FX1000 has arrived - first impressions

Tim Akin · December 28th, 2008, 04:54 PM

I don't know why he did that, weird.

Martin Duffy · December 28th, 2008, 05:05 PM

I have just filmed with the FX1000 for the 2nd time and for the first time have shot in HDV using a blacked out mini DV tape (made black by also recording in HDV).

I have filmed Cricket (the Australian Baseball game) and and the client only needs footage uncut to DVD.

I am running it out to a realtime DVD recorder from the camera as I write this and are disappointed with the sharpness of the edges of picture.

Through the LCD screen the pics are amazing but through the CRT monitor the images just look a bit fuzzy. I am hoping this is a HDV>Standard Def issue because this is just a big letdown.

Thinking it through if one is only outputting to standard def is it better to record in standard def in the first place as apposed to HDV which is compressed.

Would it be true in saying that what you see through the LCD screen is really HD quality and that going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality than recording in Standard def in the first place.

I have compared the footage filmed at the same venue with my Panasonic DC-30 and the Panasonic is much sharper and looks as one would expect.

The FX1000 footage really looks like its already been transferred to DVD and that I am looking at 2nd generation footage.

One thing for certain is that if this is the quality of the camera in brightish sunlight well its going back to Sony and I will upgrade to XDCam as this is really below par.

Like many others on this forum Video is my life I spend 50+ hours a week filming and editing and no way will I put up with this! RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Ken Ross · December 28th, 2008, 05:10 PM

Martin, not sure what happened, but if my client needed the finished product in SD, I would have put the FX1000 in SD mode. I've never liked downconversion and you generally have to deal with letterboxing that some clients just don't like.

If you try to get rid of the letterboxing by zooming...well, there goes your image quality even further. Need SD, shoot in SD. I really think that's your best bet.

Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.

Martin Duffy · December 28th, 2008, 05:19 PM

Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.[/QUOTE]

Ken, I will do the SD test. Always an issue with anything new hey.

As for the performance of the camera it is just fantastic.

Anyone else out there had the HDV>SD poor quality issue?

Ken Ross · December 28th, 2008, 05:21 PM

Martin, please let us know how your tests go, it might help others here (including myself!). :)

Tim Akin · December 28th, 2008, 05:27 PM

Martin, if you didn't tweak the picture profiles, you need to. Especially the sharpness. I ended up cranking it all the way up.

I have done many test with shooting in HDV, HDV downconverted and SD. To me, shooting HDV, editing HDV and then render to SD produced the best results.

Ken Ross · December 28th, 2008, 05:46 PM

Tim, how do you deal with letterboxing if that's not wanted?

Tim Akin · December 28th, 2008, 06:12 PM

I do weddings only. From now on 16:9 widescreen only. I have been waiting a long time for this day to come...... 4:3 is his-to-ry.

William Ellwood · December 28th, 2008, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Akin

To me, shooting HDV, editing HDV and then render to SD produced the best results.

That's an opinion many feel.
I have not used HDV yet (I'm about to!) but some good film-makers I know have found that shooting and editing in HDV and then outputting to SD produces the best looking results for them when they need to distribute in SD. There's a few opinions about this here IAC Discussion Forums • View topic - Anybody editing in HDV?

Jeff Harper · December 28th, 2008, 06:31 PM

Tim I'm with you on the 16:9. 4:3 is over for me as well. People watch 16:9 movies on their sets all of the time and if they have a 4:3 TV they are used to black bars on the side.

I ordered a second FX1000 and will get a third as my season starts ramping up in March

Tim Akin · December 28th, 2008, 06:51 PM

Jeff, I used two FX1000's and a HV30 for the unmanned cam in the back. I was really impressed at how well that little cam held up to the 3-chippers. I bought it to use as a capture deck, but after yesterday's wedding, I may not be in such a hurry to purchase a third 1000 or add a Z5.

Ken Ross · December 28th, 2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Akin

I do weddings only. From now on 16:9 widescreen only. I have been waiting a long time for this day to come...... 4:3 is his-to-ry.

Makes sense. The problem I have is doing mostly corporate work where 4:3 still rules.

Jeff Harper · December 28th, 2008, 11:36 PM

Martin are you talking about DVC-30 when you mentioned the DC-30?

Giroud Francois · December 29th, 2008, 05:40 AM

"going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality"
Definitely yes, because this is poorly done in the camera.
why ? because this must be done real time with very limited processing power.
If you want a good conversion, capture into a computer and do the conversion with a decent converter.
shot from a PDW-330 XDCAM HD and top picture converted by camera, bottom by computer

Jeff Harper · December 29th, 2008, 06:05 AM

Tim it is almost scary how close we are on some things...I have been dying to order an HV-30. I just want one. I've thought on more than one occasion of getting one as a backup or discrete extra cam. I'd really want it as a personal cam, but I imagine there are all kinds of ways to utilize it in the field professionally as well. For example with a light and mic it could be a great interview cam. I would love to have a small camera that didn't intimidate people for use at the reception.

