#1. I'm curious how the FX1 and DVX would compare on 30p or 60i footage?
CineFrame 30 fares a little better than CF24, because the motion rendition is constant and the resolution is constant. You get about 575 lines of vertical res out of CF30 (and, presumably, out of CF25 as well). So CF30 vs. 30P, you'll have about the same resolution vertically, but of course the FX1 will have twice the horizontal pixels when displayed on an HDTV. I've compared CF30 vs. 30P from the other cameras on DVD, and the results are consistent with the results I've posted before.

Regarding 60i performance, well, it depends on what you display it on. Displaying on a DVD or straight on an SDTV they'll be similar (I have some footage of this) but displaying on an HDTV, the Sony spanks the other cameras thoroughly.

How does the FX1 pure DV compare? Obviously few of us are going to use the DV feature, but it really hasn't gotten much evaluation.
The FX1 as a straight DV camera looks pretty good, it's native 16:9 and the only DV camera with an actual 16x9-shaped chip. But it still is a couple stops slower than other DV cameras like the VX2100 or DVX, and a good stop slower than the XL2. It has more vertical smear than the other cameras as well. Its performance is probably on par with something like the PDX10.

Stephen, my comparitive comments in my earlier post were both HDV ( water/panning etc) and about FX1 in DV mode which I will shoot in most of the time for the next few months. I bought the FX1 as a 3CCD DV camera with good controls and HDV as a bonus. To repeat. Since getting the FX1 early December I have used at 4 dance recitals in 4x3 DV mode 60i ( about 8 hours video) , about 30 mins in HDV shooting scenes when I first got the camera ( water in the harbour, leaves blowing off trees , then snow falling/blowing etc finally checking out features like programmed transitions etc) and used 3 tapes of family events over Christmas in HDV. All tapes standard Sony Premium DV. I rent DVX100 and AG DVC200 so have reasonable knowledge of how they perform in the theatre environment. At 0db the DVX100 is apparently more light sensitive but I and others feel that there is already gain applied on the DVX100 at the 0 db setting. For me at 6db, in a dark high contrast environment, the DVX100 is not usable because of increasing grain and colour noise, but I would use the output of the FX1 even at 18db if needed. To explain, where the DVX100 would be at say 0db and F3.4 ( about the usual settings in the theatre) the FX1 would need to be at 6 or 9db at F3.4 ( my quess since I don't have them next to one another to confirm, based purely on shooting video in the same theatre most of the time). I like keeping the iris at F3.4 to F5.6 to give the best depth of field on stage so that I don't need to continually focus. So for usable video the FX1 may be more light sensitive ( having the extra USABLE gain settings) I have no experience with the VX2000 so can't comment. I won't rent the DVX100 again until May time frame but will do a more detailed check then for my own interest.

Ron Evans

50%? more like 20-30%. It looked good, because we knew the limitations. Ken, don't sweat it, we get questioned a lot, and I guess it was one of those moments, so no worries! <g>

heath

I'm re-capturing some clips and will re-do the stills soon.

hwm

I was part of a PSA shoot for Film Arts and both a F900 and FX1 were there during the shoot. IMHO, here is what I noticed the most. All the footage that made the final PSA was from the F900.

1. Huge latitude difference and this might be part of the HD "POP". I'm not a pro camera operator and don't discount in the least what Jon and Charles for instance have said here, a pro's experience is a big plus on any shoot with any equipment. Will say the F900 blows the FX1 away as far as latitiude, but the camera cost does too.

2. The Sony FX1 with the expanded LCD focus feature was a charm to focus manually and get a sharp image. The F900 with a 20" Sony studio monitor is probably easy to pull focus on for a pro, but trust me it takes some practice. Good focus is so very important with HD.

Summary, if all we had was the FX1, we could have lighted differently and got a very good result. If you have a choice between the FX1 and the F900 on a shoot and don't mind the extra bulk, much higher rental fee, DUH..... you figure it out.

IMHO, the F900 is in no danger at all from the FX1 or the soon to be released pro version, but the FX1 is a camera I'd like to use more and it is true HD on a budget.

