Z5/1000 Autofocus-The Anti-Christ of Face Detection?

Khoi Pham · February 23rd, 2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Gayman

I was using the hockey game example to illustrate a typical scenario with very fast moving subjects that requires AF. I've shot hockey at ice level through the glass (clean section) with my VX2100 and I am able to track a speeding hockey player as he skates towards me right to the point where he smashes against the glass in front of me.

Obviously shooting hockey from high above would require very little AF performance and could probably be shot with manual focus.

I've been holding off buying an HD camera until I can get something with similar AF peformance.

You could be holding off 4ever, I said before that focusing in SD is very forgiven, even if you are a litte out of focus it is very hard to see, but in HD a little out of focus and it is so obvious.

John Gayman · February 24th, 2009, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khoi Pham

You could be holding off 4ever, I said before that focusing in SD is very forgiven, even if you are a litte out of focus it is very hard to see, but in HD a little out of focus and it is so obvious.

That thought has crossed my mind. Perhaps I should simply pick up another VX2100 and continue to shoot 4:3 SD the next 5-years. I'm assuming that razor sharp SD material will be preferred over out-of-focus HD material. Sure keeps the workflow fast and simple. :-)

Jeff Harper · February 24th, 2009, 09:15 AM

You know John, I had a prospect in my studio last week. We were watching an older wedding video of mine shot outdoors with the 2100, and the footage was mixed with professional wedding photos.

The photos and my video matched almost perfectly, it was really stunning footage, IMO, as I often found with the VX2100.

The customer asked if it was HD.

It was 4:3, unstretched, bars on the side, but it looked THAT good. In perfect light, the HD of the FX1000 is fantastic, and it is HD, of course.

But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

Tim Akin · February 24th, 2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Gayman

That thought has crossed my mind. Perhaps I should simply pick up another VX2100 and continue to shoot 4:3 SD the next 5-years. I'm assuming that razor sharp SD material will be preferred over out-of-focus HD material. Sure keeps the workflow fast and simple. :-)

I have a 1 year old 2100 that will be going up for sale soon. :-)

Todd Clark · February 24th, 2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

You know John, I had a prospect in my studio last week. We were watching an older wedding video of mine shot outdoors with the 2100, and the footage was mixed with professional wedding photos.

The photos and my video matched almost perfectly, it was really stunning footage, IMO, as I often found with the VX2100.

The customer asked if it was HD.

It was 4:3, unstretched, bars on the side, but it looked THAT good. In perfect light, the HD of the FX1000 is fantastic, and it is HD, of course.

But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

That might be the way to go.

Ken Ross · February 24th, 2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images.

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

I'll tell you Jeff, I'll match the 4:3 SD video of the Z5 any single day against my VX2100. It is simply beter in every respect: Color-check, sharpness-check, resolution-check, exposure latitude-check, low-light-check. It is simply a more professional looking 4:3 SD image.

Jeff Harper · February 24th, 2009, 04:15 PM

That may be well and good, but my comments are directed at Todd, who is looking for a camera. He does not seem enamored with CMOS or rolling shutter. I don't think he or anyone would buy a FX1000 or Z5 so that he can shoot great SD...it would be pointless.

And besides I said pound for pound. If I'm going to shoot SD I'm not going to spend $3.2K when I could buy a VX2100 for $1200.

He had mentioned getting another 2100, so that is the context my comment was made in.

Greg Laves · February 24th, 2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

You should be able to find some good used broadcast style camcorders that shoot in DVCam and are 4x3/16x9 switchable. They are CCD cameras and will produce stunning SD 16x9 images. But, personally, I have had my fill of the Anton-Bauer batteries/chargers hassle and high dollar investment required. Plus heavier tripods. Etc. And I will absolutely guarantee that I can get better looking, more accurate, more appealing footage with your FX1000. With a whole lot less hassle. Now I will grant that the wedding/photog flash thing is a real issue for me, but I will work with it instead of putting up with the other option. Ironically, I was a photographer at a wedding where the videographer was using a V1. I have a pretty hot flash. I saw the footage. And all of the flash artifacts were driving me crazy. But believe it or not, as far as I have heard, no one but me and the videographer seemed to notice it. As a matter of fact, I edited his highlight video for him and I used quite a bit of slo-mo which makes the flashes more obvious. The feedback I got was that the Bride and Groom and the Groom's family really loved it. I don't think the Bride's family has seen it yet. But no one has complained about the flash artifacts at all. Except me and the videographer. But we aren't paying the bills for the wedding, so our vote doesn't count.

Jeff Harper · February 24th, 2009, 05:19 PM

I agree in principle with you Greg. I hate the looks of the rolling shutter in a dark environment with flashes going off, and if someone asks my opinioin of this phenomenon, I'll tell them I think it looks dreadful.

But I am not going to ditch the camera because of it.

Martin Duffy · February 24th, 2009, 05:35 PM

In my opinion the "look" of 16:9 wins out over any 4:3 footage.

It just looks right in my view.

Anyone shooting in 4:3 is surely not seeing it through the consumers eyes.

How can an image that is 25% narrower be as good?

No going back for me.

Jeff Harper · February 24th, 2009, 08:24 PM

I agree Martin. I still rave about my old 2100, but when I see my new camera filling all of the real estate of my widescreen TV, I really like it.

