I have an EX1 for a weekend. Anyone want me to run tests?

[Alex.Mitchell]

Title says it all. I have an EX for the weekend and I was wondering if there was anything you guys would like me to try out. I will obviously be testing the EXs ability to handle fluorescent lighting, flashes of light, wobble, and skew, but is there something you guys would like to know that I could find out for you?

[mikkowilson]

Live Composite output at non-standard frame-rates.

- Mikko

[Alex.Mitchell]

Live Composite output at non-standard frame-rates.

- Mikko

So composite, not component then?

[mikkowilson]

yes. Composite. SD. For simple external monitoring, you need composite..


Of course feel free to test as many outputs as you can. :thumbsup:




Oh, and do the SxS "clip-drop" test. ... record a few unimportant clips to a card, and then eject it while recording. What happens? How about if you power off while recording? Remove the battery?

- Mikko

[Barry_Green]

I think most people want to know about the vignetting issue and whether it's a limited-sample defect or something that's affecting all the units.

[NorthernFilmMaker]

Take it in an airplane and see if it can withstand 12 Gs....LOL.....they did 10 Gs

[Alex.Mitchell]

I think most people want to know about the vignetting issue and whether it's a limited-sample defect or something that's affecting all the units.

What focal length/focal distance/f-stop are people seeing it at usually?

[Barry_Green]

Lots of threads on DVInfo that have discussed it. Maybe SteveT or DXMetal will stop by to give you more info?

[Morpheus_23]

I'd like to get mine (I'm on the list) and do some EX1 HVX comparisons.

[Stevet]

Take it in an airplane and see if it can withstand 12 Gs....LOL.....they did 10 Gs

LOL...

Yes, I watched those videos. Amazing.
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamVideoGallery.shtml


The vignetting issue was viewed from the 10mm-25mm range, but may be different. Yes, check it out. I will be checking mine tomorrow. I know the range is strange, but we all saw the video.

So far we know of two, walts and Paul (dvinfo).
The other reports in have been fine.

[Stevet]

I'd like to get mine (I'm on the list) and do some EX1 HVX comparisons.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, but I can bet Panasonic will have a 1/2" cam less than 8K on their design list.

Having said that. These are all great tools. Use them to your (and the cameras) best ability and the footage will look great.

I've seen a lot of HVX200 stuff that looks really good.

[LuckyStudio 13]

Steve,
I think Panasonic will never put a full resolution 1/2" CCD into the HVX, as that will affect the hpx500 and hpx 2000. The full resolution 2/3" CCD camera is their hpx 3000 which has a MSRP of $ 48k. Look at the dvx100b, it is still native 4:3.

I think Sony is cannibalizing its own 1/2" xdcam F3XX series (> $20k cam) to put out the EX1. Definitely a lot of value for a $6450, which include 2 free 8 gig card.

[Stevet]

Dxmetal,
I hear you. It's all about the number games for manufactures.
I think Sony was smart for their decision.

Look how far we have come since the Sony VX1000.
There's been advances every year. Sony jumped in to counter the Panasonic HVX200 which has been a real hit. The HVX200 is capable of producing some nice stuff.
Sony had to step it up a notch to promote sales in this sub 8K market.

The release of the EX1 is going to help everyone, even those who are not sold on the camera.
Just imagine three years from now.

[Barry_Green]

I think Panasonic will never put a full resolution 1/2" CCD into the HVX, as that will affect the hpx500 and hpx 2000.
This argument is common, but it's also complete nonsense. People said Panasonic wouldn't put out variable frame rates on the HVX because it would cannibalize their VariCam. So? They did it anyway. They said they wouldn't put 1080/24p there because it'd cannibalize the VariCam. So? They did it anyway. VariCam's been out for five years -- they can't possibly hold the rest of the product line back because of it. In a year or two there'll be a new VariCam which will raise the bar a lot higher than the HPX500 or HVX200 and re-establish the pricing structure.

