Help with HDR-FX1 at DVinfo.net

Hse Kha · November 24th, 2004, 10:38 PM

Hi,

Just got this baby. Now how the hell do I upload the footage to my computer???

I can upload DV fine, but no way HDV.

I realize that the footage will be either m2v or someother MPEG derivate. But I need it on my computer! It's no good otherwise...

Help!!!

Thanks in advance.

Hse Kha · November 24th, 2004, 10:41 PM

Last year I had the JVC HDV for a while. That came with software that allowed me to upload the MPEG-2 files to the comptuer.

But there is NO software with this Sony...

Jeff Patnaude · November 25th, 2004, 09:17 AM

What computer system and editor are you using? Give us a little more info.

Jeff P

Hse Kha · November 25th, 2004, 09:26 AM

It is a Pentium 4 3.4GHz with Windows XP Professional.

I can use Premiere Pro or VirtualDub. I just want to be able to import the footage into the PC. Then I can just convert the MPG file to umcompressed AVI and play around.

Steven White · November 25th, 2004, 12:15 PM

CapDVHS worked for me:

http://www.yamabe.org/softbody.html#CapDVHS

-Steve

Hse Kha · November 25th, 2004, 03:32 PM

Steven,

Thanks but I already managed to find a solution.

I downloaded the trial version of CineForm's ConnectHD. So that is another $200. JVC threw it in for free...

Anyway I am dissapointed with the first footage I shot with the HDR-FX1. I was hoping for quality like I see on PBS-HD and the like. Well, sadly it is no where near that.

To be honest, resolution wise it seems no better than the JVC and only slightly better than the top DV camcorders. Sure it is 1440x1080, but the real resolution to me seems more like 800x500 or something...

One good thing. The MPEG-2 encoding is amazing. No artifacts that I can see. No blocking, not even on fast pans. I was expecting lots of big, big pixels, but no. I guess MPEG-2 has improved a lot with time.

Thanks for all your help everyone...

Steve Crisdale · November 26th, 2004, 01:55 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Hse Kha : Steven,

Thanks but I already managed to find a solution.

I downloaded the trial version of CineForm's ConnectHD. So that is another $200. JVC threw it in for free...

Anyway I am dissapointed with the first footage I shot with the HDR-FX1. I was hoping for quality like I see on PBS-HD and the like. Well, sadly it is no where near that.

To be honest, resolution wise it seems no better than the JVC and only slightly better than the top DV camcorders. Sure it is 1440x1080, but the real resolution to me seems more like 800x500 or something...

One good thing. The MPEG-2 encoding is amazing. No artifacts that I can see. No blocking, not even on fast pans. I was expecting lots of big, big pixels, but no. I guess MPEG-2 has improved a lot with time.

Thanks for all your help everyone... -->>>

Are you watching the FX1 footage on a WS HDTV? And not one of those HD 'ready' pseudo HDTVs either.....

Computer monitors aren't really the best for viewing the FX1's interlaced 1080i stream. Generally, the progressive monitors don't show interlace very well at all, and there's also very few software video players capable of 1080 playback.

If you must use a CRT PC monitor to view your footage, get VLC, and select the blend mode for interlaced footage, and you may re-assess your original opinion.

Otherwise get a proper HDTV and connect the cam via component and see what the FX1 can really do!!!

Tony Roulston · November 29th, 2004, 02:59 AM

Hey Chris, seems like to have started putting the FX1 to use.

What do you think?

A quick question. It appears that to extract maximum output Quality is to feed the HDTV either direct from the camera tape via component, or to stream the MPG2 again via component but form the puter.

Am I correct in assuming that to produce a high Q DVD I am at the mercy of the DVD burning SW and DVD standards?

Are there methods of upping the DVD output quality or am to await for either a DVD palyer that can handle mpeg2 or an HD DVD player? O ahve I lost the plot?

I have commercial DVD's that present far greater res than my rendered raw FX1 footage?

Tony

Tony Roulston · November 29th, 2004, 03:03 AM

I guess if I had found the PAL DVD standard (below) prior to my previous post I could have avoided part of the question. ;-)

PAL

Video:
Up to 9.8 Mbps* (9800 kbps*) MPEG2 video
Up to 1.856 Mbps (1856 kbps) MPEG1 video
720 x 576 pixels MPEG2 (Called Full-D1)
704 x 576 pixels MPEG2
352 x 576 pixels MPEG2 (Called Half-D1, same as the CVD Standard)
352 x 288 pixels MPEG2
352 x 288 pixels MPEG1 (Same as the VCD Standard)
25 fps*
16:9 Anamorphic (only supported by 720x576)

Tony

Steve Crisdale · November 29th, 2004, 05:11 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tony Roulston : Hey Chris, seems like to have started putting the FX1 to use.

