Dvx vs fx1

my threads, i wanna knows too

DVX's main advantage is that it uses a true progressive scan. (24p and 30p) FX1 (like most sony cameras) is all just interlaced.

its hard to say which is better without knowing your use. if you're just filming skiing/boarding, the FX1 will be great, but if you wanna make short movies, the DVX would be the right choice. In general, the dvx is more versatile, but for some, the HD and the native 16:9 on the FX1 are more important features than 24p.

im more concerned about colors and overall image rahter than really high resolution. actually i hate that over sharp, extremely digital look that most cheaper HDV cameras have.  but i have seen some really good looking film like footage from an fx1.  my main concern about the fx1 is that since 99% of the time its not gonna be viewed in HD, it might end up looking just like a vx21k which is what i currently own.  but it would be nice to have the HD just incase.
what i like about the DVX is that its been used by so many different people and film crews and you never actually hear anything negative about it.  plus its great for the film look, which is what i love.

doesnt 24p increse resolution or something? i heard that since its not interlaced it holds more information and its actually noticible. i might actually say that low resolution can be a good thing, everyone is so obsessed with their footage being sharp as hell and looking like a video game, low resolution can help keep it soft.
anyone have some good footage of a fx1 i can look at? ive seen tons of dvx footy, but for skiing the only real footy ive seen from an fx1 is level 1's movies.

doesnt level 1 use a canon xh a1

At this point, although the DVX is an incredible camera, i would probably sway against SD and move onto HD. Especially if you don't care about money.

The FX1 is gonna give you pretty amazing results. And in the end you can't really match crisp motion of a n HD cam.

also a main point that hasn't been mentioned, the FX1 is just way easier to use, both have almost fully manual controls, but the sony has a ton of analog buttons so you dont have to go through a bunch of menus just to set up a shot, something that's really nice. also the sony has good low light performance (not quite the VX21s, but still pretty damn good). also there is a sick ass deal right now over in the buy/sell/trade forum on an FX1 from kyle decker: https://www.newschoolers.com/web/forums/readthread/thread_id/366166/

It doesn't really have anything to do with resolution, it's frame rate. It's 24fps vs 30fps (film look versus video look)

The dvx can do 24p, and 24p-advanced (if you're really curious, i'll fully explain the difference, but it just has to do with capturing and editing capability) which is pretty cool.

I'm not familiar with the FX1, but I've used HVXs enough. Practically speaking, I think the DVX is a better choice. It's more versatile, and the colors on it are amazing in my opinion. If you're not worried about HD capability, then that should be your answer right there. Another cool thing about the DVX is that is has an under and over cranking option, which will get you the coolest looking fast/slow motion you've ever seen from a DV camera. Way better than the effect you get from editing software.

FYI.
Progressive scanning is top to bottom, one time per frame. Interlace scanning divides each frame into two fields, and essentially scans 1/2 of the frame twice per second.. Top-bottom, half the frame, then back to the top and scans the other half.

I'm upgrading from my gs320 and I'm still not sure what I want to buy.  DVX has been my favorite choice, but I've also considered going with an HD camera like the XH A1, FX1, or maybe even just a little HV30.  I do like the film look and I've seen amazing colors come out of the DVX.  I'm just not sure if going SD at this point in time is going to be a step in the wrong direction.

http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

artivle comparing everything about fx1, dvx, and canon xl2
enjoy

Not on the DVX. DVX uses CCD's. Top to bottom scan only happens on cameras that use the rolling shutter/CMOS chips.

right. I wasn't saying with the DVX I was just explaining the difference between progressive and interlace

SD is dead. And Cineframe may be shitty, but grab a copy of Magic Bullet if you really want 24p footage. And the fact remains that DVDs and most TVs are still 29.97fps. So if your final output is going to be either DVD or TV viewing, Cineframe24 with a pulldown isn't that bad.

I'd go with the superior resolution over the superior frame rate. The DVX was an incredible camera five years ago, but SD is a thing of the past. I'd go with the FX1.

