oops FX1000 is a winner afterall
 

Well I am happy to eat my words.

Further use and understanding of how the FX1000 works has resulted in much better images than I was first getting.

Initially I had issues with getting over exposure but now I am running Zebra or at least referring often to Zebra the images are AMAZING!

What I have also learnt is that doing manual white balances is a must, especially for indoor filming. I found the indoor setting produced a rather "cold" look for a dance concert I filmed. My old Panasonic DVC62 however always had a warm indoor preset.

So now that I am use to what to expect when looking at the LCD screen I am certainly looking forward to my next shoots.

Also going to 1/3" chips have made picture quality much better.

The Audio Balen box I use is working fine and soon I will purchase the CF unit.

Z5 will complement the FX but that will have to wait until the end of the year.

I am now a happy chappy have learnt how to work around issues and generally be aware of the what is required to get the best result.

I just got mine unit today :-)

Thx to the reading of this section there is no surprises as far as the features and menu, etc... Now it's down to personal settings and testing.

Martin, great to hear! I'd bet that those that are unhappy with the unit also have not learned to use a camera with this degree of sophistication.

The fact is that using manual white balance is a must! Even if a preset or AWB looks right, you'll almost always get better results by using MWB. One thing that people often overlook when using AWB, is that every time you turn off the camera or zoom in on a single colored object, you run the risk of the AWB changing. This can look awful when you look at the color of the prior or subsequent clip.

Using MWB keeps all clips consistent.

And yes, those zebras are running wild in our cams for a reason, to help with overexposure when that area of the picture is important.

I've had to work around the autofocus issues more than anything. I still think that's an area that needs improvement.

I just received my new twins a few minutes ago and Jeff, I agree 100% with you on this one. Everything you said in post #1 on this issue echo my feelings exactly. Not a deal-breaker or even enough to dampen my enthusiasm for its ergonomics overall, but does make you wonder what they were thinking.

I'm glad we're finally on the same page about something...;-)
Yeah, they always do this, it seems. To me it would make more sense to have two presets and one you calibrate yourself, not the other way around.

Another interesting this for those coming from FX1s or 7s is that the way the 1000 thinks when going into manual mode is sort of the opposite of the older cams. On the 1 and 7, when you move the three-position AUTO/MAN/LOCK switch from AUTO to MAN, the three exposure variable are still really in AUTO unless you push each button and enable its manual function, at which point you can adjust it any way you like. But on the 1000, when you switch from AUTO to MANUAL on the two-position switch, all the variables go full manual unless you push each switch to put each back into AUTO mode. Not a problem, just a different way of thinking.

As reported elsewhere, the LCD is simply breath-taking, and I think the VF is remarkable too. I also like how the large eyecup simply fits over the stock eyecup, so you always have both with you.

I was re-reading some of my earlier posts. I remember how defensive I was when someone claimed the images were soft from the camera. Oh what a difference time can make. You can see in the beginning of the thread how I gradually come to see the softness of the images, even though I resisted seeing them as they were.

I felt the camera was close to perfect initially...I certainly don't feel that way anymore, but I don't feel it is the worst either.

No one with objectivity can claim this is the "best" camera in it's price range, but I remember before I had even received mine that I had declared it would blow everything else like it out of the water. I was wrong. It certainly has good qualities, but that doesn't mean it is the best.

I desperately wanted the camera to be perfect, I had too much of my ego tied up into it.

In retrospect, there are several cameras that are as good, and some say better then the FX1000 and Z5, etc.

And as I've said before, as far as wedding cams, the FX1000 leaves a bit to be desired, but none of others are perfect either.

Jeff, so so much of this depends on HOW you view the clips...in other words, what is your display device? When I watch the Z5 clips on either of my LCDs (22" Vaio or 22" HP), I can easily see why people would say they look somewhat 'soft'. But those very same clips, when viewed on my Pioneer 60" 1080p Kuro plasma, are sharp as a tack. I'm talking RAZOR sharp. My friend also has a Z5 and when he views his clips on his 50" Fujitsu plasma (a 768p display) vs my plasma, he says it almost looks as if it were shot with a different camera. The bottom line is he's looking to get the Kuro plasma. I think this is why some people think it's a very sharp camera (and professional reviews on this cam say the same thing) and others think differently. Much of it gets back to your display.

Even among 1080p displays, upconversion quality differs greatly. Since HDV is 1440X1080, there is still a need for scaling to get it to the display's native 1920X1080 resolution.

So I absolutely do not buy into the idea that this camera is soft. No way, no how. I just wish everyone could see some of the shots I have from San Francisco when viewed on the 60" Kuro. We're talking absolute broadcast quality in their look...superb!