Ken Ross · February 24th, 2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Laves

And all of the flash artifacts were driving me crazy. But believe it or not, as far as I have heard, no one but me and the videographer seemed to notice it. As a matter of fact, I edited his highlight video for him and I used quite a bit of slo-mo which makes the flashes more obvious. The feedback I got was that the Bride and Groom and the Groom's family really loved it. I don't think the Bride's family has seen it yet. But no one has complained about the flash artifacts at all. Except me and the videographer. But we aren't paying the bills for the wedding, so our vote doesn't count.

And that's been my point precisely. I have yet to hear of any customer that complained about this. They simply don't notice it and think it's nothing more than the typical blown exposure that occurs with a CCD-based camera.

Martin Duffy · February 24th, 2009, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

I agree Martin. I still rave about my old 2100, but when I see my new camera filling all of the real estate of my widescreen TV, I really like it.

Well Jeff On Sunday I was forced to use my old TRV900 for about 15 minutes (never lend your camera to a friend) and honestly the image looks the same as the FX1000 (although 4:3).

Later on in the day I filmed the award ceremony and mmmmm the back focus capability via the 20X lens is rather nice from the FX1000.

Ken Ross · February 24th, 2009, 09:29 PM

Wow Martin, I'm surprised!! I still have the TRV900 and always felt there was a 'pushed' look about its image. I found the VX2100 & 2000 to have a significantly better image than the 900 and the Z5 to have a better image still.

The color of these CMOS-based cameras seem to be invariably better than the older CCD-based Sonys. Add the additional detail, exposure latitude and sharpness, I find the image much superior to the 900 in 4:3 SD. I did many A/Bs with my 2100 & Z5 when I first got it to test the SD 4:3 image. I shot the same scenes, with the same framing and found the Z5 to be better in every shot. So I guess we see some of these things differently.

Dror Levi · August 20th, 2009, 05:42 PM

i just started editing 3 movies that i filmed with my new fx1000.
i found bed auto focus shots that i could not notice while i was filming since it was out door wedding and the sun was very harsh.
As well while filming the pre ceremony, i noticed that when ever i try to slightly zoom in the camera chose to focus on the background, even though the face takes 75 % of the total image(screen)
More then that, when ever i pan fast the camera stays blur until i change it to manual focus.
I was thinking to send it to repair but after reading this thread here it looks like a chronic problem with this camera.
Any solution for this problem?

February 24th, 2009, 05:35 PM	#70
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	16:9 v 4:3 In my opinion the "look" of 16:9 wins out over any 4:3 footage. It just looks right in my view. Anyone shooting in 4:3 is surely not seeing it through the consumers eyes. How can an image that is 25% narrower be as good? No going back for me.

August 20th, 2009, 05:42 PM	#75
Dror Levi Major Player Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Pembroke Pines FL Posts: 331	i just started editing 3 movies that i filmed with my new fx1000. i found bed auto focus shots that i could not notice while i was filming since it was out door wedding and the sun was very harsh. As well while filming the pre ceremony, i noticed that when ever i try to slightly zoom in the camera chose to focus on the background, even though the face takes 75 % of the total image(screen) More then that, when ever i pan fast the camera stays blur until i change it to manual focus. I was thinking to send it to repair but after reading this thread here it looks like a chronic problem with this camera. Any solution for this problem? __________________ www.nostalgicFrames.com

February 24th, 2009, 09:15 AM	#63
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	You know John, I had a prospect in my studio last week. We were watching an older wedding video of mine shot outdoors with the 2100, and the footage was mixed with professional wedding photos. The photos and my video matched almost perfectly, it was really stunning footage, IMO, as I often found with the VX2100. The customer asked if it was HD. It was 4:3, unstretched, bars on the side, but it looked THAT good. In perfect light, the HD of the FX1000 is fantastic, and it is HD, of course. But pound for pound, I say the VX2100 is still the wedding cam to beat. My prospects are still blown away by the images. Is there a 16:9 CCD camcorder equivalent to the VX2100? If there is that might be an intermediate option for you.

February 24th, 2009, 04:15 PM	#67
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	That may be well and good, but my comments are directed at Todd, who is looking for a camera. He does not seem enamored with CMOS or rolling shutter. I don't think he or anyone would buy a FX1000 or Z5 so that he can shoot great SD...it would be pointless. And besides I said pound for pound. If I'm going to shoot SD I'm not going to spend $3.2K when I could buy a VX2100 for $1200. He had mentioned getting another 2100, so that is the context my comment was made in.

February 24th, 2009, 05:19 PM	#69
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I agree in principle with you Greg. I hate the looks of the rolling shutter in a dark environment with flashes going off, and if someone asks my opinioin of this phenomenon, I'll tell them I think it looks dreadful. But I am not going to ditch the camera because of it.

February 24th, 2009, 08:24 PM	#71
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I agree Martin. I still rave about my old 2100, but when I see my new camera filling all of the real estate of my widescreen TV, I really like it.

February 24th, 2009, 09:29 PM	#74
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Wow Martin, I'm surprised!! I still have the TRV900 and always felt there was a 'pushed' look about its image. I found the VX2100 & 2000 to have a significantly better image than the 900 and the Z5 to have a better image still. The color of these CMOS-based cameras seem to be invariably better than the older CCD-based Sonys. Add the additional detail, exposure latitude and sharpness, I find the image much superior to the 900 in 4:3 SD. I did many A/Bs with my 2100 & Z5 when I first got it to test the SD 4:3 image. I shot the same scenes, with the same framing and found the Z5 to be better in every shot. So I guess we see some of these things differently.