Review and demo over at youtube

http://youtu.be/PsxHPOAkEsA

Mine survived a trip into a full bathtub...

The underwater recording capabilities are lacking.

mkiisupraman18 wrote:Mine survived a trip into a full bathtub...

The underwater recording capabilities are lacking.

What were you recording in the bathtub? Your pet platypus?

The last JVC I had survived for over a decade until my son got a hold of it and thought that it spinning in a microwave would make a really cool perspective shot. JVC makes good durable cameras, I highly recommend.

$79.99 tonight
Manual:
http://books.jvc.com/Download/1016815956/LYT2477-001A-M.pdf

Accessories page:
http://store.jvc.com/product.asp?Model=GZ-HM40BUS

November review:
http://www.meanpc.com/2012/11/jvc-gz-hm40bus-everio-hd-camcorder.html

Bye

I'm looking, but can anyone tell me if this records in full 1080, or does it record in 720 and upconvert. I'm looking for a comparison to the gz-e200 model, but not having much luck yet.

CapitalGGeek wrote:I'm looking, but can anyone tell me if this records in full 1080, or does it record in 720 and upconvert. I'm looking for a comparison to the gz-e200 model, but not having much luck yet.

OK, pieced together from a few different sources - it uses the same AVCHD recording format (1920x1080) as the e200.

It's important, because I will be using this in a multi-camera setup where the rest are e200s.

CapitalGGeek wrote:it uses the same AVCHD recording format (1920x1080) as the e200.

Have you had any trouble getting good video quality when uploading to YouTube? I currently own a JVC in the same family (GZ-HM30) and when I download and replay via the JVC Everio software on my local computer the quality is GREAT. However, as soon as I upload to YouTube I lose my great quality. I am trying to figure out if buying this model will yield me better results with less hoops to jump through getting great HD (high quality) uploaded to you tube.

longballlumber wrote:Have you had any trouble getting good video quality when uploading to YouTube? I currently own a JVC in the same family (GZ-HM30) and when I download and replay via the JVC Everio software on my local computer the quality is GREAT. However, as soon as I upload to YouTube I lose my great quality. I am trying to figure out if buying this model will yield me better results with less hoops to jump through getting great HD (high quality) uploaded to you tube.

What is this 'YouTube' of which you speak ;-}

No, I've not uploaded anything to youtube. And I don't use the JVC supplied software, either. I pull the .MTS files from the cards and edit them in Vegas Pro (which supports AVCHD input AND output). Then burn them with ConvertXtoDVD, which supports AVCHD.

I suspect that your quality issues are with the conversion process that you go through submitting it to youtube, and have nothing to do with the original files.

@CapitalGGeek

Thanks for the input. I suspect buying this one won’t get me what I am looking for since it uses the same Everio software. I guess that I need to keep working with the upload methods. Maybe taking a look at the Vegas Pro software your using my be an option. Thanks.

Hmm. Interesting price point. I currently have a Kodak ZI8 that does just fine but is obviously lacking in some features of a full-on camcorder.

The review up there ^^ mentions poor battery life. That could be an issue. Anyone have one of these? I use Premiere Elements so I don't much care about the packaged software.

I want to be sure I have this correct...it is only a 1.5 megapixel camera, so if you are wanting it also to help take still photos, this is probably not a good option when it comes to dual capabilities. Correct?

longballlumber wrote:Have you had any trouble getting good video quality when uploading to YouTube? I currently own a JVC in the same family (GZ-HM30) and when I download and replay via the JVC Everio software on my local computer the quality is GREAT. However, as soon as I upload to YouTube I lose my great quality. I am trying to figure out if buying this model will yield me better results with less hoops to jump through getting great HD (high quality) uploaded to you tube.

I can't verify this, but I assume YouTube compresses all video to save space. So it may not have much to do with the camera. Perhaps some else can comment.

radi0j0hn wrote:I can't verify this, but I assume YouTube compresses all video to save space. So it may not have much to do with the camera. Perhaps some else can comment.

^^^ this. You're better off recording in a 720p or even better, a WVGA setting and cleaning it up pp for youtube work.

rsbirge wrote:I want to be sure I have this correct...it is only a 1.5 megapixel camera, so if you are wanting it also to help take still photos, this is probably not a good option when it comes to dual capabilities. Correct?

I say in my book and my classes that we are only about a dozen years into digital photography for consumers.

When "photography" was only a dozen years old, things were quite primitive, there were no standards, but things improved rapidly.

Right now video cameras that also shoot stills are not developing as fast as still cameras that also shoot videos.

