Does anybody know how the 16:9 SD of the Z1U compares to the PDX10's?

I'm looking and looking but not concrete results...

Ignacio...Boyd...anybody?

Juan

it's supposed to be a NEW way for 16:9 with the Z1U, according to Sony. Be interesting to see what they mean.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ronald Ng : it's supposed to be a NEW way for 16:9 with the Z1U, according to Sony. Be interesting to see what they mean. -->>>

Yeah basically, I'd like to know if those HD CCDs' Z1U will allow for better low light performance on DV 16:9 mode than the PDX10's in DV 16:9 mode.

There is some info here, but not enough...

http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/sonyhdrfx1/compare.php

Gotta love:
2 cine gamma settings.
Total manual mode, with f-stops display
2 ND filters
Smooth zoom, non-perpetuating
Assignable functions

Btw, I'm not disregarding by any means the HDV capabilities.

Juani

I think there's no doubt at all that the Z1 will have better low light performance than the PDX10. Going by Sony's figures, the VX2100 is 1 lux, the VX2k is 2 lux, the Z1 is 3 lux and the PDX10 is 7 lux.

tom.

Also keep in mind that the Z1 will cost $3,000 more than the PDX-10....

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Also keep in mind that the Z1 will cost $3,000 more than the PDX-10.... -->>>

The better features justify the price. No question about that.

Tom, that means that Z1 is at least 3 lux, and if one follow the the PDX170/VX2100 logic then the Z1 is 2 lux. Just this 5 lux difference between the two, it's worth the "sacrifice".

Juani

I don't understand your logic Juan; I gave you Sony's official figures. Remember the PDX10 is half the weight of the Z1, half the size, and takes 37 mm filters and accessories. Compare those prices with 72 mm ones.

tom.

According to a friend who has the FX1E, the low light etc stats are as follows

VX2000E is 12db (2 stop) more sensitive in low light than FX1E

VX2100E is 15db (2.5 stop) more sensitive in low light than FX1E

Colour saturation in low light is marginally inferior to VX2x

FX1E is slightly worse in smear (from a naked 60 watt clear bulb) than VX2x

FX1E has better (thinner) sharpness halo effect than VX2x at default setting , but a wider range control of custom sharpness

FX1E has better chroma noise characteristic (blue northern sky) than VX2x

FX1E at full gain up is not pretty, maybe uprezzed VX2x may be better. (In other words blurring a FX1E at full gain up to get the same noise characteristic as an uprezzed VX2x will be worse)



In addition , the hypergain (+36db) on the Z1 is an attempt to bring the camera in line with the low light performance of the PD170. However you must realise that mpeg compression loathes noise and it is expected than a softening filter will be introduced to stop the picture becoming a complete mess.

Read hypergain +36db very much like you would read digital x240 zoom, something to be avoided.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I don't understand your logic Juan; I gave you Sony's official figures. Remember the PDX10 is half the weight of the Z1, half the size, and takes 37 mm filters and accessories. Compare those prices with 72 mm ones tom. -->>>

The logic, it's nothing more than I'm considering an upgrade to the Z1U from my beloved PDX10. Of course, it's more expensive but the versatility of having SD and HDV, more control, better lux rating and the afforementioned features. That's translates into more possibilities. In other words, to me, the investment is justified, at least on in paper. I'd need to see more testing.

Juani

Juan: my only point was that one should expect a $3,800 camera with 1/3" chips to be better than a $1,800 camera with 1/4.7" chips. I may very well find an FX-1 or Z-1 in my future as well, but I'll let you guys be the early adopters :-)

John: Those numbers - if true - are very interesting. They imply that there would be very little low light difference between the PDX-10 and FX-1. My own observations based on side by side tests with my PDX-10 and VX-2000 indicate a 2.5 f-stop difference. If we are both right, then the FX-1 and PDX-10 are only about a half stop apart. If the FX-1 responds poorly to added gain then there might be little if any practical difference between these cameras in a low light situation.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Juan: my only point was that one should expect a $3,800 camera with 1/3" chips to be better than a $1,800 camera with 1/4.7" chips. I may very well find an FX-1 or Z-1 in my future as well, but I'll let you guys be the early adopters :-) -->>>

C'mon Boyd, you're the one making the big dough with all these operas :-)

By now, your PDX10 has done its job, it's time for an upgrade.
But not the FX1, rather the Z1U. You should be the one leading us.

Seriously, those numbers sound to me a little bit subjective.
I want to see serious tests, regarding the SD (4:3 and 16:9) down conversion, earlier next year after the Z1U is out. The HDV tests will leave it for a different thread.

