comparison of FX1 to VX2k in low light

John Beale · August 19th, 2005, 12:54 PM

I'm curious about those who are actually delivering HD weddings to customers now. What media & format are they delivering on? Is a D-VHS or HD-DVD player included as part of the package? What fraction of their market owns a HDTV?

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, only a few own a HDTV display right now and AFAIK no one has a HD playback device. Or are they delivering SD-DVD now with the promise to make a HD-DVD available when the technology is standardized and available?

Boyd Ostroff · August 19th, 2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Green

I asked around while at the WEVA convention -- *nobody* I asked had one client yet express the slightest interest in HD.

I don't do weddings so I'll take your word on this.

Barron's did a feature article on HDTV in their May 23 issue and quoted the CEA as saying there are currently 18 million HDTV's in 12 million households. Next year they forecast that to jump to 50 million, then 80 million in 2007.

Somebody is buying those TV's. Customers may not appreciate the difference HD makes, but I'll bet they would at least be happier with good quality 16:9 that fills their new plasma screen, instead of playing it in stretch mode which makes everyone look short and fat ;-)

The VX and PD series are great cameras for 4:3 but are not going to impress anyone on a 16:9 screen. That design is pushing what..., maybe 6 years old now (I got my VX-2000 in 2001)? It's a real tribute to Sony that they've been such workhorses and are still so greatly respected.

Barry Green · August 19th, 2005, 09:54 PM

Kevin,

Yes, that's a different approach. I asked people "has anyone asked you for HD yet?" And nobody I asked had anybody approach 'em about it. I didn't attend any of the seminars, just the show floor and met with a few people there. I don't doubt that you could sell someone on it; I was just referring to the overall interest level of the public. Seems like there's very little demand yet.

Kevin Shaw · August 20th, 2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Beale

I'm curious about those who are actually delivering HD weddings to customers now. What media & format are they delivering on? Is a D-VHS or HD-DVD player included as part of the package? What fraction of their market owns a HDTV?

John: the current options for distributing video shot in HD range from widescreen SD DVDs to compressed HD DVDs to full-quality HDV delivered on a computer hard drive. My preferred solution for now would be to deliver the compressed HD version along with a suitable player to the customer as part of their HD package, plus several widescreen DVDs for their friends and relatives. I have a customer now who wants the finished project delivered in HDV to his computer, so he'll know he can remaster that to future HD DVD formats.

Regarding HDTV market share, I'd say based on what I've seen in customers' homes that a large percentage of my recent clients own an HDTV. Where I live HDTVs are basically *the* hot status-symbol item, and are prominently displayed at the entrance of almost every electronics and warehouse store. Statistics about overall HDTV sales can be misleading depending on where you live and who your customers are.

Peter Greis · August 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM

The CEA likes to tout the number of HD capable sets being sold, but when surveys are done, only a small number of people who purchased HD capable sets are watching HD material. I seem to recall a number like 10%.

Most people are watching SD OTA or cable material (and using the stretch mode on their wide screen sets!) and of course DVDs (which some people in the survey thought was HD material!).

In the cable vs satellite battle for access, the satellite companies started promoting HD content and the cable companies jumped on the bandwagon and started adding more HD content. But the penetration is still fairly low given all the HD capable sets that have been sold.

It's coming though....DirectTV is launching additional satellites to add a lot more HD connect....

Laurence Kingston · August 28th, 2005, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Beale

I was worried that the FX1 wouldn't perform in low light, but in the conditions of my test I thought it compared well relative to the VX2k. My only other concern is that the autofocus seems slower, and more likely to be wrong, than the VX2k.
See for example http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-focus.html

Admittedly, with pro cameras one is supposed to use manual focus anyway.

That might have more to do with the 16:9 frame and how subjects are less likely to be smack in the middle of the widescreen frame. I use the old trick of zooming into the subject, turning autofocus off, then zooming back out to what I want to frame.

John Beale · August 29th, 2005, 11:22 AM

> I use the old trick of zooming into the subject, turning autofocus off, then zooming back out to what I want to frame.

I like to use that technique as well, when I'm able to. This particular case was a single-camera wedding ceremony. I had to track the bride as she approached, passed by and receeded with only one take, there was no chance to zoom just for focusing purposes. My guess is that most pros do 2 or more cameras on the ceremony- that gives you a lot more leeway.

Leigh Hanlon · September 8th, 2005, 03:19 PM

I'm on the fence, and am considering getting an FX1, even though few people have HD sets.

I can't help but think of the folks who made the syndicated "Superman" TV series with George Reeves in the mid-1950s -- and shot much of the series in color. Although few stations broadcast in color and fewer homes had color receivers, the producers knew that inevitably, their decision to shoot the show in color would pay off.

I wonder if there's a similar lesson in HD?

Leigh

Jeremy Rochefort · September 8th, 2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leigh Hanlon

I'm on the fence, and am considering getting an FX1, even though few people have HD sets.

