dvxStephen
Active member
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
Cinematographer Jody Eldred has been quoted in a remarkably glowing rave of Sony's pro HDV unit, the Z1. His praise at a Sundance HDV workshop was reportedly lavish enough to make one wonder if the Z1's imaging circuitry could be substantially superior to the FX1's.
The article quoting his views is at: http://www.cinemaminima.com/correspondents/greening/index.php?id=P419
Cinematographer Jody Eldred has been quoted in a remarkably glowing rave of Sony's pro HDV unit, the Z1. His praise at a Sundance HDV workshop was reportedly lavish enough to make one wonder if the Z1's imaging circuitry could be substantially superior to the FX1's.
The article quoting his views is at: http://www.cinemaminima.com/correspondents/greening/index.php?id=P419
Jan_Crittenden
Veteran
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
[quote author=dvxStephen link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=135#142 date=01/25/05 at 08:55:45]Cinematographer Jody Eldred has been quoted in a remarkably glowing rave of Sony's pro HDV unit, the Z1. His praise at a Sundance HDV workshop was reportedly lavish enough to make one wonder if the Z1's imaging circuitry could be substantially superior to the FX1's.
[/quote]
Unfortunately the Z1 is exactly the same ans the FX1. Jody used the camera for the shoot that he did for money in the 25 Frame mode. I went to the seminar, I saw the same footage, it looks just like the FX1. Sorry.
FWIW,
Jan
[quote author=dvxStephen link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=135#142 date=01/25/05 at 08:55:45]Cinematographer Jody Eldred has been quoted in a remarkably glowing rave of Sony's pro HDV unit, the Z1. His praise at a Sundance HDV workshop was reportedly lavish enough to make one wonder if the Z1's imaging circuitry could be substantially superior to the FX1's.
[/quote]
Unfortunately the Z1 is exactly the same ans the FX1. Jody used the camera for the shoot that he did for money in the 25 Frame mode. I went to the seminar, I saw the same footage, it looks just like the FX1. Sorry.
FWIW,
Jan
macgregor
Veteran
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
There is a point that i do not understand.
People here is telling that SD TVs cannot show better images in therms of resolution than what a dvx100 or an XL2 can deliver.
But then, why do the $50.000 cameras show better images? Is it only a problem of lenses? Why does a digital betacam look better on my standard tv if already a "cheap" camera as a dvx100 is delivering all the definition that my tv can hold?
Can anyone explain me this?
There is a point that i do not understand.
People here is telling that SD TVs cannot show better images in therms of resolution than what a dvx100 or an XL2 can deliver.
But then, why do the $50.000 cameras show better images? Is it only a problem of lenses? Why does a digital betacam look better on my standard tv if already a "cheap" camera as a dvx100 is delivering all the definition that my tv can hold?
Can anyone explain me this?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
Because resolution is only one small part of the overall picture. Color depth, saturation, latitude, depth of field, noise control, smear... there are many, many things that go into making an overall picture, and resolution is only one of them.
Among the FX1/DVX/XL2 you're talking about similar-caliber lenses, similar-caliber CCD's, similar-caliber color sampling, etc. Everything is about the same between them, give or take. And so the only defining difference is resolution, but when going to DVD you have to give that resolution back, so the net result is: they all look about the same when all is said and done, excepting the differences as noted earlier in the thread.
With an SDX or DigiBeta or something like that, you're gaining a whole host of image quality improvements, far and away more important than just resolution (especially when considering that for raw digital resolution, the DigiBeta is running at the same resolution as the DVX/XL2!) With the big cameras you're getting 2/3" CCD's, with physical pixel sizes that are nearly 4x as large as the 1/3" cameras, so they can really drink in the light and deliver a better low-light response, better latitude, and better signal-to-noise ratio, all which contribute to a better-looking image. Plus you're looking through a $10,000 or $20,000 lens, vs. the maybe $800 lens on a 1/3" camera. Plus you're recording to a 10-bit recording format (vs. 8 for DV or HDV), with 4:2:2 color sampling for twice as much color information as either HDV or DV, plus you're using advanced 14-bit DSP's... there are many, many reasons why the big cameras look so good, and overall resolution is not even really a factor since they're all about the same maximum theoretical resolution.