Juan

Ha, ha.... yeah right ;-)

Is there any reason to think that the Z1 will behave differently in terms of the image or low light response than the FX-1? Regarding the VX-2000 vs PDX-10, my comparison is based on shooting the same chart under the same lighting and the same distance at f 2.8 on the PDX-10 (http://www.greenmist.com/dv/res/d1.JPG) and f 6.8 on the VX-2000 (http://www.greenmist.com/dv/res/d2.JPG). Your mileage may vary...

I love my PDX10

But

I just got confirmation from B&H that my NEW HDR-FX1, along with an AT897 mic, and a few other bits and pieces, is on its way.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Sorry, sorry; my excitement got the better of me for a moment! Juan, in the very near future I will be in the position of being able to do serious comparisons between the PDX 10 and the FX1 – not the Z1U let me hasten to add, however, I suggest the differences between the FX1 and the Z1U will not be as significant as the differences between these new HD cameras and our beloved PDX10. I should add, however, that if this machine that is on its way is one half as good as it seems from the raw files I’ve seen; then folks, I may not have time to get technical…

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff :

John: Those numbers - if true - are very interesting. They imply that there would be very little low light difference between the PDX-10 and FX-1. My own observations based on side by side tests with my PDX-10 and VX-2000 indicate a 2.5 f-stop difference. If we are both right, then the FX-1 and PDX-10 are only about a half stop apart. If the FX-1 responds poorly to added gain then there might be little if any practical difference between these cameras in a low light situation. -->>>

Boyd, those figures are lifted from Ellens email, I will be in a position to confirm them shortly. One thing I find interesting is that the Sony Japan sites list the FX/Z as 6 lux but the USA sites list as 3 lux, I think the hypergain on the Z1 says it all really.

I think for editing purposes the PDX and the FX/Z in 16:9 DV mode should cut together quite nicely

<<<-- Originally posted by John McCully : Sorry, sorry; my excitement got the better of me for a moment! Juan, in the very near future I will be in the position of being able to do serious comparisons between the PDX 10 and the FX1 – not the Z1U let me hasten to add, however, I suggest the differences between the FX1 and the Z1U will not be as significant as the differences between these new HD cameras and our beloved PDX10. I should add, however, that if this machine that is on its way is one half as good as it seems from the raw files I’ve seen; then folks, I may not have time to get technical… -->>>

Alright, somebody already jumping into the FX1/Z1U bandwagon. At this point, we don't know what are ALL the differences between the two. So far we know Z1U has all FX1's features, but additionally Z1U has :

XLR inputs
480p
2 Cinetone Gamma
Time Code Reset
14 Assignable Functions
Hyper Gain
B&W evf
Black body

Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that...

Regarding the lux rating, we are not sure either if Hyper Gain is taking into consideration or not. Hmmm...a 3 lux difference with Hyper Gain!!!

check the Videomaker.com, it has extended review of the FX1 xrefed with VX2100

Boyd, the low light figures given earlier are accurate, after having seen the difference in person

Hmm. I wonder if the HD Z1/FX1 also drops vertical resolution in half when setting the shutter slower than 1/50. If it does not, then 1/25 (or on 1/30) will get you twice as much light and there will be no need to deinterlace <grin> to get the "film" look.

Read: http://home.earthlink.net/~dvcnyc/Sony%20HDR-FX1.htm. It would appear that resolution loss will only happen when there is motion. This would seem different to what happens with the PDX10 and PD170, where there is a visible resolution loss even with no motion in 1/30 (NTSC) or 1/25 (PAL).

I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible?

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? -->>>

According to that link the 3 lux rating was achieved using +18 dB gain. Is that common for such ratings? Sounds a little like "cheating"...

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... -->>>

There's so much talk about this camera I can't keep up with it. But I think you left a few things off your list:

1. The Z-1 can also shoot in DVCAM mode
2. The viewfinder can be set to underscan, showing the full frame
3. The camera is switchable between PAL and NTSC
4. Ch 1 & ch 2 audio are separately controlled

Hi Guys

I've a question here:

I see lots on the forums about good, bad or indifferent low light capability of such and such a camera....
This strikes me as all well and good, but surely the quality of the light is a factor too.

Low light 99 times out of 100 is poor light = poor pictures....
Such and such a camera may give you visible pictures in that poor light, but are they worth anything?

Beautiful pictures are often the fruit of using good light well... it seems to me that making the best of crap light... well you might as well throw a torch at it and be done... At least the colour can be balanced and look good...

I come from a photographic background .... and once you lose the light it's gone .. so you add some.. may not be pretty but it's there... Whack a flash at a low light subject and it's there.. shoot available and it looks mushy.. surely the same applies to video?

How badly do we need pictures where you can't wait for good light and can't add additional lights.?

