Jeff, I guess your talking about the 10/20 light. I have never tried, but I will and I will let you know. The HV30 is a very small camera but has good control with manual settings once you learn them.

I'll try to get some screen grabs up comparing the 1000 and the 30. This past wedding was dark but the alter had very good lighting.

I also thought about the FX7, but figured if I spent 2k, I might as well get another 1000.

"going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality"
Definitely yes, because this is poorly done in the camera.
why ? because this must be done real time with very limited processing power.
If you want a good conversion, capture into a computer and do the conversion with a decent converter.
shot from a PDW-330 XDCAM HD and top picture converted by camera, bottom by computer


Interestingly, that's what I've found too. If you really need SD and don't need the HD, I think it's better to leave the camera in the SD mode. Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sonys.

Of course the smart thing to do would be to conduct an A/B with your own cam and see which setup is better.

Jeff

Yeah it was a Panasonic DVC-30. Great little cam for weddings that one and great low light performance that I would say on par with a VX2000. BIg statement but true.

On the subject of small cameras I love little cameras for weddings. I'll bet anyone an XD-cam that in some situations a small, good quality "point and shoot" cam is more effective than a bigger boy.

My Sony TRV900 was a winner for weddings and I still say that camera was one of the easiest to use.

I don't film wedding at the minute but I do plan on doing some again and will defintly be looking at getting a small cam to do some if not alot of the filming with.

I owned a DVC-60 (same chips as DVC-30) and for 1/4" chips it was a great camera.

"Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sony's."



Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue.

I will put the footage on the computer in Edius and create a DVD from the timeline but I must say I am losing sleep over this!

Need to get another edit done first so it will be a few days of hand on the heart for me.

"if I had have recorded in SD "
well the problem is you compare HD picture with SD picture.
So whatever you could do, if you look at the HD quality and compare with the SD conversion, for sure there will be a big loss.
But if you shoot in SD directly, probably the camera is using the same conversion, so i do not see a reason to have better quality (except that DV is better at handling fast moving picture than HDV).
Anyway, composite video is bad, you should try to transfer digitally with firewire.
most DVD burner got firewire input now. You will skip 2 conversion process , one to produce composite video as output and one to decode composite for recording.

As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!
Um, you *do* know that composite is the crappiest connection available? Not just SD, but lousy SD?

Try component to a good monitor. You should be able to set component out to SD, and by all accounts Sonys do a very nice job of downconverting.

Good news.

Just checked some in door Theatre/dancing footage shot on the FX1000 and BINGO the footage is razor sharp like Z1. I can now sleep at night knowing this cam is the real deal! I knew it was but hadn't seen it with my own eyes yet.

I will nut out the HD>SD in a few days.

Gee this cam is good in low light! I also like how it feels on the tripod. Just feels a bit better than the Z1 to me. I found with the Z1 alot of my shots were overexposed as I was perhaps trying to get too much out of the camera. Having said that the Z1 is still a ripper.

Jeff, my Panasonic was a DVC-62 but I have referred to it as a DVC-30 for the sake of this forum.

I don't miss that 2.5 inch LCD on the 62 hey!. I will miss the ultra quick zoom and creep but gee it had a poor audio limiter in it! For Sport I put a Sony 1.4 tele on the front and it got me right in there.

Hoping there may be a tele for the FX1000/Z5 that is about a 1.4 so you don't get the ring when you come out to a full wide.

I checked out the DIGI zoom extender on the 1000 but haven't tested it yet to see if the picture degrades. One thing it does that is cool is that it allows you to activate it whilst in record mode. I set it to a assign 4 and just reached over and on it comes. Makes the footage look like a two camera shoot. Pretty cool for me as the Aussie Rules I film is on an arena close to double the size of gridiorn fields and its nice to be able to get "right in there".

If there is not much drop in quality then it may be handy.

Anyone else into filming sport out there?

Jeff

Yeah it was a Panasonic DVC-30. Great little cam for weddings that one and great low light performance that I would say on par with a VX2000. BIg statement but true.

On the subject of small cameras I love little cameras for weddings. I'll bet anyone an XD-cam that in some situations a small, good quality "point and shoot" cam is more effective than a bigger boy.

My Sony TRV900 was a winner for weddings and I still say that camera was one of the easiest to use.

I don't film wedding at the minute but I do plan on doing some again and will defintly be looking at getting a small cam to do some if not alot of the filming with.

Small cameras have some advantages, and aside from somewhat limited control, the newer HD "consumer" cameras do a prety good job under more conditions than not... I wish for the "AVCHD version" of the TRV900 - basic but useable manual control, good handling, discreet, yet great quality.

