FX1000 has arrived - first impressions

Tim Akin · December 29th, 2008, 08:37 AM

Jeff, I guess your talking about the 10/20 light. I have never tried, but I will and I will let you know. The HV30 is a very small camera but has good control with manual settings once you learn them.

I'll try to get some screen grabs up comparing the 1000 and the 30. This past wedding was dark but the alter had very good lighting.

I also thought about the FX7, but figured if I spent 2k, I might as well get another 1000.

Ken Ross · December 29th, 2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

"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

Interestingly, that's what I've found too. If you really need SD and don't need the HD, I think it's better to leave the camera in the SD mode. Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sonys.

Of course the smart thing to do would be to conduct an A/B with your own cam and see which setup is better.

Martin Duffy · December 29th, 2008, 04:17 PM

Jeff

Yeah it was a Panasonic DVC-30. Great little cam for weddings that one and great low light performance that I would say on par with a VX2000. BIg statement but true.

On the subject of small cameras I love little cameras for weddings. I'll bet anyone an XD-cam that in some situations a small, good quality "point and shoot" cam is more effective than a bigger boy.

My Sony TRV900 was a winner for weddings and I still say that camera was one of the easiest to use.

I don't film wedding at the minute but I do plan on doing some again and will defintly be looking at getting a small cam to do some if not alot of the filming with.

Jeff Harper · December 29th, 2008, 04:35 PM

I owned a DVC-60 (same chips as DVC-30) and for 1/4" chips it was a great camera.

Martin Duffy · December 29th, 2008, 04:46 PM

"Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sony's."

Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue.

I will put the footage on the computer in Edius and create a DVD from the timeline but I must say I am losing sleep over this!

Need to get another edit done first so it will be a few days of hand on the heart for me.

Giroud Francois · December 29th, 2008, 05:03 PM

"if I had have recorded in SD "
well the problem is you compare HD picture with SD picture.
So whatever you could do, if you look at the HD quality and compare with the SD conversion, for sure there will be a big loss.
But if you shoot in SD directly, probably the camera is using the same conversion, so i do not see a reason to have better quality (except that DV is better at handling fast moving picture than HDV).
Anyway, composite video is bad, you should try to transfer digitally with firewire.
most DVD burner got firewire input now. You will skip 2 conversion process , one to produce composite video as output and one to decode composite for recording.

Adam Gold · December 29th, 2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

Um, you *do* know that composite is the crappiest connection available? Not just SD, but lousy SD?

Try component to a good monitor. You should be able to set component out to SD, and by all accounts Sonys do a very nice job of downconverting.

Martin Duffy · December 29th, 2008, 08:12 PM

Good news.

Just checked some in door Theatre/dancing footage shot on the FX1000 and BINGO the footage is razor sharp like Z1. I can now sleep at night knowing this cam is the real deal! I knew it was but hadn't seen it with my own eyes yet.

I will nut out the HD>SD in a few days.

Gee this cam is good in low light! I also like how it feels on the tripod. Just feels a bit better than the Z1 to me. I found with the Z1 alot of my shots were overexposed as I was perhaps trying to get too much out of the camera. Having said that the Z1 is still a ripper.

Jeff, my Panasonic was a DVC-62 but I have referred to it as a DVC-30 for the sake of this forum.

I don't miss that 2.5 inch LCD on the 62 hey!. I will miss the ultra quick zoom and creep but gee it had a poor audio limiter in it! For Sport I put a Sony 1.4 tele on the front and it got me right in there.

Hoping there may be a tele for the FX1000/Z5 that is about a 1.4 so you don't get the ring when you come out to a full wide.

I checked out the DIGI zoom extender on the 1000 but haven't tested it yet to see if the picture degrades. One thing it does that is cool is that it allows you to activate it whilst in record mode. I set it to a assign 4 and just reached over and on it comes. Makes the footage look like a two camera shoot. Pretty cool for me as the Aussie Rules I film is on an arena close to double the size of gridiorn fields and its nice to be able to get "right in there".

If there is not much drop in quality then it may be handy.

Anyone else into filming sport out there?

Dave Blackhurst · December 29th, 2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

Jeff

Yeah it was a Panasonic DVC-30. Great little cam for weddings that one and great low light performance that I would say on par with a VX2000. BIg statement but true.

