A fast moving Sony HDR-FX1 HD video for download: at DVinfo.net

Robert Silvers · December 16th, 2004, 02:22 PM

http://www.subgunvideos.com/videos/R...rike%20Videos/

This is an edited 2 minute 1280x720 video from the Sony. It is of machinegun fire, and might be of interest for people who l want to see a sample from the camera.

I recommend just the 'part2' video as 'part1' is only of interest to gun collectors and does not have good FX1 footage.

The .exe files are self-extracting zips with WM9 files in them. I made them zips to prevent people from playing them streaming. If you are afraid to run .exe files, note that Stuffit (even on a Mac) will extract the file from it. Large WM9 files do not play well on Macs.

The .mov file is a HD Quicktime file of the same thing, but you probably need a 2Ghz Mac to play it smoothly. It also works well on PCs of 2.4Ghz or more. The small .wmv files will play in WM9 on most Macs but they are low quality, or on PCs of 600Mhz or more.

Ethan Cooper · December 16th, 2004, 08:58 PM

I downloaded your video (the mpeg4) stuck it in FCP in a DV/NTSC sequence so I could watch it on my sd tv monitor. These are my thoughts:

1) This is the best looking HDV stuff I've been able to find on the net thus far. I'm sold... mostly (read more to see what I'm talking about)

2) It's amazing to me the quality we can now shoot with using a $3500 camera. It completely blows away even the DSR-500's I shoot with at work.

3) That being said, I did notice quite a few problems using this camera and its MPEG-2 encoding for shooting this kind of material. As long as the gun wasn't being fired the picture looked freakin great, but as soon as Osama started squeezing off some rounds there was considerable ghosting of the image, especially in the spent casings being ejected. I'm not sure how much of this was due to the sutter rate possibly being too low and how much was due to the MPEG-2 encoding just not being able to keep up with the motion. I'm willing to bet that the encoding is the flaw here, but its a big flaw, and one that will probably limit the uses of this camera and possibly kill off the format unless they can address those kind of problems in future cams. It just hurts to go from beautiful sharp image to soft mushy image. (I am holding out hope that someone can devise a workable solution to pulling off uncompressed in the field, and then possibly this will be a moot point. But thats just a dream right now)

4) Now I know I said I was sold... and I am. I'm convinced that this cam, under good lighting, will look GREAT for interviews and shots that dont have too much rapid movement. For the kind of video my company does, I see this format/price range as being a possible HUGE step forward in image quality untill full blown HD comes down into the old professional DVCam price range. Are we going to adopt right away? Not a chance in hell. For one, I'm not the boss pulling the purse strings, but also for as excited as I am about what I've seen out of this camera, I'd like to see what another year holds for a format in it's infancy. DVCPro HD 50? HDV 50? Who knows? I'm almost certain that someone will have to put out a mid-range HD offering in the near future.

But just to clarify, if it was my money I'd buy one in a heartbeat just to have around. GREAT picture... too good to pass up for the money, I'm just not sure that now is a good time to jump into this format as the format of the future. But for $3500 it easily can be the format of the now.

Last thing I'd like to say about this camera from what I've seen so far. (and I'd love to get my hands on one to see first hand) As for the ratio of price vs performance, this is the best cam I've seen hands down. Now if they can work some of the bugs out....

I'm gonna go back into being a forum lurker now.....

Robert Silvers · December 16th, 2004, 10:33 PM

Ethan,

That video was just at quality-60 with the mpeg-4 encoder!

Trust me, that ghosting you saw would not be there nearly as much if I compressed it at quality-75. At quality-90 the filesize would be 300MB.

Try the 106MB WM9 file and it is better (on a PC). I have an Apple Cinema Display 23 inch on my PC and it looks great.

The artifacts you saw were nothing to do with HDV but rather my re-encoding to make it smaller for download.

John Gaspain · December 16th, 2004, 10:47 PM

awesome! How did you get your hands on a Shrike? they arnt for sale yet. Anyways that vid was badass! I know some guys on ar15.com that would get a kick out of that video...do you mind if I re-encode it to make it smaller and post it over there?

Also how did you do the slo- mo?

Robert Silvers · December 16th, 2004, 10:56 PM

It has been posted there. This was the first Shrike ever bought by a retail customer. Only 3 have ever been shipped (that anyone knows of). I borrowed it. But you are welcome to re-encode it and repost it anywhere you want for personal use.

Ethan Cooper · December 16th, 2004, 11:52 PM

If that was at 60% then I'd love to see the full quality version. Bottom line is that I need to get my hands on that cam and take a look at it. Anyone in Louisiana, Miss, Ark, or Tx, with a FX1 that would be interrested in letting me rent it for a day or two feel free to drop me a line.

Jim Arthurs · December 17th, 2004, 10:11 AM

Robert, you shot this all at 60i didn't you? And did you edit with Vegas?

