Boy, now you guys have really got me itching to make some controlled tests. I can't wait to get into the theater tomorrow. Maybe this weekend I can do some side-by-sides with FX1, FX7 and FX1000 and see if I can even see any diffference or if I'm imagining everythng.

I've got a Canon HV20 that looks sharp all the time and its single CMOS chip is no bigger than 1/3".

Actually Canon's HV30 CMOS chip is 1"/2.7, so it's actually noticeably bigger than 1"/3. How much of that chip's surface area is used for imaging I don't know, but the same applies for Sony's 1"/3 chips too.

Tom, I checked and you are indeed correct. But, even with the HV20's larger surface area, the 3-chip Z5 is still noticeably sharper and more detailed than the single chip HV20. Some may say "So what's the big deal, wouldn't you expect a camera of the class of a Z5 to be sharper than a consumer HDV camera". Well, not so fast. I've read a number of Canon XH-A1 owner say their HV20s can actually look as sharp or a bit sharper than their A1. Of course there are many other picture parameters in which the XH-A1 will trump the HV20, but sharpness is not one of them.

But again, the resolution #s of the Z5 do put this cam in a class by itself.

Boy, now you guys have really got me itching to make some controlled tests. I can't wait to get into the theater tomorrow. Maybe this weekend I can do some side-by-sides with FX1, FX7 and FX1000 and see if I can even see any diffference or if I'm imagining everythng.

Adam, I had the FX7 too for awhile, and I found that camera sharper than the FX1. But I always thought the FX7 was a bit noisy and certainly poor in low light. It always looked to me like Sony added edge enhancement to the FX7 contributing to its somewhat noisy image.

Tom, I checked and you are indeed correct..

Thank you Ken - but there's no need. I try and check everything myself before I post :)

I would expect a three times dearer Z5 (new in very late 2008) to be sharper than the two years older HV20, wouldn't you? But the Canon goes after sharpness in a sensible way. It uses a big modern chip (and Canon know all about CMOS from their DSLRs). It has a very conservatively specified zoom - only 10x and only f/1.8. Both good ways of keeping sharpness high and flare and distortion low. It also uses in-built and auto ND filtration, so ensuring that you use the lens' sweet spot whenever possible.

Because the Z5 relies entirely on the operator switching to the correct ND at the correct time, I'm betting a casual user will get sharper results from an HV20. Its OIS has far less work to do, that's for sure.

tom.

Can't agree with you there Tom. Wouldn't you expect a 3X dearer Canon XH-A1 to be sharper than the HV20? It's not. This is not the first time a consumer cam has shown a sharper image than its far more expensive counterpart.

The point of the more expensive cam is that it gives you a better image when you take the care to use the controls you are given. It gives you far more flexibility in a far greater range of shooting conditions. One of the things I've noticed that I haven't seen mentioned, is the great sharpness of the G lens throughout its zoom range.

You may be correct that a 'casual user' may get sharper results with an HV20 at times, but I don't think we have too many 'casual users' of the Z5. If the average Z5 user can't get consistently sharper results and a far better overall picture with superior colors than the HV20, shame on them. ;)

Can't agree with you there Tom. Wouldn't you expect a 3X dearer Canon XH-A1 to be sharper than the HV20? It's not.

Yes, that's what I'd expect to see - the XH outperforming the HV, but (as I say) only in experienced hands. But then again, the HV holds a lot of sharpness aces as my previous post points out.

It still amazes me that we can sit here and have a legitimate discussion about the sharpness and image quality of a $700 HV camera being on par or better than a $3000+ 3 chip prosumer camera under optimal lighting conditions. I'll always wonder if Canon knew what they had in the HV series or if it was a happy mistake.

It still amazes me that we can sit here and have a legitimate discussion about the sharpness and image quality of a $700 HV camera being on par or better than a $3000+ 3 chip prosumer camera under optimal lighting conditions. I'll always wonder if Canon knew what they had in the HV series or if it was a happy mistake.

I think Canon released more of those "mistakes" - ie. 5D m II. I read somewhere that guys at video dept went ballistic when they saw that short vid made with pre-release 5D :-)

Adam, I had the FX7 too for awhile, and I found that camera sharper than the FX1. But I always thought the FX7 was a bit noisy and certainly poor in low light. It always looked to me like Sony added edge enhancement to the FX7 contributing to its somewhat noisy image.I never found it to be too noisy but I had the max gain locked at 6dB from the day I got it. When I do see noise, I just convince myself it's film grain and the way I wanted it.

