theBRB Banner

 Forum      Theater      Contests      Stockpile

Welcome Guest.

Login | Register

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
  Print  
Author Topic: Purchasing the FX1  (Read 22357 times)
Blank avatar

djr33

« on: March 20, 2006, 01:33:06 AM »

So... i'm gonna get a new cam. From the looks of everything, I'm all but sure of getting the FX1. In a last attempt to be sure, please tell me if you've got any advice to or not to do so.

Reasoning:
HD is really cool. Maybe not perfect, but nice.
Price is low for the three in its range.
I don't want the XL2 that much and its a lot more.
The DVX seems to be only better for the 24p and I don't care enough about just that.

Thoughts?

I'll do this soon.. maybe within the week.
Logged
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2006, 07:09:01 AM »

As I said when we talked before. This would be the perfect cam for you;

1. You said you like HD. FX1
2. You only have 3K. FX1 (with cash left over)
3. You like widescreen and as you said HD rez is close to widescreen. FX1
4. 24p can be done with the DVX, however it can also be faked. Perfect example; LOTR. Yet again FX1.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 07:10:19 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2006, 09:28:20 AM »

Quote
however it can also be faked. Perfect example; LOTR.

Huh?


Yeah, the FX1 is a good camera.  If I had the option between that or the Xl2, I'd take the XL2 though.  The XL2 is a nice piece of equipment, and they hold their value extremely well.  The important thing to be looking at, are the downsides of each camera, and if they affect you.

DVX:  Terrible Signal to Noise ratio.  Absolutely terrible.  Low resolution.   Slightly lower in fact, than the XL2 is capable of, but certainly not HD.  

XL2:  Big, clunky.  Expensive.  It isn't HD, but it is the absolute highest resolution that standard DV video can possibly allow.  Still, far from HD.  This camera is 1200 dollars mroe than the other two, as well.  No real technical downside to it though, other than the lack of high resolution video.

FX1.  Rare, but sometimes obvious problems with high motion in the mpeg2 codec.   It's HDV, so that'll take some processor power.  It doesn't have anything close to the same grade of audio as the DVX and XL2.  IT doesn't even have XLR inputs.  Just a mini mic jack.


So, which problems bother you more?   Noisy low resolution image, four thousand dollars for audio controls and interchangeable lenses that you won't ever use, or lousy audio inputs and controls?
Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

TechKrill



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 973


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2006, 10:17:19 AM »

/me wants an XL-2 something fierce...
Logged
Blank avatar

FCRabbath

« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2006, 10:29:43 AM »

XL2 isn't that great of a cam guys, DVX can do the same honestly. ESP. if it's cheaper.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 10:30:17 AM by FCRabbath » Logged
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2006, 11:01:43 AM »

Quote
Quote
however it can also be faked. Perfect example; LOTR.

Huh?
LOTR was shot in 30FPS I believe, then they made it to playback at 24FPS in post. Look it up.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 11:02:34 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2006, 11:19:46 AM »

No, the majority was shot on film at 24fps.  When Peter wanted that slowed down 'magic' look, he shot  26 and 28.   Why would he shoot 30?

FC, technically, the XL2 is the best consumer SD camera around, and the DVX can't touch it.  The XL2 has fabulous optics and a smooth, clear picture.  The DVX comes close, but it doesn't have the same resolution (no native widescreen) and it doesn't have the same signal to noise ratio.
Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2006, 11:34:37 AM »

Quote
FC, technically, the XL2 is the best consumer SD camera around, and the DVX can't touch it.
Yeah thats great, but Daniel WANTS High Def. We talked about it already, unless he changed his mind.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 11:35:39 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

Rico



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 165


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2006, 02:08:14 PM »

Quote
DVX:  Terrible Signal to Noise ratio.  Absolutely terrible.  Low resolution.   Slightly lower in fact, than the XL2 is capable of, but certainly not HD.  

XL2:  Big, clunky.  Expensive.  It isn't HD, but it is the absolute highest resolution that standard DV video can possibly allow.  Still, far from HD.  This camera is 1200 dollars mroe than the other two, as well.  No real technical downside to it though, other than the lack of high resolution video.