The two systems will undoubtedly merge, with the whole idea of "snapping" a single shot going away, or at best being relegated to "fine art" photographers.

(When you think about it, strip away all the electronic help and we still essentially are taking photographs the same way Matthew Brady did during the American Civil War.)

The great masses will end up shooting video and extract high quality stills from the video.

But not yet. Wait a few more years. The lack of universal computer literacy is holding back this progress as much as technical hurdles.

The only fly in this ointment is that this kind of selecting from video takes time. People wanting photos right now may insist on single shot point and shoots, or some kind of AI program that pulls the "best shots" from the video stream and presents them as thumbnails for selection.

Most of us will easily live long enough to see this all happen, but the path to it may be ugly!!

By default youtube plays back in 360p, does it still look terrible when playing back in 1080p on youtube?

does anyone know how well the autofocus works?

Also can it record while charging?

I bought the HM50 a few months ago & for the price, it's a decent camera. Not too many bells & whistles. I bought it to record marching & music performances (son is in band). Sound quality is not great & if the source is too loud, it plays back really distorted. I haven't gone in-depth to see if there's a setting that can be adjusted to correct this because I have a still camera that actually records better video than this one so I use this for other events with no problems.

CapitalGGeek wrote:I'm looking, but can anyone tell me if this records in full 1080, or does it record in 720 and upconvert. I'm looking for a comparison to the gz-e200 model, but not having much luck yet.

A full 1080p takes 2.1 megapixels per frame, The sensor on this camera is only 1.5 megapixels.
Looks like it's up converting because a full 720p is about .9 megapixels per frame, which is well within the 1.5 megapixel sensor in this camera.

Off course it could be recording in 1080i which only takes about 1 megapixel per frame, but it would still have to up convert to 1080p

@scantar;
Battery life isn't great. Upgraded batteries are available. I almost always have mine plugged in while recording.

@rsbirge;
I believe that the still images it captures are 1920x1080. Not very good for cameras of today. On the plus side, it can capture pictures without disrupting the video stream.

@press25;
The autofocus works pretty well. The brighter the subject, the faster the focus. And yes, it will record while charging.

@cdavis2387;
It has a setting for microphone zoom, perhaps turning that off would give you better results.

One of the features that sold me on this line is the 40x optical zoom. Most others use digital zoom, which pixelates images at full 1080 resolution.

Some I haven't seen mentioned:
It gets WARM while recording. Not painfully so, but definitely uncomfortable.
The ergonomics are not made for someone with paws the size of mine. I usually use it on a tripod, but most tripod bases have to be removed to get the SD card out.

Gatesay wrote:A full 1080p takes 2.1 megapixels per frame, The sensor on this camera is only 1.5 megapixels.
Looks like it's up converting because a full 720p is about .9 megapixels per frame, which is well within the 1.5 megapixel sensor in this camera.

Off course it could be recording in 1080i which only takes about 1 megapixel per frame, but it would still have to up convert to 1080p

It's 1080i, and converts to 1080p.

I made my first purchase from Woot today, and I have to say I truly enjoyed my experience. I love the sense of humor that the Woot marketing team has and it really helped brighten my day. I will definitely continue to check out your site for things that I may want, and will purchase again in the future.

Keep up the great work!

Can anyone comment on the quality of refurbished JVC products and/or customer service if a refurb is involved? Thx.

Biggest piece of junk, I use as a cool paper weight though. Bought this 3 years ago because of the price, worst picture quality, jittery, static, it's really a toy camera....don't waste your money.

kimwhit wrote:I made my first purchase from Woot today, and I have to say I truly enjoyed my experience. I love the sense of humor that the Woot marketing team has and it really helped brighten my day. I will definitely continue to check out your site for things that I may want, and will purchase again in the future.

Keep up the great work!

Aw, well thank you for the feedback! It is most appreciated.

Does it have built in memory?
If it does, what't the size?

jpak8549 wrote:Does it have built in memory?
If it does, what't the size?

NO built in memory, requires an SD card.

JVC= Junk Very Crappy

unclehilton wrote:Biggest piece of junk, I use as a cool paper weight though. Bought this 3 years ago because of the price, worst picture quality, jittery, static, it's really a toy camera....don't waste your money.

Used indoors? Outdoors? With a tripod? Can you describe what "static" is? A lot of video cameras with long zoom ranges cannot be hand-held when zoomed out. Is that what you call "jittery?" Is "static" really poor performance in low light?

unclehilton wrote:Biggest piece of junk, I use as a cool paper weight though. Bought this 3 years ago because of the price, worst picture quality, jittery, static, it's really a toy camera....don't waste your money.

