Combine footage from FX1 AND FX1000?

[Steve Game]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

Ah, so this is actually an anti-HDV screed, which makes it entirely off-topic and inappropriate for this thread, which is about whether one HDV cam will cut with another HDV cam.

The snooty elitist BBC white paper rejecting HDV has been thoroughly discredited, and they would never use the meaningless terms "True HD" or "Full HD", which are marketing jargon designed to fool gullible consumers and video newbies. They are meaningless because they have no real definition (pun intended) as they mean different things to different people. Some use them to refer to pixel count, others to color depth, or compression, or frame rate, or i vs. p.

HDV is HD. Period. Anything 720 lines or above is. It doesn't matter if it isn't HD enough for you, or if you'd prefer something H-erD. The people who officially defined the spec 30-odd years ago say so. It doesn't matter if the BBC doesn't like it or don't think it's good enough for their lofty standards. Discovery has been using HDV-tape for years on Deadliest Catch and other shows and has proven it looks better than fine if you know what you are doing.

As to the topic at hand, upon reflection I'm not convinced it was the optics of the FX1 that made it look softer than the FX1000. Having owned nearly every HDV cam Sony has made, I can tell you that both the FX7 and the HC3 -- both contemporaries of the FX1 -- were quite a bit sharper and punchier than the FX1, and no one would claim that their optics were vastly superior. The best you could say about the lens on the FX7 was that it was about as good as that of the FX1, but the HC3 had a tiny little plastic lens and no one would claim it was better than the glass on the FX1. Obviously the firmware could account for the punchier colors, but I still tend to think the sharpness difference could be due to the difference between CCD and CMOS.

But Noa's right -- clients likely won't notice. If you want an FX1, go get one. They're beautiful cams and easy to use. You could save quite a bit of money by picking up a used HC3, 7 or 9, but that's totally your choice.

Adam, I agree with pretty much everything in the above post regarding HDV being HD. The BBC's main objection relates to the use of an interframe codec working below 50Mb/s at 4:2:2, not the 1440x1080 resolution. Their issue is that video compressed more than that could contain artifacts that although not objectionable when viewed as first or second generation, may prove unsuitable for a full broadcast production chain particularly including the aggressive compression necessary at the transmitter encoding stage. There's nothing wrong with 1440x1080 25i video as it is used regularly in both studio and OB sourced material courtesy of cameras such as Sony HDCAMs, (Tape as well).
I think we shall have to disagree over the sensor sharpness, but I could agree that a Prosumer CCD design may not have the dynamic range of a newer CMOS one, so the codec has to work a bit harder in the presence of noise. I can't match your collection of Sony cameras but I also have an HC3E which I think is a bit oversharpened at times.

[Adam Gold]

Steve, I think your analysis is spot on. It was never an issue of resolution per se, as some others seem to have misunderstood -- it was a workflow issue.

As most of my old Sonys have been passed along, I can't really do any in-depth analysis any longer and wouldn't argue with your diagnosis. My current crop of Z5s produce a picture quite close to my backup group of XR520s and CX700s and they all cut together quite nicely. They're all CMOS based and I tend to attribute it to that, but that could be over-simplifying matters.

Nonetheless, Darryn seems to be determined to get an FX1, and I'm sure he'll be quite happy with it -- it does produce a lovely picture. I'd recommend using it for close-ups and reserving the FX1000 for wider shots.

[Ron Evans]

Darryn seems determined to spend money on a FX1 even though most Compact still cameras from Sony or Panasonic etc will shoot superior video to an FX1. I stopped using my FX1 and moved to the NX5U when it was clearly inferior to my SR11 and XR500 I then used as fixed unattended cameras. Nice thing about the FX1 is all the controls are there to adjust. Downsides are tape, sharpness, black level, autofocus is useless ( always seemed to focus on something other that what i wanted !!! so never used). I spent a lot of time in editing sharpening the image, bringing down the black level to match the other cameras. This may be less of a problem comparing with the FX1000 since they will be both HDV but AVCHD is usually spot on 0 black level which gives that nice crisp image but I always found the FX1 to be closer to 5 ire for black so was always bringing it down in post.

As several of us have suggested you will be much better off using one of the small AVCHD cameras as a "B" camera since there will be no tape to worry about and the batteries will last all day !!! For point and shoot when there is no time to manually adjust things my small Sony cameras are far superior to my NX5U ( which like the FX1 auto focus is not very good).

Ron Evans

[Noa Put]

Darryn seems determined to spend money on a FX1 even though most Compact still cameras from Sony or Panasonic etc will shoot superior video to an FX1

He will regret getting a fx1 when it gets dark and he has to start using a a fx1000, that camera will cope but the latest cx7xx series will produce a much cleaner image at high gains. Eventhough that small handicam can only controll 1 function at a time manually (I always controll exposure manually) it has a very good autofocus and retains color well if it gets darker.

My opinion stays if you are filming weddings and have got a fx1000, a cx730 will be a much better choice as second camera, either to use it as a B-cam during a ceremony or as main camera at a dark reception because it will outperform the fx1000 in that area. It will also match up with a fx1000 better then a fx1 will do. It also has a better stabilisator when shooting handheld, I can show handheld footage from such a small camera that almost looks as if I shot on a tripod.