How many people do you know that own blueray players? Personally, I don't know anybody except for the occasional PS3. Anyone own a blueray disc burner? The answer is no. SD is definitely not dead. The majority of the people that own a DVX, HVX, wtvr, rarely see real distribution, especially in HD format. Occasionally a really great filmmaker will up-rez to 1080p and pop it on film for a festival, but realistically everythings still on dvd's. And sites like vimeo that allow uploading 720p only allow 500mb files. so even if you do upload in 720p hd, the quality of the pixels is much lower than non-compressed SD. The only practical advantage that the FX1 has over the DVX is the 16:9 widescreen, which isn't even important to some people.
The bottom line is, an FX1 or a DVX wont make you good. Thats like saying a nice pair of skis makes a good skier. Make a choice, buy a camera, shoot lots, and most importantly, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

how is the fx1's 16:9 different than the dvx's?

i wouldnt say SD is dead at all, especially since like 99% of the population is watching tv on SD tv's. right now HD is dead, i know thats gonna change in the next 5 years, but if im gonna have an HD camera that i or anyone else cant watch in HD, then i really dont see the point.
so right now i think im leaning towards a dvx, even with the fx1's HD i still think the dvx is a much better camera, ive been reading reviews, comparisons, and ive watched alot of footage from the two, and everything about the dvx is just so much better. all the footage of the fx1 ive watched just made me like it less, its always way overly sharp, and extremely digital looking, i actually like alot of the footage from my vx21k more. maybe ill keep the dvx for like 5 years until i can afford an HVX.

the FX1 shoots true 16:9 whereas the DVX has a "letterbox" feature that is pretty much just like putting two strips of black over a 4:3 frame to make it wide screen

yeah a bit of people have hdtv's but hardly anyone has blue ray players. i know HD isnt dead, but at this point, compared to SD it is, it wont be in the future, but for a while SD is what most people are gonna be watching, and its gonna be a really long time before everyone has blue ray, or anyone can afford to actually burn a disc to blue ray.
so if i got a fx1 i would pretty much never actually watch it in HD, so there is no point, and even with the HD there is no question that the dvx gets a much better picture.
which is why if i got a dvx id just sell it in 5 years or whenever HD becomes the standard.
and i really strongly disagree that the GL2 is a piece, GL2's get an amazing picture, and from all the fx1 footage i saw, i think the gl2 gets a better picture. and the vx1 is only a piece cause they are so old and keep breaking, the footage is actually still damn good. look at the movie 28 days later, that entire movie was filmed with an xl1, not even an xl2, and it was amazing looking, and even with the SD camera, you couldnt tell at all even on a huge movie theatre screen. after watching it in the theatre i remember thinking that the cinematography was almost the best part of the movie, and thats before i knew it was made with a SD mini dv camera. i really really doubt an fx1 or alot of HDV cameras could get an image even close to that good.
really resolution doesnt mean alot when your talking about picture quality, look at super 8 footage, id take any good super 8 footage over any super nice HD footage any day easily, and that has shit for resolution, and most good cinematographers would say the same thing.
the whole HD thing seems more like a gimmick, i know its gonna be the standard in like 7 years and it sometimes does actually look really good "hvx for example" but right now people think anything that says HD on it is suddenly "the best" and most the time it isnt.
so yeah for now i think its gonna be the dvx, once HVX's become cheap enough, or HD technology gets better and stops looking like a video game, then ill go HD.

you can shoot in squeeze mode with a DVX, then you arn't wasting the information on the top and bottom, and you get the proper aspect ratio without letterboxed bars.

yes, you get a valid aspect ratio. But it still isn't true 16:9, and in squeeze mode the vertical edges of the frame get cropped more than in letterbox. I think both options are flawed, but indeed overall the DVX is still a better choice. I really like the camera.

If you're just planning on shooting ski movies without much post production, the DVX is a pretty good camera. You can get decently high quality footage with an FX1, but you have to shoot for the edit room and shoot long lens.

And I agree that HDV is kind of a joke. The FX1 isn't an extraordinary camera. But I know don't know any cinematographers who would shoot in super 8 over HD for a non-experimental film. Aside from resolution, Super 8 filmstocks simply lack the luma and chroma latitude to be taken seriously. It's become a film for film students (not that I haven't shot my share of super 8 films).

with a nice super 8 camera, nice film stock, and if you send it to a place with a really good telecine process with good color correction you can get almost 16mm looking footage. for some stuff both digital and HDV are much better, but when it comes to getting a good picture in an "artsy" form, super8 can be much better than any cheaper prosumer HDV camera.

FX1 is sick if you're into the digi look.

DVX is sick if you're into the film look.

Sony vs DVX is like blone vs brunette; it's all preference.

but I will say that the DVX's "progressive scan" isn't all its cracked up to be; TVs display interlaced anyway so its not a big requirement to shoot progressive (unless its going to be seen on a flatscreen.

And even if two different brands have the same features, it still doesn't mean they are the same camera. Panasonics have a certain look, as do Canon and Sony.