Call me silly but... (long post - FX7!!)

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Chris Leong

For me, simpler means less options and more attention on what it is that I'm shooting.

I don't even care if it's 24p or 60i, If I catch the moment, it's caught. If not, not.

Sure, it's what you're used to. I can outshoot my Nikon F3 any time, with my Leica M2. That's cause I've had my F3 only 15 years but my M2 over twenty five.

So when I get to using my FX7 a number of years, it'll be faster out of the bag as well.

Again, I say, this is just my cup of tea. You may prefer coffeee.

Obviously, to each his own, but the V1 is equally as fast, and can store those faster settings as well. It is just as auto, or equally manual. If you don't care about the settings on an FX7, then the exact same settings do or don't apply to a V1, especially if you don't care about picture profiles, 24p, etc.

While your post contains some very salient and well thought-out points, this particular statement makes no sense at all. The only point I can see worthy of debate is one that you didn't mention; the FX7 has a built in mic whereas the V1U requires an external mic (included in the box) connected. But the auto/manual settings on the two cameras are exactly identical. the V1 simply offers more options, none of which are mandatory to access if you prefer not to use them.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chris Leong

... and so maybe I'll just end up by using my ECM 757 mid/side electret on the camera, which is another sleeper item of a mic, with an 1/8" stereo plug.

Wonderful post -- both about the FX7 and the Canon Scoopic. My thoughts: as I was writing the Chapter on exposure for the V1/FX7, I thought this is all nuts. In 1965 my Bolex H8 had 2 adjustments -- just like my Mamyia still camera: iris and shutter-speed. In 1974 my Bolex Rex 5 still had the same two adjustments. In 1982 my first JVC video camera had the same 2 adjustments, plus a WB selector.

In 2007 I'm explaining Auto/Hold, the menu-based Exposure dial (that has no feel), what each mode locks-out, and that there is yet another button to press. And, by the way, BackLight may not work depending on what you set in the menus.

All these functions on a camcorder designed, ironically, by Sony's CONSUMER group. Something seems backward. Both consumers and event video folks need, before all else, to get "acceptable" images without fatal blunders. This is not best accomplished with an AUTO mode. But, it is also not best accomplished by the dozens of menus and tiny buttons we have on camcorders today.

A computer can be used to give you dozens of menu choices that you have to learn about, or it can simplify often used processes. Examples:

1) Why do we have Stretch and Gamma adjustments. For some it is to create a "look." But looks can/should be done in post. In the field we need a more practical adjustments based upon current lighting conditions: NORMAL CONTRAST; HIGH CONTRAST (set Black Stretch & Low-knee); LOW CONTRAST (set Black Compress & High-knee).

2) The Sony A1 has an exposure control. As you dial a brighter pix it's smart enough -- with a locked shutter-speed -- to add gain when necessary. (You make the choice when noise is too much.) As you dial down exposure it's smart enough to prevent diffraction by introducing ND filters to keep the iris from going too small too soon.

If this system were controlled by a lens-ring and a shutter-speed up/down toggle -- we would be back to only 2 adjustments and NO menus. If you understand shutter-speed setting and watch for too much gain noise -- you only need monitor by histogram and your eye to get the exposure you want.

3) Add a Canon style PE dial: MANUAL; AUTO; MIN DOF; MAX DOF. In MANUAL -- the lens-ring only controls the iris so you can make smooth exposure changes; MIN DOF -- the computer can bias to keep iris ALMOST fully open as long as possible (start by incrementing your selected shutter-speed by 100%); MAX DOF -- bias to keep iris at f/8 as long as possible (start by decrementing shutter-speed by 50%).

4) Add a single FOCUS button to zoom to full tele, AF, and zoom back to where it was. No menu control needed. Only an MANUAL/ONE-TOUCH/AUTO switch. Depress this switch in AUTO mode to focus.

5) If you need a film look -- why not simply have a set of descriptions: 8mm, 16mm, PALE, NORMAL, VIVID, TO-FILM. These preset Sharpness, Saturation, Gamma, RGB balance. If you really need your own look -- do it in post after selecting one of these. (Here a menu can be used.)

PS: For the short connection from your MIC, you don't really need an unblanced connector -- but you should replace the plastic plug with a metal plug.

