Right now I'm debating between the DVX100a and the FX-1. For the past 5 years (I'm 18 right now) I have been using a Sony TRV530, a digital 8 cam, and now I want to do some more serious aspects of film. The main purpose for the camera will be to shoot small films, and film wedding videos. Now I know the DVX100a has the 24p and the FX-1 doesn't. However I would have no problem going into post and trying to get a similar effect. One of my favorite types of films to shoot is Star Wars fan films,lol, sorry but I'm a Star Wars nut, fan films are a hobby of mine. Having a camera that can allow me to easily green screen in After Effects is a must....not to mention the capability to easily see all those sticks that will be turned into lightsaber blades. What cam would you choose? Thanks for all the advice.
I'm so confused, FX-1?
- Thread starter jared05
- Start date
Rosestar
Well-known member
I would suggest that you get the DVX. I think that you will be pleased with it. The FX-1 does not have 24P. Based on your post, going from Digital 8 to HDV would not be necessary, considering the projects you say that you do. Remember, going with HDV will mean extra expense for monitors and computer power. The DVX kicks butt!!!
Steve Shovlar
DVXuser Sponsor
No I would go with the FX1 any day.
The DVX is a good camera but the FX1 is a whole new ball game and the quality of the image is better. You can do 24P in post no problem with Nattress or DVFilm Maker.
Plus of course you can shoot in HDV, which kicks DV into touch any day of the week.
It's a no brainer. Get the FX1.
The DVX is a good camera but the FX1 is a whole new ball game and the quality of the image is better. You can do 24P in post no problem with Nattress or DVFilm Maker.
Plus of course you can shoot in HDV, which kicks DV into touch any day of the week.
It's a no brainer. Get the FX1.
Thanks for the tips. I'll have to do a little bit more research and in July I'll order one of the cams. If I do go with HDV I'm pretty sure my comp can handle it, at least I hope so, AMD 3200+ 64, 1GB Corsair XMS, X800pro, etc. Hey Rosestar when you mentioned the possible need for extra monitors would that be due because editing an HD image is so large? Right now I have a 17" CRT, I guess I could always hook up another through the DVI output with an adaptor.
From what I've heard it's a beatch to greenscreen with the FX1. I've seen some pretty poor greenscreen results with it. It sounds like it's pretty doubtful that you'll need HDV. Until you have a delivery format to take advantage of the resolution you are stuck downrezzing to SD DVD. Why not try and pick up a used dvx100. A progressive picture is much easier to key and 24P will get you much closer to a fan film that looks like film versus a consumerish video looking one.
Caveat:
Before listening to our advice and being swayed one way or another you should try and find every camera you're interested in, and do some test shooting. It would be worth renting both an FX1 and DVX, shooting some green screen, shooting in different environments and then playing with the footage in your computer. The decision is yours, and it isn't a no brainer.
Caveat:
Before listening to our advice and being swayed one way or another you should try and find every camera you're interested in, and do some test shooting. It would be worth renting both an FX1 and DVX, shooting some green screen, shooting in different environments and then playing with the footage in your computer. The decision is yours, and it isn't a no brainer.
Yea your probably right Issac. Even once HD cams with 24p come out for prosumers there still be priced much higher then the DVX100a and the FX-1, and I'm sure HD-DVD and Blue-Ray DVD recorders will be pretty pricy once they come out, not to mention the media. I have one last question that could help me decide.
1. What cam can give me the look that the orginal Star Wars had and or close to the prequels?
Thanks for the tips again
1. What cam can give me the look that the orginal Star Wars had and or close to the prequels?
Thanks for the tips again
film
..IMHO if you think you need HD you should go with the new JVC camera it does 24p HDV. despite what anyone says.. you cannot "do 24p" in post. you can somewhat simulate the motion redition .. but its like a lamborghini kit on a fiero. your only getting somthing a little ways over 1/2 res AT BEST if theres motion,(and 24p only makes a difference when there IS motion) and youll still have a different motion that wont give you the same characteristics of actually shooting 24p. however 24p isnt all there is to a camera by any means. ..i personally wouldnt place alot of faith on compositing with HDV material, but it partially depends on whether or not your gong to some intermediate codec which will hold up better or not. at any rate i think that the new JVC when it comes out would suit you the best IF you need HD .. despite having HDV its a better format than the FX1. the DVX would work fine now as would the XL2 in the progressive modes..30p or 24p - i have to question if you really need or would make use of HD. .. do you have an HD set? are you thinking youll actually go to film out? or get into festivals for large format display? ..anything that demands HD? .. the DVX or xl2 would hold up fine anyway.. ive seen PLENTY of SD lightsaber films that hold up fine.. youve seen star wars on DVD right.. well , thats SD. if your doing weddings the XL2 for its long lense and ability to get some shots your dvx would be a little wide on in a bigger chapel or area might be a good choice. if you can get in a little closer the DVX would be great as well.
