Sony HDR-FX1 or Panasonic DVX100 ?

I've just shot 3 shorts, 2 on the FX1 and then one on the DVX100. I initially didn't like the FX1 because it was too crisp, bad audio controls and we needed greenscreen work(which it is supposed to handle poorly). After 3 weeks with it , I loved it. It handled low light like a champ. You just have to realize it's too good to look like Film, just embrace it and move on. We captured all audio to an external recorder because of the n00b audio controls and the greenscreen stuff we shot edited with no problem.
When I finally got to shoot the DVX, I thought I was working with the Tyco ToyCam. It needs more light for sure, so lighting setups took a little longer. The focus would go in and out, unexplainably. We had some problems capturing sound, but I believe it was that specific camera we had rented. I have no other real problems with the DVX, except that after shooting the Sony it seemed like a toy.
I'm looking into buying a camera in the Sub $5000 range myself and I also can't decide which one to get. If I had more time with these cams to really learn them would have been great so I could really make a definate decision. But as of now, I'd go with the Sony, the camera I wanted to hate after reading the Forums here. The truth lies in your experience level and knowledge of the camera itself.
 
i love the camera... i love both the camera's. but, if you hadn't noticed, this is "dvxuser." John hudson continues to say, "give me 24p or give me death." people here are a little biased yo, but if you search through it, you'll find that the more credible opinions will tell you that both cameras have different strengths, and it all depends on what you're trying to do. I own both the dvx and the hvrz1u and you can't really compare the two.

i can tell you this. if you know the fx1, but want better sound control, and the option to shoot in pal for fudged but acceptable 24p, the hvrz1u is the way to go. you already know the camera, so what you produce is going to reflect your experience with it. to quote my southern brother in law, if it aint broke, don't fix it.

honestly though, wny are you choosing between an sd and an hdv camera? choose. then complain about how the pd 150 feels like a toy compared to the dvx.

welcome to the forum, by the way.
 
<I initially didn't like the FX1 because it was too crisp, bad audio controls and we needed greenscreen work(which it is supposed to handle poorly). After 3 weeks with it , I loved it. It handled low light like a champ. You just have to realize it's too good to look like Film, just embrace it and move on.>

Man, are you mad? There isn't a camera on the market that is "too good to look like film." 35mm film has an approximate resolution of 5000 lines before it loses serious quality. Show me which camera you have that does that? Chances are, a well shot Super 8 has better res than your FX1. Not trying to bash anyone, as I have a lower res XL2, but let's get real here.
 
where in pittsburgh are you from amish jim? are you associated with the new carnegie technology center or pittsburgh filmmakers?
 
"...You just have to realize it's too good to look like Film, just embrace it and move on..." That was a bad paraphrase on my part by Robert Rodriguez, my intent was mor e along the lines of, let's push video to it's boundaries instead of trying to make it something it's not.

"where in pittsburgh are you from amish jim? are you associated with the new carnegie technology center or pittsburgh filmmakers?"
Robinson area and negative on both of those organizations. I'm not a fan of Filmmakers, but it's mostly stupid political stuff like; if you are signed up as digital moviemaker you cant sign out a dolly, thats only for real film movies. or my favorite: you cant have a tripod with a bubble level unless it's for film, haha. In Pittsburgh, Video shoots Dutch, lol. The only organization I belong to is IBEW Local 385 Television Production, I've shoot Live sporting events for the last 7 years, MLB, NHL, blah blah.. So I'm kind of new to this lower end stuff, so bare with me as I learn too :D
anyways have fun..
 
Pittsburgh...

Pittsburgh...

hey jim --

i'm in pittsburgh too...i like in the city, though -- friendship. how did you get the gig shooting sporting stuff, etc?

pittsburgh's not fantastic in terms of film jobs, but i've been surprisingly lucky in finding paying jobs, and the scenery is like nowhere else!
-matt
 
Hey Matt,
My first job doing Live Sports was The Atlanta Olympic Games, I did audio for Pro Beach Volleyball :D hehe. A friend got me on the show and I've been doing it ever since, it took awhile to get to CamerOp but it was worth the wait. Yea, Pittsburgh is slow Movie wise, between the Unions and the Film office pushing the money away. My next show is a Super16 shoot in LA in January, but I'm only BestBoy Grip on that one. eh fun times anyway..
 
OK, earlier macgregor pointed out there is a color diffrence between the fx1/z1 and the dvx... how much of a color diffrence is there. Is it barely noticeable to the untrained eye, or "I can live with this/ it can be fix it in post," or is it "OH MY GOD! go grab my dvx NOW!"?

