PDA

View Full Version : Sony HDR-FX1 or Panasonic DVX100 ?



drew_hytt
11-21-2005, 06:55 PM
Hi, Names Drew.

Our web design studio is getting into media production, and we are deciding on a camera.

We are going to get one of themÖ.. Right now I love the Panasonic, but Itís a bit pricey around
$ 5500 here in Canada. I have seen plenty of clips from the Panasonic and itís great, but is the Sony right up there? Doesnít have 24p, but I have seen videos from it and it looks great, with 35mm adaptors on and stuff, Iím more a fan of the 24p look for sure, but for a studio on a budget wanting to get into commercials, internet videos, promo videos, nightclub videos, is there even a question with which one to go with?

Or is the Sony the way to go?

Any help would be appreciated.

Andrew Brinkhaus
11-21-2005, 06:58 PM
Unless your studio is producing HD for a specific reason, or you really need HD for your productions, the DVX would be my choice of camera between the two. Mostly because of the 24p and generally stronger colors and contrast. You can always use the 35mm adapter with the DVX as well.

drew_hytt
11-21-2005, 07:38 PM
So for say mostly internet the dvx is the way to go? or.... say we get into commericals for television? is the dvx still the way to do it? or would upgrading to HD be better? Thanks

Ed Kishel
11-21-2005, 08:04 PM
when your talking about buying a camera for a business, it changes things. For personal projects, hands down DVX no question. But a business has to cater to the desires of thier clients. And HD is a feature alot of un-educated clients feel they "need". They have an HD tv at home, so how come you cant shoot my spot in HD. Its a hard decision.

Keep in mind that the Sony FX1 realy isnt HD, its HDV a different format all together, with different color sampling, compression and so on. The picture is higher res than the DVX, but it still looks like very sharp video.

Im going this route- DVX for now, get the most I can for the next 2 years or so, then upgrade to a HVX, which should be lower in price with more extras.

drew_hytt
11-22-2005, 03:39 PM
ok Edweirdo, liked what you had to say, makes sence, umm but the only thing is, the Sony fx1 doesnt shoot 24p right?

Thanks.

eddavid
11-22-2005, 09:27 PM
the Sony FX1 does not shoot 24p. It does have a mode called Cineframe, which is a simulation of 24p. And let me just say, in my humble opinion, Cineframe looks absolutely horrible and jittery. The DVX100b looks to be a really nice camera with better audio handling than the FX1. And audio is, once again, in my opinion, more important than picture. But honestly, this is a really hard call. As soon as high definition dvds come out (BlueRay) and everyone moves to HD for all forms of television, then you'll really need an HD camera. Until then, you don't. But let's say HD only really catches on in five years--by then there will be a much better camera suited for this work.

Go to your rental house and rent a dvx100 and a sony hd camera for a day. Do a test shoot. If this is too expensive, go to a camera store that has both and just stay there and mess with it.

I think the Sony Z1 (the prosumer FX1 model) looks really fantastic shooting in HD mode, but I don't know if you can keep that look if you downconvert to the web and standard definition. Finally, supposively, Sony is releashing a camera with HD capabliities and so is Canon, though that one is rumored to be a clunker.

Drew, you opened up a really difficult decision.
We are at the beginning of a new era of filmmaking and making the right choice is a long, hard difficult decision.

With that said, I use my dvx100 to shoot for the History Channel, A&E, and HBO. I've seen the Sony camera used for USA TV and it looked really nice. I've seen the 24p mode totally abused as well as images from the Sony HD cameras.

SoBeTV
11-23-2005, 04:37 AM
I just sold my DVX100A to buy a Z1 mainly because the client that I use the camera for decided to move on to HDV. I can say that there are things that I like about both cameras and some subtle features that I will miss by not having the DVX any longer. However, this was a time that I could recover most of the cost of the DVX in this sale, so for me, it was the right time to move on. The HVX was either not ready or questions about small (and costly) HD storage along with clients dealing with that, has kept me from going in that direction. Although as a Varicam user it would have been a nice companion as far as the codec goes.

