Hi,

I was about to buy a second panasonic DVX100 for weddings when I saw that i can get a HDR-FX1 for the same price. I have read a lot about the low light performance not being excellent on the FX1 and using standard sony premium DV tapes is as good as the HD tapes but have some other questions..

I have read about needing a higher spec PC to edit HDV.. Or at least needing some more software to capture? I assume I do not need a higher spec pc as such as it still records onto DV tape and therefore file size and properties of transfered video will be the same as for example the PD150 that I also have? In short if I use a 720x576 PP2.0 project containing footage from an FX1 as well as a standard def camera will I be wasting the capabilities of the FX1 or will it still look higher resolution?

What frame rates does this camera shoot in? Does the PAL model have a 25p mode?

Ive seen HD video feeds on HD plasmas and its incredible. Im not expecting a camera that records onto DV tape to be as good as this, but do you think there will be a noticeable improvement from standard 3ccd camera footage (XL1s, DVX100, PD150)

Also does this camera have native 16:9 mode and if so can I switch it back to 4:3 and crop it in post if required as this is what i do with the DVX so would probably have to do that with the sony too.

Any other tips would be much appreciated..!

You can downconvert from the camera, so that would let you use your DV software. Much better result editing in HDV and rendering out to PAL or NTSC. Editing HDV requires computer grunt, but there are ways for working around that if necessary (at least in Vegas). Capturing not a problem, but DV software won't do it. There is free HDVSplit and PP should be fine. The camera has a cineframe mode that records pseudo 25P, by discarding a field and interpolating; quite good, actually. The camera is 16:9 native and that is its only mode; crop to 4:3 in post.
The general thing is to work in HDV through post and render out to whatever you want. If you down-convert (or record) in camera to DV, you'll not see better resolution than DV. Depends on your work, but best results are obtained by converting m2t to avi using the Prospect HD codec (for PP) and editing with that, rendering down to SD at the end gives results very superior to working with SD. Vegas 7 cuts native HDV very well and many people find DIs unnecessary. Don't know about PP, but I believe it has the capability.
Finally, buying SD equipment is a waste of money. This is still a debating point with many, but that's rather debating whether the world is flat. However if all your gear is SD and you can buy another camera that you need for almost no money because its SD, then you are probably justified. That's all a business decision; to stay in the stables or to run with the horses.

well the thing is theyre exactly the same price.. so like you say, i cant see the benefit in buying another SD camera, however a couple of people have said the DVX has better picture quality despite being SD vs HDV. This i cannot understand..

So are you saying that by filming in HDV and editing in a standard 720x576 timeline I will still see an improvement in the HDV over the SD?

Thanks for your reply. It seems there is a lot more software considerations than I first realised.

edit: i should explain the problem I have with creating a HD timeline in PPro and editing with that is that I will also have a 2nd cameras footage in there which is SD. Im not sure what I should do in this situation... short of buying 2 of the sonys!

If you already have a DVX100, then buying another one makes sense because their color, sharpness and everything else will match up nicely in edit. It really doesn't make sense to have a DVX100/FX1 combination shooting in a live event. Editing and shot matching will be a pain.

The FX1 will have much better low light performance so if you're willing to take the chance with shooting with mixed cameras and all the associated headaches, then go for it.

Your other option is to shoot in HDV and get the camera to downconvert to DV when you capture. You will have a HDV tape that you could re-edit in the future. This will give you a 16x9 DV video to edit with now. The FX1 will also shoot standard DV in 4x3 too. So you could just use as a DV cam in the interim till you get a second HDV camera. As far as performance goes in my experience the image is better than the DVX100. I have only used the DVX100 original model so my comments are comparing this to my FX1. The DVX100 shows unacceptable grain above 6 db but I often use 12db on my FX1 with a better image. This results in better low light performance than the DVX100.

Ron Evans

thanks a lot guys. Ive read that the FX1 doesnt perform too well in low light but you guys say it does.. that was always one thing that I thought the DVX100 did ok. Compared to my previous camera (XL1s) anyway.

I agree it will be a huge pain with mismatched colours and quality for the time being. I suppose what you are saying is 2 FX1's are better than 2 DVX100's but possibly 2 DVX100's will be be better than one of each...

Am i making this more complicated than it needs to be...?!