On the subject of small cameras I love little cameras for weddings. I'll bet anyone an XD-cam that in some situations a small, good quality "point and shoot" cam is more effective than a bigger boy.

My Sony TRV900 was a winner for weddings and I still say that camera was one of the easiest to use.

I don't film wedding at the minute but I do plan on doing some again and will defintly be looking at getting a small cam to do some if not alot of the filming with.

Small cameras have some advantages, and aside from somewhat limited control, the newer HD "consumer" cameras do a prety good job under more conditions than not... I wish for the "AVCHD version" of the TRV900 - basic but useable manual control, good handling, discreet, yet great quality.

I was comparing some test shots (on a German site mentioned elsewhere on DVi) of various cameras supposedly shooting the identical scene under identical lighting conditions (I say supposedly, because it's hard to know for sure if they were really identical, as they were shot at different times, but it was fairly well done...). I think the thing that stood out was how close the majority of HD cameras were in good light, and until you got to an EX1 or EX3, there wasn't a stunning difference in low light... the small Sony and Canon Cameras held their own surprisingly well, and the SR11 and Canon HV30 seemed to do quite well considering. The results were pretty consistent with my firsthand experience, and since I'm not going to pony up for an EX3, the SR11 still looks pretty good... Though I like the features of the FX1000...

Ken Ross · December 29th, 2008, 11:01 PM

[QUOTE=Martin Duffy;985724Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip!

I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue.

[/QUOTE]

Martin, when you get a minute don't forget to shoot some footage with the FX1000 in SD mode and compare that with the down-rezzed mode. You may find this is how you want to shoot in the future if SD is what the client wants.

Noa Put · December 30th, 2008, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Martin, when you get a minute don't forget to shoot some footage with the FX1000 in SD mode and compare that with the down-rezzed mode. You may find this is how you want to shoot in the future if SD is what the client wants.

I had to shoot in dv mode with an xh-a1 a few weeks ago because my firwireport didn't work anymore and I didn't have another hdv camera to capture it, so I choose the dv mode which enabled me to capture my footage on an older dv cam. Because I had a deadline that was the most sensible thing to do at that time.
I was really surprised about the quality. It was sharper then what my dvx100 or vx2100 ever could have delivered.
If I work with premiere with hdv I normally output as an dv-avi and then let Encore handle the transcoding automatically. Now with the dv footage it was the same approach and with the same quality results on a dvd.
I think that as long as hd is not a request the dv mode is just as good, but filming in hdv does give you a big advantage to transfer your footage in the future to a blu-ray disk so you have to think ahead when making this decission.
I only did this because I had no other choice at that time, otherwise I would never do this but hdv camera are capable to give great results on dvd if your in hdv mode (and using the right transcode settings) or dv mode.

Jeff Harper · December 30th, 2008, 04:40 AM

Hey guys, I was of the understanding that quality is better if shooting HD, edit HD, then render DV. Is this not the case?

I think I'll go do a search.

William Ellwood · December 30th, 2008, 05:12 AM

That's what some say. I've ordered my Z5 and that's one of the tests I'll do to get a handle on this when it comes.

Jeff Harper · December 30th, 2008, 05:32 AM

Thanks William. Unitl I get a definitive answer I'll plan on shooting in SD for this weekend. At least the files will be easier to handle in post.

I can't imagine the image quality is significantly different in the end.

Noa Put · December 30th, 2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Hey guys, I was of the understanding that quality is better if shooting HD, edit HD, then render DV. Is this not the case?

I think I'll go do a search.

From what I've seen with my xh-a1 there was no difference in quality between transcoding hdv or dv to a dvd.

December 29th, 2008, 04:17 PM	#153
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	Dvc-30 Jeff Yeah it was a Panasonic DVC-30. Great little cam for weddings that one and great low light performance that I would say on par with a VX2000. BIg statement but true. On the subject of small cameras I love little cameras for weddings. I'll bet anyone an XD-cam that in some situations a small, good quality "point and shoot" cam is more effective than a bigger boy. My Sony TRV900 was a winner for weddings and I still say that camera was one of the easiest to use. I don't film wedding at the minute but I do plan on doing some again and will defintly be looking at getting a small cam to do some if not alot of the filming with.

December 29th, 2008, 04:46 PM	#155
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	HD downscaling issue "Perhaps there's a significant variation from one model to another, but that's what I've found with Sony's." Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip! I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue. I will put the footage on the computer in Edius and create a DVD from the timeline but I must say I am losing sleep over this! Need to get another edit done first so it will be a few days of hand on the heart for me.

