A friend of mine shot a feature with DSR500 last month and digitally projected on cinema screen . It was very good in color and resolution even after being blown up to the cinema screen.

Question is can sony fx1/z1 beat it in quality and color if projected to the same screen.....remember DSR 500 is 2/3ccd?


PLease guide...and thanks in advance

I'll actually say the FX1 is better than the DSR500 in overall image quality, under ideal shooting conditions.

THe DSR500 will be better in handling a wider range of exposure lattitude.

They will be comparable in lack of chroma noise.

But projected on a huge display the FX1 resolution advantage will outweigh all other factors that contribute to image quality.

Good glass on the DSR500 won't make up for the deficiences in the recording format's resolution, plus since you output DV25 colorspace, it's pretty bad.

You can also pan and move your camera with the DSR500 with no artifacts.

That's something I still wonder myself how may affect potential projects to be shot using HDV.

But for slow moving scenes or fixed takes HDV should take the medal.


Carlos

Thanks Davi,

I think that answers my question...

Thanks again

Thanks carlos,

so besides panning, I know there was no problem while panning on DSR 500 and I dont like the panning blurriness on Fx1.

Question

1. would the panning have same problem even in Z1?

2. Is it only the panning or even when the camera dolleys in /out or is mounted on crane..we will still see the blurriness.

3. what is the way this blurriness can be avoided ...my pana dvx100a is remarkable but it is time to move on and I am really looking forward to Z1.

PLease tell me theis blurriness is not objectionable on huge screen as it will magnify big time .

Thanks again guys and you guys are the best as ever.

and I am sure DVx100 will not be as good as DSR 500 on big screen when shot on 24p even in 16:9 mode

any comments?


Thanks again

I'm pretty sure the DSR will look better than the FX1 but that it's beside the point because I haven't seen them side by side.. There is no question however about comparing a 2/3 chipper and a 1/3 chipper.. they don't play in the same league.

I havent used them side by side either, but I have shot hundreds of hours of footage on the DSR500 and while the DSR500 excels in exposure latitude and DOF, the FX1 can hold up its own.

The feedback I am reading on several forums dealing with the FX1 being actually used and the Z1 on some tests that were made, their larger weakest points, common to both of them, are:

1) Fast objects going past the camera, either because the camera is panning, moving on a dolly or the subjects simply passing by, the image will develop an artifact that looks like a "crooked staircase". It's not clear to me if that happens during recording or at the camera itself. My guess is Sony must be doing something about that problem to see how it's solved or dealt with.

2) 1/2 second video/audio cancellings due to tape dropouts. This might be solved if you record on a different media, like HD or the soon to be released blue optical disc.

Both cases, IMO, put some interrogations marks on whether HDV should be used for certain applications. Particularly documentaries, where you can't prevent too much how you are going to shoot. Nervous shooting, fast movements will not be well dealt by HDV, at least for now.

One thing I wonder is what happens if HDV is taken up to a real HD editing suite.

I don't know if it's time to move from a DVX100A to an HDV. It will mostly depend on what are you going to shoot. If you can predict your movements, HDV should provide great production value in image quality.


Carlos

Thanks Alfred, Davi and Carlos..

I definately dont want the artifact of staircase or the motion blur because there is going to be movement in every shot . In some shots it might be even faster. To buy a z1 and then later cant fix the motion in post would be a loss of time and money both.

The objective is definately big screen no matter what the camera . I was just thinking to rent DSR 500 for a month or so would be same as buying out the Z1 . But the feature will definately be projected on the cinema in toronto/ mississauga.

If you guys have experience would DVX be able to project the film ...ok not as good as DSR500 but close ....shot in 24p at 16:9
or with anamorphic lens?


Thanks a mill... again guys
you and your experience rock...

The DSR 500 and 570 have native 16:9 chips that are supposed to be outstanding. For a theatrical movie, DOF may be important to you (DSR a must) but then again it may not.