Point is, technology moves on. Products do get better. Sony put out the EX1 and yes it's going to kill off the F330/F350 (who, seriously, is going to pay 4x as much for one of those?) So? Products die, and new products rise, and prices go down. We're talking about an EX1 that even diehard F330/F350 owners admit it matches their cameras, at 1/4 the price. Doesn't that pretty much disprove the whole "they'll cripple the low end to protect the high end" argument?

Sony was getting their patootie handed to 'em in the marketplace. They needed to respond, aggressively. They have.

[Stevet]

Agreed 100%.
I'll bet Panny comes up with an excellent cam!

[Marshallarts]

I'd love to help.

if in NYC contact me

(disregard title.. was thinking about something else)

[Morpheus_23]

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, but I can bet Panasonic will have a 1/2" cam less than 8K on their design list.

Having said that. These are all great tools. Use them to your (and the cameras) best ability and the footage will look great.

I've seen a lot of HVX200 stuff that looks really good.

Actually, I think it is a fair comparison. I understand what your saying and I'm not dismissing it at all. I think the HVX set the standard as every other camcorder that came out had users trying to get the "HVX look" to their video. I think the comparisons with the HVX are inevitable. I've seen the stills from EX1, XHG1 and HVX. I don't put stock in still frames. I could do the same thing with my HV10. That is, take a still and compare it to an HVX still and say the HV10 looks better. But the reality comes from the footage. Again, the EX1 has the resolution but does that make it a better camera? Maybe it does, I don't know. You would expect the EX1 to have a sharper picture but is that all that makes it significantly better video?
I'm actually anxious to find out.

[AuditoryVisuals]

How about some +18dB gain footage? I'm always interested to see how cameras perform in high gain.

[Stevet]

At +18 it would have a fair amount of noise.
But, for those who were used to 1/3" cameras and were ever willing to use +18, you will find it's capable of the same brightness at MUCH lower gains.

[daktulus]

I´d like to see fast moving objects and pans.
Camera flashes.

All recorded to card.

[Ryan Harrell]

anyone have links to footage on here?

[Alex.Mitchell]

Okay, so here’re my impressions.

First off, they did an admirable job trying to eliminate rolling shutter artifacts, but they’re still there. I recorded part of a basketball game and when a flash came up there was a partial exposure. Also, when I was zooming in it was really easy to see skewed geometry, though wobble wasn’t that bad. The chip seemed to handle fluorescent lights pretty well though, but maybe I just didn’t stress it enough.

The unit I used did show signs of vignetting, but it definitely wasn’t as bad as some of the shots I’ve seen around. It was mostly just the top left hand corner of the frame between the 15mm and 25mm range.

Aside from that, I tried my best to erase footage from the card by ripping it out of the camera during operation. I recorded about three clips and then started recording a fourth. When I pulled it out of the camera and stuffed it into my laptop, I could still see the first three clips I recorded. They all imported fine, without any corruption. When I put the card back into the camera, it asked me if I wanted to restore the card. I assumed that this meant format, but the camera actually rescued the footage that I had recorded immediately prior to ripping the card out! Kinda neat.

The camera itself is a pain in the ass to hand hold. I’m going to have to say it’s probably my least favourite camera in this regard. The whole thing is weighted so far away from your hand and it only takes a few moments for it to get really, really painful. Even when I rotate the handle it doesn’t help much.

I’ll try to elaborate on other things a little more, but there’s some food for thought.

[Stevet]

I used it at at a soccer game with no problems with skew or shutter.

There will be footage available soon.

[Alex.Mitchell]

I used it at at a soccer game with no problems with skew or shutter.


Really? I mean, c'mon, it's right there. It's not as bad as you might think but it is there.

Here's the wobble:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_g6cTLzjmc

And here's the partial exposure:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/drunk_caterpillar/Untitled.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/drunk_caterpillar/2-1.jpg

[Aerialsfilm M*]

Wow. That partial exposure thing got me frightened.

[mikkowilson]

I wonder what flash unit that is? That's a lot of light when you compare to the normally exposed parts of the frame!


It's also kind of cool to see how much faster the flash "lights up" in the first frame in comparrison to the "fade out" in the 2nd frame.


- Mikko ... could use one of those for night photography.