From an editing point of view, after playing around with PP's presets I cant see how I could edit together FX1 widescreen footage with SD 4:3 footage without scaling up the SD footage and losing all the quality. Any ideas on this?

David..

I own two HDR-FX1's and I can say firsthand that the lowlight performance is *NOT* that particularly good and I'd venture to say that the Panny 100 probably does a better job in low light situations.

With that said, virtually EVERYTHING else about the HDR-FX1 is superior. When I purchased mine nine months ago, It was straight up between the Panny 100 and the FX1 despite the FX1's costing about $500 more combined. Frankly, it was probably one of the best decisions I could have made. I simply love the 16:9 HDV image this camera brings in.

Yes, you need a much stronger computer to natively edit HDV footage.

My recommendation.......

Hold off on buying any new camera as long as you possibly can... Then, when you have to... Go buy (2) brand new Canon A1's. You'll get a few more features plus a true 24frame mode in the Canon over the Sony's.

Jon

Compared to a VX2000 or PD150 the FX1 doesn't do as well in low light but because the gain does not create a lot of grain the FX1 is very good in low light. The FX1 also has custom profiles so that it may be possible to get it close to the DVX100 in colour etc.
Ron Evans

Your other option is to shoot in HDV and get the camera to downconvert to DV when you capture.
Ron Evans

While this is convenient, I've read that in-camera conversions from HDV->DV are not as sharp as what is available with the top editing programs. I've never seen a comparison, so perhaps I'll get to one and post some examples and even some stills. However, I did the in-camera conversion for some DVD projects shot with a Z1, and, without direct comparison, they appeared to be better (color, clarity) than what I could shoot with my Sony VX2000.

David..
I own two HDR-FX1's and I can say firsthand that the lowlight performance is *NOT* that particularly good and I'd venture to say that the Panny 100 probably does a better job in low light situations.

... stuff deleted ...

My recommendation.......

Hold off on buying any new camera as long as you possibly can... Then, when you have to... Go buy (2) brand new Canon A1's. You'll get a few more features plus a true 24frame mode in the Canon over the Sony's.

Jon

I have an FX1 and a Z1 and agree with all of the light sensiitivity comments. To get the same exposure, you have to open the aperture about 1.5 stops . I find myself using the +6dB instead of shooting wide open to get a little more focusing leeway . The sensitivity of the 1/3" chip (FX1,Z1) cameras is better than the 1/4" chip (V1/FX7), so even today, I'd go for the 1/3" devices. I hope Sony's successor to the Z1 , which apparently is not the V1, will not be a step down in light sensitivity.

As for buying HDV, go for it today. My only regret is that I put off going HDV until September 2006.

is there anywhere i can see some video samples of FX1 footage? I had decided to buy another DVX until I came on here before and it seems HDV is worth the extra.

I have 2 major concerns..

1. will i actually see a difference in quality between the DVX100's SD footage and the FX1's HDV when I burn to an SD DVD

2. what steps i'll need to take to be able to capture and edit the HDV. and especially in order to put 16:9 HDV on the same timeline as SD 4:3 footage.

is there anywhere i can see some video samples of FX1 footage? I had decided to buy another DVX until I came on here before and it seems HDV is worth the extra.

I have 2 major concerns..

1. will i actually see a difference in quality between the DVX100's SD footage and the FX1's HDV when I burn to an SD DVD

2. what steps i'll need to take to be able to capture and edit the HDV. and especially in order to put 16:9 HDV on the same timeline as SD 4:3 footage.


The problem here David is that this question opens up an entirely new can of worms. As for mixing 16:9 and 4:3 on the same timeline, this is entirely dependant on the NLE software you are using. I happen to use Vegas and it is doable on Vegas. As far as what steps will be necessary to edit HDV, it's going to require a fast computer. Are you working on PC or a Mac? If a PC, I really can't recomend anything other than the fastest of AMD X2 processors or the Intel Core 2 Duo processor as minimums.

Jon

IF one compares the DVX100 and FX1 at an indicated 0db then the DVX100 looks brighter. That is NOT the whole story though. The DVX100 becomes unusable with 6db of gain. The FX1 can be definately used even 12db and consequently can be used in darker environments to get a good picture which is the real test not of the numbers. You will need to use gain on the FX1 to match the picture brightness of the DVX100 but when the DVX100 falls apart with poor grain you can keep on going raising gain with the FX1. I too use between 6 and 12 db on my FX1 a lot to keep the aperture in the F4 range for greater depth of field so that I don't have to keep focusing.
As far as editing in Edius or Vegas with a 4x3 DV project the 16x9 HDV on the timeline can be cropped ( or even pan and zoom in Vegas) and then encoded for DVD from the timeline.

