Murph pulls another trick out of the hat - FX1 footage for my buddies! at DVinfo.net

Christopher C. Murphy · October 13th, 2004, 10:07 PM

Am I good, or am I good????

Get ready to poop your pants girls and boys. Here is what looks like actual FX1 footage, and I must say it looks COOOOOL to me!

http://chiu.dvworld.com.tw/movie/hdv_test_video.zip

50 megs or so, downcoverted obviously....you need a good player too. Try VLC player if you can't get it to work.

Murph

Jeff Donald · October 13th, 2004, 10:19 PM

Thanks for posting Murph.

Christopher C. Murphy · October 13th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Your welcome! :)

Murph

Christopher C. Murphy · October 14th, 2004, 07:30 AM

Can anyone download this book?

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer.../fx1-book.html

Murph

Christopher C. Murphy · October 14th, 2004, 07:34 AM

Hey all, I translated this stuff:

Kousei small hi-vision photographing (number of scanning lines 1,080 effective, interlace) with actualizing high picture quality DV photographing
- HDV -> DV down converting functional loading
- Cirque ??????? of filter diameter 72mm
- The 3CCD camera system by aspect ratio 16:9, 1/3 type entire pixel 112 ten thousand "1080i correspondences HD CCD"
- Image is recorded to high quality & high efficiency with MPEG2 the "HD codec engine"
- 3.5 type wide hybrid liquid crystal monitors
- Smooth scene movement being automatic, it is possible, "shot transition (TM)"
- The register and customization of picture quality setting are possible, "picture profile (TM)"
- It can photograph with image touch of the film movie "cinema tone gamma (TM)" "the cinema frame (TM)"
* At the time of 2004 September public information announcement, (SONY you inspect as a digital video camera for national welfare)
Size: Width 151× height 181× depth 365mm (the largest spine it is not included)
Mass: Approximately 2.0kg
Electric power consumption: 7.4W (liquid crystal monitor OFF, view finder ON)

Hey, the FX1 is the "digital video camera for national welfare". It will even right terror in the darkest corners of the world - in low light!

Murph

Mark Kubat · October 14th, 2004, 09:47 AM

Folks, I used Dvd-lab to burn this clip to DVD and played on my SD t.v. - it looks incredible - obviously mpeg was probably encoded with only 1 pass at variable/low bitrate (avg. = 6618kps) but still it's great - wow - it definitely beats XL2...

I created a looping DVD and just watched it 10 times - observations:

*wide shots look great - rich in detail - no worries compared to "wide" shots losing detail in mini-dv

*incredible colours - still appearing "video-like" in colour space but richer, more saturated palette - more Panasonic than Canon like.

*flower footage again proves great capability for narrow d.o.f.

*incredible night-shots - low light capability is incredible.

*one quick pan on bridge looking up - camera whips around. no distortion, blurring, whatever - looks very natural.

I can't wait to get this cam in my hands.

I can immediately see this cam being used for field news reports - it's incredible color and detail... wow

Documentary filmmakers/videographers are gonna eat this cam up for sure.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · October 14th, 2004, 10:06 AM

Incredible pictures!
I've always been a Canon user and intended getting the XL2, but after seeing that download, I think I might need to re-assess my decisions...

Robin

Christopher C. Murphy · October 14th, 2004, 10:32 AM

My shot analysis:

Opening shots are without tripod, and I've frame by framed looked at the shots. It looks good, but similar to the HD10u in my opinion. (the only time this camera seems to look like the HD10u to me is when it's in daytime light....the other lighting conditions seem to be way better than the HD10u.) It must be the time of day, or the fact that having that amount of light is when the HD10u shines. So, it has the overall look of the HD10u because of the sunlight...that's a good thing.

The 2nd shot is tilting down from the building, and it looks like the iris changed when it reached the street. Anyone else notice that? It seems like it changed, but not nothing dramatic. The cars in the far right are smudging a bit, but that's normal.

