Should i buy the Fx1 or wait?
 

Hi
I love to have a High definition camcorder, but i can afford no more than 3300 euros, which is sony fx1 price. And for me 3300 euros is a great amount of money.

I read that if i deinterlaced the videos i only get 960 x 540 which isn't all that much higher than SD, is that true?

should i wait the Canon's reply and capture my summer vacation with my cheap quality dv camcorder or buy the sony fx1 which has large size for filming my vacation and not progressive mode (i will have to deinterlace the videos- i have an lcd projector).
I would love to read your opinions
thanks

If you really need a camera now, you should buy one now.
If not, it's maybe better to wait.
Indeed, the resolution you named is not much better then SD, you should get some more details in the picture, but that's maybe all.

I should consider to wait. There are many HD cams coming up, so who knows what will happen.
Though, I have to tell you I think Canon isn't coming up with a HD cam soon.

But do you really need HD for a vacation video?
I think (that's of course completely your decision) for a vacation SD will do enough. Remember, some feature films have been filmed and projected with SD, so SD isn't all that bad as some like to believe.

Good luck choosing!
I'm sure other people here will give you even better advice than I.

I would like know where you got the numbers. DV is 720x576 pixels. FX1E is HD, not SD.

I read it from forum '' The fact though is that the camera only does 960 x 1080 interlaced. If you are watching on a LCD or plasma that will get de-interlaced giving you somewhere between 540 and 1080 lines depending on who you argue with. I actually think it is more like 540 since every other line is basically fake. So in terms of raw progressive pixel detail we only get 960 x 540 which isn't all that much higher than SD''

This keeps being suggested. No, every other line isn't basically fake. it contains significant information, particularly if the subject is a high motion subject. When you convert from i to p, you're not tossing that field, you're merging, blending, interpolating, or otherwise mixing the fields together.

so, which is the real resolution of an deinterlaced video of fx1?

The native resolution of the camera is 1440x1080 so if you de interlace by just removing a set of fields you're looking at 1440x540, some field interpolation will yield better results though.

Yes, that is correct. On a completely still image (well deinterlaced, not just field stripped) you will get the full 1440x1080 resolution (this using frame blending deinterlace method).

As the amount of movement in a single frame increases the vertical resoution (for an acceptably deinterlaced image) will start to drop. Eventually, with enough movement, you will hit 1080x540 (as field stripping becomes the only viable option), as you suggested. The thing to keep in mind, however, is that as the amount of movement increases so the eye's resolving power decreases (as you have less time to see the image), and therefore although the resolution is lower the image is not seen for long enough to make that *too* much of a problem.

The bottom line is that 1080p is better than 1080i deinterlaced, but not so much as a lot of people believe. Taking into account the eye's resolving power, the vertical resolution should never be noticably much worse than a 720p image, which is currently your other option...

One thing to consider with the FX1/Z1 for holiday videos is that they're big and heavy cameras. I was considering taking my Z1 on holiday with me, but I have a hard time imagining lugging around a camera of that size just for a holiday video :).

Otherwise, the idea that the quality is little better than SD is, frankly, absurd. The Z1 in HDV mode easily blows away any SD footage I've ever seen on resolution, regardless of what numbers people may throw around... and the color and light response isn't much worse than the footage I've edited from far more expensive cameras.

As for whether to buy now, I'm sure there'll be a better camera on the market for the same price or less in 12 months. But then there'll almost always be a better camera on the market for the same price or less in 12 months :).

1080 is the vertical resolution not the horizontal, so the field interpolated image would be 1440x540, not 1080x540. True 1080i is 1920horizontal by 1080 vertical. HDV is 1440h by 1080v

Bear in mind that the costs of going to HD or HDV are *much* more than just the question of the camera cost.

