. And by focusing on people I was using the 3-20-ft 3D window.

I can't sell the the latter video; there are too many people in evidence. But I can share it. I could sell the first one through the museum - you really get to see the exhibits; people are in the background. Maybe visitors might like a record of what they saw in 3D.

But I am not sure there is great demand for just an outdoor pretty place 3D video bereft of any action or people, no matter what equipment is used. But then maybe I do not have the imagination to do it (btw, I do not think we could watch the made-up exotic environment in Avatar if there were no (purple) people doing things in it - in fact, some of the best parts of the the movie were those showing a person discovering the wonders). Maybe that's the way to make a "Shaw's Garden" video interesting - follow a tourist or family around and see the views and his/her/their reactions. But video technique alone will not solve the static issue in my view. Let them buy postcards.

So, scrap the whole idea then? Here I've been looking for practical solutions to my problems, and even an Imax crew couldn't solve them. I feel so stupid.

Mark- Joe's Garden video will jump ahead considerably with a good script and a good VO. Check out similar genre like Hearst Castle on Vudu 3D. End use for Joe will probably be a 2D version for the website but it will need some narrative for strangers to watch and learn about. But just considering the visual, we have all made some valid suggestions to improve the flow.

Personally, I tend to make things too short as I try to keep an ADD audience's attention.

And Joe- I liked your video as I liked to study the JVC camera but I doubt many will be interested in that outside our community. Same goes for Bravia3D. He did some nice work that I need to learn from when shooting aquarium video. I want to go to Sea World this Fall and his stuff is a good study for me. Your work in the Botanical Garden was a great learning tool for me and inspiration to shoot the Victoria Gardens at Epcot. i.e. take a little extra time with it than I would have as my normal SOP is to shoot the rides and shows.

I'll check out "Hearst's Castle" to learn more (thank goodness for Vudu 3D). But, part of my point is Shaw's Gardens, the place not the video, is no Hearst Castle or Peabody Museum or Disneyland. It just isn't that interesting. But maybe that's my ADD talking . I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Of course, with a good enough script read well by someone with a pleasant voice, one can put up with anything on the screen...

Don, please do not skip the rides and shows for the flowers.

There have been a few references here about commercializing a video ( meaning offering it for sale). The reference to whether you can do that based on the subject being shot is a person or not seems to me to be a bit misguided from my experience of "industry practice"

Here is how we have done it over many years working for many different Producer Directors-
Regardless of whether a video is an advertising piece, documentary, wedding, all works for hire and to be commercialized, and or sold, rented, or broadcast, we always carried a pocket full of non-compensation model releases and used them ONLY when the person spoke on camera as in a testimonial or witness to an event or product. If just seen in the shot and the video was not a sensitive topic, we did not bother with the model releases. Instead we honored any request not to be seen and made a note to editor in their presence that the person should be blurred out or not used in the project. In all cases people who made this request were satisfied. The only people we ever compensated for an appearance were those who were professional actors and those in the industry and then we had to use a specific contract for their appearance and negotiate with an agent in many cases. When shooting in a private location the rules were a bit different. Here we posted a sign warning people of the videotaping for public display and commercial sale. They were given the opportunity to walk away but if they entered the premises they had given their permission to be seen in the video. We shot the sign and recorded the verbal announcement. A private place was considered one like a birthday party in a closed location, a convention with speakers and audience and even a private wedding. Inside a hotel lobby is a public place even though private property.
There is no black and white way to handle this but being reasonably prudent and following usual and customary practices will at worst require you to later edit out the person. The times I had issues were with spouses cheating and were caught on camera in some restaurant, later seen on TV in the commercial. This, over the years was the most common trouble and never resulted in any kind of court battle. When someone is doing something wrong they usually don't want to make a big deal about it.

