Regarding Vegas reporting the video as 720x480, the FX1 will also record DV format video. Stupid question: Do you actually have it set to record HDV?

Hi John,,

Yes, I have it set to record HDV but where you plug-in the firewire it lights up Dv and not HDV (I assume that is correct for I am recording on a DV tape).

When the video gets captured it shows up visually as 1080 but in its media bin the description says 720.

I have the FX1 and live a few hundred miles north of you, in Carmel, CA.

I don't know what you mean by "it shows up visually as 1080 but in its media bin the description says 720." That's a strange description.

However, if the DV light is on, and you recorded in HDV, then you have the playback menu (when you have the camera set in VCR mode instead of camera mode) set to do automatic down conversion. To stop this, make sure the iLINK CONV setting is turned OFF.

No, if you're recording HDV then HDV lights up. This has nothing to do with the tape mounted. HDV is a format, just as DV is a format. Both can be recorded to the same type of tape, although Sony recommends higher quality tape (e.g. DigitalMaster PHDVM-63DM) for HDV.
Do you have the user manual for your camera? Is this your first video camera, or are you just having difficulties getting to grips with the HDR-FX1? We can provide answers to specific questions.
Such as the matter of gain and shutter speed: use lowest gain conditions allow and set shutter to 1/60. Use manual mode whenever possible. Of course there is more to it than that.
EDIT: I think John has nailed your download problem ---- I've never used mine to record DV. The other thing that lights the DV/HDV indication is the VCR HDV/DV menu (should be set to HDV). The i.Link CONV also appears in the IN/OUT menu in camera mode (again 'off'', if 'on' DV lights up).

OK, I'm pretty sure I know what the problem is... I'll assume that the FX1 is set to record HDV. Via the Firewire connection, the camera can output either HDV or the camera can downconvert the HDV recorded on tape to standard definition DV on the fly. I'm reasonably certain that you have the DV downconvert turned on and the camera is actually outputting DV and the files you have captured are indeed standard definition DV. The downconvert function is in the camera menu somewhere, you need to turn it off.

Vegas has a separate capture utility for HDV, when you go to capture, it should ask whether you want to capture HDV or DV.

It's in the IN/OUT menu. Switch i.LINK CONV "off"

AWESOME!! You guys helped me greatly! The main problem was the setting in the IN/OUT menu for the conv to be turned off. This now allowed vegas to recognize the HD capture mode which made my clips in the media bin 1440 x 1080. Right away I noticed the difference in my video shots! Now I have four questions:

1. In the media bin I can right click the raw clip and change the field order to progressive. Should I do this if I am only doing computer videos? Or can I just leave that and then in my final render in WMV use progressive?

2. I notice a small like wave periodically appear in the final render. I see this in a lot of HD uploads to the web. What causes this? The wave almost looks like a fast water effect that goes across the screen horizontally. Is this because I am using the lower class dv tape?

3. What is the difference between the Sony HDV tapes and the mini dv tapes? Will my human eye notice the difference? Are there less glitches?

4. I am using the WMV HD render. Any suggestions in tweaking the following settings before I upload to youtube?

Custom (1440x1080, 29.970 fps)
Field order: non progressive
output rotation: 0 degrees
Frame rate: 29.97
Pixel format: 8 bit
MOtion Blur: Gaussian
Deinterlace method: Blend fields
CHECKED: Adjust source media to better match project settings

Thank you for all your help. If anyone of you are in Simi Valley dinner on me!

1. you can leave it till render
2.don't know
3.you will not notice any quality difference, some report less glithches,, I used dv tapes with 0 issues
4.Never have used the ..Adjust source media to better match project settings.. bit rate is your number 1 factor,,
a huge current thread discussing going to youtube is on this forum, read that and you will be as educated as a friggin professor

IMHO

1. In the media bin I can right click the raw clip and change the field order to progressive. Should I do this if I am only doing computer videos?

NO, don't every do that. Progressive is NOT better than interlaced, and even if you want to deinterlace in order to make progressive video, you do not want to "lie" to Vegas by telling it your video is progressive when in fact it is interlaced. Really, really bad things will happen to your video if you do this. It is NEVER the right thing to do.

That's probably over-emphasizing the point, but I am amazed at how many people are making this mistake.

2. I notice a small like wave periodically appear in the final render. I see this in a lot of HD uploads to the web. What causes this?

I can't say without actually seeing the video.

3. What is the difference between the Sony HDV tapes and the mini dv tapes? ... Are there less glitches?

That's exactly it: fewer dropouts because the tape is higher grade. The normal DV tapes will generally work fine, BUT when you have a dropout on HDV you loose up to 15 frames of video (depending on where, within each 15-frame GOP the dropout occurs). Thus, the "penalty" of having a dropout is far more severe, and therefore it is nice to reduce the problem. If you are capturing to a hard drive (through Firewire to a laptop, for instance) or if are shooting with multiple cameras and can cover a dropout with video from another camera, you really don't need to buy the more expensive tapes. I have been shooting HDV for five years, although probably only a few hundred hours, and have only had one dropout, and I mostly use the cheaper DV tapes.