Ron Evans

The DVX will perform better in low light, end of discussion. It's far fewer pixels on the same size sensor, and of course it will perform better in low light.
It'll also be softer not only due to the lower resolution, but by nature of how it generates widescreen images.
The FX1 won't perform as well in low light, it's easily two stops down, but the far superior DSP of the much newer technology allows for some very impressive processing, so that you can get a more clean image. I have maybe 10 shooting hours with an FX1, maybe 1000 hours with a Z1, and not too much more with the DVX. I'll take the FX1 over the DVX any day, but it can't be sugar-coated, any DV camera will generally perform better in low light than any HDV camcorder or AVCHD camcorder available today.

thanks a lot for this guys its proving really helpful. The lack of low light performance on the FX1 is not the end of the world.

People tend to agree it will give me better picture quality in good light, as i'd have expected.

This decision now hinges on the post production side of things.

Specifically:

1) file size of HDV compared to SD as I transport a lot of footage onto different PC's to edit. Spec of PC's should be ok as they all have AMD X2 or dual core P3's.

2) Will i still be able to see the better quality of HDV over SD once I convert it to SD mpeg for a DVD

3) Putting the two different aspect ratios onto one timeline in premiere pro 2.0. (Do I use their HDV timeline - 1440x1080, the pal 16:9 or the pal 4:3 timeline - both 720x576)

If anyone has just a short 1 second raw clip from a FX1 I could do some tests and answer all of my questions...

Thanks again for all of your help, and sorry to drag this on..

File size of HDV is the same as SD. They are both 25mbs. HDV only records at SP speed though so there is no LP speed for HDV. Depending on the intermediate file format( for easier editing) you use if you have many streams of HDV the file size would be bigger.
You don't need to record in HDV the FX1 records in DV 4x3 too so you could just use as DV until you want to switch to HDV.
I don't have PPRo 2.0 but in Vegas or Edius I would use an SD 4x3 project setting and just put the HDV on the timeline, then crop as needed. I expect PPRO 2.0 would be the same as it is able to handle HDV native too.
There are lots of HDV clips around if you do a search.

Ron Evans

Ron,
Like a couple of people have said I cant see the point in buying a HDV camera if I dont utilise the HD Straight away..

what do you mean by "Depending on the intermediate file format( for easier editing) you use if you have many streams of HDV the file size would be bigger"

What file format would video be in when I capture it? Ive heard it records in mpeg but does that mean when using the appropriate HDV capture software it will capture in mpeg too? and are you saying this will be the same size as an equivalent SD avi file?

I bought my FX1 because it had the best controls of a Sony DV camcorder since the VX3 Hi8 camcorder I had. HDV for the future was a bonus. The other people I record amateur theatre shows with all have DV 4x3 camcorders. Little point in going through the agro of one in 4 cams being 16x9 HDV. For my own use I shoot in HDV. I liked the Sony because all my other equipment is Sony and LANC controlled. Options would have been the Canon's but they weren't out when I bought the FX1.
File size for DV and HDV are the same. It is easier to edit using a codec that doesn't require decoding a 15GOP to create effects etc. Cineform and Canopus HQ transcode the m2t HDV stream to a format that is easier for the PC to use, in fact just like DV as a load on the PC. To do this of course the file size increases because now the encoding is on a per frame bases rather than spread over 15 frames. File sizes can be 3 or 4 times as big.
Both Cineform and Canopus have the option to capture as RAW m2t ( file size same as DV) or do the conversion on capture. To do this your PC will have to be powerful enough to do this conversion realtime. I usually capture m2t and then convert.
Before I bought he FX1 I had rented the DVX100 many times and it does have the advantage of XLR audio. Hence my previous comments. I see no problems in viewing the FX1 as a good DV camcorder( with some future proofing) until you want to go HDV. That is exactly how I use my FX1.

Ron Evans

David, I have used my Z1 almost entirely for standard definition output. I shoot HDV and downconvert in camera to capture as regular DV. It may be true that you can get better results by downconversion in post, but the rendering time is substantial and you end up using twice the disk space since you have two versions.