Regards, Alan

If you have some side-by-side comparison stills, let us know. We'd like to see them!

heath

Heath, I do have full resolution F900 footage for the final .30 PSA in Blackmagic 10bit that stills could be pulled from. Unfortunately, there are effects and it has correction applied, so what I have now isn't "raw". The owner of the FX1 is currently in Nepal shooting a documentary with it, so any FX1 stills are unlikely.

Regards, Alan

PS. Would look forward to a head to head review you do between one of the pro format HD cams and the FX1. So what if it can't win. The FX1 is true HD for $3500 with 5 buck tapes and component to my 720p projector had a great look to it.

I know Jon used my HD10 (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham1.php) with a Varicam (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham2.php), so I wouldn't be surprised when Jon shoots with the F900 and asks for the FX1. More soon...

heath

<<<Summary, if all we had was the FX1, we could have lighted differently and got a very good result. >>>

Alan, could you elaborate on what sort of changes you are suggesting for the lighting? Overall level, or contrast (due to latitude issues)?

Charles, The lighting was set with the F900 in mind and 24p was used on that camera as well, not for the FX1/1080i. We shot some F900 footage at 1080i toward the end to take a look and that needs more overall light on either camera compared to the 24fps 1080P on the F900. Due to that, I can't really say if the FX1 needs more overall light if both are in 1080i or turning up the gain would do the trick. Personally I'd increase the light level if possible, but the gain on the FX1 seems to be of real use. The FX1 was not as good at handling wide lighting contrast differences and that is what I meant by latitude. Much more of the detail in the shadows could be seen on the F900 footage. Not trying to say it has a problem, we created that contrast with lights, just that the F900 is much superior in that area. The F900 camera, lense, monitor etc. is up in the 100k range and was something like a $1200+ daily rental for the package. Of course I've heard it can be less costly to get a package and DP out of LA for the weekend compared to local rental here. I'm sure film is better yet depending on stock ( ie. not Kodachrome 40, which I've shot and that stock for example probably has less latitude than the FX1 ), but I've only used super8 and 16mm myself. Vision2 on 16mm or S16 for example would handle contrast really well IMHO, but I'm not a tech either. There are certainly times from an artistic standpoint handling of a wider contrast would be a plus or even specifically needed.

For low budget HD work renting a FX1 or ZR1 for a weekend could cost less than a few $100 HDCAM tapes and the editing is much less expensive to do yourself, no HDCAM decks or SDI cards needed ( or $300/hr HDCAM edit suite rental ), just firewire. I was very impressed for what it is.

Regards, Alan

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I'm re-capturing some clips and will re-do the stills soon.

hwm -->>>

Where are they? are they posted somewhere, I can't find a link anywhere.. Thanks!

They're not up yet, Mike -- I'll have Jon's review posted on the site very soon, w/Heath's photos as soon as I get 'em.

This is an account of my experinces with the two cameras. I own the DVX, but have only seen the footage of the FX1 (no in hand experience). Take it for what it's worth. I am a computer IT Engineer and video is my hobby.

As a person who has seen the FX1 and DVX blown up to film and viewed both cameras through the same 8045 monitor Jon used (450 Lines), a 145L HD 1080i monitor (800 Lines) and my personal Mitsu 55in 1080i CRT Rear Projection, this is NO comparison in picture quality. Granted, the latitude is not as strong, but neither is the noise in similar dark/contrasty environments, so this is a draw between the two IMO.

Raw picture quality in Resolution on the two high end monitors truely shows of the FX1's power. On the 8045, I could tell a difference, but it was subtle. Blow up to 35MM also is a night and day experience.

I don't want to pick a fight, but to view the FX1 on anything but a 800+ Resolution display device is just not a fair comparison. At 1080i it's stunning. I am really surprised u guys did not feel the same way on Heath's 34IN, but coming from viewing Varicam footage, I think you guys are spoiled. :) It works both ways too. If you have a crappy source feed and try to display on a top of line monitor, will the picture look good. Of course not. Is the high-end monitor then considered not up to snuff. Of course not.

I cannot shoot SD any longer, even given the added cost and inconviences the HDV format provides. To professionals, Resolution isn't everything, but the majority of the paying public is not as snobish as us and to them, the output of the FX1 is far superior.

I can distribute WM9HD footage on DVD that can be viewed on a $250 player (LinkPlayer) and soon to be HD-DVD or Blue-Ray players. The future is bright. My two cents