Because resolution is only one small part of the overall picture. Color depth, saturation, latitude, depth of field, noise control, smear... there are many, many things that go into making an overall picture, and resolution is only one of them.
Among the FX1/DVX/XL2 you're talking about similar-caliber lenses, similar-caliber CCD's, similar-caliber color sampling, etc. Everything is about the same between them, give or take. And so the only defining difference is resolution, but when going to DVD you have to give that resolution back, so the net result is: they all look about the same when all is said and done, excepting the differences as noted earlier in the thread.
With an SDX or DigiBeta or something like that, you're gaining a whole host of image quality improvements, far and away more important than just resolution (especially when considering that for raw digital resolution, the DigiBeta is running at the same resolution as the DVX/XL2!) With the big cameras you're getting 2/3" CCD's, with physical pixel sizes that are nearly 4x as large as the 1/3" cameras, so they can really drink in the light and deliver a better low-light response, better latitude, and better signal-to-noise ratio, all which contribute to a better-looking image. Plus you're looking through a $10,000 or $20,000 lens, vs. the maybe $800 lens on a 1/3" camera. Plus you're recording to a 10-bit recording format (vs. 8 for DV or HDV), with 4:2:2 color sampling for twice as much color information as either HDV or DV, plus you're using advanced 14-bit DSP's... there are many, many reasons why the big cameras look so good, and overall resolution is not even really a factor since they're all about the same maximum theoretical resolution.
macgregor
Veteran
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
Yes, i am sure that a big good camera has better noise ratio, and it can get better colors.
However, imagine this situation:
Shooting in day light where there is enought light so you do not have to push gain.
Using an XL2 with a reasonable good manual lense.
We remove the color, so we are in black and white.
Would we see the same image in both cameras?
How much does a bigger CCD affect this issues, when there is no lack of light?
Yes, i am sure that a big good camera has better noise ratio, and it can get better colors.
However, imagine this situation:
Shooting in day light where there is enought light so you do not have to push gain.
Using an XL2 with a reasonable good manual lense.
We remove the color, so we are in black and white.
Would we see the same image in both cameras?
How much does a bigger CCD affect this issues, when there is no lack of light?
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
re: the larger CCD's and light sensitivity ...
I'm curious as to why my PROHD camera that I use at work(Ikegami camcorder - ike front end with the panny deck inside) requires more light than say a JVC DV 500 that I use when shooting SD stuff ? We also have a DVX100 (not A) and a PD150. These also need less light than my PROHD Ike. When shooting Pro50 we take out our studio Ike's and config them with a Pro50 back (or sometime even a BetaSP back) -- these Ike's also 2/3" chips require more light as well.
Any ideas as to why ? I'm needing to opening my iris by nearly a stop to achieve the same exposure.
I'm thinking that the 2/3" CCD's in the Ike are using smaller pixels (to achieve the HD resolution) and sacrificing sensitivity -- kinda like how the FX1's sensitivity isn't that great due to the smaller pixels -- as mentioned in Barry and Jared's great review ... but I'm just guessing.
Thanks !
re: the larger CCD's and light sensitivity ...
I'm curious as to why my PROHD camera that I use at work(Ikegami camcorder - ike front end with the panny deck inside) requires more light than say a JVC DV 500 that I use when shooting SD stuff ? We also have a DVX100 (not A) and a PD150. These also need less light than my PROHD Ike. When shooting Pro50 we take out our studio Ike's and config them with a Pro50 back (or sometime even a BetaSP back) -- these Ike's also 2/3" chips require more light as well.
Any ideas as to why ? I'm needing to opening my iris by nearly a stop to achieve the same exposure.
I'm thinking that the 2/3" CCD's in the Ike are using smaller pixels (to achieve the HD resolution) and sacrificing sensitivity -- kinda like how the FX1's sensitivity isn't that great due to the smaller pixels -- as mentioned in Barry and Jared's great review ... but I'm just guessing.
Thanks !
