One interesting question is "how does SD DV footage looks on a HD tv"? I'd like to know because I don't think millions of production companies, indie film makers, amateur film makers, or even consumers will change from DV to Hd from night to day. I'm sure that a lot of people are going to hang on to their DVs until something better and more accessible Hd solutions come along. I for once am very interested in hopping in the HD waggon, but so far I'm simply not satisfied enough (this a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the main question).

This question really has many answers. It kills me when a conversation is going on between folks comparing camera footage quality, one of them on a 36" CRT, and the second on a 60" HDTV. Guess what each of them are saying? HDTV's (AFAIK) uprez their input to whatever their native resolution, so SD looks better on them than the same sized analog projection/CRT TV.

Factor in all the different cams, widescreen modes (both camera and TV), progressive and interlaced footage, cheapo SD cams vs pro SD cams, and you have nearly infinite variables. SD can look very very good, or very very bad. You only have 720x480 to play with, and with NTSC interlaced it's more like 720x380 at best. Blow this up enough and you'll hate even the best cam's output.

The DVDs you watch are 720X480. Does they looks good for you on your HDTV set? If so, you know how theorically DV can look.

If the HDTV has a decent scaler it should look pretty good. But Dennis makes some very good points. If the DV camera doesn't have native 16:9 chips it may not look so good.

However, I have seen the extreme example of this in projecting 16:9 footage shot with my PDX-10 (which has high quality full resolution 16:9) on a 44 foot wide screen with a 10,000 lumen Barco SLM-R10 DLP projector which scaled the image to 1600x900. It looked surprisingly good. Same thing on a much smaller scale on my 22" Samsung LCD and 37" Panasonic plasma.

But on the low end of the spectrum, I watch regular analog cable on my 37" plasma and when things are letterboxed (like movies on TCM) I use the zoom function to fill the screen. The quality of these is often less than ideal - certainly worse than letterboxed DV - but it still looks acceptable since the TV smooths things out in scaling. It wouldn't fool you into thinking it's HD however.

But of course the average consumer doesn't have a very critical eye for the most part, and is probably just excited to have a big screen ;-)

One interesting question is "how does SD DV footage looks on a HD tv"?

SD footage looks fine on a good HDTV with decent line-doubling technology, until you compare it to HD footage played on the same display. Once you've seen the difference you'll understand why HD video production is inevitable, and that SD is destined to fade quietly into oblivion. This may be a gradual transition because people are used to being content with SD resolution, but eventually SD will seem as dated as black & white.

SD footage looks fine on a good HDTV with decent line-doubling technology, until you compare it to HD footage played on the same display. Once you've seen the difference you'll understand why HD video production is inevitable, and that SD is destined to fade quietly into oblivion. This may be a gradual transition because people are used to being content with SD resolution, but eventually SD will seem as dated as black & white.

Of course. I totaly agree with you. But how far away is this reality? Is it really worth it to invest in cameras like the Fx1 with all its' flaws when such a reality is so far away? Recent studies show that even with the most optimist perspectives it'll take about 5 years for the US to have about 50 million people with HD TVs (that's very little)...not to mention the world. I mean, in 4 years will have cameras WAY better than the Fx1 for the same price. I think the new panasonic Hd will set the standards. The reason I'm asking all of this is because I'm between a ag-dvx100a or an Fx1 (same price). In my optinion I think the ag-dvx100 is all together a better camera with much more professional options and reliability. Actualy the only thing the Fx1 has over the ag-dvx100 series is the fact that it's HD...but at what cost? Crappy audio, way less professional controls, artifacts as heck, very dangerous tape dropps...And people won't even be able to tell it's HD right now because there's so few of them of have HD tv.

Of course. I totaly agree with you. But how far away is this reality? Is it really worth it to invest in cameras like the Fx1 with all its' flaws when such a reality is so far away? Recent studies show that even with the most optimist perspectives it'll take about 5 years for the US to have about 50 million people with HD TVs (that's very little)...not to mention the world. I mean, in 4 years will have cameras WAY better than the Fx1 for the same price. I think the new panasonic Hd will set the standards. The reason I'm asking all of this is because I'm between a ag-dvx100a or an Fx1 (same price). In my optinion I think the ag-dvx100 is all together a better camera with much more professional options and reliability. Actualy the only thing the Fx1 has over the ag-dvx100 series is the fact that it's HD...but at what cost? Crappy audio, way less professional controls, artifacts as heck, very dangerous tape dropps...And people won't even be able to tell it's HD right now because there's so few of them of have HD tv.

