HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

3D - HDR-TD10 (2011).
Professional models - HXR-NX70 (2011). HXR-MC2000, HXR-MC50 (2010).
Flash Memory / consumer - HDR-CX260V, HDR-CX580V, HDR-CX740VE, HDR-CX760V (2012). HDR-CX360V, HDR-CX560V, HDR-CX700V (2011). HDR-CX110, HDR-CX150, HDR-CX300, HDR-CX350V, HDR-CX550V (2010). HDR-CX100 (2009). HDR-CX12 (2008). HDR-CX7 (2007).
Hard Disk / consumer - HDR-XR260V (2012). HDR-XR150, HDR-XR350V, HDR-XR550V (2010). HDR-XR100, HDR-XR200, HDR-XR500, HDR-XR520 (2009). HDR-SR11, HDR-SR12 (2008). HDR-SR5, HDR-SR7 (2007).
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

I was looking at different scenes but I really couldn't explain what you're trying say.
I notice the video runs normal like it should, lets say at 30 frames, but there is something about the movie's as it plays, that does seem a little different.

Could it be the way the frames move in a way that if the camera were to shake, it would project a more sharper feel of camera shake?

or just simply that the higher frame rates let the movie have fast motion scenes without blur?

the feel to the eye of how the movie is moving on the screen?

Exactly what would you mean with "look" ?
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 18:51
Location: Paris, France

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by Stephan »

hdmickey wrote:[...] but most importantly, no blur during horizontal recordings.
I was disappointed with pans and any motion in general. I never figured out whether it was an issue of shutter speed, or like Steve said once I seem to remember, maybe more probably an issue of MPEG2 codec that needs to reduce effective resolution somehow in order to cope with motion (bandwidth overrun).

I solved it in 2 ways:
- Never, ever do pans. They look bad anyway.
- Choose High Definition, or motion, but you won't have both at the same time. Keep the camera still, that's how all professional documentaries look.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

Certainly I think most amateurs overdo camera motion, waving the thing around wildly like a fire hose and making everyone seasick. In most cases we should indeed let the action unfold in front of a mostly stationary camera. But there are times when the camera can and should move. I don't think there's anyone who's seen a Scorsese film would say this guy is breaking the rules and shouldn't be moving the camera the way he does. But obviously he is not dealing with HDV and CMOS chips.

With reference to shutter speeds and motion blur and such, our brains are conditioned through years of viewing movies to eliminate the blur in each still frame and smooth out the stuttery motion inherent in viewing a series of still pictures when shot at "normal" shutter speeds and frame rates. These rates and speeds were not originally chosen for any artistic or aesthetic reason, but for practical and financial ones in the early days of filmmaking. But we've become conditioned to them. Anything that varies from them results in a visceral response from us. Shorter shutter speeds that have less motion blur per frame look stuttery and stroby and make us feel uneasy. Slower shutter speeds that have more blur look dreamy and blurry. This is all at the same frame rate.

There are lots of books on cinematographic theory available and are worth reading if you're interested in this.

I just finished this year's soccer video, shot with two FX7s, where the cameras never stopped moving, sometimes quite wildly. Virtually the whole video was done in medium or close-up shots, as the intent was really to feature the personalities of the players, not the games themselves (i.e. very few wide shots of the field). So lots of following the ball, feet kicking, players running from the waist up, crashing, falling, etc. And not once did I see any of the artifacts anyone is talking about. I've played the final Blu-Rays repeatedly on a 60" HDTV and the thing looks as good as anything on ESPN or any HD TV Sports network. Maybe it's just my old eyes, but I'm not experiencing any of these CMOS/HDV/Compression/MPEG problems.
Adam
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

Stephan wrote:
hdmickey wrote:[...] but most importantly, no blur during horizontal recordings.
I was disappointed with pans and any motion in general. I never figured out whether it was an issue of shutter speed, or like Steve said once I seem to remember, maybe more probably an issue of MPEG2 codec that needs to reduce effective resolution somehow in order to cope with motion (bandwidth overrun).

I solved it in 2 ways:
- Never, ever do pans. They look bad anyway.
- Choose High Definition, or motion, but you won't have both at the same time. Keep the camera still, that's how all professional documentaries look.

Keeping the camera still is very important to make a video professional, but sometimes scenes in front are too wide to get them without filming them horizontally.

When you say, choose high definition, or motion, but I can't have both at the same time, what do you mean?

So far I can't have horizontal motion at all, mostly at wide recordings, slowing the video down for the slow motion effect makes it worse.

I can film horizontal scenes very slowly and it does help, but sometimes fast horizontal scenes are needed.

Could there be some type of lens adapter for the FX7 that could make the camera have a wider recording space? That way the need for horizontal recordings could probably be less.
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

acgold7 wrote:Certainly I think most amateurs overdo camera motion, waving the thing around wildly like a fire hose and making everyone seasick. In most cases we should indeed let the action unfold in front of a mostly stationary camera. But there are times when the camera can and should move. I don't think there's anyone who's seen a Scorsese film would say this guy is breaking the rules and shouldn't be moving the camera the way he does. But obviously he is not dealing with HDV and CMOS chips.

