|
|
Posted by ptravel on 01/14/07 01:24
Smarty wrote:
> My experience with the FX1 in low light has been very positive, and closely
> follows the results posted in the experiments and comparisons shown by John
> Beale at:
>
> http://bealecorner.com/fx1/FX1-VX2k.html
I'll take a look at the test results when I return from China. I don't
have reliable internet because of the Taiwan earthquake's disruption of
undersea telecommunications cables. However, I know John Beale -- I
find his tests reliable.
>
> as well as those reported by Jon Ozer in his series of published camcorder
> tests.
>
> Beale's comparison of pictures taken 1 foot away from a single candle (at 11
> lux) look essentially the same for both the FX-1 and VX-2000.
That's very encouraging.
> I would agree
> that the FX1 does have less ultimate low light sensitivity, but not enough
> to even remotely qualify it as you have as "poor". I did a lot of direct
> comparisons when I had both VX2000 and FX1 units here, and they show very
> little difference in practical use in low light. I have since disposed on
> the VX2000, finding no compelling advantage to keeping it.
If they're that close on low-light, I may have to take another look at
the FX1.
>
> Artifacts are indeed visible on the FX1 in some rare instances, but only
> under conditions where the camera is rapidly panning very complex scenes,
> when the mpeg2 encoder becomes overwhelmed. Slower pans, still shots, and
> normal motion do not create artifacts, so the shooting style should reflect
> this constraint. I have always avoided rapid motion pans and zooms anyway,
> so this artifact issue is, in my estimation, extremely overblown.
How does it do a on a mixed scene, i.e. static and moving elements,
e.g. moving traffic, etc.?
>
> The HC3, now selling for below $1000 since it has been recently discontinued
> in anticipation of the new HC5 and HC7), is slightly but not substantially
> worse in this regard. It also does has somewhat diminished low light
> performance compared to the FX1, but very usable in most indoor situations.
> For my money and to my eyes, HDV is a legitimate and very attractive
> prosumer format, not crippled or deficient except when compared directly to
> much more expensive HD alternatives.
I have no problem with HDV, per se. My concern is the artificial
bandwidth limitations imposed by Sony for marketing, rather than
technical, reasons.
>
> It is probably worth mentioning that HDV format is very much in use today in
> electronic news gathering, network television, and other commercial use
> where quality is considered important. The series "24" with Kiefer
> Sutherland uses HDV footage as do a number of other shows.
>
> I personally reject the notion that only $2000-$3000 SD camcorders and above
> can make technically acceptable videos, but each of us has their own notion
> of what acceptable standards are.
That's true. However, my definition of "acceptable" for SD precludes
anything currently on the market below the VX2100.
> All considered, the old maxim that "It
> isn't as important how good your good shots are as how bad your bad shots
> are" applies, and the less expensive consumer cameras can indeed produce bad
> results. That's one of the reasons why most of the consumer home movies look
> so amateur, although artistic videography is still the weakest element IMHO.
That's quite true, but the same argument can be made for any format. I
want the primary limitations on what I shoot to be my own level of
artistic competence, and not an artificially-imposed technical
limitation. Because I do travel video, I need to be able to shoot in
low-light, both indoors and at night, shoot subjects with strong
verticals (buildings, etc.), and do this without the ability to control
lighting or other environmental factors. I edit the finished result
and need to be able to readily correct color, occasionally do
post-production stabilization, composite, do 1/3 titles, etc. That
eliminates, at least for the moment, any ACHDV machine. I will take
another look at the FX1.
>
> Smarty
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:50iuj1F1fcf8sU1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> > news:wsidnXpNXtXbUT7YnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >> Well, the street price for the FX1 at around $2500 is indeed higher than
> >> the $1500 and $1900 I paid for my 2 TRV900s, but then again, the TRV900
> >> was introduced nearly 10 years ago in 1998, and inflation accounts for a
> >> lot of the difference. Further, the VX2100 is not that much different in
> >> price than the FX1 currently.
> >
> > The VX2100 isn't that much less than an FX1, but a VX2000 was considerably
> > more than the TRV950, which was the TRV900 replacement.
> >
> >>
> >> Both are fine camcorders, and for my money I would personally prefer the
> >> FX-1 with its' higher resolution.
> >
> > That's a matter of personal preference. I got my VX2000 because I was
> > unable with the digital artifacts and poor low-light performance of my
> > TRV20. When Sony puts out an HD prosumer machine in the $2-3000 range
> > that addresses these issues, I'll consider it.
> >
> >> I have not used the VX2100 very much but I did own the VX2000, and the
> >> Sony FX1 is noticeably superior in several respects, including noise
> >> level, resolution, and optical performance.
