As many of you may recall, in November of 2003 I was asked by Heath McKnight to put his JVC jy-HD10u next to the Panasonic aj-HDC27F (Varicam) (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham1.php) while shooting the film “3 Days” (now called “Cleansing”) for Illusions Entertainment. (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham2.php) At the time, Heath and I had been discussing my involvement with his upcoming feature film 9:04 AM (www.904am.com) and we were both interested in testing our working relationship on a small short film shoot during the 2003 Holidays. Heath wanted to shoot the short film with his HD10 (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham4.php) and I welcomed the opportunity to take the camera for a spin. In preparation for that shoot, Heath sent his HD10 to me in NY so that I could become familiar with it prior to jumping into production with it as the primary camera and asked that I write an article that chronicled my experiences with the camera during that test period for the DV Info community.

As a Cinematographer I am always eager to learn the new tools that are, or may become available to me to practice and perform my craft. And as a Cinematographer, I must be familiar with the available tools to responsibly report to producers and directors what is and is not suitable for a particular production and/or application. By putting a new tool, such as the HD10 (vs. DVX100A review here) (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham5.php), next to a tool that I am already familiar with, like the HDC27F Varicam or the DVX100A, I can get an idea of where the performance of the new tool is falling. I know I have stated this before, but I feel it is an important point to make for anybody reading this article as it should give you a clear understanding of my motivations and points of interest.

For those of you who have not taken the time to read the series of articles regarding my experiences with the HD10, I recommend you do so. You may find them of interest as they formed the foundation on which I approached my testing of the new Sony HDR-FX1. (Editor's note: find them here (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/index.php).)

To recap my HD10 experiences... (http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/jvchd10/fordham3.php)

I was disappointed with the performance of the HD10. While the camera and format did provide some positive possibilities, I found that the overall design of the camera was flawed and lacking in what I would consider the basic nescesities. Why JVC chose to design and market a “profesional” camcorder without full manual control is beyond me. I have always thought of JVC as a manufacturer that built a decent and reliable camcorder for an affordable price. Thier jy-DV500u and subsequent models rival the image quality of Sony’s DSR-300. And to this day, the DV500 remains a workhorse of the industrial videography crowd. JVC was even generous enough to loan me thier jy-DV700u widescreen “Cine-Line” camcorder in 2002 for a demo shoot. I was very impressed with the image quality and performance of the DV700. Again, it wasn’t a Sony DSR-500WSL. But it did offer one hell of a nice picture for an affordable price. For anyone interested in a native 16/9 2/3” MiniDV camera, the DV700 demands consideration. So even though the specs of the HD10 were suspect, I was hoping for better. Of course the “why” is of no consequence at this point in time. Success or not, JVC’s HD10 ultimately will go down in the history books as the first prosumer HD camcorder. And JVC does deserve the praise for introducing the first “HDV” camera and “setting the wheel in motion”.

Now a full year later, Sony has grabbed the wheel and given it good hard spin.

Without too much fanfare, but plenty of buzz and expectation, the Sony HDR-FX1 hit the streets in November. I’ll admit, I even paid a visit to B&H myself that first week hoping to get a look at the camera. Unfortunately B&H didn’t have one out on the floor yet...

While shooting a Super16 project on location in Westchester, Heath called me and once again asked if I would be interested in testing out the FX1 on a short film project during the Holidays. Having failed in my attempt to get a look at the camera at B&H and knowing my schedule had me booked on shoot after shoot until I was scheduled to fly to FL for the holidays, I happily said yes. Oh yeah, I guess I might as well mention that Heath is a friend, I have agreed to come on board his upcoming feature, and what else was I going to do between teaching a couple classes at the Palm Beach Film School (www.palmbeachfilmschool.com) and enjoying the warmer Florida weather! Besides, it’s a $3,500 HD camera from Sony. Who wouldn’t want to take it for a spin?

I first got my hands on the FX1 a full 3 days prior to the shoot. Let me just take the time right now to say that the FX1 is damn sexy! The pictures you’ve seen just don’t do it justice. And it feels quite nice as well. It’s not ridiculously heavy, yet it doesn’t lack weight. It does feel plastic, yet not cheap. Unfortunately due to my Christmas schedule I only had minimal time to really get a feel for the camera and shoot a few test shots. Thankfully, the FX1 is a Sony through and through. For anyone who has solid experience with Sony’s 3 chip DV camcorders, you shouldn’t have any trouble getting used to the FX1 in a short period of time.

Like the legendary VX1000, the tape transport door is on the operator’s left side. For those of you who haven’t touched a VX1000 in years and have become very acustomed to the left side flip out LCD on the subsequent VX2000, PD, TRV, DVX, etc, etc, you’ll probrably do the same thing I did over and over: Reach for the LCD and thumb around on the door a time or two before remembering that the LCD is located on the top of the camera. I first found the LCD placement strange to say the least. But after getting use to it, the LCD placement is actually a comfortable fit for shooting. Even for guys like myself who aren’t taller than average, most will end up with the LCD tilted up and looking down while shooting with a PD170 or DVX100A. You get use to it. But having an LCD at the top of the camera where you can more easily see the action with your peripheral is a much better way working. Having alot of experience with top mounted LCD’s on HD and Film cameras (which are sometimes just as akwardly placed), it didn’t take too much time to adjust to the location of the FX1’’s LCD. Wheather it’s a better design for the camera remains to be seen for two reasons. One, I felt like the LCD was in a fragile place. I doubt it’s in any more physical danger than any other flip out LCD. But not being use to the placement it felt like it might be harms way more often than not. And two, with the near endless array of accessories and add ons from dozens of manufacturers for the established placement of the LCD on the VX2K, PD, TRV, DVX, etc, did we really need to be thrown a curve by a camera that requires a whole new set of adapters and accessories? I get that the point of business is to make money. And the more accessories, add ons, and adapters you can dream up and sell the more money you make. Certainly the prosumer video realm can and often is a high turnover, high volume, money maker for some manufacturers. In my opinion the best strategy for design and marketing a new product for maximum appeal is one that produces a product that not only offers new features and superior quality, but is also compatible with the customers existing tool set.

Compatibility with my existing tool set came on the FX1 in the form of a 72mm thread mount. For owner/operators of the XL and DVX series of cameras, you shouldn’t have any trouble using your 72mm accessories on the FX1. EXCEPT, that the Sony lens hood and on-board mic placement will restrict how many and what size those accessories are. The FX1’s lens hood and its eyebrow lens cap design only allow enough room for a single 72mm screw on filter. And as reported and lively discussed on the DVi boards, matte box use is difficult if not impossible due to the on-board mic protruding so far out from the front of the camera. My set of P series Cokin filters and modular lens hood did fit the camera with no problem. And though not the worst way of working, using resin filters for HD acquisition is certainly less than desirable. Even it is only HDV... For diffusion or effects filtering, resin filters such as the Cokin P series with modular lens hood should be perfectly acceptable. But for color filtering where you don’t desire any possibility of softening or accentuating the diffusion you are already employing, glass filters are a better choice. Not to mention that since the FX1 employs a 1/3” chipset, it’s much more likely that the inevitable scratches that befall resin filters will be visible due to the inherint depth of field.

