Sample 24p clip
 

Update to my original post/sample clip 24p

As has been predicted by someone previously in this thread I am developing a fondness for the FX1000 more each day.

I am still editing weddings shot with my trusty VX-2100 and am still amazed at the quality of the footage, as I have always been each time I start a project.

But after only a couple of shoots with the FX1000 and having learned to play with the settings a bit, it is quite a camera.

It is the first camera I've used that produces video that looks better on my TV than on my monitor. It's easier to appreciate the benefits of a widescreen image on a HD television than in my preview window.

As I posted in another thread: below is a clip shot at church (strictly for experimentation) in 24p with the Cinema tone 1 setting. Looks great and the audio is great as well. Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect, and I don't know if I'd choose 24p next time, but overall it has a pleasing look to it that plays well on my television.

If you intend to view it is 150MB. Right click and save prior to viewing as file is too large to view otherwise unless you have some kind of crazy fast connection.

http://jeffharpervideo.com/Videos/wmv/ChurchDemo.wmv

Looked great Jeff, I noticed the "reds" were quite prominent, it became a bit distracting (those red flowers in the background) did you do some color correction or is this straight from the camera? Also the shot with only the candle light, did you shoot at 1/24 or 1/48 shutter?

Noa, no color correction, all shot 24p with 1/48. Couldn't help the red, that is pretty much as it was. Poinsettias are just like that...the cinema tone might have made them deeper red than they are.

Jeff - can you tell in post what settings the cam used for every part of the footage. For instance you know how much gain the final piece was done with, where the light is the lowest? Does the FX1000 have a gain limiter, so it doesn't use for instance more than 18db?

I compared your clip to some interlaced stuff that I shot with my VX2100, and on mine I can clearly see the interlaced lines on pause, though they are much harder to see whilst playing a movie (which is how we, er, play them..)

Have you tried 1/24th shutter in 24P yet, for such really dark shots it will make a difference, at least with my xh-a1. But must say even with 1/48 shutter the fx1000 did perform well, only the colors were somewhat dull but then again, with that little light every camera will struggle to show decent colors. (except the canon 5d mark II, but that's not a videocamera ;))

I also think the cinema tone is not a good setting for this type of recording, the very first images were a lot of people were wearing red as well did not look so nice, the red color was to saturated.

William, everything was auto except shutter speed. I've never shot progressive with 2100 so I can't comment on that.

Noa, haven't tried different shutter speeds yet in 24p. Wanted to run settings as was for entire hour to get a feel for the limitations of those settings. Keep in mind the only light was from the candles in the last shots. There was, I'm pretty certain absolutely no light coming from overhead, they were completely turned off. The colors were dull, I wouldn't expect it to look any differently with those settings. Thank you for the suggestion of using 1/24 in dark situations.

The red saturation you mention doesn't bother me, but I wish I had run for a few minutes without the cinema tone to have a comparison. If I can wake up and get there in the morning I might video tape tomorrow, but the lighting will be completely different so it won't be a fair comparison.

If I do, I will run half 30p and the rest 60i. I'll also run with and without the cinema tone feature activated. Since it is now 6am I should go to bed. I can't edit any more, everything is getting blurry.

Bill, I can tell you from the manual that the FX1000 does have gain limiters. You have a choice of where to put the ceiling for gain in 3db increments. So there is a lot of flexibility.

You won't be disappointed Martin, the FX1000 is a great camera.

I've have learned something on another forum though, that I am disappointed about. When the FX1 and the FX1000 were compared side by side, with gain at 0db, the FX1000 had visible noise, where the FX1 did not. The poster noted that the FX1000 had to be turned down to -3db to get the grain out, which was equal to the FX1's 0db.

This is not a major concern because this small amount of noise can be easily removed, just disappointing. Looks like Sony may have screwed around with the gain readings.

EDIT: One other thing I would like to add about this camera, (coming from VX2100's) is the added size and weight actually made my handheld work much more steady. Hard on the arms and back though, I'm sore today after yesterday's wedding, 11 hours, way to long.

Tim, other than the gain differences, were there other comparisons made between the FX1 and 1000's picture quality?

Ken, the comments made were that the FX1000 is brighter than the FX1 if you have each camera on identical settings, but not much. As you go higher in gain the FX1 is much cleaner. The FX1000 would be useable at 15db but only in extreme situations, but 15db on the FX1 is VERY useable and clean.

He also went on to say: "If I had to pick another camera up right now, it more than likely would be the FX1000, but if you already own the FX1's, unless you are looking for a better screen or like the handling of the FX1000 better, switching isnt going to get you much".

Thanks Tim. No comments on sharpness, color & detail?

No Ken, but you might find this interesting.

