Should i buy the Fx1 or wait?

[Yiannis Kall]

Hi
I love to have a High definition camcorder, but i can afford no more than 3300 euros, which is sony fx1 price. And for me 3300 euros is a great amount of money.

I read that if i deinterlaced the videos i only get 960 x 540 which isn't all that much higher than SD, is that true?

should i wait the Canon's reply and capture my summer vacation with my cheap quality dv camcorder or buy the sony fx1 which has large size for filming my vacation and not progressive mode (i will have to deinterlace the videos- i have an lcd projector).
I would love to read your opinions
thanks

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

If you really need a camera now, you should buy one now.
If not, it's maybe better to wait.
Indeed, the resolution you named is not much better then SD, you should get some more details in the picture, but that's maybe all.

I should consider to wait. There are many HD cams coming up, so who knows what will happen.
Though, I have to tell you I think Canon isn't coming up with a HD cam soon.

But do you really need HD for a vacation video?
I think (that's of course completely your decision) for a vacation SD will do enough. Remember, some feature films have been filmed and projected with SD, so SD isn't all that bad as some like to believe.

Good luck choosing!
I'm sure other people here will give you even better advice than I.

[Radek Svoboda]

Originally Posted by Yiannis Kall

I read that if i deinterlaced the videos i only get 960 x 540 which isn't all that much higher than SD, is that true?

I would like know where you got the numbers. DV is 720x576 pixels. FX1E is HD, not SD.

[Yiannis Kall]

Originally Posted by Radek Svoboda

I would like know where you got the numbers. DV is 720x576 pixels. FX1E is HD, not SD.

I read it from forum '' The fact though is that the camera only does 960 x 1080 interlaced. If you are watching on a LCD or plasma that will get de-interlaced giving you somewhere between 540 and 1080 lines depending on who you argue with. I actually think it is more like 540 since every other line is basically fake. So in terms of raw progressive pixel detail we only get 960 x 540 which isn't all that much higher than SD''

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Yiannis Kall

I read it from forum '' I actually think it is more like 540 since every other line is basically fake.

This keeps being suggested. No, every other line isn't basically fake. it contains significant information, particularly if the subject is a high motion subject. When you convert from i to p, you're not tossing that field, you're merging, blending, interpolating, or otherwise mixing the fields together.

[Yiannis Kall]

so, which is the real resolution of an deinterlaced video of fx1?

[John McGinley]

The native resolution of the camera is 1440x1080 so if you de interlace by just removing a set of fields you're looking at 1440x540, some field interpolation will yield better results though.

[Dominic Jones]

Yes, that is correct. On a completely still image (well deinterlaced, not just field stripped) you will get the full 1440x1080 resolution (this using frame blending deinterlace method).

As the amount of movement in a single frame increases the vertical resoution (for an acceptably deinterlaced image) will start to drop. Eventually, with enough movement, you will hit 1080x540 (as field stripping becomes the only viable option), as you suggested. The thing to keep in mind, however, is that as the amount of movement increases so the eye's resolving power decreases (as you have less time to see the image), and therefore although the resolution is lower the image is not seen for long enough to make that *too* much of a problem.

The bottom line is that 1080p is better than 1080i deinterlaced, but not so much as a lot of people believe. Taking into account the eye's resolving power, the vertical resolution should never be noticably much worse than a 720p image, which is currently your other option...

[Mark Grant]

One thing to consider with the FX1/Z1 for holiday videos is that they're big and heavy cameras. I was considering taking my Z1 on holiday with me, but I have a hard time imagining lugging around a camera of that size just for a holiday video :).

Otherwise, the idea that the quality is little better than SD is, frankly, absurd. The Z1 in HDV mode easily blows away any SD footage I've ever seen on resolution, regardless of what numbers people may throw around... and the color and light response isn't much worse than the footage I've edited from far more expensive cameras.

As for whether to buy now, I'm sure there'll be a better camera on the market for the same price or less in 12 months. But then there'll almost always be a better camera on the market for the same price or less in 12 months :).

[John McGinley]

1080 is the vertical resolution not the horizontal, so the field interpolated image would be 1440x540, not 1080x540. True 1080i is 1920horizontal by 1080 vertical. HDV is 1440h by 1080v

[Andrew J Hall]

Bear in mind that the costs of going to HD or HDV are *much* more than just the question of the camera cost.

Andrew

[Radek Svoboda]

Why would cost be much more? David Newman just posted information that only need 2 GHz processor for Vegas 6. Vegas 6 will cost same for SD or HDV. FX1 can be bought for less than Canon XL2 and for lot less than 50 Mbps cameras and large DVCAM and DVCPRO cameras. You can pick refurbished 1920x1080 21" monitor on Ubid for almost nothing. Where does much higher price come from? What would cost so much more on HDV than on SD production? Sound and lighting equipment will cost same. Talent and sets will cost same. Meals and transportation will cost same.

The much higher cost is myth.

I am very happy with FX1E. My next camera be 1080p, when good one comes out and is well reviewed.

Radek

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

"The much higher cost is myth."

Radek, I only wish your words were true. Hard drive storage, CPU consumption, bigger power supply, HD monitor, these all cost $$. Then there is delivery if you're delivering to broadcast. No broadcaster will accept HDV currently on HDV tape. So, you have to deliver via hard drive, which most broadcasters won't accept, or you deliver on HDCam, which most broadcasters will accept. We don't do enough HD for broadcast to justify the purchase of an HDCAM deck, so we take our hard drive to a service bureau where they print via HD/SDI to an HDCAM deck for us when we need it, about once a month.
But overall, the cost is indeed, higher. Cineform and Vegas bring a lot to the table, but there is more than that to the equasion. Further, I don't know that I'd trust any not-new/not calibrated monitor from an auction house for this kind of work. I have a hard time trusting an Apple display.

[Mark Grant]

"Hard drive storage,"

No more needed than DV, unless you use a system that converts to an intermediate codec. Plus, frankly, hard drive space is cheap these days: I think I paid under a hundred pounds for 300 gigabytes the last time I threw another drive into my PC... that's over twenty hours of HDV footage.

You're right about some of the other costs, of course. It's a bit of a pain that I can't go from original footage to complete master on HDV the way I could on DV.

[Radek Svoboda]

Douglas,

You're right. But the Sony camera allows to continue using current NLE system if you deliver SD. You can record HDV, downconvert to DV for editing and delivery. I just wonder if is possible to save editing points in Vegas 6 so that when you're ready edit your stored HDV footage, the NLE do it automatically. You can consider DV editing offline and HDV online. You can get into HDV slowly; you don't have to replace system right away.

You are pro and you make living in video. I am not, so for me refurbished Sony 21" CRT monitor is enough. The same goes for rest of equipment. What is not acceptable to pros may acceptable to me.

Radek