Truly Virtuous?

DammitJanet

DammitJanet

Well-known member
So after playing with my friend's DVX the other day, I've been tempted to deviate from my plan of going with an FX1. I aim to shoot dramatic indie work in 60i with the FX1 and de-interlace to 24p with Magic Bullet in Premiere. I had come to the decision that since getting the FX1 with accessories (Glidecam,XLR adapter etc.) would cost me about as much as the DVX would, that going with the FX1's higher resolution would be the better way to go. Am I missing something here? I'm told that seeing your work in HD blows SD footage away, but I've no way to see for myself. Is there any reason why I should go with the DVX over the FX1 that I might have missed?
 
The DVX has a better, out of the box film look that doesn't require any post processing, so if you're on a tight deadline I'd go with the DVX. If you don't mind spending several weeks to render your feature once it's cut (yes, it will take that long), the extra resolution and latitude of the FX1 is well worth it, especially if you plan to project the film in festivals. If you only plan to sell DVD's, then using the FX1 might not be worth the post hassles.
 
I've got one word for you...Macgregor. Check out his work with the FX1 and then choose what you will...of course, after trying both cameras your self.
 
I'm having trouble finding any of his work. Just a bunch of page errors and dead links. Does he have it posted somewhere else I might not have considered?
 
rawfa said:
I've got one word for you...Macgregor. Check out his work with the FX1 and then choose what you will...of course, after trying both cameras your self.
Click to expand...
But you'd also have to check out Macgregor's work on the DVX to make that a fair comparison. Watch "SIMILO", that was a Macgregor DVX film...
 
Yes Similo looks impressive. DVX+mini35 adapter looks terrific, very filmic look.

I´m owner of a DVX100A and i work like a DP in short films with a FX1 cam. yes FX1 is a great cam but for my taste the DVX100 for short films, drama, etc is better. and why is better?

1 - The FX1 is a blind camera (only 160 ASA) you can add lots of lights or work with gain ... bad resource

2 - the FX1 focus ring is crappy, you touch two milimeter and go to 1 m. to 10 m. The DVX focus ring has natural feeling like manual lens

3 - DVX has natural progresive images no like a FX1 where cineframe is poor for my taste (you lost 1/2 resolution)

4 - DVX has better color. FX1 encode to mpeg and you can see the colour artifacts :(

5- you can see in DVX LCD the zoom, iris and focus range. In FX1 you only see iris aperture in manual mode ¿?

If you plan to shoot for DVD, TV etc go to DVX100 is a great, great cam. and if you want HD resolution go to HVX200 or Photozoom Pro + DVX

good luck
 
avr you obviously don't have the FX1E, the european version kicks ass man. better colour, and better 25CF, it's not progressive but who cares, same result.The fx1e is a great camera.
 
Well, I still can't find MacGregor's work anywhere, and I can't see 25CF or 25p helping me much since I'll be doing all my viewing on NTSC tv's. Although, one thing I've always been curious about is how PAL programming seems to have that soft film-look to it, and I guess that has to do with the extra frame per second. Anyway, like I said, I plan to de-interlace in post. I wonder if anyone could post some de-interlaced FX1 footage. That would help immensely.
 
Wow. That looked great. Especially SIMILO. Just awesome. Still not sure though. Here are my options.

- buy the dvx100 and have no de-interlacing
- buy FX1 and deinterlace from 60i (not bad but not 24p)
- buy FX1E, shoot CF25 or de-interlace 50i, then convert to 24p in post

I want the best picture possible for my dramatic stuff, so I'm pretty sure the DVX is out. But is it worth getting the European version over the NTSC version?
 
Things are simple:
1. If you are interested only for drama (24 or 25fps low frame rate, progressive) for the 99% of your shots:

Take the FX1E and use it always in HDV mode. You can easily compress to high quality 1080i WMV, or MPEG4 which will not require huge amounts of cpu power (because of the low frame rate) or else h.264 for High-End Macs and Top-Notch PCs. Now if you own an expensive motion compensated deinterlacer, capture always in 50i and deinterlace in post. Otherwise stay with cineframe 25 which gives good results. Then just slow down to 24fps (if you want 24) without resampling the audio. The difference is only 4% and although you may think it's significant, it is not even detectable without a reference. Think about it: If you play a note on the piano, the next lower (to the left, including the black keys) differs by a semitone, which means a difference in frequency of 5.6% from the first note, so the slow down will be even less than a semitone!

For the rest 1% of the cases, when you'll need it for downconverted smooth interlaced motion, you can capture in 50i and convert it to 60i in post with very good (but not perfect) results.

2. Else, the NTSC model can give you 30fps either in post deinterlacing or with cineframe 30 which works even better and it's motion is 20% smoother than 25. The downside is that you can't have smooth 24fps by conversion and the 20% increase in CPU playback might be too much for a medium pc in 1080p so you will have to reduce it to 720p (1280x720). Another plus is that you can have a downconverted NTSC dv version easily from the camera, or a smoother 60i HDV signal for your HDTV, but all HDTVs today are able to playback 50i as well.
 
Last edited:
Nice!
My comments:
a. I think that the shakiness of the camera lowers the value of the clip instead of giving the sense of speed -afterall, it's running on asphalt, not off-road.
b. I'd expect more/longer shots with the camera low in front and at the side of the car while turning at the opposite side.
c. The slo-mo could be smoother by slowing from 50i (instead of 25p) or by running the car slower and/or perhaps motion blurring it in post as a special effect.
d. I'd like more duration to get me involved and some more details, except it was made for a 30" commercial...
 