Test! XH-A1, FX1, FX1000, and 5DMark II on Vimeo

Thanks Tim. I know sometimes it's tough to tell on Vimeo, but judging from what I saw there (in HD), the FX1000 looked best to me. It seemed to hold the color and detail better than the A1 which seemed dark. Again, probably because of compression artifacts on Vimeo, I didn't see much difference at all in grain.

I can't quite figure out why he was rocking and swaying whenever the FX1000 shots came on, but the A1 shots were rock steady. That was pretty distracting and didn't help focus on the FX1000 clips.

I think your right, because the poster made a comment as to how he didn't notice the grain untill he watched it on his 50" Samsung. I agree the 1000 did look the best.

Tim, I just revised my post to mention the panning back & forth whenever the 1000 clips came on. That was bizarre and I'm not sure why he did that. It didn't help the 1000 in relation to the A1.

I don't know why he did that, weird.

down converting issue (I hope)
 

I have just filmed with the FX1000 for the 2nd time and for the first time have shot in HDV using a blacked out mini DV tape (made black by also recording in HDV).

I have filmed Cricket (the Australian Baseball game) and and the client only needs footage uncut to DVD.

I am running it out to a realtime DVD recorder from the camera as I write this and are disappointed with the sharpness of the edges of picture.

Through the LCD screen the pics are amazing but through the CRT monitor the images just look a bit fuzzy. I am hoping this is a HDV>Standard Def issue because this is just a big letdown.

Thinking it through if one is only outputting to standard def is it better to record in standard def in the first place as apposed to HDV which is compressed.

Would it be true in saying that what you see through the LCD screen is really HD quality and that going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality than recording in Standard def in the first place.

I have compared the footage filmed at the same venue with my Panasonic DC-30 and the Panasonic is much sharper and looks as one would expect.

The FX1000 footage really looks like its already been transferred to DVD and that I am looking at 2nd generation footage.

One thing for certain is that if this is the quality of the camera in brightish sunlight well its going back to Sony and I will upgrade to XDCam as this is really below par.

Like many others on this forum Video is my life I spend 50+ hours a week filming and editing and no way will I put up with this! RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Martin, not sure what happened, but if my client needed the finished product in SD, I would have put the FX1000 in SD mode. I've never liked downconversion and you generally have to deal with letterboxing that some clients just don't like.

If you try to get rid of the letterboxing by zooming...well, there goes your image quality even further. Need SD, shoot in SD. I really think that's your best bet.

Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.

Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.[/QUOTE]



Ken, I will do the SD test. Always an issue with anything new hey.

As for the performance of the camera it is just fantastic.

Anyone else out there had the HDV>SD poor quality issue?

Martin, please let us know how your tests go, it might help others here (including myself!). :)

Martin, if you didn't tweak the picture profiles, you need to. Especially the sharpness. I ended up cranking it all the way up.

I have done many test with shooting in HDV, HDV downconverted and SD. To me, shooting HDV, editing HDV and then render to SD produced the best results.

Tim, how do you deal with letterboxing if that's not wanted?

I do weddings only. From now on 16:9 widescreen only. I have been waiting a long time for this day to come...... 4:3 is his-to-ry.

That's an opinion many feel.
I have not used HDV yet (I'm about to!) but some good film-makers I know have found that shooting and editing in HDV and then outputting to SD produces the best looking results for them when they need to distribute in SD. There's a few opinions about this here IAC Discussion Forums • View topic - Anybody editing in HDV?

Tim I'm with you on the 16:9. 4:3 is over for me as well. People watch 16:9 movies on their sets all of the time and if they have a 4:3 TV they are used to black bars on the side.

I ordered a second FX1000 and will get a third as my season starts ramping up in March

Jeff, I used two FX1000's and a HV30 for the unmanned cam in the back. I was really impressed at how well that little cam held up to the 3-chippers. I bought it to use as a capture deck, but after yesterday's wedding, I may not be in such a hurry to purchase a third 1000 or add a Z5.

Makes sense. The problem I have is doing mostly corporate work where 4:3 still rules.

Martin are you talking about DVC-30 when you mentioned the DC-30?

"going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality"
Definitely yes, because this is poorly done in the camera.
why ? because this must be done real time with very limited processing power.
If you want a good conversion, capture into a computer and do the conversion with a decent converter.
shot from a PDW-330 XDCAM HD and top picture converted by camera, bottom by computer
http://www.repaire.net/images/storie...0/grosplan.png

Tim it is almost scary how close we are on some things...I have been dying to order an HV-30. I just want one. I've thought on more than one occasion of getting one as a backup or discrete extra cam. I'd really want it as a personal cam, but I imagine there are all kinds of ways to utilize it in the field professionally as well. For example with a light and mic it could be a great interview cam. I would love to have a small camera that didn't intimidate people for use at the reception.

So you are saying that in decent lighting it matches your FX1000 pretty well?

Could I mount a Sony light with battery on top of the cam?

The FX7 would be a much better choice for backup at weddings, however it costs 4x price and is same size as what I already have.