Sometimes when I burn the dinner I tell people I meant it to be that way, and sometimes they believe me....

I've actually been very happy with the low-light performance of the 7, but I know I'm in the minority on this one. We'll see if the 1000 is as much better as they say it is today in the theatre. Just playing around with it last night, it felt like it could see in the dark... the image on the LCD was several orders of magnitude brighter than the real room was, with what seemed to be accurate colors and no noise at all. But you can't really tell anything about grain on a tiny LCD screen...

It still amazes me that we can sit here and have a legitimate discussion about the sharpness and image quality of a $700 HV camera being on par or better than a $3000+ 3 chip prosumer camera under optimal lighting conditions. I'll always wonder if Canon knew what they had in the HV series or if it was a happy mistake.

If you think the HV series was good Ethan, you should check out the HG21. That's sharper and more resolute (with better colors too) than the HV series. But it still can't compete with what a properly adjusted Z5 can produce.

I've actually been very happy with the low-light performance of the 7, but I know I'm in the minority on this one. We'll see if the 1000 is as much better as they say it is today in the theatre. Just playing around with it last night, it felt like it could see in the dark... the image on the LCD was several orders of magnitude brighter than the real room was, with what seemed to be accurate colors and no noise at all. But you can't really tell anything about grain on a tiny LCD screen...

Adam, I'm sure you'll find a huge difference in the low light of these 2 cams. The low light of the Z5 is every bit as good as the champ, the VX2100. For HD that's surely no small achievement. BUT, I would encourage youi to go beyond 6db of gain...the Z5 can surely handle that easily.

With the FX1 and FX7, the choice was 6 or 12, and I found 12 to be a little grainy so I erred on the side of caution. With FX1000/Z5 you can choose from the full range so I will likely go to at least 9. Maybe 12 if it's as clean as you say.

Any advice on Black Compensation and Knee settings in a theatrical environment? Right now, just based on guesswork, I've got them set to crush the blacks and the Knee settings on HIGH because of the inherently high-contrast nature of stage shows. In the past we've had a lot of noise as the cams struggle to lift up the blacks. Obviously neither of my earlier cams had these settings so I'm experimenting...

Actually Canon's HV30 CMOS chip is 1"/2.7, so it's actually noticeably bigger than 1"/3.

Tom, a 1/2.7" chip is larger than a 1/3 chip and it certainly sounds more impressive, but it isn't really a big difference. If you do the math it is .3704" to .3333". Less than 4 hundredths of an inch larger. Would the Z5, Z7, S270, and FX1000 be significantly better camcorders if they had 1/2.7" chips? I really doubt it would make much difference.

In digital still cameras. How can a basic Nikon with only a 6mp image sensor, produce a better photo than one of the little collapsible digital’s that has a 10mp sensor? Better lens, better internal processing, better controls, etc. It all adds up to a better image.

With the FX1 and FX7, the choice was 6 or 12, and I found 12 to be a little grainy so I erred on the side of caution. With FX1000/Z5 you can choose from the full range so I will likely go to at least 9. Maybe 12 if it's as clean as you say.

Any advice on Black Compensation and Knee settings in a theatrical environment? Right now, just based on guesswork, I've got them set to crush the blacks and the Knee settings on HIGH because of the inherently high-contrast nature of stage shows. In the past we've had a lot of noise as the cams struggle to lift up the blacks. Obviously neither of my earlier cams had these settings so I'm experimenting...

If you want a more contrasty look that will also help hide the noise, but yet still look damn good, try a master black setting of -10.

Would the Z5, Z7, S270, and FX1000 be significantly better camcorders if they had 1/2.7" chips?

Not in the slightest. All I'm saying is that the bigger the chip, the easier it is to get differential focus for any given object size at any given aperture at any given distance.

If you want a more contrasty look that will also help hide the noise, but yet still look damn good, try a master black setting of -10.Thanks for the input.

Unfortunately, the FX1000 only lets us choose between STRETCH or COMPRESS with the blacks, and HIGH, MIDDLE or LOW for the knee point. Thoughts?

