Jon Fordham's HDR-FX1 Review

Christopher C. Murphy · January 5th, 2005, 03:06 PM

Jon and Heath...thanks very much for all your efforts!

Murph

Heath McKnight · January 5th, 2005, 03:09 PM

The shoot was mostly indoors, though we shot them against the front door from outside, using mostly natural light, but there was an overhang, so I guess it's like interior with natural light as the key.

heath

Heath McKnight · January 5th, 2005, 03:13 PM

Murph,

I had the easy job, I just sat behind the monitor with headphones on and barked out, er, gave direction. I should have stills and info on the 9:04 AM site in a week or so.

heath

Christopher C. Murphy · January 5th, 2005, 03:40 PM

Hey, even still...all the efforts add up!

I'm torn about this whole thing right now. (As are a lot of people from what I can see.) If no one announces anything by next month I'll probably go with the Z1, but I hope that maybe Panny will surprise us with Apple at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Maybe they'll have a mockup there to enhance the whole experience for Apple's annoucements?? We can hope..

Check this out:

http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/markets/1830.htm

Murph

Heath McKnight · January 5th, 2005, 03:41 PM

I'd wait until after NAB. It's what you need now, Murph.

heath

Christopher C. Murphy · January 5th, 2005, 03:46 PM

Hardy har, har!

I probably will although I'd love to purchase now. By the way, is anyone going to NAB this year on here? Maybe we can start a seperate thread somewhere, so we can hookup out there. I'm definately going..

Murph

Jon Fordham · January 5th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Paul,

Yes, 11 is the camera's default sharpness level. While my DV instinct is to turn a camera's sharpness down from the default position, I found that the FX1's edge enhancement was not at all objectionable. And with the resolution loss incurred by CineFrame, there was no need to turn the camera's sharpness down further on this particular project.

The only EXT shot we did was covered from direct sunlight. I used a 1K with 1/2 CTB thrown from an INT hallway to give me a little something on the talent as a rim. The flat, even natural light I was getting already did the rest of job. Again, the FX1 was almost wide open at a F2.0 to get a proper exposure...

Jon

Chris Ward · January 5th, 2005, 03:57 PM

How do you think the Canon XL2 would compare to the FX1?

Jon Fordham · January 5th, 2005, 04:11 PM

Chris,

In my experiences with both the DVX100A and the XL2, I found the DVX100A to be a superior camera. Especially when considering the price to performance ratio. The XL2's native 16/9 CCD's are a nice one up on the DVX. But after shooting with both cameras, I honestly found the DVX to produce a nicer picture. In my opinion, Canon gave us too little too late. Panasonic won the DV race long before the XL2 ever got to the racetrack.

But this is not the place to debate the DVX100A vs the XL2.

In regards to your question of how the FX1 would compare to the XL2? The same comments regarding the DVX would hold true. Though the XL2 would only be slightly more sensitive than the FX1 by about 2 stops. Whereas the DVX is faster.

Toke Lahti · January 5th, 2005, 04:32 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. -->>>

This sounds scary...
Maybe details set to minimum, 24p and progressive frame compression might help with 25Mbps, but sony chose not to give them.

Some Japanise engineers have decided that there should not be too much movement in the moving pictures.
"Those young guys are using way too much handheld..."

Anyway, fx1 _is_ consumer product.
Let's hope that there will be some improvements in z1's production models!

How about somekind of adaptive downscaling when bandwidth just isn't enough? I'd prefer blurred picture over a blocky one...

Christopher C. Murphy · January 5th, 2005, 04:41 PM

Toke, that brings up an interesting point. I've been complaining about to much handheld camera work in television and film for years now. Is it possible that Sony took that as a "Feature Request"??? lol

Barry Green · January 5th, 2005, 05:12 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Barry,

Could you provide us a link to your reviews?

Thanks,

heath -->>>

Hi Heath,

Unfortunately it's scattered throughout several threads. The most comprehensive all-in-one thread is probably this one:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36570

Jon, I find it most interesting that our experiences were fairly parallel. There are definitely places where we didn't directly agree (I found the FX1's blacks to be quite a bit cleaner than the DVX's, but I am one of those who says CF24 is "unusable"... however, I can see where if you had limited movement, and shot with that type of show in mind, it could be used and deliver a reasonable simulation). I also felt more impressed by the interlaced HD quality on an HD set -- I thought there was more "wow" to it than you did. But overall, yes I'd say that our experiences are quite parallel.

Very interesting, and I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that we all want to see footage! :)

Khoi Pham · January 5th, 2005, 06:45 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. -->>>

That is nasty, I think something is mess up with that FX1, that was one of the first test I did with it when I got mine and never did see anything like what you described, and I was hand held it with fast pan with the whole frame filled with water, also about the lady that could not tell if the FX1 has any more details than the DVX, I really wonder if you forget to set the camera on 1080i component output in the menu or if you accidently left it on 480i?
even my 8 year old could tell the difference between DV and HDV, how can that lady could not? Please don't think that I am somekind of Sony worship fan or trying to justify my purchased, I do agree the weakness in this camera is low light and latitude, but the gain is very clean, you should have gain up to 3 or 6 db and I bet it still have less noise than the DVX and avoid shooting at max f 1.6 if you could, you make it sound like it is unusable with tough scene for the encoder but it is just not so, the picture might got a little softer with fast pan, but I have never seen any "web-video looking image"

Davi Dortas · January 5th, 2005, 07:24 PM

Can we have pics to go with very very long review? My eyes hurt and I am a little bit epiletic. Thanks.

Charles Papert · January 5th, 2005, 07:45 PM

Davi, does "epiletic" have something to do with hair removal by any chance?

