easy questions for any FX1 owner..

Ron Evans · July 21st, 2007, 07:17 AM

File size of HDV is the same as SD. They are both 25mbs. HDV only records at SP speed though so there is no LP speed for HDV. Depending on the intermediate file format( for easier editing) you use if you have many streams of HDV the file size would be bigger.
You don't need to record in HDV the FX1 records in DV 4x3 too so you could just use as DV until you want to switch to HDV.
I don't have PPRo 2.0 but in Vegas or Edius I would use an SD 4x3 project setting and just put the HDV on the timeline, then crop as needed. I expect PPRO 2.0 would be the same as it is able to handle HDV native too.
There are lots of HDV clips around if you do a search.

Ron Evans

David J. Payne · July 22nd, 2007, 02:46 AM

Ron,
Like a couple of people have said I cant see the point in buying a HDV camera if I dont utilise the HD Straight away..

what do you mean by "Depending on the intermediate file format( for easier editing) you use if you have many streams of HDV the file size would be bigger"

What file format would video be in when I capture it? Ive heard it records in mpeg but does that mean when using the appropriate HDV capture software it will capture in mpeg too? and are you saying this will be the same size as an equivalent SD avi file?

Ron Evans · July 22nd, 2007, 08:48 AM

I bought my FX1 because it had the best controls of a Sony DV camcorder since the VX3 Hi8 camcorder I had. HDV for the future was a bonus. The other people I record amateur theatre shows with all have DV 4x3 camcorders. Little point in going through the agro of one in 4 cams being 16x9 HDV. For my own use I shoot in HDV. I liked the Sony because all my other equipment is Sony and LANC controlled. Options would have been the Canon's but they weren't out when I bought the FX1.
File size for DV and HDV are the same. It is easier to edit using a codec that doesn't require decoding a 15GOP to create effects etc. Cineform and Canopus HQ transcode the m2t HDV stream to a format that is easier for the PC to use, in fact just like DV as a load on the PC. To do this of course the file size increases because now the encoding is on a per frame bases rather than spread over 15 frames. File sizes can be 3 or 4 times as big.
Both Cineform and Canopus have the option to capture as RAW m2t ( file size same as DV) or do the conversion on capture. To do this your PC will have to be powerful enough to do this conversion realtime. I usually capture m2t and then convert.
Before I bought he FX1 I had rented the DVX100 many times and it does have the advantage of XLR audio. Hence my previous comments. I see no problems in viewing the FX1 as a good DV camcorder( with some future proofing) until you want to go HDV. That is exactly how I use my FX1.

Ron Evans

Boyd Ostroff · July 22nd, 2007, 08:57 AM

David, I have used my Z1 almost entirely for standard definition output. I shoot HDV and downconvert in camera to capture as regular DV. It may be true that you can get better results by downconversion in post, but the rendering time is substantial and you end up using twice the disk space since you have two versions.

I know you're considering the FX1, but the Z1 has a further advantage for SD work since it shoots both PAL and NTSC. In fact, that's the reason I bought mine in the first place - to do a big PAL SD project.

Regarding low light performance, have you seen the following collection of threads? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414

Jon McGuffin · July 22nd, 2007, 10:15 AM

David....

I dont have any "1-second" HDV footage but I do have some short takes that are 30-40Mb's or so. Email me your email address via the link on this board when you click on my name and leave me your email address and I'll find a way to get them to you. I should be able to upload them to my website and send them to you that way.

In regards to not buying a HDR-FX1 because you don't need HD. I disagree with anybody who says not to if you aren't going to use it. The image and picture quality of the HD camcorders is just superior, even when shooting in SD, period.

I know we've been talking about the FX1 here, and I own 2 of them. But I also use and borrow an Canon A1 frequently. It's $500 more but there is a $250 rebate right now. For an extra $250, this is a worthwhile purchase for the 1 year full warranty, 20X Zoom, XLR Inputs, and 24F capture settings. I think it's also a little more future proof....

Jon

David J. Payne · July 23rd, 2007, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

File size for DV and HDV are the same. It is easier to edit using a codec that doesn't require decoding a 15GOP to create effects etc. Cineform and Canopus HQ transcode the m2t HDV stream to a format that is easier for the PC to use, in fact just like DV as a load on the PC. To do this of course the file size increases because now the encoding is on a per frame bases rather than spread over 15 frames. File sizes can be 3 or 4 times as big.

thanks a lot Ron. I am starting to get a better understanding.. What would be the advantage and reason for converting between the different file formats. Will the camera always output to pc in m2t format by default?

