FX1000 has arrived - first impressions

[Martyn Hull]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Adam, I had the FX7 too for awhile, and I found that camera sharper than the FX1. But I always thought the FX7 was a bit noisy and certainly poor in low light. It always looked to me like Sony added edge enhancement to the FX7 contributing to its somewhat noisy image.

ken i still have an fx-7 and the sharpness setting makes an awful lot of difference in the amount of noise[0-15]in tests against my sr-12 the little one just has more resolution even with the 7 on 15 max,my problem is by the time its on the pc for what ever format bd avchd or tape its lower than the fx7s,watching the project on the time line especialy full screen shows up as well,annoying.

[Ken Ross]

So Martyn, what's happening to the SR12's footage in post that it starts out sharper than your FX7 and winds up softer?

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I think you need to stretch the blacks for stage environment because the problem is seeing detail in the shadows.

Actually, that isn't the problem for me; it's overblown highlights.

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

Bring knee down so that the lights on whites will not overexpose them. I just wish my FX1 could do that. I end up exposing to make sure I don't loose detail in the bright colours and then play with gamma in post to regain the detail in the shadows. If you do the opposite( compress blacks), an actor with black pants on a dark stage with a white shirt will end up looking like just a white shirt moving around the stage!!!! Once you have compressed there is no way to recover in post. With stretch you can compress in post if you don't like it.

I think in theory this makes sense, but in practice I've found it doesn't work that way, at least for me. The white shirt/black pants scenario never happens because I'm in SPOTLIGHT mode all the time, which adjusts for this, and having the knee at 100% makes it even better -- seems like it crushes down the highlights while keeping dark parts at least visible.

And the problem with trying to see detail in the shadows is a) they're not lit for a reason, so you really *don't* want to see this, and b) if you try, you just get a ton of grain as the cam struggles to bring up details. I was actually concerned about losing details in darker, but still lit, areas of the stage, but the cam seems to know what to do.

Using Black Compress last night got me exactly what I wanted. But I will try bringing the knee down to 85% (low). Or, since the cam always seems to be smarter than I am, just leaving it on AUTO. Much more experimenting still to do.

[Ken Ross]

Adam, so how was the overall quality and how did it compare with the other cams you used?

[Ron Evans]

I never run in auto because this destroys the lighting effects of the lighting designer apart from relying on the camera to set gain( grain). I watch zebras and make sure that faces or light yellow costumes are correctly exposed. This is the most one can get out of most cameras. Most of the time my FX1 is at 9db, and around F3.4 to F4 for theatre shows. Gives good depth of field for the stage and grain is manageable at 9db. Spotlight mode manages gain and iris in an attempt to stop saturation of bright scenes it doesn't always work and will go up and down with the lights. Just like any auto systems when the stage blacks out it will try and correct when the lights then come up bright it will have to shut down quick. This pumping is noticable and just isn't there in full manual mode.
As far as detail in the shadows is concerned I am sure the costume designers want you to see that the suit is pin stripped or that there is a pattern on the black dress. IF the stage lighting designer doesn't want anyone to see the corner of the stage it will not have any light and will not be seen by anyone. Peoples eyes are far more sensitive than a camera and the audience will see far more of the stage than any recording.

Ron Evans

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Adam, so how was the overall quality and how did it compare with the other cams you used?

I was blown away looking at the LCD screen during taping, but now that the tapes are on the PC the FX1 and FX1000 look pretty much the same. But that's just spot checking. I'll need to explore more.

Ron -- I get everything you're saying and can't quarrel with any of it. It just hasn't worked that way for me, that's all. I never have a problem using AUTO/SPOTLIGHT, but that's just me. It does try to compensate when the stage blacks out but eventually it gives up. And I do the fade in post anyway.

Appreciate all the input.

[Ken Ross]

Adam, if you have access to a large screen 1080p HDTV, THAT would be the way to judge. I think on most of these computer monitors, all these cams look pretty much alike. The monitors hide so much of the goodness these cams have to offer.

[Adam Gold]

That's an excellent point. I need to get an AV receiver or other form of mixer with front inputs as I'm all out of inputs on my 65" Sony RP. And they're all in the back anyway.

[Martin Duffy]

I think its a good rule of thumb to be editing with a TV monitor also displaying the "real" picture as you are doing the edit.

Just firewire out and sit it along side your computer monitors. A great reference to how things really look.

Things are on the improve for me and the FX1000. The digital extender I can confirm is a great feature for sports events.

Its maybe not as sharp as normal optical but certainly not as noisy as the not so long ago days of normal Digi zoom.

Anyone filming horse racing, or gold or anyhting really where you need to get a closer look will be happy.

I am not sure about for wedding where you may like to track a wedding party from say 50m away.

It would be an interesting test for some to do and see if they like the result.

Certainly you can pick up better facial expressions being closer in so well may be an alternative to putting a tele lens on/off.

[Martyn Hull]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

So Martyn, what's happening to the SR12's footage in post that it starts out sharper than your FX7 and winds up softer?

Unless pinnacle and my quad core pc dont like each other its a puzzle and annoying.

[Adam Gold]

Originally Posted by Martin Duffy

I think its a good rule of thumb to be editing with a TV monitor also displaying the "real" picture as you are doing the edit.

I agree; I actually have two -- one connected to the deck so I can monitor during capture, and the other attached to the video card for full-screen playback from the timeline.

[Prech Marton]

Sorry, i dont have time to read the whole topic, just a quick question:
FX1000 LCD screen show the picture in overscan format or
show the full 1080 lines frame?
if not, how can you compose a shot, if you dont know what the viewer
will see on a full hd lcd tv that is underscan?

[Tom Hardwick]

Very good question Prech, and I await the replies with interest. I hate the huge overscan on my Z1, and the underscan mode reduces the image size on the screen so much that it's quite unacceptable.

[Ken Ross]

I was always under the impression that overscan & underscan were more a function of CRT displays. A 1920X1080 LCD display should show the entire picture without any overscan or underscan.

[Prech Marton]

Hi Ken.
please read my post again.
The question wasn't THAT!

(and for example my LG 37LC51 still used the overscan mode!, and it wasnt crt..)