BTW Ken, I finished editing a video shot with my 2100 and a PD150 and I saw the noisiness mentioned.

After you get used to watching the FX1000 fotage it becomes much more apparent.

I really regret shooting my last wedding with the FX1000 in non-HD. Even though the images are quite nice (and I used 16:9 settings) I suspect the end product comes out better when shot in HD and downconverted in post.

My immediate thoughts on seeing the clip on the screen were that there was a little more saturation and contrast with the VX2100, which I liked actually. Besides the 16:9 format that I went to HDV for, the initial result of the Z5 clip didn't impress me.

The settings I used to get a bright enough picture was a shutter speed of 25fps on some of the close ups - I had obviously used loads of zoom and lost a f/stop or two. I also used up to 6db of gain on some close ups.
The light was really low, and this is pushing the Z5 against the VX2100's greatest asset, whilst stripping the Z5 of its major asset, HDV!

I haven't looked into setting of white balance yet on the Z5. Maybe the VX2100 is just better at doing this on its own.
I did another side by side comparison in SD in exploring the focal length of each cam - the Z5 has loads more wide angle but only a bit of extra full zoom.

I can't do new comparisons for the two, as Ebay has grabbed my VX2100. I'm posting it tomorrow, but I've got loads of footage that I've recorded with it. When the weather warms to over 1c I'll do a few more outside shots in full HD, and hopefully allow my Z5 to get its own back.

I suspect the end product comes out better when shot in HD and downconverted in post.

No doubt about it in my mind Jeff.

BTW Ken, I finished editing a video shot with my 2100 and a PD150 and I saw the noisiness mentioned.

After you get used to watching the FX1000 fotage it becomes much more apparent.

I really regret shooting my last wedding with the FX1000 in non-HD. Even though the images are quite nice (and I used 16:9 settings) I suspect the end product comes out better when shot in HD and downconverted in post.

Jeff, when shooting in HD and then downcoverting to SD, wouldn't you get letterboxing for customers still using a 4:3 TV? If so, you'd have to prepare them for that in advance. Some people get really nutsy about letterboxing.

But's it's good that you're now aware of the cleaner image of the FX1000. That's important to know.

I'm not talking aspect ratios. Only resolution.

I'm not talking aspect ratios. Only resolution.

No, I know that, but you'd still need to be aware of the letterboxing that would occur while shooting in HD if you plan on delivering an SD product. Some people might not have a problem at all with letterboxing, but others might ask "Why is the picture not filling up my screen?".

You still see some people get upset with this when watching DVDs on a 4:3 screen. Have you compared shooting with the FX1000 in SD 4:3 mode with the VX2100? If I use the FX1000 for corporate work, I'd be pretty much forced to do that since many corporate clients won't be happy with letterboxing.

If I need to shoot 4:3 I still have a PD150. Virtually all of my wedding customers have 16:9 sets, or they will in the next year so. I'm not planning on delivering anything but 16:9 for weddings. I'm not concerned about those few who have 4:3. Maybe I should be, but I'm not.

You can shoot in HD 16 x 9 and still not aggravate customers who might object to letterboxing on their 4 x 3 movie. It actually depends on how you downconvert on whether the image is letter boxed. You can edge crop on your downconversion process to 4 x 3 and there won't be any letterboxing at all. Just a normal 4 x 3 image. You will loose whatever was on the edge of the screen when you shot it, however. I have a car dealership I shoot for regularly. I shoot on 16 x 9 HD but deliver the footage to the ad agency in 4 x 3 SD, non-letterboxed. They have their own editor. Ironically, they wind up putting a letterbox mask over the 4 x 3 SD image in post.

If I need to shoot 4:3 I still have a PD150. Virtually all of my wedding customers have 16:9 sets, or they will in the next year so. I'm not planning on delivering anything but 16:9 for weddings. I'm not concerned about those few who have 4:3. Maybe I should be, but I'm not.


Jeff, I was just curious how the 1000 would do SD 4:3 compared to the 150/2100. I would also say if all your customers have 16:9, you should be doing nothing but HD.

