Is that a problem with FX1000?

[Jeff Harper]

Ron, just want to be clear that I understand that this is truly a pointless debate.

No matter how anyone feels about CMOS vs CCDs, it won't make a lick of difference in the change in the market place and what the manufacturers do. And since consumers are clamoring for what I feel are stupid gadgets, the writing is on the wall, as CMOS features offer tons of potential for marketers.

In addition, CMOS is much better suited for Hi-definition and that is where it is really at, isn't it?

[David Jonas]

All discussions like these are subjective and depends on the likes and dislikes of the user. I personally use on a regualar basis a few Sony cams including the venerable VX2100 and a poor excuse for a CMOS camera the Sony FX7. I also use a few Panasonic cameras including A DVX and to me the Panasonic has a way better picture than the Sony and even in very low light I much prefer the Panasonic to the VX2100. To me Sony colors seem artficial while Panasonic seem more like real life. The clincher with Panasonic cameras is that they tend to give better manual control, less need to go into menus and they are all available even while recording.

Should I go around trying to convince everyone to ditch their Sony cam for Panasonic? Of course not, I would be wasting both my time and other peoples time. We should just buy the cameras that we can afford to like.

[Ron Wilber]

i never liked the low quality compression of the hmc pixel shift. If I were to go for a good low light ccd camera with pixel shift I would get the jvc hm100. All footage I've seen from that blows the hmc away in terms of pq. It's still not as sharp as the fx1000 though.

Also I wonder if the noise from the fx1000 is due to hdv compression. I had an h-fs100 canon cmos camera and it's avchd footage is cleaner that anything I've seen coming from the hmc or fx1000.

[Ron Evans]

Jeff I too think this debate has gone on long enough. However the one point about CMOS you missed out is the most important and the one that makes all the others work. CMOS has individual pixel processing something that is technically impossible with CCD. In consumer cameras this allows fancy features but also will allow individual exposure control by pixel, technically. Cost and device speed of course limit this use but this will come and will allow better detail in dark areas and highlight control just not possible with CCD. In most current CMOS the pixels are read as blocks but technically they could be read and processed individually. With the technology used in the Sony XR500/520, using connections behind the sensors and immediate A/D( not possible with CCD), noise levels are very low. My XR500 at F1.8, 18db is a lot less noisy than my FX1 with CCD at 12db.
Anyway enough.
Ron Evans

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Ron Wilber

Also I wonder if the noise from the fx1000 is due to hdv compression. I had an h-fs100 canon cmos camera and it's avchd footage is cleaner that anything I've seen coming from the hmc or fx1000.

I too wonder about this. I shoot with FX1 , SR11 and XR500. The two AVCHD cams are cleaner and sharper than the FX1. They don't have the manual controls of the FX1 so at times the FX1 does get the better picture. I would get an AVCHD version of the FX1000 if it came out. Having compared these three cameras now for the last few months the FX1 has to go but I am at a loss as to what to change to. I will likely get a FX1000 as I have so many Sony batteries, chargers, LANC controllers etc and maybe some nice small HDMI recorders will come in the future at a reasonable price.
Ron Evans

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

But I ran my Sony today with my HMC150 and there was less noise in the Panny than the Sony. Also, I don't like the "interlace type" lines in my FX1000 footage. I get these lines that run across the screen, don't care for it, I don't know what they are.

So after 'not wanting to bring up the CMOS vs CCD issue', you gave us a dissertation. :)

Jeff, all things you read in 'articles' are not the final word nor are they always 100% factual nor are they always written without a bias. The FACT is that CMOS imagers are used in some of the most expensive digital SLRs where cost saving is NOT an issue.

CMOS has undeniable quality advantages (color, power savings, pixel-level processing, immunity from overload etc.) that you did not mention (or was not mentioned in the article). That is the reason they are used in very expensive imaging devices where CCDs could easily be used. Also, when used in an effective 'total solution', you'll find that CMOS imagers will produce LESS noise than their CCD counterparts.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the Sony XR500/XR520. This camera incorporates several processing/imaging techniques, to produce as noise-free an image as you'll find anywhere at many times the cost.