In a model release, it is important to have a clause that releases you to do the editing of what they said and how they appear without their approval before during or after the edit session. Also you are being released to assign the video to others at your discretion without their prior approval. Finally they agree to release you of any compensation requirements regardless of the value of the video they appeared in. When they sign off on that, you can do pretty much what you please. We also had them state that they were not a professional actor or on camera talent and do not consider appearing on camera any form of their regular annual income.

Mark- I thought of Hearst Castle because it is one boring video that is made just a bit more interesting with the narrative, learning about what you see. There are a few others on that channel too.

Some venues prohibit photography for commercial purposes, which means (to them) profiting monetarily from the videos shot on their premises.

I personally have no interest in making money from video, but have from time to time donated my pictures, videos, recordings for "cost" to commercial artists or institutions. So I shoot and record without restraint wherever I go.

Recently, Youtube provided the opportunity to revenue share with my videos (I have over 94,000 views). This in my mind would be commercializing my videos and, more importantly, would give me an incentive to have others view them beyond my enthusiasm or the relevance to topics in forums. A clear conflict of interest. So, I am not going to do it (I doubt there is much money in this anyway).

I also think that anyone who profits from posted videos being seen should reveal that each time a video link is provided, although I do not think this is a big deal.

That's new one on me. I've seen it either OK as in not mentioned or not prohibited, or all video forbidden and photography forbidden. The new rule I see popping up now is any camera with a lighted screen, tally lights, or flash is prohibited. I have a little mask card for my Bloggie 3D and one for my TD10 that I now carry to stick on the screen to comply. Put the camera in full wide and just go for it.

"Donation for cost" is nothing more than a way for you to justify it in your mind. It will never hold up in court.

While I am technically retired from the business, I still could jump back in if I so choose but I'm having too much fun just playing around and not concerned over meeting budgets or deadlines.

The Peabody Museum has this "commercialized" restriction on use. Many places also restrict tripods (thank goodness for OIS).

Once in the field, the LCD screen of my camera was shattered and I had to photograph for two days without any ability to see through the camera lens. I just took a lot of pictures, and enough came out well framed (and shooting raw allowed a lot of post-processing) that no one knew I had been shooting (almost) blind. For video, might be more of a challenge - whatever happened to optical viewfinders?!

By "cost"' I just mean the media - the cost of the bluray disks, CD's, or the tapes or whatever media the recording is delivered on that I have to pay for to give the stuff away. No one is going to take me to court. Nor do I deduct the value of my donated time or equipment depreciation from my income at tax time.

I doubt the finished video, no matter how well it might be received by the Garden or its visitors, would prove anything to you. From others, I get practical suggestions to make my video better. From you, I get two things. One, criticisms of the piece that I've already made myself and said are going to be addressed (many in the very post where you downloaded the files). Two, you make it clear that you believe the topic itself is irredeemably boring. Not only is my woefully inadequate narrow interaxial camcorder the wrong tool for capturing the scope of the Garden, not even an Imax crew could breathe life into the tedium of the subject matter. Then you bring up your own much better work, as if to suggest that I need to scrap this project and find something you and your friends might like. I've seen your work, Mark. You might be surprised at how easy it would be to tear it into tiny little pieces, in so many ways.

But, I've always thought AVS is a place for helping other people, not tearing them down. I'm pretty good at taking criticism, and using it to make my work better. I can take hearing that Steadicam shots probably won't work. I've wondered the same thing myself. I've thought about using jibs and dollies and tracks, and they may be part of the answer. Today, I even thought that some of my "motion" problems might be solved simply by utilizing the Garden's trolly system, along with the stereo base extender Petri told us about. Then I come in from working in the yard to see that you've punctuated your criticism with some really definitive condescension.

Here's my take. Constructive criticism is always helpful, and I've gotten a lot of it. Yours was utterly useless. At best, it regurgitated things I'd already said myself, as if it were unique insight and new information. At worst, it suggested that what I've done is hopeless and I should toss it all and choose a subject you'd approve. That's some serious arrogance. No thanks.