Andrew

Why would cost be much more? David Newman just posted information that only need 2 GHz processor for Vegas 6. Vegas 6 will cost same for SD or HDV. FX1 can be bought for less than Canon XL2 and for lot less than 50 Mbps cameras and large DVCAM and DVCPRO cameras. You can pick refurbished 1920x1080 21" monitor on Ubid for almost nothing. Where does much higher price come from? What would cost so much more on HDV than on SD production? Sound and lighting equipment will cost same. Talent and sets will cost same. Meals and transportation will cost same.

The much higher cost is myth.

I am very happy with FX1E. My next camera be 1080p, when good one comes out and is well reviewed.

Radek

"The much higher cost is myth."

Radek, I only wish your words were true. Hard drive storage, CPU consumption, bigger power supply, HD monitor, these all cost $$. Then there is delivery if you're delivering to broadcast. No broadcaster will accept HDV currently on HDV tape. So, you have to deliver via hard drive, which most broadcasters won't accept, or you deliver on HDCam, which most broadcasters will accept. We don't do enough HD for broadcast to justify the purchase of an HDCAM deck, so we take our hard drive to a service bureau where they print via HD/SDI to an HDCAM deck for us when we need it, about once a month.
But overall, the cost is indeed, higher. Cineform and Vegas bring a lot to the table, but there is more than that to the equasion. Further, I don't know that I'd trust any not-new/not calibrated monitor from an auction house for this kind of work. I have a hard time trusting an Apple display.

"Hard drive storage,"

No more needed than DV, unless you use a system that converts to an intermediate codec. Plus, frankly, hard drive space is cheap these days: I think I paid under a hundred pounds for 300 gigabytes the last time I threw another drive into my PC... that's over twenty hours of HDV footage.

You're right about some of the other costs, of course. It's a bit of a pain that I can't go from original footage to complete master on HDV the way I could on DV.

Douglas,

You're right. But the Sony camera allows to continue using current NLE system if you deliver SD. You can record HDV, downconvert to DV for editing and delivery. I just wonder if is possible to save editing points in Vegas 6 so that when you're ready edit your stored HDV footage, the NLE do it automatically. You can consider DV editing offline and HDV online. You can get into HDV slowly; you don't have to replace system right away.

You are pro and you make living in video. I am not, so for me refurbished Sony 21" CRT monitor is enough. The same goes for rest of equipment. What is not acceptable to pros may acceptable to me.

Radek

"No more needed than DV, unless you use a system that converts to an intermediate codec."

Only a masochist would attempt to edit m2t files. Of course you can....Frankly this is why we created Gearshift, so folks can edit DV proxies, and then exchange the proxies for either an m2t file, a Cineform file, or a 4:2:2 YUV file if you're going to go SD/SDI or HD/SDI in Sony Vegas.

"Only a masochist would attempt to edit m2t files."

I believe Liquid Edition already allows you to edit m2t files directly, and I don't think the Edition users I know are masochists. Similarly, Avid are promising direct m2t editing in a few months, and doesn't Final Cut also support it now?

Are all those users really masochists?

They're not editing m2t directly. They're editing an intermediate format in the background.
Do a little research, you'll almost immediately learn that m2t does NOT edit well, aside from the fact that a hardware decoder is fairly requisite. I use Edition when I have to, I also use Canopus, (I just finished authoring their Edius HDV training series) Premiere, Vegas, and FCP 5. Trust me when I say that you do not want to, at any point in time, be authoring/editing directly with transport streams. Just because you don't see a conversion taking place doesn't mean it's not happening.
Have you edited m2t streams yet? If not, you're in for a big surprise.

