FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoomforce
  • Start date Start date
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

You can't disagree with facts :)

Yeah I didn't take into consideration the difference between the US and Europe. In Finland 16:9 TV-sets are becoming the norm; most people have bought one and this christmas I heard they sold more of them than ever before. 4:3 TV-sets are being put into bedrooms as secondary tv-sets.

However I still think you could have mentioned in more words the meaning of 16:9 to independent fiction producers - short film makers. A lot of beginning filmmakers are going to read your article, this site is quite popular.

But I'm glad we're on the same side on the 16:9-issue ;)

Edit: Forgot to mention that otherwise that article was very informing and altogether excellent!
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Wow, what a huge job to assemble all this! Thank you Barry & Jarred, it's very helpful.

I'm curious about audio sync. I understand that the DVX100a handled the 2-frame sync problem in the 100. Any word on how the XL2 does in this department?

Also, in the frame grabs, the XL2 images looked higher-res than the DVX. Am I seeing things...? Or is there something to that?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Thanks Barry & Jarred,
That was a fascinating article. ... I was very intruiged by everything that was said ... still love my dvx ... and now late for an appointment.

thanks!
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Wondering about the quality of picture, in the FX1 16:9 dv mode. Does it have an advantage by using true 16:9 chips, and 14 bit a/d and DXP?

The Z1 will also allow 4:2:0 colors, which should be better; and isn't PAL 650 lines, instead off 575?

I know I'm not getting the film look with interlaced, but don't this factors make for a good quality picture 16:9 60i? Is it better than the counterparts in this mode?

I was also wondering about the quality of picture, when panning fast and slow? How did each camera held up?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Last question, what was the processed used to downconvert the FX1 HDV footage?

From what I understand, the downres quality can vary depending the method. In an AJA presentation, it was explained that software doesn't do too good of a job, and that the Kona 2 will give broadcast quality downconversion.

You guys are the best! I've spend two months researching, for what is to become a new production company. Without your help and guidence, I would have never guessed where to start!

Thanks Jared & Barry, for you are two great talented individuals!
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=jnolla link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=75#84 date=01/10/05 at 22:22:27]Wondering about the quality of picture, in the FX1 16:9 dv mode. Does it have an advantage by using true 16:9 chips, and 14 bit a/d and DXP?[/quote]
It looks good. It looks about like the XL2, although about an f-stop less sensitive.

The Z1 will also allow 4:2:0 colors, which should be better
Click to expand...
The Z1 does 4:2:0 in HDV, and so does the FX1. In DV mode, the Z1 does 4:1:1 in 60i and 4:2:0 in 50i, so would the FX1 (depending on whether you got the PAL or NTSC model)

and isn't PAL 650 lines, instead off 575?
Click to expand...
Pal is 576 lines, NTSC is 480.

but don't this factors make for a good quality picture 16:9 60i? Is it better than the counterparts in this mode?
Click to expand...
On an HDTV, in HD mode, it's far superior to its counterparts. On an SD television, it looks about the same as the others, except for having less sensitivity and less latitude.

I was also wondering about the quality of picture, when panning fast and slow? How did each camera held up?
Click to expand...
HDV cameras get soft in resolution when panning, because the compressor can't keep up with the changing image. DV cameras don't really care, as each frame is compressed discretely and with complete disregard for the prior and next frames.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=jnolla link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=75#85 date=01/10/05 at 22:29:58]Last question, what was the processed used to downconvert the FX1 HDV footage?[/quote]
We used two methods, either allowing the camera to do the downrez by itself (by outputting SD DV on its firewire port, even though it's recording HDV); or by downrezzing in post using Sony Vegas software set on "best" quality. Other methods were not available to us.

The Vegas downrez produced superior results to the camera's downrez.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

First off all, it's great to see a comparison of the three cams. And nice to see those pictures of the cameras side by side (both the actual camera bodies and the images they produce.)

But.

It was argued before somewhere that the low light capabilities comparison wasn't quite objective. In the test you left the FX1 underexposed, aperture wide open, and didn't use gain. The picture was alot darker than the other two cameras picture. Although you've said it yourself that the DVX has more noise. So, in my opinion you should have adjusted the gain on the FX1, so that the pictures would have been nearly identical. Then you would just compare the pictures, and which one has the less noise, would ofcourse be the better one. The fact that you would be using gain, is just something you can do in camera. It is a feature meant to be used in low light conditions. And if the image after using gain has equal noise as the other cameras, so they would be in my opinion equal in low light capabilities.
Do you agree? And if not, why?