You can shoot in HD 16 x 9 and still not aggravate customers who might object to letterboxing on their 4 x 3 movie. It actually depends on how you downconvert on whether the image is letter boxed. You can edge crop on your downconversion process to 4 x 3 and there won't be any letterboxing at all. Just a normal 4 x 3 image. You will loose whatever was on the edge of the screen when you shot it, however. I have a car dealership I shoot for regularly. I shoot on 16 x 9 HD but deliver the footage to the ad agency in 4 x 3 SD, non-letterboxed. They have their own editor. Ironically, they wind up putting a letterbox mask over the 4 x 3 SD image in post.

Greg, if you edge crop top & bottom, doesn't this require that you zoom on the center image losing come clarity?

The edge crop downconversion only takes off the sides. The full height (resolution) is utilized.

Nice Greg. Is this done in-camera or software?

When I have done it for the ad agency, I have just done it in camera to Beta SP. I haven't tried it from my edit system (PP CS3) but I am sure it would be possible and actually might be cleaner. But my client is happy with what I am giving him already. And it is much less time consuming.

I guess what's totally confusing me Greg is the following: If you are recording in 16:9, that means by definition (no pun intended), that on a 4:3 screen the top & bottom would be letterboxed...it has to be or it wouldn't be native 16:9. It can only be full height on a 16:9 screen.

So I'm trying to understand how a downcoversion process can lop off the sides of this 16:9 picture and still leave full height on a 4:3 screen without zooming the picture???? There should still be top & bottom bars on the downcoverted picture if no zooming is taking place.

There must be something I'm not understanding here.

If you are recording in 16:9, that means by definition (no pun intended), that on a 4:3 screen the top & bottom would be letterboxed
Only if you want to see the whole thing, undistorted. There are actually three ways to display 16:9 material on a 4:3 screen: Letterboxed, squeezed and edge crop. Edge crop just lops of the right and left sides and leaves you with 12:9 (or 4:3) rather than 16:9. Top to bottom is unchanged.

Go into the kitchen and get some sugar cubes and make a rectangle 16 cubes wide by 9 cubes tall. Now take away two columns on each side, to get 12:9. That's edge crop.

You can easily do this in post or in the cam, if it's the Z5. The FX1000 doesn't do this.

You can easily do this in post or in the cam, if it's the Z5. The FX1000 doesn't do this.

You've just clarified it for me Adam! I was looking at the FX1000 manual and saw no way to do this. The downconvert function in the 1000 looked like it would leave you with top & bottom bars. The 'squeeze' method is used for anamorphic DVDs and such, so that method wouldn't be practical if you had no means to 'unsqueeze/stretch' at the display end.

The 'squeeze' method is used for anamorphic DVDs and such, so that method wouldn't be practical if you had no means to 'unsqueeze/stretch' at the display end.
I think most NLEs will unsqueeze easily. Certainly Premiere does. I found this out when I had my one really unhappy experience with 16:9 on the VX2000 -- it came in "squeezed" (actually stretched vertically, but it looks the same) -- and Premiere automatically restored it to its proper ratio.

Yeah, it just makes the editing process a bit more tedious. I use Edius Pro and never had a need for this. I'm pretty sure it can do it, but it would be interesting to see if the software does as good a job as the in-camera conversion.

Of course it would be easier if the camera just did as good a job shooting native 4:3 SD as it apparently does in shooting downconverted HDV.

Does anyone have a link to the Z5 manual? I've only found the product brochure on the HDV microsite.

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/hvrz5u.pdf

Of course it would be easier if the camera just did as good a job shooting native 4:3 SD as it apparently does in shooting downconverted HDV.[/QUOTE]



Hey Ken are you suggesting the FX1000 is not recording SD as good at what say the VX2000 or other cameras.

I am asking this as my eyes are telling me that SD on the FX1000 is a bit fuzzy and not as sharp as my other SD cams. I mentioned this last week and are very concerned about it as most of what I do is still SD. Inknow one can downconvert but to be honest for dance concerts and the like where I need to record contunuasly for over 80 minutes SD in Long play suits me.

