Unedited footage from V1E

Sergio Barbosa · July 24th, 2007, 05:32 AM

Hello everyone.

I'd like to show you a piece of unedited footage i shot, short after I got the camera, a couple of months ago.

http://www.feirafilme.com/Europarque.mov

I really like the way this camera captures light. Even though it doesn't have so many settings to tweak, as some of it's competitors, the presets are great.
This was shot at 1080i50, with the Sunset Preset. Iris was manual, focus automatic, white balance was daylight with +4 shifting.
It was shot at a beautiful park in my city, at around sunset time.

I hope you enjoy.

Douglas R Wagner · July 24th, 2007, 02:35 PM

Your video is so heavily compressed that it actually looks to be of lower quality than standard definition video. For that duration of video, you should expect to see a file size larger than 200MB, not 27MB. To see a sharp, full resolution hi-def video, file sizes become large quite quickly. Most people have posted clips of less than 20 seconds in order to keep the size under 100MB. Actually, since your clip is over 4 minutes, I would expect a file size more like 400MB in order to preserve the original HD quality.

What software did you use to edit your video, and what export settings did you use?

I should add that with Hi-Def, it's very helpful to have a tri-pod to keep the image steady. If the image shakes a lot, it's harder to appreciate picture quality that hi-def gives. When you look at Sony's hi-def demonstration videos, they have a lot of stationary shots and slow pans so that you can really admire the difference that hi-def gives over standard-def video.

Leslie Wand · July 24th, 2007, 07:06 PM

a still grabbed from the original footage is a lot more informative than ANY compressed video.

leslie

Sergio Barbosa · July 25th, 2007, 04:25 AM

I posted this clip in order to show more of the color reproduction (which is not affected by the compression), rather than the resolution itself.
The original file was 1 GB, so I compressed it in Compressor using ''for web download 800 kbps," without editing.
I know the benefits of a tripod, but for the purpose it was (getting used to the camera/testing) I didn't bother to bring it. Plus, I don't find the pictures too shaky.
I may post an edited full-res clip, if that's of the interest of anyone.

Leslie Wand · July 25th, 2007, 05:18 AM

simply post some full res stills. anyone who's interested will know what they are looking at, and more importantly, what for...

leslie

Piotr Wozniacki · July 25th, 2007, 05:33 AM

Sergio, in spite of the heavy compression, some picture instability (unnecessary zooming in and out, more than lack of a tripod), I liked your video very much. I get your point in posting it; don't get confused by some of the comments too easily :)

Sergio Barbosa · July 25th, 2007, 10:13 AM

Thank you Piotr for you comments. I know all that zooming and reframing can be annoying, but it's the kind of thing that would be cut off in editing.
I'm also posting some stills, which I hope can illustrate the footage a little bit better.

Leslie Wand · July 25th, 2007, 07:11 PM

[quote=Sergio Barbosa;718329
I'm also posting some stills, which I hope can illustrate the footage a little bit better.[/QUOTE]

thanks, that's much better....

nice pics, but then again, that's what you bought the camera for, right!?

good shooting,

leslie

Douglas R Wagner · August 15th, 2007, 09:46 AM

Leslie's suggestion for some sample full-res stills was an excellent idea. And the choice of still shots provided are an excellent selection, showing off very well the capability of the FX7.

Some people have hesitated to buy the FX7 because of all the negative publicity around its not-so-good low-light sensitivity from the CMOS sensors.

From the analysis I've seen and samples posted, its low-light ability looks similar to an HC7 single chip camcorder. Although Canon's XH-A1 may be several f-stops faster, the still shots here show that even in relatively shady daytime shots, the FX7 does quite well. More significantly, it shows how well it handles dark and bright (dynamic range) in the image. Also, that this camera has very low chromatic abberation (color bands on sharp edges) - which seems to be a visible problem for the XH-A1 at wide-angle from posts I've seen.