December 29th, 2008, 08:12 PM	#158
Martin Duffy Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 156	FX1000 razor sharp Good news. Just checked some in door Theatre/dancing footage shot on the FX1000 and BINGO the footage is razor sharp like Z1. I can now sleep at night knowing this cam is the real deal! I knew it was but hadn't seen it with my own eyes yet. I will nut out the HD>SD in a few days. Gee this cam is good in low light! I also like how it feels on the tripod. Just feels a bit better than the Z1 to me. I found with the Z1 alot of my shots were overexposed as I was perhaps trying to get too much out of the camera. Having said that the Z1 is still a ripper. Jeff, my Panasonic was a DVC-62 but I have referred to it as a DVC-30 for the sake of this forum. I don't miss that 2.5 inch LCD on the 62 hey!. I will miss the ultra quick zoom and creep but gee it had a poor audio limiter in it! For Sport I put a Sony 1.4 tele on the front and it got me right in there. Hoping there may be a tele for the FX1000/Z5 that is about a 1.4 so you don't get the ring when you come out to a full wide. I checked out the DIGI zoom extender on the 1000 but haven't tested it yet to see if the picture degrades. One thing it does that is cool is that it allows you to activate it whilst in record mode. I set it to a assign 4 and just reached over and on it comes. Makes the footage look like a two camera shoot. Pretty cool for me as the Aussie Rules I film is on an arena close to double the size of gridiorn fields and its nice to be able to get "right in there". If there is not much drop in quality then it may be handy. Anyone else into filming sport out there?

December 30th, 2008, 05:12 AM	#163
William Ellwood Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Consett UK Posts: 110	That's what some say. I've ordered my Z5 and that's one of the tests I'll do to get a handle on this when it comes. __________________ Billy Ellwood is on Vimeo. Film club www.newcastleaca.co.uk i7 7700k, Asus z270f, 32gb ram, Windows 10, Premiere CS6.

December 30th, 2008, 05:32 AM	#164
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Thanks William. Unitl I get a definitive answer I'll plan on shooting in SD for this weekend. At least the files will be easier to handle in post. I can't imagine the image quality is significantly different in the end. Last edited by Jeff Harper; December 30th, 2008 at 07:26 AM.

December 29th, 2008, 08:37 AM	#151
Tim Akin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Newbern, TN Posts: 414	Jeff, I guess your talking about the 10/20 light. I have never tried, but I will and I will let you know. The HV30 is a very small camera but has good control with manual settings once you learn them. I'll try to get some screen grabs up comparing the 1000 and the 30. This past wedding was dark but the alter had very good lighting. I also thought about the FX7, but figured if I spent 2k, I might as well get another 1000.

December 29th, 2008, 04:35 PM	#154
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I owned a DVC-60 (same chips as DVC-30) and for 1/4" chips it was a great camera.

December 29th, 2008, 05:03 PM	#156
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	"if I had have recorded in SD " well the problem is you compare HD picture with SD picture. So whatever you could do, if you look at the HD quality and compare with the SD conversion, for sure there will be a big loss. But if you shoot in SD directly, probably the camera is using the same conversion, so i do not see a reason to have better quality (except that DV is better at handling fast moving picture than HDV). Anyway, composite video is bad, you should try to transfer digitally with firewire. most DVD burner got firewire input now. You will skip 2 conversion process , one to produce composite video as output and one to decode composite for recording.

December 29th, 2008, 11:01 PM	#160
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	[QUOTE=Martin Duffy;985724Well I hope my FX1000 is not a dud because the quality of the picture here is poor. As I said in an earlier post its great in the LCD screen but composite out from a HDV recording straight to a DVD recorder looks single chip! I can only think that down scaling from HD>SD via the camera is the issue at hand and that if I had have recorded in SD in the first place then there would be no issue. [/QUOTE] Martin, when you get a minute don't forget to shoot some footage with the FX1000 in SD mode and compare that with the down-rezzed mode. You may find this is how you want to shoot in the future if SD is what the client wants.

December 30th, 2008, 04:40 AM	#162
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Hey guys, I was of the understanding that quality is better if shooting HD, edit HD, then render DV. Is this not the case? I think I'll go do a search.