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
I know I'm going to get flamed for posting this message, but I stumbled across your comparison of these three cameras and I have to say that the article seems incredibly biased towards the Panasonic DVX cameras. Not surprising considering this is a DVX user site.
There are several issues that were not addressed in the review that probably ought to be if a fair comparison is to be made.
Before I start, I will say that I have used both the DVX100 (but not a DVX100A) and the FX1. I have about the same amount of time on each camera, though perhaps a little more with the FX1. I have not yet used an XL2 so I won't make any comments on it.
This article seems to go out of the way to point out the negative points of the FX1 and XL2 without mentioning the negative points of the DVX100. One example of this is the zoom ring. There wasn't any mention in the article of how poor the DVX100's manual zoom ring is. In my experience, it is completly unusable -- too jumpy, too loose, too sensitive to be at all useful. Everyone else I have talked to that owns or uses one of these cameras has said so. In fact, the article seems to go the other way, suggesting that because of the mechanical linkage that the DVX's zoom is better. In my experience, this is just not true.
Secondly, the issue of output to DVD. There is one HUGE technical limitation on all DV cameras that wasn't even mentioned.
NTSC DV uses 4:1:1 sampling for picture information. In short, this means that pixels are grouped together in a 4x1 array (4 horizontal, 1 vertical) for the purpose of storing color information. In other words, for every four horizontal pixels, only one piece of color information is stored.
MPEG-2 uses 4:2:2 color sampling. HDV uses a very similar 4:2:0. Once again, one piece of color information is stored for four pixels, but they are in a 2x2 array rather than 4x1.
Under many circumstances, both formats work out OK. However, when converting from one format to another, such as creating a DVD from DV video, there is a lot of color information lost. For example, imagine a sample of pixels from DV:
ABCD
EFGH
For these pixels, 8 luminance (brightness) values are stored, and 2 color values I'll call S and T (S for pixels ABCD and T for EFGH). Now, imagine a sample of pixels from MPEG-2 or HDV:
IJKL
MNOP
There are once again 8 luminance values, and 2 color values, but in this example the color values are used for IJMN (hereafter called U) and KLOP (now referred to as V).
I won't get into the advantages or disadvantages of these two formats; that is another discussion altogether. The issue here is that in the conversion from DV to DVD that a lot of color information is going to be lost or distorted. In order to supply color information for IJMN ("U") as required for output to DVD, the conversion step has to take a combination of the color information from the two rows of pixels from DV (average of S and T) since the "U" sample supplies color information for two rows. Now, when you move over to the KLOP pixels, calculating the value for V also requires athe same combination of S & T. So what you end up with is the same color information used for all eight pixels! Compared to the original image being picked up by the CCD, you now only have 1/8 of the color information you started with. This can result in a very substantial softening of color in the final image going to DVD.
HDV's 4:2:0 is very similar to DVD's 4:2:2. The same 2x2 pixel array is used, so converting from HDV to MPEG-2 does not result in a loss of color information.
But that doesn't even take into account that the HDV's resolution is twice as high in each direction as DV. (1440 is double 720, 1080 is more than twice 480). Considering color information for HDV is done in 2x2 blocks, this means you have 720x540 pixels worth of color information. So making the conversion from HDV down to DVD compliant MPEG-2 effectively means that data for more than the final 720x480 pixels is available for the color portion of the image. This means that if you shoot and edit in HDV and as a last step downconvert for DVD, you've got 8 times the color information to work with as you would have if you edit in DV.
If you are shooing PAL DV this doesn't apply. It uses 4:2:0 just as HDV does.
What does this mean in the real world? That HDV footage, when downconverted from DVD, has a very distinct advantage over footage shot on DV. My own experience shows this to be true. Video shot on an FX1 and downconverted on the PC side shows noticably better sharpness and color than anything that has gone through the DV codec.
This doesn't even take into account that if you are dealing with higher resolution video to begin with that you can do things in post that you can't do otherwise. Panning or zooming HDV video in post does not present a problem at all when outputting to SD. Try zooming DV and see just how sharp your picture is. Ugly.