[Jared Meyer]

The camera itself is a pain in the ass to hand hold. I’m going to have to say it’s probably my least favourite camera in this regard. The whole thing is weighted so far away from your hand and it only takes a few moments for it to get really, really painful. Even when I rotate the handle it doesn’t help much.



Thanks for the details, Alex. Not a lot of stuff out there yet so it's great to see specific problems illustrated with screenshots and footage. Much appreciated.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the rolling shutter and all its ramifications in real world shooting...but it doesn't strike me as a deal breaker unless you're shooting a lot of sports and fast-motion. Is that the general consensus?

The thing that worries me the most, honestly, is the ergonomics. I do a lot of handheld and I cannot for the life of me see how you're supposed to hold the camera steady with a grip that's so off-balance and have an extra hand to work the lens and other controls. I'm anxious to check one out.

[TheMusician]

Alex, I think you have a couple of your terms mixed up. The partial exposure is right and is easy to see in the pictures that you provided. Thanks for that. The skew problem(which you are calling wobble) is when you pan side to side and it causes things to look skewed or like they are leaning. If that footage you showed on Youtube is from the EX, then yes, it definitely still exhibits skew. Wobble has to do with vibrations, mainly in the tilt directions up and down. With a CMOS that is not corrected like the HV20, this can cause the footage to "wobble" literally like a bowl full of jello and is quite disturbing and a definite deal-breaker.

The amount of skew in your footage does not bother me because I will never be doing whip pans that fast. Wobble due to vibrations(walking, on vehicles, helicopters, etc) is where my main concern lies and so far nobody has mentioned it yet. Thanks for posting these clips and footage Alex, very much appreciated.

[Stevet]

Where did the flash come from? It seems odd it lit up the whole stadium.

Also, I'm not sure of your settings on the EX1, but that's the first jerk left to right test was the first thing I testesd and saw NOTHING to what the utube image shows.....hmmmmm. Also there have been a few other who did this test and said if they saw anything at all, it was not much.

I will also post this test. Looks like an HV20 to me.

[Aerialsfilm M*]

I'm not sure it has anything to do with a flash.

[Jared Meyer]

I don't think so either. It looks like a glitchy rendering of the frame.

[Stevet]

I'm not sure it has anything to do with a flash.

Than why the WAY over exposure?

[mikkowilson]

I'm not sure it has anything to do with a flash.

Oh that's a flash for sure. That's exactly what a "partial exposure" of a rolling shutter looks like.

If you look carefully, you can tell by the shadows that the flash came from the left of the EX1...

http://dvxuser.mikkowilson.com/EX1_BBall_Flash1.jpg



- Mikko

[mico]

Man I am not buying that youtube video at all. That looks really bad and something we would have heard about from people who tested the cam. Adam Wilt never mentioned this when he earthquaked the cam. I say bogus. Someone do the same thing and post it so we get the stench from that vid out of here.

Alex thanks for doing the 'pull the card out while recording' test. At least that can be put to rest although I know its no guarantee for this cam as well as others.

Regarding the flash the same thing happens to the RED as a posted music vid showed. I say tests need to be done regarding other shutter speeds and flashes. Even film cameras can miss the flash when not synced.

[Aerialsfilm M*]

Has to be a heavy flash then, but hey it's possible, just said I was not sure.

[Stevet]

The utube video is bogus alright. I OWN the cam and tried it MYSELF.
Believe me, I would of RETURNED it the first day. Not to mention well qualified people such as Philip Bloom would not of settled for that.

Also, the shots taken at 10Gs spinning in the plane would of been a disaster...
not buying...LOL

As far as the flash..... It's possible, for sure. Although it would be interesting to test at different shutter settings.
That's my plan.

[mikkowilson]

It looks like multiple units slaved together .. the shaows of the ref. and the hoop come from the other wall.


Probabaly the stobes of a professional photographer who has powerfull pods triggerd via radio from his camera to light up the place when he wants to snap a fast shutter pic. Not uncommon at all.

- Mikko

[Jared Meyer]

Oh that's a flash for sure. That's exactly what a "partial exposure" of a rolling shutter looks like.

