FX1000 has arrived - first impressions

Jamie Roberts · November 20th, 2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K.C. Luke

Hi Jamie

You can read a bit more on this info CMOS Rolling Shutter hope you have understand more about CMOS Chip

Thanks KC.

That article freaked me out a bit! I use a 'figrig' alot in my work with my fx1. In reading that article, would this no longer be possible if I bought the FX1000 due to the 'skewing' and 'wobble' associated with the CMOS technology. It certainly made it sound like any hand held use is or non static shooting is potentially going to cause some distortion of the picture. That dampened my enthusiasm a bit!!

I look forward to hearing Jeffs thought after shooting his wedding job on Saturday.

Thanks for the link (I think!)

Cheers

Jamie

Ethan Cooper · November 20th, 2008, 04:37 PM

I've been using both the FX7 and HV20 for a little over a year now and the skew & wobble seems to vary from camera to camera. The more expensive FX7 has less of a problem with it than the HV20. You can hand hold either camera without having these problems, it's usually very radical movements such as whip pans and extreme shaking of the camera that will give you trouble and how often are you going to use terrible shaking shots anyway?

Jamie Roberts · November 20th, 2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

You can hand hold either camera without having these problems, it's usually very radical movements such as whip pans and extreme shaking of the camera that will give you trouble and how often are you going to use terrible shaking shots anyway?

Thanks Ethan, thats reassuring.

I would like to say I have never had to use terrible shaking shots in my work but ummmm, there may be one or two that have shown up due to lack of other options!! My skills are still a work in progress!!

Jamie

Chris Hurd · November 20th, 2008, 06:22 PM

I am so far out of it that I didn't even realize that this camera was shipping... time to fire up a new board...

Ethan Cooper · November 20th, 2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I am so far out of it that I didn't even realize that this camera was shipping... time to fire up a new board...

If Sony doesn't stop releasing cameras so often you're gonna double the number of sub forums in less than a year.

Paul Therrien · November 20th, 2008, 08:56 PM

Ok, looking at the images they are soft as you say, so I will wait for a better image.

I did notice that the sharpness of the lens seems to be consistant to the edges. Which is good since that is one area I was hoping to improve over my A1.

Again, it is hard to tell from the downconvert and soft image, but I don't see any real CA at the edges to talk about so that is a plus.

Now, lets see how sharp it can really be!

Thanks for the first images. I know it's a pain to stop what you are doing to post these things.

Paul

Jeff Harper · November 20th, 2008, 09:01 PM

No Paul, posting is no trouble...it is the finding something worth shooting. Obviously when shooting my bride getting ready and the church, etc., I will come up with some decent stuff to show.

Chris Hurd · November 20th, 2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper

If Sony doesn't stop releasing cameras so often you're gonna double the number of sub forums in less than a year.

Ain't that the truth... between their HDV and XDCAM lines, all the Sony boards here will outnumber our Canon, JVC and Panasonic boards put together. I can't really double them up, either... the HD1000 needs to be on its own, and even though the FX1000 / Z5 are really replacements for the FX1 / Z1, they'll need to be kept separate because they work differently. Keeping all this stuff organized is a constant struggle.

Jeff Harper · November 23rd, 2008, 03:56 AM

Still shots taken from video clips shot with FX1000 on auto settings.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/album.php?albumid=37

Giroud Francois · November 23rd, 2008, 04:27 AM

for me it looks darn good, but definitely soft

Jamie Roberts · November 23rd, 2008, 04:28 AM

Those shots look very nice indeed particularly if they are 'still' frames from some footage.

How did handling the fx1000 compare to your previous camcorder (was that an FX1?) Did you notice much difference?

Cheers

jamie

Paul Therrien · November 23rd, 2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Still shots taken from video clips shot with FX1000 on auto settings.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/album.php?albumid=37

So these are very soft. I remember my few days with the Z7 I had to bump up the sharpness a bit. Sony's default sharpness is a little low, most likely to further soften the noise in the image.

Does the FX1000 setting allow for the sharpness correction?

As an example of what I am trying to match or beat...

I did a frame grab from the timeline and scaled it to 800x600. You will see 2 images. One says WITH sharpness and one just says Image v2. The one without sharpness is a 1440x1080 image scaled to 800x600 and uploaded, the one with sharpness is the same image but corrected to try and mimic what I see on my HD monitor and timeline. I think the timeline is still a little sharper, but it is close.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/p...ame-grabs.html

It has to beat my A1 so I am trying to determine if a setting change can close the gap, or will I have to move up to the EX1 and just be done with it.

Thanks again for posting!

Jeff Harper · November 23rd, 2008, 11:45 AM

I must admit these images are a bit softer than I had expected or hoped for. On the other hand they are not quite as soft as the stills suggest. Unfortunately they will be soft in DV after downconverted.

Remember that it was nearly dark when these where shot and there was no lighting from my camera or otherwise.

Frustrating thing yesterday lighting everywhere was "soft". In the house all indirect lighting, no lights allowed. The church lights were all aimed straight down and created extremely harsh shadows on faces, absolutely terrible.

