I put together a quick comparison of the DVX and FX1 that some of you might find helpful if you are deciding on a camera. The review with images and video samples is at the link below.

http://www.wakefilms.com/dvx/dvx.htm

Moderator note: this thread was cross posted to another forum so the duplicate copy has been removed. DVinfo's policy forbids crossposting:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/announcement.php?f=62&announcementid=23

If you would prefer this thread to appear in another forum please let me know and I'll be glad to move it. Thanks for your cooperation!

Its sad that the two cameras are compared in this manner.

The FX1 and Z1 are best used what they are designed for, high definition interlaced footage. We all realise that the Cineframe modes are Sony's attempt to best emulate progressive and with the right tools, this can be achieved with excellent results. By your own admission, 'industry does not care if the video looks like a film camera', then why not offer them a better DV resolution. The footage from HDV downconverted to DV in the camera or in post produces far higher quality than for example a dvx100.

However, there are a few points I do want to clear up:

Software is supportive (kind of)
The software is fully supported - there are very few packages today which don't offer support for hdv.

Editing requires expensive CPU
Here I must disagree entirely. I am using a 3.2ghz P4 with 1G ram and a standard GF5600 (about two years old) and have not had one moment of problems in editing hdv. Using Cineform's software or even Gearshift from Vasst offers many users the ability to edit HDV using a not so high spec machine. So even the Premiere's and Vegas's of this world are more than capable of serving the HDV world.

Not Full res with action
Shooting in 50i/60i offers you the best resolution for buck in todays marketplace.

Poor auto zoom
The autozoom function works great and yes, most cameras will 'hunt' when using autofocus. Manual for both exposure and focus are what we all normally use.

As for action shots, I have done quite a few shoots for our local station for motorsport where high speed action is the name of the game. I must be doing something right since they continue to the footage from the two cameras I have (fx1 and z1). Slow mo is used more often than not with this form of sport and the resulting footage is brilliant.

Anyhow, this was not to shoot your comarison but rather to place a better perspective on the real thing.

Cheers

That FX1 picture is over exposed, and needs some ND. If you want to do a fair comparison, make sure you have both cameras working to their best advantage. I'd be keen to see the difference under proper conditions.

Exactly, I bet you didn't apply the ND filter because that image looks waaay over exposed, even an amateur would say the same.. Look at my FX1 images, they were shot on a sunny day like yours:

http://public.rawr32.net/arcwave/hd_lineup.JPG

I agree that it looks overexposed, and playing with picture profile settings can also help with the blown-out sky.

Jesse those are nice stills but they're all closeups and don't tackle the big problem of shooting a wide outdoor shot without having the sky go white...

Ah, ok. I took those a few days ago with my friends FX1. I'm still going to run out and take some shots with a white/blue sky to just see if it turned out like Mike's.

By the way, thanks for the compliment.

This is the same way people often compare the DVX and XL2. They compare a very easy to use camera to one that requires great skill to master. In almost ALL the comparisons that show the DVX to be superior ro the XL1, FX1, etc. the cameras other than the DVX are being used improperly.

I own a DVX, XL2 and others and often use a Z1 or FX1. The DVX basically comes with training wheels, it is easy to use and can be mastered in a fairly short time, the same is not true of the FX1 and certainly not true of the XL2.

All are quality cameras which will produce great results WHEN USED PROPERLY. I have yet to seen an OBJECTIVE test that showed any of these cameras was better than the other for everything.

As for me, I choose the camera that I feel is appropriate for the project....



ash =o)

Ash,

maybe you can do a test?
I don't know if you have the time to do this, as I think this all takes lots of time, to put up such a test, but I would be very interested in seeing such a test, with all the prosumer cams of now next to each other (DVX, XL2, maybe XL1s, FX1, Z1,...?).
Best regards,

Ash,

maybe you can do a test?
I don't know if you have the time to do this, as I think this all takes lots of time, to put up such a test, but I would be very interested in seeing such a test, with all the prosumer cams of now next to each other (DVX, XL2, maybe XL1s, FX1, Z1,...?).
Best regards,

What would be the point?
The HDV camcorders aren't necessarily designed as DV camcorders, and they're not even meant to shoot material that is viewed at it's best on anything other than a proper 16:9 HDTV.

Comparing stills that add even more processing into the equation, along with the usual JPEG artifacting that degrades the image even further, makes a mockery of even attempting such a comparison.

I know that it would be nice for a decision that appears difficult for some people to make being allayed by the efforts and recommendations of others, but the decision about what you end up purchasing should be based on your own research and judgement. Of course it's nice to see some sample material that may help you too make such a decision, but I would contend that if you are seriously considering purchasing a HDTV or any HD capable display device, then SD is NOT going to look as good.

If you aren't going to purchase any HD viewing devices, and you don't reckon that any of your clients will have HD devices for a seriously long period of time... then stick with SD.

If you end up purchasing a HDV camcorder and you don't have a HDTV or a damned fine display device capable of showing at least 1280x720 pixels native, then you aren't going to see any advantage. It's common sense that you'll only see HDV material as it's meant to be on HD capable devices. While it would be nice to think that SD created from HDV is going to be almost as good as the HDV original, it just ain't gonna be so.