I'd leave the knee point alone and select 'compress' for the blacks. I once saw someone post a picture (maybe Jeff?) from the FX1000 with compress on & off and I thought the 'compress' presented a punchier picture.

Thanks, Ken.

I did compress the blacks and "punchier" is exactly the right word. I set the knee to HIGH and never had a zebra showing, so I assume it reduced the blown out areas to acceptable levels. I'll know more when I actually get the tape on the PC tomorrow.

Thanks for the help.

I think you need to stretch the blacks for stage environment because the problem is seeing detail in the shadows. Bring knee down so that the lights on whites will not overexpose them. I just wish my FX1 could do that. I end up exposing to make sure I don't loose detail in the bright colours and then play with gamma in post to regain the detail in the shadows. If you do the opposite( compress blacks), an actor with black pants on a dark stage with a white shirt will end up looking like just a white shirt moving around the stage!!!! Once you have compressed there is no way to recover in post. With stretch you can compress in post if you don't like it.

Ron Evans

Adam, I had the FX7 too for awhile, and I found that camera sharper than the FX1. But I always thought the FX7 was a bit noisy and certainly poor in low light. It always looked to me like Sony added edge enhancement to the FX7 contributing to its somewhat noisy image.
ken i still have an fx-7 and the sharpness setting makes an awful lot of difference in the amount of noise[0-15]in tests against my sr-12 the little one just has more resolution even with the 7 on 15 max,my problem is by the time its on the pc for what ever format bd avchd or tape its lower than the fx7s,watching the project on the time line especialy full screen shows up as well,annoying.

So Martyn, what's happening to the SR12's footage in post that it starts out sharper than your FX7 and winds up softer?

I think you need to stretch the blacks for stage environment because the problem is seeing detail in the shadows.
Actually, that isn't the problem for me; it's overblown highlights.
Bring knee down so that the lights on whites will not overexpose them. I just wish my FX1 could do that. I end up exposing to make sure I don't loose detail in the bright colours and then play with gamma in post to regain the detail in the shadows. If you do the opposite( compress blacks), an actor with black pants on a dark stage with a white shirt will end up looking like just a white shirt moving around the stage!!!! Once you have compressed there is no way to recover in post. With stretch you can compress in post if you don't like it.
I think in theory this makes sense, but in practice I've found it doesn't work that way, at least for me. The white shirt/black pants scenario never happens because I'm in SPOTLIGHT mode all the time, which adjusts for this, and having the knee at 100% makes it even better -- seems like it crushes down the highlights while keeping dark parts at least visible.

And the problem with trying to see detail in the shadows is a) they're not lit for a reason, so you really *don't* want to see this, and b) if you try, you just get a ton of grain as the cam struggles to bring up details. I was actually concerned about losing details in darker, but still lit, areas of the stage, but the cam seems to know what to do.

Using Black Compress last night got me exactly what I wanted. But I will try bringing the knee down to 85% (low). Or, since the cam always seems to be smarter than I am, just leaving it on AUTO. Much more experimenting still to do.

Adam, so how was the overall quality and how did it compare with the other cams you used?

I never run in auto because this destroys the lighting effects of the lighting designer apart from relying on the camera to set gain( grain). I watch zebras and make sure that faces or light yellow costumes are correctly exposed. This is the most one can get out of most cameras. Most of the time my FX1 is at 9db, and around F3.4 to F4 for theatre shows. Gives good depth of field for the stage and grain is manageable at 9db. Spotlight mode manages gain and iris in an attempt to stop saturation of bright scenes it doesn't always work and will go up and down with the lights. Just like any auto systems when the stage blacks out it will try and correct when the lights then come up bright it will have to shut down quick. This pumping is noticable and just isn't there in full manual mode.
As far as detail in the shadows is concerned I am sure the costume designers want you to see that the suit is pin stripped or that there is a pattern on the black dress. IF the stage lighting designer doesn't want anyone to see the corner of the stage it will not have any light and will not be seen by anyone. Peoples eyes are far more sensitive than a camera and the audience will see far more of the stage than any recording.

Ron Evans

Adam, so how was the overall quality and how did it compare with the other cams you used?
I was blown away looking at the LCD screen during taping, but now that the tapes are on the PC the FX1 and FX1000 look pretty much the same. But that's just spot checking. I'll need to explore more.