[Dale Guthormsen]

Chris,

Thank you for responding to my question.

I went to video because it was so affordable. I do miss the slo mo!!! That is why I am so interested in what the sonys can do in this regard.

Please feel free to email me any clips you might have to share in this regard, it would be greatly appreciated.

I am used to having almost full control with my xl2, but am willing to give some of that up if the slo mo was of value!!!

Of course there is the use of twixtor, buty I would rather natively produce the slo motion.

My bolex doesn't run like it did back in the 60's, even if it did how would I transpose it to digital?? At least in a manner a normal person could afford to do it?

Thank you again.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

May I add my $0.03 to this excellent thread. Chris has presented us with a very sound and realistic philosophy that can be adopted when picking the "right" camera. And it's not important which camera he's picked and why; what makes his post outstanding is this philosophy itself. Thus, I take it Chris is not advocating for the FX7 as a "better" camera than the V1, or A1 - he simply is proving that the best camera is the one that we have and actually use to create video.

I also completely agree with what Steve is saying about the controls becoming more and more sophisticated, not always necessarily. Again, a 100% eligible opinion.

But just like Chris' and Steve's standpoints are absolutely right, they are not the only right ones. What they both seem to be forgetting is the fact that camcorders are not just devices for video creation. Well, they may be for professional ENG operators etc, but not for amateur enthusiasts. For many of us, they are much more than that - beautiful toys with lots of buttons and switches, that allow us to feel at control. I'm myself a control-freak, so I know what I'm talking about. This is why the Canon A1 has been such a huge success - lot's of buttons and switches outside, even more in the menu! I personally am positive that picture tweaking should be done in post, but must admit I was seduced by the multitude of tweaking controls of the XH-series custom presets!

[Chris Leong]

Absolutely, gents!

This is just my own particular bias, as it were. What works for me, right now.
I'm into telling stories with pictures. The FX7, for me, is a means to an end.

Now, I love cameras as much as the next guy. It's just that I already did the camera-as-object-of-desire thing awhile ago.

So I suppose, over the years, that I simply went from a must-buy-a-Lexus guy to a just-get-the-car-to-get-from-A-to-B guy. At least, for this particular purchase, at this particular time.

I have the great fortune to be living in a time and a country where freedom of choice is available to me at prices I can (almost!) afford.

Some people love cars with all the trimmings. Others don't. Some people only get into their cars to go to work and back. Others (I can think of several Manhattan people immediately) only for pleasure.

And most of us who are here on this board have had more than one camera in their lifetimes.

Douglas, thank you for your excellent eye and input. Just goes to show you that what makes perfect sense for one person doesn't always make sense at all to another. And the difference is what stimulates us to broaden, expand, progress.

Piotr, I agree with you too. In your manner of speaking.

Now, I'll put this on the table. I'm going into the third day of a small dramatic shoot, in 16mm.

I'm going to talk about exposure, and film latitude, and light meters.

I have (you must have guessed by now) two very old light meters that I've used since dinosaurs ruled the earth. One is the first one degree Minolta spot meter, made of metal, mechanical action, with a lens that focuses and a 52mm front end so you can put your Nikon standard filter set and a lens hood on it. The other is a Spectra Combi that is still alive and very much kicking. I take it back to the factory every other year and they check it out for accuracy. I think they undercharge me these days for the service because if the readings off my meter disagree with theirs, they double check their meter, not mine... LOL!!!

Anyway, back when I was using those meters every day, film emulsions were just starting to get really good. Exposure latitude of color negative stock was coming into its own - five, maybe six stops of latitude. Wide, wide, knees both ends.

So I'm talking to my bright young cinematographer teammate and we're checking out each other's light meters (talk about gadget geeks, Piotr...) and I'm looking at his marvelous (plastic) Sekonic with the spot meter built in (sideways) and the 0.1 f stop exposure accuracy and I discover that he calls out "f 2 point eight" meaning 0.8 stops smaller than F2, which, if you're into exposure at all, and really persnickety about this, is in between f2.5 and f2.8, and not f2.8 at all.

So now we have an exposure meter, the most basic tool of cinematography, introducing confusion into a most critical part of photography where none existed before.