I got mine a couple of months ago and it is now getting stuck where it wont do anything. this happens every now and then but the picture quality and zoom and everything else is satisfactory for this price. Very Sharp picture and true colors

188014212701 wrote:I got mine a couple of months ago and it is now getting stuck where it wont do anything. this happens every now and then but the picture quality and zoom and everything else is satisfactory for this price. Very Sharp picture and true colors

If you're still under warranty I'd contact the manufacturer about that.

Crap on a cracker. This is cheaper and better than the open box special they had a couple of weeks ago That one was only 720P, but at least that one has 8GB built in

radi0j0hn wrote:I say in my book and my classes that we are only about a dozen years into digital photography for consumers.

When "photography" was only a dozen years old, things were quite primitive, there were no standards, but things improved rapidly.

Right now video cameras that also shoot stills are not developing as fast as still cameras that also shoot videos.

The two systems will undoubtedly merge, with the whole idea of "snapping" a single shot going away, or at best being relegated to "fine art" photographers.

(When you think about it, strip away all the electronic help and we still essentially are taking photographs the same way Matthew Brady did during the American Civil War.)

The great masses will end up shooting video and extract high quality stills from the video.

But not yet. Wait a few more years. The lack of universal computer literacy is holding back this progress as much as technical hurdles.

The only fly in this ointment is that this kind of selecting from video takes time. People wanting photos right now may insist on single shot point and shoots, or some kind of AI program that pulls the "best shots" from the video stream and presents them as thumbnails for selection.

Most of us will easily live long enough to see this all happen, but the path to it may be ugly!!

Take something like the Nikon D800 though, and you're theory of young digital camera world takes a dive. Of course you pay for that quality (both photo and video.) I bought my first digital camera back in 1999, an Olympus UZ-2100 (I think that was the model #.) Anyway, it was only 2.1mp, but had a super zoom, Leica lens, and optical image stabilization. While the clarity and saturation can't compete with my D300 or D800, I can print images from that camera at sizes in the 30"x20" range, put them behind gallery quality glass, and blow most current 10, 12, 16, 20mp consumer grade cameras out of the water. It's not the mega pixels that matter. It's the lens. Any photographer worth their Brony will tell you the same thing, as will the technologists at Nikon, Olympus, Canon, etc that are behind the guts of cameras. Mega pixels became the standard upon which people chose digital cameras early on and the marketing departments picked up on that.

While it's not exactly the same as VZN, ATT petitioning the IEEE to change the definition of 4G so they could sell 3G networks to the public as true 4th generation, it's very close.

It's about the LENS, and the processing the camera does if you shoot in jpeg. More mega pixels help cover up deficiencies with lenses and camera processing, but truly mean so much less than people think!

Does this Camcorder take Still Pictures? I can't seem to find that info....

Kev50027 wrote:What were you recording in the bathtub? Your pet platypus?

"Oh, there you are, Perry..."

ewhac wrote:"Oh, there you are, Perry..."

/rrrkkkrrrkkkrrrkkrrrkk
(aka - Platapus clicking)

I bought three of these to cut into footage I shoot with two AG-AC90's - I liked the idea of getting three cameras that could do 1 second interval motion (like of an actor in hair and makeup) or maybe setting one to do an overview of a shoot in two or three second intervals for several hours. Or for video to grab some really lower end "behind the scenes" looking "B-roll" (and do it in AVCHD to match my workflow in post) - these would fill that need.

Works perfectly. Saved me money. No complaints.

As a primary video camera these are completely a waste of money IMHO, my cellphone captures better video - but as a throwaway to capture one frame every second (or two, or three) or to have something on set to hand to someone (like a chaperone of a child actor or the boyfriend of a model) to keep them busy and quiet, these have proven invaluable (and I have had them for all of one day).

Thanks woot!

Waddams Threatens Fire???? Where's the friggin' SOFTWARE so I can save the videos????? Everytime I buy something from WOOT I get SCREWED!

racefan11 wrote:Waddams Threatens Fire???? Where's the friggin' SOFTWARE so I can save the videos????? Everytime I buy something from WOOT I get SCREWED!

It wasn't very straight forward but the software is actually stored on the camera. There are some instructions in the manual that came with it on how to install the software. Follow the steps closely where it says when to plug in the power cable and data cable. Do this with the battery not installed on the camera. The software allows for easy upload to facebook or youtube... Good luck.