One additional comment. A few technical sites are finding that the HDR-FX1's sharpness seems to be intentionally held back by the default settings of the camera. I am seeing suggestions that for the most accurate representation the sharpness setting should be bumped up to +7. So if your tests were done with the default setting of "0" the camera's sharpness is being dropped intentionally its designers. A more fair comparison would be made if all cameras were changed to the most accurate setting rather than the defaults, so you can see what the cameras are truly capable of.
I will freely admit, that if all you want is a 'film' or 'movie' look the DVX is probably a better choice. But this article seems to overlook a few limitations of the DVX camera and completely ignore some of the advantages or (at least) the FX1.
In my opinion, the FX1 is a decent choice for doing film with its CinemaTone feature, and it becomes an acceptable choice if you are willing to do some processing in post production. (And let's be honest, what filmmaker DOESN'T do some processing in post anyway?)
I know I'm going to get flamed for posting this message, but I stumbled across your comparison of these three cameras and I have to say that the article seems incredibly biased towards the Panasonic DVX cameras. Not surprising considering this is a DVX user site.
There are several issues that were not addressed in the review that probably ought to be if a fair comparison is to be made.
Before I start, I will say that I have used both the DVX100 (but not a DVX100A) and the FX1. I have about the same amount of time on each camera, though perhaps a little more with the FX1. I have not yet used an XL2 so I won't make any comments on it.
This article seems to go out of the way to point out the negative points of the FX1 and XL2 without mentioning the negative points of the DVX100. One example of this is the zoom ring. There wasn't any mention in the article of how poor the DVX100's manual zoom ring is. In my experience, it is completly unusable -- too jumpy, too loose, too sensitive to be at all useful. Everyone else I have talked to that owns or uses one of these cameras has said so. In fact, the article seems to go the other way, suggesting that because of the mechanical linkage that the DVX's zoom is better. In my experience, this is just not true.
Secondly, the issue of output to DVD. There is one HUGE technical limitation on all DV cameras that wasn't even mentioned.
NTSC DV uses 4:1:1 sampling for picture information. In short, this means that pixels are grouped together in a 4x1 array (4 horizontal, 1 vertical) for the purpose of storing color information. In other words, for every four horizontal pixels, only one piece of color information is stored.
MPEG-2 uses 4:2:2 color sampling. HDV uses a very similar 4:2:0. Once again, one piece of color information is stored for four pixels, but they are in a 2x2 array rather than 4x1.
Under many circumstances, both formats work out OK. However, when converting from one format to another, such as creating a DVD from DV video, there is a lot of color information lost. For example, imagine a sample of pixels from DV:
ABCD
EFGH
For these pixels, 8 luminance (brightness) values are stored, and 2 color values I'll call S and T (S for pixels ABCD and T for EFGH). Now, imagine a sample of pixels from MPEG-2 or HDV:
IJKL
MNOP
There are once again 8 luminance values, and 2 color values, but in this example the color values are used for IJMN (hereafter called U) and KLOP (now referred to as V).
I won't get into the advantages or disadvantages of these two formats; that is another discussion altogether. The issue here is that in the conversion from DV to DVD that a lot of color information is going to be lost or distorted. In order to supply color information for IJMN ("U") as required for output to DVD, the conversion step has to take a combination of the color information from the two rows of pixels from DV (average of S and T) since the "U" sample supplies color information for two rows. Now, when you move over to the KLOP pixels, calculating the value for V also requires athe same combination of S & T. So what you end up with is the same color information used for all eight pixels! Compared to the original image being picked up by the CCD, you now only have 1/8 of the color information you started with. This can result in a very substantial softening of color in the final image going to DVD.
HDV's 4:2:0 is very similar to DVD's 4:2:2. The same 2x2 pixel array is used, so converting from HDV to MPEG-2 does not result in a loss of color information.
But that doesn't even take into account that the HDV's resolution is twice as high in each direction as DV. (1440 is double 720, 1080 is more than twice 480). Considering color information for HDV is done in 2x2 blocks, this means you have 720x540 pixels worth of color information. So making the conversion from HDV down to DVD compliant MPEG-2 effectively means that data for more than the final 720x480 pixels is available for the color portion of the image. This means that if you shoot and edit in HDV and as a last step downconvert for DVD, you've got 8 times the color information to work with as you would have if you edit in DV.
