Fx DVcam vs Dvx100

B

BertG

New member
Can anyone help me on this one ......have you ever seen a shoot out between Fx in DVcam mode vs Dvx100 (both interlaced) and what is your conclusion?
 
I think you mean in DV mode, DVCAM is something different. I dont see why anyone would shoot on the Fx1/Z1u in DV. You can have way better end product shooting with the Fx1/Z1u in HDV then editing, and finally down convert to SD then the DVX alone.

The only problem I have when I down convert is aliasing but that can be easily fixed.
 
Used properly, the FX1 and the DVX produces comparable SD results in term of image quality (assuming that you're using the 60i mode on the DVX). However Mack is right, it's better to shoot in HDV mode and then downcovert to SD in post than to shoot in DV. This gives you better option in case you want to go the HD route instead of SD. I believe it'll give you more data in term of color space, but I have not found this to impact the results in anyway.

I would say that the FX1 has the advantage of being native 16:9, while the DVX is 4:3.
 
jade8472 said:
Used properly, the FX1 and the DVX produces comparable SD results in term of image quality (assuming that you're using the 60i mode on the DVX). However Mack is right, it's better to shoot in HDV mode and then downcovert to SD in post than to shoot in DV. This gives you better option in case you want to go the HD route instead of SD. I believe it'll give you more data in term of color space, but I have not found this to impact the results in anyway.

I would say that the FX1 has the advantage of being native 16:9, while the DVX is 4:3.
Click to expand...

The color space rumor is also true. If Im correct 1080i 4:2:0 down scaled into DVCPRO50 will give you 4:2:2
 
I'll chime in that shooting in native HDV is better than DV and edit in HDV, THEN do your down-convert. MUCH better quality.

heath
 
Actually I would say that the downconvert quality is the same as an in-camera downconvert. It really depends on whether you have a powerful enough rig to handle HDV editing. If you do, you should edit in HDV and then downconvert, if only because there's more flexibility if you change your mind and want it HD. If not, downconvert in-camera and edit SD, it's a lot less demanding.
 
Jade,

My friends and I have tested and seen that down-converting from HDV via the camera into the NLE isn't as good as capturing and editing in HDV in the NLE THEN down-converting.

heath
 
When i downconvert in the camera i have problems with reds. When i edit in hdv and downconvert to sd in my nle it is a good amount sharper (to my eye) than sd cameras.
 
To me SD is SD... no matter how you convert it. I shot HDV then downconvert in cam to SD and it looks the same to me if I did the down convert in the NLE after all that.

Im just going off my eyes and consider myself between the normal consumer and a slight professional, or should I say educated consumer on various video formats and looks. I personally notices no difference on in cam vs in NLE.

If you plan on exporting a HD video then you should probably edit in HDV only if you system can handle it. I am running a 3.0gHz P4 with 2.5 gigs of RAM and the fastest vido card available for my AGP mobo. And natively it plays fine, but the killer is rendering if you wanna do any stuff like magic bullet.

Since SD is still here for another 5 years I would guess ( until more people are using HD players and HDdvds are cheaper and more available ) I just shoot HDV and then downconvert in cam and edit in SD mode. Makes everything go much easier. I mean really, as of right now, i think like 1% of people have the ability to play HD discs anyway. So unless you want to export a video for viewing on a computer, you dont need to edit HDV.

I think anyone would be fine still buying a SD camera like a DVX now and getting their moneys worth.
 
I made a DVD from HDV footage downconverted to SD in the camera, then another DVD from HDV footage exported to DVD as SD and it looked MUCH better than the other on a 1080p LCD.

Down-converting in camera vs. NLE results in worse quality.

heath
 
Yeah, other than that red thing, the footage looked much better downconverting in the nle. If I do any processing, I do it to the hdv. Yeah it takes allot longer but the footage comes out 10 times better. Plus I can do effects to the hdv like slight oversharpen (etc) so when it gets to SD its even better. If there are time constraints then downconvert in camera.

If u have the time edit in HD. Get a final. Export to SD. look at it. Do more work to the final (effects, just for the SD conversion) See how it comes out.

I fought with myself for 6 months over buyin an fx1 or dvx. Buy either one u WIN!
 
I've been using the Z1 and DVX100a for 1.5 years and 2.5 years, respectively, and I feel that the new Sony V1 will be a combination of the two. The HVX is nice, but I'm not the biggest fan. I think the V1 is hopefully going to be a winner!

heath
 
deedive said:
Yeah, other than that red thing, the footage looked much better downconverting in the nle. If I do any processing, I do it to the hdv. Yeah it takes allot longer but the footage comes out 10 times better. Plus I can do effects to the hdv like slight oversharpen (etc) so when it gets to SD its even better. If there are time constraints then downconvert in camera.