The Sony is not as flexible in manipulating the "look" of the camera. It is not as light sensitive as the DVX which I will miss since most of the stuff I shoot is "on the run" documentary style. I will miss the mic switches that allow me to individually switch each channel between int. mic, ch1 & ch2. The Sony has a this as menu function. The Sony's 1080i HDV looks fantastic. I love the native 16:9 and the safe markers for 4:3 & 16:9. The 24f is not great, but acceptable. The Z1 has an audio meter with real db scale reference numbers. The Sony has a heavier focus drag and overall a more durable built feel to it. I prefer the Z1's thumbwheel menu over the DVX's toggle stick. Resetting Z1's time code is easier than the cumbersome "yes or no" menu option on the DVX. The Z1's headphone amp needs a smidge more volume, but its not nearly as bad as the original DVX100 was. The DVX's larger LCD will be missed, but its nice to have a 16:9 screen w/4:3 safe lines now instead of letterbox. Sony's "expanded focus" aid is a great feature and its steadyshot stabilizer noticably works better. The DVX has clear scan, the Z1 has a work around. THe DVX has a better "macro" featrure on its lens. The iris wheel on the Z1 feels considerably more substantial and durable than the DVX. I like the way Panasonic put white balance button away from other function buttons on the DVX better.

There's good and bad to both cameras, you just have to decide what your client base would be happiest with. For me it was just the right time to move on to the HDV format & who knows where I'll be in a year. We are seriously looking at the HD-XDCam for a large camera purchase next year to replace Betacam SP. This is the 3rd small camera (DVX100, DVX100A, HVRZ1U) that I've bought in 3 yrs. So, I recoup my cost, make a modest profit on them and then evaluate what's new out there.

titas
11-29-2005, 04:43 PM
I'm in the same situation Drew. Would like to know which way you go on this one. So much choice, such amazing stuff available within my budget, but dagnabbit where to put my well earned pennies? I'm in the UK and am further sidetracked by the sony pd170, but for me it's between the fx1 and the dvx100... I edit on premiere and wonder, "If I upgrade to HDV will I have to upgrade other equipment and software as a result?" The knock on effect on my current gear is playing on my mind... I'll be following this thread with GREAT interest. What a fantastic forum...

thisiswells
11-29-2005, 06:05 PM
wanting to get into commercials, internet videos, promo videos, nightclub videos, is there even a question with which one to go with?
You're likely to be very disappointed with the quality of your work from any camera without sufficient lighting and sound equipment. Video production requires a substantially higher investment than a PC and some Macromedia Apps... A good number of my friends (who are web, graphic, motion designers) would love to make videos, but can't afford the gear, which is on the order of 15K to 25K to get their foot in the door with a good tripod, small arri kit, a kino flo, field monitor, laptop, teleprompter, shotgun mic/boom pole, pair of wired lavs, software, cart to haul everything, etc. etc. It's a real doozy. I apologize in advance if I'm stating the obvious... :beer:

Still photography is much easier because you can use affordable strobe lighting; not so with video. Then, you add sound.

All that said, there are compelling reasons to go with an FX1 or a DVX. The FX1 has a horrible method of recording sound, tho. That could be a deal breaker, depending on how much value you place on sound quality...

As you may already be aware, the world is supposedly moving to the H.264/MPEG4 Standard. But, the new system doesn't understand interlaced. A Progressive Scan camera (DVX100, XL2, HD100, HVX200) puts you at a real advantage if shooting for the internet...

myfriendimage
12-05-2005, 06:22 PM
Unless your studio is producing HD for a specific reason, or you really need HD for your productions, the DVX would be my choice of camera between the two. Mostly because of the 24p and generally stronger colors and contrast. You can always use the 35mm adapter with the DVX as well.

any color or contrast can be easily copied in post. You can use a 35mm adapter with the fx1 as well.

Andrew Brinkhaus
12-05-2005, 08:15 PM
True, but the DVX does deal with contrasting color better than the fx1 and 24P + 35mm adapter as opposed to 24F + 35mm adapter will generally yeild a better result, in a good setup situation. On the other hand, Drew doesnt really sound like he wants to shoot shorts or feature films, based upon his clients and situation, I would choose upon that. I would still get the DVX if I were him.

