|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/14/07 04:40
I hope you have a safe and productive trip, and that the Pacific earthquake
and aftermath have passed without problems for you and others in that
region.
Regarding Beale's results, and my own, the FX1 is ultimately a less
sensitive camera than the VX2000, but does well in low light, to some extent
by using "gain-up" to trade sensitivity for noise. To my eyes, the results
are very good. In yesterday's mail, I received the February issue of
Videomaker magazine, which did a review of the newer FX7 which included a
comparison to the VX2100. This issue is now on the newsstands, so you might
find it interesting to peruse. To quote a couple pertinent comments from the
review (which starts on page 16):
"Pulling the FX7 from the box, I am reminded of the SD model it replaced,
the DCR-VX2100. The body style is identical and the controls appear to be in
the same place".........."We're very pleased with the color and sharpness on
the HD monitor. It performs well in low light situations, much like the
predecessor VX-2100".
As you can probably predict, the review is quite favorable, and the 3
strengths listed for the camera were:
**Light weight
**Good low light performance
**20X optical zoom
As regards artifacting, I don't see where any bandwidth limitations
whatsoever have been imposed by Sony for marketing reasons for the HDV
format. The miniDV recording approach they chose uses an effective tape
writing speed which is the same as standard DV video, and it appears that
they fill the tape to the same capacity with the same data rate. This data
rate in turn imposes a 25 Mbit/sec recording rate limitation on the mpeg2
encoder output. Had they chosen to encode a higher sensor data rate, they
could have developed / used alternative encoder approaches which achieve
higher compression ratios, or they could have abandoned the miniDV format
entirely, but doing so creates a set of new and more unattractive outcomes.
It would appear that they (wisely) chose the format to preserve SD and HDV
interoperability during the transition from SD to HD consumer / prosumer
use. And rather than devise yet another new magnetic tape recording format
and media, or resort to older and larger formats with higher writing speeds
/ data rates, or encoders with truly deficient performance (such as used in
the AVCHD approach), they seemed to make a conservative and properly
balanced approach. Perhaps the credit for all of this may truly belong to
engineers at JVC, who, after all, did the real spade work for HDV (albeit
720p). My conclusion / opinion is that HDV merely leveraged existing and
highly popular miniDV and retained downward compatibility with DV while
achieving a very significant increase in resolution / bandwidth using a
proven, well-supported mpeg2 compression method.
To answer your question regarding fast moving subjects, I can only offer a
subjective opinion. The FX1 does well but not exceptionally in handling
complex, moving content. I will admit that it is a compromise format which
shows its' weakness in this area under stress. Visual perception and display
technology will hide some of this, since moving objects viewed naturally
already seem blurred and most (recent non CRT) displays add their own
smearing / artifact effects. But compared to really pristine film or true
pro HD gear, the HDV material does look comparatively worse.
Not unlike the experiences we have had comparing two-pass VBR encoded SD
material versus real-time encoded single-pass MPEG2, there ***is a
penalty*** for creating / encoding the HDV mpeg2 stream in real time. Until
the processing power and chip designs progress to the point where the
camcorder can either capture a less compressed (true HD) format or apply
better compression on the fly, this is the price we currently must pay for
having so much resolution, so little time, and so little storage capacity to
store it. Obviously, the trends are going in the right direction for truly
faster / better compression algorithms, storage, etc.
I hope you might take a look at the HDV camcorders when you have chance.
Sony and Canon have been busy in the last year, and the product offerings
have improved both in number and in performance.
Again, I hope your travels are without travail....
Smarty
<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1168737857.454938.320220@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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]
|