Let's start a post with sample clips of the fx1000.

Here are a few of mine:
http://vimeo.com/2746361 - low light and focus tests
http://vimeo.com/2703850 - random tests, with good lighting

OK, I'm game.

Love the cats Steve! I'm a cat owner myself!

Clip below must be downloaded prior to viewing, it's 70MB wmv file.

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

I figured the other camera sections have a 'sample clip' area...we need one too!

FX1000 vs. Canon XHA1
with my native sample clips.

Link: Wolfgangs VideoBlog - Januar 2009 (http://www.fxsupport.de/blog/01_09.html)
in english: Wolf course video blog - January 2009 (http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fxsupport.de%2Fblog%2Faktuell.html&.intl=de)

So Wolfgang, which camera looked better overall?

So Wolfgang, which camera looked better overall?



I have always thought the Canon's in good light have a nicer picture. Sony's a bit "plasticy" to me.

Plasticy - Is that a word?

From what I could see they look very similar. Martin it sounds like you think the Canon has a warmer image. I have always like the Canon's images. I personally don't see any significant difference.

In the last (5th) test the Sony had more trouble with the headlights of the car, than the Canon, I think. For the rest I believe they more or less level out. But let's wait for Wolfgangs reaction . . .

Which camera is now better? Let me because of my bad english first to german answer:

Zur Zeit habe ich drei Kameras getestet, FX1000, XHA1 und XHA1s. Alle Kameras können über Picture Profile oder Preset in Farbe und Kontrast optimiert werden, damit ist es sehr schwer die Kameras direkt zu vergleichen. Die Canon Kameras bieten hier feinere Einstellungen, deshalb lassen sich die Farben nach Testchart und Vectorscop genauer einstellen.
Schaut man sich meine gefilmten Bilder genauer an, kann ich in Detailauflösung keinen Unterschied feststellen, beide Kameras spielen in der selben Liga. Sogar die Farbfehler des Objektiv sind absolut gleich. Große Unterschiede gibt es jeweils in der Ausstattung, hier bietet die Canon einfach mehr, man müßte sie mit der Z5 vergleichen, aber auch da besitzt Canon mehr Halbautomatiken und den etwas besseren IF-A Autofokus.
Bei LowLight rauscht die Sony weniger ist aber keinesfalls Lichtempfindlicher. Bei der Canon kann zwar der Rauschfilter im Preset eingestellt werden und rauscht dann auch nicht mehr, aber es gibt dann bei bewegten Szenen schlieren. Welche Kamera ist nun besser? CCD oder CMOS?

Babelfish english:
This time I tested three cameras, FX1000, XHA1 and XHA1s. All cameras can be optimized over "Picture profiles" or "Preset" in color and contrast, thus are it very heavily the cameras to be compared directly. Canon cameras offer here finer attitudes, therefore the colors can be adjusted after colorchart and Vectorscop more exactly. If one looks at oneself my filmed pictures more exactly, I cannot determine a difference in detail resolution, both cameras play in the same league. Even the color defects (CA) objective are absolutely alike. Large differences there are in the handling, here offers in each case Canon simply more, one would have it with the Z5 to compare, in addition, Canon of more manuel possesses and the somewhat better IF-A autofocus there. With LowLight Sony does not rush, but they is not more photo-sensitive. At Canon the noise filter can be adjusted in the Preset and rushes then also not more, but there are then with moved scenes streaks. Which camera is now better? CCD or CMOS?

FX1000:
+ better LCD
+ smoother LowLight
+ no smear in lights
+ "better" wideangel
- rollin shutter
- no XLR

XHA1(s):
+ better IR Autofocus (LowLight)
+ better handling (automatic, manual mode TV+AV, XLR)
+ no rolling shutter
+ better Preset (+-50)
- smear in lights
- grain (Gain is +3dB or higher)
- no HDMI Out

Thanks Wolfgang. So it looks to me that the Z5 would overcome some of the Canon advantages in your list (better handling & better presets) and might then be clearly better than the Canon. I'm out of town now and can't download your footage.