So why are you even considering the FX-1/Z1?

If it really is as bad as you profess - you have tried the camera's I'm assuming to be so ready to dismiss them so knowledgeably, then you know they aren't for you.

If you really are as conflicted as your post seems to betray... go and try a HDV camcorder - and if it truly doesn't come up to scratch compared to the DVX100, then get the DVX!!

Such big deals over something that should be so straight forward...

Actualy the only thing the Fx1 has over the ag-dvx100 series is the fact that it's HD...but at what cost? Crappy audio, way less professional controls, artifacts as heck, very dangerous tape dropps...And people won't even be able to tell it's HD right now because there's so few of them of have HD tv.

1. The FX1 is considered "consumer" by the manufacturer, their tech support, and their marketing channels.

2. How many tape drops have you experienced in your work with an FX1? With any HDV camera?

3. Crappy audio, huh? How much audio have you recorded with an FX 1 or other HDV camera? How much HDV audio have you worked with in order to qualify yourself to say it's "crappy?" If I recorded dialog on a Z1 or FX1, or A1u for that matter, and recorded the same audio at the same time on say...A DVX...are you suggesting you can hear the difference? If I blindfolded you, put you in a room with a pair of Hothouse 4's, you'd be able to tell me which was which?

4. "Less" professional controls? You mean the professional controls are lesser than others, or that it has FEWER than others?

If you're as predisposed as you seem to be against HDV, why bother looking at it? You're comparing a 12K system against a 3K system; doesn't this seem a little off-base to you? It sure does for me.

I will use either camera with a G35 35mm lens adapter...and I have to say I preffer the images produced by the Fx1 (WITH THE ADAPTER!). If I was to choose from both these cameras and was not going to use the adapter, I'd go for the ag-dvx100a in a heart beat. People seem to get offended by hearing this kind of thing and, unless you actualy work for one of these companies, I think it's ridiculous to react like this. Both of them are excelent cameras. Up to a certain point it's a personal matter of which type of image you're more into, that'll suit your work the best.

Check this article out, guys: http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

Raphael, neither Steve nor myself work for Sony, Panasonic, JVC, or Canon. But I find your unsubstantiated and negative comments on subject that I and others have had extensive experience with, as offensive.

Answer the questions, rather than ducking them. Otherwise, you've really got nothing to say.

Question "What experience have you had with HDV audio"?
Your answer "_____________________________________"

Question "What kind of lesser controls?"
Answer "______________________________"

If you haven't had experience with something, then that means all you're doing is reading. Reading is great when it's in the interest of research that leads to answers. Making statements with no substance or experience is counterproductive and meaningless, particularly when there are others that don't feel the way you do, and those people own the format you're knocking.
BTW, I have a DVX and a Z1, so I feel I'm pretty qualified on commenting on both.

If I posted in this forum it's exactly because I need to find out more about some particular technical details. I have exchanged e-mails with Barry Green and several DP and Directors (national geo, discovery, mtv, etc) who worked with both these cameras and the only conclusions I can make are based on what I've been told by highly talented recognized professionals. I have come here to hear some other opinions that would help me make a better choice. If I have offended anyone I'm sorry (even though I think getting offended over something like this is kind of over the top). I would very happy if you could put on the table your personal experience about the Dvx and the Z1/Fx1 (pros & cons). The article I posted was very instructive but it's nice to here from people who use these equipment on a daily basis.

P.S - My work consists mostly on comercials, music videos and narrative projects

Rather than consulting with these Emmy award winning professionals about the practicality of HDTV cameras why don't you take it to the next level and consult the Academy Award winning profesionals and ask them if they would shoot a big budget Hollywood Movie using a standard definition video camera. If you want to be the next George Lucas you will have to shoot high definition.