(Sidenote: I still believe the DVX is better in low light than the FX1. I'm just pointing one little detail that might be done better/fairer next time. But, keep up the good work.)
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Do you agree? And if not, why?
Click to expand...
No, not for this test, because that wasn't the purpose of this comparison... we weren't trying to get the "best" picture from the cameras. We were trying to see how they responded under different circumstances, using the same/middle/neutral settings. The cameras are so incredibly customizable that you could literally go insane trying to explore all the combinations to see what was "best".

I can't begin to describe how difficult it was to keep track of everything -- we really needed at least two more guys along with us to really be able to test everything efficiently. It's like trying to make sure one camera is set up properly, without forgetting anything, is basically a full-time job... trying to keep two cameras set up properly, and sync'd with each other, is like that job squared. Trying to do three cameras is like that same job cubed... it gets overwhelming. Which is why in the end we went with the shots that we did, using the methodology that we did.

Now, another test to run would be what you describe -- "let's make each camera shine to its best potential". In fact we intended to do that this last week at CES... Douglas Spotted Eagle on the Z1, Chris Hurd on the XL2 and me on the DVX. That way each camera would be handled by its most vocal expert, and each shooter would be responsible for only his own camera, so there's plenty of time to "think" and to extract the best. We were to set up a scene and each of us shoot it, using a monitor with a/b/c capability to tweak/fine-tune/compare until each of us was satisfied that our respective camera was delivering the "best" picture it could under the conditions. Then, we'd make a DVD of the footage, compare it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Unfortunately scheduling did not permit. But I think that would be the ultimate test -- how good can these cameras look, when handled by a totally-biased expert on each particular camera who knows the camera better than anyone and is trying their hardest to make it beat the others. I think that's the only test that would truly show what each camera is "capable of". Maybe at NAB we'll all get a chance to do it.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

The ultimate test, that is a nice suggestion, together with something new to think about at NAB. ;>)
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=leechild link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=75#75 date=01/09/05 at 10:22:36]Jarred do you use the anamorphic adapter on your dvx100a.  .  [/quote]

no.. im not a fan of the anamorphic adapter... at all.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=antOmic link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=75#76 date=01/09/05 at 10:38:08]jarred, forgive the question, if answered elsewhere, but when you uprezzed DVX to HD, what method was used? i have read disjecta's use of photozoom, but i couldn't imagine tackling a large project in that way.[/quote]

we actually used the new panasonic deck that does realtime and remarkable job of it.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

i was watching barry's dvd again this weekend, in particular the uprezzed dvx footage compared to the HD footage. and honestly, i hardly noticed a quality difference, the dvx res up looked comparable, but the overall picture quality of the dvx was handsdown superior.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=antOmic link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=90#93 date=01/11/05 at 23:20:35]i was watching barry's dvd again this weekend, in particular the uprezzed dvx footage compared to the HD footage. and honestly, i hardly noticed a quality difference[/quote]

I think it only makes a difference when the image is projected onto a large screen. On teevees and monitors it's hard to notice.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Amazingly comprehensive and professional tests, Jarred and Barry... Congratulations and a big thank-you to both of you !
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=90#92 date=01/11/05 at 22:16:02]

we actually used the new panasonic deck that does realtime and remarkable job of it.[/quote]

Jarred, which deck is this?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

It would have to be the AJ-HD1200A, or AJ-HD1700. The older AJ-HD150 will do it as well but not as nicely.

Best,

Jan
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

as well but not as nicely? Heheh

Meaning not real time or?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Congratulations on a great presentation. I am still learning about my DVX (aren't we all?) & after reading your report for the first time I think I made the right purchase for my needs. A friend stated recently, that when I stop learning about this stuff, that will be the time to plant me! I hope I never stop learning!! :o Congratulations again.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=monte link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=90#98 date=01/13/05 at 15:21:54]as well but not as nicely? Heheh

Meaning not real time or?[/quote]


Meaning that the algorythm for uprezzing isn't as powerful and clean. It will do it but the newer machines do it much better.

hope that helps,

Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top