Tomorrow will be a real test for me. The cams didn't arrive in time for us to use today shooting a stage production with some*very* low light levels, so we used the normal complement of FX1s and FX7s. For tomorrow's show, we will swap out the FX1000s for the FX1s and see how they compare. I've accused the FX1s of being soft compared to the FX7s, so we'll see what happens with this semi-controlled experiment.

That should be fun Adam. I owned the FX1 for awhile and can tell you, at least from my experience, the Z5 is certainly sharper. I think much of it is the CMOS sensors together with the new lens. I think the lens has always been a weakness in prior Sonys. But it seems the joint venture lens developed by Konica-Minolta is a real winner.

I know opinions of CCI reviews differ, and I've certainly had my gripes with them, but their review showed a staggering 900 lines of horizontal resolution on the FX1000. That's significantly sharper than any cam they've ever tested and significantly more detailed than the comparable Canons. My eyes tend to agree. That's what makes the somewhat sloppy autofocus so much more frustrating to me.

In the final analysis, we are talking about 1/3" CMOS sensors, they cannot NOT be somewhat soft at times. I remember when another member first brought the softness up, I really took it personally, and thought he was out to just dis the camera.

It has a stunning LCD, decent to great images, awkward controls, stupid shoe mount, and I move back and forth between liking it just fine and not liking it so much, but in the end it gets the job done.

Jeff, all I'm saying is this is a sharp, very resolute camera. How much the lens plays a role, how much the sensors or processing factors in, I just don't know. But the bottom line is, regardless of the gripes you or I may have with the camera, it does not produce a soft image...unless you have misfocused the camera.

This is not just a subjective feeling as I watch a razor-sharp image on a 60" screen, but it is also an objective measurement of 900 lines of horizontal resolution. That translates to a sharp, resolute image no matter what you feel about the camera. I have read the same thing in another professional review I saw on the unit.

If you're not seeing a sharp image than it's either your display or focusing issues...and I can certainly sympathize with focusing issues...been there, done that. We can agree about other failings of the design, but objectively and subjectively, it's the sharpest camera I've ever owned and the sharpest camera CCI has ever tested.

Jeff, one final note, I'm not sure why you think that 1/3" CMOS chips can't be sharp all the time. Can they be soft at times? Sure, I've got clips just like that...but it was my fault in not properly focusing or relying on a not too reliable autofocus. There's much more to sharpness & resolution than just the size of the chip. The lens, the processing, and other factors all play a role. The resolution #s that CCI got with the FX1000's 1/3" CMOS chips rival those of larger chips. Hell, I've got a Canon HV20 that looks sharp all the time and its single CMOS chip is no bigger than 1/3". But it still doesn't have the detail of the Z5. You may not like the rolling shutter, but you can't blame the CMOS design for a lack of sharpness.

In my opinion an objective resolution measurement cuts through any of our opinions. In this case it certainly agrees with what my eyes are seeing.

Boy, now you guys have really got me itching to make some controlled tests. I can't wait to get into the theater tomorrow. Maybe this weekend I can do some side-by-sides with FX1, FX7 and FX1000 and see if I can even see any diffference or if I'm imagining everythng.

Actually Canon's HV30 CMOS chip is 1"/2.7, so it's actually noticeably bigger than 1"/3. How much of that chip's surface area is used for imaging I don't know, but the same applies for Sony's 1"/3 chips too.

Tom, I checked and you are indeed correct. But, even with the HV20's larger surface area, the 3-chip Z5 is still noticeably sharper and more detailed than the single chip HV20. Some may say "So what's the big deal, wouldn't you expect a camera of the class of a Z5 to be sharper than a consumer HDV camera". Well, not so fast. I've read a number of Canon XH-A1 owner say their HV20s can actually look as sharp or a bit sharper than their A1. Of course there are many other picture parameters in which the XH-A1 will trump the HV20, but sharpness is not one of them.

But again, the resolution #s of the Z5 do put this cam in a class by itself.

Adam, I had the FX7 too for awhile, and I found that camera sharper than the FX1. But I always thought the FX7 was a bit noisy and certainly poor in low light. It always looked to me like Sony added edge enhancement to the FX7 contributing to its somewhat noisy image.

Thank you Ken - but there's no need. I try and check everything myself before I post :)

I would expect a three times dearer Z5 (new in very late 2008) to be sharper than the two years older HV20, wouldn't you? But the Canon goes after sharpness in a sensible way. It uses a big modern chip (and Canon know all about CMOS from their DSLRs). It has a very conservatively specified zoom - only 10x and only f/1.8. Both good ways of keeping sharpness high and flare and distortion low. It also uses in-built and auto ND filtration, so ensuring that you use the lens' sweet spot whenever possible.