HD is a reality now and will be much more so next year when HD DVD players start shipping. Plus the shift toward widescreen displays is a problem for any camera which doesn't shoot true widescreen footage, which is most DV cameras. The FX1 is a fine camera with a few limitations, but then any camera in that price range is going to involve some compromises.

If I posted in this forum it's exactly because I need to find out more about some particular technical details. I have exchanged e-mails with Barry Green and several DP and Directors (national geo, discovery, mtv, etc) who worked with both these cameras and the only conclusions I can make are based on what I've been told by highly talented recognized professionals. I have come here to hear some other opinions that would help me make a better choice. If I have offended anyone I'm sorry (even though I think getting offended over something like this is kind of over the top). I would very happy if you could put on the table your personal experience about the Dvx and the Z1/Fx1 (pros & cons). The article I posted was very instructive but it's nice to here from people who use these equipment on a daily basis.

P.S - My work consists mostly on comercials, music videos and narrative projects

Perhaps you need to go about asking your questions without implying first hand knowledge. I doubt anyone would be offended if you had written "I've heard and read the reports of...", or "I don't have either of these cameras, but I've been informed by a professional source..."

The instant you made such a blanket statement that only has merit, if you had purchased one of the only FX-1/Z1 camcorders to have more than failed every quality control check, and still been let loose into the grasp of a not very capable purchaser.

Personally: I have no feelings as to whether you decide to go HDV or stay with DV. Couldn't care less.

I do care that you're throwing off hand lines blissfully unaware that other folks may read your second hand interpretation of a professional who has alerted you to the WHOLE HDV experience. All you seem to have heard are the negative things, which any professional asked to provide this sort of infomation would, because they have a responsibility to provide a balanced assessment to you. Yes some folks have reported drop-outs, some have solved them... and many haven't experienced them. If you come from the experience of a camera having every control humanly plausible for inclusion on a HD video camcorder, then the FX1/Z1 may not have every control to swoon over, but it's got more than most will manage to learn to use effectively in a week or two. And to say that DVD level audio (which is essentially the spec of the HDV audio) is substandard or poor... maybe to certain 'audio' professionals it would be, but then that's all they think of - most of those I've read comments from have no idea of workarounds or solutions that would give them far higher quality audio in post.

Your original question regarding SD on HDTV has been strayed from rather dramatically. Why do you need us to tell you something that you could check for yourself at any decent electronics store... SD on HDTV is NEVER going to look as good as HD on a HDTV regardless of scaler quality - period.

The fact of the matter is and what most people forget is that when a new technology is introduced, no matter how good the technology is, it takes time for people to accept the technology and at first they will reject it. HDTV is no exception to this basic rule of rejection even by the experts. I thought that it might be an exception because seeing is believing. Well seeing is not believing. To a naysayer if he sees a miracle of technology he will keep demanding more miracles and he will never be satisfied.

In Europe starting in 1936 Black and White television was introduced using the 405 line standard definition. It took about 50 years until 1986 before broadcasters would no longer support that format and declared it obsolete and everyone with the old 405 line standard definition televisions had to throw them away. In 1967 the PAL 575 line standard was introduced and by 2017 it will be obsolete.

Look, this is ridiculous. I came here for help, for knowledge. I want to make my research as deep as possible, and that is why I looked at toons of footage, asked a toons of people with very different backgrounds, and it's why I came here. Some people here are saying that I came here and started saying a bunch of unfundamented bad things about the Fx1...but instead of fundamenting you own answer to WHY were my comments wrong, you simply started acting like I insulted your wife or something. If somebody misinterpreted it as an insult or offensive, tough luck. I've already said that was not what I meant and I'm not going to repeat it again. This is not personal, guys! I WANT to embrace Hd. I really do. So, instead of keep saying "boohoo, you're ugly and dumb!", say "I used this equipment and I can say for a fact that what you have heard and read is wrong...and here are the facts...". If you want to focus on the boohooing me part, please open another thread saying how much you'd like to nail me to a cross and stone me to death. Whoever is matures enough to remain on this thread, please, help me up here. I have an important investment to make and just want to be sure of how capable this tool really is. The ag-dvx100 and the Fx1 are more less the same price and I need to decide which would be the best solution for me NOW...in 4 years there will be better cameras and new threads like this for guys like me to be beaten to a pulp. I know that because of the "in your face" look there's a lot of people adopting the FX1/Z1 for documentary, but that's not the look I'm going for, since I subsist on music videos and commercials (with the ocasional narrative project). Anyone working with music videos/adds of using the FX1/Z1? I'm really curious to see/hear about the results? I've seen some FX1 footage with a 35mm adapter and it's the most film like I've ever seen.

