Fx1 how good will it look on a regual tv?

[artistiam]

Me personally I like the look of CRYSTAL CLEAR digital video over 24p will this high definition look better then dvx footage at regular mode on a regular tv? I know lighting and all that other stuff has a big part but before I go buy this camera can anyone answer this question? Thanks.

[Barry_Green]

No, not necessarily -- for most statistics, on a regular TV the DVX will hand the FX1 its lunch. The FX1 is sharp, but it has much weaker sensitivity and lower latitude. 60i on the DVX will look better on an interlaced television from a sensitivity, low-light, and latitude perspective, plus color and gamma are all in the DVX's favor.

If it's a widescreen TV the FX1 does have the advantage of using native 16:9 chips, but really its DV performance is down around the Sony PDX-10 level, not up at the DVX/XL2 level. It's meant to be a high-def interlaced camera, and as that its picture is very impressive -- the resolution counteracts the other shortcomings. But downrezzed onto a standard TV, the DVX and XL2 do a better job.

[Guest]

But downrezzed onto a standard TV, the DVX and XL2 do a better job.

Really now? I downrezzed FX1 footage and I say it looks cleaner and sharper than footage from my DSR500.

[J.R. Hudson]

He didn't say 'cleaner or sharper' he said "... sensitivity, low-light, and latitude perspective, plus color and gamma...".

So hey, if your shooting a reality show; it'll look really damn clean!

[Anhar_Miah]

all i know is that when i showed my friend (your avergae joe in terms of cameras/video/film field) even he saw a big difference, and his reaction wa like wow, thats cool! (laptop connected to SD TV),

what can i say it looks ok on your PC but on a TV is looks like a different beast all together,

so to answer your question : how good on a regular tv
pretty good

[Guest]

Ya know, loads of people have said how amazing downrezzed footage from an FX1 is compared to straight SD from cameras such as the DSR500 or 570. Anyone care to post up any actual screenshots so we can judge ourselves?

[Barry_Green]

I'll get there... the thing is, unfortunately for us, most of what we shot was Cineframe 24, because that's what we wanted to see. *And in CF24 the camera pukes. *And we couldn't see that because we didn't have access to an HD monitor until the last day. We did shoot several things in other modes too -- CF30, interlaced, HD, DV, DV 4:3, all sorts of stuff...

In interlaced HD mode the FX1 gets a bigger bonus, because in interlaced mode in HD it doesn't have to do ime-pair summation and field blending, whereas the XL2 and DVX do. *In interlaced mode the FX1 runs at full resolution, but the XL2 and DVX are at their lowest resolution (especially the DVX, if you want to match aspect ratio by using Squeeze Mode). *But when you go to progressive, the FX1 loses resolution and the DVX and XL2 GAIN resolution. *Most of what I've been comparing has been either CF30 or CF24 against 24P and 30P, because that's how people would use the DVX or XL2 to make a DVD. *In raw interlaced it may be a different story.

But I do have a shot of Grand Central Terminal that we shot in interlaced mode in HD on the FX1 and interlaced on the DVX and XL2 (don't remember if the DVX was anamorphic or not, it was probably squeeze for that shot) so once we get all sorted out I'll put those shots to the test and make a DVD of it. *I would expect the FX1 to fare better in that test, because in the other tests it has not been up to the standards of the other two cameras as far as DVD footage goes.

[videoman69]

I had a DVX100 for 6 months..loved it. I tried an Xl2 for a few days, HATED IT. Just picked up a FX1 and for me, it kills the DVX footage. I use teh cine 30 mode, with teh cinegamma function and teh low light, sensitivity, smoothness and grain free images kill the dvx100. Low light is MUCH better than the DVX. I shoot in HD mode, and I have teh firewire output set to downconvert to SD into FInal Cut pro. The footage looks unreal. COlors are spot on, bets Ive seen, EVER. The look of the cine 30 mode to me, looks BETTER than the 24p on the panny. Resolution in cine 30 on teh FX1 is much better than the 24p on the DVX. Im not sure how you gusy are testing the FX1 but I have been shooting with it every day and it blows me away every time. Its built better than the DVX also, plus the controls are perfect IMO. Even when I use the normal SD outputs to my SD TV it looks better than the DVX, and this is downsampled HD - WHen I hook it up to my 60" Sony HD LCD its like looking through a window.

BUT the cine 24 mode looks awful. 30 is very very nice, and thats all I use. Kills the 30 mode on the Panny DVC-30 as well.

So to all of those who say the DVX kills the FX1 on a regular TV, yuo are doing something wrong, becuase I shot the DVX daily for 6 months, tried the Xl2, and now own the FX1 - FX1 wins hands down, no contest.

Also, the cine 30 mode with gamma on the FX1 looks better to me than the Panny 24P, plus if I want, I can convert to 24p with software in FCP.

The Fx1 is a no brainer. Great camera that will last for years. Its a keeper, and I never liked the VX2000, 2100 cams.

[Bukkake]

Exactly. The FX1 downrez footage even blows my DSR500 out of the water in terms of clarity and detail. So im a little confused when they say FX1 footage looks worse than DVX or XL2 footage.

[videoman69]

Sorry for all the mispelled words and my "teh" - I try to type to fast!

[BLUESPIDER]

The FX1 downrez footage even blows my DSR500 out of the water in terms of clarity and detail.

Then can I have your DSR500? :)

[Barry_Green]

Part of it comes from the Sony default preset, which has the detail cranked up to near maximum. In the default picture profile the Sony FX1 has the detail set to 12, out of 14 possible. The DVX on the other hand has the detail set at middle (7 on the sony scale) for the 60i scene file, and -3 (which would be about 4 on the sony scale) for the 24P setting!

If you set the detail settings to their mid levels, the downrezzed DVX is every bit as sharp as FX1 footage, most especially if you're trying to use CineFrame 30 or CineFrame 24. If you don't want to dial down the FX1's detail setting, you could always crank UP the DVX's to match.

If you're comparing interlaced to interlaced, the FX1 may (*may*) be a little sharper after downrezzing... I still have to test that (I have some shots to test with as well)... especially if the DVX is in squeeze mode.

We observed the same effect on JVC HD1 footage as compared to digital betacam -- on stock settings the HD1 made the DigiBeta look like it was plain out of focus. But then the HD1 is notorious for extreme edge enhancement and artificial sharpening of the picture.

[videoman69]

I dont use the Sony default, I have the detail at about 8 and in my tests, the DVX isn't even close, and the sony video is so clean, where the dvx footage is not when you compare side by side. There is a big difference when I compare my footage from both cams, plus no need for the anamorphic lens with the sony when used in HD mode. Now if I use the sony in DV mode, the DVX seems to edge out the SOny.

[artistiam]

The way video mean 69 is describing the fx1 I might get that over the dvx and canon xl2.

[Barry_Green]

I just can't understand this... are you shooting the same shots side-by-side?

I just put the DVD stuff I'm doing under the proverbial microscope, both playing on a conventional TV and then also projecting on a 10' screen using component inputs, and standing like 2' away. There is no circumstance that I've found where the FX1 footage looks any sharper than the DVX footage. Even in interlaced mode, they look (at best) the same. On CF24 footage vs. progressive, the DVX holds quite an advantage, especially when the FX1 had Cinematone gamma on -- all the dark sections get so crushed down on the FX1 that you can't see any shadow detail vs. the DVX, which shows everything.

Yes the signal is cleaner with deeper blacks. I think I'll reshoot a segment and match the DVX to the FX1 (using master pedestal etc) and see what they look like that way. But when you say "the DVX isn't close", I just can't fathom that -- by what standard are you using? Are you just referring to video noise?