Next point.
I had some old (two year old) film stock that had been lying out (of the freezer) and before this shoot I ran a clip test through the camera to check that it was still working fine. I didn't know what had happened to the emulsion and the speed of this old stock, so I took no chances, and just shot a test chart with all of the iris stops I could, from T2 down to T16.

So guess what? The lab calls back and says the neg is good. I ask what part and they say "all of it".

Which means that my negative exposure latitude was around 10 stops.

Which means that I could have missed the blessed light reading by at least four stops and still have something on the negative I could have used. Which means that my dinosaur light meter, that only reads analog third stops, was roughly twelve times too good for the job. (I'll not go into the fine setting of the iris ring on the lens, nor T stops). And the latest Minolta? Overkill by three times as much as mine, roughly, since that meter reads in tenths of a stop.

However, like any good techno geek, I was thinking to myself, "self, sense be damned, isn't it time you got with the program and got yourself one of those new light meters?"

But it looks like, in this case, that technology and the state of the art has surpassed my own particular need for it. I'll pass on the latest and greatest in the exposure meter arena, thanks.

So no, I'm not saying that a Lexus is worse than a Toyota. And no, I'm not saying that my test chart, with its 8 stop exposure bracket, was all the best exposed negative it could have been and so I'm not saying that nobody needs a light meter at all.

What I am saying, though, is that there's a difference between the leading edge and the bleeding edge, where being the latest incurs a cost in addition to the very necessary one to improve one's standards, both technical and aesthetic. There can be such a thing as too much information, too many choices, too much (for me) diversion from my main task at hand, which is the capturing of great images to move the souls of other people.

For me, form still follows function, at least in the area of the FX7 vs the V1u. And because I have so much already invested in the post production aspect, getting to the tape is only a part of my particular journey.

So no, I (reluctantly) passed my new friend's (plastic) exposure meter back and told him I wouldn't be getting one anytime soon, no matter how many of the top pros use one nowadays (and apparently all of them do).

But guess who's the young guy who is all excited over a Scoopic MS on eBay?

My very long winded point?

Of course the people at Sekonic, Sony, Lexus etc are outdoing themselves and each other to give us the best of the best.
I totally applaud that. I'd rather have three light meters, even plastic ones, than none at all.

The V1u is the Lexus to the FX7's Toyota. Same plant, same chassis. Different amenities. Some say it's a totally different car.
It is, it is.
I say it's still got four wheels and it still drives on roads.

The old alone is outclassed by the new.
The new alone is incomplete without the old.
Pick and choose between the old and the new... now you have yourself some very heavy firepower.

Look at this thread, and the wonderful people who have weighed in and shared, just in a few days.

Very heavy firepower, gents.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Chris, your post and position indicates there are differences between the V1 and the FX7 straight out of the box. I submit there are not.
Take both out of the box, side by side, and turn them on.
Put iris, gain, white balance, shutter all in manual mode.
They behave identically.
Put them both in Easy mode/full auto (green selection switch) and they both behave identically.

If you prefer the FX7 over the V1, that's great, but I feel it is a mischaracterization to suggest that they behave differently at the initial level.
The V1 merely has deeper menus, if you'll allow such a shallow comparison. If those menus/functions are not necessary, or preferred for your particular workflow, that's fine. I use a landscaping rake to clean my barn while others use a thatching rake. Options/choices are what make the difference.
But at the end of the day, at the basic pull-it-out-of-the-bag-and-shoot level, the V1 and FX7 are identical outside of the audio options mentioned.

[Chris Leong]

Douglas

I said that to me the two cameras are very different. To you they are not.

You're absolutely right. You get in a Lexus and a Toyota and drive them more or less the same way.

If I happen to say that a Toyota is a better car for me, can you then say "yes, but a Lexus is a better car?" Of course you can. It is a better car.

But I'm talking about a better car for me .

Big difference.

The V1 is a better camera, no doubt about it.

Like the A1 is a better camera, no doubt about that too.

But for me, the FX7 is better.

Or, of you'd like, I'll rephrase that to say that I feel it suits my tastes better, or that although the V1 is clearly a superior camera,
a guy like me prefers something not a little simpler (I don't use auto anything), but a little less technologically advanced for my present needs.

Better?

This is my subjective opinion, I am not representing anything I say as being factual or in any way representing an absolute for anybody else but myself.

That's for greater minds, such as yours, to do for us.

In fact, it was your own reviews that suggested the FX7 to me in the first place.
Almost the same machine to work with, almost (at that time) a grand cheaper.

Maybe it was the grand price difference that made me think the FX7 felt lighter.

I certainly can bring to the table my own experience with a Leica MP with a Summilux 35 and an MP Leicavit which together would cost quite a bit more than a V1 or an FX7. Or an HVX, come to think of it.

Having used that incredible gear, and having being scared silly that I'd be losing my investment should the stuff get scratched, I later picked up a user Leica M2, a Summicron 35 (Wetzlar, of course, I have my limits), and a third party rapid winder, and proceeded tho shoot the heck out of that camera., and get some great shots.

And I still have that one. The more expensive one sat in a vault and then was sold, at quite a handsome profit, to the highest collector bidder. And it's probably still as pristine and excellent. as the day it was made.

The shots that came from those cameras were technically almost the same.
If you didn't know from Leicas, Douglas, you couldn't have told them apart
However.
The shots that came from the cheaper camera were so much better than the ones that came from the expensive one it isn't funny.
Not because the cheaper camera was in any way superior in technical standard than the more expensive one.
That is definitely and definitively not what I am saying or representing here.

It's because the cheaper camera made me feel easier picking it up. It felt better in my hand. It too great shots.
And it was there at the time when the expensive one wasn't.

And I took it out more, thinking not "oh wow, what a cool camera I have here, I've drooled over this camera and aren't I the coolest kid in the block", but more" now what can I shoot? What's around that corner?"

Ultimately, for me,, the cheaper, lighter, less technologically advanced camera was the one that was out first and done shooting ,..

I don't care how great you are technologically, Douglas. If you have equal aptitude and speed going in to a camera with three parameters to set, and one with eighteen, the one with three will get set faster.
Period.

A Leica M2 fully manual camera in the hands of a sharp operator shoots faster than a Leica M8 with digital light metering. and a longer base rangefinder. in the hands of the same sharp operator, because the simpler camera requires less to consider, less knobs to adjust, less to fiddle with and get set just so.
And I'm not talking about "let's just pull it out and set it on auto". I say again, I'm not into auto anything on cameras. Never have been.

Most people can't tell the footage from a V1 and and FX7 apart, at least not when people like me are done with their footage in post.

If you can't tell one piano apart from another, or one violin apart from another, that's okay. They'd probably weigh the same to the nearest gram, or not.

If you do know from Leicas, of course you can tell the lenses apart. That's people like you and me, Douglas.
I used to choose my lenses from large batches and picked the exact one I wanted.
Maybe its MTF is identical, its factory specs certainly are the same.
But to me, that particular lens was different.
It was better.

Like a guitarist or a musician, my camera is my axe.
It's an emotional, non-rational relationship with an inanimate object that either inspires me to greater heights - or doesn't.

It's the one that makes me feel great when I pick it up, it's my security blanket when it's time for run-and-gun, it's the one that makes me a better shooter for having picked it up.

Look at Jaco's bass guitars. Don McCullen's Nikons. Ansel Adams's old 8x10. They're not pristine at all.

Or look at all the great film makers with their HVXs.
Pristine, unscratched, the lot of them, and out there every day shooting incredible stuff.
For them, the HVX was their "best camera". The one that made them feel like shooting more better.
For me, the lowly FX7. Sorry, but that's it.

Nonsense? Maybe. That's why I entitled this "call me silly, but" in the first place.

I know it's anathema to some people, but really, come the bottom line, for me, it's always been the boys, not the toys,

[Stephen Armour]

Originally Posted by Chris Leong

...I know it's anathema to some people, but really, come the bottom line, for me, it's always been the boys, not the toys,

Great thots from some of the hoary heads here. Chris, you are soooo right about that last statement! Give 'em my first 8mm and they'd do a good job...

Let's get back to work, I've got grandkids to cover too, and I don't use the V1 for that...I use a 7 MP digital camera for still pics, 'cause it fits in a little case and is always fast and ready to go...and I sold all my fancy Nikon stuff 'cause it sat in the cases unused...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Chris Leong

Like a guitarist or a musician, my camera is my axe.
It's an emotional, non-rational relationship with an inanimate object that either inspires me to greater heights - or doesn't.