I think your question should be if the Pana is good enough for your needs instead of comparing it to the DSR since the comparison isn't really fair IMHO.

Many people here will swear by the DVX though!

1) Fast objects going past the camera, either because the camera is panning, moving on a dolly or the subjects simply passing by, the image will develop an artifact that looks like a "crooked staircase". It's not clear to me if that happens during recording or at the camera itself. My guess is Sony must be doing something about that problem to see how it's solved or dealt with.

I have not seen any of that artifacts you talked about, did you actually see it or you heard it from someone? It might got softer but no artifacts.

2) 1/2 second video/audio cancellings due to tape dropouts. This might be solved if you record on a different media, like HD or the soon to be released blue optical disc.

I have about 16 hrs. on it and I use the Sony Pr tape and did not see any drop out, half a second freeze or anything like that.

The DSR500 definetly has much better latitude, and so more forgiving if your lightning if it is not right but it can't compare to FX1 in term or resolution, so take your pick, which do you have more control of?

<<<-- Originally posted by Khoi Pham :
I have not seen any of that artifacts you talked about, did you actually see it or you heard it from someone? It might got softer but no artifacts. -->>>

Of course I wouldn't talk about something somebody told me, at least without mentioning so.

I have just tried to find the URLs to go see it. One clip is a caroussel with some horses up front. Camera is on the carroussel, so the background is swirling. Every time there's something vertical you get that crooked staircase effecct. Another clip is a surfing shot, taken from the beach, camera on a tripod. Every time someone passes by there's the artifact.

Do tell me if that may be caused by something else and not the camera, as I would like to believe it is not.

Better yet: do some pans and put the clips somewhere.

<<<--
I have about 16 hrs. on it and I use the Sony Pr tape and did not see any drop out, half a second freeze or anything like that.

The DSR500 definetly has much better latitude, and so more forgiving if your lightning if it is not right but it can't compare to FX1 in term or resolution, so take your pick, which do you have more control of? -->>>

The dropout is something I could live with as minor problem. But there are several reports from users that had it. I'm glad to hear that you didn't have the problem.

Perhaps the ideal thing would be to get the portable HDV recorder soon to be released and use the DSR500 as a camera...


Carlos

That is pretty bad artifacts, I don't think anybody would buy a camera with such artifacts, might as well buy a still camera then, what good is it for if it has artifacts when there is movement? maybe the footage you saw was shot in DV widescreen mode, heh heh,once I admit when I was playing around with the camera, I thought the picture only looks slightly better than my DSR300 and yeah there was stair step even with no movement, and what the heck is wrong with all these people on the forum was just raving about it, I was getting ready to send the darn thing back to Sony when I remember that I had the component out on 480i, and I switch it back to 1080i and heh heh holy moly I'm happy.

<<<-- Originally posted by Carlos E. Martinez : <<<-- Originally posted by Khoi Pham :
I have not seen any of that artifacts you talked about, did you actually see it or you heard it from someone? It might got softer but no artifacts. -->>>

Of course I wouldn't talk about something somebody told me, at least without mentioning so.

I have just tried to find the URLs to go see it. One clip is a caroussel with some horses up front. Camera is on the carroussel, so the background is swirling. Every time there's something vertical you get that crooked staircase effecct. Another clip is a surfing shot, taken from the beach, camera on a tripod. Every time someone passes by there's the artifact.

Do tell me if that may be caused by something else and not the camera, as I would like to believe it is not.

Better yet: do some pans and put the clips somewhere.

Carlos -->>>

So you are saying that you don't have the cam or access to it, or even un-encoded, raw m2t sample clips from the FX1; and that your judgement is based on the analysis of material that has been re-encoded for web distribution.

It's a shame Kaku Ito's m2t files aren't available for you to analyze.

