A1-FX1 Screen grab

Sure, Peter! :-)

But how are your videos with A1? Very interested to know your impressions :-)

Many thanks

ERIK

There's so little difference in price between the FX1 and the A1, is it only the smaller footprint and weight that makes the A1 attractive?

B&H list the FX1 for $3000.00, they don't list the A1 at all, so I went to Armatos and they list $2895.00 for the A1; a difference of only $105.00.

Housing are more expensive for the FX though: B&H list the Gates FX1 housing for $3990.00, the Gates A1 housing for $2894.50 (both with no ports, I know you need ports but this is just for comparison sake).

I got to admit, the FX1 package looks like a lot more value for money, but I haven't handled the Gates FX/A1 housing, maybe that would change my mind.

B&H lists the A1 in the professional section. They sell it for $2499. Add in the Sony rebate of $500 and you can get the A1 for $1999.

I think for a lot of us, the size and weight issue is a huge factor. With the A1, I can just get the whole system in a rolling carryon bag. Weight of the housing & camera is about 10 lbs.(no lights) Even at that, I picked up a small duffle bag to use to carry it to and from the boat because that's still quite a bit to lug above water. I can't imagine trying to get a 40-50 lbs setup transported on the trip, and then back and forth to a dive boat several times a day.

You may also be underestimating the price difference. The ports/lenses for the housings are not the same for the A1 and Fx1. If you look at complete systems, The Amphibico EVO PRO is $3000 but the Phenom is $5500. I don't think Gates makes what would be considered the normal wide angle port for the Fx1 (glass, multielement). I think you either get just a simple acrylic port that you use with a wide angle adapter that you buy for the camera, or you get the Fathom wide angle.

I don't know where you are located, but if you are looking at the A1U (NTSC version) B&H has it for under 2000 after the Sony rebate.

There is no doubt that the Fx1 has better optics and contols, and does better in low light. If you need every bit of performance possible, that is a great way to go, but it is going to come at a major increase in size, weight and cost.

I was struck by pmooney's comment:

The simplicity of the whole package makes it a blessing after fiddling with a Z1 in various housings.

I bought my A1U from Berger Brothers and dealt with Brad Berger himself. I paid 2499 as well and am awaiting my 500 rebate. Just picked up my Gates housing yesterday. Very nice, can't wait to get it in the water.-Steve

I was waiting for some underwater demo clips maked with A1. I think that differences between a1 and Fx1 are big: Fx1 is 3ccd, good low light capacities, great lens. A1 is 1 Cmos, no so good in low light conditions.

I would like to see some shot maked with A1 to compare...for the moment clips maked with HC1 are not so good like video maked with Fx1. Sure, is difficult to compare clips if video are maked in different dives but the results are clears. For the moment i didn't see A1 footage like for exemple clips maked by Wagsy with Fx1 and Phenom.

Please :-) put some demo clips maked with A1

ERIK

I think for a lot of us, the size and weight issue is a huge factor.  With the A1, I can just get the whole system in a rolling carryon bag.  Weight of the housing & camera is about 10 lbs.(no lights) Even at that, I picked up a small duffle bag to use to carry it to and from the boat because that's still quite a bit to lug above water.  I can't imagine trying to get a 40-50 lbs setup transported on the trip, and then back and forth to a dive boat several times a day.

Well, here's the spec I went by:

FX1 camera weight: 4.5 lb

Gates housing: 22 lb

Total: 26.5 lb

A1U camera weight: 1.8 lb

Gates housing: 10.1 lb

Total: 11.9 lb

Acrylic Port would add about 1.5 lb to the package, 4.1 lb for the glass SWP44 Fathom (which is at a bargain bin price of $4500.00). The extra 15 lb didn't ring at first like such a big deal, but like I said I haven't handled them so it could make a huge difference.

You may also be underestimating the price difference. The ports/lenses for the housings   are not the same for the A1 and Fx1.  If you look at complete systems, The Amphibico EVO PRO is $3000 but the Phenom is $5500.  I don't think Gates makes what would be considered the normal wide angle port for the Fx1 (glass, multielement).  I think you either get just a simple acrylic port that you use with a wide angle adapter that you buy for the camera, or you get the Fathom wide angle.

