Sony HDR-FX 1 experiences? - GoFuckYourself.com

brutus · 02-11-2005, 11:57 AM

Does anyone have Sony HDR-FX 1 ? And experiences using it? Is it worth of buying? I need a new cam and have looked a lot this one.

Mister Ruffles · 02-11-2005, 11:58 AM

I'm still trying to get my Sony DMXD-3KD9L-PP-2 to work.

brutus · 02-11-2005, 08:17 PM

No one?! What cams you are using ?!?

Tat2Jr · 02-11-2005, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brutus

No one?! What cams you are using ?!?

I'm using the VX2100, and love it. I'm not ready for HD yet, and won't be for a year or so. I'm gonna let everyone else iron out the wrinkles before I jump in. I don't have time to learn new things right now, but when I can devote time to playing with it and have a huge RAID system, ect. ect. then I'll get one.

tony286 · 02-11-2005, 09:22 PM

For the web you dont need hd its a waste . Also you dont want to be a early adapter.

petepete · 02-12-2005, 01:41 AM

Bump.

I agree that using it for web only may be a waste though.

Doctor Dre · 02-12-2005, 01:43 AM

If you don't shoot dvds, it's kinda a waste for the web ... lots more trouble editting stuff etc ...

And without proper lightning, the VX2100 is a bit better .

Totally recommanded if you need high definition .

HD will be the standard really soon anyways

Doctor Dre · 02-12-2005, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

For the web you dont need hd its a waste . Also you dont want to be a early adapter.

We are taking the bet on that :P I doubt it will make any difference thought ... but we are shooting for dvds too so it's worth it :P

AaronM · 02-12-2005, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petepete

Bump.

I agree that using it for web only may be a waste though.

Depends on what you are using it for. If only video, yes...It's a waste.

But if you are looking for high-res screen caps.......It's a damn good way to go.

brutus:

I recently posted a thread asking about two different HD cameras. The common thought among the idiots on GFY was exactly the opposite of EVERY review I read from seasoned pros who have used both of the cameras that I was asking about.

Every one of the reviews put the Sony as the better camera.

Doctor Dre · 02-12-2005, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Depends on what you are using it for. If only video, yes...It's a waste.

But if you are looking for high-res screen caps.......It's a damn good way to go.

brutus:

I recently posted a thread asking about two different HD cameras. The common thought among the idiots on GFY was exactly the opposite of EVERY review I read from seasoned pros who have used both of the cameras that I was asking about.

Every one of the reviews put the Sony as the better camera.

Sony cams totally kickass ... from the cheapest digital cam to the most expensive video cam, they are awesome . I've had probably 20-30 digital cams ... not really big expensive ones (the whole club /pic thing), and the one that last the longer are the sonys .

Sony just kickass :P And the HDR-FX 1 is just ... awesome :P I really like it .

I haven't shot with many pro cameras before ... but I wouldn't expect nothing more from a camera . The focus and everything really got better since I've had my first video camera back in the days :P

SGS · 02-12-2005, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

For the web you dont need hd its a waste . Also you dont want to be a early adapter.

Just shooting video for the web is not good business anyway.

TimeStamp · 02-12-2005, 04:15 AM

one time i saw this guy eat cheese

VirtuMike · 02-12-2005, 04:38 AM

It's OK. I find it much harder to use in the field than my vx2000's. I don't like the widescreen format but you can't fight evolution. The screen at the top pisses me off and you lose the range of motion (I shoot standing next to it and now I have to twist my head to see what's going on). The battery life is about half the vx. I had never kicked a battery before getting the FX1. It's heavier, bigger, and a little less comfortable. It takes like 10 seconds from the time you flip on the power until you are recording. It's a little less sensitive in low light. And you need a pile of new hardware and software to edit the tapes. They don't even have a deck for it yet.

But it's the best of what's out there. You work with the tools you have.

Top Jimmy · 02-12-2005, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

For the web you dont need hd its a waste . Also you dont want to be a early adapter.

Why is it a waste? HD displays on a computer screen. I saw a sample vod movie at a site that is HD, looks awesome.

Check adultdvdempire.com goto the vod section. it should be right there but may rotate out, so reload to see the link for the sample.

Greg Jacobson · 02-12-2005, 06:37 AM

I have the Z1 which is the pro version of this HDV cam. This is NOT the cam for 90% of people who own the VX2100. The VX is a great cam but let's face it, most VX shooters just turn the camera on and put it in full auto and frame their subject in the center of the screen. Another thing is that the on camera mic picks up every movement your hands make. You better start using real mics mounted on the shoe.

The HDV cams are widescreen so it changes they way you shoot completely. You can just point it at someone's head and expect autofocus and auto exposure to work like it does on the VX2100.

Just wait till that footage gets played on a huge HD tv. It will look worse than if it was shot on a VX2100.