Anyway, I was slightly disappointed in low-light with the camera, but keep in mind I ran auto except for white balance all evening. No doubt the picture could have been tweaked. It was much too fast paced and rushed the entire day for me to play with anything and risk ruining a shot.

The FX1000 is close to the PD170 in low light, but I will know more after I look at some comparison footage later.

Overall, I am disappointed, but not so much that I will not keep the camera. If I could have afforded the EX1, that is what I would have gotten.

For the money and for what I do, I am, overall, satisfied with the camera so far. It is a huge step up for me.

Chris Barcellos · November 23rd, 2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giroud Francois

for me it looks darn good, but definitely soft

Soft ?? From the description, these were shot at dusk, on an overcast day, and these are grabs from an HDV frame of video.....You would expect that the image would exhibit some degree of diffused image...

Jeff Harper · November 23rd, 2008, 02:51 PM

Chris, you are correct in your assesment. Shot in dim conditions, still grabs, etc.

On the other hand, I find it simpler to downplay the quality rather than defend. I was disapponted, as I said, but my disappoinment was really based upon the circumstances I was dealt more than the quality of the camera. I wanted pristine, well-lit conditions and got the opposite for the entire day.

I knew that the images would be judged as soft, beause they do appear soft. Considering the lack of lighting, they were fine.

I gotta tell you the viewfinder on that camera is unbelievable. It is a pure joy to work with. It is as close to WYSIWYG as I could imagine it could be.

November 20th, 2008, 04:37 PM	#17
Ethan Cooper Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Houma, La. Posts: 1,400 Images: 5	I've been using both the FX7 and HV20 for a little over a year now and the skew & wobble seems to vary from camera to camera. The more expensive FX7 has less of a problem with it than the HV20. You can hand hold either camera without having these problems, it's usually very radical movements such as whip pans and extreme shaking of the camera that will give you trouble and how often are you going to use terrible shaking shots anyway? __________________ ∅ -Ethan Cooper

November 20th, 2008, 06:22 PM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I am so far out of it that I didn't even realize that this camera was shipping... time to fire up a new board... __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 23rd, 2008, 03:56 AM	#24
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Stills from FX1000 shot November 22, 2008 Still shots taken from video clips shot with FX1000 on auto settings. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/album.php?albumid=37

November 20th, 2008, 08:56 PM	#21
Paul Therrien New Boot Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 23	Ok, looking at the images they are soft as you say, so I will wait for a better image. I did notice that the sharpness of the lens seems to be consistant to the edges. Which is good since that is one area I was hoping to improve over my A1. Again, it is hard to tell from the downconvert and soft image, but I don't see any real CA at the edges to talk about so that is a plus. Now, lets see how sharp it can really be! Thanks for the first images. I know it's a pain to stop what you are doing to post these things. Paul

November 20th, 2008, 09:01 PM	#22
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	No Paul, posting is no trouble...it is the finding something worth shooting. Obviously when shooting my bride getting ready and the church, etc., I will come up with some decent stuff to show.

November 23rd, 2008, 04:27 AM	#25
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	for me it looks darn good, but definitely soft

November 23rd, 2008, 04:28 AM	#26
Jamie Roberts Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: bendigo, australia Posts: 204	Those shots look very nice indeed particularly if they are 'still' frames from some footage. How did handling the fx1000 compare to your previous camcorder (was that an FX1?) Did you notice much difference? Cheers jamie

November 23rd, 2008, 11:45 AM	#28
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I must admit these images are a bit softer than I had expected or hoped for. On the other hand they are not quite as soft as the stills suggest. Unfortunately they will be soft in DV after downconverted. Remember that it was nearly dark when these where shot and there was no lighting from my camera or otherwise. Frustrating thing yesterday lighting everywhere was "soft". In the house all indirect lighting, no lights allowed. The church lights were all aimed straight down and created extremely harsh shadows on faces, absolutely terrible. Anyway, I was slightly disappointed in low-light with the camera, but keep in mind I ran auto except for white balance all evening. No doubt the picture could have been tweaked. It was much too fast paced and rushed the entire day for me to play with anything and risk ruining a shot. The FX1000 is close to the PD170 in low light, but I will know more after I look at some comparison footage later. Overall, I am disappointed, but not so much that I will not keep the camera. If I could have afforded the EX1, that is what I would have gotten. For the money and for what I do, I am, overall, satisfied with the camera so far. It is a huge step up for me.

November 23rd, 2008, 02:51 PM	#30
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Chris, you are correct in your assesment. Shot in dim conditions, still grabs, etc. On the other hand, I find it simpler to downplay the quality rather than defend. I was disapponted, as I said, but my disappoinment was really based upon the circumstances I was dealt more than the quality of the camera. I wanted pristine, well-lit conditions and got the opposite for the entire day. I knew that the images would be judged as soft, beause they do appear soft. Considering the lack of lighting, they were fine. I gotta tell you the viewfinder on that camera is unbelievable. It is a pure joy to work with. It is as close to WYSIWYG as I could imagine it could be.