Angrius
12-05-2005, 09:43 PM
True, but the DVX does deal with contrasting color better than the fx1 and 24P + 35mm adapter as opposed to 24F + 35mm adapter will generally yeild a better result, in a good setup situation. On the other hand, Drew doesnt really sound like he wants to shoot shorts or feature films, based upon his clients and situation, I would choose upon that. I would still get the DVX if I were him.


I beg to differ. Look at any work Mcgregor as done with the Sony and the G35 adapter and it blows anything away from the DVX with that adapter. No question about it. Take a look at "Secret Garden" especially. Wicked.

http://personales.ya.com/autodrome/

Filmjunkie677
12-05-2005, 10:20 PM
I'd go with the DVX.

FatBird19
12-05-2005, 11:22 PM
I beg to differ. Look at any work Mcgregor as done with the Sony and the G35 adapter and it blows anything away from the DVX with that adapter. No question about it. Take a look at "Secret Garden" especially. Wicked.

http://personales.ya.com/autodrome/


I think that's because macgregor had the proper lighting required to get the scene within 5 stops worth of difference. If you properly lit a scene within 7 stops of lighting difference for the DVX, I think you'd get the same amazing results(granted the Sony footage would be sharper looking when downsized to DV resolution)
I could be wrong though.

Angrius
12-06-2005, 09:44 AM
I believe that according to Macgregor, the nudie clips are all lit naturally or with bare bones lighting. Macgregor..can you answer this for them if you are reading this post..thanks.

Gordon JL
12-06-2005, 12:55 PM
And let me just say, in my humble opinion, Cineframe looks absolutely horrible and jittery.

That's exactly the mode MacGregor used for his footage; and everyone loves it. So I don't know what's so bad about not having true 24p, when MacGregor has shown that it works amazingly well (I've read some people saying his footage is "better than Lucas".)

Angrius
12-06-2005, 01:28 PM
I'm just trying to get you guys to look at the naked chicks. That's all that matters in the end.

Ed Kishel
12-09-2005, 11:11 AM
I'm just trying to get you guys to look at the naked chicks. That's all that matters in the end.
oh pa-leeze!

macgregor
12-10-2005, 07:02 AM
Hello.
But on the other hand, if shooting in DV i think you get better and more real accurate colors with the dvx. Thatīs the same difference that with the real HD cameras, for me, the varicam gives better colors, but the Cinealta gives quite a lot much more resolution, so choose what you like more.

mcshyd
12-10-2005, 10:41 AM
But you get much more color resolution. So i prefer shooting with the Sony than with the dvx.
Also, grain does not exist with the SonyHDV. DVX has a lot of noise for me.


But on the other hand, if shooting in DV i think you get better and more real accurate colors with the dvx.

i agree. The dvx has a much more analog look, which some people prefer, and of course, looks more like film. BUT there is a lot of noise coming out of the dvx in comparison to the sony. Footage from the fx1/hvrz1u can be tweaked liked nobodies business. I was doing some tests with magic bullet v2 yesterday and was amazed at how far the footage could be manipulated without falling apart. Also, if youre trying to do greenscreen on a budget, there's no argument. HDV will slap the dvx around like it owes it money.

i'd say, if SD is your main output, and you're not doing greenscreen work, get a dvx. If you plan on doing anything else...

amishjim
12-25-2005, 10:09 PM
I've just shot 3 shorts, 2 on the FX1 and then one on the DVX100. I initially didn't like the FX1 because it was too crisp, bad audio controls and we needed greenscreen work(which it is supposed to handle poorly). After 3 weeks with it , I loved it. It handled low light like a champ. You just have to realize it's too good to look like Film, just embrace it and move on. We captured all audio to an external recorder because of the n00b audio controls and the greenscreen stuff we shot edited with no problem.
When I finally got to shoot the DVX, I thought I was working with the Tyco ToyCam. It needs more light for sure, so lighting setups took a little longer. The focus would go in and out, unexplainably. We had some problems capturing sound, but I believe it was that specific camera we had rented. I have no other real problems with the DVX, except that after shooting the Sony it seemed like a toy.
I'm looking into buying a camera in the Sub $5000 range myself and I also can't decide which one to get. If I had more time with these cams to really learn them would have been great so I could really make a definate decision. But as of now, I'd go with the Sony, the camera I wanted to hate after reading the Forums here. The truth lies in your experience level and knowledge of the camera itself.