The yellow flowers look nice, again a HD10u type look in my opinion. That's ok though because the HD10u looks great in outdoor lighting. It's a little more clearer than the HD10 also...just a bit more sharp from what I can tell with less noise.

The ground shot of the leaves kinda doesn't do anything. It's minimal lighting, so it's hard to say. The shadows and light peeking through the trees are displayed nicely with no grain that I can see. It kind of looks like the person who shot this was looking to show the shadow/light. It's nice.

The next two flowers look very nice, but the second shot has some DOF happening that I really dig. If it wasn't a trick with distance it has some nice DOF to look forward to.

The following shots have actually to much color for me to comment. It's great to see all that color! But, I seem to think the footage is noisey from trying to encode all that color? What does you think?!

The outside shot with the guy and smoke looks great to me. It's a balence of light, dark and the smoke looks great. I like that shot, and I'd shoot something similar with this camera.

The tilt down from the building looks like it's noisey, but again it is probably the encoding. I can't be sure though.

The two boat shots look nice in lower light...was it camera driven or was it truly dusk/early morning? I'm thinking that it was actually the time, and not the camera. It has a pinkish glow, so that's my guess.

Ok, I am WAY impressed with the night shots. I LOVE the shot with the boat...it's focused on the dock, but we see everything. It looks like film to me...anyone else think so?

Before that shot of the boat is the building with the ticker running, and it's not smearing or smudging in low light...no grain and the yellow is bright.

The bridge shot (static) looks great to me...the contrast is even and there seems to be no noise. The bridge and the close two lights are color balenced nicely...the HD10u would look like crap in this shot. You wouldn't be able to get those close lights and the bridge colors to look right.

The quick movement at night with this camera at the bridge proves something to us...it can do it! I don't see any crazy behaviour in the footage...seemed to work without problems. I personally don't plan to shoot fast pans and zooms, so that amount of movement is pleny for me. Anyone else care to comment??

The final timelapse thing is cool...I like the effects, and I'd love to know how they got it. it's obviously shutter etc. But, the actually settings would be nice...what did they have to adjust!

Murph

Troy Lamont · October 14th, 2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Anyone else notice that?

I did after you pointed it out.

I too thought that a lot of the footage looked like the HD1/10. Especially the 2nd and 3rd flower shots. The first yellow flower with the sun hitting it from the east looked great.

The only thing we may attribute the color loss to is the conversion to SD MPEG2 for DVD. Just taking a stab here.

Quote:

But, I seem to think the footage is noisey from trying to encode all that color? What does you think?!

I think the colors are very saturated as opposed to the JVC but they still have that slightly muted, less-punch feel (compared to say a VariCam). I like the colors not having any noticeable chroma noise that I've been able to detect. Nice. AND NO NOTICEABLE EDGE ENHANCEMENT! YES!

I like the shots of the buildings looking up towards the nicely exposed blue cloudy sky. The JVC would probably have changed iris size and would have underexposed the buildings in that shot (given my methodolgy of shooting, unplanned).

There's definitely some interlace artifacts going on through out the whole clip. I'm not sure if it's in the source or the downconversion or both. It would have been excellent if they could have given the output in either WMVHD or m2t (TS) so we can see it all in it's HD glory.

Looks like a nice step forward in comparison to the HD1/10. I'm waiting with baited breath for the first indepth full review and HD footage.

Thanks for the clip Murph. You Da Monster!

Troy
Are we sure this was shot with the FX1?

Mark Kubat · October 14th, 2004, 11:32 AM

I echo the sentiments - on first viewing, this was the shot that really made me sit up and take notice...

Final night shots with glass building/traffic also shows something else - no vertical smearing! This is great news for us night owls who want to shoot oncoming headlights. No noise at all... wow

Night boat shot coming into dock - look at the cadence of the dripping water on the dock - looks very filmic - is this because 25 PAL or maybe this was shot in new cineframe mode?

I agree - the early shots don't wow as much - like those leaves... but it gets better. It's almost like this cam excels in low light!