What do you think?

A quick question. It appears that to extract maximum output Quality is to feed the HDTV either direct from the camera tape via component, or to stream the MPG2 again via component but form the puter.

Am I correct in assuming that to produce a high Q DVD I am at the mercy of the DVD burning SW and DVD standards?

Are there methods of upping the DVD output quality or am to await for either a DVD palyer that can handle mpeg2 or an HD DVD player? O ahve I lost the plot?

I have commercial DVD's that present far greater res than my rendered raw FX1 footage?

Tony -->>>

Yo Tony!!

I went to Temora Air Museum for their flying day. Was hoping to get some clips of their Spitfire, Hudson, Catalina, Boomerang and Wirraway in action, but due to a locust plague I could only get static shots and a clip of a couple of Navy helicopters aerobatics.

Very, very.....very.......very impressed with the FX1. I had only minimal time to semi-familiarise myself with the multitude of adjustments and modes the cam has, yet it proved very forgiving of my unfamiliarity.

As I had to walk a quarter klm to get from my car to the museum, I decided against carrying my tripod, so I shot hand-held, and despite my misgivings the cam proved easier to hand hold for longish periods of time than the HD10 (which is considerably smaller in overall volume), with good balance and control placement for my fingers.

The LCD was fully viewable even in harsh glaring full Aussie sun, and when the glare got too much, the large eye cover made the VF eminently useable.

As soon as I got home I connected the cam to my LCD HDTV via component, and hit play........BLOWN AWAY is the only way to describe the feeling of seeing 1080 crisper and cleaner than even Ch 9's 1080 HD signal - but then this is 25Mbit compared to about 13Mbit!!!

Captured to PC using ConnectHD, and am now creating DVD compliant MPEG2s in Vegas for a test DVD.

You can and should adjust the MPEG2 files you use to write a DVD. Most agree that dual pass fixed bitrate is best if you can do it (depends on software), and the higher the bitrate to 9.8Mbps (PAL land) the better. I'm cutting two versions - one interlaced, the other progressive to see how well the m2t copes.

If you don't have Vegas, you could use TMPGEnc to encode to PAL DVD level with the best encoder available in a low cost piece of software. Most DVD authoring appz are just for that, so don't do the MPEG2 encode there... just compile the DVD in them from DVD compliant MPEG2s made in the major NLEs or well featured encoder.

BTW, I didn't notice any artifacting in the clear blue mid-day sky either at high or low angles, and the chopper action (rotors, high speed passes) looked as it should. That's via component on the HDTV of course.... on puter it's a different story, and VLC has proven the best at playback there - though still not up to the component to HDTV level.

Hope you're having fun with the FX1 as well!! Enjoy :)

Alex Raskin · November 29th, 2004, 09:47 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : (viewing of FX1 video)via component on the HDTV of course.... on puter it's a different story, and VLC has proven the best at playback there - though still not up to the component to HDTV level.-->>>

What other options are there? Did you try Elecard Moonlight player? In my opinion, Elecard makes infinitely better job than VLC in showing a smooth motion by Deinterlacing the image. I tried all deinterlacing option in VLC and still not satisfied with any of them. What deinterlacing mode in VLC did you use for viewing the footage on a progressive monitor, please?

Steve Crisdale · November 29th, 2004, 04:03 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : <<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : (viewing of FX1 video)via component on the HDTV of course.... on puter it's a different story, and VLC has proven the best at playback there - though still not up to the component to HDTV level.-->>>

What other options are there? Did you try Elecard Moonlight player? In my opinion, Elecard makes infinitely better job than VLC in showing a smooth motion by Deinterlacing the image. I tried all deinterlacing option in VLC and still not satisfied with any of them. What deinterlacing mode in VLC did you use for viewing the footage on a progressive monitor, please? -->>>

I tried Elecard Moonlight player about 14 months ago for playing HD captures from my DVB-t card. It piddled me off by spraying *.dll's all over the place and adding it's annoying little logo to every video clip on my system.

I use 'blend' for the interlace stuff from the FX1....seems to work better than bob & weave.

I haven't tried viewing FX1 clips through my DVB-t viewer appz yet, but they should be able to handle it.....maybe even better than VLC.

Alex Raskin · November 29th, 2004, 04:57 PM

Thanks Steve.