With reference to shutter speeds and motion blur and such, our brains are conditioned through years of viewing movies to eliminate the blur in each still frame and smooth out the stuttery motion inherent in viewing a series of still pictures when shot at "normal" shutter speeds and frame rates. These rates and speeds were not originally chosen for any artistic or aesthetic reason, but for practical and financial ones in the early days of filmmaking. But we've become conditioned to them. Anything that varies from them results in a visceral response from us. Shorter shutter speeds that have less motion blur per frame look stuttery and stroby and make us feel uneasy. Slower shutter speeds that have more blur look dreamy and blurry. This is all at the same frame rate.

There are lots of books on cinematographic theory available and are worth reading if you're interested in this.

I just finished this year's soccer video, shot with two FX7s, where the cameras never stopped moving, sometimes quite wildly. Virtually the whole video was done in medium or close-up shots, as the intent was really to feature the personalities of the players, not the games themselves (i.e. very few wide shots of the field). So lots of following the ball, feet kicking, players running from the waist up, crashing, falling, etc. And not once did I see any of the artifacts anyone is talking about. I've played the final Blu-Rays repeatedly on a 60" HDTV and the thing looks as good as anything on ESPN or any HD TV Sports network. Maybe it's just my old eyes, but I'm not experiencing any of these CMOS/HDV/Compression/MPEG problems.



Medium and close up shots are more responsive in creating the HD look and better overall video, and the horizontal movement doesn't create much problem, but when spaces are limited, filming in close up isn't possible. Unfortunately, the horizontal problem is most noticeable when the scenes are being filmed in wide mode.

I can film horizontal scenes very slowly and it does help, but sometimes fast horizontal scenes are needed.

What shutter speed did you use to film the soccer game?
User avatar
Stephan
Site Admin
Posts: 592
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 18:51
Location: Paris, France

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by Stephan »

hdmickey wrote:When you say, choose high definition, or motion, but I can't have both at the same time, what do you mean?
Meaning that it's hard to have both at the same time. With too much motion you lose some definition. With a still camera, you retain the crisp high def.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

hdmickey wrote: What shutter speed did you use to film the soccer game?
I mostly shoot in modified auto mode, so my shutter was locked on 60, except for the few times when the cam wanted me to use a higher level on ND and I didn't, so it switched to 125 or even 250. I liked a few of those stroby shots so I included them.
Adam
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

Stephan wrote:
hdmickey wrote:When you say, choose high definition, or motion, but I can't have both at the same time, what do you mean?
Meaning that it's hard to have both at the same time. With too much motion you lose some definition. With a still camera, you retain the crisp high def.
That's true.
The probablilty of this, is that Sony designed the FX7 for specific uses where it performs better than other areas.

The FX7 would be like a sport, nature, type of camcorder something where daylight is the ideal light for consistent HD performance and overall picture balance.
I can't complain there because it really is good.

For uses like weddings, horizontal recording indoors, etc. it would probably be better to use something different because the light isn't quite right, or the lighting isn't good in general. The audio is terrible when it gets loud in the room, I had to buy an audio adapter with an external microphone to get the audio right.
In these areas is where the FX7 has a difficult time, and gives me trouble.

I'm not saying the FX7 isn't good for these indoor uses, it's just that it gets more technical to get good results and sometimes good isn't good enough.

It proves that the perfect camera, at least within this range doesn't exist, one is used for one thing, and the other for another.
hdmickey
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 Nov 2011 02:08
Location: US

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by hdmickey »

acgold7 wrote:
hdmickey wrote: What shutter speed did you use to film the soccer game?
I mostly shoot in modified auto mode, so my shutter was locked on 60, except for the few times when the cam wanted me to use a higher level on ND and I didn't, so it switched to 125 or even 250. I liked a few of those stroby shots so I included them.
I see,
yes, sometimes the ND filters are unpredictable outside, I hate it when I'm in the middle of a recording and the filter message asks me to push it up to ND1 or ND2.

So you push up the shutter speed when it asks for more ND, is this technique used to balance the light, or keep the frame speed in order? both?

I know how stroby clips look, but I'm wondering if they are caused when the ND wants to go up and you leave the shutter speed at 60, I don't think its when you push it up to 125 because that would mean the video moves properly.
acgold7
Global Moderator
Posts: 400
Joined: 14 May 2010 23:03
Location: Woodinville, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: HXR-MC2000U vs. HDR-FX7

Post by acgold7 »

No, I don't do anything. It's in auto and when it asks for more ND, if you ignore it, it pushes the shutter speed up if it can't move the iris any more (which it can't because I've set the limit to 5.6 or 6.8 or something around there under AT IRIS LIMIT). So when it has stopped down as far as it can, it changes the shutter speed because that's all it can do.

The frame rate never changes, because it can't. Not that you'd want to even if you could.
Adam
Post Reply