There is one thing that concerns me that maybe some owners here can address. My friend just bought the Z5 (which he'll bring over to my house later this week) and he noticed that the camera tends to significantly smear the image detail while panning. He was comparing it to his Sony SR12 and was surprised that the Sony held detail much better while panning.

I actually noticed this when I did my FX1000 test at the Sony store. I had my Canon AVCHD HG21 with me. I was really surprised that the Canon held the detail beautifully as I panned while the 1000 did smear the detail in the same kind of pan. The Canon was set at its highest bitrate of 24mbps. As most of you probably know, that's actually considerably higher than the HDV bitrate since the AVCHD codec is far more efficient. So the same bitrates between HDV & AVCHD will look better in AVCHD.

Are you guys seeing this smearing in your typical work and if so, how bad do you find it?

The strange thing is I used the Canon HV20 (HDV) for quite awhile as my own personal camera and never really noticed this issue to any great degree. Perhaps I'm just over-analyzing this?

The differences between these cams comes down to preference. They are not significantly different. If you like Canon, the Canon is the better choice. If you like Sony the Sony is the better choice. A teeny bit better one way or the other makes no difference, particlularly if you are a professional with an investment in a brand.

You look at the features, and pick one if you don't have a brand preference. Play with it, and if you don't like it send it back.

Jeff, have you noticed the blurring on panning?

nope, Fx1000 pans beautifully. I am now rendering a clip with some pans, not whip pans, but pans, and I'll post it in a few minutes.

Wow, a 2 minuted clip with MB is taking 45 minutes. I guess the i7 is in my future.

My friend brought his Z5 over today and after all was said and done, I was very impressed! The ability of this cam to extract large amounts of detail, color and sharpness in indoor lighting conditions is truly amazing. It just blows anything I've tried away. We conducted all our HD tests on my Pioneer 60" Kuro and for our SD tests we used both a 20" Sony CRT as well as my JVC 14" studio monitor.

For HD, we did an A/B with my Canon HG21 and the Z5. Surprisingly the Canon did quite well outdoors, even besting the Sony a tad in detail. But in terms of color, exposure latitude and noise, the Sony won out. The difference in wide angle was huge.

Indoors it was a slam dunk for the Sony in virtually any kind of indoor lighting. The Z5 actually beat out the Canon in detail as well as trounced it in color, exposure and noise. It's really interesting how when playing with the master black levels & knee adjustments, you can almost mimic many aspects of the Canon picture. You really begin to see how a company gives their consumer cams a certain 'look' with these 'behind the scenes adjustments'.

I then did an A/B with my VX2100 and found the Z5 to have both better color and detail than the VX2100. The gap was wider than I thought it would be. I know some have thought the 1000/Z5 to be a bit flatter than the 2100, but I surely didn't find that. For those that do, I'd bet touching up the black levels would bring things even. I just thought the overall SD picture was a step above the 2100.

At any rate my Z5 arrives tomorrow. I was sold.

Ken, what mode (60i, 30p, 24p or 24p-in-60i) did you do the comparison shooting on?

Wacharapong

Wacharapong, everything was interlaced (60i), both HDV and SD. We didn't use any of the progressive modes since neither of us is a big fan of that look.

Circle Nerdz Performing at WSU 2/9/09 Angle 1 - FX1000 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/3119033)
This is a video I did in a very dark place. You can see the how well the picture turns out in the lit up area, but you do see a lot of noise in the darker areas.
FX1000, set to auto mode.

Circle Nerdz Performing at WSU 2/9/09 Angle 1 - FX1000 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/3119033)
This is a video I did in a very dark place. You can see the how well the picture turns out in the lit up area, but you do see a lot of noise in the darker areas.
FX1000, set to auto mode.

First rule of getting great video...Get off of auto!
You will get much better video by learning to how to use your cameras manual controls.

This way you can adjust your exposure and gain separately maintain better blacks this way. Auto will always boost your gain way too high in dim lighting situations. Even more, there are settings in your FX1000, such as black stretch and knee settings which can also enhance your image in very bright or very dim shooting environments.

Rule #2 for getting great video.
Use lighting when possible. Video and photography needs light. Either use on camera lighting for some added fill, or off camera lighting, preferred, which will enhance your image and give it some depth.

