Buying the FX1 then what

Scott Anderson · September 27th, 2004, 01:55 PM

Mark, you keep right on going! Your post was the best laugh on this board since the FX-1 introduction. I'm tired of all the naysayers that bash this camera before anyone has really seen it. Those that have seen it are, frankly blown away. Anyone who shoots video of any sort should be absolutely giddy with the prospect of shooting HD at this price, and with this set of features. What I like most about Sony's timing is that by April (read: NAB), the pro version should be shipping with XLR's, 2-channel audio control, and who knows what other goodies. All the major editing platforms will also be ready to run with HDV. So, buy the camera in October, then what? Then start shooting for the future, that's what! Why would anyone plan on shooting standard definition ever again? I can understand being guardedly optimistic after the JVC HD-1, but c'mon. This looks to be the most revolutionary camera since the VX-1000. And yes, I'm a Sony plant.

Heath McKnight · September 27th, 2004, 02:01 PM

Okay, everyone, let's just calm down a bit here. We're all psyched about this camera, but until it comes out, we should hold off on our final judgment. And please refrain from instigating any fights, etc.

I would also like to refer you all to our handy FAQ. Please review it before you make any more posts.

What seperates us from other boards is our mature, spirited conversation, debates, etc. We don't advocate attacks of any kind, and that's what makes us a unique board with over 12,000 members.

Thanks,

Heath McKnight

Greg Harris · September 27th, 2004, 02:15 PM

Im not bashing it, Im backing it up for than anyone in the skateboard world. I make skateboard movies, and I sell my movies on DVD. So unless the blue ray dvd burners come out with a cheap price its pointless for me to buy this GREAT camera. What is the WN9DVD player. is it just software, or hardware?

Greg Harris · September 27th, 2004, 02:21 PM

and how much is it.

Heath McKnight · September 27th, 2004, 02:22 PM

Greg,

You asked a legitimate question, and we answered it as best we can. Unfortunately, things went a little off-track, as well. But, this board is still, in my opinion, one of the best boards out there for DV, HDV, etc. postings!

Also, there is nothing wrong with shooting HDV and down-converting to SD and DV. People shoot on film and the widest audience watches it in SD/DV.

Hope this helps,

heath

Heath McKnight · September 27th, 2004, 02:25 PM

And to answer your question:

Visit the WM9 site! It's pretty cool and can help explain some stuff. It's software and for PCs; there is a Mac version that costs money. Find out about the Mac version in our HDV Editing page.

heath

Jeff Patnaude · September 27th, 2004, 02:36 PM

One thought I haven't heard yet,
we cant watch 24P on Televisions in the us. You have to convert the image.

Why is everyone complaining about converting the image from the Sony FX1?

If it makes a superior picture, then its worthwhile. The ability to do filmouts is more palpable.

That is still the question though- will the image look good after down-converting? If it does look like BetaSP, then at $3700, I'll dump that 30lb. back-breaker and go with the Sony.

Ahhh, old age...

Jeff P

Christopher C. Murphy · September 27th, 2004, 02:42 PM

There seems to be a lot of back and forth about this FX1. It's deja vu - anyone else remember the YEAR of our lives standing up for the HD10U? I sure do. I'm guilty of slamming the HD10U to bits ever since this new FX1 was announced. I am beginning to think it's the wrong approach to moving to the next phase of HDV.

It's funny, but some of you forget that a few of us have already been down the micro analytical road before. If we're going to slam cameras, and the people who buy them it's not going to be a fun place to learn. I remember getting slammed in person at a film festival last year because of owning the HD10U. I'm totally serious - there were a bunch of guys that questioned my professionalism because I owned the camera! It's getting old dealing with people bashing my choices in equipment...instead of helping me get the most out of what I can afford! Anyone else agree?

Please remember that some of us have earned the right to buy this camera! That's right - we've used what will become the worst/best prosumer HDV camera to hit the market for two years. (Hey, I guess that's a good thing to be known for...it's like the worst/best dressed in one?!) Yet, we've achieved some great things by working together with it. I could not have gotten where I did without HDV regulars here at DVinfo.