The lens hood and on-board mic placement are certainly an annoyance. Especially when compared to the DVX100A and XL2. Neither of which have any trouble mounting multiple filters and can easily accept a variety existing of matteboxes. The ability to mount a quality 4x4 mattebox is serious issue for shooters who work with a variety of cameras and lens types. I have a healthy of set of 4x4 filters that I use with everything from a DVX100A and HDW-F900 to an Aaton Minima and Arri S16. Limiting my ability to use my set of 4x4’s, limits my tools available to me as a cinematographer. Some days it’s nice to just walk on set and not have to worry about being MacGyver all day just to get the shot you want. It only takes a few frustrating minutes of applying and then ripping wads of gaff tape and black wrap off a $30,000 Fuji HD-EC zoom before the AC has to hold my arms back from clamping maffers and cartollini’s to the damned thing! The FX1’s 72mm thread mount is a step in the right direction. I just hope Sony puts a little more thought into designing the next HDV model’s lens front. I mean seriously, how hard would it have been for them to make sure that the eyebrows were set and opened far enough apart to attach more than one filter?

Another nice point of compatibility on the FX1 is the type of batteries the camera uses. The FX1 accepts the same NP-F batteries as the VX2K/2100, PD150/70, TRV900, PD100, and other Sony camcorders. This was a real lifesaver for me as the unit I was given for testing only had the token battery that ships with the camera. And unfortunately the FX1 sucks power! I mean it really burns through a battery fast! Fortunately, I had a Sony NP-F950 left over from the days when I was using the VX2K and PD150 regularly. On a VX2K, the NP-F950 would last almost a full day of shooting. On the FX1, the NP-F950 gave me about 3-4 hours. And when compared to the DVX100A which easily gets a full day and change on my D-54’s (even when phantom powering a mic), the FX1 feels like a power hungry monster! I highly recommend that anyone venturing away from AC power with the FX1 have at least two of Sony’s NP-F970’s if you don’t want to end up dead in the water.

The placement of the buttons and controls are pretty well thought out and easily accessible. The rotating iris dial eliminates the small jumps in exposure adjustment experienced on the VX2K and PD150 for smooth changes in aperture. The programmable user menu is a nice touch. It gives the user the ability to program the most used menu options into a seperate menu for quick access. And the user assignable buttons also further aid in a customized shooting experience.

During my few days of testing the camera prior to the shoot, I experimented with a variety of settings and subjects. Interlaced, CineFrame, high color saturation, B&W, sunsets,
people, ducks, lakes, and so on...

Before I get into the performance of the camera during the short film shoot, I’d just like to thank Heath for deciding on the day, that the script he had given me, the one I had created a shot list for, the one the script had already broken down and lined in preparation, wasn’t the script we were going to shoot! Thank you Keith! I mean Heath. :)

While the news of the script change sunk in, I took some time to set up the FX1 and the DVX100A in front of a Putora 7A9 chart. I did a series of three different comparison shots. DVX in 60i and 30P at three different focal lengths. And the FX1 at 60i and CineFrame30 at three different focal lengths. I’ll take the time to post the settings and my thoughts on this test seperately and Heath will be supplementing with still frames of the results.

After I finished up the chart test, I read the script and then went over the scene with Heath. The good news was that the script only required two setups. The bad news was that the talent had a time limit. We only had a few hours to shoot the 5 page script before the actors had to go!

The script was about three sisters having a conversation on the living room couch. While I dig Heath’s living room, it was a bit drab in color tones and the walls are white. I suggested that we move the conversation into another room of the house in hopes of finding brighter colors and walls any color other than white! Heath and I finally settled on having the girls hang out in a bedroom with some nice blue walls. I breathed a sigh of relief upon the success of getting away from the white walls! The scene was INT Day. And thankfully the room had a nice large window with plenty of light coming in. I decided to use the light from the window as my Key, but at a full side light position to the talent. I then supplemented with a 1K fresnel gelled with Full CTB bounced in to fill the shadows. After switching the table lamp’s bulb with a bulb of a lower wattage and gelling it with 1/2 CTB, I was ready to roll.

The scene started with a girl at the window who then crossed to the bed. Knowing the sunlight pouring in would be too much for any format to handle, I made the decision to get a seperate cutaway of her and set up the master with the girl just on the edge of frame.

We used a Sony 8” Standard Definition CRT monitor (practicly an industry standard for field monitoring) to evaluate our image during the shoot. Certainly not as good as having an HD monitor to view the image in full resolution. But a hell of a lot better than going off an LCD. And considering that 90% (that’s a conservative number) of your audience will probrably never see the finished project in its full resolution, using an SD monitor is just as valid if not a better way of working.

With the FX1 set to output a live 480i downconverted image in anamorphic 16/9, we plugged it into the Sony 8” via Y/C, set the monitor for 16/9 and everything worked exactly as it was supposed to. It’s always nice when things work right the first time. Using the cameras SMPTE bars, calibrating the monitor was quick, easy, and accurate. And thanks to the user assinable buttons, bringing up the color bars was as simple as pressing a single button on the side of the camera. SMPTE split bars and access to them without navigating a menu is a welcomed change from the VX2K and PD150.

The image looked very nice on the monitor. Very clean, clear, and color accurate with just the right amount of chroma saturation for my taste. However, the sensitivity of the CCD’s and lattitude capability were noticeably less than what I had hoped for. Even with sunlight pouring in from the window, and a 1K fresnel, I had to open the aperture all the way to get the shadow side of the talent (which was the direction we were looking for most of shots) at an acceptable level. And the few spots of sunlight that were hitting the wall or furniture were above 100 IRE. Like I said, sunlight pouring in would be beyond the range of most any format. But that’s when we’re talking about an actor standing at the window. There was sufficient fall off by the time the sunlight hit the wall and furniture to be in range. But alas, the FX1’s lattitude handling seems to fall a little short.

Having tested a variety of settings in the days before, I decided to set up the camera right down the middle. Color 0, phase 0, WB shift 0, skin tone DTL OFF, and the sharpness at the default setting of 11. I did not use the CinemaTone gamma setting. But I did use the CineFrame24 setting.

I decided not to use the CinemaTone gamma setting because I felt the resulting contrast was too stark for this film. I’m at a bit of a loss as to what Sony’s intention was with the CinemaTone gamma setting. To my eye, the CinemaTone gamma does clamp down on the highlights which should give you a bit more play in the upper end of your exposure. But in the process it also forces the shadows down to a much darker level. The result is an image that is more contrasty and possibly an even narrower range of lattitude. This is the complete opposite of what the DVX100A’s CineLike gamma settings do. The DVX100A’s CineLike gamma functions actually produce less contrast delivering a more even tone and actually increasing the range of lattitude.

The only thing I can think of as to what Sony means by “CinemaTone” is a picture that seems richer because of the higher contrast. As a DIT, I often get asked the question, “Can you make it look like film?” To which my reply is, “You tell me what film looks like, and I’ll make it look that way.” I’m not looking to get into a debate of what film looks like. Yes, I know what people are referring to when they discuss the look of film. But the reality is that Film only looks a certain way because of how it’s handled. The way it’s lit, exposed, processed, printed, tinted, timed, etc. And that doesn’t take into consideration the many different film stocks available or today’s new DI timing process. So, what does film look like? Ask ten different people that same question and you’ll get ten different answers. I suspect that Sony’s CinemaTone gamma setting is what Sony thinks film looks like.

CineFrame...