Jeff, I guess your talking about the 10/20 light. I have never tried, but I will and I will let you know. The HV30 is a very small camera but has good control with manual settings once you learn them.

I'll try to get some screen grabs up comparing the 1000 and the 30. This past wedding was dark but the alter had very good lighting.

I also thought about the FX7, but figured if I spent 2k, I might as well get another 1000.

Interestingly, that's what I've found too. If you really need SD and don't need the HD, I think it's better to leave the camera in the SD mode. Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sonys.

Of course the smart thing to do would be to conduct an A/B with your own cam and see which setup is better.

Dvc-30
 

Jeff

Yeah it was a Panasonic DVC-30. Great little cam for weddings that one and great low light performance that I would say on par with a VX2000. BIg statement but true.

On the subject of small cameras I love little cameras for weddings. I'll bet anyone an XD-cam that in some situations a small, good quality "point and shoot" cam is more effective than a bigger boy.

My Sony TRV900 was a winner for weddings and I still say that camera was one of the easiest to use.

I don't film wedding at the minute but I do plan on doing some again and will defintly be looking at getting a small cam to do some if not alot of the filming with.

I owned a DVC-60 (same chips as DVC-30) and for 1/4" chips it was a great camera.

HD downscaling issue
 

"Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sony's."



Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue.

I will put the footage on the computer in Edius and create a DVD from the timeline but I must say I am losing sleep over this!

Need to get another edit done first so it will be a few days of hand on the heart for me.

"if I had have recorded in SD "
well the problem is you compare HD picture with SD picture.
So whatever you could do, if you look at the HD quality and compare with the SD conversion, for sure there will be a big loss.
But if you shoot in SD directly, probably the camera is using the same conversion, so i do not see a reason to have better quality (except that DV is better at handling fast moving picture than HDV).
Anyway, composite video is bad, you should try to transfer digitally with firewire.
most DVD burner got firewire input now. You will skip 2 conversion process , one to produce composite video as output and one to decode composite for recording.

Um, you *do* know that composite is the crappiest connection available? Not just SD, but lousy SD?

Try component to a good monitor. You should be able to set component out to SD, and by all accounts Sonys do a very nice job of downconverting.

FX1000 razor sharp
 

Good news.

Just checked some in door Theatre/dancing footage shot on the FX1000 and BINGO the footage is razor sharp like Z1. I can now sleep at night knowing this cam is the real deal! I knew it was but hadn't seen it with my own eyes yet.

I will nut out the HD>SD in a few days.

Gee this cam is good in low light! I also like how it feels on the tripod. Just feels a bit better than the Z1 to me. I found with the Z1 alot of my shots were overexposed as I was perhaps trying to get too much out of the camera. Having said that the Z1 is still a ripper.

Jeff, my Panasonic was a DVC-62 but I have referred to it as a DVC-30 for the sake of this forum.

I don't miss that 2.5 inch LCD on the 62 hey!. I will miss the ultra quick zoom and creep but gee it had a poor audio limiter in it! For Sport I put a Sony 1.4 tele on the front and it got me right in there.

Hoping there may be a tele for the FX1000/Z5 that is about a 1.4 so you don't get the ring when you come out to a full wide.

I checked out the DIGI zoom extender on the 1000 but haven't tested it yet to see if the picture degrades. One thing it does that is cool is that it allows you to activate it whilst in record mode. I set it to a assign 4 and just reached over and on it comes. Makes the footage look like a two camera shoot. Pretty cool for me as the Aussie Rules I film is on an arena close to double the size of gridiorn fields and its nice to be able to get "right in there".

If there is not much drop in quality then it may be handy.

Anyone else into filming sport out there?

Small cameras have some advantages, and aside from somewhat limited control, the newer HD "consumer" cameras do a prety good job under more conditions than not... I wish for the "AVCHD version" of the TRV900 - basic but useable manual control, good handling, discreet, yet great quality.

I was comparing some test shots (on a German site mentioned elsewhere on DVi) of various cameras supposedly shooting the identical scene under identical lighting conditions (I say supposedly, because it's hard to know for sure if they were really identical, as they were shot at different times, but it was fairly well done...). I think the thing that stood out was how close the majority of HD cameras were in good light, and until you got to an EX1 or EX3, there wasn't a stunning difference in low light... the small Sony and Canon Cameras held their own surprisingly well, and the SR11 and Canon HV30 seemed to do quite well considering. The results were pretty consistent with my firsthand experience, and since I'm not going to pony up for an EX3, the SR11 still looks pretty good... Though I like the features of the FX1000...

[QUOTE=Martin Duffy;985724Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue.

[/QUOTE]

Martin, when you get a minute don't forget to shoot some footage with the FX1000 in SD mode and compare that with the down-rezzed mode. You may find this is how you want to shoot in the future if SD is what the client wants.