Like Khoi, I have not seen any 'artifacts' in any of the FX1 material I've shot, including high motion stuff of helicopters performing acrobatics. What I have noticed is the occassional tendency to 'ghost' movement in areas of very low light, while well lit areas hold up perfectly. Some footage I shot of a friends' band exhibits this behaviour in the almost nil lit audience, while the well lit band in the same frame is fine. This effect could be down to the MPEG2 encoding algorithm, or more likely the motion stabilisation, which I had on (the low setting), as I was forced to shoot hand held.

I have encountered the 'dropout' situation, but strangely only when playing back to HDTV via component. The dropouts occured in different positions on subsequent re-plays of the tape, leading me to believe the cause might be something else than the recording media.
To add to the quandary, i-Link captures were fine.

Harish...It seems to me that you should be out organizing demo's of the cameras you want to use for such an important project, rather than trusting someone else's judgement.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale :
So you are saying that you don't have the cam or access to it, or even un-encoded, raw m2t sample clips from the FX1; and that your judgement is based on the analysis of material that has been re-encoded for web distribution.

It's a shame Kaku Ito's m2t files aren't available for you to analyze.

Like Khoi, I have not seen any 'artifacts' in any of the FX1 material I've shot, including high motion stuff of helicopters performing acrobatics. What I have noticed is the occassional tendency to 'ghost' movement in areas of very low light, while well lit areas hold up perfectly. Some footage I shot of a friends' band exhibits this behaviour in the almost nil lit audience, while the well lit band in the same frame is fine. This effect could be down to the MPEG2 encoding algorithm, or more likely the motion stabilisation, which I had on (the low setting), as I was forced to shoot hand held.

I have encountered the 'dropout' situation, but strangely only when playing back to HDTV via component. The dropouts occured in differentpositions on subsequent re-plays of the tape, leading me to believe the cause might be something else than the recording media.
To add to the quandary, i-Link captures were fine.

Harish...It seems to me that you should be out organizing demo's of the cameras you want to use for such an important project, rather than trusting someone else's judgement. -->>>


First of all let me tell you that I am not doing any judgements, but passing an opinion based on m2t clips captured from the web. It's a pity I can't find the URLs so everyone can see them. Some of them were Kaku's m2t files with his bike, which sometimes also had the artifacts I mentioned.

If we can't get to an opinion that may help on the equipment purchase me and others will be looking for, how can we decide what to buy? That certainly doesn't mean you should spend or not that amount of money on trust from tests you didn't do yourself.

HDV is certainly an advance for us indie filmmakers, and I am willing to bet on it. If there are weak spots I will look for ways around them, because the image quality makes it worth.

But HDV seems to be full of treacherous tricks at the same time, particularly on the post-production, which seems to be what is happening now. Clips may have been badly processed to put in the web and they show something different than what is the real thing.

To do a real judgement, which should be done by everyone by testing the camera, you have to have as much information as you can. Whether the clips were wrong or not IS part of the HDV system as it is now, at least from how I see it. Processing the HDV signal, be it for going into your PC, MAC, Web or film lab seems not to be a paved road yet, so it's full of bumps.

Yours and Khoi's valuable opinions based on actual use of the camera put some more light in what seem to me the "dark areas of HDV". Do put some sample clips here or somewhere else that may help eliminate doubts or insecurities people might have.

There were also audio tests that were done which I had doubts on how they were performed, suggested different ways to do it and things then went fine. But audio is something I know there is not much you can change to make it bad, if you start with a reasonable system.

Images is something you have to judge yourself, and this time that is the real word: judge. That is what you do when you sentence your bank account to let go of $3,500.

Until then it's only opinions. To improve your opinions you get information, when the information is confusing you have to find ways to make it clear. It's what we do in these forums.