4. I am using the WMV HD render.

I prefer MP4 for YouTube upload. Use the search function on this forum to learn what other people recommend for settings. Most people seem to think (and I agree) that MP4 is better than WMV for YouTube upload.

As usual, John Meyer's advice is spot-on.

If you are using Vegas 10, you could just render as "Sony AVC" (which is MP4) and simply choose the "Internet 1280x720-30p" template.

Excellent advice everyone! As far as the #2 question I have regarding this water wave like look that sometimes occurs....I see this in MANY HD uploads. Especially from HD smart phones. It is almost like an interlace problem but looks more blurry. Is there anyone else here that has ever seen this?

Thank you,
Randini

PS Since I got my HD camera I'm selling two Sony VX2000. Do you suggest craigslist, Ebay or some other venue?

What you're seeing may be the effects of using the "blend" deinterlacing method. I always use "interpolate" for everything.

If you want help return that outdated cam. You got ripped off. The oldies here will tell you different but the young bloods know way better. Your camcorder is already dated and you just bought it.

If you want help return that outdated cam. You got ripped off. The oldies here will tell you different but the young bloods know way better. Your camcorder is already dated and you just bought it. Well, as one of the oldies, I think I understand what you are saying, and it is true that it has been over five years since the FX1 was first shipped. Also, it uses tape, and many believe tape is not as good a capture format as SD cards or internal hard drives, mostly because those can be copied to your editing machine at faster than real-time (although definitely not instantly). However, there are many good arguments for tape, and those arguments have been made many times in other threads (cheaper, time-tested, better archival properties, etc.).

The main reason for replying, however, is to point out that the FX1 is vastly superior to many, if not most, more modern cameras in two important ways.

First, HDV is easier to edit than AVCHD. Whether or not it produces video with fewer artifacts depends a lot on what version of AVCHD and which specific camera are being used for the comparison.

Second -- and this is the most important -- the FX1 uses three CCD sensors. These sensors do not have the dreaded "rolling shutter" artifacts created by the CMOS sensors used in most more modern camcorders. If you shoot any sort of "run and gun" video of fast moving objects the rolling shutter artifacts can be not just a minor annoyance, but downright devastating..

So, I don't think the OP should feel, in any way, ripped off by having purchased this camera. It can, and does, outperform many other more modern cameras in its class, and is actually, along with its more expensive brother (the Z1), still a much-desired camcorder. In fact, it might even be considered somewhat of a "workhorse" or "classic" much like the VX-2000 or GL-2 were considered in the DV prosumer arena ten years ago.

what John said,
plus I know a few rather intelligent youngbloods that would love to have a fx1,, even though it uses that thing called ...... tape

"The oldies here will tell you different but the young bloods know way better."

Spoken like a true inexperienced, ignorant young blood.

Thank you John for your advice on using "interpolate" for everything.
As far as I got riped off buying this camera I personally do not think so for Dreamline has no idea how much I bought it for. Also it is a fact that my Fx1 is a better camera than my Sony Vx2000.

Thank you John Meyer for adding much confidence in my purchased camera!

what's the problem? buy a firewire hd or card recorder. BINGO, tapeless as well!

sorry, very old blood here though some of it is second hand - though i don't think it came from a young blood since i find dreamline's thinking incomprehensible.

randini, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with the camera you bought - it takes bloody good pics, gives you instant archiving, and saves you a fortune (and hair) in editing as compared to avchd.

don't worry about the technology - get the shots and plot right and you're good to go......

We have to be tolerant here of those young opinions. Five years is 25-30% of their current life span, so of course they see the FX1 as ancient technology (and not even invented by Steve Jobs). I've kept my FX1 as a B camera and it produces great quality.

Yes, like you Serena I still have my Z1 and occasionally, once or twice a year, use it as second cam with the EX1 and they mix very well. I use a DR60 HD recorder on top of the cam which holds more than 5 hours and captures at 7 x realtime.

Excellent advice on the external hard drive. I am now looking at that Sony DR60 HD recorder. This would save me lots of transfer time.

I love this forum!

You are totally on the wrong track. Why on earth would you record to HD when you can record to flash. The cx700 has better video quality then the ex1r. It's a hard pill for the people on this forum to swallow but it is the truth. I guess wasting 7000 grand on a cam that gets beat by a consumer cam for a grand really hurts their pride.

I suggest you ask young people who understand much better than people who hang out on this forum writing long winded posts. The established video community from 1980s do not understand video today. The amount of time they spend on this forum proves that they don''t have much REAL work to do in todays video world.