If so, the "ghosting" that people are talking about is most likely just field blending that happens when you output your 720p WM9. Good quality encoding, BTW.

I'd try your next project using CF30 just for the fun of it (except on shots where you need to slow-mo, then use 60i like you did here.)

BTW, is the first shot (with title graphics over it) on the second video a digital still camera image? It seems too detailed and overall too sharp to be FX footage... maybe I'm wrong...

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

Robert Silvers · December 17th, 2004, 10:30 AM

Yes, 60i, saved as 30fps WM9.

The stills are from a Canon EOS-20D.

I don't think I will ever use the Sony 30p 'mode' because I assume I can fake that in software later but have the option of 60i for slo-mo or just for more reality.

On the other hand, I had my wedding shot with a Panasonic 720p camera in 24p mode. I probably should have done it in 60p. Oh well.

Darrell Essex · December 19th, 2004, 12:30 PM

rsilvers, can you post the footage in the mt2 format the way it came out of the camera. i would like to play with it a little more, maybe add some effects ect. just to see what we can do with this camera.
this camera rocks.

Robert Silvers · December 19th, 2004, 01:46 PM

It is 780 MB because it is the raw footage. There is no way to
take the edited footage and get lossless m2t because one you cut mpeg footage it effects other frames.

But that brings up the question -- what output settings would you use to duplicate the m2t such that you could write it back out to the camera at the original quality?

Darrell Essex · December 19th, 2004, 01:51 PM

thanks for the reply. my understanding is that sending m2t video back to the camera is something the software makers are still working on. maybe the next upgrade of final cut pro will let you do that.

Mike Tiffee · December 21st, 2004, 11:18 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Silvers :
The stills are from a Canon EOS-20D.
-->>>

Can I wander off topic for a minute and ask how you like the 20D ? I'm thinking about getting that camera for underwater use.

Robert Silvers · December 21st, 2004, 11:41 PM

Well I love it. It is like my 10D except with faster startup, even less noise, faster buffering, better flash, more autofocus points, lighter, more pixels, etc.

Robert Silvers · December 21st, 2004, 11:43 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Darrell Essex : thanks for the reply. my understanding is that sending m2t video back to the camera is something the software makers are still working on. maybe the next upgrade of final cut pro will let you do that. -->>>

I think you can get back to the camera if you use certain mpeg settings. I once saw them posted but did not save them so I don't know how to do it.

December 16th, 2004, 02:22 PM	#1
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	A fast moving Sony HDR-FX1 HD video for download: http://www.subgunvideos.com/videos/R...rike%20Videos/ This is an edited 2 minute 1280x720 video from the Sony. It is of machinegun fire, and might be of interest for people who l want to see a sample from the camera. I recommend just the 'part2' video as 'part1' is only of interest to gun collectors and does not have good FX1 footage. The .exe files are self-extracting zips with WM9 files in them. I made them zips to prevent people from playing them streaming. If you are afraid to run .exe files, note that Stuffit (even on a Mac) will extract the file from it. Large WM9 files do not play well on Macs. The .mov file is a HD Quicktime file of the same thing, but you probably need a 2Ghz Mac to play it smoothly. It also works well on PCs of 2.4Ghz or more. The small .wmv files will play in WM9 on most Macs but they are low quality, or on PCs of 600Mhz or more.

December 16th, 2004, 08:58 PM	#2
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	My Thoughts I downloaded your video (the mpeg4) stuck it in FCP in a DV/NTSC sequence so I could watch it on my sd tv monitor. These are my thoughts: 1) This is the best looking HDV stuff I've been able to find on the net thus far. I'm sold... mostly (read more to see what I'm talking about) 2) It's amazing to me the quality we can now shoot with using a $3500 camera. It completely blows away even the DSR-500's I shoot with at work. 3) That being said, I did notice quite a few problems using this camera and its MPEG-2 encoding for shooting this kind of material. As long as the gun wasn't being fired the picture looked freakin great, but as soon as Osama started squeezing off some rounds there was considerable ghosting of the image, especially in the spent casings being ejected. I'm not sure how much of this was due to the sutter rate possibly being too low and how much was due to the MPEG-2 encoding just not being able to keep up with the motion. I'm willing to bet that the encoding is the flaw here, but its a big flaw, and one that will probably limit the uses of this camera and possibly kill off the format unless they can address those kind of problems in future cams. It just hurts to go from beautiful sharp image to soft mushy image. (I am holding out hope that someone can devise a workable solution to pulling off uncompressed in the field, and then possibly this will be a moot point. But thats just a dream right now) 4) Now I know I said I was sold... and I am. I'm convinced that this cam, under good lighting, will look GREAT for interviews and shots that dont have too much rapid movement. For the kind of video my company does, I see this format/price range as being a possible HUGE step forward in image quality untill full blown HD comes down into the old professional DVCam price range. Are we going to adopt right away? Not a chance in hell. For one, I'm not the boss pulling the purse strings, but also for as excited as I am about what I've seen out of this camera, I'd like to see what another year holds for a format in it's infancy. DVCPro HD 50? HDV 50? Who knows? I'm almost certain that someone will have to put out a mid-range HD offering in the near future. But just to clarify, if it was my money I'd buy one in a heartbeat just to have around. GREAT picture... too good to pass up for the money, I'm just not sure that now is a good time to jump into this format as the format of the future. But for $3500 it easily can be the format of the now. Last thing I'd like to say about this camera from what I've seen so far. (and I'd love to get my hands on one to see first hand) As for the ratio of price vs performance, this is the best cam I've seen hands down. Now if they can work some of the bugs out.... I'm gonna go back into being a forum lurker now.....