Anyone else out there done a test to see how SD is looking?

Why don't you shoot your SD with an SD cam and just use the new cam for 16:9 stuff? I personally can't imagine the new Sony's would beat out the older cams for 4:3 shooting.

Why don't you shoot your SD with an SD cam and just use the new cam for 16:9 stuff? I personally can't imagine the new Sony's would beat out the older cams for 4:3 shooting.


Jeff, I want to shoot SD and 16:9. 4:3 is dead here in Australia! Surely no-one shoots 4:3 unless the client needs it that way?

Re quality I was always pretty happy with the picture quality of my Pana DVC-62 only it was 4:3.

I am still to edit and really look at a dance concert filmed 2 weeks ago from the FX but initial thoughts are that the DVC62 looks more sharp and better in low light but that was the be expected.

I am taking on board what everyone has said about HD looking zillions x's better but the fact is SD is what I need as DVD is what I output.

I really don't want to have to shoot HD as all my older playback cameras only playback SD. Also a lot of what I do gets transferred to DVD recorders in real time.

I am going to ask my wedding friend who has borrowed my FX to do some FX v VX2000 side by side comparisons and will report back.

Hey Ken are you suggesting the FX1000 is not recording SD as good at what say the VX2000 or other cameras. I am asking this as my eyes are telling me that SD on the FX1000 is a bit fuzzy and not as sharp as my other SD cams. I mentioned this last week and are very concerned about it as most of what I do is still SD. Inknow one can downconvert but to be honest for dance concerts and the like where I need to record contunuasly for over 80 minutes SD in Long play suits me.

Anyone else out there done a test to see how SD is looking?

Martin, you and I are in the same boat. The vast majority of my work is SD for corporate videos. But the reason I said what I did was really based on what you and Jeff said. It seems the concensus (and I don't have the cam yet) is that you get a better SD picture by downconverting HD to SD as opposed to shooting originally in SD.

Frankly, if true, this is a bit disappointing since the FX1000 doesn't do the type of downconvert I'd want (no letterboxing). Thanks to Adam, I see exactly what he was talking about, an option for a perfect 4:3 downcovert with no letterboxing with the Z5.

To be honest, I must be thick about this, but I'm having so much trouble getting my brain around how the Z5 can do this without enlarging the center area of the original frame. Sony's verbaige says "outputs the central portion of the original image by cropping its right and left sides"

I still don't see how this can be done without enlarging that same central portion. If you think of the original 16:9 frame fitted to a 4:3 screen, how can you fill the screen by lopping off the left & right panels without also enlarging that central portion. How else can you avoid top & bottom panels? I must have a mental block on this!

Ken, the central portion is not enlarged but actually reduced in size during conversion. The original HD image has 1080 horizontal lines. The right and left sides are chopped during the conversion process so that the central portion now has 4:3 ratio. And finally, the central portion is reduced in size (resolution) to an SD image of 480 lines of horizontal resolution.

P.

Ken, just think of the 4x3 and 16x9 as the same height to start with. 16x9 is just wider. So the 4x3 crop is just cutting off the sides. 16x9 isn't a letterbox 4x3 which is what you are thinking. Its a wider 4x3. In DV they are both 720x480 its just the pixels have a different aspect ratio. They are not square pixels. 4x3 is roughly 0.9 ratio and 16x9 is 1.2, a rectangle. The downconvert crops and changes the pixel aspect to the new form. For HDV the pixel aspect ratio is 1.333 so the crop also downconverts to .9 DV pixel ratio when a 4x3 SD output is selected. From the camera its normally a centre crop but of course in software the crop can be anywhere in the 16x9 frame and with motion controls in Vegas or ADOBE and Layout control in Edius the SD crop can pan and even zoom within the HDV frame. A few times I have created what looked like a multicam shoot from just my FX1 HDV file. Focus is VERY critical and zoom cannot go beyond the native resolution( you can zoom into about a quarter of the HDV frame going to 4x3 SD, if focus is on the mark!!!)