FX1.  Rare, but sometimes obvious problems with high motion in the mpeg2 codec.   It's HDV, so that'll take some processor power.  It doesn't have anything close to the same grade of audio as the DVX and XL2.  IT doesn't even have XLR inputs.  Just a mini mic jack.
No no no!

/palpatine

DVX:  24p 24p 24p 24p 24p 24p 24p.  I'm not quite sure how you can say that the DVX is a noisy camera.  The DVX acutally has bigger pixels in it's chips, which get you a much cleaner image, especially in low light.  The DVX has the best low light performance of any camera I've ever used.  I'm also confused about the "low resolution" comment.  It's 720x480, the same as every other 4:3 native camera on the market.  You must be comparing it only the XL2 and FX1.  Another nice thing about the DVX is that it has about 2-3 stops more latitude than the XL2.  I'm not sure how it compares to the FX1, though.

XL2:  Again, 24p.  The form factor is a definite issue for me, at least.  I don't like the shoulder-mount style, and the LCD-viewfinder-thingie they invented is absolutely worthless.  If you're shooting on the XL2, be prepared to never take your eyes away from the viewfinder.

FX1:  It's called macroblocking, and it's not that rare at all.  Also, no 24p (it should be made illegal to sell a camera without it these days).  The FX1 also has 2 XLR inputs, right on the front, pretty much the same place the DVX has 'em.

It I were in your position, I would go for the DVX.  It'll get you much more bang for your buck, and in all honesty, 24p is going to be much more beneficial and obvious in your recorded image than HD.  Sure HD is nice, but nothing screams professional like 24p.

That said, why do you need a camera right now?  I'd wait another month and see what pops up at NAB.  It's safe to say that someone's gonna come out with something in the sub-$3000 prosumer level.


- Rico
Logged

We're doing fine on the One and Nine line.
-- The Beastie Boys; "An Open Letter to NYC"

Blah, blah, blah... Yorksnob.
-- Zep
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2006, 02:22:35 PM »

The DVX doesn't have native 16:9.  The XL2 does.  Therefore, in widescreen mode, the XL2 is technically higher resolution.  The DVX has to upscale to fit the 16:9 mode.  And, after reading a lengthy report by Barry Green and several engineers, I was fairly confident in my understanding that the XL2 produces a much cleaner image.  Even Barry Green, the mightiest warrior for the DVX that exists, said the XL2 produced a cleaner image.

You are right about the latitude though....   However, maybe I'm ruined by my VX2000, but I thought the DVX was pretty poor in low light.  Then again, the VX2000 is brilliant in low light.

Also, I don't think the FX1 has any XLR ports.  You're thinking of the HDR-Z1U.  I might be wrong though.  Now that camera, I would gladly take over the XL2.  25p, close enough.

EDIT:  Looked it up.  No XLR ports on the FX1.  If I had to choose between DVX, XL2, and FX1, I'd go with the XL2, personally, because of the audio, form-factor, and the way it holds value.  Choosing between the DVX, XL2, and Z1u, I'd take the Z1u.  Choosing between the XL-H1, HD100 (Jvc), Z1U, and HVX200, I'd be split between the HVX and the XL-H1, but considering the money saved for a very comparable image and 60p, I'd definitely go with the HVX200.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 02:26:50 PM by JohnMoore » Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2006, 02:28:06 PM »

Another quick note, Barry Green, in an attempt to dethrone the FX1, showed some of the worst footage he ever took with it, and I have to admit, for HD, it didn't look that fanastic.  However, when made progressive and downrezzed to SD resolution, it still looked better than the DVX footage of the same shot.
Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

Rico



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 165


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2006, 02:42:44 PM »