Now, if you do want to take the time to frame your shots and use manual settings then get it. This camera takes video that blows away DV. Everybody I know is using these in their productions and I am working most every day of the week on music videos, shooting stock footage, and films because there are not enough camera men who have yet and the rental houses have them booked every day.

Big E · 02-12-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Depends on what you are using it for. If only video, yes...It's a waste.

But if you are looking for high-res screen caps.......It's a damn good way to go.

brutus:

I recently posted a thread asking about two different HD cameras. The common thought among the idiots on GFY was exactly the opposite of EVERY review I read from seasoned pros who have used both of the cameras that I was asking about.

Every one of the reviews put the Sony as the better camera.

It's never a waste to ensure that your content will be compatible with upcoming standards. It's insurance to shoot HD video now because you KNOW HD will be a future standard - it's just taking a while to get there.

As for the Sony vs JVC, I think there's a lot of argument about 720p vs 1080i (progressive obviously producing better screen caps), but I wouldn't sacrifice the extra two chips in the Sony to get 720p. We bought the FX-1, but haven't shot a full production shoot with it yet.

tony286 · 02-12-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big E

It's never a waste to ensure that your content will be compatible with upcoming standards. It's insurance to shoot HD video now because you KNOW HD will be a future standard - it's just taking a while to get there.

As for the Sony vs JVC, I think there's a lot of argument about 720p vs 1080i (progressive obviously producing better screen caps), but I wouldn't sacrifice the extra two chips in the Sony to get 720p. We bought the FX-1, but haven't shot a full production shoot with it yet.

Upcoming standards ? HDV is not hd and its not the real hd standard. Its going to be a while before a standard really shows its head for the prosumer market.Also to the computers can watch hd, most surfers are on old computers with dialups not state of the art. On the serious video boards I belong to they say dv is good for another 5 yrs . These are guys who write books and shoot mainstream for a living . Also whats more important than hd, dv is how you shoot and light. Crap is crap whether its dv or hd, the low production values on most porn its a waste to shoot in hd. Its just higher res crap lol.

brutus · 02-12-2005, 09:45 AM

Thanks for the comments!
It seems that Im going to buy it.
It will be interesting to see results and what HDV editing needs that it goes smoothly. For web DV is sure good enough, but it cant be a bad thing to have material also in HDV.

Greg Jacobson · 02-12-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Upcoming standards ? HDV is not hd and its not the real hd standard. Its going to be a while before a standard really shows its head for the prosumer market.Also to the computers can watch hd, most surfers are on old computers with dialups not state of the art. On the serious video boards I belong to they say dv is good for another 5 yrs . These are guys who write books and shoot mainstream for a living . Also whats more important than hd, dv is how you shoot and light. Crap is crap whether its dv or hd, the low production values on most porn its a waste to shoot in hd. Its just higher res crap lol.

You said this perfectly. Exactly, most porn has zero production value so shooting on HDV will just show off back-lit, out of focus, poorly framed shots even more.

leg4 · 03-02-2005, 10:30 PM

I am shooting on the HDR-FX1

email me

Big E · 03-03-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Upcoming standards ? HDV is not hd and its not the real hd standard. Its going to be a while before a standard really shows its head for the prosumer market.Also to the computers can watch hd, most surfers are on old computers with dialups not state of the art. On the serious video boards I belong to they say dv is good for another 5 yrs . These are guys who write books and shoot mainstream for a living . Also whats more important than hd, dv is how you shoot and light. Crap is crap whether its dv or hd, the low production values on most porn its a waste to shoot in hd. Its just higher res crap lol.

I guess I missed this reply so I'll respond now - true, HDV is not true HD standard, but HDV is MUCH better than standard DV on HD screens, thus my comment. 1080p is true HD, but I don't even think HD TVs today can match that. 1080i or 720p is perfectly acceptable and will hold up for the next 5-10 years. I wouldn't say that about standard DV. The FCC has mandated that every station be HV by 2009, and I'm sure MOST broadcasters will be 100% HD before that. What happens when Blu-Ray or the HD-DVD becomes available and people start demanding HD content?

Your speculation about surfers can only be about your own traffic. You know nothing about anyone else's traffic. Our users are decidedly upscale - about 85% are running 1024x768, and 90%+ are on broadband.

I agree with you on lighting and production value, but I don't know why you'd refer to us in that respect. Mac and Bumble spends more on production (hair, makeup, location, lighting, photography, etc) than anyone else. Every large production shoot for us is MINIMUM $100,000.

Pornwolf · 03-03-2005, 12:47 PM

Dayum Big E, that's a big lump. I appreciate your quality control though, it definitley shows.

Greg Jacobson · 03-03-2005, 01:02 PM

The Cineform codec is now included in Premeire Pro 1.5.1. I downloaded it and is a free update. If you want to work with the codec outside of Premeire Pro (like in AE) you have to pay to actually buy Aspect HD or Connect HD from Cineform.