Ron Evans

I still don't see how this can be done without enlarging that same central portion. If you think of the original 16:9 frame fitted to a 4:3 screen, how can you fill the screen by lopping off the left & right panels without also enlarging that central portion. How else can you avoid top & bottom panels? I must have a mental block on this!
Ken, sweetie, just do my sugar cube illustration.

Pedanes, Ron & Adam, thanks, I think I've got it. But Adam, I've got to admit, I have no sugar cubes. :)

So Ron, this brings up the question as to whether the conversion in Edius (my editing software) can produce a 4:3 image from an HDV original, that looks as good as the on-the-fly downconversion of the Z5?

Ken, I don't have a Z5 to compare and the downconversion of the FX1 stays in 16x9 ( no crop available). Do you have Edius 5 or 4.6? The difference is really a fixed crop in layout for 4.6 and a keyframe control for layout in V5. You should try a test. Start a 4x3 DV project and place a HDV 16x9 on the timeline, apply Layout and you will see that the 16x9 image now is much bigger than the output window. You can zoom and crop to fix the crop for the output( keyframed in V5). Lay it back out to the Z5 ( set in DV 4x3 mode, I assume it still does 4x3 DV?) )to see how it looks. I have only just upgraded to Edius V5 so all my earlier crop and downconvert were done in Vegas because of the keyframe control and the ease in understanding the available pixels represented by the before and after preview screens, then going to final 4x3 DV file. I have stopped doing 4x3 now so all projects are shot in 16x9 and SD is also 16x9. I do not see that downconvert and crop would be any different than a straight downconvert to 16x9 which is what I do all the time now. Though to be fair my downconvert only happens converting to MPEG2 for DVD creation not to go to a DV SD tape. In other words I do all my projects in HDV ( and AVCHD ) create a finished 1440x1080 final output that is used for Bluray and also as file input for conversion to MPEG2 for SD DVD creation in my case TMPGenc 4 Xpress really does the downconversion!!!!

Ron Evans

I own 2 Z7u's and I was thinking about buying either an FX1000 or Z5 as a backup. I love the Z7 in low light and from what I hear, both of the newer cameras do a great job. When I am at full zoom with the Z7, I get a f2.0. Do we know what full zoom on the FX1000 and Z5 is? Are the only differences between the two cameras XLR's and direct connection of the memory card drive?

F3.4 at full zoom

Yes, f/3.4 on full zoom with the Z5, but then it has a much longer zoom than the Z7's Zeiss.

Ken, I don't have a Z5 to compare and the downconversion of the FX1 stays in 16x9 ( no crop available). Do you have Edius 5 or 4.6? Ron Evans

Ron, thanks for the ideas. I've got both 4.6 and 5.01. My main editing computer has 4.6 and my 'testing' computer has 5.01. I always load new versions on something other than my main computer for that old 'just in case things go south'.

In actuality I have neither the FX1000 or the Z5 and I'm trying to decide between the two. I know some of the obvious advantages of the Z5, but at this point I have no real call for HD productions at the corporate level. So this becomes more of a new 'toy' that I can also use as my workhorse camera.

I know common sense would tell me to stay with the VX2100, but I'd like to move on and be prepared...just in case.

Ken, if I were in your position I would wait awhile. Look at the new stuff coming out. The new JVCs, for example. Just a thought.

From the camera its normally a centre crop but of course in software the crop can be anywhere in the 16x9 frame and with motion controls in Vegas or ADOBE and Layout control in Edius the SD crop can pan and even zoom within the HDV frame.
Ron Evans

Ron, I tried the layout control in Edius using a 16:9 HDV clip. What I was trying to create was a 4:3 SD clip from the HDV, but I met with little success. The end result was always a very small frame, even though it may have been close to the 4:3 AR I was seeking.

When I tried doing a downconvert in Edius by right clicking on the HDV clip and choosing 'convert', it didn't look good at all as much of the sharpness was lost (even relative to the SD world). My best result was exporting the HDV clip as a DVD file. Aside from the letterboxing top & bottom (which is what I'm trying to avoid for corporate work), the result looked very good and quite normal for 'DVD'.