There has been alot of discussion about Sony’s CineFrame option. I’ve read plenty of explanations of what CineFrame is and how it works. The explanations range from simple one line answers like, “it’s and in camera de-interlacer” or the camera does a magic bullet process in camera” to complex explanations complete with graphs and very technical sounding theories. The problem is, I have yet to find white papers that support any of these theories. And I haven’t read any offical explanation from Sony on how it works. If anyone has white papers that verify any of the theories, claims etc, I would love to read them. Until then, I’m going to throw out my own theory based on what my eyes saw. To my eyes, Sony’s CineFrame30 appears to be using the exact same method as Canon’s Frame Movie Mode of getting non interlaced frames. As I understand it, Canon’s Frame Movie Mode takes one field from the Red and Blue CCD and interpolates it with one field from the Green CCD creating a single non interlaced frame. However, this method cuts vertical resolution by about 25%. Sony’s CineFrame24 looks as if it’s taking those 30 non interlaced frames and just drops frames to get to 24. As everyone knows, getting to 24 frames from 30P or 30 Frame Mode produces less than ideal motion. Add to that the 2:3 pulldown of those remaining frames, and it’s no wonder why CF24 produces such stuttered movement.

Now, I’ve read multiple declarations that CF24 is “unusable” or that it is a “look filter for amateurs”. And while I understand why such declarations would be made, I disagree. First of all, any option at your disposal is a tool that can be used to create the images you desire, regardless of how expensive or sophisticated it may or may not be. Prior to the DVX100, Canon’s Frame Movie Mode was the only option available to acquire non interlaced 3 chip DV footage. And whether you were shooting for the web, sports, or just desired a motion signature that took the edge off normal interlaced video, Frame Movie Mode was used by a hell of a lot of productions. Even though the XL1 lacked enough pixels for a 1 to 1 NTSC pixel ratio and even though Frame Movie Mode was noticeably lower in quality, productions still used it to great effect.

I chose to use CF24 for two reasons. One, because during my testing I found that the stutter was not an issue when operating the camera as I would any other 24 frame capture system. Whether shooting film or digital, 24 frames per second is a frame rate that requires practice to get smooth motion. Yes, CF24 has an unnatural stutter to it. No, it’s not as good as 24P. And NO, CF24 won’t be appropriate for every 24 frame project. But when CF24 is shot with care and discipline, the results are nice. Two, I always make every effort I can to do as much in camera as possible. Why? It’s the best insurance I’ve got that what ends up on the screen in the final cut is representative of the work I’ve done. While I don’t doubt that Heath would’ve followed through with some sort of smart de-interlacer, or Magic Bullet type of processing, I’d much prefer to work with what I’ve already tested and seen the results firsthand. Since this project was an effort amongst friends, time and money to test and test and re-test multiple ways of achieving different frame rates and motion signatures didn’t exist. Perhaps a smart de-interlacer/Magic Bullet process could achieve smoother motion and preserve more resolution. But without having tested the process, I was not comfortable with relying on that possibility. During the few days of testing the camera on my own, I determined that the FX1’s CF24 produced satisfactory results for the motion signature I desired. And thus was the best choice among the options I had tested to achieve a motion signature that removed it from interlaced video. CF30, which produces smoother motion and likely higher quality results in terms of resoltuion was an option that I considered. But even though I’m a big fan of 30P both on the DVX and other Progressive Scan cameras, 30P’s smother motion retains a bit of the video look. For those that aren’t keen to the motion signature of 30P, I would describe it as a hybrid type look. Somewhere between 24P and 60i. For commercial, industrial, sports, or digitally screened narrative shorts, 30P is a great choice. However, for this project I decided that I’d prefer a motion signature that was another step removed from 30fps. Even if it meant a few moments of noticeable stutter. An added benefit of doing as much as possible in camera is the time and money it saves in post. If I can get the frame rate, color, contrast, tone, balance etc. that I am aiming for, then post doesn’t have to spend time rendering the project through some de-interlacer, I don’t have to spend a lot of time color correcting, and the production ultimately saves money by cutting down on the amount time it takes to get the job done. And for anyone who’s done a supervised transfer or DI, you know that time is money.

Being pressed for time and given that the film was a pretty straight forward narrative that didn’t lend itself to unusual angles and frames, we set about covering the scene with the standard WIDES, MEDS, and singles. With the exception of one or two brief moments when the action and corresponding camera movement abruptly changed, the CF24 motion signature worked very well. During the course of the five hours we spent shooting, no major problems or anything unusual popped up that were caused by the performance or design of the FX1.

There were a couple minor issues though. First, the lattitude and sensitivity of the camera. As I mentioned, I was working at a wide open aperature just to get enough exposure in the shadows. I usually work at a 2.8 when shooting Digital. And sure, I could’ve thrown up another 1K to bring the shadows up and even out the contrast. But with ample sunlight coming through a window and a 1,000 watt light, there’s no reason that I should have to work right at the upper limits of a DV camera’s range or sacrifice contrast in this day and age. A DVX100A wouldn’t (and didn’t) have any problem seeing into those shadows or handling the highlights of the lattitude range we were working with. Second, the manual zoom ring feels akward to me. It has barrel markings indicating focal length, but I noticed immeadiately when I started testing the camera that the manual zoom ring is just a servo ring with hard limit stops. While the design of this quasi mechanical zoom ring functions well and does offer an interesting trick of “jumping to a focal length” when switching from servo to manual, seasoned shooters or anyone use to the true mechanical zoom ring on the DVX, will probrably notice the odd feel every time you manually zoom.

One feature I really liked was the ability to downconvert HDV to DV digitally via Firewire. I’m sure that with the current state of HDV post production, the option of downconverting the footage to DV for an SD cut will be taken full advantage of by many. With the option of going back to the originals for an online in the future, a DV cut of an HDV project today isn’t a bad idea. At least until the standard NLE’s incorporate support for the HDV codec. But what I found most appealing about the Firewire downconverter, is that also works live while you’re shooting. I always encourage productions that are shooting DV to do a live clone. It’s simple, cheap, and effective. By connecting a Firewire cable from your production camera to any DV device with a Firewire port, you will end every day with the security of two exact copies of your footage. This virtually eliminates the possibility of dropout ruining a shot and lowers the risk of losing footage. Aside from those two very important benefits, it provides me with a clone of all raw footage. Having access to my work is crucial for me to continually update my reel and showcase my most recent imagery. Since I don’t have any real post productions skills to speak of, having access to any HDV footage I may shoot in the form of DV makes it easy for me to update my reel on my desktop without installing and learning new software and figuring out workarounds. When FCP incorporates simple capture presets and render options for HDV, then I’ll worry about access to the HDV originals. Until then, the live Firewire downconvert is a nice little feature to have. The one little annoyance about the FX1 in this regard is the lack of external device control. When running this type of setup with a DVX, I can set the DVX to automatically start and stop the slave deck every time I trigger the DVX. When running this setup with the FX1, I have to trigger both devices by hand which can get annoying.

After we wrapped, Heath and I sat down with some of the crew and decided to watch the dailies. I hate watching dailies. Especially right after a shoot. But Heath has such a nice 34” 16/9 HDTV that I couldn’t say no. So with the FX1 set to 1080 and connected via the components, we sat down to watch the dailies.

The dailies looked good. The images were clean, clear, and color caccurate. I had no complaints. But while watching the dailies, I couldn’t help think about what our script supervisor said earlier when I switch on the DVX100A and asked her if she could see a difference. I had my DVX100A set up with the exact same filters, normal gamma, 24P, 1/60th shutter, auto knee, normal matrix, etc. Trying as best I could “match” the way the FX1 was working as opposed to setting up the DVX as I normally would. When I switched back and forth between the FX1 and DVX100A while she watched the monitor, she said she could see a difference. But that neither one looked better than the other. They just looked different. The fact that FX1 didn’t look any better to her was something for me to consider. Now, Script Supervisors aren’t video engineers. They generally don’t have “trained eyes”. But as professionals who have the very important task of maintaining continuity, they are a group that stare at a lot of monitors. Video taps, HD monitors, SD monitors, LCDs, from Film to DV, they watch a monitor all day looking for the details in the picture so that you don’t have continuity errors. And while watching our monitor with the both the FX1 and DVX100A, she said neither one looked better than the other. I asked her if the FX1 looked like it had any more resolution or detail. She said, not that she could see. And while I sat there watching the dailies, that was the thought that stayed in my head. Yeah, the images looked good. But they didn’t look any better than what I would expect from a DVX100A.