Hello,

from an amateurs point of view, editing HDV on a „normal“ Multimedia - PC is „doable“. I for myself edited my first HDV movie (25 min duration) on such a system. At this time a had „only“ 300 GB HDD, 512 MB – Ram and a 2.2 GHz Athlon prozessor. I used Vegas 5d and Connect HD. Of course there are limitations. Especially if You get more and more takes on the timeline the system got quite slow. So I worked with segments. As an amateur You can afford to do this. Usually You got no deadline, so speed of the workflow or rendering times aren‘t the main concern. So I see no „urgent“ need to upgrade the editing hardware (but I recommend it..) First thing is to get a decent camera and do some shooting.
I decided to buy a FX1e because I „needed“ ( or „wanted“, for an amateur there is no „need“) a „better then SD- camera“ for a „holliday – movie“. I wanted to do it in 16:9 (I loathe 4:3). For the moment the FX1 was the best choice for me. The journey I was going to make had a fixed date and the FX1 was available. I think the size of the FX1 is not the problem – You have to keep in mind that You also need a tripod.
If I wasn’t doing this trip maybe I would have waited.

Greetings

Richard

Dear Richard
I usually take video while i walking, how is the image quality with this type of video?
and i dont have the time (ony my holidays) to stand with a tripod, is the fx1 to heavy to carry on my hand?
thanks

According to David Newman needed 3 GHz processor for Vegas 5 and only 2 GHz for Vegas 6. Vegas 6 available to students for 190 USD.

I still think that when factor everything in, camera cost, W/A lens cost, talent, sound equipment, lighting and other costs, extra cost for HDV versus DV is minimal, not "much more", as was suggested, unless you're a pro and need HDCAM VCR, high end HD monitors, etc.

Radek

Native M2T
 

Douglas, you know a lot more than me, but I have to correct you on native m2t editing. LE 6.1 does it and there is no conversion. To my knowledge, Avid is taking the same approach, but they are probably going to use LE technology to do so. Correct me if I am missing something.

It's true that in LE they are not converting, but rather referencing, which is still not working with the native transport stream directly. Unless I'm informed wrong from Pinnacle, they are referencing the frame information, but not the frame itself.
Avid is doing their own thing with it, or so I'm told, but NDA would prevent me from saying more. What I'm told and what might actually ship are often two different things. :-)

DSE - you should try out womble
 

DSE, you should give mpeg video wizard a try. It nicely handles m2t - we're editing our Sony FX1 action movie on a PIII 1 GHz laptop with win xp pro... okay, it's a bit choppy, but we're making out fine!

Hey, DSE, by the way, what do you think of new mainconcept H.264 encoder???

I usually take video while i walking, how is the image quality with this type of video?
and i dont have the time (ony my holidays) to stand with a tripod, is the fx1 to heavy to carry on my hand?

i saw a lot of blurrinness if the fx1 is in motion, more than my minidv camera, Why?

please write your opinions it is too important for me
thanks

Hello Yannis,

sorry I can't answer Your question - I always use a tripod. At least I have one with me. Until now I haven't made one handheld shot with the FX1.
What I can tell You that the FX1 is bulky, but not overly heavy. I am used to carry heavy bags with Stillcameras - in comparison with a Pentax 67 and 3 lenses, exposure meter, filters for BW and films the bag with the FX1 is light as a feather....

Hello Radek,

the statet systems requirements are in my opinion always aproximate. If You are willing to make some sacrifices, to use workarounds etc You often can do with an "indadequate system". Of course when the workflow gets to slow, frustration levels rise. But as an amateur Your budget is always tight. The purchase of a camera which costs as much a a FX1 is a big step. And for making this one big leap You need to make the next steps smaller. I haven't testet Vegas 6 yet, but if it is true what You wrote, I should try it.

Hello Mark,

I downloaded the Trial version of the Womble Tool. It really looks promising.

Greatings

Richard

Where can get that software, how much is it, please.

Hello Radek,

http://www.womble.com/products/

I think the price is 120$, but You can download a working 30 day trial.

Greatings

Richard

Womble is very good for recutting/stitching mpeg together, but past that, it's not useful for anything, IMO.

The Z1, with it's 4 stablizer modes, is great during walking, if you're walking like a shooter vs walking while swinging your hips and arms.

I cant afford to buy z1, only fx1. How many stabilizer modes has the fx1?
thanks