My DVD lab de-mux confirmed that the original mpeg was encoded at around 6618 kps average bitrate, so definitely the encode could have been done better (at around say 8K) - nevertheless, it's hard to believe this stuff - it's great...

Michael Pappas · October 14th, 2004, 11:44 AM

Don't forget this file is washed down version of the original. At best it can be called a colored zerox copy of an original. The original material should pop of your screen with detail and quality I would suspect after seeing what this down covert looks like.

Christopher C. Murphy · October 14th, 2004, 12:53 PM

Ok, I'm totally loving the footage from the middle to end. I've watched this video 10 times now with little breaks in-between to give myself time to watch it fresh. I'm trying to be objective. The opening shots almost seem like the person shooting didn't know how to set the camera settings. It's just my thoughts because how can the night shots look better?! The person must have played with the settings all day, and then at night had it down enough to adjust correctly. It's just an opinion, but seriously....how can the low light night shots stand out so much! I'm not complaining...no way. I'd take better low light at night shots than daylight anyday...the daylight is totally adjustable, but the night stuff is soooo hard to get right without the camera being able to DO it!

Those night shots are so damn nice...that boat shot gives me goose bumps. (I don't know why, but I'm reminded of the "Usual Suspects" for some reason! Maybe I'm dreaming?!) I want to shoot night stuff more than anything else. This is so awesome...I can't wait to see the Pro version. If this is the consumer - what about the Pro?!! Come on, this is some seriously cool footage for $3000! Am I dreaming here? It's widescreen, clear, works good in low(er) light conditions, full manual control. If anything this camera will replace standard DV cameras. It's got clarity that no other DV camera has...that I can see. I'd like to download some XL2 footage and compare these right now. Anyone know where I can get some XL2 footage that's comparable size wise and bit rate wise?

After this thing comes out and we all get our hands on it, I'm going to evaluate and let Sony know what I think. If they've stepped up to the plate with the next PD150 (the next generation!) - and kept that robust feel in the HDV world....they deserve some positive customer feedback. I just have a really good feeling about this camera...consumer and pro version. It's great to see some footage that is at least useable in deciding if it's worthy of all this discussion.

I'm giving my opinion as yes, it is!

Murph

Daniel Broadway · October 14th, 2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Get ready to poop your pants girls and boys.

I do everyday! Yeah, ok, not really.

Christopher C. Murphy · October 14th, 2004, 01:42 PM

It just seemed appropriate at the time. I guess that I should have thought the opposite. Oh well...grab your diapers and party!

Daniel Broadway · October 14th, 2004, 02:51 PM

Humm, on the one shot of the camera spinning on it's axis, pointing up at the bridge, there are some HEAVY compression artifacts. But I assume that's from the recompression of the web video. I hope so.