Because the Z5 relies entirely on the operator switching to the correct ND at the correct time, I'm betting a casual user will get sharper results from an HV20. Its OIS has far less work to do, that's for sure.

tom.

Can't agree with you there Tom. Wouldn't you expect a 3X dearer Canon XH-A1 to be sharper than the HV20? It's not. This is not the first time a consumer cam has shown a sharper image than its far more expensive counterpart.

The point of the more expensive cam is that it gives you a better image when you take the care to use the controls you are given. It gives you far more flexibility in a far greater range of shooting conditions. One of the things I've noticed that I haven't seen mentioned, is the great sharpness of the G lens throughout its zoom range.

You may be correct that a 'casual user' may get sharper results with an HV20 at times, but I don't think we have too many 'casual users' of the Z5. If the average Z5 user can't get consistently sharper results and a far better overall picture with superior colors than the HV20, shame on them. ;)

Yes, that's what I'd expect to see - the XH outperforming the HV, but (as I say) only in experienced hands. But then again, the HV holds a lot of sharpness aces as my previous post points out.

It still amazes me that we can sit here and have a legitimate discussion about the sharpness and image quality of a $700 HV camera being on par or better than a $3000+ 3 chip prosumer camera under optimal lighting conditions. I'll always wonder if Canon knew what they had in the HV series or if it was a happy mistake.

I think Canon released more of those "mistakes" - ie. 5D m II. I read somewhere that guys at video dept went ballistic when they saw that short vid made with pre-release 5D :-)

I never found it to be too noisy but I had the max gain locked at 6dB from the day I got it. When I do see noise, I just convince myself it's film grain and the way I wanted it.

Sometimes when I burn the dinner I tell people I meant it to be that way, and sometimes they believe me....

I've actually been very happy with the low-light performance of the 7, but I know I'm in the minority on this one. We'll see if the 1000 is as much better as they say it is today in the theatre. Just playing around with it last night, it felt like it could see in the dark... the image on the LCD was several orders of magnitude brighter than the real room was, with what seemed to be accurate colors and no noise at all. But you can't really tell anything about grain on a tiny LCD screen...

If you think the HV series was good Ethan, you should check out the HG21. That's sharper and more resolute (with better colors too) than the HV series. But it still can't compete with what a properly adjusted Z5 can produce.

Adam, I'm sure you'll find a huge difference in the low light of these 2 cams. The low light of the Z5 is every bit as good as the champ, the VX2100. For HD that's surely no small achievement. BUT, I would encourage youi to go beyond 6db of gain...the Z5 can surely handle that easily.

With the FX1 and FX7, the choice was 6 or 12, and I found 12 to be a little grainy so I erred on the side of caution. With FX1000/Z5 you can choose from the full range so I will likely go to at least 9. Maybe 12 if it's as clean as you say.

Any advice on Black Compensation and Knee settings in a theatrical environment? Right now, just based on guesswork, I've got them set to crush the blacks and the Knee settings on HIGH because of the inherently high-contrast nature of stage shows. In the past we've had a lot of noise as the cams struggle to lift up the blacks. Obviously neither of my earlier cams had these settings so I'm experimenting...

Tom, a 1/2.7" chip is larger than a 1/3 chip and it certainly sounds more impressive, but it isn't really a big difference. If you do the math it is .3704" to .3333". Less than 4 hundredths of an inch larger. Would the Z5, Z7, S270, and FX1000 be significantly better camcorders if they had 1/2.7" chips? I really doubt it would make much difference.

In digital still cameras. How can a basic Nikon with only a 6mp image sensor, produce a better photo than one of the little collapsible digital’s that has a 10mp sensor? Better lens, better internal processing, better controls, etc. It all adds up to a better image.

If you want a more contrasty look that will also help hide the noise, but yet still look damn good, try a master black setting of -10.

Not in the slightest. All I'm saying is that the bigger the chip, the easier it is to get differential focus for any given object size at any given aperture at any given distance.

Thanks for the input.

Unfortunately, the FX1000 only lets us choose between STRETCH or COMPRESS with the blacks, and HIGH, MIDDLE or LOW for the knee point. Thoughts?

I'd leave the knee point alone and select 'compress' for the blacks. I once saw someone post a picture (maybe Jeff?) from the FX1000 with compress on & off and I thought the 'compress' presented a punchier picture.

Thanks, Ken.

I did compress the blacks and "punchier" is exactly the right word. I set the knee to HIGH and never had a zebra showing, so I assume it reduced the blown out areas to acceptable levels. I'll know more when I actually get the tape on the PC tomorrow.

Thanks for the help.

I think you need to stretch the blacks for stage environment because the problem is seeing detail in the shadows. Bring knee down so that the lights on whites will not overexpose them. I just wish my FX1 could do that. I end up exposing to make sure I don't loose detail in the bright colours and then play with gamma in post to regain the detail in the shadows. If you do the opposite( compress blacks), an actor with black pants on a dark stage with a white shirt will end up looking like just a white shirt moving around the stage!!!! Once you have compressed there is no way to recover in post. With stretch you can compress in post if you don't like it.

Ron Evans

ken i still have an fx-7 and the sharpness setting makes an awful lot of difference in the amount of noise[0-15]in tests against my sr-12 the little one just has more resolution even with the 7 on 15 max,my problem is by the time its on the pc for what ever format bd avchd or tape its lower than the fx7s,watching the project on the time line especialy full screen shows up as well,annoying.

So Martyn, what's happening to the SR12's footage in post that it starts out sharper than your FX7 and winds up softer?

Actually, that isn't the problem for me; it's overblown highlights.
I think in theory this makes sense, but in practice I've found it doesn't work that way, at least for me. The white shirt/black pants scenario never happens because I'm in SPOTLIGHT mode all the time, which adjusts for this, and having the knee at 100% makes it even better -- seems like it crushes down the highlights while keeping dark parts at least visible.

And the problem with trying to see detail in the shadows is a) they're not lit for a reason, so you really *don't* want to see this, and b) if you try, you just get a ton of grain as the cam struggles to bring up details. I was actually concerned about losing details in darker, but still lit, areas of the stage, but the cam seems to know what to do.

Using Black Compress last night got me exactly what I wanted. But I will try bringing the knee down to 85% (low). Or, since the cam always seems to be smarter than I am, just leaving it on AUTO. Much more experimenting still to do.

Adam, so how was the overall quality and how did it compare with the other cams you used?

I never run in auto because this destroys the lighting effects of the lighting designer apart from relying on the camera to set gain( grain). I watch zebras and make sure that faces or light yellow costumes are correctly exposed. This is the most one can get out of most cameras. Most of the time my FX1 is at 9db, and around F3.4 to F4 for theatre shows. Gives good depth of field for the stage and grain is manageable at 9db. Spotlight mode manages gain and iris in an attempt to stop saturation of bright scenes it doesn't always work and will go up and down with the lights. Just like any auto systems when the stage blacks out it will try and correct when the lights then come up bright it will have to shut down quick. This pumping is noticable and just isn't there in full manual mode.
As far as detail in the shadows is concerned I am sure the costume designers want you to see that the suit is pin stripped or that there is a pattern on the black dress. IF the stage lighting designer doesn't want anyone to see the corner of the stage it will not have any light and will not be seen by anyone. Peoples eyes are far more sensitive than a camera and the audience will see far more of the stage than any recording.

Ron Evans

I was blown away looking at the LCD screen during taping, but now that the tapes are on the PC the FX1 and FX1000 look pretty much the same. But that's just spot checking. I'll need to explore more.

Ron -- I get everything you're saying and can't quarrel with any of it. It just hasn't worked that way for me, that's all. I never have a problem using AUTO/SPOTLIGHT, but that's just me. It does try to compensate when the stage blacks out but eventually it gives up. And I do the fade in post anyway.

Appreciate all the input.

Adam, if you have access to a large screen 1080p HDTV, THAT would be the way to judge. I think on most of these computer monitors, all these cams look pretty much alike. The monitors hide so much of the goodness these cams have to offer.

That's an excellent point. I need to get an AV receiver or other form of mixer with front inputs as I'm all out of inputs on my 65" Sony RP. And they're all in the back anyway.

Using a TV monitor in editing
 

I think its a good rule of thumb to be editing with a TV monitor also displaying the "real" picture as you are doing the edit.

Just firewire out and sit it along side your computer monitors. A great reference to how things really look.

Things are on the improve for me and the FX1000. The digital extender I can confirm is a great feature for sports events.

Its maybe not as sharp as normal optical but certainly not as noisy as the not so long ago days of normal Digi zoom.

Anyone filming horse racing, or gold or anyhting really where you need to get a closer look will be happy.

I am not sure about for wedding where you may like to track a wedding party from say 50m away.

It would be an interesting test for some to do and see if they like the result.

Certainly you can pick up better facial expressions being closer in so well may be an alternative to putting a tele lens on/off.

Unless pinnacle and my quad core pc dont like each other its a puzzle and annoying.