I can't help but think of the folks who made the syndicated "Superman" TV series with George Reeves in the mid-1950s -- and shot much of the series in color. Although few stations broadcast in color and fewer homes had color receivers, the producers knew that inevitably, their decision to shoot the show in color would pay off.

I wonder if there's a similar lesson in HD?

Leigh

You've just said it yourself!

As much as many will deny, HD and the cameras like the FX1 are inevitable as was the death of the LP when CD's came out

Cheers

Dick Mays · November 18th, 2005, 11:10 AM

I just shot a friend's wedding with my FX1, and the reception was soooo dimly lit, I had little hope for the video. I had no lights, so I shot with 12 dB of gain, and boosted the gamma in Premiere Pro, and the result was pretty darn outstanding. My friends just watch the video last night and were tickled pink.

My only other experience was with my old Hi-8 camera, so I don't have much of a point for comparison (such as the VX2000), other than to say that the FX1 got the job done in a hall so dark, I couldn't read the typed speech I prepared for the toast.

Dave Lammey · November 18th, 2005, 12:16 PM

That's interesting, Dick -- any chance you could post a clip from that reception?

Also, regarding the premiere pro -- are you using Aspect HD with that? Or just PPro? Any specs you could give on your system would be helpful. Thanks.

Robert M Wright · February 14th, 2006, 01:55 AM

Has anyone tried offering wedding clients a WMV-HD capable DVD player (as part of the package) to deliver the final product in WMV-HD on a DVD?

Joseph Jamieson · May 9th, 2006, 10:10 PM

Backround on me: My friend and I have been setting up to do some weddings and other events; we'll be using the FX1 and an HC1 for most of the video, plus some audio gear. We're going to be shadowing some folks that do it already and are willing to let us see some of the tricks of the trade. We still have some gear to aquire but I think it will be a good way to get into the video production field.

Anyhow, I've been surprised on the quality of the low-light performance of the FX-1. That being said, we're definately going to be using the FX1 and HDV for our work. I wasn't too sure about it until I got one in my hands and got some first hand with it. It's really nice in low light once I got to playing with it to get the best settings. There's better, but then again there's always better. Hey, I'd love to buy the $10,000 Canon HDV camcorder, but it's just not possible. I bet those $100,000 cameras sony makes are really good in low light.

The way I figure it, a wedding video is something that people might want to revisit someday in the future, and will eventually own an HDTV. Won't it be nice when they can pop in the HD version of the video and see it with all new detail?

We won't (unless there's unusual demand for it) charge more for HD then someone doing SD - it'll be a value-add and I think people will be interested in it.

For delivery, I think we'd do a DVD with standard definition letterboxed video as well as a DVD with some sort of WMV/Quicktime video. MPEG4/WMV/H.263 give excellent HD quality with low data rates, so it makes sense. We'd keep the original footage in stock (probably on an LTO2 tape or something) in case HD-DVD/BluRay became affordable to produce discs on a PC.

Just like how most photographers keep the negatives to themselves, I see no reason to give uncompressed/raw footage to the customers. They'd be able to request a different format and pay some sort of fee for it.

If you look at the stores these days, the shelf of TV's that aren't HD is getting much smaller. You can get HDTV's for a much more resonable price then even a couple years ago. For installed-base, it's hard to go by raw numbers. There's a LOT of TV's out there. However, for 2005 a projected 14 million HDTV's were sold. That's a lot of HDTV.

Most network primetime shows are now broadcast in HD. Most pay channels (HBO, etc) offer HD channels. More are being added all the time. With the release of HD-DVD and eventually BluRay players, demand for HDTV's will rise even more.

It's forward thinking to start using HD as soon as possible. That's my opinion of course!

Sorry for getting off track!

Heath McKnight · May 31st, 2006, 09:55 AM

I've learned you can't get more money for HDV than DV, BUT you can charge them again for HD DVD or Blu-Ray Discs later on when they get the players.

heath

August 19th, 2005, 12:54 PM	#16
John Beale Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 74	HD distribution method? I'm curious about those who are actually delivering HD weddings to customers now. What media & format are they delivering on? Is a D-VHS or HD-DVD player included as part of the package? What fraction of their market owns a HDTV? In my circle of friends and acquaintances, only a few own a HDTV display right now and AFAIK no one has a HD playback device. Or are they delivering SD-DVD now with the promise to make a HD-DVD available when the technology is standardized and available?

August 29th, 2005, 11:22 AM	#22
John Beale Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 74	manual focus with event video > I use the old trick of zooming into the subject, turning autofocus off, then zooming back out to what I want to frame. I like to use that technique as well, when I'm able to. This particular case was a single-camera wedding ceremony. I had to track the bride as she approached, passed by and receeded with only one take, there was no chance to zoom just for focusing purposes. My guess is that most pros do 2 or more cameras on the ceremony- that gives you a lot more leeway.