Quote
EDIT:  Looked it up.  No XLR ports on the FX1.  If I had to choose between DVX, XL2, and FX1, I'd go with the XL2, personally, because of the audio, form-factor, and the way it holds value.  Choosing between the DVX, XL2, and Z1u, I'd take the Z1u.  Choosing between the XL-H1, HD100 (Jvc), Z1U, and HVX200, I'd be split between the HVX and the XL-H1, but considering the money saved for a very comparable image and 60p, I'd definitely go with the HVX200.
Oh snap!  If that's the case, I definitely wouldn't go NEAR the FX1.  Another thing to consider now, though, is that this is not new technology.  Sure, we all have our personal preferences, but all of these cameras are going to get you an image that's comparable to all the others.  No one is going to say that any of these cameras look bad, just different.  It's mostly about how comfortable YOU are with whatever camera you choose.  I would pass on the XL2, and avoid the FX1 like the plague... But obviously someone else's favorite camera on earth could be the FX1.  More power to them.

My point is, get whatever camera you want.  Just make sure that you love it and shoot the hell out of it.  If you get this camera, and I don't see a short from you in the week or two after, I'm gonna mail you a rotten fish.


- Rico

PS - Between the H1, HD100, and HVX, I'm pretty sure you all know which one I would choose. Wink
Logged

We're doing fine on the One and Nine line.
-- The Beastie Boys; "An Open Letter to NYC"

Blah, blah, blah... Yorksnob.
-- Zep
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2006, 02:54:51 PM »

Aren't those other cams you mentioned more expensive?

I don't feel like wasting another 2k just to get an only arguably better camera (XL2). Plus, I've heard the XL2 has bad design physically....

I don't care about XLR inputs... I don't have XLR mics... I'd need to figure out adapters and such... ha. Then again, maybe I should look into buying some... yeah.

I don't see why the Z1u is that much better... it's just more expensive with a couple manual controls/options/etc. See below for link.

From what I've heard, I really like the FX1. The only things that worry me now are the comment about motion and maybe audio.... what do you mean, John about 'not the same grade of audio'? (And does your 'lousy inputs and controls' relate to the FX1? what lousy controls? I haven't heard about this)

And... FX1 has pretty darn good SD as well. I'd also like having HD, though.


I also saw a site that sells extra lenses for the FX1... meaning it's replacable.
Link:
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/video/hdrfx1/
Actually, kinda cool lenses. Not worth the cash, I'd say... but... at least it's possible.... one less point for the XL2.


If you're wondering, comparison between the FX1 and Z1u:
http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/sonyhdrfx1/compare.php
note: XLRs on the Z1u, not FX1.


EDIT: Rico, why would you avoid the FX1 like the plague? Just the XLR inputs? Please, someone, explain to me what the heck is so darn special about them. I don't have XLR mics.... why would I care? If I'm wrong, please tell me now so I don't get the wrong cam.

And... actually, one more question:
If I was dead set on getting a HD cam, without going above... say 4k, what one(s) should I get? Definitely the FX1? Something else to look at too? Something better?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 02:59:15 PM by djr33 » Logged
Blank avatar

JohnMoore



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 2153


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2006, 03:47:39 PM »

ARrggg.

I wrote a really long post that proved Rico wrong, but it got lost.  Tongue

Here.

http://www.lumieremedia.com/tomorrowistoda...morrow_trailer/

That's a trailer made with the Z1u.  The only real difference is the switchable PAL/NTSC capability, and the added audio controls.

I guess if you don't have XLR mics, it doesn't matter too much, but for a professional like Rico, it's absolutely necessary.  That's why Sony made two versions.

 
Logged

While I'm not religious myself, I don't mind the fact that people who are religious think it means they should behave like they have brains. - Daniel Ross [DJR33].

ìI love everyone!î Chase screamed at the top of his lungs. It may not have been profound, but at least it was positive!" -  An excerpt from 'The Story' by Ian Hubert. [MrDodoBird]

"Obviously though, the prerequisite to losing one's social life is actually having one in the first place." - Nick. [Rogue09]
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2006, 03:57:57 PM »

Quote
If you get this camera, and I don't see a short from you in the week or two after, I'm gonna mail you a rotten fish.


- Rico
He'll do it too.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
  Print  
 
Jump to: