Sony HDV ok

Re: Sony HDV ok

Videoman, the FX1'a vertical smear has been documented by many people.

I talked about downconverting within Vegas as it is known to perform a much better job than the in camera downconvert.

Rendering time IS an issue. You only talked about handling DV res footage. What if your project is entirely HDV? That is serious render time.

Now, let's see how any Algolith CAS comparisons come out.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

I find it hard that the 30p can look filmish and beat the DVX, but I will wait for the test. I have done enought de-interlacaing, Magic Bullet in my days to know the difference in 30p and 24p look.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

It's not really 30p. It's true that 30p is your worst possible option if you want to go to filmout, but I have no idea how Sony's equivalent of 30p would behave. Similarly? Don't know. Barry?
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=SimonMW link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=60#60 date=12/14/04 at 08:57:05]Videoman, the FX1'a vertical smear has been documented by many people.  

I talked about downconverting within Vegas as it is known to perform a much better job than the in camera downconvert.

Rendering time IS an issue.  You only talked about handling DV res footage.  What if your project is entirely HDV?  That is serious render time.

Now, let's see how any Algolith CAS comparisons come out.[/quote]

Well, I have had NO VERTICAL SMEAR at all. (nor dropouts using normal sony tape) Are they using it in DV mode? I do not. What render time are you reffering to? I capture direct into FCP and there is no rendering required, at all. I let the cam downconvert and it looks beautiful. No noise, smooth look, and gobs of detail with perfect colors and tone. I shot a 6 hour project last week, edited it to 90 minutes. Worked in FCP the same as I would with any DV footage, no addtnl rendering required. All shot in HDV.

I just dont see why anyone would want to load it into Vegas and let the software downconvert, becuase straight form the cam in to FCP, then to DVD or tape it looks amazing. When the cam is hooked up to my HD TV its ultra amazing.

Bottom line for me is that its beating my DVX in detail, overall quality, low light and though there is a slight diff in teh look between sonys 30 frame mode and pannys 24p, 99% of people wouldnt even notice. Plus, you can always use software to get to 24p if desired.

I stand by my remarks on the FX1 - Its an outstanding machine, if used correctly.

Im looking at some footage I shot last night, hooked up to my regular TV and its the best Ive ever seen, and Ive been shooting for years, since the beginning of the 8mm days.

Im not saying the DVX is a bad camera, I was nuts over it, and loved it. But after using the Fx1, my eyes have been opened.

FX1 Pros -

Fast accurate focus
Perfect WB
Controls, switches placed well and work well
Swing out 16X9 display
Battery life up to 9 hours
Cineframe 30 (works very well)
No need for anamorphic lens
Easy to hold/handle
HD if needed
Built to last, sonys best built consumer ever?

FX1 cons
No XLR audio
No true 24p


For $3500, its a great camcorder and beats all others I have owned including

Vx1000
VX2000
PD150
Canon Xl1, 2
DVX100
DVC30
TRV 900, 950

BUT, maybe its not for everyone. The DVX is an awesome camera, worth every penney. I guess its personal preference.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Wow -- just logged in, and noticed this thread.

First, about "never used it" -- I've used the FX1 extensively, deeply, and thoroughly, for about a week, and spent three days with an FX1 strapped side-by-side with the DVX and the XL2.  My observations are not based on "hearsay" or "venom" or anything else -- they're based on using the cameras side-by-side, shooting *identical* scenes with them, and then comparing the results.  I've got about 15 minutes of compiled scenes of XL2/DVX/FX1 all splitscreened on the same screen on the same DVD.

As for "downrezzing in Vegas" -- Douglas Spotted Eagle has reported that HDV downrezzed in Vegas looks a lot better than HDV downrezzed by the camera itself.  I've got footage shot both ways, so it doesn't really matter to me, but I was doing the downrez-in-Vegas trick to give the FX1 the best chance.

As for low light, you must seriously be joking, right?  I mean, yes the DVX's signal is noisier, but have you compared them in the same scene?  The DVX can deliver a bright colorful picture in 1/4 the light the FX1 requires.  Here's a picture where the DVX is at f/5.6 and the FX1 is at f/1.6, and the DVX STILL looks brighter.
dvxandfx1intimessquare.jpg

Yes the DVX is noisier.  So I guess if your standard is "which gives a cleaner signal" the FX1 is, but if it's "which lets me get the picture in low-light conditions" the DVX is just FAR superior.  If you want more detail I could have opened that DVX up about three more stops -- the FX1 had nowhere to go, it was already at wide-open.