If you look carefully, you can tell by the shadows that the flash came from the left of the EX1...

http://dvxuser.mikkowilson.com/EX1_BBall_Flash1.jpg



- Mikko
Good eye, Mikko, I missed that shadow. Yup, guess it is a flash. I've never seen a frame with camera flash look posterized like that. It threw me off.

[harddrive]

I wonder what flash unit that is? That's a lot of light when you compare to the normally exposed parts of the frame!

It's also kind of cool to see how much faster the flash "lights up" in the first frame in comparrison to the "fade out" in the 2nd frame.
The first sentence was my first thought as well, and it seems strange that it is as intense in the foreground as the distance?

If those are consecutive frames, then the assumption mikko makes above seems to imply that it lasts exactly one frame, if we are indeed seeing the beginning and end of it. So 1/60 second? In which case, surely that's far longer than any normal electronic strobe?

I'm also curious to know what that video is like at normal speed.

[Tim Le]

I don't know guys. I hate to say it, but something about this looks odd. From what I know, when pro photographers set up strobes for basketball, they mount them to the catwalks directly above the court at the four corners and point them down towards the court. They usually don't mount them to the side like the way the shadow is showing because it would bug the hell out of the people on the other side of the bleachers facing the strobes. These are very powerful studio strobes, not consumer camera flashes, so they're pretty blinding.

I also tested partial exposure on my HV10 and at least on that camera you don't get the fade out like that. It's a very sharp line between the flash and no flash.

Of course, I could be wrong. Who knows?! We need more EX1 shooters to go to NBA games and check this out.

EDIT: I take it back, sometimes they do cross light from the bleachers. This was a college game so they probably don't have a lighting grid or catwalks on top. Cross lighting is not permitted at a televised game (NBA or NCAA) because it would interfere with the TV coverage.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Really? I mean, c'mon, it's right there. It's not as bad as you might think but it is there.

Here's the wobble:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_g6cTLzjmc

....


Why do I hear the tell tall sound of the HV 20 "battery rattle" on this clip?


Hmmmmmm!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Stevet]

I just went up to my studio and shook the crap out of my EX1.
There's no way the was an EX1.

[ahusain]

actually the skew and wobble are both manifestations of rolling shutter distortion. if you get skew you'll also get what people are calling wobble, which is just rapid, short changes in acceleration causing the rolling shutter to distort the image alternately in one direction then the other. it looks more jello-like if you do it up and down, since that is the same direction of the rolling shutter so the picture squishes and unsquishes.

you can easily cause this distortion in a camera with a rolling shutter: just zoom to the longest focal length and jiggle the camera up and down. i have ex1 footage i shot yesterday that looks comically bad when i did that *intentionally*.

the thing is, under what real-world conditions do you need to do that? i see rolling shutter distortion in real world ex1 footage, but you really won't notice it unless you've got a shot that needs to be shakey.


Alex, I think you have a couple of your terms mixed up. The partial exposure is right and is easy to see in the pictures that you provided. Thanks for that. The skew problem(which you are calling wobble) is when you pan side to side and it causes things to look skewed or like they are leaning. If that footage you showed on Youtube is from the EX, then yes, it definitely still exhibits skew. Wobble has to do with vibrations, mainly in the tilt directions up and down. With a CMOS that is not corrected like the HV20, this can cause the footage to "wobble" literally like a bowl full of jello and is quite disturbing and a definite deal-breaker.

The amount of skew in your footage does not bother me because I will never be doing whip pans that fast. Wobble due to vibrations(walking, on vehicles, helicopters, etc) is where my main concern lies and so far nobody has mentioned it yet. Thanks for posting these clips and footage Alex, very much appreciated.

[Alex.Mitchell]

Haha, wow, I go to work for a few hours and this is what happens. Hmmm, intriguing.

Alright, so everyone is saying that this is an HV20? Well, I do have the raw MP4s from the camera sitting right here. I'll try to outline the conditions as best as possible for both the skew and the partial exposure.