Rafael, your original question was "How does SD DV look on an HDTV?" Perhaps your question should have been "HD or SD?" Given that you've provided commercials and music videos as your staple, here's my thinking on the subject. I recently dug up a paper copy (nothing on the net) entitled "Understanding Camera Resolution", from Broadcast Engineering, August 1999. I've cut and pasted the text of my comments on that paper below. Film is of course far beyond the digital standards described there..but HD is as close as we can get. A recent grad from the local college film course suggested that working with 16mm film was not far off from current HD production costs. Maybe you should investigate working with the real thing!

If you are aspiring to that rather elusive (and completely beaten to death if you ask me) film look, and you have all the other elements in place, then an HD cam with a 35mm adapter is the next best thing to 16mm. Based on the article below, that is obvious. For every HD problem out there, I've read corresponding fixes and work-arounds. Early adopters of any technology will always pay more, and figure out the bugs for late adopters like me :-)

Even if you never master any HD projects, you will have better footage than native SD cams by downsampling. If you are buying a new camera, HD to me is a given. If I was loaded (not drunk, just rich) I'd have already pre-ordered an HVX200. My advice is to wait and see what the HVX will bring to the table.

By the way, by responding to your post, I in no way am insinuating that I am in any way mature, responsible, or even know what I'm talking about :-O



"Understanding Camera Resolution",Broadcast Engineering, August 1999

The article describes interlaced transmission and some of the problems associated with it, including interline flicker, line crawl, and the visible field line structure (the visible field line structure masks perception of detail in our visual systems within an octave of the field line structure). These all have an impact on perceived visual resolution beyond what a static resolution chart would suggest. In other words, it?s worse than it looks.

The tests involved a high resolution scan of fine pixel images which were pre-filtered with a cut-off of 1.3 times the Nyquist limit of a coarse sampling pattern. They then post filtered with a cut-off at the Nyquist limit for display. The original oversampled images were filtered with different two-dimensional cut off frequencies. In a forced choice comparison the sampled and filtered images were compared. The subjects were asked, ?Which image looks sharper?? When the choices were 50-50, they compared resolution of sampled, vs un-sampled images. The spot size of the un-sampled images was .7 that of the sampled. What this all boils down to is that it took twice as many pixels in the reference image, to produce the resolution of a properly filtered sample image. From those comparisons, the conclusion was that progressive images can have a resolution higher than the Nyquist limit. With a sharp cut-off filter, a progressive image has a 2 fold increase in perceived vertical resolution over an interlaced image. EIA1596 charts are included in the article to illustrate the differences.

A few interlace filtering interim solutions are suggested to address the fact that our visual systems have a slow response to detail and that motion detection is at low resolution. In one technique, the top octave of detail is updated at 30fps (fast enough for detail perception) and the rest of the field line structure updated at 60fps to maintain good motion rendition.

The article goes on to reinforce that a full progressive system can produce a perceived increase in resolution by a factor of 2. Keeping in mind that this work was done in 1998, the same forced choice experiment is done to compare the various HDTV specs. A chart details the perceived sharpness of various displays equated in equivalent pixel number:

480i - . 25 Megapixel
480p - .5 Mp
720p - 1.45Mp
1080i -1.7Mp
1080p - 3.2Mp

These numbers are explained with a few observations. At normal viewing distance, the limiting resolution on a viewer?s retina is about 22 cycles per degree. That equates to 32 million pixels in our field of view. At normal viewing distance, NTSC TV subtends .5 percent of our field of view, 1080 line TV, 720 projection, and 35mm projected subtend 5%, 1080 line progressive subtend about 11%, and IMAX about 67%.

The article concludes that using a progressive camera, with 1080 line progressive display of interlaced transmission, properly processed, can provide the best perceived sharpness of the options up for review. Nothing surprising there..the military and medical communities have been working on this since around 1978.