Carlos

Hey Carlos, you can buy it from Sony Style and test it yourself, if you don't like it, you can return it within 30days.
Back to the original post, I think if you have control of your lightning, the picture will be much better than the DSR500 on the larger screen, FX1 weakness are lattitude, low light, and consumer style handheld camera, you can get great shot with different angles, but you can't hold it steady for a long speech or anything like that unless you have tripod, monopod, shoulder bracket, the light mount is in the worse possible place, rignt on top of the lens, making a already front heavy camera even more so, and if you add a wide angle lens to the mix, you got a pretty akward camera to hand held, and then on top of that you can't open or close the LCD if the light is mounted on the camera because it will hit the light. If you don't mind all of these short coming, it is a very nice camera.

Thank you guys for sharing the experimentation and experience with me . I will go downtown tomorrow to the the guy who rents in toronto and then there test both cameras DSr 500 and Fx1 as he has every sony camera available to rent and he knows in and out of all cameras . There is where I went ot test the JVC hd10.

BUt I really dont want the blur when in motion which I actually saw myself at henrys when I held the camera . Again I didnt change any settings ...it was just pick the camera see some shots in the viewfinder and the light was just regular in any store.

And also I want to wait for z1 to come out while I finish my script.

thanks guys again and again..

Also , I downloaded some of kaku's clips and I saw the same artifacts ....(the clip with the bike.)

but I thought it was my laptop ...I played it on vlc....my laptop is only 1.06ghz p111 so I thought it was'nt good enough to play thgese files.



Thanks again

<<<-- Originally posted by Khoi Pham : Hey Carlos, you can buy it from Sony Style and test it yourself, if you don't like it, you can return it within 30days.
-->>>

Not me. I live in Brazil and we have no such advantages. I should have done it already to give personal impressions and make some tests.

Kaku's clips I played on my AMD 2700, 1MB memory, 128MB video card home computer. So I think they should play fine. Why they did not I wish to know.


Carlos

"Some footage I shot of a friends' band exhibits this behaviour in the almost nil lit audience, while the well lit band in the same frame is fine"

Steve: you said you noticed ghosting when filming your friend's band. When I buy the FX-1 I intend to do a lot of vidotaping within clubs. Is this ghosting effect very noticeable? Do you see the ghosting even when people are standing still? Is it something you could live with?

....any chance of posting a JPEG, if not a clip?

Thanks,
Aldo.

Oh yeah, how did the audio turn out?

<<<-- Originally posted by Aldo Erdic : "Some footage I shot of a friends' band exhibits this behaviour in the almost nil lit audience, while the well lit band in the same frame is fine"

Steve: you said you noticed ghosting when filming your friend's band. When I buy the FX-1 I intend to do a lot of vidotaping within clubs. Is this ghosting effect very noticeable? Do you see the ghosting even when people are standing still? Is it something you could live with?

....any chance of posting a JPEG, if not a clip?

Thanks,
Aldo.

Oh yeah, how did the audio turn out? -->>>

The 'ghosting' effect - maybe some people would call it 'strobing' appeared worse to me after editing to DVD, and on computer monitor. I would have called the lighting circumstance the camera had to cope with abysmal (stage lit by three red gel spots and zero ambient). I'm not a regular 'clubber', but I've never been to a club with lighting as terrible as this venue. I'm not saying the FX1 will definitely work in the situation you mention, just that I now know what to expect in a similar circumstance, and maybe how to avoid the movement aberation.

When I initially played the tape back for a couple of band members, I output to my LCD HDTV with sound directly to a 5.1 surround amp; and the motion effect wasn't anywhere as noticeable.....so much so, that when I mentioned it everyone else thought I was imagining it.

As for the sound..... let's just say that the band members comments were all along the lines of "you can hear everything" and "it sounds better off the video than what it sounded playing it".

For a finnicky audiophile, the FX1's mic wouldn't cut the mustard, but Sony appear to have put a quality stereo mic on-board the FX1 that doesn't overly clip levels, while maintaining a solid dynamic range.