When I tested for skew I was shooting 1080 24p with the shutter angle @ 180 degrees. I had it mounted in studio on a pretty beat up boegen 501 head and the lightest pair of sticks around. What I did is aim the EX at something thin and bright, then I zoomed in to about 40mm and panned the camera from left to right. It really wasn't that hard, and you can see the results now. I don't have any webspace to host the raw clip, but if anyone out there can I'll give them the MP4. I don't know if that'll make a difference though, because I'm sure people will just claim that I converted my "HV20" footage or some bullshit like that.

The flash exposure is a really weird case, and I'll explain it here. We decided that, as a crew, we'd try to fit the EX into our live to tape workflow so we brought it to a basketball game on friday night. The photographers from the campus newspaper must have been there too, because some guy was mounting four flash bulbs around the court: one on the backs of either set of bleachers (one was just left of the camera) and there were also bulbs on either end of the court. They were all synced and went off at the same time. I just happened to be lucky enough to get one on camera. I also have the raw MP4 for that too. For that shoot we were using 1080 60i with the shutter off, although in retrospect I should've shot 720 60p. My bad I guess.

So yeah, I guess I'm a liar or something? Seems kinda weird. I dunno, I guess maybe I thought people would think to take this at face value, but the internet is always full of surprises.

P.S. Everything besides the recording format was set to factory default by the way. Only thing I changed was the video out and I added the 4:3 markers in the LCD.

[Alex.Mitchell]

Why do I hear the tell tall sound of the HV 20 "battery rattle" on this clip?


Hmmmmmm!?!?!?!?!?!?

Probably because you want to. No offense.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Probably because you want to. No offense.


Nope... just heard the rattle.


What is rattling on your EX1.

Maybe a sling on the Tri Pod or maybe a cable?

It sounded heavier but I don't know.

That's why I asked.


You said when you got the wobble you shot anything slim or bright.

Does the wobble show up under any other conditions?

Do you think this is a show stopper or can you live with it?

[kyledroid]

Its not that we doubt you, Alex. We just need confirmation is all. If someone could copy his results then it would help alot. From what i saw in that vid, though, those pans were really really fast. I doubt even the red could handle those pan speeds lol.

[Alex.Mitchell]

Nope... just heard the rattle.


What is rattling on your EX1.

Maybe a sling on the Tri Pod or maybe a cable?

It sounded heavier but I don't know.

That's why I asked.


You said when you got the wobble you shot anything slim or bright.

Does the wobble show up under any other conditions?

Do you think this is a show stopper or can you live with it?

Man, I dunno about the rattle. Could be the crappy old 'pod, could be a loose battery on the camera. Truth be told I wasn't paying too much attention to the audio.

I saw skew on just about every distinct line in the frame if I panned fast enough, even when I was shooing as wide as I could. That said, it wasn't really something I saw all the time because I had to be panning pretty fast for it to happen. For instance, when we were shooting the game from the stands I didn't notice it on the lines painted on the court floor, but I did notice it when I was whipping it around in the studio. See, I was pushing things to the limit. This video was one of those stress tests designed to coax some skew from the rolling shutter, and it did. Coincidentally, the partial exposure just happened when the camera was put right next to some unusually strong flashes of light.

Is it a show stopper? Well, I doubt I'd shoot with it in a moving car, but other than that I really didn't think that it was an unworkable machine. I liked the dof, the display had all the information I could have ever wanted, I love the SxS workflow, and the manual lens is exactly what I've been waiting for. I'm not in a rush to get an HD camera though, and the EX doesn't change that. I'm going to wait for a while to see what is going to be released next, because this camera definitely ups the ante on a lot of stuff out there.

[mikkowilson]

I'll be happy to host the MP4s for you.

Send me a PM with their file size & location.

- Mikko

[mico]

Alex I assumed that that was NOT your youtube video. Just something you found on the 'tube. If that was yours then i take back the bogus remark. I'm still amazed no one else has seen that wobble. Maybe the extreme back and forth is not a practical test yet Adam Wilt earthquaked the cam and never mentioned this. Most have said the wobble was minor. That youtube was not minor.