I had also taken some time to watch the test footage I had shot before in the days prior on Heath’s 34” HDTV. Again, my thoughts were that it looked good. But it lacked something. I’ve read a lot of reports from people who say, “There’s no question it’s HD”. I agree that the camera is capable of delivering resolution. And deliver it does. But to my eyes, the images lack “snap”. They don’t have that visual “pop” that people equate with HD. I’ll admit my eyes ARE trained and bias. After you shoot as much HD as I have, you get used to the resolution and clarity of those very expensive cameras and monitors. I understand it’s a $3,500 camcorder. And I don’t deny that the camera does produce very clear 60i video. But to my eyes, it doesn’t have the same snap that I equate with HD.

While watching the test footage I shot, I was very dissapppointed to see the way the HDV format fell apart on images that challenged the compression. In particular, a shot of a lake. When the camera had a frame of reference such a tree in the foreground or a sunset in the background, the compression was able to keep up with the changes without any noticeable problems. But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. As soon as I panned the camera back to something with a constant in it, the compression caught up and the image looked fine again.


Since I had my DVX100A set up with the same filters, matching settings etc, I had also rolled a take so I could sit down and compare both cameras for myself after the shoot. I’ve taken the time to watch the footage from both the FX1 and the DVX over and over on 6 different monitors. And here’s the deal with the FX1 and the DVX100A head to head...

The FX1 was set up straight down the middle.

Sony HDR-FX1

COLOR 0
PHASE 0
SHARPNESS 11
SKINTONE DTL OFF
AE SHIFT 0
AGC LIMIT OFF
WB SHIFT 0
CINEMATONE OFF
CINEFRAME 24

The DVX was set up to match the way the FX1 was working in terms of normal gamma, norma color, and auto knee. But I did pull the detail, coring, chroma, and pedestal down to even things out as my experience with the DVX100A has shown to be nescesary.

Panasonic AG-DVX100AP

DETAIL LEVEL -3
V DETAIL LEVEL -1
DETAIL CORING -1
CHROMA LEVEL -3
CHROMA PHASE -1
COLOR TEMP 0
MASTER PED -6
A. IRIS LEVEL 0
GAMMA NORM
KNEE AUTO
MATRIX NORM
SKIN TONE DTL OFF
V DETAIL FREQ THIN
PROGRESSIVE 24P

The first noticeable difference is in tone and color saturation. The FX1 has the hallmark colder blue tone of a Sony. And the DVX has a more natural warmer tone. The FX1’s color saturation was good, but a bit desturated compared to the DVX. I personally found the FX1 color saturation to be just right for my taste. But it’s worth noting that the DVX100A’s color saturation had been turned down to -3. I usually work with the DVX’s color turned down. But I was a bit surpirsed that even with the color turned down, it was still more saturated than the FX1. There was no noticeable difference what-so-ever in sharpness. Neither camera seemed to have more or less resolution than the other. And with the exception of lattitude, both cameras looked about the same in terms of contrast. I thought maybe the FX1 would have cleaner blacks. But alas, both camera’s blacks were equally clean and noise free. The other noticeable difference was the difference in natural movment. As expected, the true 24P capture of the DVX provided much more natural movement. Even though both cameras were set to a 1/60th shutter speed, the FX1’s fake 24 frame capture did exhibit a more staccato look when faced with anything more than simple character movement or a slight camera adjustment.

When it came to sensitivity, the DVX100A was consistently working at a F 4.0 to get the same exposure as the FX1 at F 1.7. That’s a big difference.

So what’s the verdict?

My experience with the Sony HDR-FX1 in this particular situation showed me a camera that performed well, yet definitely had drawbacks. Both in the ability of the camera itself and the HDV format.These drawbacks are already known issues and don’t in any way render the camera or format useless. But they are issues to be considered.

For any project that needs 60i interlaced video, the FX1 is the clear winner. For short narrative projects that require an HDV master for future proofing and can deal with the pseudo 24 frame motion signature, the FX1 again takes 1st place. But for long form/feature narratives, short narratives with action or more than just simple talking head stories, or challenging contrast situations, the FX1 falls short. The DVX100A’s true 24P, far superior low light performance and lattitude, and thorough DSP control give the DVX100A the top prize in the small format 24 frame production arena.


We are only in the very beginning stages of the world of HDV. And in comparison to JVC’s HD10, the FX1 is worlds apart in performance and image quality. There’s no question that HDV is the next step. And there’s no question that the FX1 has taken us a step forward in the world of HDV. For the industrial videography set, the FX1 gives you the tools you need to start creating 1080/60i content now. But the race to claim victory among the digital filmmaking set has yet to won. Sony had the chance to shut down the competition before the race even got started. Instead, they did what they always do. They gave us a camera that comes so close to being perfect without giving us the features that we require. That’s why they lost the DV race to Panasonic.

I am a huge Sony fan. I feel they build superior cameras. There was a time that I knew nothing but the comfortable feel of a PD150. But Panasonic’s DVX100 changed everything. And the DVX100A cemented Sony’s fate in the world of DV.

If Panasonic releases a 720/24P HDV DVX200 with ALL of the same features of the DVX100A, as well as incorporate some Sony’s innovations on the FX1 like Firewire downconversion, and do it all at a price point under $4,000, they will win the HDV race.


I’d like to say thank you to Matt Miller for the use of his Sony HDR-FX1 and to Jim York at the Palm Beach Film School (www.palmbeachfilmschool.com) for providing gear support. And I’d like to say a very special thank you to our cast and crew who gave us their time and talent to make this project possible.

I expect to shoot plenty of projects with the FX1 in the coming months. And I look forward to discovering new ways to push the FX1 to deliver excellent footage in a variety of situations. But what I really look forward to, is the introduction of the next HDV camera to enter the race. And with it, a new tool to further expand the digital filmmaker’s arsenal to create.

Jon

Wow...great stuff!!! Thanks very much for the DVX comparison and explanation of the not-so-"magic" deinterlace.

We now return to our regularly scheduled DVX vs. XL2 debate...

Thanks for the very thorough review! I only wonder if the lack of "snap" in the video is due to the use of cineframe? Did you actually roll any clips without it?

Yeah, we did, and it still didn't have the "snap," which I didn't notice because I've only seen high-end HD in the theatre (Star Wars Ep. 2) or on TV (Discovery HD, HDNet, etc.).

I'll have still frames soon! And maybe a clip or two... <g>

heath

ps-Thanks to Jon, our script supervisor, our assistant, our crew and cast for all their help! Especially when I wrote a NEW script as they were rehearsing the other one (lots of exteriors on a VERY windy day--it woke me up at 5 am and had me thinking hurricanes for a second, and that's when the new film came to me, a prequel to a feature I'm doing this year, 9:04 AM (www.904am.com)).

Paul,

The lack of snap was in reference to the test footage I shot prior to the short film shoot. The CineFrame mode does noticeably reduce the image sharpness. But even when shooting in 60i during my tests, I found the picture to be lacking that high res pop!

Jon, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a thorough, detailed, comprehensive review!