However; as those professionals in the still image and graphics trades know, the logic of the SAME or better quality image as from a 100% source being derived from a down conversion of a higher resolution source is undisputed. While video adds some extra complexities to this simple logic, the fact that done correctly (i.e. with some understanding of the generational losses with each render), it's possible to get some very nice SD material from HDV sources - as DSE's posted clips show.

Yes, of course the test doesn't have to happen, I was talking more personal: I would find it interesting, because not everyone has the chance to play with these cams (in Belgium for an instance, you almost never are gonna see an XL2 in the shop, or a DVX) and I think for many people - or maybe I'm talking only about myself here - it could be interesting. Then maybe you can put that thread on every board, as a stickey, (I mean the boards of the cam) so not everybody begins a new thread about a comparison, because you'll have one big thread.
But as I mentioned earlier, it's more about my personal curiousity to see all these cams next to each other, just picture-wise, although I know the picture isn't the most important thing about a camera - I think it's more about the features, and too see what image they all produce of the same thing.

Maybe I was too personal :-) just curious

Yes, of course the test doesn't have to happen, I was talking more personal: I would find it interesting, because not everyone has the chance to play with these cams (in Belgium for an instance, you almost never are gonna see an XL2 in the shop, or a DVX) and I think for many people - or maybe I'm talking only about myself here - it could be interesting. Then maybe you can put that thread on every board, as a stickey, (I mean the boards of the cam) so not everybody begins a new thread about a comparison, because you'll have one big thread.
But as I mentioned earlier, it's more about my personal curiousity to see all these cams next to each other, just picture-wise, although I know the picture isn't the most important thing about a camera - I think it's more about the features, and too see what image they all produce of the same thing.

Maybe I was too personal :-) just curious

The only time that a comparison of any of these cameras may be of any real worth would be if the raw video streams from each was viewed on the appropriate viewing device for each.

As I'm sure there's not many people who'd a) have the equipment or b) have the relevant bandwidth to provide all those raw clips... I doubt that this sort of test is going to happen anytime soon.

Let's just say that you went to a consumer electronics store in Belgium... Would you be able to see a properly set up High Definition TV? Would you also be able to watch it in relation to 4:3 TVs nearby?

If the answer is no; then you're unlikely to be able to assess what difference there is between HD and SD anyway. Until you really see what HD is about on the proper equipment, the only real value of any of these sort of proposed tests is that of curiosity - nothing more.

Still image tests of HD/HDV vs DV/SD should be at best enjoyed for nice composition or interesting subject matter, but more generally ignored for any analytical importance.

One of the basic things I hoped to accomplish by posting my findings in this forum was to get some recommendations on settings and configurations for the FX1, to improve my results. Hopefully one of you who have had great success in shooting with this cam could step up to the plate and recommend your picture profile settings and other settings that would improve my footage.
One main problem that I have with the cam, that none of you have addressed, is getting the view finder to display what is being shot. As I mentioned before when I shot the footage the view finder showed what appeared to be good clean footage, but the footage was overexposed when viewed later. Can some one shed some light on this subject?

Relying on a low resolution viewfinder is always pretty risky. Turn zebra patterns on to get correct exposure. If you do a search here you'll find extensive discussion. After you get experienced as to what to expect in the viewfinder you may not need to rely so much on zebras, but that's always a little risky. If you really want to compare cameras it would be best to try shooting some examples while they're connected to real monitors.

The other important thing is to attempt some minimal calibration of the viewfinder - at least the brightness. Use your NLE to send NTSC color bars to the camera over firewire. I can't remember whether the FX1 has these built in, the Z1 does. The important thing you need are the PLUGE bars. See the following about calibrating a monitor:

http://www.videouniversity.com/tvbars2.htm

The important thing is that the 11.5 IRE bar should just barely be visible.

Now the other thing you should do is to have your camera connected to your computer via firewire and compare what you see in your viewfinder to a calibrated NTSC monitor both with the color bars and some other footage. Using the menus adjust the viewfinder (or LCD screen) to match as closely as you can. It won't be perfect, but if nothing else you will see how the NTSC monitor differs from the viewfinder and the knowledge can guide you.

Thanks for sharing your impressions, I know you were trying to be helpful. But if you are "reviewing" a camera and comparing it to another one it's a good idea to have a good grasp of some basics like this at the outset, don't you think?

One main problem that I have with the cam, that none of you have addressed, is getting the view finder to display what is being shot. As I mentioned before when I shot the footage the view finder showed what appeared to be good clean footage, but the footage was overexposed when viewed later. Can some one shed some light on this subject?

I've tended to avoid the viewfinder in preference to the LCD. I've just found it more convenient for the shooting circumstances that I've been using the camera in. The LCD is also better for manual focusing and using the expanded focus feature.

When you say that recorded material looked overexposed, what were you viewing the footage on? Was this the case when viewing the HDV stream on a HDTV via the component connection?

Personally I've tried to underexpose material when I've had the chance to control what I'm shooting, because it's easier to boost dynamic range in post than trying to put detail back into areas that may have blown out.