I was comparing some test shots (on a German site mentioned elsewhere on DVi) of various cameras supposedly shooting the identical scene under identical lighting conditions (I say supposedly, because it's hard to know for sure if they were really identical, as they were shot at different times, but it was fairly well done...). I think the thing that stood out was how close the majority of HD cameras were in good light, and until you got to an EX1 or EX3, there wasn't a stunning difference in low light... the small Sony and Canon Cameras held their own surprisingly well, and the SR11 and Canon HV30 seemed to do quite well considering. The results were pretty consistent with my firsthand experience, and since I'm not going to pony up for an EX3, the SR11 still looks pretty good... Though I like the features of the FX1000...

[QUOTE=Martin Duffy;985724Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue.

[/QUOTE]

Martin, when you get a minute don't forget to shoot some footage with the FX1000 in SD mode and compare that with the down-rezzed mode. You may find this is how you want to shoot in the future if SD is what the client wants.

Martin, when you get a minute don't forget to shoot some footage with the FX1000 in SD mode and compare that with the down-rezzed mode. You may find this is how you want to shoot in the future if SD is what the client wants.

I had to shoot in dv mode with an xh-a1 a few weeks ago because my firwireport didn't work anymore and I didn't have another hdv camera to capture it, so I choose the dv mode which enabled me to capture my footage on an older dv cam. Because I had a deadline that was the most sensible thing to do at that time.
I was really surprised about the quality. It was sharper then what my dvx100 or vx2100 ever could have delivered.
If I work with premiere with hdv I normally output as an dv-avi and then let Encore handle the transcoding automatically. Now with the dv footage it was the same approach and with the same quality results on a dvd.
I think that as long as hd is not a request the dv mode is just as good, but filming in hdv does give you a big advantage to transfer your footage in the future to a blu-ray disk so you have to think ahead when making this decission.
I only did this because I had no other choice at that time, otherwise I would never do this but hdv camera are capable to give great results on dvd if your in hdv mode (and using the right transcode settings) or dv mode.

Hey guys, I was of the understanding that quality is better if shooting HD, edit HD, then render DV. Is this not the case?

I think I'll go do a search.

That's what some say. I've ordered my Z5 and that's one of the tests I'll do to get a handle on this when it comes.

Thanks William. Unitl I get a definitive answer I'll plan on shooting in SD for this weekend. At least the files will be easier to handle in post.

I can't imagine the image quality is significantly different in the end.

Hey guys, I was of the understanding that quality is better if shooting HD, edit HD, then render DV. Is this not the case?

I think I'll go do a search.

From what I've seen with my xh-a1 there was no difference in quality between transcoding hdv or dv to a dvd.

Guys, the only thing about shooting in HDV (aside from any possible quality issues) and then transcoding to SD, is the letterboxing that occurs and that might bother some clients with 4:3 displays. If the client has an HDTV, then this would not be an issue. It might not be an issue even if they have 4:3 displays, but many folks still don't like 'those ugly bars'.

Best to know in advance if the client is OK with it.

Walk into an electronics store, do you see any non widescreen tv for sale? so why shoot standard? if they don't have widescreen tv they will soon when their current tv stop working.

Khoi, I'm just saying it's prudent to ask. I agree essentially with what you're saying, but you'd be surprised how many legacy 4:3 TVs are still out there. If the client is fine then you're good to go, but what harm is there in asking? It's better than a ticked off client. ;)

For a lot of corporate work, 4:3 still rules.

but you'd be surprised how many legacy 4:3 TVs are still out there.

Strange how many differences there can be between Countries, here 4:3 tv's are not sold anymore and 9 out of 10 of my clients have widescreen tv's, about 50% crt and the other part lcd/plasmas.
The prizes of big widescreen lcd's are so low now almost everybody is buying one and prizes continue to drop.
Also for corporate work they start asking widescreen recordings, 4:3 is definitely retired in Europe.

what I meant is that many large companies still employ 4:3 TVs for viewing rooms when training employees. Assuming it's not CBT (computer based training), it's more common to find 4:3 displays than it is 16:9. I've found that if you're dealing with CRTs in the U.S., you're generally still looking at 4:3 and not 16:9. 16:9 took off with flat panels, but never was too prolific with CRTs.

But as Noa said, even here is the U.S., 4:3 is pretty much dead in terms of new sales. The analog plug is being pulled in February, so over-the-air broadcasting will be all digital. It's just that Corporate America is slow to catch up to consumer tech.

Believe it or not, I still get occasional requests for a finished product on VHS!!!

I am lending my FX1000 to a friend who films weddings and he still uses a VX2000.

He's keen on the FX and as I have a few weeks off its a great opp for him to try it out.

I have taken him through the basic functions which are straight forward and similar to the VX but what about presets such as sharpness or "Contrast enhancer"

Just wondering what settings to go for as far as little tweaks here and there. Any tips welcomed.