Was this shot at the 35mbs mode or 25? Could that be the factor?

Is it possible for you to do the same test with another cam to see if its just yours?

Not shooting in a car? Not shooting with strobe or flashes? I mean whats the point then if you're limited this way. Someone did post at another site with some fast jerky handheld and it did not show any visible wobble. The camera mounted in the plane on Sonys site shows no issues yet in a plane and looking at the sky there are not many vertical objects but still no sky skew.

Someone needs to take this cam out and really make it work.

For me car shots, mounted on bikes with quick pans will be the determining factor. Hope someone does those shots soon.

[Stevet]

Alex, If that's what you captured with the EX1, then so be it.

I guess there's trade-offs with everything. I have no intentions on fast pans, especially at 24P When used as an effect, it would be just that.

Now if this was happening under normal image movement, or normal dolly moves, I'd be REAL concerened. Based on my testing, it's not an issue for me.

If this is an issue, I'd suggest staying away from the EX1 !

[Barry_Green]

Not shooting in a car? Not shooting with strobe or flashes? I mean whats the point then if you're limited this way.
That's the question, and that was the point of my article -- to point out that new technologies are changing the rules of what kind of shots we can get, and people need to be aware of this. The other issue is computer graphics and match-moving.

I'm not saying an EX1 is unsuitable for these purposes (yet, as I haven't tested it); what I am saying is that the presence of a rolling shutter *raises the possibility* and a prudent shopper should test the particular camera they're interested in to see if it is indeed fit for their intended purpose. You can no longer take for granted that they all perform basically the same (with respect to sensor characteristics or recording format) because they're not made the same anymore. It used to be that everyone used CCD and intraframe compression at 60i. Now we have rolling-shutter CMOS and long-GOP at varying bitrates and GOP sizes and frame rates. And some of these technologies will render certain types of shots either difficult or impossible to get. So buyer beware, and educate yourself.

The camera mounted in the plane on Sonys site shows no issues yet in a plane
Hmmm, imagine that. I bet the footage on JVC's site doesn't show any split-screen either... :D

Someone needs to take this cam out and really make it work.
That's what will happen over the next few months. And as that happens, the bloom will fade off the rose and we'll start to see what it's really capable of. It always happens, every product goes through this phase. The Red's starting to get its share; there's apparently quite a bit of noise in the blue channel and it's causing some issues and users are starting to talk about it. You've only ever heard heaping praise about the Red, but now that users are getting it and using it, you'll start hearing about issues. The same thing will happen with the EX1 as more and more users get it and start putting it in different circumstances.

What you have to determine is how well it will work (or even whether it will work) for YOUR circumstances.

For me car shots, mounted on bikes with quick pans will be the determining factor. Hope someone does those shots soon.
Kaku Ito usually puts every new camera to the test, and he does mountain biking, and he's already planning on doing some mounted-to-a-bike shots.

But seriously, the results of those shots will likely only be of interest to someone who does mounted-to-a-bike shots, right? Even if it fails disastrously on shots like that, if someone else will be using it for sit-down interviews it could still be a perfect cam for them, y'know?

[Elton]

Good points. I can appreciate the truth of what Barry's saying. Each new "breakthrough" product eventually gets put through the wringer, and flaws and gotchas float to the surface.

CMOS in professional video cameras is in its infancy, and it's the pioneers who'll have to be dodging arrows. EX1 users are the testbed for what will probably be assessed and improved upon in future product offerings.

It's all about prudent shopping and assessing the tradeoffs. As of this day, there's still no perfect budget HD camera...but we're getting closer.

[Jason Ramsey]

We're going to be hosting some raw mp4's from Alex (we meaning myself and a few other folks) if Alex wants to do that. Once we have a link I'll pass it along to him and he can feel free to post it everywhere.