I shot footage this summer with a TRV950 (not rate well in low light) Well in the lowest acceptable it was still better than my eyes... and with a video light gave excellent results in the dead of night.

I've an FX1 now so if it's even a stop to two better I' can't see me needing more...

If I'm missing something....

Cheers
Gareth

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : <<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? -->>>

According to that link the 3 lux rating was achieved using +18 dB gain. Is that common for such ratings? Sounds a little like "cheating"... -->>>

somehow it is, but i can live we 2 stops better than the PDX10 as it was said in another post.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : <<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... -->>>

There's so much talk about this camera I can't keep up with it. But I think you left a few things off your list:

1. The Z-1 can also shoot in DVCAM mode
2. The viewfinder can be set to underscan, showing the full frame
3. The camera is switchable between PAL and NTSC
4. Ch 1 & ch 2 audio are separately controlled -->>>

hey are you a sony rep? ;-)
those are also important features, i completely overlooked them.
do we need more to justify the $2K difference?

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : but i can live we 2 stops better than the PDX10 as it was said in another post. -->>>

Read back through those earlier posts. Based on what John says it sounds like the difference between the FX-1 and PDX-10 may be less than 1 f-stop. But of course there are plenty of other reasons to want one :-)

Update: here's a little more anecdotal evidence that the FX-1 is only about 1/2 f-stop faster than the PDX-10. See Ron's post in this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=253881).

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Update: here's a little more anecdotal evidence that the FX-1 is only about 1/2 f-stop faster than the PDX-10. See Ron's post in this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=253881). -->>>

I'm not sure if I can make any sense of that thread in regards to exposure and lux rating. The other one is that I'm more interested in the results for the Z1U model, since it makes more sense to upgrade to that one.

Just by knowing that the Z1U has 1/3 CCDs and the PDX10 has 1/4.7 CCDs, it's gotta be more than 1/2 f-stop difference. Another interesting comparison would be considering the gain as well, on how effective and clean the picture can be using the gain control on the Z1U. There should be no question that the electronics/DS processing in the Z1U is much better than the PDX10. That comparison will give me a more realistic lux rating.

Juan

> Just by knowing that the Z1U has 1/3 CCDs and the PDX10
> has 1/4.7 CCDs, it's gotta be more than 1/2 f-stop difference.

Well no. You have to also take into account the resolution, because it is related to the size of the pixels. If the Z1U CCD has about 30% higher resolution than the PDX10's CCD array (does it?), then the pixels will be about the same size, thus more or less the same amount of photons will fall into them, so you will get similar sensitivity. Granted, judging by what has been mentioned by the early adopters, Sony seems to be doing wonders with noise reduction electronics.

Some of us, for some time now, have been predicting that Sony and others would have trouble going to HDV unless they were willing to reduce the price of the larger sensors. Since they are not (presumably so the pro's continue to spend big $ on large-sensor equipnment), we will be stuck for some time with sensitivity similar to that of the PDX10.

Perhaps JVC, whom by now has not much of a "pro" market to kill, will be the ones to start selling larger sensor cams at affordable prices. They really need to so something amazing after their HDV disaster, don't they?

Good point Ignacio. To gain any market acceptance JVC will have to capitulate I feel, and join the Sony HiDef spec and not flounder about at the half-way house.

Gareth - I can fully understand your point regarding low light generally being crap light, but for a lot of 'real-life' videographers low light is often all we get given, and we must work within those constraints.

When I'm shooting a wedding in a romantic candle-lit church there's no way I can add to the available light. Everybody there has their eyes set permanently to f1.4 while I'm struggling with my VX2000 at f1.6, not even daring to move towards telephoto because of the light loss.

It's at times like these when it's comforting to know that I'd have to be using a monstrously expensive and unweildy 1/2" chip camcorder to get better low light performance. I'm happy to think that if I had a DVX100A, a Canon (any Canon) or an FX1 by the sound of it - I'd be into gain-up mode, and this would be spoiling the look of my DVDs.

It's the one and only thing that I find slightly dissapointing about the FX1. But I'm absolutely sure that Sony's low-light crown wasn't surrendered llightly. I bet the fact that the PD170 tops it in low light performance had a lot of Sony developement engineers knashing their teeth in frustration.

tom.

Just thought I'd update this old thread since we've now had a post from somebody who owns both a PDX-10 and FX-1. See Paul Frederick's post here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37446

Of course this makes me want an FX-1 though.... :-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Just thought I'd update this old thread since we've now had a post from somebody who owns both a PDX-10 and FX-1. See Paul Frederick's post here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37446 -->>>

Excellent news Boyd.
That confirms our theory. The FX1 has a much better "effective" lux rating than the PDX10, due to its internal DSP (electronics).

Can't wait to hear if there any difference with Z1U.

Juan