updated 20 Jun 2005

 

Jon Fordham's FX1 Review, Part Three
an article by Jon Fordham, Director of Photography, D.I.T.

Jon is a contributing member of our DV Info Net Community.

There were a couple minor issues though. First, the latitude and sensitivity of the camera. As I mentioned, I was working at a wide open aperture just to get enough exposure in the shadows. I usually work at a 2.8 when shooting Digital. And sure, I could've thrown up another 1K to bring the shadows up and even out the contrast. But with ample sunlight coming through a window and a 1,000 watt light, there's no reason that I should have to work right at the upper limits of a DV camera's range or sacrifice contrast in this day and age. A DVX100A wouldn't (and didn't) have any problem seeing into those shadows or handling the highlights of the latitude range we were working with. Second, the manual zoom ring feels awkward to me. It has barrel markings indicating focal length, but I noticed immediately when I started testing the camera that the manual zoom ring is just a servo ring with hard limit stops. While the design of this quasi mechanical zoom ring functions well and does offer an interesting trick of "jumping to a focal length" when switching from servo to manual, seasoned shooters or anyone use to the true mechanical zoom ring on the DVX, will probably notice the odd feel every time you manually zoom.

One feature I really liked was the ability to downconvert HDV to DV digitally via Firewire. I'm sure that with the current state of HDV post production, the option of downconverting the footage to DV for an SD cut will be taken full advantage of by many. With the option of going back to the originals for an online in the future, a DV cut of an HDV project today isn't a bad idea. At least until the standard NLE's incorporate support for the HDV codec. But what I found most appealing about the Firewire downconverter, is that also works live while you're shooting. I always encourage productions that are shooting DV to do a live clone. It's simple, cheap, and effective. By connecting a Firewire cable from your production camera to any DV device with a Firewire port, you will end every day with the security of two exact copies of your footage. This virtually eliminates the possibility of dropout ruining a shot and lowers the risk of losing footage. Aside from those two very important benefits, it provides me with a clone of all raw footage. Having access to my work is crucial for me to continually update my reel and showcase my most recent imagery. Since I don't have any real post productions skills to speak of, having access to any HDV footage I may shoot in the form of DV makes it easy for me to update my reel on my desktop without installing and learning new software and figuring out workarounds.

When FCP incorporates simple capture presets and render options for HDV, then I'll worry about access to the HDV originals. Until then, the live Firewire downconvert is a nice little feature to have. The one little annoyance about the FX1 in this regard is the lack of external device control. When running this type of setup with a DVX100A, I can set the DVX to automatically start and stop the slave deck every time I trigger the DVX. When running this setup with the FX1, I have to trigger both devices by hand which can get annoying.

After we wrapped, Heath and I sat down with some of the crew and decided to watch the dailies. I hate watching dailies. Especially right after a shoot. But Heath has such a nice 34" 16:9 HDTV that I couldn't say no. So with the FX1 set to 1080 and connected via the components, we sat down to watch the dailies.

The dailies looked good. The images were clean, clear, and color accurate. I had no complaints. But while watching the dailies, I couldn't help think about what our script supervisor said earlier when I switch on the DVX100A and asked her if she could see a difference. I had my DVX100A set up with the exact same filters, normal gamma, 24p, 1/60th shutter, auto knee, normal matrix, etc. Trying as best I could "match" the way the FX1 was working as opposed to setting up the DVX as I normally would. When I switched back and forth between the FX1 and DVX100A while she watched the monitor, she said she could see a difference. But that neither one looked better than the other. They just looked different. The fact that FX1 didn't look any better to her was something for me to consider. Now, Script Supervisors aren't video engineers. They generally don't have "trained eyes". But as professionals who have the very important task of maintaining continuity, they are a group that stare at a lot of monitors. Video taps, HD monitors, SD monitors, LCDs, from Film to DV, they watch a monitor all day looking for the details in the picture so that you don't have continuity errors. And while watching our monitor with the both the FX1 and DVX100A, she said neither one looked better than the other. I asked her if the FX1 looked like it had any more resolution or detail. She said, not that she could see. And while I sat there watching the dailies, that was the thought that stayed in my head. Yeah, the images looked good. But they didn't look any better than what I would expect from a DVX100A.

I had also taken some time to watch the test footage I had shot before in the days prior on Heath's 34" HDTV. Again, my thoughts were that it looked good. But it lacked something. I've read a lot of reports from people who say, "There's no question it's HD". I agree that the camera is capable of delivering resolution. And deliver it does. But to my eyes, the images lack "snap". They don't have that visual "pop" that people equate with HD. I'll admit my eyes ARE trained and bias. After you shoot as much HD as I have, you get used to the resolution and clarity of those very expensive cameras and monitors. I understand it's a $3,500 camcorder. And I don't deny that the camera does produce very clear 60i video. But to my eyes, it doesn't have the same snap that I equate with HD.

While watching the test footage I shot, I was very disappointed to see the way the HDV format fell apart on images that challenged the compression. In particular, a shot of a lake. When the camera had a frame of reference such a tree in the foreground or a sunset in the background, the compression was able to keep up with the changes without any noticeable problems. But when I panned the camera down to the lake and filled the frame with nothing but the beautifully rippling water, the compression couldn't handle it and the image fell apart in seconds. Instead of smooth rippling water, I got a crunchy looking image. With no constant for the MPEG2 to compress over and over, the image showed noticeable and objectionable artifacts. Like a head clog or dropout. As soon as I panned the camera back to something with a constant in it, the compression caught up and the image looked fine again.