Don't mean to come across harsh, but if anyone is going to do a fair test or comparison on how cameras operate, they should know how to run the camera and make the appropriate adjustments when needed.

BTW, the video doesn't look that bad. Hard to tell with the online compression of the video. But, overall the blacks don't look that bad.

Be sure to click on the "watch in HD" just below the video on the right.
YouTube - RGB Bugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=824jcvNfVbY)

This video was shot in 24p on a HDR-FX1000 with the following picture profile:

GAMMA: STANDARD
BLACK COMP: OFF
KNEE POINT: LOW (80%)
COLOR MODE: CINEMATONE 2
COLOR LEVEL: -7
COLOR PHASE: 0
COLOR DEPTH: -7
WB SHIFT: 0
SHARPNESS: -7
SKINTONE DETAIL: ON/LEVEL 1 no color select

I captured the footage in Sony Vegas Pro 8.0c on a 24p timeline. I've exported it to YouTube and to DVDA. I didn't do anything special or out of the ordinary to remove pulldown the way I had to do with my HV20.

FX1000, set to auto mode.

The fx1000 will push the gain up to 21db in auto mode, unless you limit that in the menu.
On the other hand the fx1000 is much more noise free then a xh-a1, A comparison I have seen is that a xh-a1 produced the same amount of noise at 12db then a fx1000 at 21db.
This means that the image of a fx1000 is usable up to 18db and produces at that setting less grain then the canon at 12db gain.

Tranquility on Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com/3238508)

Be sure to click on the "watch in HD" just below the video on the right.
YouTube - RGB Bugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=824jcvNfVbY)

This video was shot in 24p....blah blah blah

Originally, this video was to be an experiment with the picture profile settings (below) but has since turned out to be about audio. I was disatisfied with the built-in mic (go figure) and purchased a Zoom H2. There are three audio tracks being compared; untouched out of the cam, retouched by the EQ track effect in Vegas, and the untouched Samson Zoom H2.

It's now redone and can be found here:

RGB Bugs on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/3291057)
YouTube - RGB Bugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj23n1OkqSo)

Dissatisfied with the audio...hmmm, I am surprised you didn't get a shotgun. The Zoom is nice (I have one) but will not stay in sync for more than a few minutes, and the quality is inferior to say the Rode Videomic which can be had for around $150. Offboard audio just seems drastic.

I'm sure the Zoom will work out, and you probably must have some specific purpose in mind that a shotgun cannot fulfill...so good luck with it.

Well, if the H2 turns out to be more trouble than it's worth as far a syncing is concerned, I'll have to look at a shotgun. The H2 can always be used to catch ambient/background sounds to add to a library. The H2 is just too inexpensive and too good not to give it a shot.
Oh yeah, I forgot. It's also my usb voice over mic. Way cool!

If you're a hobbyist, it shouldn't matter much. I shoot weddings and many run an hour, so I gave up using the Zoom after using it once for a full mass. Didn't realize sync issues involved when I bought it. Quality wise it's a great little recorder, but it sits in my case gathering dust. BTW, in case you didn't know you can buy a label mic for the Zoom at Radiio Shack for $20. It's not FOR the Zoom but it has the correct plug on it.

so I gave up using the Zoom after using it once for a full mass. Didn't realize sync issues involved when I bought it.

Zoom recorders are known for their sync issue but that can be solved really easy, just look here: My Video Problems :: View topic - Synchronise external and camera audio tracks. (http://www.mfbb.net/myvideoproblems/viewtopic.php?t=25&mforum=myvideoproblems)

You only need to determine the percentage that's it's out of sync once, after that a one hour audio file is corrected within minutes. I use my zoom h4 with every wedding, for me it's ideal when there is a group performing live in a church or to place on a tripod close to a loudspeaker. As said before, once I transfer the audio files to my pc and let audacity do it's thing, I"m editing them after a few minutes with no sync issues at all.

Thanks, Noa. I've seen the article, but not interested in using that method, as simple as it is advertised to be, it is more effort than I want to invest. I keep a camera down front with a shotgun on it that picks up most everything pretty well. Great idea though.

You only need to determine the percentage that's it's out of sync once,
Just did the test (over a 30 minute time period) and I'm out by 100.2%
So all that has to be done in Vegas is match up the beginning point between the cam audio track and the H2 and Control-drag the H2 audio track (which is faster) backward until I see 100.2% in the little box. Simple.
Thank-you Noa!

This isn't my clip, but it's one of my favorites shot with the FX1000.

Fall in Nova Huta on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1947114)

This isn't my clip, but it's one of my favorites shot with the FX1000.

Fall in Nova Huta on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/1947114)

funny you mentioned this link - it's my home town in Poland :-) Nice sample indeed.

Cool!

Looks like a nice place.

I like that clip a lot, very well shot.

Barron,

Do you mean to tell me that you shot HDV 24 fps with the FX1000, then you imported the video using Vegas 8.0c onto a 24p timeline...

And

the clips show up as 24p? I'm just curious because I'm looking to get an FX1000 and this sounds great.

Yes
I shot 24pSCAN mode on the FX1000 and brought the clips onto the timeline. Project Properties were:
Template: HDV 1080-24p (1440x1080, 23.976 fps)
And indeed, there were 24 individual frames for every one second of footage.

Barren,

When you go to the clips properties, is it progressive or interlaced?

Do you have a red bar above the timeline when you drop the footage in? If so it needs rendered and does not match the timeline settings.

@Tim: The Field order in the project properties template is None (progressive scan). The clip itself (in the project media) is 29.970 fps and the field order is Upper field first.

@Todd: There's no red bar.

That's where I get confused Barron. Some of us have had this discussion before and I don't understand the FX1000 way of recording 24p. If it were true 24p, looks like the clip properties would be 23.976 progressive. The FX1000 24p must be in an 60i wrapper and it is up to the NLE to remove the pulldown....which Vegas, as I understand, does not do.

This is most discouraging. Barron's response makes it clear that Vegas does not handle the embedded 24p correctly. Whether or not it is the FX1000's fault for not putting in correct flags, or Vegas' fault for not handling the flags is immaterial at this point. Hopefully it is a software issue and it will be corrected in an update (or better yet, I hope it's user error)!

The way I understand it, as Tim says it is 24fps but in a 60i wrapper.

You can use something like Cineform Neo Scene to remove the pulldown. This is is a common issue as there are other cameras that record this way also.

For 24fps without the 60i wrapper, if you want to stick with Sony you need to move up to the Z5 or Z7 which records without the wrapper.

I don't find this a big deal, but I don't use 24fps. You can also get great results with 30p, which the FX1000 shoots.

Hopefully it is a software issue and it will be corrected in an update (or better yet, I hope it's user error)!


My thoughts as well.

You can also get great results with 30p, which the FX1000 shoots.


Sooo true!!

I've started a new thread here
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-hvr-z5-hdr-fx1000/208919-fx1000-hdv-24p.html#post1105453
as we've kinda moved OT.

How did I know you would agree with that statement Tim?

Jeff, have you tried it on a wedding yet?

No Tim, I haven't.

I had planned on using it today so I played with it for the first time this morning, and during panning that little bit of jerkiness made me skittish, so I chickened out.

Tim, additonally I learned while reading the manual this morning that the FX1000 30p is actually 60i, just like the 24p. Are you peforming pulldown removal, and if so what are you using? I was so disappointed to discover this, as I have a new HV30 that, I believe shoots in true 30p, and I was really psyched about trying it out. Its not a big deal, as the footage from the wedding is very nice as it it.

Disregard post

Jeff, I believe the HV30 and FX1000 record 30p as 60i. When you drop the 60i/30p footage on a timeline with project settings set to 30p - field order progressive, that's when you get true 30p....unlike 60i/24p, where you must do pulldown removal to get 23.976.

At least this is what I have come to understand since owning the 1000.

I haven't experienced any jerkiness in the 30p footage.....but I don't do a lot of panning either. I do shoot alot of walking, which seems to always come out smooth.

Thanks Tim. I'm a tad skeptical as to whether the project settings should be changed to 30p since the footage is 60i. I really don't understand how that works. Can you point me to anything explaining it?

Sorry Jeff, I don't have any links. I googled 30p and just started reading all the results....should have saved some just for a refresher coarse every now and then.