The FX1 will (just my opinion) most likely be the successor to the HD10U. The specs alone justify that comment - 3 chips, fully manual and overall better design. However, it's true we'll all have to work together and try and squeeze the best images out of the camera....just like the HD10U.

It's just my humble opinion, but this time around we ought to take a look at where we are in the HDV timeline. We're only in round two! Therefore, we have a right to question the FX1 and yet not to destroy people's excitement in upgrading our current HDV equipment!

In the spirit of innovation, teamwork and the love of what we do....we should probably try and refrain from negative talk! I'll try my best!

Murph

Heath McKnight · September 27th, 2004, 04:12 PM

Good points, Murph, but let's move forward from that and onto more.

Like I said, downconverting ain't a big deal, and you're still getting a GREAT image. For instance, watching my film shot on an XL-1 on DVD and, say, Jaws shot on 35mm and on DVD, though the same essential downconvert, you can tell which one was shot on 35mm.

Get what I mean?

heath

Christopher C. Murphy · September 27th, 2004, 04:38 PM

Something interesting I'd like to chime in about after Heath's comment about 35mm downcoverted for DVD, and noticing the difference.

Has anyone noticed the unbelieveable improvement in DVD quality lately? I'm in the habit of renting older films (pre-1980) with a ratio of about 70:30 to new films. I've noticed that newer films like "The Girl Next Door" which I watched last night look just like HD signals on off my standard DVD player. (I do have an HDTV, but up until about 1 year ago all newer DVD's were on the darker and grainer side just like older titles that were put out a few years ago. Nothing has been touched on my DVD player or HDTV either.) So, anyway...I am noticing that the video quality is superb to what it was a few years ago.

The reason I am mentioning this observation in relation to Heath's comment is....we're heading for unbelieveable compression in the near future. If my HDTV signals (which look awesome) and my standard DVD player playing new movies are looking really similar than I bet 1080i downcoverted with really good compression (WM or H.264) and with a higher bit rate will look totally AWESOME!

Also of note....I have experimented with HD10U footage using MPEG-2 compression for DVD and have gotten amazing results. People I have shown literally said it "looks better than anything on their TV's".

So, I guess I'm saying that with these few "upgrades" in technology (codecs, cameras and HD-DVD burners) - we are looking at some seriously cool times ahead! I believe the FX1 is only part of the puzzle....

Murph

Heath McKnight · September 27th, 2004, 04:52 PM

Most 35mm and 16mm movies have been telecined in HD, then put to an SD DVD. There's a DVD player that shows the even BETTER quality of those telecined-to-HD-to-SD DVDs.

heath

Steve Crisdale · September 27th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Just my 2 cents worth....

For those wondering about HDV 1440x1080 - 1920x720 to DVD 720x576 - 720x480. The numbers alone should tell the story. Professionals dealing with JPEGs (the 'cousin' of MPEG), are cognisant of the fact that the larger - in resolution, or physical dimension, an image is - the better the down-scaled or down-rezed result will be. It's just the nature of the compression regime used, that more data provided within each sample block, yields greater variation to the finished sample.
This is why you should avoid as much as possible re-downsampling any JPEG style compression regime image, as you can be reducing the sampled data at an excessive rate.
If HDV video is converted to DVD resolution from an uncompressed source (meaning the file type between capture from the camera and the final DVD VOBs), you should obtain a result indistinguishable from a 'Hollywood' style DVD.

As a HD10u owner, I must agree with Christopher regarding the feeling of Deja vu...... Indeed, there are times that some questions being ask regarding the FX1 could be easily avoided with a quick search of replies posted by those of us who've already been down this path.

I suppose it has to do with how eager one is to embrace, or committed to explore a new technology that makes the difference between those who get results, and those who like the hard yards done before tentatively dipping the toe into the unknown.

Greg Harris · September 28th, 2004, 09:50 AM

what does downconverting it do? is it still HD. why would you downconvert it anyway?