> >
> > That may be so but, for me, the digital artifacts and poor low-light
> > performance make the camera a non-starter for me.
> >
> >>
> >> It is definitely true that the consumer camcorders have many gimmicks
> >> which add little or nothing to the ultimate video quality, and are of no
> >> value in improving the ultimate picture quality.
> >
> > And, in fact, diminish video quality, e.g. high-density, small sensors.
> >
> >> I must say, however, that I recently returned from a cruise into the
> >> Mexican Baja with 9 hours / tapes of footage taken with my Sony HC3 HDV
> >> camcorder, and the outdoor videos were stunningly beautiful with rich
> >> colors and superb detail.
> >
> > That's fine. When I do travel video I shoot day and night and, indeed,
> > it is at night and indoors that I make my most interesting videos. My
> > TRV20 did fine in bright light (and with subjects that didn't have strong
> > horizontal lines). It was unsatisfactory, overall, as a travel camera.
> >
> >> The still image functions are useless gimmicks to me (as they were on my
> >> TRV900, VX, and other "prosumer" SD cameras) but the quality of video
> >> taken with this $1100 camcorder are far, far, far from being a "crappy
> >> consumer machine with relatively poor video".
> >
> > I'm sure that's true -- when I was talking about "crappy consumer machines
> > with relatively poor video" I was thinking of lower-priced units. What I
> > like about my VX2000 is that it turns out professional-quality video (I'm
> > talking about technical quality, not artistic quality). Your HC3, though
> > it might turn out nice video, even stunning video
> > _under_the_right_conditions_, does not turn out professional HD. There's
> > no reason, other than a marketing one, for the manufacturer's failure to,
> > as yet, put out a prosumer machine that does pro quality HD.
> >
> >> I will admit that I wish I had taken the FX1, but I did not want to take
> >> it through airports, check it as baggage, or lug it around when on
> >> vacation.
> >
> > I'm not thrilled lugging my VX2000 around, particularly with its extra
> > batteries and wide-angle lens, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in
> > order to get the best possible video of my travels and, indeed, I've
> > gotten used to the extra size and weight. Still, if anyone made a camera,
> > either SD or HD, with comparable video quality in a smaller and ligher
> > form factor, I'd buy it in a minute. Unfortunately, no one does.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Smarty
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:50h0odF1g2ovfU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> The FX1 very well may be intended for the TRV900 niche, though it does
> >>> exhibit artifacts. However, the cost is nowhere near comparable. I
> >>> also think that Sony's stratification is at the expense of amateurs who
> >>> care about video quality. Spending less than 2000-3000 dollars gets you
> >>> a crappy consumer machine with relatively poor video and lots of stupid
> >>> and useless gimmicks, like special effects in camera and digital still
> >>> capability. Spending more gets you a prosumer machine, more or less,
> >>> though one that can't compete with pro-line camcorders, unlikes Sony's
> >>> SD prosumer line.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:waWdnYAftr9e9D_YnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> >>>> I've owned and used two TRV900, and both of them were inferior in a
> >>>> number of ways to the more recent HDV camcorders I've purchased. It is
> >>>> my belief that Sony ***did decide*** to market an HD equivalent, and in
> >>>> fact the FX1 sits in their HDV product line in much the same way as the
> >>>> TRV900 did, lacking some pro features such as XLR, but retaining
> >>>> excellent performance at a relatively low price. Further, I think the
> >>>> stratification of their product line to create HDV, AVCHD, and other
> >>>> pro HD formats creates further distinctions in pricing, performance,
> >>>> and features which make market sense by creating real differences which
> >>>> separate these buyers / market segments.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Smarty
> >>>>
> >>>> Smarty
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:50f4t6F1fjdsjU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:45a1b44f$1@clear.net.nz...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Sony, like Canon and JVC, are concerned that they will undercut sales
> >>>>> of their professional line of camcorders by producing "amateur"
> >>>>> machines that produce competitive video quality. It's why, when they
> >>>>> took the TRV900 off the market, they replaced it with the far less
> >>>>> capable TRV950 -- it didn't hold a candle to the TRV900, but it was
> >>>>> loaded with the kind of gimmicks and gegaws that appeal to "shoot the
> >>>>> kid's birthday" set. The TRV900 was a serious amateur machine that
> >>>>> functioned at the prosumer level. Similarly, the VX2000 and VX2100
> >>>>> competed with the PD150/170, but for about $1,000 less. Sony lost
> >>>>> sales of its more expensive line of prosumer/low-end professional
> >>>>> machines, so it has decided not to market an HD equivalent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers, Jim
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|