mcshyd
12-25-2005, 10:46 PM
i love the camera... i love both the camera's. but, if you hadn't noticed, this is "dvxuser." John hudson continues to say, "give me 24p or give me death." people here are a little biased yo, but if you search through it, you'll find that the more credible opinions will tell you that both cameras have different strengths, and it all depends on what you're trying to do. I own both the dvx and the hvrz1u and you can't really compare the two.

i can tell you this. if you know the fx1, but want better sound control, and the option to shoot in pal for fudged but acceptable 24p, the hvrz1u is the way to go. you already know the camera, so what you produce is going to reflect your experience with it. to quote my southern brother in law, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

honestly though, wny are you choosing between an sd and an hdv camera? choose. then complain about how the pd 150 feels like a toy compared to the dvx.

welcome to the forum, by the way.

Lakmir0
12-27-2005, 02:36 PM
<I initially didn't like the FX1 because it was too crisp, bad audio controls and we needed greenscreen work(which it is supposed to handle poorly). After 3 weeks with it , I loved it. It handled low light like a champ. You just have to realize it's too good to look like Film, just embrace it and move on.>

Man, are you mad? There isn't a camera on the market that is "too good to look like film." 35mm film has an approximate resolution of 5000 lines before it loses serious quality. Show me which camera you have that does that? Chances are, a well shot Super 8 has better res than your FX1. Not trying to bash anyone, as I have a lower res XL2, but let's get real here.

mcshyd
12-27-2005, 03:25 PM
where in pittsburgh are you from amish jim? are you associated with the new carnegie technology center or pittsburgh filmmakers?

amishjim
12-27-2005, 04:00 PM
"...You just have to realize it's too good to look like Film, just embrace it and move on..." That was a bad paraphrase on my part by Robert Rodriguez, my intent was mor e along the lines of, let's push video to it's boundaries instead of trying to make it something it's not.

"where in pittsburgh are you from amish jim? are you associated with the new carnegie technology center or pittsburgh filmmakers?"
Robinson area and negative on both of those organizations. I'm not a fan of Filmmakers, but it's mostly stupid political stuff like; if you are signed up as digital moviemaker you cant sign out a dolly, thats only for real film movies. or my favorite: you cant have a tripod with a bubble level unless it's for film, haha. In Pittsburgh, Video shoots Dutch, lol. The only organization I belong to is IBEW Local 385 Television Production, I've shoot Live sporting events for the last 7 years, MLB, NHL, blah blah.. So I'm kind of new to this lower end stuff, so bare with me as I learn too :D
anyways have fun..

stidle
12-28-2005, 06:44 AM
hey jim --

i'm in pittsburgh too...i like in the city, though -- friendship. how did you get the gig shooting sporting stuff, etc?

pittsburgh's not fantastic in terms of film jobs, but i've been surprisingly lucky in finding paying jobs, and the scenery is like nowhere else!
-matt

amishjim
12-28-2005, 02:33 PM
Hey Matt,
My first job doing Live Sports was The Atlanta Olympic Games, I did audio for Pro Beach Volleyball :D hehe. A friend got me on the show and I've been doing it ever since, it took awhile to get to CamerOp but it was worth the wait. Yea, Pittsburgh is slow Movie wise, between the Unions and the Film office pushing the money away. My next show is a Super16 shoot in LA in January, but I'm only BestBoy Grip on that one. eh fun times anyway..

DJ Lewis
12-29-2005, 01:00 PM
OK, earlier macgregor pointed out there is a color diffrence between the fx1/z1 and the dvx... how much of a color diffrence is there. Is it barely noticeable to the untrained eye, or "I can live with this/ it can be fix it in post," or is it "OH MY GOD! go grab my dvx NOW!"?

Also, I often am told tha HDV can't handle green screen work, but have seen some pretty stink'n clean music videos that were green screen intensive. What gives?

macgregor
12-29-2005, 06:14 PM
I think the difference in color and contrast between the SOny FX/Z1 and the Pana DVX100 is more or less the same that exist between the big HD cameras: the Sony F750/900 and the Varicam. Colors from Panasonic seem more realistic, not so saturated, and with a bit more latitude.
This is good for some things, and bad for others. ;D

I dont think this is a disadvantage, but just a different image.
In the same way the big HD cameras work, we get much more resolution with Sony, and better skin tones and colors with the Panasonic. What do you prefer?