Well, first: I'm a proud and happy Z1 owner. BUT! Keying and rendering in HD on a not too fast computer SUCKS! And second: Interlaced Video in combination with fast movements in front of a green screen always gives you some kind of blurry image of the moved object. So I would go for the dvx. It's even on special offers at any place right now. And it's a great camera. HD is nice. But it's only a must when it's a must 
Steve Shovlar
DVXuser Sponsor
Jared you will be buying a camera that is almost obsolete, I know this is a Panasonic site and don't mean to upset folk on here, but the reason the DVX is on offer is because its coming to the end of its run. If you are going to buy, either wait for the DVX200 or go for the FX1/ZU1. You can shoot in DV if that's your thing, and have the future proofing of HDV.
The only thing lacking on the Sony is no 24P, but it can be replicated with Nattress. The fX1 gets undue stick on here because it's a Sony, not a Panasonic, but in reality the camera is a superb bit of kit, giving stunning images on a large High Def Plasma, something the DVX cannot do. Get yourself future proofed. High Def is not that far away. A year to 18 months from now we will be buying BluRay dvd burners for less than a couple of hundred dollars.
The only thing lacking on the Sony is no 24P, but it can be replicated with Nattress. The fX1 gets undue stick on here because it's a Sony, not a Panasonic, but in reality the camera is a superb bit of kit, giving stunning images on a large High Def Plasma, something the DVX cannot do. Get yourself future proofed. High Def is not that far away. A year to 18 months from now we will be buying BluRay dvd burners for less than a couple of hundred dollars.
scharky
Veteran
Get yourself future proofed!:grin:
What good is future proofing if your shooting with a camera that isn't good at what you want it to do.
It's true, go to the sony sight and everyone will tell you to get the sony. Definitly try both cameras before you buy. I have shot with the XL1, the XL2, the Z1, and I still prefere the DVX, not only for how it looks on the small screen, but it blows also blows up quite well. I personally prefere the look of uprezzed DVX or XL2 footage over deinterlaced Z1 footage. The resolution once deinterlaced is neglegable so if you are looking for a progressive scan type camera, or a 24p camera, I personally would not get the Z1 or the FX1. It's twice as much hassle and the final product does not look as good. Don't buy into the future proof mumbo jumbo, it sounds like a skin care ad. "FUTURE PROOF YOUR LIFE WITH ZOTZ FACE CREAM."
Again, don't just take our word for it, all of us who have bought the cameras will be biased one way or another, do the tests yourelf, and let the footage do the talking.
What good is future proofing if your shooting with a camera that isn't good at what you want it to do.
It's true, go to the sony sight and everyone will tell you to get the sony. Definitly try both cameras before you buy. I have shot with the XL1, the XL2, the Z1, and I still prefere the DVX, not only for how it looks on the small screen, but it blows also blows up quite well. I personally prefere the look of uprezzed DVX or XL2 footage over deinterlaced Z1 footage. The resolution once deinterlaced is neglegable so if you are looking for a progressive scan type camera, or a 24p camera, I personally would not get the Z1 or the FX1. It's twice as much hassle and the final product does not look as good. Don't buy into the future proof mumbo jumbo, it sounds like a skin care ad. "FUTURE PROOF YOUR LIFE WITH ZOTZ FACE CREAM."
Again, don't just take our word for it, all of us who have bought the cameras will be biased one way or another, do the tests yourelf, and let the footage do the talking.
Steve, how do you propose greenscreening with HDV? Have you done it with any amount of success? Do you really think it makes sense for Jared to get an FX1, greenscreen, and then run his film through Nattress to get fake 24P? Not a very good workflow when you take into account that HDV is a highly compressed format to work with.
There's no guarantee that we'll get blueray burners in eighteen months. We haven't even settled on a dvd format. In the highly unlikely case that blue-ray burners are available in your time frame the media to burn with will cost at least 35 bucks per DVD. And on top of that movie studios will want to handle the piracy issue before blue-ray or whatever other format they choose ever sees the light of day.
It's funny that people call 24P a gimmick when it's not. I can see 24P, I can shoot it and its got the same motion characteristic as film. Future proofing, now there's a gimmick. Buying a camera because you think it will stack up against whatever Sony, Panasonic, or Canon have down the road. Whenever I hear future proof I think about those snake oil handlers in the wild west. Sony's magic future proofing growth elixir.
As for obsolescence, every camera experiences technological obsolescence. That doesn't stop people from using them. People are still using the VX1000. And not everyone can afford to spend 5 grand on a camera that won't fit their needs.