Fordham, you're spoiled! Too much CineAlta and Varicam for you! <g>

heath

Also, Jon... in reference to what you said here:
If Panasonic releases a 720/24P HDV DVX200 with ALL of the same features of the DVX100A, as well as incorporate some Sony’s innovations on the FX1 like Firewire downconversion, and do it all at a price point under $4,000, they will win the HDV race.
I don't know if you're aware, but Panasonic has said that they're not going to respond with an HDV camera, but instead they will respond with a comparably-priced camera using DVCPRO-HD. Same 100-megabit format as used in the VariCam; no MPEG-2 compression, 4:2:2 color sampling, etc. But there's been no announcement as to features of the camera itself, or as to when it may be announced and/or released.

Then that may bury HDV, if it's good enough, or just create another viable and profitable HD format, but I don't want to get into debates about Panasonic "mini-"HD vs. HDV.

heath

Barry,

That's incredible. I was not aware of that. It makes sense though. With Panasonic and Apple teaming up to do DVCPRO-HD over Firewire, the next logical step would be to design a DVX styled camera that could record DVCPRO-HD. I wonder if tapes from the Varicam could then be played back on such a camera and captured via Firewire the same as their very expensive deck they have out now...

Also, let me just say that you made writing my review difficult Barry. After the seamingly endless list of threads you had authored regarding your experiences and tests with the FX1, I felt my comments were just repeating most everything you had already said. Aside from my personal opinions, I found my experience with the FX1 to be parallel to yours. So if there's anybody out there who missed Barry's many posts regarding the FX1, take the time to read through them. His posts are a bit more "scientific" than mine.

Jon

Barry,

Could you provide us a link to your reviews?

Thanks,

heath

Thanks for the clarification. I was REALLY surprised at how fast it drains down an NPF-970 battery!

Like you, I feel Sony makes great cameras. I can't wait to get my hands on this one. I own a PD-150 and a PDX-10. I NEVER use the default settings in the custom preset though. WAY to blue, plus I usually turn up the color one notch. I noticed you had the camera at SHARPNESS -11 , is that the preset level? That seems really high to me. (reminds me of Spinal Tap...when 10 just isn't loud enough!)

Did you shoot any exteriors or was it all inside?

Jon and Heath...thanks very much for all your efforts!

Murph

The shoot was mostly indoors, though we shot them against the front door from outside, using mostly natural light, but there was an overhang, so I guess it's like interior with natural light as the key.

heath

Murph,

I had the easy job, I just sat behind the monitor with headphones on and barked out, er, gave direction. I should have stills and info on the 9:04 AM site (www.904am.com) in a week or so.

heath

Hey, even still...all the efforts add up!

I'm torn about this whole thing right now. (As are a lot of people from what I can see.) If no one announces anything by next month I'll probably go with the Z1, but I hope that maybe Panny will surprise us with Apple at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Maybe they'll have a mockup there to enhance the whole experience for Apple's annoucements?? We can hope..

Check this out:

http://www.cesweb.org/attendees/markets/1830.htm

Murph

I'd wait until after NAB. It's what you need now, Murph.

heath

Hardy har, har!

I probably will although I'd love to purchase now. By the way, is anyone going to NAB this year on here? Maybe we can start a seperate thread somewhere, so we can hookup out there. I'm definately going..

Murph

Paul,

Yes, 11 is the camera's default sharpness level. While my DV instinct is to turn a camera's sharpness down from the default position, I found that the FX1's edge enhancement was not at all objectionable. And with the resolution loss incurred by CineFrame, there was no need to turn the camera's sharpness down further on this particular project.

The only EXT shot we did was covered from direct sunlight. I used a 1K with 1/2 CTB thrown from an INT hallway to give me a little something on the talent as a rim. The flat, even natural light I was getting already did the rest of job. Again, the FX1 was almost wide open at a F2.0 to get a proper exposure...

Jon

How do you think the Canon XL2 would compare to the FX1?

Chris,

In my experiences with both the DVX100A and the XL2, I found the DVX100A to be a superior camera. Especially when considering the price to performance ratio. The XL2's native 16/9 CCD's are a nice one up on the DVX. But after shooting with both cameras, I honestly found the DVX to produce a nicer picture. In my opinion, Canon gave us too little too late. Panasonic won the DV race long before the XL2 ever got to the racetrack.

But this is not the place to debate the DVX100A vs the XL2.

In regards to your question of how the FX1 would compare to the XL2? The same comments regarding the DVX would hold true. Though the XL2 would only be slightly more sensitive than the FX1 by about 2 stops. Whereas the DVX is faster.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. -->>>

This sounds scary...
Maybe details set to minimum, 24p and progressive frame compression might help with 25Mbps, but sony chose not to give them.

Some Japanise engineers have decided that there should not be too much movement in the moving pictures.
"Those young guys are using way too much handheld..."

Anyway, fx1 _is_ consumer product.
Let's hope that there will be some improvements in z1's production models!

How about somekind of adaptive downscaling when bandwidth just isn't enough? I'd prefer blurred picture over a blocky one...

Toke, that brings up an interesting point. I've been complaining about to much handheld camera work in television and film for years now. Is it possible that Sony took that as a "Feature Request"??? lol

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : Barry,

Could you provide us a link to your reviews?

Thanks,

heath -->>>

Hi Heath,

Unfortunately it's scattered throughout several threads. The most comprehensive all-in-one thread is probably this one:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36570

Jon, I find it most interesting that our experiences were fairly parallel. There are definitely places where we didn't directly agree (I found the FX1's blacks to be quite a bit cleaner than the DVX's, but I am one of those who says CF24 is "unusable"... however, I can see where if you had limited movement, and shot with that type of show in mind, it could be used and deliver a reasonable simulation). I also felt more impressed by the interlaced HD quality on an HD set -- I thought there was more "wow" to it than you did. But overall, yes I'd say that our experiences are quite parallel.

Very interesting, and I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that we all want to see footage! :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn’t handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy blocked up web-video looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image turned to squares. Like a head clog or dropout or artifacts. -->>>


That is nasty, I think something is mess up with that FX1, that was one of the first test I did with it when I got mine and never did see anything like what you described, and I was hand held it with fast pan with the whole frame filled with water, also about the lady that could not tell if the FX1 has any more details than the DVX, I really wonder if you forget to set the camera on 1080i component output in the menu or if you accidently left it on 480i?
even my 8 year old could tell the difference between DV and HDV, how can that lady could not? Please don't think that I am somekind of Sony worship fan or trying to justify my purchased, I do agree the weakness in this camera is low light and latitude, but the gain is very clean, you should have gain up to 3 or 6 db and I bet it still have less noise than the DVX and avoid shooting at max f 1.6 if you could, you make it sound like it is unusable with tough scene for the encoder but it is just not so, the picture might got a little softer with fast pan, but I have never seen any "web-video looking image"

Can we have pics to go with very very long review? My eyes hurt and I am a little bit epiletic. Thanks.

Davi, does "epiletic" have something to do with hair removal by any chance?