October 13th, 2004, 10:07 PM	#1
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Murph pulls another trick out of the hat - FX1 footage for my buddies! Am I good, or am I good???? Get ready to poop your pants girls and boys. Here is what looks like actual FX1 footage, and I must say it looks COOOOOL to me! http://chiu.dvworld.com.tw/movie/hdv_test_video.zip 50 megs or so, downcoverted obviously....you need a good player too. Try VLC player if you can't get it to work. Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 13th, 2004, 10:19 PM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Thanks for posting Murph. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 13th, 2004, 10:32 PM	#3
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Your welcome! :) Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 14th, 2004, 07:30 AM	#4
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	FX1 book?? We need a Japanese translator! Can anyone download this book? http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer.../fx1-book.html Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 14th, 2004, 07:34 AM	#5
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	I've brushed up on my Japanese.. Hey all, I translated this stuff: Kousei small hi-vision photographing (number of scanning lines 1,080 effective, interlace) with actualizing high picture quality DV photographing - HDV -> DV down converting functional loading - Cirque ??????? of filter diameter 72mm - The 3CCD camera system by aspect ratio 16:9, 1/3 type entire pixel 112 ten thousand "1080i correspondences HD CCD" - Image is recorded to high quality & high efficiency with MPEG2 the "HD codec engine" - 3.5 type wide hybrid liquid crystal monitors - Smooth scene movement being automatic, it is possible, "shot transition (TM)" - The register and customization of picture quality setting are possible, "picture profile (TM)" - It can photograph with image touch of the film movie "cinema tone gamma (TM)" "the cinema frame (TM)" * At the time of 2004 September public information announcement, (SONY you inspect as a digital video camera for national welfare) Size: Width 151× height 181× depth 365mm (the largest spine it is not included) Mass: Approximately 2.0kg Electric power consumption: 7.4W (liquid crystal monitor OFF, view finder ON) Hey, the FX1 is the "digital video camera for national welfare". It will even right terror in the darkest corners of the world - in low light! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 14th, 2004, 09:47 AM	#6
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	I burned this to DVD - it looks incredible Folks, I used Dvd-lab to burn this clip to DVD and played on my SD t.v. - it looks incredible - obviously mpeg was probably encoded with only 1 pass at variable/low bitrate (avg. = 6618kps) but still it's great - wow - it definitely beats XL2... I created a looping DVD and just watched it 10 times - observations: wide shots look great - rich in detail - no worries compared to "wide" shots losing detail in mini-dv incredible colours - still appearing "video-like" in colour space but richer, more saturated palette - more Panasonic than Canon like. flower footage again proves great capability for narrow d.o.f. incredible night-shots - low light capability is incredible. *one quick pan on bridge looking up - camera whips around. no distortion, blurring, whatever - looks very natural. I can't wait to get this cam in my hands. I can immediately see this cam being used for field news reports - it's incredible color and detail... wow Documentary filmmakers/videographers are gonna eat this cam up for sure.

October 14th, 2004, 10:06 AM	#7
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	Incredible pictures! I've always been a Canon user and intended getting the XL2, but after seeing that download, I think I might need to re-assess my decisions... Robin

October 14th, 2004, 10:32 AM	#8
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Shot analysis by Murph: My shot analysis: Opening shots are without tripod, and I've frame by framed looked at the shots. It looks good, but similar to the HD10u in my opinion. (the only time this camera seems to look like the HD10u to me is when it's in daytime light....the other lighting conditions seem to be way better than the HD10u.) It must be the time of day, or the fact that having that amount of light is when the HD10u shines. So, it has the overall look of the HD10u because of the sunlight...that's a good thing. The 2nd shot is tilting down from the building, and it looks like the iris changed when it reached the street. Anyone else notice that? It seems like it changed, but not nothing dramatic. The cars in the far right are smudging a bit, but that's normal. The yellow flowers look nice, again a HD10u type look in my opinion. That's ok though because the HD10u looks great in outdoor lighting. It's a little more clearer than the HD10 also...just a bit more sharp from what I can tell with less noise. The ground shot of the leaves kinda doesn't do anything. It's minimal lighting, so it's hard to say. The shadows and light peeking through the trees are displayed nicely with no grain that I can see. It kind of looks like the person who shot this was looking to show the shadow/light. It's nice. The next two flowers look very nice, but the second shot has some DOF happening that I really dig. If it wasn't a trick with distance it has some nice DOF to look forward to. The following shots have actually to much color for me to comment. It's great to see all that color! But, I seem to think the footage is noisey from trying to encode all that color? What does you think?! The outside shot with the guy and smoke looks great to me. It's a balence of light, dark and the smoke looks great. I like that shot, and I'd shoot something similar with this camera. The tilt down from the building looks like it's noisey, but again it is probably the encoding. I can't be sure though. The two boat shots look nice in lower light...was it camera driven or was it truly dusk/early morning? I'm thinking that it was actually the time, and not the camera. It has a pinkish glow, so that's my guess. Ok, I am WAY impressed with the night shots. I LOVE the shot with the boat...it's focused on the dock, but we see everything. It looks like film to me...anyone else think so? Before that shot of the boat is the building with the ticker running, and it's not smearing or smudging in low light...no grain and the yellow is bright. The bridge shot (static) looks great to me...the contrast is even and there seems to be no noise. The bridge and the close two lights are color balenced nicely...the HD10u would look like crap in this shot. You wouldn't be able to get those close lights and the bridge colors to look right. The quick movement at night with this camera at the bridge proves something to us...it can do it! I don't see any crazy behaviour in the footage...seemed to work without problems. I personally don't plan to shoot fast pans and zooms, so that amount of movement is pleny for me. Anyone else care to comment?? The final timelapse thing is cool...I like the effects, and I'd love to know how they got it. it's obviously shutter etc. But, the actually settings would be nice...what did they have to adjust! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 14th, 2004, 11:32 AM	#10
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	I love the Night Boat too - very filmic I echo the sentiments - on first viewing, this was the shot that really made me sit up and take notice... Final night shots with glass building/traffic also shows something else - no vertical smearing! This is great news for us night owls who want to shoot oncoming headlights. No noise at all... wow Night boat shot coming into dock - look at the cadence of the dripping water on the dock - looks very filmic - is this because 25 PAL or maybe this was shot in new cineframe mode? I agree - the early shots don't wow as much - like those leaves... but it gets better. It's almost like this cam excels in low light! My DVD lab de-mux confirmed that the original mpeg was encoded at around 6618 kps average bitrate, so definitely the encode could have been done better (at around say 8K) - nevertheless, it's hard to believe this stuff - it's great...