If you are shooing PAL DV this doesn't apply. It uses 4:2:0 just as HDV does.
What does this mean in the real world? That HDV footage, when downconverted from DVD, has a very distinct advantage over footage shot on DV. My own experience shows this to be true. Video shot on an FX1 and downconverted on the PC side shows noticably better sharpness and color than anything that has gone through the DV codec.
This doesn't even take into account that if you are dealing with higher resolution video to begin with that you can do things in post that you can't do otherwise. Panning or zooming HDV video in post does not present a problem at all when outputting to SD. Try zooming DV and see just how sharp your picture is. Ugly.
One additional comment. A few technical sites are finding that the HDR-FX1's sharpness seems to be intentionally held back by the default settings of the camera. I am seeing suggestions that for the most accurate representation the sharpness setting should be bumped up to +7. So if your tests were done with the default setting of "0" the camera's sharpness is being dropped intentionally its designers. A more fair comparison would be made if all cameras were changed to the most accurate setting rather than the defaults, so you can see what the cameras are truly capable of.
I will freely admit, that if all you want is a 'film' or 'movie' look the DVX is probably a better choice. But this article seems to overlook a few limitations of the DVX camera and completely ignore some of the advantages or (at least) the FX1.
In my opinion, the FX1 is a decent choice for doing film with its CinemaTone feature, and it becomes an acceptable choice if you are willing to do some processing in post production. (And let's be honest, what filmmaker DOESN'T do some processing in post anyway?)
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
itdetech, what you suggest me ? FX1 or DVX?
I'm new in to this world of movies, planning to start career by end of this year..with a small DVD movie and next year I would like to enter movies... what you suggest for me?
Thanks in advance.
itdetech, what you suggest me ? FX1 or DVX?
I'm new in to this world of movies, planning to start career by end of this year..with a small DVD movie and next year I would like to enter movies... what you suggest for me?
Thanks in advance.
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
[quote author=msuren link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=150#151 date=02/07/05 at 12:23:29]itdetech, what you suggest me ? FX1 or DVX?[/quote]
For amateur filmmaking, where you want the look and feel of film, and you do not need to worry about transferring to 35mm film, go with the DVX100A. This is still the right choice for most aspiring filmmakers.
If you want to end up with a film transfer and have the budget for post production software effects, the FX1 may be a worthy choice.
[quote author=msuren link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=150#151 date=02/07/05 at 12:23:29]itdetech, what you suggest me ? FX1 or DVX?[/quote]
For amateur filmmaking, where you want the look and feel of film, and you do not need to worry about transferring to 35mm film, go with the DVX100A. This is still the right choice for most aspiring filmmakers.
If you want to end up with a film transfer and have the budget for post production software effects, the FX1 may be a worthy choice.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
[quote author=ltdedtech link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=150#150 date=02/07/05 at 11:56:40]There wasn't any mention in the article of how poor the DVX100's manual zoom ring is. In my experience, it is completly unusable -- too jumpy, too loose, too sensitive to be at all useful.[/quote]
But you said it yourself -- you haven't used a DVX100A. The zoom ring on the 100 is indeed way too loose -- I have an original 100 and I agree. But they really fixed it on the 100A, it's smooth as glass. It's every bit as nice as the FX1's, except that it's actually linked to the lens rather than just being a servo switch. No bias, just reporting what's what.
Like we tried to point out in the article, we're not interested in arguing numbers, because that can go on all day long. We just wanted to see what the actual results were. And the actual results were, once on DVD, all the images looked basically comparable, as far as sharpness and detail, although the XL2 displayed more sensitivity and latitude than the FX1, and the DVX displayed more latitude and sensitivity than the XL2. The FX1/XL2 looked a little sharper in 16x9 mode, the DVX/XL2 offered 24p, etc etc. But there was absolutely no "night and day" superiority of the FX1 footage on DVD -- it looked about as good as a regular 3-CCD camera, but with less latitude and sensitivity.