I tend to agree with Khio Pham on water and low light. Got mine early December just before the harbour froze here in Ottawa. I did the same fast pans and zooms across the water that I had heard caused problems. I couldn't see them on my FX1 played back on Sony 27 HiScan TV, water ripples and small leaves etc looked just great. I often rent DVX100 and like it a lot. All my shoots are 60i I have no interest in 24P. Comparing to my FX1 the DVX100 latitude is much better and I think this is one of the things I would have liked better on the FX1 since most of what I do as a hobby is in the theatre environment( read dark!!!). As far as low light performance at equal settings the DVX100 is a lot better but in my experience increasing the gain on the DVX100 creates a lot of grain I find at 6db it is getting on the edge of being unusable for me( as if the 0 db gain setting has already a lot of gain built in), in comparison the FX1 at full 18db is a lot better( in this regard) than the DVX100 at 6db thereby making up a lot of the reported low light deficiences. FX1 at 6 or 9db is still a very clean image. In a family party over Chrismas, on full auto, the FX1 was almost lighter than reality, reminding me of the differences I saw renting a VX1000 and comparing to my VX3 Hi8 years ago!!! On playback the data code showed that the FX1 was full open and at 18db gain with a very clean image on my Sony 27" HS420 HiScan 1080i TV. I know that on my TRV50 there is a connection between picture composition and viewed latitude( I know this sounds strange) this too has a Sony 14bit DXP and I wonder how this DSP decides to process the data. I have found on my TRV50, fixed on manual exposure, appears to change the exposure latitude as it is zoomed. Zoom in to an actor on stage and folds in black backcurtain are visable zoom back just a little and the folds merge into blackness but actors faces are nicely exposed!! It is as if the camera is deciding where to apply bandwidth favouring highlight exposure over shadow details( sort of dynamic "levels" control) which one would expect for a point and shoot camera. The FX1 doesn't appear to behave this way based on the theatre programs I shot just before Christmas in DV but I notice that the Z1 will have switchable black stretch which may infer that the FX1 is preprogrammed for a particular response , clearly not as extreme as the TRV50 but may not be a fixed response either !!. Now that Christmas season is over I am going to play around a little more to see how to get the best out of the FX1 for my use.

Nice review Jon

Ron Evans

I can't back this up with any data, but I continue to be unhappy with the noise levels produced by the DVX100a, and also feel that the 0 db setting already has a certain amount of gain built into it to achieve the apparently fast latitude of the camera. I wouldn't mind it if it had a negative gain feature such as that found on Sony cameras (i.e. -3db) but in the absence of this, I'm starting to get really discouraged with the camera. I've just finished color correcting a short and needed to apply noise reduction filters on quite a few shots.

Thanks for the FX1 review Jon, it was an interesting read.

I can make stills now and post them up.

heath

Khoi,

I doubt that there was anything wrong with the FX1 that I tested. It's no secrect that HDV's compression has this issue and it shouldn't be a surprise that there exist a situatation that can trip up the compression. I can't speak to your test shots that did not have an issue. All I can say is that is that when I tested this particular situation, I found the amount of compression artifacts to noticeable and objectionable.

Perhaps you missed the very clear statement regarding the specifics of the situation in which our professional script supervisor stated that she "could see a difference. But that neither one looked better than the other". Her observation of the two different cameras was while watching the live 480i image on the professional Sony 8" CRT field monitor connect via Y/C.

I never stated that she could not tell the difference between DV and HDV. Nor did I ever suggest that the FX1 or HDV compression is unusable. I did however clearly state that IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, she felt that the FX1 did not show any more detail than the DVX100A. And after watching the footage myself, I agree that IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION the FX1 did not show any more detail than the DVX100A.

Obviously since you were on set and knew that I needed a stop that I couldn't get without using the gain, you are well within your right to weigh in on what I should've done. And while I appreciate your opinion on how I should have shot this film, I am comfortable with my decision to not use the gain in an effort to stop down the lens.

I don't MAKE the camera or format sound like anything. I simply reported what I experienced and thoroughly outlined the situation in which I experienced it. But since you mentioned it, I will state that there do exist "tough scenes" for HDV compression to handle that may result in images that have noticable artifacts other than just a "softer picture". Just because you have not experienced it, does not mean it does not exist, or is not possible.


Charles,

You're certainly in the majority when it comes to people who have experience an objectionable level of noise with the DVX. And I don't know what to say to that. Either I've worked with every noise free DVX in existence, or I shoot differently than others. I guess either is possible...

My cinematography has been described by many as "clean". So maybe the way I set up the camera and light scenes just work to the DVX's strengths in achieving noise free footage. It should also be noted that I have yet to be hired to shoot a film with the DVX that calls for super dark "X-Files type" cinematography. Maybe if I used the DVX to shoot a dark styled piece, I too would encounter the same noise issues as others. But since I do not shoot theater situations like Ron, and haven't used a DVX for an episode of the X-Files, I can't say.

Jon

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham :

Her observation of the two different cameras was while watching the live 480i image on the professional Sony 8" CRT field monitor connect via Y/C.

Jon -->>>

See; from my thinking, any comparison of HD to SD that's carried out by viewing both formats on equipment designed for the older more likely to be superceded format is the equivalent of comparing the two formats on a proper WS large format HD TV/monitor, with the proviso that viewing is done through frosty glasses!!!

It's a fundamental problem that comparisons are being made without applying the rules both ways. What would the comparison be if the lady concerned had viewed the footage from both cams on a 36" WS HDTV via component for instance?

As much as I agree that for the moment 4:3 SD TVs are in the vast majority, the gap is closing and closing fast. Have a look at a good HDTV setup, and ask yourself "would I want to watch this compared to my old 4:3 SDTV now that it's pretty affordable?" There's a hell of a lot of people now in that position, so it would be behoven to them, to present results based also on what they may be watching on rather than just what they might currently have.

This is a good discussion - I am in some agreement on some of everyone's points but I have to echo Ron's comments esp. in regards to low light performance - I just shot a lot of comparative FX1 footage to DVX100 and yes, although both FX1 and it are rated for 3 lux, I'd have to say the FX1 is more forgiving in less light - less noise when the gain is introduced to compensate.

I haven't shot charts but I've filmed a lot of scenes around the house with the FX1 that I used to film with the DVX and when I downconvert HDV to SD DVD, even my wife finds the resulting FX1 footage to be "sharper" than 24p DVX to DVD - I don't know the parameters for sure that Barry used in his analysis, but I beg to differ with the result - it's subtle and probably also due to aesthetics and subjective preference - it just seems in the FX1 DVD, *everything* stays razor sharp whereas in DVX, sharpness drops off - I don't know how to explain this... I used Mainconcept 2-pass, average rate 7.5 with tops at 8.0... Obviously the way you make your mpeg2 can play a factor...

It's funny - I think the ideal situation would be a super-hybrid camera - everyone has features that we like and would love to see all rolled together in one cam. Give us Canon's lens-interchangeability and native 16x9 with Sony's HDV with Panny's true 24p and Panny's GS400 pricing (ha ha) and I know I would be in video heaven... Sony's low-light capability... and so it goes on...

The FX1 definitely leaves room for improvement - I'm hoping Sony has taken a page out of Panasonic's book and the Z1 is a sort of "upgrade" the way the 100A was an improvement on the original DVX... I think the FX1 was pushed out the door a bit premature when XL2 failed to deliver on HDV with the intention to bring XL2 sales to a halt.

I'm curious too - I've only shot first hand with NTSC FX1 and am still eager to see Z1 so I can compare to 1080/50i...

Dammit, if only XL2 had been HDV with a real LCD... but I guess we won't go back to THAT discussion, will we?

FX1 has a color space closer to the DVX than to say XL2...

I like the way XL2 handles "hotspots" or "washouts" better than DVX - DVX just goes crazy white... it's like a winter-storm whiteout... FX1 is in between the two...

For wide panorama vista type shots out in the mountains etc. the FX1 wins because for the first time in "mini-dv" (I know it's HDV), wide shots are sharp and even look really good when downconverted to SD DVD...

I hate the ergonomics (or lack thereof) on XL2... FX1 looks so much heavier than it is - DVX is one solid piece of gear that sits well in the palm... How can you seriously put out a cam without a real LCD nowadays?