October 14th, 2004, 11:44 AM	#11
Michael Pappas Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: California Posts: 667	Don't forget this file is washed down version of the original. At best it can be called a colored zerox copy of an original. The original material should pop of your screen with detail and quality I would suspect after seeing what this down covert looks like.

October 14th, 2004, 12:53 PM	#12
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Ok, I'm totally loving the footage from the middle to end. I've watched this video 10 times now with little breaks in-between to give myself time to watch it fresh. I'm trying to be objective. The opening shots almost seem like the person shooting didn't know how to set the camera settings. It's just my thoughts because how can the night shots look better?! The person must have played with the settings all day, and then at night had it down enough to adjust correctly. It's just an opinion, but seriously....how can the low light night shots stand out so much! I'm not complaining...no way. I'd take better low light at night shots than daylight anyday...the daylight is totally adjustable, but the night stuff is soooo hard to get right without the camera being able to DO it! Those night shots are so damn nice...that boat shot gives me goose bumps. (I don't know why, but I'm reminded of the "Usual Suspects" for some reason! Maybe I'm dreaming?!) I want to shoot night stuff more than anything else. This is so awesome...I can't wait to see the Pro version. If this is the consumer - what about the Pro?!! Come on, this is some seriously cool footage for $3000! Am I dreaming here? It's widescreen, clear, works good in low(er) light conditions, full manual control. If anything this camera will replace standard DV cameras. It's got clarity that no other DV camera has...that I can see. I'd like to download some XL2 footage and compare these right now. Anyone know where I can get some XL2 footage that's comparable size wise and bit rate wise? After this thing comes out and we all get our hands on it, I'm going to evaluate and let Sony know what I think. If they've stepped up to the plate with the next PD150 (the next generation!) - and kept that robust feel in the HDV world....they deserve some positive customer feedback. I just have a really good feeling about this camera...consumer and pro version. It's great to see some footage that is at least useable in deciding if it's worthy of all this discussion. I'm giving my opinion as yes, it is! Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 14th, 2004, 01:42 PM	#14
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	It just seemed appropriate at the time. I guess that I should have thought the opposite. Oh well...grab your diapers and party! __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

October 14th, 2004, 02:51 PM	#15
Daniel Broadway Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 165	Humm, on the one shot of the camera spinning on it's axis, pointing up at the bridge, there are some HEAVY compression artifacts. But I assume that's from the recompression of the web video. I hope so.