I was watching today a comparison between the Canon EOS 5D (which i have) and the Nikon 200. The Canon is so much better in definition and DOF, but still the nikon delivers better colors, less contrasted faces and better latitud (about 1 stop), so it leaves me thinking what is better, because i dont care about having 13Mp or just 10Mp.


So, coming back to the subjet. You can get much better images working with the Sony HDV and downconverting to SD, whatever the colors, the fields, the cineframe, and the noise are set, compared from the dvx100.

DJ Lewis
12-30-2005, 11:30 PM
Thanks mac, appreaciate the answer. One more question, (although now that the HVX is out, it may be a moot point).....

Anyone know how many stops you can get out of a Z1?

bilgami
01-09-2006, 05:42 AM
what cam to go with the jvc hd100 or panny 100b?

mcshyd
01-09-2006, 08:49 AM
do you want hdv?

gregcotten
01-09-2006, 04:28 PM
http://www.lumieremedia.com/tomorrowistoday/tomorrow_trailer/

Shot all with the Z1U (picture=same as FX1) with all natural light. 1080i50 => 24p for upconvert to film. More info here:

http://www.lumieremedia.com//magazine-articles/director-of-tomorrow-is-today-on-film-video-magazine..html

-Greg

INDIE_CODE
01-09-2006, 08:15 PM
I'd go with the DVX.
Yep I'd go for the DVX. I have a friend that tells me that the FX1 drops frames like crazy.

macgregor
01-10-2006, 03:13 AM
Yes, the dvx drops frames sometimes. But exactly as much as the dvx does... ;D

gregcotten
01-11-2006, 07:55 PM
Yep I'd go for the DVX. I have a friend that tells me that the FX1 drops frames like crazy.

Your friend is incorrect/playing with you. I have never had a drop-out problem w/ SD or HDV... ever.

myfriendimage
01-11-2006, 07:59 PM
Yep I'd go for the DVX. I have a friend that tells me that the FX1 drops frames like crazy.

I think your friend is using crappy tapes. Ive never had a frame drop.

Arcwave
01-11-2006, 09:18 PM
Yep I'd go for the DVX. I have a friend that tells me that the FX1 drops frames like crazy.

I'm obliged to disagree. I havn't experianced ANY frame drops whatsoever. Your friend must be having some technical difficulties.

Jesse :thumbsup:

mcshyd
01-12-2006, 01:08 PM
hour 10 of shooting and not a single dropframe on the hvr-z1u. i think your friend is using dv tapes from best buy.

Tainted
01-12-2006, 05:09 PM
One thing I'd like to comment on is "web delivery" and progressive scan. And my comment here is equally interesting when applied to HD-to-SD downconversion.

Let me start by saying I'm a total amateur who is currently shooting on a GS400 (but soon will be upgrading to a DVX100a/b). BUT, amateurnish aside, I do know a thing or two about post and compressing for web distribution, and I am constantly AMAZED by the number of smart, pro people that don't use this trick for web delivery. So, here goes...

I shoot in 60i DV (720x480 with 1.21 PAR) like normal. I edit everything in a 60i timeline and render out to a 60i DV-AVI file like normal (still 720x480). Then, and here's the important part, I use Sorenson Squeeze to encode to WMV or MOV or whatever using a DROP-FIELD deinterlace. Now, before everyone jumps on me for the lost resolution, let me say this... Most video is published to the web at a smaller resolution, typically half-res for a nice and clean evenly-divisible down-res from 720x480 to 360x240. So, if (and this is a BIG if) you are going to publish to the web at half res ANYWAY, then using a drop-field deinterlace causes NO vertical resolution loss whatsoever. So, you start with 720x480 60i, you then delete every other interlaced field, which essentially leaves you with 720x240 30p, then you rescale your horizontal resolution back to 320x240 at PAR=1 and 30p. You end up with perfectly deinterlaced 30p at half-res with no interlaced artifacts whatsoever -- it's like you shot 320x240 30p. Now, the problem is most NLEs can't do a deinterlace like this, so you most often have to do the delace and resize outside of your NLE (I render out of Vegas, then delace/resize/encode using Sorenson). Works like a charm, and I'm so surprised why more people don't use this workflow for web distribution.