I don't know where you are located, but if you are looking at the A1U (NTSC version) B&H has it for under 2000 after the Sony rebate.

There is no doubt that the Fx1 has better optics and contols, and does better in low light. If you need every bit of performance possible, that is a great way to go, but it is going to come at a major increase in size, weight and cost.

X1 camera weight: 4.5 lb

Gates housing: 22 lb

Total: 26.5 lb

Thanks. I didn't realize how much lighter the Gates housing is than some of the others.

just take a look to hdv quality:-)

http://www.hdvunderwater.com/

Wagsy clips

ERIK

Yes fantastic.

I think you should go for the FX1 Erik. You seem to be convincing yourself that's the way.. Go on take the plunge..by it...BY IT...BUY IT.

Just had an e-mail off of Mark Thorpe (AKA) camdiver and he's on about going for the new Panny.

To be honest I think it (FX1/Z1 - HC1/A1) is like comparing the TRV950 or the PD10 with the VX2100 and the PD170. You either fork out more money for the bigger better camera or make do with the smaller but nearly as good model.

Go to a shop pick one up take a look at your bank balance and decide.

I'm happy with the A1 or though..Nah, that's another story...

Dive safe

DeanB

erik,

Something to keep in mind: I think the differences between the A1 and the Fx1 are going to be trivial in comparison to the differences in the ability of different photographers and different rendering for the web.

I won't speak for anyone else, but at my current rate of diving, I could spend the next 5 years filiming with $100,000 professional equipment and not get results like Paul Wags If that's your point of comparison, you are probably going to be disapointed in almost everything you see.

Just look at something like Blue Planet and see what can be done with SD.

I don't expect to get results like Paul with my A1, but I do expect to get results that are dramatically better than what I could get with SD, and more than good enough quailty for anything I need, in a package that I can deal with.

I think the quality of equipment that is available is so good that it would be hard to make a bad decision.

just take a look to hdv quality:-)

http://www.hdvunderwater.com/

Wagsy clips

Thanks, but I can't see those, needs Quicktime7 which doesn't work at all on my system.[edit]I was able to see those using the free VLC player; yes they're gorgeous but, as it's been pointed out, there's more to it than just a good camera I think.[/edit]

And, pardon for asking, but what set top DVD player could play those? Is there any yet? Or a TV set with 1440/1080 resolution?

I'm really wondering, what's the point of shooting HD if, as of yet, there's no way for your audience to get the full resolution. Is HD downsampled to DVD resolution better than DV25? Are images from an FX1 shot in DV25 mode better than a 3 chips regular DV25 cam? Or do peoples edit HD then downsample at render time for DVDs and this way gets better images (if better quality is defined as less grain and wider dynamic range)?

Anyway, those are all questions I'm asking myself now to prepare for the choices I'll have to make before summer comes around. What I see though is that they'll probably be a slew of DV25 3 chippers package coming to the used market as peoples upgrades to HD, I might just end up springing for that at the last minutes instead.

And, pardon for asking, but what set top DVD player could play those? Is there any yet? Or a TV set with 1440/1080 resolution?

 

I'm really wondering, what's the point of shooting HD if, as of yet, there's no way for your audience to get the full resolution. Is HD downsampled to DVD resolution better than DV25? Are images from an FX1 shot in DV25 mode better than a 3 chips regular DV25 cam? Or do peoples edit HD then downsample at render time for DVDs and this way gets better images (if better quality is defined as less grain and wider dynamic range)?

I can only relate the issues that appied to my decision. Everyone has their own set of factors.

I do have a TV that can display 1920/1080. (the 1440 are non-square, will display at 1920) I plan to feed it through the component cables directly from the camera.

I also have another TV, and comptur monitors that will do 720. I will probably produce data DVDs for that, and play them from a PC. There are a few DVD players that can play WMF files from a data DVD iat 720.