It's the one that makes me feel great when I pick it up, it's my security blanket when it's time for run-and-gun, it's the one that makes me a better shooter for having picked it up.

Look at Jaco's bass guitars. Don McCullen's Nikons. Ansel Adams's old 8x10. They're not pristine at all.

How did "pristine" enter the discussion? I'll leave you with this last thought...the above comparison is absurd from where I sit.
The electronics and lenses from the two camcorders come from the exact same line, manufactured by robots. To compare Pastorius' handmade, wooden basses to precision electronics made by robotics is silly. FWIW, I'm a professional musician have been so all my life. I certainly hear the differences between one piano and another, one guitar and another, and one flute and another. Like Pastorius' basses, they're all organic. A combination of woods, age, metals conspire to create a personality. Pristine doesn't enter into the argument. Like a fine wine, age is a good thing, and responsible for all of the references you make. Jaco's basses only got older with age, just like Michael Manring's guitars did, just as my flutes do. But these things are not plastic/metal/glass, and certainly not made by robots.
Conversely, I don't hear the difference between two out-of-the-box identical model microphones that come from the same assembly lines. As they age, some types of mics take on a personality, but again, we're talking about aging, not a 6 month old camcorder.

A V1 and an FX7 start life untouched by organics, never touched by human hands until they are sent to different factory locations. Their parts are interchangeable. There is no organic component to them.
All that said, if you feel a spiritual and artistic connection to your particular FX7, there is no reasonable response that can be made, as this would be a deeply personal connection to your camcorder.
Either way, it's great to hear that your inexpensive camcorder inspires you, because at the end of the day, that's what it's all about.

[Chris Leong]

Exactly, Douglas.
Inspiration is what this is all about, for me.
Intellectually you're right, I know you're right. All FX7's are totally identical.

But if I really believe that emotionally, then, well, mine isn't that special.

And actually what makes it special is what I put into it myself.

Emotional belief is everything in what we do.
Personal connection.

Right?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chris Leong

In the hands of the same sharp operator, because the simpler camera requires less to consider, less knobs to adjust, less to fiddle with and get set just so.

In my long winded previous post, that's what I was trying to say. Once one loaded a roll of film -- and on a Bolex adjusted the shutter-angle (which typically was not altered except for an FX) there were only TWO things to think about: iris and focus. With 8mm/Super 8, and slow 16mm film -- one didn't even need a lightmeter: sunny day set to f/8. Which left only focus.

The instructions for exposure were on a tiny sheet of paper packed in the film box. No "instructional" DVD were needed. Both cameras and NLEs have become like MS WORD -- "bloatware." It would be nice if a company had the guts to saw "Few features, but NO bugs."

There is a thread in common here: Word, NLEs, and camcorders are more and more oriented to "cosmetics." If I read one more story about a DP creating HIS "look" -- I'll puke. We have LiveType, Motion, Color -- we have cameras with dozens of "adjustments" and Word with "animated" fonts. Despite the fact everyone is trying to create a different look, everything looks the same -- like a ransom note.

The time spent in the field, squinting to see menus on an LCD, would be better spent moving around and COMPOSING each shot.

The reality is that the FX7 could be simplified a great deal morel. Ideally to the point where nothing neccessary for shooting would use a menu.

[Chris Leong]

Steve - I read both your posts with great satisfaction and much relish. How much time did we spend, back in the day, with that blessed Bolex shutter angle? And the gadget that did the fades? LOL!!!

BTW I had to tell my young film associate exactly how I realized his flashy exposure meter wasn't functioning correctly today.

It was outside in an overcast day and his meter read F2.8 with 125ASA/EI film at 1/50 sec (24fps) and I told him this didn't seem right at all, using the rule of 11's that I once read printed on the side of a film box.

(You know the one, right through the middle - a middle day, not bright, not dark, in the middle of the day, not sunny, not cloudy, ASA100, 1/100 shutter speed, should give you f/11. (i.e all 1's or 11's)).

Not very surprisingly, he'd never heard of it before. But he knows it now!

And of course, that isn't the entire answer either. The real answer was that I walked outside, noticed how bright it was under the overcast, then saw his lens set at 2.8 and went "that's not right."

The rule of 11 came in right after that thought, as an answer to the next question, which was "why is that not right?"


Now, if only I can get to the bottom of what makes those pesky FX7 Picture Profiles tick... :)

[Piotr Wozniacki]

I would like so much to continue my participation in this mind-refreshing discussion, unfortunately my limited English makes it rather difficult. Let me only point out that - while it's quite right what Spot is saying about the difference between musical instruments and those robot-made, identical units of a given camera model - I disagree with his conclusion that we cannot be emotional about cameras, like we're about musical instruments!

If something is a tool in a creative process, I'm always treating it emotionally. And even if what I am doing with my camera (or my sports car, for instance) cannot be called "creative", I will always treat my camera, or my car differently than all the other, identical units. Once they become ours, those lifeless items almost get their own souls.

I'm not a professional musician like Spot (which is a pity, even though I enjoy my IT/mechanical engineering profession), but I've always been extremely sensitive to art, beauty and passion. And I dare say what is most appealing to me in life is when art marries technology, and they bring a fruit in the form of a sports car, extremely well performing injection mould (!!!), a super-fast computer, an ingenious piece of software... Or a camera!

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

- I disagree with his conclusion that we cannot be emotional about cameras, like we're about musical instruments!!

I didn't say one cannot be emotional about a camera. These forums obviously demonstrate that many of us are, regardless of how irrational it may be. ;-)

What I've said, and will continue to say, is that the V1 and the FX7 are identical at the top levels, and shooting them out of the box, side by side, will yield an identical frame. That point seems to be getting lost somewhere in the translation.

The V1 has more menu options, but if one doesn't drill down to them, then the V1 remains the same camcorder as the FX7. Couple that with Chris' expressed lack of understanding of Picture Profiles brings yet another level of confusion to the conversation; the V1 and FX7 offer the same features in the Picture Profiles, excepting that the V1 offers more options in the Picture Profiles. If you're using PP, IMO you DEFINITELY want the V1. Black Stretch AND Compress is a significantly large diff, just as one example.

[Chris Leong]

Douglas!


I'm a pro cinematographer, for goodness' sake! And an editor and a sound mixer to boot. Please, imdb.com or realitystaff.com my name, Chris Ross Leong, to see who I am before dismissing me as an ignoramus for expressing my views.

Please! I just got my camera three days ago and I was on a shoot all that time! I just cracked the camera manual open and started on the picture profile menus. Do you think I'll remain ignorant of their functions forever? I owned three DVXs, remember? And I was an Andromeda beta tester.

Doubtless I will, as you say find out all about black stretch and compress. Probably within a few days, as soon as this shoot ends.

I'm not a technophobe. Not at all.
It's just that I have a life other than my cameras. I use them to get to my life, which is making images.
Therefore, there only being 24 hours in a day, and a family as well, I need something with slightly lesser levels of technological depths to plumb to.
As you have said, both the V1 and the FX7 yield identical frames at the higher levels.
That's good enough for me.
I don't want to float on the surface of a camera whose depths I haven't plumbed fully - that gives me a nervous feeling in the back of my head that I've maybe missed something, some adjustment that I maybe needed to have covered but didn't due to lack of technological knowledge.

That's not me, Douglas.

I want to know the tool I'm using as well as anybody can.
So, given that I have a limited investment time in the camera, I choose to go with an FX7 precisely because I do have to go through every aspect of it before I feel fully confident that I know everything there is to know about it.

And I'm speaking from a position of knowledge and experience, Douglas. I know exactly what I'm talking about here.

As a professional musician, perhaps you know about the Kurzweil VAST music systhesis system? Well, guess who owns a K250, 1000, and a 2500 in his post studio? Care to tell us all how many parameters there are to adjust in the 2500 to model a sound?

Care to tell us how long you can spend sitting at a computer fiddling with those parameters to learn them all, let alone making a decent, beautiful, natural sounding sound?

And that's before we actually sit and get around to playing some music?

That's my point here. I picked this camera because it was more shallow, not less deep. Quicker to get to the bottom of and stand firm on, not float around with that uneasy feeling of something left unknown, something that could have been tweaked just a little better, or, in my line of business, something that could come back and bite me in the backside.

Do you get my point, Douglas?