Last edited:
Hello.
a) when you drive really hard and push to the limit, everything shakes. So lets do it that way.
b) this is a fast montage, there is no place for longer shots here
c) the slow motion comes from 50i actually
d) this is an intro, not a long feature. In fact, it is long to me now.

But if you want longer and smoother shots, here you are:
http://personales.ya.com/elfabrica/smooth.mov
 
My comments:
a. I think that the shakiness of the camera heightens the value of the clip adding to the out of control need for speed feeling and makes the whole thing kick ass giving you that "rush" of adrenilin feeling!
b. The shots were cut perfectly adding to the mentioned feeling above.
c. The slo-mo also kicked ass..perfect. A Ferrari in a gansta rap video couldn't have been slowed down better.
d. I'd like to know how you make stuff that kicks such ass Macgregor. Great job as usual.

My only concern was that the driver of the vehicle was not a naked woman. I find this disturbing.:)
 
Last edited:
So, remind me why I should get the PAL version over NTSC? Is CineFrame25 better than CineFrame24 or something? I mean, how were those car commercials done? I'll already assume a G35 was used along with the FX1.
 
sh sh sh sh shaaaky! :)

sh sh sh sh shaaaky! :)

macgregor said:
a) when you drive really hard and push to the limit, everything shakes. So lets do it that way.
Click to expand...
I watched Nissan's short film "The Run" in DVD, made for 350z (each take was shot in Prague in real-time using 14 cameras) and I think that the film was killed by the camera shaking. Except for being disturbing and difficult to watch, the shaking along with the bumping noises gave me the impression of a crappy car instead of a sports car that everybody is dreaming to own one day. So I think it failed as a promotional short film. ( No, I didn't expect a limo style! I am aware of the differences!)

Now what is wrong with this shaking tactic that everybody mimics? I think that the main purpose of a short like this is to make you feel the excitement of the speed and driving, like *you* are the driver. My belief is that if anything acts against this excitement for whatever reason even for the supposed "reality", is wrong. But is this shaking realistic? I believe it's not. Yes, everything is shaking and the camera is shaking too BUT it is shaking *A LOT* more than your eyes does! Far more! Your body acts as a great suspension system and has enough mass and elasticity to damp the high frequency content of the shaking oscillations before it reaches your eyes, while the driver's seat is helping too.

And your eyes are not glued to your head. Your eyes (in cooperation with your brain) have a "lock in" feature that even in huge amount of body movement or shaking can follow the object of interest, reducing to a very high degree the "dangerous" blurring that could occur. Dangerous because we used to act as all other animals in the past, hunting for food by running and jumping around, while keeping the motion blur to a minimum, because it was a matter of survival (and still is). Take for example the steadicam. No one would ever buy one if the camera could "see" like your eyes do. Next time you leave your PC and go for a coffee, watch how steady is your vision while you walk to the kitchen with only your natural embedded steady-eye -lock in system!
And speaking of survival the opposite of course is also true: No one could survive if we were seeing like the camera does.. including each one of the poor professional drivers on the "Run" and every other shaking driving film! They wouldn't make it after the first turn!

Angrius said:
a. I think that the shakiness of the camera heightens the value of the clip adding to the out of control need for speed feeling and makes the whole thing kick ass giving you that "rush" of adrenilin feeling!
Click to expand...

There are more than one ways to give you that adrenalin feeling and the shaking might not be the best one! The "almost out of control" - "up to the limit" feeling might justify it a bit but I would prefer some drifting details and other psychological alternatives instead, that would be more dramatic and convincing.

macgregor said:
b) this is a fast montage, there is no place for longer shots here
d) this is an intro, not a long feature. In fact, it is long to me now.
Click to expand...

If it's a fast and short montage version then you are right about your timing. I must admit that in general I like very much your style of montage (and sound effects too) and a lot more than on the Run's "not enhanced" style. I have to congratulate you for this!

Angrius said:
b. The shots were cut perfectly adding to the mentioned feeling above.
Click to expand...
I agree.

macgregor said:
c) the slow motion comes from 50i actually
Click to expand...
Angrius said:
c. The slo-mo also kicked ass..perfect. A Ferrari in a gansta rap video couldn't have been slowed down better.
Click to expand...

Not bad, but I would prefer it totally stutter-free, either by slowing down the car or by adding a surrealistic motion blur or something...

In general it's style is impressive and far better than Run’s style. (I don’t consider Run as a reference, just a known short driving promotional film).
 
Last edited:
DammitJanet said:
So, remind me why I should get the PAL version over NTSC? Is CineFrame25 better than CineFrame24 or something? I mean, how were those car commercials done? I'll already assume a G35 was used along with the FX1.
Click to expand...

Take the PAL version if you are interested mostly for drama or simply film look (24 / 25fps) in high definition (HDV 1920x1080 or 1280x720).
24 / 25fps : almost no difference except if you go for film transfer.

Take the NTSC (US) version If you are interested mostly in making NTSC DVDs playable in standard DVD players, (standard definition 720x480 NTSC mpeg2).
Also, if you don't care about the "native film look" NTSC version will give you 30p with cineframe 30 which is very good mostly for HDV 1280x720.

Re-read post #12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top