It seems to me that there's no way any one tester is ever going to satisfy everyone's standards of "bias"... I've been reamed repeatedly across the net for daring to suggest the results of this test. And I don't give a hoot about bias, I was just reporting what I saw, and made the pictures available so everyone could come to their own conclusions. People have even accused me of "bogus" test results. I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm saying that collectively, I've heard it so many times...
It gets old.
So, I'd like to put together a test that does what you say: show "what the cameras are truly capable of". The definitive test. In order to do that, I think we'd need three testers: an acknowledged XL2 aficionado, an acknowledged FX1/Z1 expert, and I'll go ahead and take on the DVX. Or we could do it just FX1/DVX, that's probably the test more people are interested in anyway. The operators would be free to set up the cameras however we want, regardless of how the other operators set up their cameras. We shoot the exact same scene, simultaneously, side-by-side, so we can do exact lighting matching, exact frame extraction, etc. And we split-screen the final version on DVD, because DVD *is* the distribution medium available to us. And there's no point in comparing them as HD cameras, because obviously the FX1 would win that, and if someone really wants an HD camera, they shouldn't be comparing these three anyway.
So, we make the DVD. Then we show the results in a "blind" test to maybe 10 people, not telling them which camera is which, and get their response of which is "best".
If the FX1 beats the DVX on a DVD test, I'll fork over $500 cash to the winning camera operator right there on the spot.
Of course, I'd only want to do this once, if I lose I don't want to continually be forking out $500! But if we can get an acknowledged expert on the FX1/Z1 to do this, then perhaps that would put an end to the claims of bias, and we'd be able to settle the question definitively, once and for all (wishful thinking, I know!)
[quote author=ltdedtech link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=150#150 date=02/07/05 at 11:56:40]There wasn't any mention in the article of how poor the DVX100's manual zoom ring is. In my experience, it is completly unusable -- too jumpy, too loose, too sensitive to be at all useful.[/quote]
But you said it yourself -- you haven't used a DVX100A. The zoom ring on the 100 is indeed way too loose -- I have an original 100 and I agree. But they really fixed it on the 100A, it's smooth as glass. It's every bit as nice as the FX1's, except that it's actually linked to the lens rather than just being a servo switch. No bias, just reporting what's what.
In theory, yes. In reality, in practice, actually viewing the footage, no. I mean, you are putting it out to DVD, right? If just viewing it on the computer screen, yes I agree it'll look much better, but when put through the whole DVD process, they end up at the very best being equal in sharpness.
Like we tried to point out in the article, we're not interested in arguing numbers, because that can go on all day long. We just wanted to see what the actual results were. And the actual results were, once on DVD, all the images looked basically comparable, as far as sharpness and detail, although the XL2 displayed more sensitivity and latitude than the FX1, and the DVX displayed more latitude and sensitivity than the XL2. The FX1/XL2 looked a little sharper in 16x9 mode, the DVX/XL2 offered 24p, etc etc. But there was absolutely no "night and day" superiority of the FX1 footage on DVD -- it looked about as good as a regular 3-CCD camera, but with less latitude and sensitivity.
That is a good point, and that wasn't taken into account. You are correct to point that out.
The FX1 actually doesn't have a -7 to +7 scale, it's 0 to 15. We had it set on the middle setting, 8.
We set out to do our very best to conduct the absolute most "fair" test we could imagine. Accusations of it not being fair are really starting to get under my skin -- I shouldn't let them, but... they do.
It seems to me that there's no way any one tester is ever going to satisfy everyone's standards of "bias"... I've been reamed repeatedly across the net for daring to suggest the results of this test. And I don't give a hoot about bias, I was just reporting what I saw, and made the pictures available so everyone could come to their own conclusions. People have even accused me of "bogus" test results. I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm saying that collectively, I've heard it so many times...
It gets old.