If I had to buy now:

I'd pick the Z1 when it comes out for it's pro enhancements probably because it's more future-ready: I do wedding videos and I know clients are getting more tech-savvy due to the internet, etc.: being able to score some repeat business when they get their HDTV's and HD-DVD/Blu-ray players down the road is appealing... the FX1 is great in low-light the way all Sony's are and the controls are quick and easy (on FX1) so it's easier to make adjustments on the fly than with say XL2... 24p is not something many wedding clients "get" or appreciate... the lack of native 16x9 on the DVX kinda makes it hard to justify spending all that money for what you get compared to FX1/Z1....

I do some indie filmmaking too and I say a prayer every night when I go to bed that Z1 will have *fixed* some things that don't seem right on FX1, and we all know what I'm talking about (er, cough cough cineframe 24 cough cough)...

And what's with Panasonic being so silly-nilly with their faux LANC control or whatever they call it - man, everyone is raving how the Canon LANC controller rocks on the FX1 (thanks Kaku Ito)

I know JVC and Panasonic are rumoured to be coming out with their answers to FX1 but everything about that seems to be so much hearsay - Sony stole the end of 2004 away from Canon (but it wasn't really winning out against DVX100A anyway) and I think it will stay the big story of 2005... Let's hope NAB has some good surprises this year...

Happy New Year, folks!

See; from my thinking, any comparison of HD to SD that's carried out by viewing both formats on equipment designed for the older more likely to be superceded format is the equivalent of comparing the two formats on a proper WS large format HD TV/monitor, with the proviso that viewing is done through frosty glasses!!!

-->>>

Hi guys, I'm new to this forum and am on the verge of purchasing the FX1. In reading Jon's review, I initially got quite nervous about this purchase when hearing the comparisons between the Sony and the Panny. On closer reading though, I did see the comparison was on an 8" monitor. Well, without a doubt that tells you nothing. I'd be willing to bet that professional $100,000 HD cameras, hooked up via YC to an 8" monitor, would do a great job disguising the fact that they're HD cameras, let alone professional HD cams!!! The human eye will not pick up the necessary detail on an 8" monitor to differentiate between HD and SD regardless of the source. So I could be wrong, but I see no value in this test.

The only logical test in comparing these 2 cameras would be to use a large screen HD monitor (consumer version would be fine I'm sure), and hook up the Sony via component and the Panny via YC to that same HD monitor. Now if in THAT case we still saw no difference in detail, I'd say "what the heck???". But I think we all know the Sony would blow the Panny out of the water in THAT test. That test is the only one I'm interested in. I simply can't see buying the Sony and using it only for shooting SD material or shooting in HD and playing it only on an SD monitor. To me that makes no sense.

In reading numerous user reports on a number of different forums, it sees to me that the vast majority of people are saying that the artifacts are essentially equivilent to what we're used to in the DV format. Jon's review (and I'm sure he saw what he saw) is the first that makes such a sharp distinction between the 2 formats. I personally have not played with the camera, so I'm merely going on what I've read from many other user reports.

Anyway, this looks like a great forum with some great info!

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : I can't back this up with any data, but I continue to be unhappy with the noise levels produced by the DVX100a, and also feel that the 0 db setting already has a certain amount of gain built into it to achieve the apparently fast latitude of the camera. I wouldn't mind it if it had a negative gain feature such as that found on Sony cameras (i.e. -3db) but in the absence of this, I'm starting to get really discouraged with the camera. I've just finished color correcting a short and needed to apply noise reduction filters on quite a few shots.

Thanks for the FX1 review Jon, it was an interesting read. -->>>

I'm having this problem too, on my feature. It seems that you really need a lot of light to get rid of, or reduce this problem. When my shots are lit with a lot of light, the DVX100A is brilliant, but on low light shots it's a mosquito-fest.

Ken,

I wouldn't make the assumption about the Varicam or CineAlta hooked up to a small SD monitor without actually seeing it.

Glenn, let's keep the discussion on the FX1 and post any questions, etc., about the DVX100A in that forum (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=47).

Thanks,

heath

FWIW, I have the same issue with my Pana 953. Early on, folks who bought this cam and run it in manual as I do said, stay at or below 6db gain or the noise will become unbearable. This parallels the observations of its big brother, the DVX100(A).

I just wanted to point out that folks are saying that you can push the FX-1 to higher gain levels without objectionable noise. This seems to also be true with the XL-2.

I'm thinking that since we have two newly designed cams that are able to do this, that the engineers have some newer, faster DSP chips to work with that can pull out the noise on the fly. Just as compression algorithims can be improved, so too can noise removal algorithims.

=gb=

Jon,

Again thanks for you valuable input on the FX1.

My concern is the comparison of the 'pop' between the FX1 and a higher end HD camera. Without going into all the tech specs as I'm aware that you're fully knowledgable of, there's a vast difference in the formats including color space, CCD size, bit rate and lenses. In my honest opinion, higher end HD cameras will always have more visual appeal (pop) than anything else out there including film, with those four factors I listed as the most critical to the final image look. I've watched hundreds of hours of HD programming from every imaginable source and the HD image from the high end HD cameras are always more visually stunning and offer more pop than anything else including DLP cinema.

Just the fact that the FX1 and alternately the HD1/10 is even considered for a comparison with 100K+ cameras is a blessing.

Also, we talked about the calibration of the 8" monitor via 480i, but the real critical issue would be whether or not Heath's 34" monitor was calibrated in any way? As an HD owner for over 4 1/2 years now, it hurts my heart to have so many HD owners not have their HD sets calibrated at least minimally with tools such as Video Essentials or Avia Guide to Home Theater and at best to have it ISF calibrated like I had mine. It makes a night and day difference. On my set, the FX1 has more punch than my HD1, but as you observed not as much punch as a high end HD camera.

I assume that the FX1 was outputting HD via component video and the DVX was outputting DV via composite video? That's interesting that the difference wasn't huge to everyone. There may have also been some of the HDTV processing that may have hindered the final image. New HDTVs have a vast array of user controls but they also have a huge selection of what I call 'marketing gimmick' control sets as well that need to be either turned off or adjusted for the best possible image.

Anyway, agreed that the FX1 probably isn't up to the standards of the high end HD cameras but Sony has definitely taken a step in the right direction and also shamed JVC in the meantime.

Troy

<<<-- "I did see the comparison was on an 8" monitor. Well, without a doubt that tells you nothing."

"The only logical test in comparing these 2 cameras would be to use a large screen HD monitor (consumer version would be fine I'm sure), and hook up the Sony via component and the Panny via YC to that same HD monitor. Now if in THAT case we still saw no difference in detail, I'd say "what the heck???". But I think we all know the Sony would blow the Panny out of the water in THAT test. That test is the only one I'm interested in." -->>>


It amazes me that some people will find whatever they need to discount the findings of an experienced professional in an effort to support whatever idea or belief they desperately need to cling to.


Ken,

The monitor in question was a Sony professional broadcast monitor used for field monitoring and location work. It is practically an industry standard for such use. If this monitor was incapable of delivering the level of picture quality required to evaluate a video source, it would not be so widely used. In fact, this 8" monitor actually has more resolution than most SD 27" consumer televsions.

Without a doubt you have not been on many location shoots with a 27F or F900. Furthermore, I bet you haven't been on many professional location shoots with an SD camera. Using a 9" HD CRT monitor is actually quite common for field shooting. It's only in cinema or high end applications that I ever have the luxury of a proper 20" to 24" HD CRT monitor when doing field work. Carrying around a monitor of that size and support for it is diffuclt to say the least. In those situations where a 24" HD CRT monitor is required and available I always have a Local 600 DIT with an assistant dragging around carts and cables that would put a news truck to shame.