I remember that I saw here some infos about problems with the right lense (TD1).

I am owner of 3 TD1 - the very first one has still the problems - 2 pcs. are ok....

could someone help me please to find it?
JVC-Germany wants more infos about this special problem...

Thanks so much....!

It's spread throughout this thread, so if you do a search on "right lens" and "focus" you should find it. You could also PM Petri and Frank. They both had the problem. A few others did, too.

The Cycloptical stereo base extender for my JVC should be here some time next week. It extends the IA from 35 to 104mm, just about 4.1". Average eyes are 2.5" apart and mine are almost exactly 3". I'll post some examples with and without the extender.

What about zoom? My guess would be that it only works when zoomed out all the way.

That's unclear, although there's mention of zooming the one they make for the Fuji W1/W3 in until there's no vignetting. I suspect it may be same for the JVC. I hope it doesn't require a full zoom in. That would limit its usefulness.

I just emailed Ken at Cycloptical, asking that question. I'll let you know what he says.

Joe- I look forward to your test of the 3D stereo base extender. It is a very novel approach to adding some separation to the smaller IA. The big question is whether this device will achieve the benefit necessary for real improvement for stereo at great distances or just improve the stereo effect at a little more than what the JVC can already do.

I see the company also has copied my design for 77mm filter attachments. I don't see any problem with vignetting using the stereo base extender if it was properly designed, however, there is a problem with the 77mm filter ring. I have this issue on the Sony TD10 when using a lens shade. In order to achieve no vignetting at full wide a small amount of zoom must be used. There is no problem with filters, however. When I did my bench designs the 77mm was a compromise for physical compactness and vignetting(only with the lens shade). I could have eliminated it altogether with a 5" lens shade diameter. Wasn't worth the trouble. The stereo base extender on the JVC probably will work fine as the wide angle maximum on the JVC is already "zoomed in" compared to the Sony which I believe has a wider angle.

Ken responded very quickly. He's doing exact measurements today (needed them anyway for the spec page, so they were already in the works). He says the camera must be zoomed in to the equivalent of about 65mm (on a 35mm camera). That's solidly in the 1x zoom range, so I'm not overly concerned. It still won't give me what you have with the dual Canon's, Frank, since this effectively rules out simultaneous use of a wide angle and larger IA. But it still sounds exciting for moderate distance shots. It should provide more of what I want from the JVC for shots I've avoided altogether. I won't be using it all the time, obviously, but for certain shots it should prove very valuable.

I'll still avoid zooming in very much, but the extender should give me a bit more flexibility and a more desirable sense of depth for certain shots. That's all I'm expecting from it. A variable IA is what I really want, but this sounds like a good way to get me closer to a more satisfying 3D experience without spending a lot more money right now. And it's possible I may end up using it a lot more than I think I will.

Joe- the Sony's are coming down in price fast. You should check on the price of the JVC these days as it may make more sense to go with a dual cam system as I plan to. I realize the technology in that base extender device but I believe it is a bit high price considering the benefit. If you could get a second JVC for $1100, I'd spring for that instead as it will give you far more options, flexibility, IMO. More money up front but better bang for the buck. I'm seeing myself going the route of Frank's system as I need the really wide IA and wide angle for those landscape shots I'm considering.

I've seen the JVC for $1,350, so it's coming down, too.

I'm double posting the following, since it works in both this and Frank's "wide IA" thread:

I recorded a few quick test shots today with the stereo base extender I ordered from Cyclopital. The bad news is that the right frame is a good 5-6% higher than the left, so it's misaligned vertically. I'm sure it's going to have to go back. I kept getting an error message when shooting that said I needed to switch to 2D mode. It was seeing the vertical misalignment and knew the 3D would not converge properly. Despite the distortion, my eyes could bring the images together. The device works (or will, when they correct the problem).