Anyway, and now I'm getting out of my own comfort zone, but I'll go for it anyway, this same workflow seems to me creates interesting workflow opportunities for downrezing HD to SD or taking HD to the web (at smaller, more bandwidth-friendly sizes). You can use the same technique to take 1080i widescreen down to a perfect progressive scan SD image couldn't you? I mean doesn't 1080i have 540 lines of vertical resolution per interlaced frame? That's more than the 480 of SD, so it seems possible to take 1080i HD down to a truely progressive 480p with a cam that doesn't actually have progressive chips. Now, I'm guessing that this is how the camera's actually do there down-rezing. So, that was a long-winded way of saying that it seems that a 1080i cam like the Sonys should be able to produce a truely progressive SD image?

Anyway, just rambling a little, don't mind me, I'm somewhat of a newb... :P

macgregor
01-12-2006, 05:16 PM
I dont understand what you mean.

The drop field in sorenson squeezer gives a lot worse quality than applying a deinterlace method: interpolate fields in Vegas.

They are very similar, but Vegas uses interpolation.

Tainted
01-12-2006, 05:59 PM
I dont understand what you mean.

The drop field in sorenson squeezer gives a lot worse quality than applying a deinterlace method: interpolate fields in Vegas.

They are very similar, but Vegas uses interpolation.
You are right in that it is a WAY WORSE way of deinterlacing when you keep your footage at 480 lines of vertical resolution, but it is a WAY BETTER way of doing it if you are downrezing to 240 vertical lines anyway. If you blend or interpolate at 480i, you'll end up with 480p with some "blurring/combing/etc." which will in fact be way better than if you dropped the field and then took the 240 lines you were left with and scale them back up to 480 lines. True. And that's why no one in their right mind would ever deinterlace that way (because you lose half of your resolution). BUT, if you are going to half your resolution anyway to post on the web, then it's a WHOLE OTHER story, and dropping a field doesn't lose you any resolution at 240 lines, and you have video with no interlacing artifacts at all -- absolutely perfect progressive images at 320x240 from 60i sourced DV. That's what I'm trying to say, I'm constantly amazed why so many people don't do this for web video. Now, this isn't as important for anyone lucky enough to own a DVX because you're shooting progressive to begin with, but it makes a big difference for people like me who have to shoot in 60i still. I'm also curious about using this technique with 1080i sourced video.

macgregor
01-12-2006, 06:13 PM
I know what you mean. i have tried that, and you might finish with some aliasing in diagonal lines by doing the process that way.

ttracy007
02-19-2007, 05:52 PM
Hi,
I'm looking to parody a network show and release it on the internet. The show we're parodying has a flim look to it, and ideally I'd shoot it in 24p to capture that look. However, given that I'm going to launch it over the internet and most likely compress it down to 15fps, would I stand to gain anything by shooting in 24p or would that be a wasted advantage? The camera's I'm deciding between are the Sony HDV FX1 and the Panasonic P2 cameras. I know the Panasonic kicks ass, but we are working off of a tight budget and I'd want to know that I'd be gaining some unique value in paying for it. If anyone could give me some perspective on the advantages/disadvantages for each given the internet medium, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Tim

Laurencd4u
03-15-2007, 12:47 PM
Hi everyone!! I'm like brand new to writting/directing film. I am writting two horror movies right now. The first one is a low budget kinda what ever i can get my hands on kind of deal and the 2nd will be for a much bigger budget if i can get the right connections. ANYWAYS! I don't want to spend more than $4,000 on a first camera. I have been saving up for awhile and I was recommended a sony that is like 1,600 but I was wanting to get a DVx100b. The question is this... Can I shoot in the dark with the Dvx100b??? Alot of my scenes will be kinda dark with specific lighting to make it creepy. Any suggestions or answers are a great help!!


Thnx u all!

<3 Lauren Elizabeth