Since I had my DVX100A set up with the same filters, matching settings etc, I had also rolled a take so I could sit down and compare both cameras for myself after the shoot. I've taken the time to watch the footage from both the FX1 and the DVX over and over on six different monitors. And here's the deal with the FX1 and the DVX100A head to head...

The FX1 was set up straight down the middle.

Sony HDR-FX1 Settings:

·COLOR +0
·PHASE +0
·SHARPNESS 11
·SKINTONE DTL OFF
·AE SHIFT +0
·AGC LIMIT OFF
·WB SHIFT +0
·CINEMATONE OFF
·CINEFRAME 24

The DVX was set up to match the way the FX1 was working in terms of normal gamma, normal color, and auto knee. But I did pull the detail, coring, chroma, and pedestal down to even things out as my experience with the DVX100A has shown to be necessary.

Panasonic AG-DVX100AP Settings:

·DETAIL LEVEL -3
·DETAIL LEVEL -1
·DETAIL CORING -1
·CHROMA LEVEL -3
·CHROMA PHASE -1
·COLOR TEMP 0
·MASTER PED -6
·A. IRIS LEVEL +0
·GAMMA NORM
·KNEE AUTO
·MATRIX NORM
·SKIN TONE DTL OFF
·V DETAIL FREQ THIN
·PROGRESSIVE 24p

The first noticeable difference is in tone and color saturation. The FX1 has the hallmark colder blue tone of a Sony. And the DVX has a more natural warmer tone. The FX1's color saturation was good, but a bit desaturated compared to the DVX. I personally found the FX1 color saturation to be just right for my taste. But it's worth noting that the DVX100A's color saturation had been turned down to -3. I usually work with the DVX's color turned down. But I was a bit surprised that even with the color turned down, it was still more saturated than the FX1. There was no noticeable difference in sharpness or detail. Neither camera seemed to have more or less resolution than the other. And with the exception of latitude, both cameras looked about the same in terms of contrast. I thought maybe the FX1 would have cleaner blacks. But alas, both camera's blacks were equally clean and noise free. The other noticeable difference was the difference in natural movement. As expected, the true 24p capture of the DVX provided much more natural movement. Even though both cameras were set to a 1/60th shutter speed, the FX1's fake 24 frame capture did exhibit a more staccato look when faced with anything more than simple character movement or a slight camera adjustment.

When it came to sensitivity, the DVX100A was consistently working at f/4.0 to get the same exposure as the FX1 at f/1.7. That's a big difference.

So what's the verdict?

My experience with the Sony HDR-FX1 in this particular situation showed me a camera that performed well, yet definitely had drawbacks. Both in the ability of the camera itself and the HDV format. These drawbacks are already known issues and don't in any way render the camera or format useless. But they are issues to be considered.

For any project that needs 60i interlaced video, the FX1 is the clear winner. For short narrative projects that require an HDV master for future proofing and can deal with the pseudo 24 frame motion signature, the FX1 again takes 1st place. But for long form/feature narratives, short narratives with action or more than just simple talking head stories, or challenging contrast situations, the FX1 falls short. The DVX100A's true 24p, far superior low light performance and latitude, and thorough DSP control give the DVX100A the top prize in the small format 24 frame production arena.

We are only in the very beginning stages of the world of HDV. And in comparison to JVC's HD10, the FX1 is worlds apart in performance and image quality. There's no question that HDV is the next step. And there's no question that the FX1 has taken us a step forward in the world of HDV. For the industrial videography set, the FX1 gives you the tools you need to start creating 1080/60i content now. But the race to claim victory among the digital filmmaking set has yet to be won. Sony had the chance to shut down the competition before the race even got started. Instead, they did what they always do. They gave us a camera that comes so close to being perfect without giving us the features that we require. That's why they lost the DV race to Panasonic.

I am a huge Sony fan. I feel they build superior cameras. There was a time that I knew nothing but the comfortable feel of a PD150. But Panasonic's DVX100 changed everything. And the DVX100A cemented Sony's fate in the world of DV.

If Panasonic releases a 720/24p HDV DVX200 with ALL of the same features of the DVX100A, as well as incorporate some of Sony's innovations on the FX1 like Firewire downconversion, and do it all at a price point under $4,000, they will win the HDV race.

I'd like to say thank you to Matt Miller for the use of his Sony HDR-FX1 and to Jim York at the Palm Beach Film School for providing gear support. And I'd like to say a very special thank you to our cast and crew who gave us their time and talent to make this project possible.

I expect to shoot plenty of projects with the FX1 in the coming months. And I look forward to discovering new ways to push the FX1 to deliver excellent footage in a variety of situations. But what I really look forward to, is the introduction of the next HDV camera to enter the race. And with it, a new tool to further expand the digital filmmaker's arsenal to create.

Go back to Part One of Jon's FX1 review.
Go back to Part Two of Jon's FX1 review.
Written by Jon Fordham, Director of Photography, D.I.T..
Thrown together by Chris Hurd.