Heath McKnight · September 28th, 2004, 10:04 AM

On the HD10, you can downcovert to 480p and 480i. Or upconvert to 1080i.

heath

Greg Harris · September 28th, 2004, 01:50 PM

is that still in HD

September 27th, 2004, 02:01 PM	#17
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Okay, everyone, let's just calm down a bit here. We're all psyched about this camera, but until it comes out, we should hold off on our final judgment. And please refrain from instigating any fights, etc. I would also like to refer you all to our handy FAQ. Please review it before you make any more posts. What seperates us from other boards is our mature, spirited conversation, debates, etc. We don't advocate attacks of any kind, and that's what makes us a unique board with over 12,000 members. Thanks, Heath McKnight __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 27th, 2004, 02:22 PM	#20
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Greg, You asked a legitimate question, and we answered it as best we can. Unfortunately, things went a little off-track, as well. But, this board is still, in my opinion, one of the best boards out there for DV, HDV, etc. postings! Also, there is nothing wrong with shooting HDV and down-converting to SD and DV. People shoot on film and the widest audience watches it in SD/DV. Hope this helps, heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 27th, 2004, 02:25 PM	#21
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	And to answer your question: Visit the WM9 site! It's pretty cool and can help explain some stuff. It's software and for PCs; there is a Mac version that costs money. Find out about the Mac version in our HDV Editing page. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 27th, 2004, 02:42 PM	#23
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Trying to refrain from negative talk about HDV products...me included! There seems to be a lot of back and forth about this FX1. It's deja vu - anyone else remember the YEAR of our lives standing up for the HD10U? I sure do. I'm guilty of slamming the HD10U to bits ever since this new FX1 was announced. I am beginning to think it's the wrong approach to moving to the next phase of HDV. It's funny, but some of you forget that a few of us have already been down the micro analytical road before. If we're going to slam cameras, and the people who buy them it's not going to be a fun place to learn. I remember getting slammed in person at a film festival last year because of owning the HD10U. I'm totally serious - there were a bunch of guys that questioned my professionalism because I owned the camera! It's getting old dealing with people bashing my choices in equipment...instead of helping me get the most out of what I can afford! Anyone else agree? Please remember that some of us have earned the right to buy this camera! That's right - we've used what will become the worst/best prosumer HDV camera to hit the market for two years. (Hey, I guess that's a good thing to be known for...it's like the worst/best dressed in one?!) Yet, we've achieved some great things by working together with it. I could not have gotten where I did without HDV regulars here at DVinfo. The FX1 will (just my opinion) most likely be the successor to the HD10U. The specs alone justify that comment - 3 chips, fully manual and overall better design. However, it's true we'll all have to work together and try and squeeze the best images out of the camera....just like the HD10U. It's just my humble opinion, but this time around we ought to take a look at where we are in the HDV timeline. We're only in round two! Therefore, we have a right to question the FX1 and yet not to destroy people's excitement in upgrading our current HDV equipment! In the spirit of innovation, teamwork and the love of what we do....we should probably try and refrain from negative talk! I'll try my best! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

September 27th, 2004, 04:12 PM	#24
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Good points, Murph, but let's move forward from that and onto more. Like I said, downconverting ain't a big deal, and you're still getting a GREAT image. For instance, watching my film shot on an XL-1 on DVD and, say, Jaws shot on 35mm and on DVD, though the same essential downconvert, you can tell which one was shot on 35mm. Get what I mean? heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 27th, 2004, 01:55 PM	#16
Scott Anderson Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 327	Mark, you keep right on going! Your post was the best laugh on this board since the FX-1 introduction. I'm tired of all the naysayers that bash this camera before anyone has really seen it. Those that have seen it are, frankly blown away. Anyone who shoots video of any sort should be absolutely giddy with the prospect of shooting HD at this price, and with this set of features. What I like most about Sony's timing is that by April (read: NAB), the pro version should be shipping with XLR's, 2-channel audio control, and who knows what other goodies. All the major editing platforms will also be ready to run with HDV. So, buy the camera in October, then what? Then start shooting for the future, that's what! Why would anyone plan on shooting standard definition ever again? I can understand being guardedly optimistic after the JVC HD-1, but c'mon. This looks to be the most revolutionary camera since the VX-1000. And yes, I'm a Sony plant.