So, I'd like to put together a test that does what you say: show "what the cameras are truly capable of". The definitive test. In order to do that, I think we'd need three testers: an acknowledged XL2 aficionado, an acknowledged FX1/Z1 expert, and I'll go ahead and take on the DVX. Or we could do it just FX1/DVX, that's probably the test more people are interested in anyway. The operators would be free to set up the cameras however we want, regardless of how the other operators set up their cameras. We shoot the exact same scene, simultaneously, side-by-side, so we can do exact lighting matching, exact frame extraction, etc. And we split-screen the final version on DVD, because DVD *is* the distribution medium available to us. And there's no point in comparing them as HD cameras, because obviously the FX1 would win that, and if someone really wants an HD camera, they shouldn't be comparing these three anyway.
So, we make the DVD. Then we show the results in a "blind" test to maybe 10 people, not telling them which camera is which, and get their response of which is "best".
If the FX1 beats the DVX on a DVD test, I'll fork over $500 cash to the winning camera operator right there on the spot.
Of course, I'd only want to do this once, if I lose I don't want to continually be forking out $500! But if we can get an acknowledged expert on the FX1/Z1 to do this, then perhaps that would put an end to the claims of bias, and we'd be able to settle the question definitively, once and for all (wishful thinking, I know!)
navitas
Well-known member
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
I agree with Barry...
One think about resolution...
The FX1 has indeed bigger resolution but a very "jumpy" and not nice "24p look alike mode". So to make a fine movie i will have to:
1) record footage in HDV
2) make something with interlaced video (loosing resolution)
3) do post (color, effects etc) (loosing resolution)
4) Convert to "look alike 24p" with some magicbullet program or other. (loosing resolution)
5) convert resolution to fit dvd (loosing resolution)
So by owning a true 24p camera i can cross out points 2,3,5. and stay with the same picture quality as fx1. The question is: do I really want to go throught this proccess just to end up with almost the same class of footage
When Z1u came out i was really excited about it but when i saw the 24p "abilities" of this camcorder, as a big fan of xl2, I have to say: No no no...
Maybe in 2 years, or maybe when dvx200 or xl3 will be released (hdv/dv camera with 24p) i will buy a HDTV and record the footage that way.
So to sum up: i would cross out fx1 and choose between dvx100a and xl2 and as someone said here it's like choosing a girl. You get the same body/face features and you have to choose your character...
I choosed xl2 because of 16/9 and much more "green" colors (dvx has to warm colors for me)
I agree with Barry...
One think about resolution...
The FX1 has indeed bigger resolution but a very "jumpy" and not nice "24p look alike mode". So to make a fine movie i will have to:
1) record footage in HDV
2) make something with interlaced video (loosing resolution)
3) do post (color, effects etc) (loosing resolution)
4) Convert to "look alike 24p" with some magicbullet program or other. (loosing resolution)
5) convert resolution to fit dvd (loosing resolution)
So by owning a true 24p camera i can cross out points 2,3,5. and stay with the same picture quality as fx1. The question is: do I really want to go throught this proccess just to end up with almost the same class of footage
When Z1u came out i was really excited about it but when i saw the 24p "abilities" of this camcorder, as a big fan of xl2, I have to say: No no no...
Maybe in 2 years, or maybe when dvx200 or xl3 will be released (hdv/dv camera with 24p) i will buy a HDTV and record the footage that way.
So to sum up: i would cross out fx1 and choose between dvx100a and xl2 and as someone said here it's like choosing a girl. You get the same body/face features and you have to choose your character...
I choosed xl2 because of 16/9 and much more "green" colors (dvx has to warm colors for me)dvxStephen
Active member
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
Barry, you wrote,
"..show "what the cameras are truly capable of". The definitive test."
I think this would be fantastic, and would love to see it. It would also be useful in terms of just knowing what settings each tester found optimal with the two cameras.
"It seems to me that there's no way any one tester is ever going to satisfy everyone's standards of "bias"... I've been reamed repeatedly across the net for daring to suggest the results of this test... ...I've heard it so many times...
We're all busy, and unfortunately people do tend to not bother to write when they are helped, but rather when they need help, or have a beef. I'm sure that's not news to anyone, but this is a good time to mention that I believe your tests have saved me a fair piece of change, as I was ready to invest in 2 XL2s until your report clarified something that had escaped me -- identifying the primary distribution platform is key to making the right choice.