These stills are very helpful. Thanks again for posting them. I am looking to buy the FX7, and shots like these boost my confidence in it being a solid camera.

Piotr Wozniacki · August 15th, 2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas R Wagner

Leslie's suggestion for some sample full-res stills was an excellent idea. And the choice of still shots provided are an excellent selection, showing off very well the capability of the FX7.

Some people have hesitated to buy the FX7 because of all the negative publicity around its not-so-good low-light sensitivity from the CMOS sensors.

From the analysis I've seen and samples posted, its low-light ability looks similar to an HC7 single chip camcorder. Although Canon's XH-A1 may be several f-stops faster, the still shots here show that even in relatively shady daytime shots, the FX7 does quite well. More significantly, it shows how well it handles dark and bright (dynamic range) in the image. Also, that this camera has very low chromatic abberation (color bands on sharp edges) - which seems to be a visible problem for the XH-A1 at wide-angle from posts I've seen.

These stills are very helpful. Thanks again for posting them. I am looking to buy the FX7, and shots like these boost my confidence in it being a solid camera.

A very accurate comment, apart from the statement on the A1 being "several stops faster" - please, do not mislead the newcomers!

Sergio Barbosa · August 17th, 2007, 04:35 AM

It is indeed a very good camera, and you're right about those chromatic aberrations. I find the lens on this camera to be a plus... very sharp and so much better than the stock lens on my JVC-HD100 (except the JVC's maintain the f1.4 at any focal distance,which would be nice on the sony's).

About this camera's low light capabilities, remember you can use gain at 12dB and still have a good picture. Still, my new best friend is my IDX-X3 Led light... in some dark rooms, even though the overall light may be enough, it's good to have a fill light. Of course i'm speaking in terms of my man work, which is weddings.

Here is another still, in a completely different scenario, at full res (not deinterlaced) shot with gain at 9dB, at about 1 meter (3 feet) from the subject. BTW I Love the way the light glow in the background... does anyone know what it's due to? With my other cameras and lenses it doesn't usually look like that.

Bill Edmunds · September 1st, 2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sergio Barbosa

It is indeed a very good camera, and you're right about those chromatic aberrations. I find the lens on this camera to be a plus... very sharp and so much better than the stock lens on my JVC-HD100 (except the JVC's maintain the f1.4 at any focal distance,which would be nice on the sony's).

How is the lens better than the HD100? I must admit I find that hard to believe.

July 24th, 2007, 05:32 AM	#1
Sergio Barbosa Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 135	Unedited footage from V1E Hello everyone. I'd like to show you a piece of unedited footage i shot, short after I got the camera, a couple of months ago. http://www.feirafilme.com/Europarque.mov I really like the way this camera captures light. Even though it doesn't have so many settings to tweak, as some of it's competitors, the presets are great. This was shot at 1080i50, with the Sunset Preset. Iris was manual, focus automatic, white balance was daylight with +4 shifting. It was shot at a beautiful park in my city, at around sunset time. I hope you enjoy.

July 24th, 2007, 02:35 PM	#2
Douglas R Wagner Tourist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bangkok THAILAND Posts: 2	Video is too compressed Your video is so heavily compressed that it actually looks to be of lower quality than standard definition video. For that duration of video, you should expect to see a file size larger than 200MB, not 27MB. To see a sharp, full resolution hi-def video, file sizes become large quite quickly. Most people have posted clips of less than 20 seconds in order to keep the size under 100MB. Actually, since your clip is over 4 minutes, I would expect a file size more like 400MB in order to preserve the original HD quality. What software did you use to edit your video, and what export settings did you use? I should add that with Hi-Def, it's very helpful to have a tri-pod to keep the image steady. If the image shakes a lot, it's harder to appreciate picture quality that hi-def gives. When you look at Sony's hi-def demonstration videos, they have a lot of stationary shots and slow pans so that you can really admire the difference that hi-def gives over standard-def video. Last edited by Douglas R Wagner; July 24th, 2007 at 02:43 PM. Reason: enhance details