It actually does just what I hoped it would. The increased sense of depth is exactly what I've been missing with many of my shots. It produces 3D images that are more natural looking and much more satisfying. In order not to see the edges of the extender, I have to zoom in to the equivalent of about 65mm (around 50-58mm is considered "normal" - what the naked eye sees). That's slightly into the tele range, about 20% toward 2x zoom. That's a limitation I expected but which nonetheless is disappointing. Still, the benefit far outweighs the downside. It would be great to have both wide angle and a wider IA at the same time, but the device will allow me to get certain kinds of shots I simply couldn't get without it.

Frank, this device makes me remember vividly the extraordinary difference I saw with those first shots you posted in the JVC thread - where you had similar footage from the JVC and your dual Canon rig. I go back and watch those every once in a while to remind myself of what I'm missing with my JVC. The sbe fixes quite a bit of that "something's-not-quite-right" feeling in the pit of my stomach. As a matter of fact, it gets me a lot closer than I was afraid it might. My worst fear was that the loss of wide angle might largely neutralize the benefit of the wider IA. From my test shots, though, I don't think that's going to be the case. The wider IA more than makes up for it.

Anyway, now I'm even more excited to get a properly aligned unit so I can start to gather some of the shots I want.

There are reports that a December firmware upgrade will allow the TD1 to shoot 3D at 1080p/60, adhering to the new AVCHD 2.0 spec. Would it be too much to ask for an upgrade to my JVC RS40 to play it natively at 60p? Up next should be editing software that will handle the standard, and a 3D Blu-ray player that will play it. The next few months should be very interesting.

This may be incorrect. I was relying on a Google translation, and it was not the clearest.

Joseph, I am very interested in your experiences with that extender.


Well, that does not sound great. 5-6% is poor. How the hell does can that happen??



On the other side, that are good news. The question will be: CAN they correct the problem?


Well, I have read in their product description that oyu have to zoom in, but I aks myself why? Would it not be possibel to design the extender in a way, where that should not be possible?



Yes, that is the important point. Even if it would be great to have such a part without the limitations - and theoretically with a stereo base that is not fixed but can be changed.

I'll find out what type of company they are in the next few days. I think they can correct the problem. It's probably more a question of how long it will take to do it. It's a simple device that relies on precise alignment to do its job. Tiny differences in design could make for big differences in performance. There are other devices that can adjust interaxial distance dynamically, but they're much more complex and expensive, and bulkier.

Possible 1080p60 in SBS not MVC.
SBS 1080p60 at 34 Mbps must be better than 28 Mbps MVC 1080i60 and no problem for editing

Wow! That's a really good point. I hadn't thought about that possibility.

And my JVC RS40 already does 1080p/60 SbS. That wouldn't require a firmware upgrade to the projector (even if it were possible, which is doubtful).

According to this Wiki entry, AVCHD 2.0 has no 1080p/60 3D mode. The only supported AVCHD 3D modes are 23.97p, 25p and 29.97i. It's not clear what that means for JVC and Sony MVC video. Too bad. 1080p 3D SbS would have presented some interesting possibilities.

Maybe i've just misreading the news, but it's seems that it's not the TD1 but the software (Everio MediaBrowser 3D) which is bundled with it...

Yes, I suppose that there is a wrong with the rumors in internet which says that the jvc will have a 1080/60p in 3d mode, as this is out of the avchd 2.0 stantard. I think that all these rumors have as source a wrong translation of the original jvc press, which you can see here:
http://translate.google.gr/translate...d1_update.html
The 1080/60p is for 2D videos and not for 3D.
But it is also wrong the specs in the wiki entry, as avchd 2.0 has also a 1080-60i (or 50i for pal) mode for 3D video, as you can see here:
http://www.43rumors.com/ft4-gh3-with-avchd-2-0/
So, I believe that the jvc gs-td1 will become compatible exactly with the avchd 2.0 standard, as this is reffered in the previews link and will include a 1080/60i 3d MVC mode in 28 Mbps.