comparison of FX1 to VX2k in low light
 

I compared my FX1 and VX2000 cameras from moderate office lighting (200 lux) where neither camera is using gain-up, to reasonably dim light (30 and 11 lux) where both cameras need to use gain. Note, my final output is not HDV, but SD 720x480 at 4:2:2. The image quality from the FX1 isn't as bad as I'd thought in dim conditions, and it compares favorably with the VX2k. Impressive given how much smaller each pixel sensor is on the FX1.

Test procedure is described, and sample images shown on this webpage:

http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html

Thanks for sharing this, John -- good to hear from ya!

John: not bad, but why cripple the HDV by downsampling it to DV resolution before doing all the screen captures and Photoshop conversions? To really show the differences between these two cameras, how about doing the HDV frame grabs at full 1920x1080 resolution and comparing that to DV frames up-rezzed to the same vertical resolution in a 4.3 image ratio? Then people could see both the difference in native image detail between the two formats and the differences in framing between a 16.9 and 4.3 camera.

The internet has far too many examples comparing HDV to DV at SD resolution and almost none comparing HDV to DV at HD resolution. It would be nice to see someone buck this trend by doing the latter, which might give people a better clue why HDV is a significant format.

HDV vs DV comparisons
 

Thanks for the feedback! My page is really just the answer to a specific question of mine, and I put it up in case it was helpful to others. I do wedding videography and I'm looking at SD output since that's all my customers want. I've been mentioning the HDV option but so far, I've had zero customer interest in it. From what I've heard from other videographers that's the common experience. I don't actually own a HD display myself, not counting my PC monitor. What my market sector is looking for now is cameras that work at dimly-lit receptions without using obtrusive lights, and the DVD plays back OK on the customer's TV.

I'm sure when HD TVs and especially HD DVD players become more mainstream, it will be a different story.

Thanks for posting this, John.

So when you say: "What my market sector is looking for now is cameras that work at dimly-lit receptions without using obtrusive lights, and the DVD plays back OK on the customer's TV."

Does that mean you don't feel you can deliver this with the FX-1?

FX1 suitability for event videography
 

I was worried that the FX1 wouldn't perform in low light, but in the conditions of my test I thought it compared well relative to the VX2k. My only other concern is that the autofocus seems slower, and more likely to be wrong, than the VX2k.
See for example http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-focus.html

Admittedly, with pro cameras one is supposed to use manual focus anyway.

John, thanks a lot for sharing these tests with us - and thanks also for maintaining such a useful website which should be on everyones' bookmark menu if it isn't already! :-)

I really admire the fact that when you're curious about how something works, you take the time to devise a test. So often around here people ask questions which could easily be answered with quick tests on their own. Don't get me wrong - it's fine to ask questions - but when you do your own testing it brings a deeper understanding and helps develop a personal style.

Thanks again, and I hope we'll see more of you around here!

The manual focus IS a bit slower than the VX2k and also the PD170. I made the mistake ONCE of using auto-focus. The FX1 does perform well enough by standards for lower lighting conditions and this has been debated many times over on these boards.

Technology is growing in leaps and bounds and I just wonder what kind of CCD/CMOS (or other for that matter) devices we will see in 5 years time??

Cheers

John Beale's site should indeed be bookmarked -- he performs extensive, detailed tests, with thoroughly-explained methodology, and the fact that he donates his time to put together such explanations is very much appreciated!

John: that's fair enough, and the comparison is useful in terms of demonstrating low-light capabilities. Perhaps you could just add two images at the end of the page showing a full-resolution frame grab from each camera so people see what those are like. Also, if there's any way you could post a few seconds of actual video from the two cameras (at SD resolution), that might give a better impression of differences in grain between them. Just looking at the still images, it looks like the VX2k at 12db has much more pronounced grain than the FX1 at 18db, and this would be very noticeable in a finished SD video.

My own recent experience with the FX1 is that I was able to get usable footage on a dark dance floor using as little as 10 watts of on-camera light, which allowed me to get right up next to people without disturbing them too much. During the toasts I ended up using 20-30 watts and would have liked to have a little more, but I'm trying to get away from the blinding 50 watt lights I've used in the past with my SD cameras.

