JVC Shows Off World's First 4K Handheld Camcorder

[JMcEntegart]

JVC took to CES this week with its 4K camcorder, the GY-HMQ10.

JVC Shows Off World's First 4K Handheld Camcorder : Read more

 

[marclee37]

we always mention 720p, 1080p video. why this one is not called 2180p or 2K. but 4K instead?

 

[alidan]

2k is such a small increment larger than 1080p that its not really worth it.

 

[steelbox]

Its supposed to be 4 time the resolution, twice the height and twice the length. In the end its still double than 1080p and sure as hell it ain't 4k. Promotional marketing at its finest.

 

[ohim]

This camera is worthless in many ways , has the price of a prosumer camcorder, yet it laks the features of one , such 3 rings focus / iris/ zoom , no real use of it`s 4k resolution since atm you don`t really have the media to put it on display. Not even 27" monitors can reach atm that resolution. Is just a camera for bragging about 4k resolution but that`s about it.

 

[Guest]

Yes, there are 4k monitors also...but also really expensive. Not for you, not for me...but ok for someone.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]This camera is worthless in many ways , has the price of a prosumer camcorder, yet it laks the features of one , such 3 rings focus / iris/ zoom , no real use of it`s 4k resolution since atm you don`t really have the media to put it on display. Not even 27" monitors can reach atm that resolution. Is just a camera for bragging about 4k resolution but that`s about it.[/citation]

you bring up a great point, i would love to see the image quality of this compared to a prosumer 1080p one.

down scale the 4k to a 1080pish resolution, or put the same ratio on the prosumer and the 4k, but down scale the 4k (its the really only fair way to test is downscale, upscaleing it its obvious the prosumer would be at a disadvantage)

 

[mattyg_nz]

Its supposed to be 4 time the resolution, twice the height and twice the length. In the end its still double than 1080p and sure as hell it ain't 4k. Promotional marketing at its finest.

3840 × 2160
Awkward.... it's (very) roughly 4000 pixels horizontal. If it were "Promotional marketing" they would try 4000p, which it obviously isn't.

 

[andyp363]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]This camera is worthless in many ways , has the price of a prosumer camcorder, yet it laks the features of one , such 3 rings focus / iris/ zoom , no real use of it`s 4k resolution since atm you don`t really have the media to put it on display. Not even 27" monitors can reach atm that resolution. Is just a camera for bragging about 4k resolution but that`s about it.[/citation]

It is 4 times the pixels
You have 2 axis's you that you are multiplying by 2 that means you have to multiply by 4

1080p is 2.07 megapixels, 4k is 8.2

If you are referring to the fact that to get aspect ratio (16:9) it is only 3840 horizontal pixels then yeah, but 2.39:1 movies claim they are 1080p even though due to aspect ratio they are only 856p.

 

[Guest]

1K=1080 pixels

FULL HD is 2K1K (2*1080;1*1080)

4K is 4K2K (4*1080;2*1080)

 

[nebun]

trully, there is no need for this....such a waste

 

[Netherscourge]

I expect 2160p HDTVs to start coming out before the end of 2012.

All of our 1080p sets are going to be obsolete.

 

[serkol]

Exactly. When my wife orders something online and asks my opinion, I say that I'm OK with whatever she likes for whatever price, as long as she puts that thing on at least 4 times. Usually that dos not happen

 

[sirhawk]

It's obvious that none of you are video editors. You always want to have the highest res. you can afford that is manageable to lug around. I mean, I have a son, who is turning 3 soon and I know in 20 years the 1080 cams I use now will look ancient and this just buys you 5 years of having the best tech you can have your memories recorded to. It's very tempting to me and would put it to good use. And in 2-3 years when the 2160p TV's come out and I have footage edited for it, I'll be thanking myself immensely.

 

[mikenygmail]

It's actually 5K, not 4K since it's $5,000.

 

[mikenygmail]

Make a cheaper but amazing 2560x1600 camcorder first, then when monitors support 3840x2160 you can roll out the 4K or whatever the heck you want to call it.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]trully, there is no need for this....such a waste[/citation]

This is not aimed at the consumer market.
And as a professional user I can tell you 5K for this cam -if the specs are up to par- is a steal !

My last 'tube' camera, a Sony 3-tube ENG package cost me $25,000 in 1990.

As for the 4k 'PR'...
That's not PR talk, but simply an industry term.
Again, consumers have different ideas what it means, insiders know what it means and what to expect.

Trust me, this IS a big deal if they can do this for $4,995.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]mikenygmail[/nom]Make a cheaper but amazing 2560x1600 camcorder first, then when monitors support 3840x2160 you can roll out the 4K or whatever the heck you want to call it.[/citation]

This is a professional standard that's been out for years and has nothing to do with 'computer' resolutions. The monitors for these resolutions are actually available; but not exactly in a price range of the typical consumers amongst the THG reader (no offense)

 

[glasfactor]

Guys, you made me laugh like hell!!! =) Great opinions and some really awfull but somewhat abstract math (like radu88 for example)

TGIF

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]This camera is worthless in many ways , has the price of a prosumer camcorder, yet it laks the features of one , such 3 rings focus / iris/ zoom , no real use of it`s 4k resolution since atm you don`t really have the media to put it on display. Not even 27" monitors can reach atm that resolution. Is just a camera for bragging about 4k resolution but that`s about it.[/citation]

I bet plastic surgeons loved the move to 1080p, and they'll love the move to these higher resolutions. At 1080p, you can already count the hairs on an actor's head, and map the crow's feet in detail. With this, a lot of actors/actresses will feel even more exposed and the plastic surgery industry will see another huge surge. I'm happy with 1080p and can't imagine a higher detail unless I want to count the eyelashes and nose hairs of actors.