HD10U vs FX1, after 3 days side by side at DVinfo.net

Love Mov · December 27th, 2004, 07:37 PM

It's probably not long enough, but I don't have much time since I can still return the FX1...
Long story short, I have HD10U for a while, and recently got FX1 to see if it's better.
Here is some initial results after side by side shooting:

FX1 pros vs HD10:
1. low light is better, not huge though; (I found my old pdx10 is very acceptable for low light, FX1 is slightly better, and H10 is slightly worse.)
2. heavy and bigger, (balanced in hand, and looks expensive:))
3. pretty much full manual control available
4. build-in NDs, very nice feature (for HD10, if you don't use ND, you won't get good PQ under strong sun light)

FX1 cons vs HD10:
1. sharpness, resolution..yes, maybe I am wrong, but to my eyes, 720p is better than 1080i slightly
2. no 480p (not a big deal though)
3. No XLR (not fair but, well, HD10 is pro version, FX1 is not)
4. No software; JVC MPEG capture/editor is nice to have with HD10U since it does not do re-rendering.

FX1 vs HD10, hard to decided:
1. HD10 got chroma noise in red channel, FX got chroma noise in blue...
2. Both color are accurate, the best part I like;
3. At same price, no brainer, FX1 will be kept because of the manual controls and acceptable PQ; for almost $1000 different, I really don't know...

Love Mov · December 27th, 2004, 07:41 PM

Oh, one more good thing about FX1:

FX1 plays JVC tape (720p), but JVC doesn't play Sony's 1080i :(

Davi Dortas · December 27th, 2004, 07:55 PM

Thanks for scientific test. This will helps me make my decisions.

Harish Kumar · December 28th, 2004, 10:42 AM

So whats the verdict Love?

Heath McKnight · December 28th, 2004, 11:59 AM

I would recommend putting up still images of footage you shot with both cameras, for us to check out and make decisions.

You can email Chris Hurd and he can host those stills.

heath

Ken Hodson · December 28th, 2004, 05:17 PM

"2. no 480p (not a big deal though)"

I believe the 480p60 mode of the HD10 to be one of the more important features of that cam. Great for shooting high motion action scenes. Offers the ability to do great slow-mo as well it converts to 24p very well.

Love Mov · December 29th, 2004, 07:31 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I would recommend putting up still images of footage you shot with both cameras, for us to check out and make decisions.

You can email Chris Hurd and he can host those stills.

heath -->>>

Will post that maybe after the busiest week of the year. But I doubt still image is the good way to see the difference. I have some short videos that can be uploaded.

Harish Kumar · December 30th, 2004, 01:00 AM

Hi Heath

you have owned hd10u for long time. do you really thing 10u is worth selling for fx1 or z1 when the picture quality of 10u if used properly under controlled conditions can be equal or better than fx1/z1? I am talking about film makers and no run and gun types.

I am talking about guys who would take care to light the scene
and even fake the night scenes with white balance or filters.How different would the colors be ?....leaving aside the theory of 3 chip and single chip...in real world would it really matter?

do you really think it was too quick a decision for you to buy 10u when hd1 was already in the market?

thanks in advance

Heath McKnight · December 30th, 2004, 11:33 AM

Harish,

You nailed it with the HD10--no run and gun. Though the FX1 is better for that stuff (and tripod shots), I've gotten some GREAT stuff by taking my time (or when Jon Fordham and I shot a short with it) and lighting it, etc., and I loved it!

I'm selling my HD10 because more often than not, I'm renting other cameras or using friends' cameras, like an FX1, XL-2, etc. My students use the DVX100A and I would use that, but not buy it. I could very well never buy another camera and just rent when I need it--I use cameras about once a month for my stuff.

heath

Harish Kumar · December 30th, 2004, 11:36 PM

I think thats the answer to just rent them and not buy temm at all.Its almost impossible to keep pace with the technology.Even if I have a good camera ..when ever a new one comes out I feel I would be left behind...you know what I mean ..as film makers we should be more concerned about how to present a story rather that wasting(not really wasting) time on discussing cameras. A good script ...I mean a well written script or a screenplay can land us where we want to be. In the realm of big boys with big money and then we can buy whatever cameras we want to and go meet the technology right in the face. I was reading about a guy who sold his script for 3 million $ and the next day went and bought the sony f900 or some 300,000$ camera.

What I would suggest to highly talented people like you and other guys on the forum is to produce some hollywood scripts( I want to do the same) , make big money( I nkow it is difficult..but not impossible) and then go meet technology in the face.