December 16th, 2004, 10:47 PM	#4
John Gaspain Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: WA-USA Posts: 371	awesome! How did you get your hands on a Shrike? they arnt for sale yet. Anyways that vid was badass! I know some guys on ar15.com that would get a kick out of that video...do you mind if I re-encode it to make it smaller and post it over there? Also how did you do the slo- mo? __________________ The glory of the World passes by.

December 16th, 2004, 11:52 PM	#6
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	ponderings If that was at 60% then I'd love to see the full quality version. Bottom line is that I need to get my hands on that cam and take a look at it. Anyone in Louisiana, Miss, Ark, or Tx, with a FX1 that would be interrested in letting me rent it for a day or two feel free to drop me a line.

December 19th, 2004, 12:30 PM	#9
Darrell Essex Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: kelseyville, ca Posts: 123	machine gun rsilvers, can you post the footage in the mt2 format the way it came out of the camera. i would like to play with it a little more, maybe add some effects ect. just to see what we can do with this camera. this camera rocks. __________________ darrell

December 16th, 2004, 10:33 PM	#3
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Ethan, That video was just at quality-60 with the mpeg-4 encoder! Trust me, that ghosting you saw would not be there nearly as much if I compressed it at quality-75. At quality-90 the filesize would be 300MB. Try the 106MB WM9 file and it is better (on a PC). I have an Apple Cinema Display 23 inch on my PC and it looks great. The artifacts you saw were nothing to do with HDV but rather my re-encoding to make it smaller for download.

December 16th, 2004, 10:56 PM	#5
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	It has been posted there. This was the first Shrike ever bought by a retail customer. Only 3 have ever been shipped (that anyone knows of). I borrowed it. But you are welcome to re-encode it and repost it anywhere you want for personal use.

December 17th, 2004, 10:11 AM	#7
Jim Arthurs Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Colorado Springs CO Posts: 120	Robert, you shot this all at 60i didn't you? And did you edit with Vegas? If so, the "ghosting" that people are talking about is most likely just field blending that happens when you output your 720p WM9. Good quality encoding, BTW. I'd try your next project using CF30 just for the fun of it (except on shots where you need to slow-mo, then use 60i like you did here.) BTW, is the first shot (with title graphics over it) on the second video a digital still camera image? It seems too detailed and overall too sharp to be FX footage... maybe I'm wrong... Regards, Jim Arthurs

December 17th, 2004, 10:30 AM	#8
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Yes, 60i, saved as 30fps WM9. The stills are from a Canon EOS-20D. I don't think I will ever use the Sony 30p 'mode' because I assume I can fake that in software later but have the option of 60i for slo-mo or just for more reality. On the other hand, I had my wedding shot with a Panasonic 720p camera in 24p mode. I probably should have done it in 60p. Oh well.

December 19th, 2004, 01:46 PM	#10
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	It is 780 MB because it is the raw footage. There is no way to take the edited footage and get lossless m2t because one you cut mpeg footage it effects other frames. But that brings up the question -- what output settings would you use to duplicate the m2t such that you could write it back out to the camera at the original quality?

December 19th, 2004, 01:51 PM	#11
Darrell Essex Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: kelseyville, ca Posts: 123	thanks for the reply. my understanding is that sending m2t video back to the camera is something the software makers are still working on. maybe the next upgrade of final cut pro will let you do that. __________________ darrell

December 21st, 2004, 11:18 PM	#12
Mike Tiffee Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 150	<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Silvers : The stills are from a Canon EOS-20D. -->>> Can I wander off topic for a minute and ask how you like the 20D ? I'm thinking about getting that camera for underwater use.

December 21st, 2004, 11:41 PM	#13
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	Well I love it. It is like my 10D except with faster startup, even less noise, faster buffering, better flash, more autofocus points, lighter, more pixels, etc.

December 21st, 2004, 11:43 PM	#14
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	<<<-- Originally posted by Darrell Essex : thanks for the reply. my understanding is that sending m2t video back to the camera is something the software makers are still working on. maybe the next upgrade of final cut pro will let you do that. -->>> I think you can get back to the camera if you use certain mpeg settings. I once saw them posted but did not save them so I don't know how to do it.