If I wanted native 16:9, I'd go with the XL2. But my PRIMARY market is 4:3, and my secondary one is 16:9. So I'm better off with the best 4:3 camera (I agree that the DVX has a slight lead, especially for close/wide work) and then creating 16:9 in post.
I also realized (and I think this too was partly due to the clarity of your report) that a fair bit of the 16:9 crop "loss" I'd get in post for that format was already accounted for by shooting with the 4:3 action safe area in mind, compositionally speaking.
Whereas going in the other direction (shooting 16:9 native and then doing a pan and scan to get full res. 4:3), compositionally speaking, is the opposite: the 16:9 frame needs to be compromised to "reserve" an action safe 4:3 pan and scan option in post.
Of course that ain't true if one had HD resolution to work with, but I think you've done an excellent job of clarifying why the current crop of HDV cameras might not be worth the hassles in post, lower sensitivity, etc., for many people unless the primary target platform was HD or maybe 35.
So, bottom line, THANKS!
Barry, you wrote,
"..show "what the cameras are truly capable of". The definitive test."
I think this would be fantastic, and would love to see it. It would also be useful in terms of just knowing what settings each tester found optimal with the two cameras.
"It seems to me that there's no way any one tester is ever going to satisfy everyone's standards of "bias"... I've been reamed repeatedly across the net for daring to suggest the results of this test... ...I've heard it so many times...
We're all busy, and unfortunately people do tend to not bother to write when they are helped, but rather when they need help, or have a beef. I'm sure that's not news to anyone, but this is a good time to mention that I believe your tests have saved me a fair piece of change, as I was ready to invest in 2 XL2s until your report clarified something that had escaped me -- identifying the primary distribution platform is key to making the right choice.
If I wanted native 16:9, I'd go with the XL2. But my PRIMARY market is 4:3, and my secondary one is 16:9. So I'm better off with the best 4:3 camera (I agree that the DVX has a slight lead, especially for close/wide work) and then creating 16:9 in post.
I also realized (and I think this too was partly due to the clarity of your report) that a fair bit of the 16:9 crop "loss" I'd get in post for that format was already accounted for by shooting with the 4:3 action safe area in mind, compositionally speaking.
Whereas going in the other direction (shooting 16:9 native and then doing a pan and scan to get full res. 4:3), compositionally speaking, is the opposite: the 16:9 frame needs to be compromised to "reserve" an action safe 4:3 pan and scan option in post.
Of course that ain't true if one had HD resolution to work with, but I think you've done an excellent job of clarifying why the current crop of HDV cameras might not be worth the hassles in post, lower sensitivity, etc., for many people unless the primary target platform was HD or maybe 35.
So, bottom line, THANKS!
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
Why do people always ASSUME they’re “going to get flamed” when they post something that they think people on the board are going to disagree with?
Really, I don’t get that. This is the most flame-free message board I’ve ever seen.
Why do people always ASSUME they’re “going to get flamed” when they post something that they think people on the board are going to disagree with?
Really, I don’t get that. This is the most flame-free message board I’ve ever seen.
Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
a true showcase showdown heh heh heh... I can see it now.
a true showcase showdown heh heh heh... I can see it now.
MrBeaker
Active member
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
others are talking about your review!
http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003265
others are talking about your review!
http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003265
Newbie4sure
Member
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred
Hey i have a few questions in reguards to the article:
--------(XL2) this lens comes with the worst manual control options – the servo zoom and the servo focus system offer no feedback whatsoever about lens position, -------------
Q: what is feedback?
-------and this lens is the most difficult to repeat zoom or focus moves ------
Q: What is repeat zoom or focus moves?
Thanks Heaps.
Hey i have a few questions in reguards to the article:
--------(XL2) this lens comes with the worst manual control options – the servo zoom and the servo focus system offer no feedback whatsoever about lens position, -------------
Q: what is feedback?
-------and this lens is the most difficult to repeat zoom or focus moves ------
Q: What is repeat zoom or focus moves?
Thanks Heaps.