I am also going to source an L bracket for the camera as hand held footage will become a bit more strenuous on this cam than the VX.

What about this one. It has 2X hot shoe slots. Smith Victor Side-Mount Accessory Bracket - SV1150 - 701520 (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/SV1150/)

I used an L bracket with the TRV900 and it was great for all day hand-held shooting.

Jeff, how are you finding the weight of the FX for weddings.

Martin -
That bracket will probably be too small for something in the FX class - it's the generic import Sima bracket... My personal prference for a larger cam is something like the old Vivitar ergo style grip (left hand), although there are some smaller lighter brackets than that one that could work OK. I might have some possibilities laying about if you're interested, PM me - I've got some brackets that I no longer use...

I might have some possibilities laying about if you're interested, PM me - I've got some brackets that I no longer use...[/QUOTE]



Dave that sounds good and thanks for the tip. I am happy to pay postage to Australia for something that works well.


Martin

Just wondering what settings to go for as far as little tweaks here and there. Any tips welcomed.


At last weekends wedding I ran the 1000 with SHARPNESS at +5, CONTRAST ENHANCER on, COLOR DEPTH +1, COLOR LEVEL +1. I also set the AE SHIFT to -2 and AWB SENS to high just in case I had to go auto in a pinch (which I did). The footage turned out great.

I'm no expert by no means, but I did play around alot with the 1000 before it's first use, and that's what I came up with. Hope it helps.

Thanks Tim, -2 AE sounds good and most likely spot on

Khoi, I'm just saying it's prudent to ask. I agree essentially with what you're saying, but you'd be surprised how many legacy 4:3 TVs are still out there. If the client is fine then you're good to go, but what harm is there in asking? It's better than a ticked off client. ;)

For a lot of corporate work, 4:3 still rules.

Very true--much of corporate will be SD 4:3 for a long time to come.

I do a medical cable TV show that is broadcast to the Middle East, and they want SD 4:3.
I would never assume that a customer will be OK with 16:9. Always ask first how the end product will be viewed, see what they want, and taylor your finished product accordingly. Otherwise you put yourself at risk of upsetting a customer.

How is the AWB affected by the various settings Tim?

Jeff, the AWB SENS has 4 settings, INTELLIGENT-HIGH-MIDDLE-LOW. HIGH seams seems to produce the best results. You know how auto WB seems to produce ovesaturated reds, has kinda of an orange glow, HIGH seems to lower that to more useable levels. IMO

that is important info Tim. I will check that setting today!

sounds interesting that the Z5 and FX1000 has the same AWB options. The Intelligence mode worked ok for me but i didnt have the chance to test it enuf thou

Sony does not allow you to toggle between indoor and outdoor WB settings. You only get one preset, and you have to choose it in the menu, indoor or outdoor. (why?).

I'm right with you on this one Jeff. WHY, Sony? The VX/PD was a much better operational idea whereby you could instantly switch between two presets, indoor and outdoor. All this delving into the deep menuy system just to change the preset's value is laughable.

Has anyone come up with a good reason why this is so? I could live with 2 presets and one manually set w/b thank you Sony.

tom.

Guys, why can't you use memory A & B positions to store an outdoor & indoor WB respectively (A for indoor and B for outdoor)?

Ken, we can do that of course. But why should we have to?

Tom: Thank you, I thought I was the only one. It is the most non-sensical thing I can imagine. I look at this feature, the menu scroll wheel, and the placement of the hot shoe that doesn't allow for opening and closing the LCD when anything is mounted and I imagine they must have made these decision with the idea that it would be wrong to give us a camera that is near-perfect for the money.

Jeff, I'm not sure I'm understanding the difference between having an outdoor WB stored in "A" and an indoor WB stored in "B" as opposed to having a dedicated outdoor/indoor switch. A simple switch between A & B accomplishes the same thing, no?

Is it that you feel you're losing two potential memory slots that you could use for other WB adjustments?

why can't you use memory A & B positions to store an outdoor & indoor WB respectively

Because the 'manually set' A & B positions are potentially unreliable. Did I change these on the last shoot? Is it 'nearly indoors', or 'warm outdoors'? I like to see the bulb and sun, and work fromn there.

My Z1 is excellent in that it allows me to set the outdoor preset and then fine-tune this setting (warmer or cooler) with the assign buttons. 5 clicks on button 5 and I'm in the artificial mode setting. I presume the Z5 has this very useful feature too.

tom.

Tom, the 1000 does have a WB shift feature that allows you to adjust in an 18 point scale, warmer or cooler (9 point warmer, 9 point cooler) from the cam's decision.

Because the 'manually set' A & B positions are potentially unreliable. Did I change these on the last shoot? Is it 'nearly indoors', or 'warm outdoors'? I like to see the bulb and sun, and work fromn there.tom.