If u have the time edit in HD. Get a final. Export to SD. look at it. Do more work to the final (effects, just for the SD conversion) See how it comes out.

I fought with myself for 6 months over buyin an fx1 or dvx. Buy either one u WIN!
Click to expand...

Ive done that really and I agree they are both great cameras, and you cant go wrong with either really.

I just wanna ask, though, why did the footage look better downconverting in the NLE? What part comes out looking 10 times better? Do you mean sharper? Or? I mean the only thing I can see being better with HDV is better color sampling but as far as resolution, 1080 is 1080 and 480 is 480.

I know disjecta has tried the photozoom pro method for uprezzing SD footage to look more HD, and I do see a definite difference there. I'm not really dissagreeing with how your footage looks, just that I see no difference in mine either way. Both methods turn out the same for me.

Could you post a grab of a 480 screen shot downressed in cam and one downressed in the NLE? I can try and do it too...
 
hope someone will die and will me a V1.

im a little lazy:) Downconverting in camera and with the nle and then doing color correction to both is alot of work.

But i noticed it looks better. I also change the setting in the camera. I usually up the color a bit in camera (etc). When i downconvert in the camera the red bleeds and stairstep and i loss a hair of sharpness.

When i color correct, thats when u see the 9 other times better come in. Color correcting hd then going down to sd is a big difference then color correction sd then rendering in sd. Your just takin another hit.

Maybe FCP is better at it then my camera. I don't know:)
 
True. Doing such hardware tricks can take up quite a bit of circuitry so usually hardware manfuacturers tend to implement the most basic feature-set that can be called acceptable. The NLE on the other hand is more robust (has a large hard-disk to play from) and can use more complex algorithms to ensure better qualtiy.
 
More detail in original HD footage is going to survive a downconvert to 480. I'm not sure how to explain it but it is just a fact. Take a look at any well-shot film that originated on 35mm and you will see that it is clearly more detailed than DV-originated footage.

When I shoot HDV and downconvert it using Vegas (the best downconvert tool in my experience, does a spectacular job), the results are far superior to anything I could ever capture with the DVX.
 
disjecta said:
More detail in original HD footage is going to survive a downconvert to 480. I'm not sure how to explain it but it is just a fact. Take a look at any well-shot film that originated on 35mm and you will see that it is clearly more detailed than DV-originated footage.

When I shoot HDV and downconvert it using Vegas (the best downconvert tool in my experience, does a spectacular job), the results are far superior to anything I could ever capture with the DVX.
Click to expand...

You are right and it's very simple. Downconverting from high resolution source utilizes all source luminance and color information on subpixel level of the final 720x480 images. DV camcorders save only a quarter of full original color information. Of course, some camcorders (e.g. XL2) resolve slightly finer detail than others and that's because they employ internal downconversion and sensors of higher resolution than required by the DV standard.

I agree with others. Judging by the results I think we can safely say hardware downconversion systems available in pro-sumer level camcorders, though not bad at all, are not as sophisticated as software solutions. That, however, may change in the near future. Today's equipment can do things we only dreamed about 10 years ago :-)
 
Last edited:
Well I gave it a try tonight while making a DVD of some car show footage. I shot in HDV (CF24) and edited (CC'd and all that too) naitively in PPro2.0 then exported as an uncompressed avi from there at 720x480 (deinterlaced through premiere), then imported that into Encore 2.0 and had Encore transcode the footage for DVD.

What I noticed:

Using CF24 mode on the camera really had no nagative effects on the quality of the end result. The footage came out just as good as what I see on discovery channel (watching in SD of course) or any other documentary type shows. It was crystal clear and the 'look' of it was equal to anything that I've seen shot on higher end cameras. Really. For me paying 2999.99 for the camera it was well worth it. The footage never took a hit from what it looked like on the tape...meaning, when i shoot something , then plug the camera into a TV and now watching it on DVD.

Tomorrow I will burn a DVD with some footage shot in hDV but dwn converted in camera then edited and CC'd in SD. Then I can see if REALLY the footage does take a noticable hit in quality.
 
35mm downconversion isnt comparable to HDTV downconversion.

You cant gain anything from shooting in to much resolution. Of course you can get better results if the camera is much better from the beginning.

But if everything is equal its always better to get the camera that has the right resolution from the beginning.

Of course some people like downconversionartifacts. As some like interlaceflicker.

And Bogdan the XL2 has more pixels than it need on the sensor, but it has just enogh for 16:9 with pixelaspect ratio 1:1.

My guess is that the SDX900 beats every prosumer cam out there and it only has enough pixels for 720*480 (720*576 PAL)

If more pixels gave better picture Panny could have put in a HDTV sensor in the cam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top