January 5th, 2005, 03:06 PM	#16
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Jon and Heath...thanks very much for all your efforts! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

January 5th, 2005, 03:09 PM	#17
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	The shoot was mostly indoors, though we shot them against the front door from outside, using mostly natural light, but there was an overhang, so I guess it's like interior with natural light as the key. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 5th, 2005, 03:13 PM	#18
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Murph, I had the easy job, I just sat behind the monitor with headphones on and barked out, er, gave direction. I should have stills and info on the 9:04 AM site in a week or so. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 5th, 2005, 03:40 PM	#19
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Hey, even still...all the efforts add up! I'm torn about this whole thing right now. (As are a lot of people from what I can see.) If no one announces anything by next month I'll probably go with the Z1, but I hope that maybe Panny will surprise us with Apple at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Maybe they'll have a mockup there to enhance the whole experience for Apple's annoucements?? We can hope.. Check this out: http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/markets/1830.htm Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

January 5th, 2005, 03:41 PM	#20
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I'd wait until after NAB. It's what you need now, Murph. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

January 5th, 2005, 03:46 PM	#21
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Hardy har, har! I probably will although I'd love to purchase now. By the way, is anyone going to NAB this year on here? Maybe we can start a seperate thread somewhere, so we can hookup out there. I'm definately going.. Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

January 5th, 2005, 03:50 PM	#22
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Paul, Yes, 11 is the camera's default sharpness level. While my DV instinct is to turn a camera's sharpness down from the default position, I found that the FX1's edge enhancement was not at all objectionable. And with the resolution loss incurred by CineFrame, there was no need to turn the camera's sharpness down further on this particular project. The only EXT shot we did was covered from direct sunlight. I used a 1K with 1/2 CTB thrown from an INT hallway to give me a little something on the talent as a rim. The flat, even natural light I was getting already did the rest of job. Again, the FX1 was almost wide open at a F2.0 to get a proper exposure... Jon __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

January 5th, 2005, 03:57 PM	#23
Chris Ward Contributor Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: New England Posts: 68	How do you think the Canon XL2 would compare to the FX1?

January 5th, 2005, 04:11 PM	#24
Jon Fordham Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 242	Chris, In my experiences with both the DVX100A and the XL2, I found the DVX100A to be a superior camera. Especially when considering the price to performance ratio. The XL2's native 16/9 CCD's are a nice one up on the DVX. But after shooting with both cameras, I honestly found the DVX to produce a nicer picture. In my opinion, Canon gave us too little too late. Panasonic won the DV race long before the XL2 ever got to the racetrack. But this is not the place to debate the DVX100A vs the XL2. In regards to your question of how the FX1 would compare to the XL2? The same comments regarding the DVX would hold true. Though the XL2 would only be slightly more sensitive than the FX1 by about 2 stops. Whereas the DVX is faster. __________________ Jon Fordham Director of Photography www.jonfordham.com

January 5th, 2005, 04:32 PM	#25
Toke Lahti Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 158	<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. -->>> This sounds scary... Maybe details set to minimum, 24p and progressive frame compression might help with 25Mbps, but sony chose not to give them. Some Japanise engineers have decided that there should not be too much movement in the moving pictures. "Those young guys are using way too much handheld..." Anyway, fx1 _is_ consumer product. Let's hope that there will be some improvements in z1's production models! How about somekind of adaptive downscaling when bandwidth just isn't enough? I'd prefer blurred picture over a blocky one...

January 5th, 2005, 04:41 PM	#26
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Toke, that brings up an interesting point. I've been complaining about to much handheld camera work in television and film for years now. Is it possible that Sony took that as a "Feature Request"??? lol __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

January 5th, 2005, 05:12 PM	#27
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Barry, Could you provide us a link to your reviews? Thanks, heath -->>> Hi Heath, Unfortunately it's scattered throughout several threads. The most comprehensive all-in-one thread is probably this one: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36570 Jon, I find it most interesting that our experiences were fairly parallel. There are definitely places where we didn't directly agree (I found the FX1's blacks to be quite a bit cleaner than the DVX's, but I am one of those who says CF24 is "unusable"... however, I can see where if you had limited movement, and shot with that type of show in mind, it could be used and deliver a reasonable simulation). I also felt more impressed by the interlaced HD quality on an HD set -- I thought there was more "wow" to it than you did. But overall, yes I'd say that our experiences are quite parallel. Very interesting, and I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that we all want to see footage! :)

January 5th, 2005, 06:45 PM	#28
Khoi Pham Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Posts: 747	<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. -->>> That is nasty, I think something is mess up with that FX1, that was one of the first test I did with it when I got mine and never did see anything like what you described, and I was hand held it with fast pan with the whole frame filled with water, also about the lady that could not tell if the FX1 has any more details than the DVX, I really wonder if you forget to set the camera on 1080i component output in the menu or if you accidently left it on 480i? even my 8 year old could tell the difference between DV and HDV, how can that lady could not? Please don't think that I am somekind of Sony worship fan or trying to justify my purchased, I do agree the weakness in this camera is low light and latitude, but the gain is very clean, you should have gain up to 3 or 6 db and I bet it still have less noise than the DVX and avoid shooting at max f 1.6 if you could, you make it sound like it is unusable with tough scene for the encoder but it is just not so, the picture might got a little softer with fast pan, but I have never seen any "web-video looking image" __________________ Khoi Pham www.proeditproductions.com

January 5th, 2005, 07:24 PM	#29
Davi Dortas Membership Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 78	Can we have pics to go with very very long review? My eyes hurt and I am a little bit epiletic. Thanks.

January 5th, 2005, 07:45 PM	#30
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Davi, does "epiletic" have something to do with hair removal by any chance? __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com