So you are saying that in decent lighting it matches your FX1000 pretty well?

Could I mount a Sony light with battery on top of the cam?

The FX7 would be a much better choice for backup at weddings, however it costs 4x price and is same size as what I already have.

December 28th, 2008, 05:05 PM	#137
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	down converting issue (I hope) I have just filmed with the FX1000 for the 2nd time and for the first time have shot in HDV using a blacked out mini DV tape (made black by also recording in HDV). I have filmed Cricket (the Australian Baseball game) and and the client only needs footage uncut to DVD. I am running it out to a realtime DVD recorder from the camera as I write this and are disappointed with the sharpness of the edges of picture. Through the LCD screen the pics are amazing but through the CRT monitor the images just look a bit fuzzy. I am hoping this is a HDV>Standard Def issue because this is just a big letdown. Thinking it through if one is only outputting to standard def is it better to record in standard def in the first place as apposed to HDV which is compressed. Would it be true in saying that what you see through the LCD screen is really HD quality and that going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality than recording in Standard def in the first place. I have compared the footage filmed at the same venue with my Panasonic DC-30 and the Panasonic is much sharper and looks as one would expect. The FX1000 footage really looks like its already been transferred to DVD and that I am looking at 2nd generation footage. One thing for certain is that if this is the quality of the camera in brightish sunlight well its going back to Sony and I will upgrade to XDCam as this is really below par. Like many others on this forum Video is my life I spend 50+ hours a week filming and editing and no way will I put up with this! RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

December 28th, 2008, 04:54 PM	#136
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	I don't know why he did that, weird.

December 28th, 2008, 05:10 PM	#138
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Martin, not sure what happened, but if my client needed the finished product in SD, I would have put the FX1000 in SD mode. I've never liked downconversion and you generally have to deal with letterboxing that some clients just don't like. If you try to get rid of the letterboxing by zooming...well, there goes your image quality even further. Need SD, shoot in SD. I really think that's your best bet. Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.

December 28th, 2008, 05:19 PM	#139
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	Why don't you try shooting a bit in the SD mode and see how that compares with your downconverted footage. Certainly from the clips I've seen in HDV, the 1000 is razor sharp.[/QUOTE] Ken, I will do the SD test. Always an issue with anything new hey. As for the performance of the camera it is just fantastic. Anyone else out there had the HDV>SD poor quality issue?

December 28th, 2008, 05:21 PM	#140
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Martin, please let us know how your tests go, it might help others here (including myself!). :)

December 28th, 2008, 05:27 PM	#141
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	Martin, if you didn't tweak the picture profiles, you need to. Especially the sharpness. I ended up cranking it all the way up. I have done many test with shooting in HDV, HDV downconverted and SD. To me, shooting HDV, editing HDV and then render to SD produced the best results.

December 28th, 2008, 05:46 PM	#142
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Tim, how do you deal with letterboxing if that's not wanted?

December 28th, 2008, 06:12 PM	#143
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	I do weddings only. From now on 16:9 widescreen only. I have been waiting a long time for this day to come...... 4:3 is his-to-ry.

December 28th, 2008, 06:31 PM	#145
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Tim I'm with you on the 16:9. 4:3 is over for me as well. People watch 16:9 movies on their sets all of the time and if they have a 4:3 TV they are used to black bars on the side. I ordered a second FX1000 and will get a third as my season starts ramping up in March

December 28th, 2008, 06:51 PM	#146
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	Jeff, I used two FX1000's and a HV30 for the unmanned cam in the back. I was really impressed at how well that little cam held up to the 3-chippers. I bought it to use as a capture deck, but after yesterday's wedding, I may not be in such a hurry to purchase a third 1000 or add a Z5.

December 28th, 2008, 11:36 PM	#148
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Martin are you talking about DVC-30 when you mentioned the DC-30?

December 29th, 2008, 05:40 AM	#149
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	"going HD>standard def produces a lower grade quality" Definitely yes, because this is poorly done in the camera. why ? because this must be done real time with very limited processing power. If you want a good conversion, capture into a computer and do the conversion with a decent converter. shot from a PDW-330 XDCAM HD and top picture converted by camera, bottom by computer

December 29th, 2008, 06:05 AM	#150
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Tim it is almost scary how close we are on some things...I have been dying to order an HV-30. I just want one. I've thought on more than one occasion of getting one as a backup or discrete extra cam. I'd really want it as a personal cam, but I imagine there are all kinds of ways to utilize it in the field professionally as well. For example with a light and mic it could be a great interview cam. I would love to have a small camera that didn't intimidate people for use at the reception. So you are saying that in decent lighting it matches your FX1000 pretty well? Could I mount a Sony light with battery on top of the cam? The FX7 would be a much better choice for backup at weddings, however it costs 4x price and is same size as what I already have.