July 25th, 2007, 05:33 AM	#6
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 2,369	Sergio, in spite of the heavy compression, some picture instability (unnecessary zooming in and out, more than lack of a tripod), I liked your video very much. I get your point in posting it; don't get confused by some of the comments too easily :) __________________ Sony EX1, Letus Extreme, RedRock microMatteBox, FF, Filters & Supports Vegas on Vista x64, QX6700 quad, 8GB RAM, 2xRAID0, 24" LCD, 50" plasma HDTV

July 25th, 2007, 10:13 AM	#7
Sergio Barbosa Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 135	Thank you Piotr for you comments. I know all that zooming and reframing can be annoying, but it's the kind of thing that would be cut off in editing. I'm also posting some stills, which I hope can illustrate the footage a little bit better. Attached Thumbnails

August 15th, 2007, 09:46 AM	#9
Douglas R Wagner Tourist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bangkok THAILAND Posts: 2	Great stills Leslie's suggestion for some sample full-res stills was an excellent idea. And the choice of still shots provided are an excellent selection, showing off very well the capability of the FX7. Some people have hesitated to buy the FX7 because of all the negative publicity around its not-so-good low-light sensitivity from the CMOS sensors. From the analysis I've seen and samples posted, its low-light ability looks similar to an HC7 single chip camcorder. Although Canon's XH-A1 may be several f-stops faster, the still shots here show that even in relatively shady daytime shots, the FX7 does quite well. More significantly, it shows how well it handles dark and bright (dynamic range) in the image. Also, that this camera has very low chromatic abberation (color bands on sharp edges) - which seems to be a visible problem for the XH-A1 at wide-angle from posts I've seen. These stills are very helpful. Thanks again for posting them. I am looking to buy the FX7, and shots like these boost my confidence in it being a solid camera.

July 24th, 2007, 07:06 PM	#3
Leslie Wand Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: australia Posts: 238	a still grabbed from the original footage is a lot more informative than ANY compressed video. leslie

July 25th, 2007, 04:25 AM	#4
Sergio Barbosa Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 135	I posted this clip in order to show more of the color reproduction (which is not affected by the compression), rather than the resolution itself. The original file was 1 GB, so I compressed it in Compressor using ''for web download 800 kbps," without editing. I know the benefits of a tripod, but for the purpose it was (getting used to the camera/testing) I didn't bother to bring it. Plus, I don't find the pictures too shaky. I may post an edited full-res clip, if that's of the interest of anyone.

July 25th, 2007, 05:18 AM	#5
Leslie Wand Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: australia Posts: 238	simply post some full res stills. anyone who's interested will know what they are looking at, and more importantly, what for... leslie

July 25th, 2007, 07:11 PM	#8
Leslie Wand Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: australia Posts: 238	[quote=Sergio Barbosa;718329 I'm also posting some stills, which I hope can illustrate the footage a little bit better.[/QUOTE] thanks, that's much better.... nice pics, but then again, that's what you bought the camera for, right!? good shooting, leslie

August 17th, 2007, 04:35 AM	#11
Sergio Barbosa Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Portugal Posts: 135	It is indeed a very good camera, and you're right about those chromatic aberrations. I find the lens on this camera to be a plus... very sharp and so much better than the stock lens on my JVC-HD100 (except the JVC's maintain the f1.4 at any focal distance,which would be nice on the sony's). About this camera's low light capabilities, remember you can use gain at 12dB and still have a good picture. Still, my new best friend is my IDX-X3 Led light... in some dark rooms, even though the overall light may be enough, it's good to have a fill light. Of course i'm speaking in terms of my man work, which is weddings. Here is another still, in a completely different scenario, at full res (not deinterlaced) shot with gain at 9dB, at about 1 meter (3 feet) from the subject. BTW I Love the way the light glow in the background... does anyone know what it's due to? With my other cameras and lenses it doesn't usually look like that. Attached Thumbnails

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode