F3.4 at full zoom

Yes, f/3.4 on full zoom with the Z5, but then it has a much longer zoom than the Z7's Zeiss.

Ron, thanks for the ideas. I've got both 4.6 and 5.01. My main editing computer has 4.6 and my 'testing' computer has 5.01. I always load new versions on something other than my main computer for that old 'just in case things go south'.

In actuality I have neither the FX1000 or the Z5 and I'm trying to decide between the two. I know some of the obvious advantages of the Z5, but at this point I have no real call for HD productions at the corporate level. So this becomes more of a new 'toy' that I can also use as my workhorse camera.

I know common sense would tell me to stay with the VX2100, but I'd like to move on and be prepared...just in case.

Ken, if I were in your position I would wait awhile. Look at the new stuff coming out. The new JVCs, for example. Just a thought.

Ron, I tried the layout control in Edius using a 16:9 HDV clip. What I was trying to create was a 4:3 SD clip from the HDV, but I met with little success. The end result was always a very small frame, even though it may have been close to the 4:3 AR I was seeking.

When I tried doing a downconvert in Edius by right clicking on the HDV clip and choosing 'convert', it didn't look good at all as much of the sharpness was lost (even relative to the SD world). My best result was exporting the HDV clip as a DVD file. Aside from the letterboxing top & bottom (which is what I'm trying to avoid for corporate work), the result looked very good and quite normal for 'DVD'.

Any ideas how to get Edius to create a nice 4:3 SD project from an HDV timeline?

Thanks Jeff, but I've never been a big fan of JVC cameras.

Ken you really need to use the layout control. Start a 4x3 project NOT 16x9. Bring in your 16x9 clip. Apply Layout control, double click the layout icon in the information box and the layout controls will now appear. On the left you will see the 16x9 clip and on the right will also be 16x9 but with a 4x3 box in blue indicating what will be cropped. In the preset control ( right in the middle of the control box) the dropdowns have several choices. "Fit Height" will keep the height the same and allow you to crop by moving the red circle in the left window. This will give the best quality crop and should be just like from the camera. The "Fit Width" preset will give you a letterbox output. "Original size" will match resolution ie grab a 720x480 from the 1440x1080. This too can be moved around by the red circle in the left preview screen. This is the max zoom one can sensibly use though I would also apply about 25 sharpness to this AND the HDV had better be pin sharp focus.
Edius 4.6 and V5 work much the same way and V5 has keyframe control too so the crop can be moved like a pan, zoom and scan control.
Once you have this layout applied you can output to any form you want from the timeline.

Ron Evans

Thanks Ron, I'll give it a shot. Maybe that's where I went wrong using the layout control...I started an HDV 16:9 project thinking that the downcoversion would take place on export.

Well Ron, although these tests were with the HV20, I would think they'd still apply to the FX1000 too.

I found that shooting in normal DV mode with the HV20, yielded better results than shooting in HDV and then converting in Edius using the procedure you mentioned. I started with a 4:3 project and imported the HDV, full rez clip. I then used the layout tool and cropped as you mentioned, keeping the height constant from the dropdown. The results weren't bad, but the native DV clip of the same subject looked sharper.

It's hard to believe the FX1000 in this same test would have reversed results. Now it's quite possible that for whatever reason the FX1000 is not as good a native DV shooter as the HV20, but I doubt that explains it since the Edius converted clip from the HV20 should have been as sharp as the native DV clip from the same cam.

This leads me to believe that a sharper product would be achieved by shooting native DV with a typical HDV camera. The exception might be shooting in HDV with the Z5 and converting on the fly with side crop option.

Ken,
How did you compare the two. Did you export both back to tape from the Edius timeline? In other words did you also run the DV from the HV20 through the Edius timeline and back out to tape as well as the downconverted HDV. I have seen the opposite with my FX1. However you need to compare like for like. HDV edited on the timeline then export and DV edited on the timeline and export. Do the same for a MPEG2 output.

Ron Evans

Ron, I did it both ways. First I watched it from the timeline on my CRT monitor and then spit both versions back to tape. The results were the same both ways, the HV20 looked sharper and more detailed with native DV than the HDV downconvert.

In fact, the native DV from the HV20 looked sharper than my VX2100! However the colors on the VX2100 looked better in some instances (especially indoors), but not always. I shot the same scenes with both cams in DV mode and it was really surprising to see how well the HV20 held up to the 2100 just viewing the tape out to a 4:3 TV.

It just may be that the in-camera downconvert is done better than Edius. Let's face it, I'm sure they are using entirely different methodologies to achieve the 4:3.

It's also possible that Canon has a better means of downconverting in-camera than Sony's in-camera downconvert. The physical makeup of their chips might come in to play or hardware/software differences in the camera...who knows? In the next few weeks I'd like to get down to B&H and do an in-store test of either the FX1000, Z5 or both, testing this issue specifically.

I think your results with the FX1 were consistent with mine when I had the FX1. Although I really don't recall, my friend reminded me that the FX1 didn't look great in DV mode.

Here's some REALLY nice footage from the FX1000. The snowy test on the bottom of the page shows how really sharp this cam can be. The two at the top do have evidence of rolling shutter, but I'll tell you the truth, I just don't see this as a big deal, I really don't.

The footage is just so good otherwise, I can't imagine any client getting upset.

HDR-FX1000 / HVR-Z5 on Vimeo

I agree - it's no big deal that practically every other scene in the wedding shoot is a 'half-exposed' CMOS flash shot. I may not like it, but it's certainly the way ahead if you buy a Sony camera.

The snow shots were lovely and show the capabilities of that long lens - and oh the relief - not a half-flash frame in sight.

Tom, I guess we perceive things differently in this case. When I see flash shots with CCD, I see 'ruined frames' too, just a different form of 'ruined'. Exposure is whacked in either case and I just can't get nuts about this.

The overall picture is excellent and that's what people will focus on.

My biggest concern with the rolling shutter issue is my clients not knowing what the heck it is. With CCD you know a flash just went off...no big deal. With CMOS, if just one flash goes off that covers half or 1/4 of the screen, some people might think something is wrong with the video. I'm sure it won't be hard to figure out by the time there finished with the DVD, but the first time.... they gotta wonder. And with the way photogs shoot rapid fire now, there's not many times where there's just one flash.

My view on this is, at least you still see half or even 3/4 of the frame, compared to CCD where you lose the whole frame.

And Tim, I'll just bet it will be a very rare client that notices anything is wrong. The vast majority of clients will interpret this as nothing more than 'flashes going off'. The effect is just as fleeting as the effect with CCD. Unless you're focusing on slo mo, I just won't get too excited about this.

I'll take the enhanced low light and overall picture quality of these cams every time.

Ken,
I would say your skills here behind the cam trump the rolling shutter--good job!
SW

Steve, thanks, I'd agree with you IF I had taken those videos! It wasn't me, but they are nice. :)

How is the SD quality of the HVR-Z5/HDR-FX1000 in both 4:3 and 16:9?
 

Hi everyone. I've been renting mostly an XL-1 and a Panny DX100 and shooting in 4:3 but I need a new camera next month.
I'm considering these 2 new Sony cameras (along with the Canon XHA1) and I understand that to get the best results, I should record in HDV, edit in HDV and downconvert to SD for delivery at the end. No problem there.

However, there have been instances when some clients just wanted the raw footage on plain vanilla SD and so I would like to hear your opinions about the SD quality (not downconverted) that I can expect from either the HVR-Z5 or the FX100.
How would footage recorded with either camera in SD would compare against footage shot with a Panny dvx100? Not the same ratio I understand, but in terms of clarity, definition, sharpness..etc.
I asked the same question about the SD quality of the XHA1 in another forum, and the responses where not very encouraging. Some users have described the quality of the XH A1 in 4:3 SD as "muddy" and too soft and a somewhat better in 16:9 SD.

Would the SD quality of the Sony cameras be better? Would my non-HDV clients be happy with the SD footage? Same or better than what I get with a Panny dvx100?

I really don't want to buy a SD only camera at this point of the game.

Your opinions would be appreciated.
thanks

E

An HDV camera has 1"/3 16:9 chips so you effectively mask down the chip to produce 4:3 SD footage. Reducing the size of the chip immediately loses you wide-angle coverage, but at the same time means you're using less of the chips pixels to form the image.

If you switch an HDV camera to shoot SD, then the downconversion takes place between the chips and the tape, in real time. If you shoot HDV but output DV down Firewire, then downconvertion takes place in camera, again in real time.

Neither of these two downconverters cost much to fit to the camera. They do the job, but that's about it. NLE downconverters do give real benefits, and so they should considering they don't have to work in real time, the PCBs can take up a lot of space and consume far more power.

Having said that I often find myself in your position - where a client wants me to shoot 16:9 SD in my Sony Z1. I do so happily because the Z1 does a very passable job indeed and anyway - slight differences in downconverter quality are far outweighed by my abilities as a cameraman.

tom.

Erick, I don't own the Z5 or the FX1000, but I'm planning to get one in the near future.

I was just at Sony Style in N.Y. yesterday to test the FX1000. One of the tests I ran was a 4:3 SD test since that is still the bulk of my shooting. I didn't have my VX2100 with me, so I couldn't do an A/B. I can tell you, looking at the 4:3 footage I shot on its own, it looked fine. I would not call it muddy at all when I played it back on both my 19" Sony and 14" JVC editing monitor. I wish I could tell you how the FX1000 measured up to the 2100 in terms of clarity and sharpness, but without the same 2100 footage I can't. I will say this, I think the color on the 1000 is more accurate than the 2100.

I'll add one thing to what Tom just said above, the 1000 will not allow 4:3 downconversion when shooting in HDV, it will only be 16:9.

My experience is that my V1, my Z7 and a friends FX1000 have a superior image to the VX2100, PD170, DVX100 and probably even my BetacamSP when shot in HD and downconverted to SD in a good edit system. And they seem to be at least as good to my eyes, when downconverted in the camera.