My biggest factor was that I was ready to do SOMETHING. I felt that even if I don't show in HD now, I am going to gather my source material in HD for use when HD DVD is readily available.

HDV is better than downsampled DV25 especially if you shoot DVCAM or DVCPRO and downsample at render time (via software than in camera). You can see examples here:

http://www.canopus.com/canopus/technology/...apabilities.php

For display, you can always show direct HDV from your camera or deck to an HDTV, but until Blu-Ray or HD-DVD comes around you wont have too many options. You could also do WMV which some players support or on a PC with an HD monitor.

Either case the HDV color space of 4:2:0 is slightly better than 4:1:1 of HD, but the resolution is significantly better which is why downsampling will result in sharper images (even with loss of color).

To get the best HD you really need to shoot with uncompressed HD (4:4:4) and display on a calibrated HD monitor. Beyond that everything is compromises - price, color, exposure, etc.

I agree that as a pro-sumer, your best bet is to spend as little as possible to get into HDV and work on shooting/editing/post production. If your going pro, then go straight to HD, but be prepared for big $$$. Also remember the entire HDV workflow has considerations, other than just the camera (i.e. editing, mastering, etc.) so you might want to spend some money on those aspects instead. Just my 2 cents.

And, pardon for asking, but what set top DVD player could play those? Is there any yet? Or a TV set with 1440/1080 resolution?

The IO Data/JVC SRDVD-100U plays back the native HDV .m2t files incredibly well. I burn up to 40 minute HDV movies on dual layer DVD's in Nero as a data disc, and they play back in this deck beautifully. The 1440 x 1080 resolution is anamorphic (not square pixels) and automatically convert to 1920 x 1080 resolution in any HDTV. All 1080 HD broadcast is anamorphic. I watch UW footage from my FX1 through this DVD player to a Panasonic PT-AE900U projector (720P) on a 90" screen, and it looks absolutely spectacular. I watch it in my home from 10' away, and at a dive club meeting of about 50 people, with stunning results. The brilliant colors and HD resolution of HDV is amazing!!! One note on the IOData/JVC DVD player. Check the online forums? before updating the firmware. I have an older version (fortunately) of the firmware, and according to the forums, the new versions have crippled some of it's features such as SD upconversion and other things. I absolutely love this DVD player, but won't do the crippling updates. There are two versions of theIOData player, AVeL LinkPlayer 2, and the JVC version with DVI output.

Buy a cam that does HDV / DVCAM / DV... Then your laughing.

Looking at the footage I've shot in HDV and DVCAM played straight from camera to TV looks far superior to my old 3chip DV cam and my TV is an 15 year old phillips basic 4:3...

Everyone has different opinions that's what makes the world go round. If I'd waited, I'd still be using my TRV950 without knowing the quality of my A1...

Cheers all,

Dive safe

DeanB

Yes sure, differents video operators with different abilities and skills will produce very differents quality of footage with same cam and housing. I'm shooting Uw from 15 years and i have some experiences, my question is: Wagsy could shoot this great videos with the A1 also? This is the most important think we must arrive to know. If yes (same results with A1), is obsious, it will be a good information for all....just buy a A1 a little baby and travel with easy :-) Differently, for people that want the best quality and possibilities the big housing will remain a must.

For this reason i was waiting some clips maked UW with an A1 from a pro video operator to compare! What wi are waiting? Someone ready to send in Australia his A1 housing for 1 or 2 week so wagsy couls try it ????

maybe in some day we will have some UW A1 shoots to see :-)

For thew moment looking at video maked by Paul...i just say: i love this big cam :-), a very good job! Well done :-)

ERIK

Just back from a long weekend in Padang Bai, Bali, and nine dives shooting my A1 side-by-side with ShawnH's FX1 in a variety of conditions (sunny great viz; dark caves and tunnels; overcast with good and poorer viz; night dives etc etc)

My set up: A1P in a modified USVH housing with a manual white balance control (see pics), a flat port, Sony VCL-HG0737X x0.7 wide angle converter (considered high quality – no distortion etc), internal CC filter.