September 27th, 2004, 02:15 PM	#18
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	Im not bashing it, Im backing it up for than anyone in the skateboard world. I make skateboard movies, and I sell my movies on DVD. So unless the blue ray dvd burners come out with a cheap price its pointless for me to buy this GREAT camera. What is the WN9DVD player. is it just software, or hardware?

September 27th, 2004, 02:21 PM	#19
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	and how much is it.

September 27th, 2004, 02:36 PM	#22
Jeff Patnaude Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Duluth, Georgia Posts: 248	One thought I haven't heard yet, we cant watch 24P on Televisions in the us. You have to convert the image. Why is everyone complaining about converting the image from the Sony FX1? If it makes a superior picture, then its worthwhile. The ability to do filmouts is more palpable. That is still the question though- will the image look good after down-converting? If it does look like BetaSP, then at $3700, I'll dump that 30lb. back-breaker and go with the Sony. Ahhh, old age... Jeff P

September 27th, 2004, 04:38 PM	#25
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Interesting observation here... Something interesting I'd like to chime in about after Heath's comment about 35mm downcoverted for DVD, and noticing the difference. Has anyone noticed the unbelieveable improvement in DVD quality lately? I'm in the habit of renting older films (pre-1980) with a ratio of about 70:30 to new films. I've noticed that newer films like "The Girl Next Door" which I watched last night look just like HD signals on off my standard DVD player. (I do have an HDTV, but up until about 1 year ago all newer DVD's were on the darker and grainer side just like older titles that were put out a few years ago. Nothing has been touched on my DVD player or HDTV either.) So, anyway...I am noticing that the video quality is superb to what it was a few years ago. The reason I am mentioning this observation in relation to Heath's comment is....we're heading for unbelieveable compression in the near future. If my HDTV signals (which look awesome) and my standard DVD player playing new movies are looking really similar than I bet 1080i downcoverted with really good compression (WM or H.264) and with a higher bit rate will look totally AWESOME! Also of note....I have experimented with HD10U footage using MPEG-2 compression for DVD and have gotten amazing results. People I have shown literally said it "looks better than anything on their TV's". So, I guess I'm saying that with these few "upgrades" in technology (codecs, cameras and HD-DVD burners) - we are looking at some seriously cool times ahead! I believe the FX1 is only part of the puzzle.... Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

September 27th, 2004, 04:52 PM	#26
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Most 35mm and 16mm movies have been telecined in HD, then put to an SD DVD. There's a DVD player that shows the even BETTER quality of those telecined-to-HD-to-SD DVDs. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 27th, 2004, 04:56 PM	#27
Steve Crisdale Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Katoomba NSW Australia Posts: 635	Just my 2 cents worth.... For those wondering about HDV 1440x1080 - 1920x720 to DVD 720x576 - 720x480. The numbers alone should tell the story. Professionals dealing with JPEGs (the 'cousin' of MPEG), are cognisant of the fact that the larger - in resolution, or physical dimension, an image is - the better the down-scaled or down-rezed result will be. It's just the nature of the compression regime used, that more data provided within each sample block, yields greater variation to the finished sample. This is why you should avoid as much as possible re-downsampling any JPEG style compression regime image, as you can be reducing the sampled data at an excessive rate. If HDV video is converted to DVD resolution from an uncompressed source (meaning the file type between capture from the camera and the final DVD VOBs), you should obtain a result indistinguishable from a 'Hollywood' style DVD. As a HD10u owner, I must agree with Christopher regarding the feeling of Deja vu...... Indeed, there are times that some questions being ask regarding the FX1 could be easily avoided with a quick search of replies posted by those of us who've already been down this path. I suppose it has to do with how eager one is to embrace, or committed to explore a new technology that makes the difference between those who get results, and those who like the hard yards done before tentatively dipping the toe into the unknown.

September 28th, 2004, 09:50 AM	#28
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	what does downconverting it do? is it still HD. why would you downconvert it anyway?

September 28th, 2004, 10:04 AM	#29
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	On the HD10, you can downcovert to 480p and 480i. Or upconvert to 1080i. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

September 28th, 2004, 01:50 PM	#30
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	is that still in HD