That is what I want to do..do something that " The Blair Witch Project " did or what "sixth sense" did and I really wish from the talented people we have on our forum ...to go out and make some serious money......I have two scripts final but no money to produce them. So I guess I will ave to shoot them on dvx100a and in film festivals.

thanks for your response and best of luck

Bill Piedra · December 31st, 2004, 07:05 AM

My biggest obserservation between the two cameras side by side, set up with studio lighting is COLOR.

The color from the FX1 is much richer, and more saturated than the HD10. Additionally, I LOVE the cine gamma control on the FX1.

I have shot some comparison footage side by side from both cameras, (see previous posts) and offered it all here, but no one has taken me up on the offer. There is a substantial difference between the two cameras.

The other advantages that I see when shooting are:

1: FX1 has full manual controls (hate to beat a dead horse)

2: ZEBRA stripes - essential to a less experienced shooter like me.

3. I also like the 'skintone' settings of the FX1, though the same effect can be acheived by adjusting the white balance of the HD10.

4. Better viewfinder/lcd on the FX1

5. Ajustable gain also seems to be very useful.

I've been putting the camera through it's paces. Now my big question is, should I re-shoot a few hours of interviews that I shot on the HD10 with the FX1, or attempt to uprez the old HD10 footage to 1080i?

Any suggestions?

Ken Hodson · December 31st, 2004, 08:45 PM

If you shot them well, then why even consider a re-shoot?

Chris Hurd · December 31st, 2004, 10:39 PM

I agree with Ken. Why go through the all heartburn of a re-shoot when an uprez should do the trick.

Bill Piedra · January 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM

The only reason I would consider re-shooting them is to see if I can get a better look, and the people in the interviews are people I know very well.

The up-rez'd experiments I did look 'funny' - maybe I'm just not doing it right. Does anyone have any suggestions going from 720p to 1080i?

Steve Crisdale · January 1st, 2005, 05:27 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra : The only reason I would consider re-shooting them is to see if I can get a better look, and the people in the interviews are people I know very well.

The up-rez'd experiments I did look 'funny' - maybe I'm just not doing it right. Does anyone have any suggestions going from 720p to 1080i? -->>>

I used Vegas to do some test uprezzes on a couple of HD10u clips. The finished clips looked identical to the originals, just 1920x1080i 60fps rather than the 1280x720p 30fps of the source. Vegas seems to have a very good interlacer/de-interlacer compared to things like Twixtor (Yuk!!).

December 27th, 2004, 07:37 PM	#1
Love Mov Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 97	HD10U vs FX1, after 3 days side by side It's probably not long enough, but I don't have much time since I can still return the FX1... Long story short, I have HD10U for a while, and recently got FX1 to see if it's better. Here is some initial results after side by side shooting: FX1 pros vs HD10: 1. low light is better, not huge though; (I found my old pdx10 is very acceptable for low light, FX1 is slightly better, and H10 is slightly worse.) 2. heavy and bigger, (balanced in hand, and looks expensive:)) 3. pretty much full manual control available 4. build-in NDs, very nice feature (for HD10, if you don't use ND, you won't get good PQ under strong sun light) FX1 cons vs HD10: 1. sharpness, resolution..yes, maybe I am wrong, but to my eyes, 720p is better than 1080i slightly 2. no 480p (not a big deal though) 3. No XLR (not fair but, well, HD10 is pro version, FX1 is not) 4. No software; JVC MPEG capture/editor is nice to have with HD10U since it does not do re-rendering. FX1 vs HD10, hard to decided: 1. HD10 got chroma noise in red channel, FX got chroma noise in blue... 2. Both color are accurate, the best part I like; 3. At same price, no brainer, FX1 will be kept because of the manual controls and acceptable PQ; for almost $1000 different, I really don't know...

December 28th, 2004, 10:42 AM	#4
Harish Kumar Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TORONTO Posts: 115	So whats the verdict Love? __________________ Kumar

December 28th, 2004, 11:59 AM	#5
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I would recommend putting up still images of footage you shot with both cameras, for us to check out and make decisions. You can email Chris Hurd and he can host those stills. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

December 28th, 2004, 05:17 PM	#6
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"2. no 480p (not a big deal though)" I believe the 480p60 mode of the HD10 to be one of the more important features of that cam. Great for shooting high motion action scenes. Offers the ability to do great slow-mo as well it converts to 24p very well. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

December 30th, 2004, 01:00 AM	#8
Harish Kumar Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TORONTO Posts: 115	Hi Heath you have owned hd10u for long time. do you really thing 10u is worth selling for fx1 or z1 when the picture quality of 10u if used properly under controlled conditions can be equal or better than fx1/z1? I am talking about film makers and no run and gun types. I am talking about guys who would take care to light the scene and even fake the night scenes with white balance or filters.How different would the colors be ?....leaving aside the theory of 3 chip and single chip...in real world would it really matter? do you really think it was too quick a decision for you to buy 10u when hd1 was already in the market? thanks in advance __________________ Kumar

December 27th, 2004, 07:41 PM	#2
Love Mov Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 97	Oh, one more good thing about FX1: FX1 plays JVC tape (720p), but JVC doesn't play Sony's 1080i :(

December 27th, 2004, 07:55 PM	#3
Davi Dortas Membership Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Brazil Posts: 78	Thanks for scientific test. This will helps me make my decisions.