The positive thing about the VLC, in my experience, is that it requires less of the PC processor resources to work.

Alex Pappas · November 29th, 2004, 05:20 PM

WHooaaa Just a second...

Take your FX1 footage (with proper lighting and setup) and up-rez it to 1920 x 1080.

Then play it on a theatrical screen, like I did, while using a digital projector.

There is NO WAY that the quality of the footage will not blow you out of your seat. ITS UNREAL for $5,000. price tag.

Obviously comparing the HDV systems to HDCam and Varicam systems is a little unfair.

But for the price, the HDV camera is spectacularly good.

PERIOD!

-alex

Steve Crisdale · November 29th, 2004, 11:46 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Pappas : WHooaaa Just a second...

Take your FX1 footage (with proper lighting and setup) and up-rez it to 1920 x 1080.

Then play it on a theatrical screen, like I did, while using a digital projector.

There is NO WAY that the quality of the footage will not blow you out of your seat. ITS UNREAL for $5,000. price tag.

Obviously comparing the HDV systems to HDCam and Varicam systems is a little unfair.

But for the price, the HDV camera is spectacularly good.

PERIOD!

-alex -->>>

I get the feeling that generally it's agreed - on the right equipment, there's nothing at this time (and maybe for a long time) at this price point, that comes close to the FX1.

Those unfortunate few who seem to be reporting poor results from the cam are; without any disrespect meant, either viewing on sub-standard or inappropriate monitors. They could also have mis-comprehended the differences in the interlaced 25Mbit MPEG2 transport stream from what they are used to dealing with, and not adjusted their methods or equipment accordingly.

I know from time to time I make those sort of "Oh my God!!! How could I have not spotted that....." kind of error, but it appears the biggest mistake that could be made with the FX1 is that HDV will mystically appear awesome on equipment that's designed for SD. If you know what you're doing it can certainly look better (I've just checked my 9Mbit 25fps PAL DVD compliant MPEG2s and they're better than commercial type DVD quality on any of my computer monitors!!), but to expect the camera in itself to make the difference is expecting a little too much.... But then that happened with the HD10, so why should it be different with the FX1?

November 24th, 2004, 10:38 PM	#1
Hse Kha Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New England Posts: 195	Help with HDR-FX1 Hi, Just got this baby. Now how the hell do I upload the footage to my computer??? I can upload DV fine, but no way HDV. I realize that the footage will be either m2v or someother MPEG derivate. But I need it on my computer! It's no good otherwise... Help!!! Thanks in advance.

November 29th, 2004, 02:59 AM	#8
Tony Roulston Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 30	Optimal workflow for DVD production Hey Chris, seems like to have started putting the FX1 to use. What do you think? A quick question. It appears that to extract maximum output Quality is to feed the HDTV either direct from the camera tape via component, or to stream the MPG2 again via component but form the puter. Am I correct in assuming that to produce a high Q DVD I am at the mercy of the DVD burning SW and DVD standards? Are there methods of upping the DVD output quality or am to await for either a DVD palyer that can handle mpeg2 or an HD DVD player? O ahve I lost the plot? I have commercial DVD's that present far greater res than my rendered raw FX1 footage? Tony

November 29th, 2004, 03:03 AM	#9
Tony Roulston Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 30	DVD Standards I guess if I had found the PAL DVD standard (below) prior to my previous post I could have avoided part of the question. ;-) PAL Video: Up to 9.8 Mbps* (9800 kbps) MPEG2 video Up to 1.856 Mbps (1856 kbps) MPEG1 video 720 x 576 pixels MPEG2 (Called Full-D1) 704 x 576 pixels MPEG2 352 x 576 pixels MPEG2 (Called Half-D1, same as the CVD Standard) 352 x 288 pixels MPEG2 352 x 288 pixels MPEG1 (Same as the VCD Standard) 25 fps 16:9 Anamorphic (only supported by 720x576) Tony