My conclusion is that if you really want maximum low-light capability you should be looking at big-chip SD cameras rather than something like the VX2k or FX1. When we get big-chip HDV cameras that should pretty much put an end to this discussion, because then HDV will be equally sensitive and have less grain than all but the best DV footage.

noise testing
 

good suggestions- I'll try to do it when I can get some time free, I'm in a crunch right now. No question but that the FX1 can turn in some nice images with good light. I haven't seen stills quite like this from my VX2k for example: http://bealecorner.net/D30/050428/boathouse1.htm

Thanks for the reality check
 

I appreciate the test, but more importantly, your comments about zero client interest in HDV is crucial information. I had about convinced myself that I needed to trade in my DXC-D130 and DV500 for a HDV unit before the bottom fell out of the DV market. It looks like I might have a few more months to sit back and wait for the dust to settle on the HD100 and HVX200.

As much as I hate to admit it, I can't think of a valid argument to turn in a 2/3" camera for a 1/3" camera that shoots on a format that doesn't have a market yet.

Anybody, besides the movie guys, have clients asking for HD video?

John: any plans to shoot a wedding with your FX-1, now that you feel better about its lowlight capabilities?

John's not alone. I asked around while at the WEVA convention -- *nobody* I asked had one client yet express the slightest interest in HD. Keep in mind that only about 7% of the US, and 0% of Europe, even have any sort of HDTV set.

No doubt it's coming, but "a few months more" may be more like a couple of years before it becomes a factor of significance in your market. Other markets (like those producing products for national broadcast) -- yeah, they'll have to be HD-compliant a lot sooner; some networks are even demanding HD masters now. But weddings etc... I think you've got plenty of time.

Hi Barry. It's too bad we didn't have a chance to meet at Expo, or I could have told you in person how interest in HDV is shaping up with my clients. (They all love the way it looks.) Also, if you went to any of the HD seminars you might have heard how one company is already booking something like 25-30% of their weddings in HD, and another one has decided to simply go all HD and market that as a key feature -- with good success.

The thing here is that if you simply ask people, "hey, you got any interest in HD?" they may not know what to say, but if you actually show them HD samples they instantly take an interest. For now this is something which requires some marketing to sell, but then that's part of being in this business.

HD distribution method?
 

I'm curious about those who are actually delivering HD weddings to customers now. What media & format are they delivering on? Is a D-VHS or HD-DVD player included as part of the package? What fraction of their market owns a HDTV?

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, only a few own a HDTV display right now and AFAIK no one has a HD playback device. Or are they delivering SD-DVD now with the promise to make a HD-DVD available when the technology is standardized and available?

I don't do weddings so I'll take your word on this.

Barron's did a feature article on HDTV in their May 23 issue and quoted the CEA as saying there are currently 18 million HDTV's in 12 million households. Next year they forecast that to jump to 50 million, then 80 million in 2007.

Somebody is buying those TV's. Customers may not appreciate the difference HD makes, but I'll bet they would at least be happier with good quality 16:9 that fills their new plasma screen, instead of playing it in stretch mode which makes everyone look short and fat ;-)

The VX and PD series are great cameras for 4:3 but are not going to impress anyone on a 16:9 screen. That design is pushing what..., maybe 6 years old now (I got my VX-2000 in 2001)? It's a real tribute to Sony that they've been such workhorses and are still so greatly respected.

Kevin,

Yes, that's a different approach. I asked people "has anyone asked you for HD yet?" And nobody I asked had anybody approach 'em about it. I didn't attend any of the seminars, just the show floor and met with a few people there. I don't doubt that you could sell someone on it; I was just referring to the overall interest level of the public. Seems like there's very little demand yet.

John: the current options for distributing video shot in HD range from widescreen SD DVDs to compressed HD DVDs to full-quality HDV delivered on a computer hard drive. My preferred solution for now would be to deliver the compressed HD version along with a suitable player to the customer as part of their HD package, plus several widescreen DVDs for their friends and relatives. I have a customer now who wants the finished project delivered in HDV to his computer, so he'll know he can remaster that to future HD DVD formats.

Regarding HDTV market share, I'd say based on what I've seen in customers' homes that a large percentage of my recent clients own an HDTV. Where I live HDTVs are basically *the* hot status-symbol item, and are prominently displayed at the entrance of almost every electronics and warehouse store. Statistics about overall HDTV sales can be misleading depending on where you live and who your customers are.

The CEA likes to tout the number of HD capable sets being sold, but when surveys are done, only a small number of people who purchased HD capable sets are watching HD material. I seem to recall a number like 10%.

Most people are watching SD OTA or cable material (and using the stretch mode on their wide screen sets!) and of course DVDs (which some people in the survey thought was HD material!).