There's no guarantee that we'll get blueray burners in eighteen months. We haven't even settled on a dvd format. In the highly unlikely case that blue-ray burners are available in your time frame the media to burn with will cost at least 35 bucks per DVD. And on top of that movie studios will want to handle the piracy issue before blue-ray or whatever other format they choose ever sees the light of day.
It's funny that people call 24P a gimmick when it's not. I can see 24P, I can shoot it and its got the same motion characteristic as film. Future proofing, now there's a gimmick. Buying a camera because you think it will stack up against whatever Sony, Panasonic, or Canon have down the road. Whenever I hear future proof I think about those snake oil handlers in the wild west. Sony's magic future proofing growth elixir.
As for obsolescence, every camera experiences technological obsolescence. That doesn't stop people from using them. People are still using the VX1000. And not everyone can afford to spend 5 grand on a camera that won't fit their needs.
I see your point Steve but I'm going to have to side with Scharky and Isaac. The DVX100a is still an excellent camera, and I have decided that the FX-1 will not satisfy my needs. I really want to do some quality greenscreen work with the DVX, its horrible doing it with my digital 8 camera,lol. I know there's probably ways to get the "film look" in post but I'm sick of doing that, I've been doing that for a while with my digital 8 camera and the footage still looks nothing like film.
I really like how one can just dial in the settings they want for a look right on the DVX and how I can then import and begin editing right away. Even though the FX-1 is newer that doesn't mean its better. I'm sure for viewing on a high def plasma/lcd display its pretty awesome but I doubt I'll or my family will be getting one till they come down in price a bit more.
Personally I think Blu-Ray and HD-DVD technology will be very expensive onces it comes out, and I can't emagine the cost of the media. I've been wanting to do a professional looking fan film for a while now, one that truly looks like film and I now know the DVX100a will make that possible. When the camera comes I'll be sure to read the DVX Book and watch the DVD for tips to improve the footage.
Another reason while I'm going with the DVX100a is its XLR ports and phantom power feature. As many of you have said before, half of a good film is its audio quality. I would hate to go out and spend another $300 or more on some breakout box for the FX-1.
---
Isaac I know exactly what your saying about the whole technological obsolescence issue. How you said people are still using the Sony VX1000. That camera itself will produce better results then any newer 1CCD digital camcorder not to mention Panasonics 1/6" 3CCD line. Look at the XL1 for another example, tons of people are still using those, and are producing excellent shorts. Thanks for your advice Isaac and everyone else, your opinions have really helped me out in my buying decesion. I can't wait to get a DVX100a now.
I really like how one can just dial in the settings they want for a look right on the DVX and how I can then import and begin editing right away. Even though the FX-1 is newer that doesn't mean its better. I'm sure for viewing on a high def plasma/lcd display its pretty awesome but I doubt I'll or my family will be getting one till they come down in price a bit more.
Personally I think Blu-Ray and HD-DVD technology will be very expensive onces it comes out, and I can't emagine the cost of the media. I've been wanting to do a professional looking fan film for a while now, one that truly looks like film and I now know the DVX100a will make that possible. When the camera comes I'll be sure to read the DVX Book and watch the DVD for tips to improve the footage.
Another reason while I'm going with the DVX100a is its XLR ports and phantom power feature. As many of you have said before, half of a good film is its audio quality. I would hate to go out and spend another $300 or more on some breakout box for the FX-1.
---
Isaac I know exactly what your saying about the whole technological obsolescence issue. How you said people are still using the Sony VX1000. That camera itself will produce better results then any newer 1CCD digital camcorder not to mention Panasonics 1/6" 3CCD line. Look at the XL1 for another example, tons of people are still using those, and are producing excellent shorts. Thanks for your advice Isaac and everyone else, your opinions have really helped me out in my buying decesion. I can't wait to get a DVX100a now.
Make sure you test before buying! And good luck.
I think it's desided. But to put one in about the greenscreen: If you film StarWars () in 24p there will be one picture with one sword in front of the geenscreen. If you film it in 1080/60i you will always have one picture with the sword in one position and (if it moves) as well in another. I don't know if you get me. But the two fields are recorded after each other. DeInterlacing will either merge the two fields which will cause one picture two blurry swords. Or you eliminate one field which gives you less resolution than the o so old DVX.
Jared, I love my 16mm Arri. It's over 12 years old now Forget future proof If you want to film today and still have some money to buy swords
) in 24p there will be one picture with one sword in front of the geenscreen. If you film it in 1080/60i you will always have one picture with the sword in one position and (if it moves) as well in another. I don't know if you get me. But the two fields are recorded after each other. DeInterlacing will either merge the two fields which will cause one picture two blurry swords. Or you eliminate one field which gives you less resolution than the o so old DVX.Jared, I love my 16mm Arri. It's over 12 years old now
Forget future proof If you want to film today and still have some money to buy swords