Shawn’s set up: FX1 (U) in a new LMI housing with all the bells. Big eye dome, no w/a converter etc. Shawn may add comments later.

We spent our dives checking out various combinations and permutations and then played back the footage in the evenings.

First impressions: Wow! What a difference. Although the A1 footage was pretty good as stand alone material, when it was played back side by side with the FX1 takes, the difference was almost night and day – especially in non-perfect 'edge' conditions of light, viz, etc.

In perfect conditions, i.e. lots of brilliant sun, and excellent viz, there was not too much difference between the output of the two cameras, but even in these conditions the ‘richness’ of the FX1 material was evident. More vibrant colours, more contrast, crisper etc

I believe most of the differences come down to three things. A) not surprisingly 3 chips vs. 1 chip, B ) the low light capability of the FX1 vs. the A1 and C) having a dome port on the FX1 vs. a flat port with a w/a converter (again an issue of cutting out ‘available’ light)

The poor low light capability of my set up was especially noticeable in tunnels and caves, and in deeper darker water generally. When the A1 struggled with low light, the dark areas were captured as very grainy red speckled psychedelic ‘TV noise’. Totally unusable – this in particular was a LOT worse than my TRV 950 in the same housing, using the same converter.

Also although my manual WB control was excellent (big thanks to David at SCUBACAM for an excellent piece of work) my low light capability meant that the A1 could not balance under a variety of poorer light conditions – the WB icon just sat there flashing. We are not talking about dark water here though – just an overcast day at 18 meters. Again this was a lot worse than the 950.

One other very noticeable difference between the FX1 and the A1 was in the long shots. Whereas the close-ups and mid range shots in good lighting were very similar, the ‘richness’ of the far distance dropped off rapidly with the A1, even with good lighting. This is again probably a measure of 3CCD vs. 1CCD.

On the good side the A1 manual WB worked well – I was using the Amphibico ‘warm’ slate (slightly blue) which gave very warm reds and oranges. I will be doing some more WB tests on land checking any differences between the manual assign button and the WB from the camera’s touch panel, but I’d be very surprised of there was a issue here.

I used ‘black stretch’ on all my first day dives which unfortunately was the day of the best sunny conditions with big pelagics, mantas, thresher shark, bright corals etc. Verdict NEVER use black stretch! It seems to ‘open up a stop’ to get more exposure in those dark areas. This resulted in washed out ‘overexposed’ looking material, with poor contrast and an overall ‘flatness’. Even under coral heads, or with a certain black frog fish the black stretch did not do a good job. I’d prefer to have access to manual exposure (which is a new control I may have fitted)

These were my main first impressions. For $300 my retro-fitted USVH housing taught me a lot before I invested in a more expensive housing! If I do invest in a new A1 housing it will have a huge dome port so I don’t have to use a converter (and block even more light), and I’ll also invest in a couple of 30W HID lamps. LIGHT is everything with this camera.

If you want the best quality HDV footage and the most versatile ‘edge conditions’ camera, the FX1 is the way to go. But make sure you have the muscles in your arms and wallet for the set up. If you like the small footprint of the A1, like I do, make sure you give this little chap as much light as possible. I would not recommend a w/a converter.

The A1 is of course a great 'topside' HDV cam - but squeezing the best out of it u/w evidently has its challenges.

I’ll be doing more tests in Malaysia in a couple of weeks, but the above is a quick brain dump. Shawn may want to give additional comments …

Photos:

i) USVH w/A1 WB assign button bottom right

ii) Inside of housing w/WB assign control on right

Nick,

Thanks for the report. Now you have me thinking that the A1 is not ready for primetime. Can you post some screen shots showing the poor medium (I don't call overcast at 60 feet, dark) light ability? Can you also try some twilight shots with different settings of the manual exposure? I'm wondering if the auto exposure is just not working correctly for diving conditions.

Thanks,

--Mark

Sure I'll post a few frame captures shortly - bit snowed at the moment (emails from my other full life - paid work!)