In the cable vs satellite battle for access, the satellite companies started promoting HD content and the cable companies jumped on the bandwagon and started adding more HD content. But the penetration is still fairly low given all the HD capable sets that have been sold.

It's coming though....DirectTV is launching additional satellites to add a lot more HD connect....

That might have more to do with the 16:9 frame and how subjects are less likely to be smack in the middle of the widescreen frame. I use the old trick of zooming into the subject, turning autofocus off, then zooming back out to what I want to frame.

manual focus with event video
 

> I use the old trick of zooming into the subject, turning autofocus off, then zooming back out to what I want to frame.

I like to use that technique as well, when I'm able to. This particular case was a single-camera wedding ceremony. I had to track the bride as she approached, passed by and receeded with only one take, there was no chance to zoom just for focusing purposes. My guess is that most pros do 2 or more cameras on the ceremony- that gives you a lot more leeway.

I'm on the fence, and am considering getting an FX1, even though few people have HD sets.

I can't help but think of the folks who made the syndicated "Superman" TV series with George Reeves in the mid-1950s -- and shot much of the series in color. Although few stations broadcast in color and fewer homes had color receivers, the producers knew that inevitably, their decision to shoot the show in color would pay off.

I wonder if there's a similar lesson in HD?

Leigh

You've just said it yourself!

As much as many will deny, HD and the cameras like the FX1 are inevitable as was the death of the LP when CD's came out

Cheers

I just shot a friend's wedding with my FX1, and the reception was soooo dimly lit, I had little hope for the video. I had no lights, so I shot with 12 dB of gain, and boosted the gamma in Premiere Pro, and the result was pretty darn outstanding. My friends just watch the video last night and were tickled pink.

My only other experience was with my old Hi-8 camera, so I don't have much of a point for comparison (such as the VX2000), other than to say that the FX1 got the job done in a hall so dark, I couldn't read the typed speech I prepared for the toast.

That's interesting, Dick -- any chance you could post a clip from that reception?

Also, regarding the premiere pro -- are you using Aspect HD with that? Or just PPro? Any specs you could give on your system would be helpful. Thanks.

Has anyone tried offering wedding clients a WMV-HD capable DVD player (as part of the package) to deliver the final product in WMV-HD on a DVD?

Backround on me: My friend and I have been setting up to do some weddings and other events; we'll be using the FX1 and an HC1 for most of the video, plus some audio gear. We're going to be shadowing some folks that do it already and are willing to let us see some of the tricks of the trade. We still have some gear to aquire but I think it will be a good way to get into the video production field.

Anyhow, I've been surprised on the quality of the low-light performance of the FX-1. That being said, we're definately going to be using the FX1 and HDV for our work. I wasn't too sure about it until I got one in my hands and got some first hand with it. It's really nice in low light once I got to playing with it to get the best settings. There's better, but then again there's always better. Hey, I'd love to buy the $10,000 Canon HDV camcorder, but it's just not possible. I bet those $100,000 cameras sony makes are really good in low light.

The way I figure it, a wedding video is something that people might want to revisit someday in the future, and will eventually own an HDTV. Won't it be nice when they can pop in the HD version of the video and see it with all new detail?

We won't (unless there's unusual demand for it) charge more for HD then someone doing SD - it'll be a value-add and I think people will be interested in it.

For delivery, I think we'd do a DVD with standard definition letterboxed video as well as a DVD with some sort of WMV/Quicktime video. MPEG4/WMV/H.263 give excellent HD quality with low data rates, so it makes sense. We'd keep the original footage in stock (probably on an LTO2 tape or something) in case HD-DVD/BluRay became affordable to produce discs on a PC.

Just like how most photographers keep the negatives to themselves, I see no reason to give uncompressed/raw footage to the customers. They'd be able to request a different format and pay some sort of fee for it.

If you look at the stores these days, the shelf of TV's that aren't HD is getting much smaller. You can get HDTV's for a much more resonable price then even a couple years ago. For installed-base, it's hard to go by raw numbers. There's a LOT of TV's out there. However, for 2005 a projected 14 million HDTV's were sold. That's a lot of HDTV.

Most network primetime shows are now broadcast in HD. Most pay channels (HBO, etc) offer HD channels. More are being added all the time. With the release of HD-DVD and eventually BluRay players, demand for HDTV's will rise even more.

It's forward thinking to start using HD as soon as possible. That's my opinion of course!

Sorry for getting off track!

I've learned you can't get more money for HDV than DV, BUT you can charge them again for HD DVD or Blu-Ray Discs later on when they get the players.

heath