Also, JVC is putting out a new HDV cam in the $5k range that will have progressive. Panasonic will have a new cam but looks like it will cost more thant the Sony and the JVC and will be tapeless (use hard disk). Also the Panasonic might not even be HDV because they have not shown support for the HDV spec.

danoboy · 03-03-2005, 01:25 PM

HD is the way to go ... if you want todays productions to have archive value that is. Same problem applies to regular broadcast tv. They are having to reshoot everything because the broadcasters want HD now. You can downsample from HD to regular PAL/NTSC but the otherway round looks like your grandmothers nickers.

02-11-2005, 11:57 AM	#1
brutus Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Living in the bottle. Posts: 590	Sony HDR-FX 1 experiences? Does anyone have Sony HDR-FX 1 ? And experiences using it? Is it worth of buying? I need a new cam and have looked a lot this one. __________________

02-11-2005, 08:17 PM	#3
brutus Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Living in the bottle. Posts: 590	No one?! What cams you are using ?!? __________________

02-12-2005, 01:41 AM	#6
petepete Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: My Computer Posts: 246	Bump. I agree that using it for web only may be a waste though. __________________ Nothing here...

02-12-2005, 04:15 AM	#12
TimeStamp Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 320	one time i saw this guy eat cheese __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

02-12-2005, 04:38 AM	#13
VirtuMike Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Seat 1A Posts: 2,483	It's OK. I find it much harder to use in the field than my vx2000's. I don't like the widescreen format but you can't fight evolution. The screen at the top pisses me off and you lose the range of motion (I shoot standing next to it and now I have to twist my head to see what's going on). The battery life is about half the vx. I had never kicked a battery before getting the FX1. It's heavier, bigger, and a little less comfortable. It takes like 10 seconds from the time you flip on the power until you are recording. It's a little less sensitive in low light. And you need a pile of new hardware and software to edit the tapes. They don't even have a deck for it yet. But it's the best of what's out there. You work with the tools you have. __________________ Host it in AMSTERDAM at EUROTIVITY! - We also offer BACKUP SERVICES! XYZZY4L

02-11-2005, 11:58 AM	#2
Mister Ruffles So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Between 2 Chicks Posts: 66	I'm still trying to get my Sony DMXD-3KD9L-PP-2 to work.

02-11-2005, 09:22 PM	#5
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	For the web you dont need hd its a waste . Also you dont want to be a early adapter.

02-12-2005, 06:37 AM	#15
Greg Jacobson Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 812	I have the Z1 which is the pro version of this HDV cam. This is NOT the cam for 90% of people who own the VX2100. The VX is a great cam but let's face it, most VX shooters just turn the camera on and put it in full auto and frame their subject in the center of the screen. Another thing is that the on camera mic picks up every movement your hands make. You better start using real mics mounted on the shoe. The HDV cams are widescreen so it changes they way you shoot completely. You can just point it at someone's head and expect autofocus and auto exposure to work like it does on the VX2100. Just wait till that footage gets played on a huge HD tv. It will look worse than if it was shot on a VX2100. Now, if you do want to take the time to frame your shots and use manual settings then get it. This camera takes video that blows away DV. Everybody I know is using these in their productions and I am working most every day of the week on music videos, shooting stock footage, and films because there are not enough camera men who have yet and the rental houses have them booked every day. Last edited by Greg Jacobson; 02-12-2005 at 06:38 AM..

02-12-2005, 09:45 AM	#18
brutus Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Living in the bottle. Posts: 590	Thanks for the comments! It seems that Im going to buy it. It will be interesting to see results and what HDV editing needs that it goes smoothly. For web DV is sure good enough, but it cant be a bad thing to have material also in HDV. __________________

03-02-2005, 10:30 PM	#20
leg4 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 4,429	I am shooting on the HDR-FX1 email me __________________ >>> Contact me here email me here

03-03-2005, 12:47 PM	#22
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	Dayum Big E, that's a big lump. I appreciate your quality control though, it definitley shows. __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

03-03-2005, 01:02 PM	#23
Greg Jacobson Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 812	The Cineform codec is now included in Premeire Pro 1.5.1. I downloaded it and is a free update. If you want to work with the codec outside of Premeire Pro (like in AE) you have to pay to actually buy Aspect HD or Connect HD from Cineform. Also, JVC is putting out a new HDV cam in the $5k range that will have progressive. Panasonic will have a new cam but looks like it will cost more thant the Sony and the JVC and will be tapeless (use hard disk). Also the Panasonic might not even be HDV because they have not shown support for the HDV spec.

03-03-2005, 01:25 PM	#24
danoboy Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Paris, France Posts: 9	HD is the way to go ... if you want todays productions to have archive value that is. Same problem applies to regular broadcast tv. They are having to reshoot everything because the broadcasters want HD now. You can downsample from HD to regular PAL/NTSC but the otherway round looks like your grandmothers nickers.