September 8th, 2005, 03:19 PM	#23
Leigh Hanlon Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, USA Posts: 64	I'm on the fence, and am considering getting an FX1, even though few people have HD sets. I can't help but think of the folks who made the syndicated "Superman" TV series with George Reeves in the mid-1950s -- and shot much of the series in color. Although few stations broadcast in color and fewer homes had color receivers, the producers knew that inevitably, their decision to shoot the show in color would pay off. I wonder if there's a similar lesson in HD? Leigh __________________ Leigh Hanlon \| Chicago, USA GL2 - Final Cut Studio

May 31st, 2006, 09:55 AM	#29
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I've learned you can't get more money for HDV than DV, BUT you can charge them again for HD DVD or Blu-Ray Discs later on when they get the players. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

August 19th, 2005, 09:54 PM	#18
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Kevin, Yes, that's a different approach. I asked people "has anyone asked you for HD yet?" And nobody I asked had anybody approach 'em about it. I didn't attend any of the seminars, just the show floor and met with a few people there. I don't doubt that you could sell someone on it; I was just referring to the overall interest level of the public. Seems like there's very little demand yet.

August 22nd, 2005, 04:05 PM	#20
Peter Greis Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 41	The CEA likes to tout the number of HD capable sets being sold, but when surveys are done, only a small number of people who purchased HD capable sets are watching HD material. I seem to recall a number like 10%. Most people are watching SD OTA or cable material (and using the stretch mode on their wide screen sets!) and of course DVDs (which some people in the survey thought was HD material!). In the cable vs satellite battle for access, the satellite companies started promoting HD content and the cable companies jumped on the bandwagon and started adding more HD content. But the penetration is still fairly low given all the HD capable sets that have been sold. It's coming though....DirectTV is launching additional satellites to add a lot more HD connect....

November 18th, 2005, 11:10 AM	#25
Dick Mays Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 690	I just shot a friend's wedding with my FX1, and the reception was soooo dimly lit, I had little hope for the video. I had no lights, so I shot with 12 dB of gain, and boosted the gamma in Premiere Pro, and the result was pretty darn outstanding. My friends just watch the video last night and were tickled pink. My only other experience was with my old Hi-8 camera, so I don't have much of a point for comparison (such as the VX2000), other than to say that the FX1 got the job done in a hall so dark, I couldn't read the typed speech I prepared for the toast.

November 18th, 2005, 12:16 PM	#26
Dave Lammey Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Simsbury, CT Posts: 247	That's interesting, Dick -- any chance you could post a clip from that reception? Also, regarding the premiere pro -- are you using Aspect HD with that? Or just PPro? Any specs you could give on your system would be helpful. Thanks.

February 14th, 2006, 01:55 AM	#27
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	Has anyone tried offering wedding clients a WMV-HD capable DVD player (as part of the package) to deliver the final product in WMV-HD on a DVD?

May 9th, 2006, 10:10 PM	#28
Joseph Jamieson Tourist Join Date: May 2006 Location: Pawtucket, RI Posts: 4	Backround on me: My friend and I have been setting up to do some weddings and other events; we'll be using the FX1 and an HC1 for most of the video, plus some audio gear. We're going to be shadowing some folks that do it already and are willing to let us see some of the tricks of the trade. We still have some gear to aquire but I think it will be a good way to get into the video production field. Anyhow, I've been surprised on the quality of the low-light performance of the FX-1. That being said, we're definately going to be using the FX1 and HDV for our work. I wasn't too sure about it until I got one in my hands and got some first hand with it. It's really nice in low light once I got to playing with it to get the best settings. There's better, but then again there's always better. Hey, I'd love to buy the $10,000 Canon HDV camcorder, but it's just not possible. I bet those $100,000 cameras sony makes are really good in low light. The way I figure it, a wedding video is something that people might want to revisit someday in the future, and will eventually own an HDTV. Won't it be nice when they can pop in the HD version of the video and see it with all new detail? We won't (unless there's unusual demand for it) charge more for HD then someone doing SD - it'll be a value-add and I think people will be interested in it. For delivery, I think we'd do a DVD with standard definition letterboxed video as well as a DVD with some sort of WMV/Quicktime video. MPEG4/WMV/H.263 give excellent HD quality with low data rates, so it makes sense. We'd keep the original footage in stock (probably on an LTO2 tape or something) in case HD-DVD/BluRay became affordable to produce discs on a PC. Just like how most photographers keep the negatives to themselves, I see no reason to give uncompressed/raw footage to the customers. They'd be able to request a different format and pay some sort of fee for it. If you look at the stores these days, the shelf of TV's that aren't HD is getting much smaller. You can get HDTV's for a much more resonable price then even a couple years ago. For installed-base, it's hard to go by raw numbers. There's a LOT of TV's out there. However, for 2005 a projected 14 million HDTV's were sold. That's a lot of HDTV. Most network primetime shows are now broadcast in HD. Most pay channels (HBO, etc) offer HD channels. More are being added all the time. With the release of HD-DVD and eventually BluRay players, demand for HDTV's will rise even more. It's forward thinking to start using HD as soon as possible. That's my opinion of course! Sorry for getting off track!