JVC Shows Off World's First 4K Handheld Camcorder

[dimar]

Good for archival purposes. You can always downgrade the resolution and bit-rate. And 3840 × 2160 at 60 fps sounds awesome. The price looks OK for this type equipment. I shoot 1080p60 with my Sony camcorder, which looks beyond awesome, and will never get back to 30fps.

 

[Cash091]

[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]
Really?!?! You have you been recently??! They are announcing the release of 4K screens ALL OVER right now! While I am content with my 1080P atm, 4K and UHD are going to be replacing it in the not so distant future! Also, this is a basic article, I'm sure the cam packs more features than what is listed here on this page.
Side note. For a tech site I do notice that a lot of you people complain and rip on companies when they try to push the envelope and develop new things. Obviously this isn't the prettiest/cheapest thing out there and there are probably different cameras/televisions that would suit you better as an average consumer. But technology is ever changing and things have to start somewhere! I mean, there was a time when people felt this same way about 1080P, saying it was too expensive and the general public would never adopt it. This is the future, just wait and see.

 

[Cash091]

You all seem little confused with what exactly is justified as 4K. From what I gather, they call it 4K not because it is 4320P or has 4X the amount of pixels as 1080P(although it does),but rather it has nearly 4K lines of horizontal pixels. I think the name 4K is kind of deceptive as the 4 refers to the vertical number of lines, where as 1080 is the number of horizontal lines, and they round the 3840 up to 4. Going by this method we might as well start calling 1080P 2K as there are almost 2000 horizontal lines in one image. This isn't however what UHDTV (UDTV) will be. Right now it is going my a few different names. I've heard 8K, UHDTV, and Super Hi-Vision(SHV). This might clear some confusion as even though it is called 8K it actually has 16X the amount of pixels as 1080P. 8K refers again to the vertical line of rez being 7680.

Also, the people who are saying that there are no screens that can produce this kind of resolution are also wrong. http/youtu.be/9U7e_quvkPQ If you watch this video they show it off really nicely. They also estimate that they will start trial broadcasts of media at this resolution by 2020.

 

[Lewis57]

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

But that's wrong. So far the standard has been to rate pixel dimensions by height.

1080p = 1080 vertical pixels
720p = 720 vertical pixels
480i = 480 vertical pixels

The fact that they have now started calling it 4k relating to the 3840 horizontal pixels just smells like marketing bullshit.

 

[bmxdave]

It's been called 5k, 4k, and 2k long before this product was even conceptially conceived.

 

[brotoles]

From wikipedia:

"4K is an emerging standard for resolution in digital film and computer graphics. The name is derived from the horizontal resolution, which is approximately 4,000 pixels. This designation is different to the standard resolution designations which are represented by the vertical pixel count; for example 720p and 1080p. 4K represents the horizontal resolution because there are numerous aspect ratios used in film — so while the horizontal resolution stays constant, the vertical resolution depends on the video source (a.k.a. letterboxing). There are several different resolutions that qualify as 4K."

Explains a lot

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]sirhawk[/nom]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.[/citation]

obviously you dont understand quality.
i would rather have a dslr camera at 12mp than a consumer grade at 18mp
just because the video has more pixels doesn't mean a damn thing where quality is concerned.
i have a 1080p webcam, that doesn't mean i'm going to shoot a movie with it.

and i have been saying this for a while now, but 1080p isnt going anywhere soon
the only applications for 4k are realisticly projection and pc monitors because of how big and close you have to be to the screen to take advantage of it
and even in a pc monitor, i would prefer a 16:10 monitor to what is close to a 2:1 monitor

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]obviously you dont understand quality. i would rather have a dslr camera at 12mp than a consumer grade at 18mpjust because the video has more pixels doesn't mean a damn thing where quality is concerned.i have a 1080p webcam, that doesn't mean i'm going to shoot a movie with it. and i have been saying this for a while now, but 1080p isnt going anywhere soonthe only applications for 4k are realisticly projection and pc monitors because of how big and close you have to be to the screen to take advantage of itand even in a pc monitor, i would prefer a 16:10 monitor to what is close to a 2:1 monitor[/citation]


Folks, you have to stop comparing pro Video gear with computer screens and Webcams.
These are different standards for very different purposes.

 

[sirhawk]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]obviously you dont understand quality. i would rather have a dslr camera at 12mp than a consumer grade at 18mpjust because the video has more pixels doesn't mean a damn thing where quality is concerned.i have a 1080p webcam, that doesn't mean i'm going to shoot a movie with it. and i have been saying this for a while now, but 1080p isnt going anywhere soonthe only applications for 4k are realisticly projection and pc monitors because of how big and close you have to be to the screen to take advantage of itand even in a pc monitor, i would prefer a 16:10 monitor to what is close to a 2:1 monitor[/citation]


Oh, I understand quality. I use 3MOS cams from Panasonic, which are very nice. I am not comparing resolutions to some silly webcam or some phone. But the fact is, everything being equal, the higher the resolution, the better you picture is going to look. Obviously you need the other components surrounding resolution to get the most out of your camera, but then again, most who do video edit know this and buy the higher end prosumer models. I am no professional, but I do my research and understand what makes one camera 200 bucks and another 5k. This camera looks to be a steal for what it offers. Can't wait for the reviews on it!

 

[aftcomet]

Everyone is talking about 4K right now, but we don't even have true 1080p TV.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]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.[/citation]
i see what you are saying....what is this good for if the movies we watch are 1080P....this is why i am saying that this camera is a waste, even for professionals.... a top of the line monitor has a resolution of only 2560 x 1440

 

[jurassic1024]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz4CZIBheo8

and...

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0m1XmvBey8

For resolution, select Original, make a cup of coffee while it buffers, and enjoy. I viewed these videos at their native 4K resolution on my 1080p monitor and it looks pretty effin nice!

 

[WyomingKnott]

I just checked that resolution. It's Quad Full High Def, a computer-based standard rather than one of the cinema standards. It's four times the computer-based interpretation of 1080p, which is 1920 x 1080.