Ron -- I get everything you're saying and can't quarrel with any of it. It just hasn't worked that way for me, that's all. I never have a problem using AUTO/SPOTLIGHT, but that's just me. It does try to compensate when the stage blacks out but eventually it gives up. And I do the fade in post anyway.

Appreciate all the input.

Adam, if you have access to a large screen 1080p HDTV, THAT would be the way to judge. I think on most of these computer monitors, all these cams look pretty much alike. The monitors hide so much of the goodness these cams have to offer.

That's an excellent point. I need to get an AV receiver or other form of mixer with front inputs as I'm all out of inputs on my 65" Sony RP. And they're all in the back anyway.

I think its a good rule of thumb to be editing with a TV monitor also displaying the "real" picture as you are doing the edit.

Just firewire out and sit it along side your computer monitors. A great reference to how things really look.

Things are on the improve for me and the FX1000. The digital extender I can confirm is a great feature for sports events.

Its maybe not as sharp as normal optical but certainly not as noisy as the not so long ago days of normal Digi zoom.

Anyone filming horse racing, or gold or anyhting really where you need to get a closer look will be happy.

I am not sure about for wedding where you may like to track a wedding party from say 50m away.

It would be an interesting test for some to do and see if they like the result.

Certainly you can pick up better facial expressions being closer in so well may be an alternative to putting a tele lens on/off.

So Martyn, what's happening to the SR12's footage in post that it starts out sharper than your FX7 and winds up softer?

Unless pinnacle and my quad core pc dont like each other its a puzzle and annoying.

I think its a good rule of thumb to be editing with a TV monitor also displaying the "real" picture as you are doing the edit.I agree; I actually have two -- one connected to the deck so I can monitor during capture, and the other attached to the video card for full-screen playback from the timeline.

Sorry, i dont have time to read the whole topic, just a quick question:
FX1000 LCD screen show the picture in overscan format or
show the full 1080 lines frame?
if not, how can you compose a shot, if you dont know what the viewer
will see on a full hd lcd tv that is underscan?

Very good question Prech, and I await the replies with interest. I hate the huge overscan on my Z1, and the underscan mode reduces the image size on the screen so much that it's quite unacceptable.

I was always under the impression that overscan & underscan were more a function of CRT displays. A 1920X1080 LCD display should show the entire picture without any overscan or underscan.

Hi Ken.
please read my post again.
The question wasn't THAT!

(and for example my LG 37LC51 still used the overscan mode!, and it wasnt crt..)

Sorry, i dont have time to read the whole topic, just a quick question:
FX1000 LCD screen show the picture in overscan format or
show the full 1080 lines frame?
if not, how can you compose a shot, if you dont know what the viewer
will see on a full hd lcd tv that is underscan?
, 10%
Hi Prech,
This is very simple to test, use your editing system and see on your PC monitor what is realy in the picture. I have the Z5 and when the overscan is off the monitor shows 100%.
I believe this function in is not possible on the FX1000, the same was also on my FX1 10% lost. I don't understand why Sony and most of the others do this. This was perhaps in the time of CRT ok, but most of the flatpanels can give you full screen, 1920x1080 pixels.
Dirk PEL(NL)

Where are you finding anything about overscan on the Z5? I can't find anything about it in the menus or in the manual. There is, however, a safety marker that you can display, which outlines either 80% or 90% of the whole frame, depending on how you set it, which implies to me that the LCD is supposed to be showing you the entire frame, as if Allscan mode was on.

As far as I can tell, there is no Allscan mode on the Z5. There certainly isn't one on the FX1000.

Adam,
You are right, the allscan was on the Z1. It is the safetymarker 80 or 90%. I controlled with Canopus Edius the display. What you can see is nearly 100%. With my FX1 there was at least 10% missing and give a lot of problems, mics or heads on the video that you didn't see on the camcorder.
Dirk PEL(NL)

Dirk,

Maybe i dont really understand something, but
I ask my question because i DONT HAVE an FX1000 right now!
So how do i make a test??

I don't know how one could test anything, in the absence of the thing being tested. I don't see how you could test one until you get your hands on one. Then it would obviously be a simple matter of shooting a test chart and comparing the display on the cam to the image captured on the tape, displayed in a PC.

My experience is the FX1000 and the Z5 both show pretty much the entire frame. Others have different experiences.