Nyquist limit: http://www-camil.music.uiuc.edu/cla...udio/audio.html

Thank you very much, Dennis. That was a very insightful article/comment. Like you said, the much anticipated HVX200 is bound to open new doors, since it'll both record in HD and progressive. Conserning these numbers:

1. 480i - . 25 Megapixel
2. 480p - .5 Mp
3. 720p - 1.45Mp
4. 1080i -1.7Mp
5. 1080p - 3.2Mp

Number 3 would correspond to the ag-dvx100 series and number 4 would correspond to the FX1, right? The numbers are pretty close.

By the way, I'm a Pal shooter, so a little bit more resolution can be added to the equasion.

Once more, thank you for this very helpfull article.

Cheers,

Rafa

Rafael,

The DVX corresponds to 1 or 2. All those numbers refer to the vertical dimensions of the raster (ie how many pixels top to bottom) the DVX would have 720 pixels across.

ALso, I think the 720p and 480p refer to 50/60p rather than 50/60i (actually 25/30i)

Anyway I have some limited expereince with the DVX but extensive experience with the Z1 and it is an excellent DV and HDV camera, if 1080i is your thing and the 24p/25p issue isn't important to you. It has very high level of professional controls, the audio is very good, and the input options extremely flexible. If you're going for HDV forget the FX1 and get the Z1.

If you were to use it as a PAL DV camera, in cineframe25 mode it would be VERY close to producing a full 25p SD image. Its image quality in SD is slightly inferior in some regards to the DVX but a lot of this could be down to a matter of taste, Sonys tend to have a rather "harsher" more clinical look compared to Panasonics and Canons, (in my opinion) but actually I quite like that look, and of course it can be subtly tweaked in camera and in post.

The DVX is one of the best 4:3 SD DV cameras I've ever used (not having had had any experience of the XL2) but as an SD camera, the Z1 comes close, and then if you factor in that it does HDV (so far I've had one drop out, on aan old, re-used multiple time tape and the artifacts aren't that bad unless you REALLY push it) and native 16:9 I think it's worth the difference.

There is no crappy audio on the Z1, the compression is hardly noticable except barely on extremely sound critical areas, i.e. I recorded a solo acoustic guitar in a recording studio with a Senn 416 and think I heard some very light compression swirling on a couple of chords, but I had to listen really hard.

Bear in mind that the DVX DOES NOT have a native 16:9 chip, so in fact any widescreen material you should will be upressed from 720x432 (though shooting squeezed camera may give better results than cropping/uprezzing in post, maybe a uprezzing-plug-in writing DVX user can chip in here) - or of course you could use an anamorphic adaptor.

Thanks, Dylan. That was very helpful! Did you ever shoot music videos, commercials, narrative projects with it? I'm very curious about the results. Most of the stuff I've seen out of the Fx1 was documentary or live TV.

Conserning these numbers:

1. 480i - . 25 Megapixel
2. 480p - .5 Mp
3. 720p - 1.45Mp
4. 1080i -1.7Mp
5. 1080p - 3.2Mp

Number 3 would correspond to the ag-dvx100 series and number 4 would correspond to the FX1, right? The numbers are pretty close.

Wrong; the DVX100 would be #2 (in progressive SD mode).

The FX1 would be #4 (in 1080i mode)

The HVX200 would be #3 (in 720p mode) or #5 (in 1080p/24 mode).




By the way, I'm a Pal shooter, so a little bit more resolution can be added to the equasion.

Only in SD; in the HD world, there's no resolution difference.

Thanks, Dylan. That was very helpful! Did you ever shoot music videos, commercials, narrative projects with it? I'm very curious about the results. Most of the stuff I've seen out of the Fx1 was documentary or live TV.

Personally I'm a teacher and I've not had the time to shoot a complete project with it, but have been shooting extensive tests (sunsets, skylines, traffic, face/clothing tests, lighting test shots, and a lot of footage of my new daughter). I'm planning a short narrative film but that's months away from production, However I've no doubt it will be shot on the Z1, and in HDV.

There are a number of pop videos being shot with the FX1/Z1 and sometimes with 35mm lens adaptors. Do a search on thos forum, there's a few posted here.