I'm so confused, FX-1?

I do understand what some of you have said about the green screen issue and HDV. It would be a more difficult task with the ZU1/FX1. Also agree that if you just want 24p, then the Sony is not the way to go, even though you do get excellent results with Nattress. Using a 24P camera takes away the hassle of de-interlacing.

I was not slagging the DVX, it really is an excellent camera, though personally i would not buy one with a new, better camera on the horizon and only a few months away. If you do buy a DVX, get one second hand off Ebay, rather than fork out for a new one, who's price will plummet when the DVX200 arrives and averyone is trying to chop in theirs.

Good luck with the "Star Wars".
 
As I recall I have mentioned this already in another post, but I think it is only fair to mention it again since it is in the same topic/ line of disscussion.

Some good keying has been achieved using Sony's HDV camera and one such examlpe has been posted over at DVinfo.net

I am hesitant to give the direct link in fear of breaking the posting rules however the link is as follows:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=43796&highlight=green+screen

If the link is breaking any posting rules please remove them.

My advice would be to test (green screen/ workflow) both cameras well before any actual production takes place, and do not rely on information just gathered from the internet, although the internet can be a wonderfull source of information it can nver replace hands on assesment.

From my understaning in terms of keying it would appear that down converting from HD to SD and then keying the SD video is much better than standard SD DV, I am not sure of the exact technical reason why, but i remember something along the lines of ending up with much more colour iinformation thus allowing "cleaner" keys.

Anyway in the end you are the Judge, see the cameras for yourself.

Hope this helps.
 
Or you eliminate one field which gives you less resolution than the o so old DVX.
Click to expand...

Since when is 1440x540 less resolution than 720x480? A single field from the FX1 has more resolution than the DVX does. Even if you bastardize the vertical resolution with straight deinterlacing and a Kell factor of 75% and you ignore pixel shift you get 960x405 with native widescreen framing, and enough chroma resolution in the storage format (1440x1080i 4:2:0) to make this image very close to 4:4:4 in SD.

And besides... even CF24 doesn't look so bad when you're doing lightsabers:
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/Eclipse/svjFX1.mov (2 MB)

-Spiff
 
steve,

the DVX100 is NOT being discontinued or becoming obsolete. Jan Crittenden-Livingston who is the product manager for panasonic USA frequents this site and has had her hands full disppelling that exact line of thinking many times before. the special deals on it now are to promote purchasing thourgh panasonic authorized retailers and squish the grey market sales. she has said numerous times it IS NOT being discontinued and will continue to sell at the same price. ..and theres ALWAYS a newer and better camera coming out soon. theres no point in waiting unless you have to.. and it doesnt seem he has to. he does not need HD .. and likely wouldnt even have a way to use it if he had it. on top of that as previously mentioned interlaced HDV is not a primo solution for compositing. and the HVX200 is over 2x the cost of a DVX and when you figure in setting up you system to handle a professional HD format like DVCPRO-HD.. the cost goes up from there. its not a real comparison.. the HVX will come out and sell right alongside the DVX in a different price braket altogether.. just like he could currently by a varicam or a DVX. but they are hardly directly comparable in terms of a purchasing decision.
 
Jamloser is right, the DVX100a is not being discountinued or becoming obsolete. Look at the XL1 and XL1s even on ebay there still selling between $1,800 and $2,200 for the camera alone. Heck even the VX1000, 10 years old?, is still be sold at over a $1,000. The DVX100a will retain a high value for a long time. Personally after reading countless reviews, seeking advice and reading other information on both the DVX100a and the FX-1 I would say that the FX-1 will retain a lower value in the long run, and its demand will continue to decrease, especially among film makers. Sure its newer technology but just look at any 24p DVX100a grabs when compared to FX-1 grabs...the DVX100a spanks it every time. For me the DVX100a is the best choice, better green screeing capability, XLR ports, phantom power, 24p, and an magnessium alloy body (plastic is so cheap).I can't wait any longer for a better camera at the same price as I can bet I'll be waiting for a long long time.
 
Spiff_2 said:
Since when is 1440x540 less resolution than 720x480?
-Spiff
Click to expand...


Sorry, I'm PAL.

Of course the Sony makes a stunning impression. I personally key and compose flames filmed at 1080/50i for a big projection at this moment. And the high resolution gives you lots of options. But I also think that a low budget buyer might probably like to go for the most affortable pro cam. And in my eyes it's the DVX100 or if Sony the Z1. The AG-DVX 100 AE sells at 3.200 Euros at some shops in Germany. I don't see the Z1 drop to that price from the today 5000,- soon.
 
Fair enough: 1440x540 > 720x576.

No one can argue the bang-for-the-buck value of the DVX, but I don't think the Z1 is even meant to be competitive with it - especially in Europe with the irrelevance of 24p formats. 16x9 HDV/DV vs. 4x3 DV. The Z1 ends up being a much more flexible camera. You can argue colour controls and gamma all you want in favour of the DVX though... but colour correction in-camera is pretty negligible in terms of computing cost and complexity compared to the load of 3.75x the resolution.

-Spiff
 
Oh, don't get me wrong. I would never give away my Z1. Buy some warmcards and play around with all those collour correction options and you get sone really nice setups (as long as you have good lights).

