FX1 real world resolution

Edwin Hernandez · October 13th, 2004, 12:10 AM

I agree with Simon that the market for a job done in XDCAM may be the same for a job done with an FX1. But yes... there's a great opportunity for professionals also...

When DV cameras came out (for example the XL1), I started to have more jobs than other collegues who shot on Betacam SP or Digi Beta, because most clients didn't understand the different formats. They just said, "oh, it looks great". Also, the word "digital" automatically made clients think that the XL-1 was the latest and most advanced camera that ever existed. They don't know about lenses, CCD size, vertical resolution... ah, the famous frame mode (Wow!!!! It looks like film!).

Now... imagine what can be achieved by stating that I'm gonna offer "HI DEFINITION" at a slightly higher price than DV... with the HI DEFINITION quality which they believe will "outperform" any SD camera. I think it can get into trouble a lot of producers, who will have to take the dust off from their $20K camcorders every now and then, while FX1 users get their hands full.

Of course, there are clients that can't be fooled: major ad agencies, major TV networks - NBC is still behind betacam in any of its forms, until a new format convince them.

Simon, if you are not convinced about which way to go, I'd say... WAIT a couple of months. You can always use your level of expertise, structure and knowledge with a $3,700 FX1 and get better results than a mediocre producer who bought the XDCAM or a DigiBeta. It is important to wait because it would be very frustrating to invest in an expensive camera that, altough better, gets you less jobs. It has happened in the past. Also, remember JVC will have their 24p HDV out soon for $20,000. So, hold your horses my friend in case you already decided not to buy the FX-1.

At the end of the day, the audience just want the image to look good. They don't need to know nor they care how it was achieved.

-EDWIN

Simon Wyndham · October 13th, 2004, 06:30 AM

Yes, I was initially a bit worried about 'impressions'. But like Chris said if people do hire a jock to do work intstead of you then you probably don't want to be working for them anyway.

I have since found out a lot from companies that have actually seen and used the FX1 and have been able to compare the picture. Many of them do say that while the FX1 is good in terms of pure resolution, the overall picture is not as good as a full size pro spec camera such as the DSR570 etc. As I suspected the extra control a pro camera offers in terms of contrast balance and compensation and other adjustments coupled with the high quality optics means that the overall picture is better.

Don't forget also that on a 2/3" CCD camera the low light performance will be far better than the FX1.

Edwin Hernandez · October 13th, 2004, 09:33 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : Yes, I was initially a bit worried about 'impressions'. But like Chris said if people do hire a jock to do work intstead of you then you probably don't want to be working for them anyway. -->>>

That depends. If they are going after price only... I agree. But if they are willing to pay the right price for the job... then you should worry about not letting others get the gig.

I'm gonna tell you something that might get some people into trouble.

A friend of mine was hired by a US company to do a corporate video on the impact of expanding the Panama Canal. The video was supposed to be 30 min. They charged the Panama Canal $175,000 shot on 16mm. My friend didn't know how much they were charging - as a matter of fact, they told him that it was a tight budget, so they paid him somewhere around $3,000 plus expenses for doing the job. What the client didn't know is that 90% of the raw footage was shot with a Panasonic DVX100A. And the other 10% on 16mm film. I saw the footage and I couldn't tell that the interviews were shot on 24p - it did looked great. But hey, $175,000? In my honest opinion it was a $30,000 job.

By the way, the guys who hired my friend didn't do anything. Everything was done by my friend - script, scouting, giving directions to the editor, shooting, choosing music, etc.

The point here is that the same can happen over and over again, even among professional. That will lead to low investors having huge profits, while others with better and more expensive gear get marginal profits.

Just because they hired an unethical producer - or a smart business person instead of a producer - , would you just turn down that kind of client?

-EDWIN

October 13th, 2004, 12:10 AM	#16
Edwin Hernandez Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Panama City, Panama Posts: 162	I agree with Simon that the market for a job done in XDCAM may be the same for a job done with an FX1. But yes... there's a great opportunity for professionals also... When DV cameras came out (for example the XL1), I started to have more jobs than other collegues who shot on Betacam SP or Digi Beta, because most clients didn't understand the different formats. They just said, "oh, it looks great". Also, the word "digital" automatically made clients think that the XL-1 was the latest and most advanced camera that ever existed. They don't know about lenses, CCD size, vertical resolution... ah, the famous frame mode (Wow!!!! It looks like film!). Now... imagine what can be achieved by stating that I'm gonna offer "HI DEFINITION" at a slightly higher price than DV... with the HI DEFINITION quality which they believe will "outperform" any SD camera. I think it can get into trouble a lot of producers, who will have to take the dust off from their $20K camcorders every now and then, while FX1 users get their hands full. Of course, there are clients that can't be fooled: major ad agencies, major TV networks - NBC is still behind betacam in any of its forms, until a new format convince them. Simon, if you are not convinced about which way to go, I'd say... WAIT a couple of months. You can always use your level of expertise, structure and knowledge with a $3,700 FX1 and get better results than a mediocre producer who bought the XDCAM or a DigiBeta. It is important to wait because it would be very frustrating to invest in an expensive camera that, altough better, gets you less jobs. It has happened in the past. Also, remember JVC will have their 24p HDV out soon for $20,000. So, hold your horses my friend in case you already decided not to buy the FX-1. At the end of the day, the audience just want the image to look good. They don't need to know nor they care how it was achieved. -EDWIN

October 13th, 2004, 06:30 AM	#17
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Yes, I was initially a bit worried about 'impressions'. But like Chris said if people do hire a jock to do work intstead of you then you probably don't want to be working for them anyway. I have since found out a lot from companies that have actually seen and used the FX1 and have been able to compare the picture. Many of them do say that while the FX1 is good in terms of pure resolution, the overall picture is not as good as a full size pro spec camera such as the DSR570 etc. As I suspected the extra control a pro camera offers in terms of contrast balance and compensation and other adjustments coupled with the high quality optics means that the overall picture is better. Don't forget also that on a 2/3" CCD camera the low light performance will be far better than the FX1.

October 13th, 2004, 09:33 AM	#18
Edwin Hernandez Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Panama City, Panama Posts: 162	<<<-- Originally posted by Simon Wyndham : Yes, I was initially a bit worried about 'impressions'. But like Chris said if people do hire a jock to do work intstead of you then you probably don't want to be working for them anyway. -->>> That depends. If they are going after price only... I agree. But if they are willing to pay the right price for the job... then you should worry about not letting others get the gig. I'm gonna tell you something that might get some people into trouble. A friend of mine was hired by a US company to do a corporate video on the impact of expanding the Panama Canal. The video was supposed to be 30 min. They charged the Panama Canal $175,000 shot on 16mm. My friend didn't know how much they were charging - as a matter of fact, they told him that it was a tight budget, so they paid him somewhere around $3,000 plus expenses for doing the job. What the client didn't know is that 90% of the raw footage was shot with a Panasonic DVX100A. And the other 10% on 16mm film. I saw the footage and I couldn't tell that the interviews were shot on 24p - it did looked great. But hey, $175,000? In my honest opinion it was a $30,000 job. By the way, the guys who hired my friend didn't do anything. Everything was done by my friend - script, scouting, giving directions to the editor, shooting, choosing music, etc. The point here is that the same can happen over and over again, even among professional. That will lead to low investors having huge profits, while others with better and more expensive gear get marginal profits. Just because they hired an unethical producer - or a smart business person instead of a producer - , would you just turn down that kind of client? -EDWIN