Maybe if you did some more "closer reading" you'd also read the section that describes the images as they appeared on Heath's 34" 1080i High Definition CRT monitor.

Perhaps you missed the very clearly stated point of this review. REVIEW, NOT TEST. This was not a scientific test to satisfy your curiousity and gain your support or validate your personal needs. This was simply a short film effort amongst friends that gave me an opportunity to experiment with a new camera and format. At Heath's request, I spent my valuable time writing a review that chronicled my experiences on this film and with this camera. I'm sorry my experiences weren't to your liking. I'm sorry if my expereinces didn't prove whatever you needed to be proved.

If you need to prove your infoulable theories on resolution and perceived detail, then perhaps you should set up your DVX100A next to your FX1 and connect them to your High Definition CRT monitor via whatever connection you deem nescesary and carry out your test to prove you're right. Then you can spend hours documenting and reporting your findings to this board. After which the first person who disagrees with you will rip apart your methodology and claim that they have the answer and know the real truth.

IF, "we all know the Sony would blow the Panny out of the water in THAT test", then what do you care what my experiences were. And if "That test is the only one you're interested in", then why bother reading my review and telling me that everything I did was invalid. Go do your own test and prove me wrong. But to be honest with you, I could care less what your tests show. I am comfortable with my findings and my methodology. Having worked with the camera myself, I feel I have the information I need to responsibly report to producers who may be working with a small format digital camera, what the FX is and is not capable of. I don't doubt that I will be shooting with the FX1 on more than a few projects in the coming year. And I welcome them. Those particular projects and how the FX1 will be able to handle them is the only test I'M interested in.

This COULD be a great forum with great info if everyone involved understood that we are here to share our EXPERIENCES instead of discounting the firsthand reports of experienced users in favor of what we think based on hearsay and personal beliefs.

Jon

Troy,

I personally calibrated Heath's 34" HDTV myself.

Jon

Jon had calibrated my HDTV and re-calibrates it every time he visits.

heath

Thanks for your review but I am confused on one issue. When you compared the FX1 to the DVX100A on that 8 inch monitor, where it was difficult to see much difference, were both cameras outputting 480i to the monitor or were you comparing the FX1 HD output to the DVX100A SD output? I am assuming that 8" monitor was an HD monitor.

Jon:

On my recent feature, we had the Sony 20" HD monitor at the engineering station, and two 8" SD monitors for A and B cam monitoring for the director and script super., etc. The SD monitors were being fed from an Evertz 9155 afterburner. One of the monitors was my personal 8045Q. Camera was an F900.

Every now and then I'd catch sight of the 8" monitors, which had usually been tampered with, blacks raised up into oblivion (script supers generally prefer it this way so that they can see details in the shadows--to be perfectly honest, of all the scripties I've worked with, there are very few that I would be inclined to consider their opinions on picture quality). I'd calibrate my 8045q monitor on the odd occasion if I needed to watch takes from those monitors. My impression from bouncing back and forth between this setup and the 20" was that the image was, as expected, night and day. The color rendition and contrast were pretty comparable, but a small SD image vs a large HD one, especially on a broadcast monitor--there was beyond "snap" as a differential! I felt that the image on the 8" could have easily been generated by a Digibeta, or really any decent 2/3" camera. Definitely I wouldn't have put money on a 1/3" DV camera.

As another example: last year I did a studio shoot with the SDX900, and there was a DVX100 floating around on set (the director's personal camera). At lunch I cabled the DVX to the 14" broadcast monitor and A/B'd it with the SDX, under the same lighting conditions. Some thought the image was amazingly similar. I could definitely see the difference, although considering the price gap, the DVX did very well.

So Jon, to clarify the missing "snap"--would you possibly agree that this was largely due to the size of the imager and associated processing, in other words the camera head itself, rather than the medium (DV vs HDV)? Since both the DVX and the FX1 were 1/3" cameras with similar lenses, wouldn't it be expected that when viewed in an unbiased SD environment, they would appear more similar than compared to an high end HD camera? And furthermore, would a downcoverted F900 to that same 8045 monitor look significantly different than a, say, 790 Digibeta?

If you do have the opportunity to test the output of the FX1 with the F900 on a broadcast HD monitor, please let us know what you think about that, it would be interesting.

In the meantime, I thought your assessment of "which camera to shoot for the DV (SD) format today: FX1 or DVX100" was a useful approach for most users, since the HDV delivery path is still in its infancy.

I can probably do an F900 vs. FX1 test; a company I freelance for shoots with the CineAlta and is considering an FX1. I can probably bring the camera out on a CineAlta shoot.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Troy Lamont : Jon,


Anyway, agreed that the FX1 probably isn't up to the standards of the high end HD cameras but Sony has definitely taken a step in the right direction and also shamed JVC in the meantime.

Troy -->>>

Troy, I got my first opportunity today to play with the Sony FX1. WOW! I hooked it up to my calibrated 50" Fujitsu HD plasma and the picture was simply mind blowing. I had tried the JVC when it first came out and was disappointed with most aspects of its picture quality and wound up returning it. But the difference between the Sony and the JVC is like day and night. I'd swear that some of the test footage I shot (on a dreary day here in N.Y.) could have been broadcast on HDNet and I wouldn't have thought twice about it...it was THAT good. I honestly had never expected the "pop" of the picture. I think the picture was exceedingly close to the scenes as I saw them with my eye. There was no hype, no push, just the scene as it was. Colors dead on, light dark values very appropriate etc. Needless to say I am very very impressed.

My only disappointment with the unit thus far is the auto focus. It seems that it misses on occasion. I had a subject standing outdoors in the center of the frame and the camera chose a lawn chair in the background to focus on. My VX2000 doesn't do that. I'm not sure if there are any adjustments that can be made in the autofocus mode other than simply going manual.

I must admit, I'm curious about two things after reading this review:

#1. We all know there is resolution loss in Cineframe24. I'm not surprised therefore that with about a 50% loss, and downconversion Cineframe24 looks like similar resolution to 24p miniDV. I'm curious how the FX1 and DVX would compare on 30p or 60i footage?

#2. The DVX has an advantage over the FX1 for stuff like water because it's not using the MPEG-2. 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.

To me, comparing the FX1 to an XL2 or DVX requires a comparison with the DV codec. Someone should do a test predending the FX1 is a DV cam, and see how well it performs in comparison.

-Steve

<<<-- Originally posted by Jon Fordham: It amazes me that some people will find whatever they need to discount the findings of an experienced professional in an effort to support whatever idea or belief they desperately need to cling to.

Jon -->>>

Jon, I am truly sorry you took what I said so personally. It was not meant as an attack on you or your methodologies. My major point was that most people simply can not perceive the necessary detail on an 8" monitor, regardless of the monitor's resolution, to make meaningful evaluations of all the extra resolution that the FX1 has compared to a DV cam. A far better comparison can be made on a larger HD screen where the additional detail (or lack thereof) can be more easily discerned by most people.

I think you probably could have been clearer in terms of how the cameras were hooked up, what the monitor was capable of etc. I think this has caused some confusion not only on my part but others as I read their posts.

Again, I am not trying to defend any purchase (I haven't made one) and I have no pre-conceived ideas about the Sony. However, it is obviously logical to assume that an A/B of both the Panasonic and the Sony on larger screen HD monitors, would show the far greater resolution capabilities of the Sony compared to the DVX. I got my first opportunity to play with one today, and I've surely never seen any DV camera come close to the resolution and sharpness of the Sony. I had tried the JVC when it first came out, but was totally unimpressed.

So please, don't take my post personally.