Thanks, Steve, that's helpful. From the sounds of it, videophiles might notice the effect, but the regular Joe wouldn't. So I think I'll be able to live with it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Khoi Pham : 1) Fast objects going past the camera, either because the camera is panning, moving on a dolly or the subjects simply passing by, the image will develop an artifact that looks like a "crooked staircase". It's not clear to me if that happens during recording or at the camera itself. My guess is Sony must be doing something about that problem to see how it's solved or dealt with.

I have not seen any of that artifacts you talked about, did you actually see it or you heard it from someone? It might got softer but no artifacts.
-->>>


Ok, here's one of the sites where "choppy" figures or images are there to see:

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/FX-1_images-Surfers.htm

Look at the file called "sled_ride_gamma" and you will see what I am talking about. I am watching them with VLC.

Is that due to shooting problems, capture problems, download problems, etc.? How can I solve the artifact?


Carlos

Yeah I see that, that is probably from plalying a interlaced footage on a computer monitor (progressive), I absolutely don't see anything like that on a 1080i tv.

A bit earlier in this thread there was an allusion to the DSR500 having "better" (i.e. shallower) DOF than the FX1. In my experience, even though 2/3" cameras have half the DOF of 1/3" cameras, it's still too much to make a massive difference. I just finished shooting an HD feature with the F900, and even though we were usually between T1.6 and 2.8, I rarely was able to achieve a shallow look which is easily attainable with 35mm. Basically I gave up on the concept and embraced the "Citizen Kane" look. By this I mean that I didn't force longer lenses into play simply to attempt a soft background (there is a psychological difference between the same image size with a wide angle lens and a long lens that goes well beyond DOF).

With a 2/3" chip camera, you can shoot something like a head and shoulders shot with the background 15 to 20 feet away and light it (ie., so you can open up the aperture wide) so the background will be soft, while in the same situation, a 1/3" chip camera will keep the background sharp. When shooting wide angles and stopped down, there won't be much difference, unless you're right up in the person's face.

Most of the time my backgrounds get just a little bit soft (with a DSR500), and I think that's fine. Wide angle shots usually have big depth of field, which is fine. I'm not all that hot on having the background soft on every shot anyway. They don't do that in movies. Closeups always have soft backgrounds, because of the size of the 35mm negative, but wide shots don't.

That is not to say there aren't times when the background should go really soft to create an effect. A few months ago I did some outdoor night shooting, and the character was supposed to be trying to change a tire while talking to his p***ed off wife on his cell phone, in the cold, with traffic in the background. I shot it with the background traffic, car lights, neon signs, etc., really soft, which looked great and seemed to help with the feel of the scene. However, for the establishing shot, I wanted the background reasonably sharp so you knew where he was and what was going on. If every shot had a soft background, that would be weird, in my opinion.

FYI, we've been using the JVC HD10 camcorder (another HDV camcorder) for about a year now, and there are no artifacts during fast motion.

Now, you will have a problem with jerky or really fast camera pans, but if you use a tripod, dolly, hand-held steady tracker, or even use care when doing handheld work, you won't have a problem. You can do moderately fast pans on all of the above. The problem only occurs when the CAMERA moves fast and abruptly (the compression doesn't have time to catch up, so you get a "tearing" of the image).

Having said that, I doubt HDV will be a suitable format for any type of ENG / run-n-gun, because that will inevitably result in very fast and jerky camera movement. DV, BetaCAM, DigiBeta, etc. have always been the best ENG / run-n-gun formats, they are very forgiving. You kind of have to treat an HDV shoot like a film shoot, and if you can handle that the results are outstanding.

Finally, any type of stair-stepping is definitely an interlaced artifact. If you view that same footage on a 1080i display (or a regular 60i TV), you won't see that artifact. In any case, "stair-stepping" or "jaggies" is not a typical MPEG2 artifact.

Luckily the HD10 is 30p native, so we never worry about stair-stepping and other interlaced artifacts. This is another reason I was happy to move from the 60i of DV to the 30p of HDV, and why I'm reluctant to go back to 60i on the Sony FX1.