I know you're considering the FX1, but the Z1 has a further advantage for SD work since it shoots both PAL and NTSC. In fact, that's the reason I bought mine in the first place - to do a big PAL SD project.

Regarding low light performance, have you seen the following collection of threads? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414

David....

I dont have any "1-second" HDV footage but I do have some short takes that are 30-40Mb's or so. Email me your email address via the link on this board when you click on my name and leave me your email address and I'll find a way to get them to you. I should be able to upload them to my website and send them to you that way.

In regards to not buying a HDR-FX1 because you don't need HD. I disagree with anybody who says not to if you aren't going to use it. The image and picture quality of the HD camcorders is just superior, even when shooting in SD, period.

I know we've been talking about the FX1 here, and I own 2 of them. But I also use and borrow an Canon A1 frequently. It's $500 more but there is a $250 rebate right now. For an extra $250, this is a worthwhile purchase for the 1 year full warranty, 20X Zoom, XLR Inputs, and 24F capture settings. I think it's also a little more future proof....

Jon

File size for DV and HDV are the same. It is easier to edit using a codec that doesn't require decoding a 15GOP to create effects etc. Cineform and Canopus HQ transcode the m2t HDV stream to a format that is easier for the PC to use, in fact just like DV as a load on the PC. To do this of course the file size increases because now the encoding is on a per frame bases rather than spread over 15 frames. File sizes can be 3 or 4 times as big.

thanks a lot Ron. I am starting to get a better understanding.. What would be the advantage and reason for converting between the different file formats. Will the camera always output to pc in m2t format by default?

I also use and borrow an Canon A1 frequently. It's $500 more but there is a $250 rebate right now. For an extra $250, this is a worthwhile purchase for the 1 year full warranty, 20X Zoom, XLR Inputs, and 24F capture settings. I think it's also a little more future proof....

Jon


Thanks Jon, I didnt realise the FX1 didnt have XLR, that is quite important to me. The 24 (or 25 in pal I assume) fps would benefit me greatly as well, as well as the increased zoom. I will look into the price of the A1 now.

I have sent you the email you mentioned.

Thanks a lot.

David, I have used my Z1 almost entirely for standard definition output. I shoot HDV and downconvert in camera to capture as regular DV.

Boyd,
So doing this would still give you an avi file of the same res as SD? Or does it keep a higher res? Either way I assume it still going to look better than any SD file?

Many thanks I will have a look through the low light threads now.

to all:

after reading this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49518) I have now started to think about the HD display issue. I realise that very few people have HD displays in the Uk and I would probably not be capable of burning the correct type of disc if it requires anything more than a standard burner and a dual layer DVD.. However I am working on the assumption that HD display or no HD display, the HD footage would still look better than the SD on a SD DVD. If this is wrong please let me know as I will almost certainly stick to SD for a few more years as it seems there is no call for HD in wedding videography.

Thanks

Ive seen HD video feeds on HD plasmas and its incredible. Im not expecting a camera that records onto DV tape to be as good as this
Actually, you can expect it to be better. HD streams from Discovery, etc. are compressed to something like 5mbits/sec for delivery to homes. A lot of times my FX1 footage looks better than HDTV when viewed on my 42" plasma.

thanks for all of your help.
I bought my FX1 yesterday.. hope I don't regret it!

Congrats on your purchase. I have an FX1 and a Sony HC3 and love 'em both.

For your next purchase I would suggest the Sony wide-angle lens. It's a beautiful piece of glass and I use it all the time for my handheld FX1 shots. I bought mine on eBay 18 months ago for about $250.

Richard,

Sorry for the newbie question but what is the benefit of a wide angle lens for a camera that already has 16:9 capabilities?

The FX1 is, I recall, slightly wider at full wide than the VX2000 I sold last year. Still, since a lot of the video I record is done "on the hoof" it helps make things less shaky to go wider.

Plus, I've concluded that there are situations where wider is very useful. The issue is that eventually you get into lots of barrel distortion and vignetting. Still, with the Sony lens (.8x) the increase in distortion is very modest, the scene is bright to the corners, and the lens is fully zoom-through.

Thanks Richard. It should be arriving in a couple of days so I will do some tests but my exierience with Sony lenses in the past has been all good so I'm sure I'll be happy.