December 29th, 2004, 07:31 PM	#7
Love Mov Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 97	<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I would recommend putting up still images of footage you shot with both cameras, for us to check out and make decisions. You can email Chris Hurd and he can host those stills. heath -->>> Will post that maybe after the busiest week of the year. But I doubt still image is the good way to see the difference. I have some short videos that can be uploaded.

December 30th, 2004, 11:33 AM	#9
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Harish, You nailed it with the HD10--no run and gun. Though the FX1 is better for that stuff (and tripod shots), I've gotten some GREAT stuff by taking my time (or when Jon Fordham and I shot a short with it) and lighting it, etc., and I loved it! I'm selling my HD10 because more often than not, I'm renting other cameras or using friends' cameras, like an FX1, XL-2, etc. My students use the DVX100A and I would use that, but not buy it. I could very well never buy another camera and just rent when I need it--I use cameras about once a month for my stuff. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

December 30th, 2004, 11:36 PM	#10
Harish Kumar Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: TORONTO Posts: 115	I think thats the answer to just rent them and not buy temm at all.Its almost impossible to keep pace with the technology.Even if I have a good camera ..when ever a new one comes out I feel I would be left behind...you know what I mean ..as film makers we should be more concerned about how to present a story rather that wasting(not really wasting) time on discussing cameras. A good script ...I mean a well written script or a screenplay can land us where we want to be. In the realm of big boys with big money and then we can buy whatever cameras we want to and go meet the technology right in the face. I was reading about a guy who sold his script for 3 million $ and the next day went and bought the sony f900 or some 300,000$ camera. What I would suggest to highly talented people like you and other guys on the forum is to produce some hollywood scripts( I want to do the same) , make big money( I nkow it is difficult..but not impossible) and then go meet technology in the face. That is what I want to do..do something that " The Blair Witch Project " did or what "sixth sense" did and I really wish from the talented people we have on our forum ...to go out and make some serious money......I have two scripts final but no money to produce them. So I guess I will ave to shoot them on dvx100a and in film festivals. thanks for your response and best of luck __________________ Kumar

December 31st, 2004, 07:05 AM	#11
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	My biggest obserservation between the two cameras side by side, set up with studio lighting is COLOR. The color from the FX1 is much richer, and more saturated than the HD10. Additionally, I LOVE the cine gamma control on the FX1. I have shot some comparison footage side by side from both cameras, (see previous posts) and offered it all here, but no one has taken me up on the offer. There is a substantial difference between the two cameras. The other advantages that I see when shooting are: 1: FX1 has full manual controls (hate to beat a dead horse) 2: ZEBRA stripes - essential to a less experienced shooter like me. 3. I also like the 'skintone' settings of the FX1, though the same effect can be acheived by adjusting the white balance of the HD10. 4. Better viewfinder/lcd on the FX1 5. Ajustable gain also seems to be very useful. I've been putting the camera through it's paces. Now my big question is, should I re-shoot a few hours of interviews that I shot on the HD10 with the FX1, or attempt to uprez the old HD10 footage to 1080i? Any suggestions?

December 31st, 2004, 08:45 PM	#12
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	If you shot them well, then why even consider a re-shoot? __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

December 31st, 2004, 10:39 PM	#13
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I agree with Ken. Why go through the all heartburn of a re-shoot when an uprez should do the trick. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 1st, 2005, 10:47 AM	#14
Bill Piedra Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Manchester CT USA Posts: 109	The only reason I would consider re-shooting them is to see if I can get a better look, and the people in the interviews are people I know very well. The up-rez'd experiments I did look 'funny' - maybe I'm just not doing it right. Does anyone have any suggestions going from 720p to 1080i?

January 1st, 2005, 05:27 PM	#15
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Piedra : The only reason I would consider re-shooting them is to see if I can get a better look, and the people in the interviews are people I know very well. The up-rez'd experiments I did look 'funny' - maybe I'm just not doing it right. Does anyone have any suggestions going from 720p to 1080i? -->>> I used Vegas to do some test uprezzes on a couple of HD10u clips. The finished clips looked identical to the originals, just 1920x1080i 60fps rather than the 1280x720p 30fps of the source. Vegas seems to have a very good interlacer/de-interlacer compared to things like Twixtor (Yuk!!).