As for vertical smear, if you haven't encountered it, then you haven't encountered it -- but that doesn't mean it's not there.  The Sony manual even specifically warns about it!  But if you'd like to what FX1 vertical smear looks like, this is an FX1 shot:
fx1flarefromheadlight.jpg


Look, I have no axe to grind against the FX1 -- I'm just trying to report it as it is, not how I'd like to see it or how someone else would like to see it.  My tests are objective, not subjective, they're just what it is.  There's a 16-page report coming, Jarred's working on the photos for it now.

If you're happy with the camera, great.  If someone else is happy with their DVX, great.  If someone else is in love with their XL2, that's great too.  The three cameras are so very different that it's almost like they're not in direct competition with each other.  I'm just trying to help people decide which one is best for them.  They all have advantages over the others, and that means they're all compromised when compared to the others as well, and it's up to the buyer to determine which advantages are important to them and which compromises they can live with.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=videoman69 link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=60#63 date=12/14/04 at 10:05:11]I just dont see why anyone would want to load it into Vegas and let the software downconvert, becuase straight form the cam in to FCP, then to DVD or tape it looks amazing.[/quote]
There are very valid reasons why one would want to let the editor do the downconversion.

Using your method, you start with 4:2:0 MPEG-2 compressed video.  The camera then does a real-time downconversion to 4:1:1 DV, adding another layer of compression.  Then you import it to your editor and make a DVD from it, which means you have to convert that 4:1:1 DV back to 4:2:0 MPEG-2.  Three compression cycles and two color-space conversions.

Whereas in using Vegas, you take the original 4:2:0 MPEG-2 source, and output a 4:2:0 MPEG-2 DVD.  Two compression cycles and *no* color-space conversions.  Should result in much cleaner DVD footage with higher color accuracy.

When the cam is hooked up to my HD TV its ultra amazing.
Click to expand...
In HDV interlaced mode, it is definitely at its best. "ultra amazing" is in the eye of the beholder -- it's no VariCam, it's no CineAlta, but for $3500? yes it is ultra-amazing for the price.

I stand by my remarks on the FX1 - Its an outstanding machine, if used correctly.
Click to expand...
And I agree -- if used correctly, the FX1 can produce some outstanding footage.  But "correctly", in my book, means using it to make interlaced high-def HDV 60i footage.  For any other use it's not as good as the reigning 3-CCD cameras out there.  The other cameras simply do much better: if you want standard-def interlaced DVD footage the VX2100 delivers a much brighter picture.  If you want filmlike footage on a DVD, the DVX spanks the FX1 as far as sensitivity, brightness, image control options, latitude, color control, gamma options, manual control, etc.  The FX1 does have a cleaner signal.  And a much more convenient way to shoot 16:9.

We may agree to disagree, but I stand by my observations, and the footage that generated those observations.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Well, I have no way to upload files, and if I did, it would be smaller QT files which wouldnt show anything.

And yes, when I said low light, the FX1 gives me NO NOISE - the DVX, while brighter is grainy and noisy and more washe dout looking - you lose the deep blacks. SO far, no vertical smear for me with the FX1, maybe I will encounter it but so far so good.

I still disagree about the DVX "spanking" the FX1 in color, and film like image. Yes, the DVX may give a bit more of a film look, but not by much, and it can all be done in your editor anyway. With the DVX I had many problems with White Balance shifts, and focus troubles as well. BUT it does produce a nice image.

I also prefer the image of the FX1 in cine 30 mode over the VX2000 and PD150 by far. Creamy smooth, no noise at all, and great color.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=videoman69 link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=60#67 date=12/14/04 at 17:01:26]With the DVX I had many problems with White Balance shifts, and focus troubles as well. [/quote]


How could you have that unless you were leaving them on "auto"?
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

The FX1 footage definitely has blacker blacks, probably related to it being HD rather than NTSC so it doesn't have to have a 7.5 IRE pedestal in the signal.  You can of course correct the DVX footage for that in post and get just as black blacks.

There is noise in the FX1 signal -- I could post a clip that shows it, but it's less than the DVX's and that's all that really seems to matter.  The DVX in dark conditions shows a lot more noise than the FX1 does.