Any ideas how to get Edius to create a nice 4:3 SD project from an HDV timeline?

Ken, if I were in your position I would wait awhile. Look at the new stuff coming out. The new JVCs, for example. Just a thought.

Thanks Jeff, but I've never been a big fan of JVC cameras.

Ken you really need to use the layout control. Start a 4x3 project NOT 16x9. Bring in your 16x9 clip. Apply Layout control, double click the layout icon in the information box and the layout controls will now appear. On the left you will see the 16x9 clip and on the right will also be 16x9 but with a 4x3 box in blue indicating what will be cropped. In the preset control ( right in the middle of the control box) the dropdowns have several choices. "Fit Height" will keep the height the same and allow you to crop by moving the red circle in the left window. This will give the best quality crop and should be just like from the camera. The "Fit Width" preset will give you a letterbox output. "Original size" will match resolution ie grab a 720x480 from the 1440x1080. This too can be moved around by the red circle in the left preview screen. This is the max zoom one can sensibly use though I would also apply about 25 sharpness to this AND the HDV had better be pin sharp focus.
Edius 4.6 and V5 work much the same way and V5 has keyframe control too so the crop can be moved like a pan, zoom and scan control.
Once you have this layout applied you can output to any form you want from the timeline.

Ron Evans

Thanks Ron, I'll give it a shot. Maybe that's where I went wrong using the layout control...I started an HDV 16:9 project thinking that the downcoversion would take place on export.

Well Ron, although these tests were with the HV20, I would think they'd still apply to the FX1000 too.

I found that shooting in normal DV mode with the HV20, yielded better results than shooting in HDV and then converting in Edius using the procedure you mentioned. I started with a 4:3 project and imported the HDV, full rez clip. I then used the layout tool and cropped as you mentioned, keeping the height constant from the dropdown. The results weren't bad, but the native DV clip of the same subject looked sharper.

It's hard to believe the FX1000 in this same test would have reversed results. Now it's quite possible that for whatever reason the FX1000 is not as good a native DV shooter as the HV20, but I doubt that explains it since the Edius converted clip from the HV20 should have been as sharp as the native DV clip from the same cam.

This leads me to believe that a sharper product would be achieved by shooting native DV with a typical HDV camera. The exception might be shooting in HDV with the Z5 and converting on the fly with side crop option.

Ken,
How did you compare the two. Did you export both back to tape from the Edius timeline? In other words did you also run the DV from the HV20 through the Edius timeline and back out to tape as well as the downconverted HDV. I have seen the opposite with my FX1. However you need to compare like for like. HDV edited on the timeline then export and DV edited on the timeline and export. Do the same for a MPEG2 output.

Ron Evans

Ron, I did it both ways. First I watched it from the timeline on my CRT monitor and then spit both versions back to tape. The results were the same both ways, the HV20 looked sharper and more detailed with native DV than the HDV downconvert.

In fact, the native DV from the HV20 looked sharper than my VX2100! However the colors on the VX2100 looked better in some instances (especially indoors), but not always. I shot the same scenes with both cams in DV mode and it was really surprising to see how well the HV20 held up to the 2100 just viewing the tape out to a 4:3 TV.

It just may be that the in-camera downconvert is done better than Edius. Let's face it, I'm sure they are using entirely different methodologies to achieve the 4:3.

It's also possible that Canon has a better means of downconverting in-camera than Sony's in-camera downconvert. The physical makeup of their chips might come in to play or hardware/software differences in the camera...who knows? In the next few weeks I'd like to get down to B&H and do an in-store test of either the FX1000, Z5 or both, testing this issue specifically.

I think your results with the FX1 were consistent with mine when I had the FX1. Although I really don't recall, my friend reminded me that the FX1 didn't look great in DV mode.

Here's some REALLY nice footage from the FX1000. The snowy test on the bottom of the page shows how really sharp this cam can be. The two at the top do have evidence of rolling shutter, but I'll tell you the truth, I just don't see this as a big deal, I really don't.