David J. Payne · July 23rd, 2007, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon McGuffin

I also use and borrow an Canon A1 frequently. It's $500 more but there is a $250 rebate right now. For an extra $250, this is a worthwhile purchase for the 1 year full warranty, 20X Zoom, XLR Inputs, and 24F capture settings. I think it's also a little more future proof....

Jon

Thanks Jon, I didnt realise the FX1 didnt have XLR, that is quite important to me. The 24 (or 25 in pal I assume) fps would benefit me greatly as well, as well as the increased zoom. I will look into the price of the A1 now.

I have sent you the email you mentioned.

Thanks a lot.

David J. Payne · July 23rd, 2007, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

David, I have used my Z1 almost entirely for standard definition output. I shoot HDV and downconvert in camera to capture as regular DV.

Boyd,
So doing this would still give you an avi file of the same res as SD? Or does it keep a higher res? Either way I assume it still going to look better than any SD file?

Many thanks I will have a look through the low light threads now.

David J. Payne · July 23rd, 2007, 02:32 AM

to all:

after reading this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49518) I have now started to think about the HD display issue. I realise that very few people have HD displays in the Uk and I would probably not be capable of burning the correct type of disc if it requires anything more than a standard burner and a dual layer DVD.. However I am working on the assumption that HD display or no HD display, the HD footage would still look better than the SD on a SD DVD. If this is wrong please let me know as I will almost certainly stick to SD for a few more years as it seems there is no call for HD in wedding videography.

Thanks

Ben Winter · July 24th, 2007, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Payne

Ive seen HD video feeds on HD plasmas and its incredible. Im not expecting a camera that records onto DV tape to be as good as this

Actually, you can expect it to be better. HD streams from Discovery, etc. are compressed to something like 5mbits/sec for delivery to homes. A lot of times my FX1 footage looks better than HDTV when viewed on my 42" plasma.

David J. Payne · July 30th, 2007, 02:02 PM

thanks for all of your help.
I bought my FX1 yesterday.. hope I don't regret it!

Richard Iredale · August 3rd, 2007, 05:08 PM

Congrats on your purchase. I have an FX1 and a Sony HC3 and love 'em both.

For your next purchase I would suggest the Sony wide-angle lens. It's a beautiful piece of glass and I use it all the time for my handheld FX1 shots. I bought mine on eBay 18 months ago for about $250.

David J. Payne · August 5th, 2007, 11:35 AM

Richard,

Sorry for the newbie question but what is the benefit of a wide angle lens for a camera that already has 16:9 capabilities?

Richard Iredale · August 7th, 2007, 12:50 AM

The FX1 is, I recall, slightly wider at full wide than the VX2000 I sold last year. Still, since a lot of the video I record is done "on the hoof" it helps make things less shaky to go wider.

Plus, I've concluded that there are situations where wider is very useful. The issue is that eventually you get into lots of barrel distortion and vignetting. Still, with the Sony lens (.8x) the increase in distortion is very modest, the scene is bright to the corners, and the lens is fully zoom-through.

David J. Payne · August 9th, 2007, 07:41 AM

Thanks Richard. It should be arriving in a couple of days so I will do some tests but my exierience with Sony lenses in the past has been all good so I'm sure I'll be happy.

July 21st, 2007, 07:17 AM	#16
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,222	File size of HDV is the same as SD. They are both 25mbs. HDV only records at SP speed though so there is no LP speed for HDV. Depending on the intermediate file format( for easier editing) you use if you have many streams of HDV the file size would be bigger. You don't need to record in HDV the FX1 records in DV 4x3 too so you could just use as DV until you want to switch to HDV. I don't have PPRo 2.0 but in Vegas or Edius I would use an SD 4x3 project setting and just put the HDV on the timeline, then crop as needed. I expect PPRO 2.0 would be the same as it is able to handle HDV native too. There are lots of HDV clips around if you do a search. Ron Evans

July 22nd, 2007, 02:46 AM	#17
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	Ron, Like a couple of people have said I cant see the point in buying a HDV camera if I dont utilise the HD Straight away.. what do you mean by "Depending on the intermediate file format( for easier editing) you use if you have many streams of HDV the file size would be bigger" What file format would video be in when I capture it? Ive heard it records in mpeg but does that mean when using the appropriate HDV capture software it will capture in mpeg too? and are you saying this will be the same size as an equivalent SD avi file?