Plus, you loose those two presets that could be set for something else. For me, I would like to toggle between indoor/outdoor and set the A&B preset for something like the bridal room and the sanctuary. Like it is I had to set B for outdoor, A for sanctuary and set the preset to indoor.

Well said Tom.

As Tom said, give me the light bulb and the sun thingy and we can take it from there. Since we have to use one of the custom settings as an outdoor or indoor preset we lose a preset anyway which makes the whole affair of this new "Feature" an excercise in futility on their part and a waste of time for us. It just doesn't make sense to have "fixed" something that worked.

Plus, you loose those two presets that could be set for something else. For me, I would like to toggle between indoor/outdoor and set the A&B preset for something like the bridal room and the sanctuary. Like it is I had to set B for outdoor, A for sanctuary and set the preset to indoor.

That's what I thought would be the biggest negative.

Ken, where is that? I haven't found that.

Tim, page 40 of the 1000 manual. You can download it from Sony if you don't have it handy.

Awe man, I thought I was done testing.

You haven't even begun Tim, you haven't even begun. :)

[QUOTE=Jeff Harper a camera that is near-perfect for the money.[/QUOTE]


Well gents the inventers always need something to seemingly invent on the next one.

I mean getting all of us and them (Sony) in a room and nailing the perfect bang for buck camera would be too logical and put them out of work!

Good point Martin.

I don't know why they felt the need to change the WB scheme but Sony might have gone to the Preset/"A"/"B"/ white balance scheme because that is the way it has been done on the professional broadcast cameras for many many years.

I don't know why they felt the need to change the WB scheme but Sony might have gone to the Preset/"A"/"B"/ white balance scheme because that is the way it has been done on the professional broadcast cameras for many many years.

The FX1 is the same so it isn't really a change.

Ron Evans

Well I am about to edit some footage taken with my new FX1000. Here are some issues that I have on my mind that I need to cover:

1. LCD screen set up: I am an LCD screen man and not a Viewfinder person. The only time I use the viewfinder is under extreme sunlight. The viewfinder on the 1000 is "milky" and not that great" The LCD on the other hand the best I have ever seen on any camera. My past experience with using the LCD screen on a camera is that if the brightness is set to the middle or normal setting the picture you see on the LCD is very close to how it will look on a TV monitor. I have found the default setting on the 1000 camera to be too low meaning the pictures I record are actually coming out "hotter" or more exposed than what I saw in the LCD. I have now increased the brightness on LCD to match what is being recorded. I will take the camera out the front of my studio and do some tests and report back on this.

2. ZEBRA: I am not a zebra fan but it can be handy when one is unsure of hot spots. Going to play around with Zebra settings and I need to get a better understanding of how it works on the 1000/z5. I have found the zebra pattern does not show through a hot spot such when filming with a window say to the side of the frame. My past experience was that if the spot was really hot then the zebra would cover the bright or white area and it was easy to tell that that section was hot. On the 1000 the zebra seems to create a square around the area and its not until you bring the exposure down that you can see the zebra. Is this what others are seeing as well?

2. Backlight: I have briefly seen footage with back light such as a long shot of a bride walking through the door to the church and are questioning the 1000's ability to handle backlight. I am only going on a few scenes maybe its fine but it looks a bit "blotchy" or struggling to handle backlight. Maybe the shots in question were too overexposed? I will do some tests and report back on this.

3. Rolling Shutter: I am about to edit a dance concert that had a Z1 on the wide and FX1000 on the close up and will report back on this. There was exteme light from the back of the stage coming at the camera so this will be a great test for the Z5/1000.

4. Weight of camera: It has an awesome feel on the tripod but heavy for all day hand held such as a wedding. Need an L bracket.

5. SD Recording: Quality of HD recording has exceeded my expectations. I have however found that in SD the quality is maybe not as good as a VX2000. I am going to do a side by side test to see if this is true.

6. CF Recording unit: This is a big one for me. DOes the Compact Flash unit work easily with the FX1000. How much is it? How much are the 32 and 64 gig cards? Can you record in SD and HD on it as well as to tape at the same time? Does it connect via the wire port? Any info on this unit welcomed.

Martin, I've very surprised you found the viewfinder 'milky'. This seems to be contrary to other's experiences with this.

I'm not surprised by the backlighting issue since I've never seen any consumer/prosumer camcorder that could handle dramatic areas of dynamic range.

I am a bit surprised by your finding on the SD side. I would have thought that it would be at least as good as the 2000 with SD.

Test on!

Martin, the compact flash unit does work with the FX1000. I mounts on the shoe and connects through the firewire port. It is $845 at B & H if I remember correctly. I am not sure but I think you can record either SD or HD. I know that 32 gig cards are available that are fast enough. I don't know about 64's.