Don't be too sure about 1440x540... The chip has 980 per 1080 pixels ;(
And 4:2:0 is a bit dull sometimes. But I am far from calling HDV a poor format. But now we are entering a whole new discussion.
 
Well well well....I can see that some things never change....before I switched my XL1s for a FX1e, I came on this forum a lot... I got my biggest headacke ever. Funny how some people can get so attached to a brand. I think panasonic should have their own forum, I would personally call it www.panasshole.com... just kidding, it's actually a panasonic user that helped me make my decision to go for the FX1... there is only one way to buy the camera that suit your needs. it's to try it. so make a green screen test on both with the hardware you have and see for yourself. stop counting pixels,pause,gamma etc.... When people watch you final product, they don't care about all those details... I've sent a short sequence to a friend director, it was shot on Fx1e with the cineframe25, when I told him that was an fx1 he couldn't believe it. he was actually very impressed with the amount of details in the picture.... I haven't try the green screen yet but I will shortly and I'm sure you can get an impressive result too.... what I'm trying to say is that today, technology is bloody good, whether you use panasonic, canon or sony... but 24p is not synonym of talented... I don't think you will go wrong with any of the camera mentioned, and don't forget that 99.9 % of the people watching your work will be more interested with your talent than the brand of your camera..... I like all the camera but I had to make a choice, and for me the more pixel the more resolution the more flexibily....but that's just me...
 
@Dremmwel: Your exposing your head out of a running trains window. " www.panasshole.com... " will earn you some nice flaming arround here...

Anyway, the discussion about talent and skills is the essence, you're right. But what does it help?
 
Ok hands up, I probably pushed a bit, but I have a reason for it. I guess people on this forum (and others) are supposed be movie lovers... am I right? Now can someone honestly tell me how many exiting movies have been released in the past years, you can count them with your ten fingers. All this money thrown at movies really piss me off. as an example I had more fun watching 405 the movie ( www.405thenmovie.com a brillant short made with virtually no budget) than the latest star wars. Although I recognize Lucas talents, I was unimpressed with the last 3 movies. if you look at the twilight zone there was emotion in those movies, alfred hitchcock was also brilliant. what I'm saying is that replacing ideas with money or hardware is not a good thing. on the same token, wasting time slagging off other cameras is not a good thing as well. So can we spend more time on being creative and less time on being destructive. I did have private conversations with few people on this forum and we all seem to agree on that point....
 
How many times has this conversation repeated itself ‘round these parts . . .

A: I love Cam X!

B: Cam Y is better because . . .

A: But Cam X has . . .

B: Cam X can’t do this, but Cam Y can, and it’s better for independent filmmaking.

A: But Cam X is cooler because . . .

B: Cam Y is cooler because . . .

A: Cam X LOOKS cooler.

B: Cam Y has more professional features.

C: (Interjecting) Canon will blow them both away . . . someday. Probably the next NAB, for half the price, according to reliable sources.

A: Uh, right. Anyway, Cam X saves you money in the long run because . . .

B: Cam Y will make pictures that look SO MUCH better.

A: It’s all about content anyway. Who cares what it was shot on???
 
405 is pretty sweet. If you look at those guys on IMDB they both are big visual fx gurus. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if those guys love the effects work Lucas has done with Episode 3.

Technically there was no budget, but only because those guys know their vfx shite. Maybe we should be arguing over which 3d program is best.
 
Thanks Isaac, you prove my point, they obviously know their stuff, they used sepcial effects, ok maybe not green screen(which was the original debate on this thread), but they used an average camera, and their skills in post and they have a bloody good result.
I guess they spent more time finding tricks to achieve their goals than arguring about what function is missing on their camera.....
 
405 is cool. Top-notch effort, especially integrating the 3DFX.

But it does look like it was shot on a consumer cam.
 
It looks awesome, but it's funny cause I was watching it and I felt like I was watching a commercial. That's a result of the camera, and no fault of the effort they put into it. That could very well have been an ad for an SUV if they wanted it to be and pitched it that way.
 
not sure if it had been mentioned - (skimmed through the posts) - but I was on my way to get an FX1 I got a dvx100ae - and the main reason was for the XLR inputs and they way it felt in my hands (personal choice) - I think it is meant to have slightly more manual control as well (not sure on this).

But to be honest if i could afford the Z1 I probably would have gone that route - because aside from the look (compared to the DVX), it has same/similar ammount of manual controls, the ability to shoot in both NTSC and PAL, DV CAM,DV and HDV, XLR inputs and the native wide screen. Plus I have good experience in post so the film look (although it would never be the same as the DVX) is something I have been able to achieve (to my liking) with a lot of effort. Although the DVX has saved quite some time in this process... The main thing was that it would have meant me spending an extra $3-5KAU. something I could not justify.

in saying that I just did some tests using the 'unofficial' other frame rates (recording a shutter speed of 25/12 and doubling/trippling the clip in post to give 12.5 and so forth frame speeds) and love the effect I got as it is something I have been trying to do for ages (used a sony DSR500 and couldnt find a way to do this)

so ya - hope from the reading - it's a +1 to the DVX :)
 
Me I was planning on getting the DVX but just economics made me go and buy the FX1 which is 1100 euros cheaper then the panasonic if i get it from a decent reseller and not gray import.
So I have an FX1 which I'll have next week sometime since sony here in the netherlands was out of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top