I prefer to leave what you can do in post out of the discussion -- that's an entirely different subject that is completely unrelated to discussing the camera's capabilities.  One only has to look at Matt McDermitt's footage to see how wonderful he can make something look in post -- whether it be the GL2, the DVX, or the XL2.  But that's a completely different subject, unrelated to what the camera can do.  I dare say that McDermitt could, in post, make GL2 footage look far more filmlike and far better than any of us could make FX1 or DVX or XL2 footage straight from the camera.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

this is true. Good points. I dont want to start an argument. I was just stating my experience with the camera. Sorry if I stirred up trouble!
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

No trouble -- healthy debate is good.  What we try to avoid here are the "religious" debates of "well, mine is better because it's a Sony, and Sony always makes good stuff"... or, "Of course the Canon is better -- it's a Canon!"... that type of thing doesn't help anyone.  So hey, I don't mind being proven wrong, because if I'm wrong, the sooner I find out about it, the better off I'll be.

My testing was conducted in cooperation with ultra-cameraman Jarred Land, and we used all three cameras side-by-side to shoot the exact same subjects under the exact same conditions, using (for the most part) the exact same settings, so that all variables could be removed and we could get down to evaluating the cameras themselves.  I am most certainly not the final word, and I look forward to hearing Jarred's evaluation of the footage, and to seeing test clips from anyone who cares to post them.

Like I say, no specific agenda for or against any of these cameras -- I'd love to write a book about each of 'em.  Cameras can become a sensitive subject among some folks who just spent $3000 to $5000 on something, fearing that they may have got the wrong thing or whatever, but really, these cameras are all completely superb, they're just aimed at different priorities... at least, that's the way I look at it, but other/differing opinions are always welcome! :)
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

7.5 IRE setup should NEVER be recorded into a digital stream. Digital video has always been and will always be RGB 0-255. From the image comparisons of the night-time footage, it appears the DVX is recording the image with 7.5 IRE on tape! Setup should always be 0 when being recorded. Setup is only used during analog playback, it should never be recorded into the digital signal as that reduces your luminance range.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

..you can shoose whether you want 0 or 7.5 ire setup on the DVX since you will not always be working in an entirely digital environment. but the 7.5 isnt true setup anyway.. we wont get into that here because its worthless to use to begin with as you said.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Well, ... I must say that I do admire Videomans candid and unbiased 'real-terms' comments, observations and approach, which is what really counts at the end of the day...
...although I appreciate wellmeaning actions of those seeking to make a true comparison for the sake of better public knowledge...
...fiddling with complicated downconversions in 3rd party software just because so and so said it was better, or some 'Professor Donald Duck' thinks it better this way does not amout to 'squat' in real-world terms...
...while I am very much a perosn that like objectivity, I have so far seen a lot of 'negative-objectivity' against the fX-1 and its improved model the ZX-1 that is becoming quite apparant as an pervasive undercurrent...
...we all know tests can be maniupulated 'even subcounsiiously' to 'pass' or 'fail' or give an intended result in terms of wishful thinking, but what really makes the grade is real-life viewing and the general impressions most get in doing so..., right or 'technically wrong'
...perhaps we should all just go with the amazing 'value-for-money' PV GS400 and save ourselves a bundle bypassing the intermediate (almost redundant) DVX and that meanie) FX1 (thats becoming a national threat) or go back to hand cranking film waiting for a better model in the meantime...

;D
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

...I would also say, if you already have a DVX or XL2, why not stick with them a while longer if you are relatively happy with them... :), and wait until there is the 'need' to upgrade for whatever reason, and/or see what the other alternatives to the Sony FX-ZX1 may be down the track...
...they may also come up with a FX/ZX2 or FX/ZX1B in the meantime... :-/
...however, if there is a choice to be made now, (apart from going for the amazing 'value-for-money' PV GS400' which is a great little cam), it appears very much to me that the most future proof and overall best choice in terms of quality and flexibility all round is the ZX1 with the FX1 coming a close but not ideal 2nd...
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

I have bozh a VX2000 and FX1. I am starting to understand the FX1 beter. VX2000 is incedibly sharp, and I like that for some things. FX1 has incredible colors. I've never seen anything like this. There are situations to avoid, which I think other cameras handle better. Big contrasts can be a problem. If you film a blue shy and have trees in the background, they will not look right. I like the FX1 in low light. I like blacks that look black and colors are deep and rich. If the light is too low and I allow some gain, the picture is not noisy the way you expect from other cameras. It's very much like film. I have to say it is a camera capable of delivering stunning footage but you need to know where to use it, and more importantly where to avoid using it. Probably a polarizer would solve a lot of the problems. Must test more.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Wat is the visual problem with the blue sky and in the background green trees than?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top