Also, I often am told tha HDV can't handle green screen work, but have seen some pretty stink'n clean music videos that were green screen intensive. What gives?
 
I think the difference in color and contrast between the SOny FX/Z1 and the Pana DVX100 is more or less the same that exist between the big HD cameras: the Sony F750/900 and the Varicam. Colors from Panasonic seem more realistic, not so saturated, and with a bit more latitude.
This is good for some things, and bad for others. ;D

I dont think this is a disadvantage, but just a different image.
In the same way the big HD cameras work, we get much more resolution with Sony, and better skin tones and colors with the Panasonic. What do you prefer?

I was watching today a comparison between the Canon EOS 5D (which i have) and the Nikon 200. The Canon is so much better in definition and DOF, but still the nikon delivers better colors, less contrasted faces and better latitud (about 1 stop), so it leaves me thinking what is better, because i dont care about having 13Mp or just 10Mp.


So, coming back to the subjet. You can get much better images working with the Sony HDV and downconverting to SD, whatever the colors, the fields, the cineframe, and the noise are set, compared from the dvx100.
 
Thanks mac, appreaciate the answer. One more question, (although now that the HVX is out, it may be a moot point).....

Anyone know how many stops you can get out of a Z1?
 
INDIE_CODE said:
Yep I'd go for the DVX. I have a friend that tells me that the FX1 drops frames like crazy.
Click to expand...

Your friend is incorrect/playing with you. I have never had a drop-out problem w/ SD or HDV... ever.
 
INDIE_CODE said:
Yep I'd go for the DVX. I have a friend that tells me that the FX1 drops frames like crazy.
Click to expand...

I'm obliged to disagree. I havn't experianced ANY frame drops whatsoever. Your friend must be having some technical difficulties.

Jesse :thumbsup:
 
hour 10 of shooting and not a single dropframe on the hvr-z1u. i think your friend is using dv tapes from best buy.
 
One thing I'd like to comment on is "web delivery" and progressive scan. And my comment here is equally interesting when applied to HD-to-SD downconversion.

Let me start by saying I'm a total amateur who is currently shooting on a GS400 (but soon will be upgrading to a DVX100a/b). BUT, amateurnish aside, I do know a thing or two about post and compressing for web distribution, and I am constantly AMAZED by the number of smart, pro people that don't use this trick for web delivery. So, here goes...

I shoot in 60i DV (720x480 with 1.21 PAR) like normal. I edit everything in a 60i timeline and render out to a 60i DV-AVI file like normal (still 720x480). Then, and here's the important part, I use Sorenson Squeeze to encode to WMV or MOV or whatever using a DROP-FIELD deinterlace. Now, before everyone jumps on me for the lost resolution, let me say this... Most video is published to the web at a smaller resolution, typically half-res for a nice and clean evenly-divisible down-res from 720x480 to 360x240. So, if (and this is a BIG if) you are going to publish to the web at half res ANYWAY, then using a drop-field deinterlace causes NO vertical resolution loss whatsoever. So, you start with 720x480 60i, you then delete every other interlaced field, which essentially leaves you with 720x240 30p, then you rescale your horizontal resolution back to 320x240 at PAR=1 and 30p. You end up with perfectly deinterlaced 30p at half-res with no interlaced artifacts whatsoever -- it's like you shot 320x240 30p. Now, the problem is most NLEs can't do a deinterlace like this, so you most often have to do the delace and resize outside of your NLE (I render out of Vegas, then delace/resize/encode using Sorenson). Works like a charm, and I'm so surprised why more people don't use this workflow for web distribution.

Anyway, and now I'm getting out of my own comfort zone, but I'll go for it anyway, this same workflow seems to me creates interesting workflow opportunities for downrezing HD to SD or taking HD to the web (at smaller, more bandwidth-friendly sizes). You can use the same technique to take 1080i widescreen down to a perfect progressive scan SD image couldn't you? I mean doesn't 1080i have 540 lines of vertical resolution per interlaced frame? That's more than the 480 of SD, so it seems possible to take 1080i HD down to a truely progressive 480p with a cam that doesn't actually have progressive chips. Now, I'm guessing that this is how the camera's actually do there down-rezing. So, that was a long-winded way of saying that it seems that a 1080i cam like the Sonys should be able to produce a truely progressive SD image?

Anyway, just rambling a little, don't mind me, I'm somewhat of a newb... :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top