November 29th, 2004, 05:11 AM	#10
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	Re: Optimal workflow for DVD production <<<-- Originally posted by Tony Roulston : Hey Chris, seems like to have started putting the FX1 to use. What do you think? A quick question. It appears that to extract maximum output Quality is to feed the HDTV either direct from the camera tape via component, or to stream the MPG2 again via component but form the puter. Am I correct in assuming that to produce a high Q DVD I am at the mercy of the DVD burning SW and DVD standards? Are there methods of upping the DVD output quality or am to await for either a DVD palyer that can handle mpeg2 or an HD DVD player? O ahve I lost the plot? I have commercial DVD's that present far greater res than my rendered raw FX1 footage? Tony -->>> Yo Tony!! I went to Temora Air Museum for their flying day. Was hoping to get some clips of their Spitfire, Hudson, Catalina, Boomerang and Wirraway in action, but due to a locust plague I could only get static shots and a clip of a couple of Navy helicopters aerobatics. Very, very.....very.......very impressed with the FX1. I had only minimal time to semi-familiarise myself with the multitude of adjustments and modes the cam has, yet it proved very forgiving of my unfamiliarity. As I had to walk a quarter klm to get from my car to the museum, I decided against carrying my tripod, so I shot hand-held, and despite my misgivings the cam proved easier to hand hold for longish periods of time than the HD10 (which is considerably smaller in overall volume), with good balance and control placement for my fingers. The LCD was fully viewable even in harsh glaring full Aussie sun, and when the glare got too much, the large eye cover made the VF eminently useable. As soon as I got home I connected the cam to my LCD HDTV via component, and hit play........BLOWN AWAY is the only way to describe the feeling of seeing 1080 crisper and cleaner than even Ch 9's 1080 HD signal - but then this is 25Mbit compared to about 13Mbit!!! Captured to PC using ConnectHD, and am now creating DVD compliant MPEG2s in Vegas for a test DVD. You can and should adjust the MPEG2 files you use to write a DVD. Most agree that dual pass fixed bitrate is best if you can do it (depends on software), and the higher the bitrate to 9.8Mbps (PAL land) the better. I'm cutting two versions - one interlaced, the other progressive to see how well the m2t copes. If you don't have Vegas, you could use TMPGEnc to encode to PAL DVD level with the best encoder available in a low cost piece of software. Most DVD authoring appz are just for that, so don't do the MPEG2 encode there... just compile the DVD in them from DVD compliant MPEG2s made in the major NLEs or well featured encoder. BTW, I didn't notice any artifacting in the clear blue mid-day sky either at high or low angles, and the chopper action (rotors, high speed passes) looked as it should. That's via component on the HDTV of course.... on puter it's a different story, and VLC has proven the best at playback there - though still not up to the component to HDTV level. Hope you're having fun with the FX1 as well!! Enjoy :)

November 29th, 2004, 09:47 AM	#11
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Re: Re: Optimal workflow for DVD production <<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : (viewing of FX1 video)via component on the HDTV of course.... on puter it's a different story, and VLC has proven the best at playback there - though still not up to the component to HDTV level.-->>> What other options are there? Did you try Elecard Moonlight player? In my opinion, Elecard makes infinitely better job than VLC in showing a smooth motion by Deinterlacing the image. I tried all deinterlacing option in VLC and still not satisfied with any of them. What deinterlacing mode in VLC did you use for viewing the footage on a progressive monitor, please?

November 24th, 2004, 10:41 PM	#2
Hse Kha Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New England Posts: 195	Last year I had the JVC HDV for a while. That came with software that allowed me to upload the MPEG-2 files to the comptuer. But there is NO software with this Sony...

November 25th, 2004, 09:17 AM	#3
Jeff Patnaude Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Duluth, Georgia Posts: 248	What computer system and editor are you using? Give us a little more info. Jeff P

November 25th, 2004, 09:26 AM	#4
Hse Kha Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New England Posts: 195	It is a Pentium 4 3.4GHz with Windows XP Professional. I can use Premiere Pro or VirtualDub. I just want to be able to import the footage into the PC. Then I can just convert the MPG file to umcompressed AVI and play around.

November 25th, 2004, 12:15 PM	#5
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	CapDVHS worked for me: http://www.yamabe.org/softbody.html#CapDVHS -Steve

November 25th, 2004, 03:32 PM	#6
Hse Kha Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New England Posts: 195	Steven, Thanks but I already managed to find a solution. I downloaded the trial version of CineForm's ConnectHD. So that is another $200. JVC threw it in for free... Anyway I am dissapointed with the first footage I shot with the HDR-FX1. I was hoping for quality like I see on PBS-HD and the like. Well, sadly it is no where near that. To be honest, resolution wise it seems no better than the JVC and only slightly better than the top DV camcorders. Sure it is 1440x1080, but the real resolution to me seems more like 800x500 or something... One good thing. The MPEG-2 encoding is amazing. No artifacts that I can see. No blocking, not even on fast pans. I was expecting lots of big, big pixels, but no. I guess MPEG-2 has improved a lot with time. Thanks for all your help everyone...