The footage is just so good otherwise, I can't imagine any client getting upset.

HDR-FX1000 / HVR-Z5 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/channel25212)

I agree - it's no big deal that practically every other scene in the wedding shoot is a 'half-exposed' CMOS flash shot. I may not like it, but it's certainly the way ahead if you buy a Sony camera.

The snow shots were lovely and show the capabilities of that long lens - and oh the relief - not a half-flash frame in sight.

Tom, I guess we perceive things differently in this case. When I see flash shots with CCD, I see 'ruined frames' too, just a different form of 'ruined'. Exposure is whacked in either case and I just can't get nuts about this.

The overall picture is excellent and that's what people will focus on.

My biggest concern with the rolling shutter issue is my clients not knowing what the heck it is. With CCD you know a flash just went off...no big deal. With CMOS, if just one flash goes off that covers half or 1/4 of the screen, some people might think something is wrong with the video. I'm sure it won't be hard to figure out by the time there finished with the DVD, but the first time.... they gotta wonder. And with the way photogs shoot rapid fire now, there's not many times where there's just one flash.

My view on this is, at least you still see half or even 3/4 of the frame, compared to CCD where you lose the whole frame.

And Tim, I'll just bet it will be a very rare client that notices anything is wrong. The vast majority of clients will interpret this as nothing more than 'flashes going off'. The effect is just as fleeting as the effect with CCD. Unless you're focusing on slo mo, I just won't get too excited about this.

I'll take the enhanced low light and overall picture quality of these cams every time.

Here's some REALLY nice footage from the FX1000. The snowy test on the bottom of the page shows how really sharp this cam can be. The two at the top do have evidence of rolling shutter, but I'll tell you the truth, I just don't see this as a big deal, I really don't.

The footage is just so good otherwise, I can't imagine any client getting upset.

HDR-FX1000 / HVR-Z5 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/channel25212)

Ken,
I would say your skills here behind the cam trump the rolling shutter--good job!
SW

Steve, thanks, I'd agree with you IF I had taken those videos! It wasn't me, but they are nice. :)

Hi everyone. I've been renting mostly an XL-1 and a Panny DX100 and shooting in 4:3 but I need a new camera next month.
I'm considering these 2 new Sony cameras (along with the Canon XHA1) and I understand that to get the best results, I should record in HDV, edit in HDV and downconvert to SD for delivery at the end. No problem there.

However, there have been instances when some clients just wanted the raw footage on plain vanilla SD and so I would like to hear your opinions about the SD quality (not downconverted) that I can expect from either the HVR-Z5 or the FX100.
How would footage recorded with either camera in SD would compare against footage shot with a Panny dvx100? Not the same ratio I understand, but in terms of clarity, definition, sharpness..etc.
I asked the same question about the SD quality of the XHA1 in another forum, and the responses where not very encouraging. Some users have described the quality of the XH A1 in 4:3 SD as "muddy" and too soft and a somewhat better in 16:9 SD.

Would the SD quality of the Sony cameras be better? Would my non-HDV clients be happy with the SD footage? Same or better than what I get with a Panny dvx100?

I really don't want to buy a SD only camera at this point of the game.

Your opinions would be appreciated.
thanks

E

An HDV camera has 1"/3 16:9 chips so you effectively mask down the chip to produce 4:3 SD footage. Reducing the size of the chip immediately loses you wide-angle coverage, but at the same time means you're using less of the chips pixels to form the image.

If you switch an HDV camera to shoot SD, then the downconversion takes place between the chips and the tape, in real time. If you shoot HDV but output DV down Firewire, then downconvertion takes place in camera, again in real time.

Neither of these two downconverters cost much to fit to the camera. They do the job, but that's about it. NLE downconverters do give real benefits, and so they should considering they don't have to work in real time, the PCBs can take up a lot of space and consume far more power.

Having said that I often find myself in your position - where a client wants me to shoot 16:9 SD in my Sony Z1. I do so happily because the Z1 does a very passable job indeed and anyway - slight differences in downconverter quality are far outweighed by my abilities as a cameraman.

tom.