July 22nd, 2007, 08:48 AM	#18
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,222	I bought my FX1 because it had the best controls of a Sony DV camcorder since the VX3 Hi8 camcorder I had. HDV for the future was a bonus. The other people I record amateur theatre shows with all have DV 4x3 camcorders. Little point in going through the agro of one in 4 cams being 16x9 HDV. For my own use I shoot in HDV. I liked the Sony because all my other equipment is Sony and LANC controlled. Options would have been the Canon's but they weren't out when I bought the FX1. File size for DV and HDV are the same. It is easier to edit using a codec that doesn't require decoding a 15GOP to create effects etc. Cineform and Canopus HQ transcode the m2t HDV stream to a format that is easier for the PC to use, in fact just like DV as a load on the PC. To do this of course the file size increases because now the encoding is on a per frame bases rather than spread over 15 frames. File sizes can be 3 or 4 times as big. Both Cineform and Canopus have the option to capture as RAW m2t ( file size same as DV) or do the conversion on capture. To do this your PC will have to be powerful enough to do this conversion realtime. I usually capture m2t and then convert. Before I bought he FX1 I had rented the DVX100 many times and it does have the advantage of XLR audio. Hence my previous comments. I see no problems in viewing the FX1 as a good DV camcorder( with some future proofing) until you want to go HDV. That is exactly how I use my FX1. Ron Evans

July 22nd, 2007, 08:57 AM	#19
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	David, I have used my Z1 almost entirely for standard definition output. I shoot HDV and downconvert in camera to capture as regular DV. It may be true that you can get better results by downconversion in post, but the rendering time is substantial and you end up using twice the disk space since you have two versions. I know you're considering the FX1, but the Z1 has a further advantage for SD work since it shoots both PAL and NTSC. In fact, that's the reason I bought mine in the first place - to do a big PAL SD project. Regarding low light performance, have you seen the following collection of threads? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414

July 22nd, 2007, 10:15 AM	#20
Jon McGuffin Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 634	David.... I dont have any "1-second" HDV footage but I do have some short takes that are 30-40Mb's or so. Email me your email address via the link on this board when you click on my name and leave me your email address and I'll find a way to get them to you. I should be able to upload them to my website and send them to you that way. In regards to not buying a HDR-FX1 because you don't need HD. I disagree with anybody who says not to if you aren't going to use it. The image and picture quality of the HD camcorders is just superior, even when shooting in SD, period. I know we've been talking about the FX1 here, and I own 2 of them. But I also use and borrow an Canon A1 frequently. It's $500 more but there is a $250 rebate right now. For an extra $250, this is a worthwhile purchase for the 1 year full warranty, 20X Zoom, XLR Inputs, and 24F capture settings. I think it's also a little more future proof.... Jon

July 23rd, 2007, 02:32 AM	#24
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	to all: after reading this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=49518) I have now started to think about the HD display issue. I realise that very few people have HD displays in the Uk and I would probably not be capable of burning the correct type of disc if it requires anything more than a standard burner and a dual layer DVD.. However I am working on the assumption that HD display or no HD display, the HD footage would still look better than the SD on a SD DVD. If this is wrong please let me know as I will almost certainly stick to SD for a few more years as it seems there is no call for HD in wedding videography. Thanks

July 30th, 2007, 02:02 PM	#26
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	thanks for all of your help. I bought my FX1 yesterday.. hope I don't regret it!

August 3rd, 2007, 05:08 PM	#27
Richard Iredale Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 67	Congrats on your purchase. I have an FX1 and a Sony HC3 and love 'em both. For your next purchase I would suggest the Sony wide-angle lens. It's a beautiful piece of glass and I use it all the time for my handheld FX1 shots. I bought mine on eBay 18 months ago for about $250.

August 5th, 2007, 11:35 AM	#28
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	Richard, Sorry for the newbie question but what is the benefit of a wide angle lens for a camera that already has 16:9 capabilities?

August 7th, 2007, 12:50 AM	#29
Richard Iredale Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 67	The FX1 is, I recall, slightly wider at full wide than the VX2000 I sold last year. Still, since a lot of the video I record is done "on the hoof" it helps make things less shaky to go wider. Plus, I've concluded that there are situations where wider is very useful. The issue is that eventually you get into lots of barrel distortion and vignetting. Still, with the Sony lens (.8x) the increase in distortion is very modest, the scene is bright to the corners, and the lens is fully zoom-through.

August 9th, 2007, 07:41 AM	#30
David J. Payne Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Southend-On-Sea, England Posts: 368	Thanks Richard. It should be arriving in a couple of days so I will do some tests but my exierience with Sony lenses in the past has been all good so I'm sure I'll be happy.