November 26th, 2004, 01:55 AM	#7
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	<<<-- Originally posted by Hse Kha : Steven, Thanks but I already managed to find a solution. I downloaded the trial version of CineForm's ConnectHD. So that is another $200. JVC threw it in for free... Anyway I am dissapointed with the first footage I shot with the HDR-FX1. I was hoping for quality like I see on PBS-HD and the like. Well, sadly it is no where near that. To be honest, resolution wise it seems no better than the JVC and only slightly better than the top DV camcorders. Sure it is 1440x1080, but the real resolution to me seems more like 800x500 or something... One good thing. The MPEG-2 encoding is amazing. No artifacts that I can see. No blocking, not even on fast pans. I was expecting lots of big, big pixels, but no. I guess MPEG-2 has improved a lot with time. Thanks for all your help everyone... -->>> Are you watching the FX1 footage on a WS HDTV? And not one of those HD 'ready' pseudo HDTVs either..... Computer monitors aren't really the best for viewing the FX1's interlaced 1080i stream. Generally, the progressive monitors don't show interlace very well at all, and there's also very few software video players capable of 1080 playback. If you must use a CRT PC monitor to view your footage, get VLC, and select the blend mode for interlaced footage, and you may re-assess your original opinion. Otherwise get a proper HDTV and connect the cam via component and see what the FX1 can really do!!!

November 29th, 2004, 04:03 PM	#12
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	Re: Re: Re: Optimal workflow for DVD production <<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : <<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : (viewing of FX1 video)via component on the HDTV of course.... on puter it's a different story, and VLC has proven the best at playback there - though still not up to the component to HDTV level.-->>> What other options are there? Did you try Elecard Moonlight player? In my opinion, Elecard makes infinitely better job than VLC in showing a smooth motion by Deinterlacing the image. I tried all deinterlacing option in VLC and still not satisfied with any of them. What deinterlacing mode in VLC did you use for viewing the footage on a progressive monitor, please? -->>> I tried Elecard Moonlight player about 14 months ago for playing HD captures from my DVB-t card. It piddled me off by spraying *.dll's all over the place and adding it's annoying little logo to every video clip on my system. I use 'blend' for the interlace stuff from the FX1....seems to work better than bob & weave. I haven't tried viewing FX1 clips through my DVB-t viewer appz yet, but they should be able to handle it.....maybe even better than VLC.

November 29th, 2004, 04:57 PM	#13
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Thanks Steve. The positive thing about the VLC, in my experience, is that it requires less of the PC processor resources to work.

November 29th, 2004, 05:20 PM	#14
Alex Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Orleans, Ontario, Canada Posts: 36	WHooaaa Just a second... Take your FX1 footage (with proper lighting and setup) and up-rez it to 1920 x 1080. Then play it on a theatrical screen, like I did, while using a digital projector. There is NO WAY that the quality of the footage will not blow you out of your seat. ITS UNREAL for $5,000. price tag. Obviously comparing the HDV systems to HDCam and Varicam systems is a little unfair. But for the price, the HDV camera is spectacularly good. PERIOD! -alex __________________ --------------------------- Alexander Papaps Senior Producer JumpPoint Entertainment www.jumppoint.org

November 29th, 2004, 11:46 PM	#15
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Pappas : WHooaaa Just a second... Take your FX1 footage (with proper lighting and setup) and up-rez it to 1920 x 1080. Then play it on a theatrical screen, like I did, while using a digital projector. There is NO WAY that the quality of the footage will not blow you out of your seat. ITS UNREAL for $5,000. price tag. Obviously comparing the HDV systems to HDCam and Varicam systems is a little unfair. But for the price, the HDV camera is spectacularly good. PERIOD! -alex -->>> I get the feeling that generally it's agreed - on the right equipment, there's nothing at this time (and maybe for a long time) at this price point, that comes close to the FX1. Those unfortunate few who seem to be reporting poor results from the cam are; without any disrespect meant, either viewing on sub-standard or inappropriate monitors. They could also have mis-comprehended the differences in the interlaced 25Mbit MPEG2 transport stream from what they are used to dealing with, and not adjusted their methods or equipment accordingly. I know from time to time I make those sort of "Oh my God!!! How could I have not spotted that....." kind of error, but it appears the biggest mistake that could be made with the FX1 is that HDV will mystically appear awesome on equipment that's designed for SD. If you know what you're doing it can certainly look better (I've just checked my 9Mbit 25fps PAL DVD compliant MPEG2s and they're better than commercial type DVD quality on any of my computer monitors!!), but to expect the camera in itself to make the difference is expecting a little too much.... But then that happened with the HD10, so why should it be different with the FX1?