Now, those 'interlaced type lines' you're getting on your FX1000 is a function of poor deinterlacing on part of your display. I've got two Pioneer Kuro displays and I've never seen anything remotely like 'interlaced lines' from my Z5 or XR500. Displays that don't do a good job of deinterlacing might well show the issue your describing, but it's not a function of the camera.

You might also look for some setting in your display that might give you a different form of processing in the deinterlacing process. My displays have several.

[Ron Wilber]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I too wonder about this. I shoot with FX1 , SR11 and XR500. The two AVCHD cams are cleaner and sharper than the FX1. They don't have the manual controls of the FX1 so at times the FX1 does get the better picture. I would get an AVCHD version of the FX1000 if it came out. Having compared these three cameras now for the last few months the FX1 has to go but I am at a loss as to what to change to. I will likely get a FX1000 as I have so many Sony batteries, chargers, LANC controllers etc and maybe some nice small HDMI recorders will come in the future at a reasonable price.
Ron Evans

The good thing about the fx1000 is that it's pretty sharp and the grain is very light. Therefor a de-noiser such as neatvideo cleans up the noise really well, to the point of not being able to see any loss in image resolution or quality. the only thing about neatvideo is that it will slow down rendering time.. but it's a much cheaper solution than an hdmi capture device.

[Jeff Harper]

Here are some images from the FX1000 and the HMC150 from yesterday, a fairly dark church.

Both cameras in auto settings.

See if you can choose which image is from which camera.

BTW, the bottom left image is from the same camera as the images above it, I moved it mid-ceremony.

[Jeff Kellam]

Its easy to see in the first two shots the ones on the left are the HMC-150 as they have much better color than the strange warm look of the FX-1000.

The bottom two are difficult to tell for some reason.

Your master pedestal was a little too high for my taste and I would have used low knee or DRS2.

[Ken Ross]

I prefer the images on the left. I'd assume the images on the right were not from an FX1000 (unless settings were significantly altered) since I've never seen such low contrast images from that cam.

[Jeff Harper]

Ron, I don't agree about the Sony being clean and sharp, at least not when the going gets tough. Overall the image from the camera, IMO is somewhat soft and noisy in low light. I have felt that way since I got my first one in October of last year.

I've shot apporoximately 15 weddings with the 2 FX1000s and as soon as the gain goes up the noise level is noticeable, very noticeable. Since I have spent dozens of hours with the cameras in dark reception halls I submit that I can make this observation safely.

I shot my first wedding with the FX1000 next to a VX2100 in a very dark reception and the footage was nearly identical, and the VX2100 was in 16:9 stretch mode, which is not saying much for the FX1000.

In my first review of the FX1000 I mentioned it was seemed flat and of low contrast and I still hold to that.

Now in perfect light, the Sony is VERY nice. It just doesn't hold up well with increased gain. That is why I'm always running lights whereas with my old Sony's it wasn't as necessary.

My primary reason for moving to the FX1000 was for 16:9, not HD. My customers love the widescreen look, as do I.

So I've gotten plenty of nice footage from the FX1000, but generally as the bride is coming down the aisle the footage is almost without fail noisy and flat.

The images below are typical.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kellam

Its easy to see in the first two shots the ones on the left are the HMC-150 as they have much better color than the strange warm look of the FX-1000.

The bottom two are difficult to tell for some reason.

Jeff, 'much better color' is in the eyes of the beholder and adjustments have everything in the world to do with the final results. Please let's not get into a pissing match regarding these two cams. That's not the purpose of this site.

[Stelios Christofides]

Jeff
I would say that images 1,3,5 are with HMC150 and 2,4,6 are with FX1000
If this is the case then the images from the HMC150 are better. I might add though that my Z5 produces images like the 1,3 and 5.

Stelios

[Ken Ross]

I just can't see how you could be getting consistently 'noisy' results with the FX1000 Jeff. Are you setting a gain limit or are you letting it run wild? These cams are so noise-free relative to the competition, it's just very odd that you are getting these results.

Even in corporate work I shoot in some low lit factory environments and would never classify the results as 'noisy'. In fact they're very comparable in terms of noise to my VX2100.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

Jeff
I might add though that my Z5 produces images like the 1,3 and 5.

Stelios

Stelios, you and I agree 100% on this. I would find it very difficult to get such low contrast images out of my Z5. I'd need to really alter the settings intentionally to get that kind of image. Really really odd. But I'm glad it's not just me.