Laer,
Jason

[ahusain]

This video was one of those stress tests designed to coax some skew from the rolling shutter, and it did. Coincidentally, the partial exposure just happened when the camera was put right next to some unusually strong flashes of light.


you'll get partial exposure on EVERY flash shot with a rolling shutter unless the flash starts and ends exactly at the top and bottom of a shutter scan, which it rarely does. i have footage with maybe a dozen flashes, and every one is exposed across two frames. i don't see what the problem is. it's just a flash!

people really need to rent this camera and try it out in some real world situations. unless you're shooting intentionally shakey footage you won't notice the skew. this is a fantastic camera; the rolling shutter is just a feature :) that you learn to shoot around if you need to.

[mico]

I would still like to know if that youtube was shot at the lesser 25 Mbs or the 35Mbs VBR, since the camera does both, and if that is a factor in wobble and skew.

[Barry_Green]

Bitrate of the recording codec would have no effect on the amount of wobbling or skewing that goes on. You can see the wobbling/skewing live, when the codec hasn't even touched the footage.

Wobble/skew/partial exposure, etc., are all characteristics of the sensor, not the compression format.

[Jason Ramsey]

I think there will be two videos uploaded. there is one right now... Unfortunately, I can't view it.

But, here is the link to download it.
www.dvxfest.com/samples

too bad I can't see what all the fuss is about since I can't view the video. I guess I need some other codec :)

Later,
Jason

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Barry,

Are you planning on a hands on review of the EX1?

If so, that would be awesome as I highly value your opinion on these things.

As Always, Thanks sharing your expertise!

[Tim Le]

CMOS in professional video cameras is in its infancy, and it's the pioneers who'll have to be dodging arrows. EX1 users are the testbed for what will probably be assessed and improved upon in future product offerings.

Actually, CMOS has been used in broadcast cameras longer than most people realize. Ikegami started using them back in 2004 with the HDK-79EC multi-format camera. This camera has full raster 2.5 megapixel sensors and it's still used today by mobile production trucks to shoot sporting events like the US Open, NASCAR and from the Goodyear Blimp. They also make the HDL-40HS, which is a high-speed 720/120p super-slow mo camera and it's based on CMOS.

Thomson Grass Valley developed their own CMOS and Vision Research already uses them in their Phantom HD, Digital Cinema and super high speed (1000 fps) cameras. Even ARRI uses CMOS in the D-20. You've got to wonder if all these companies are on to something with this CMOS thingie. The only holdouts have been Panasonic and JVC, although JVC doesn't make very many cameras. But someone on another forum did say a Sony engineer at a trade show said they would keep using CCDs for their high-end cameras.

By the way, it is possible to have a CMOS sensor with a global shutter. Apparently this is common in industrial cameras for machine vision. I'm sure there must be trade-offs though...probably one of them being higher cost because the pixel structure is more complicated.

[Stevet]

A quick review ...http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=11758

[Barry_Green]

You've got to wonder if all these companies are on to something with this CMOS thingie.
This CMOS thingie that they're on to is fast frame rates and cheap chips with low power consumption. Makes a lot of sense for cheap camcorders/cell phone cameras. Makes less sense for something like the Infinity. Makes sense for Red in that they wanted a cheap price tag and fast frame rates. Makes sense for the EX1 in that they want massive quantities at a cheap price.
The only holdouts have been Panasonic and JVC, although JVC doesn't make very many cameras.
In bottom-of-the-line cameras, maybe. In top-line, guys like Dalsa are using CCD, and as you pointed out, a Sony engineer said that the strategy is CCD for the broadcast stuff, CMOS for the cheaper stuff. That makes a lot of sense.

By the way, it is possible to have a CMOS sensor with a global shutter. Apparently this is common in industrial cameras for machine vision. I'm sure there must be trade-offs though...probably one of them being higher cost because the pixel structure is more complicated.
Yep, exactly. And the CMOS revolution isn't about more cost, it's about less cost, which is why people haven't done it.

[Barry_Green]

Are you planning on a hands on review of the EX1?
I'll evaluate it, but I haven't decided yet as to whether I'd do a full-fledged review. I've learned that people only want to read what they want to hear in a review. If you agree with their preconceived notions they applaud you, if you disagree with their preconceived notions then you're a shill or a liar or some other vile thing. And of course there's people on both sides of every fence, so by and large it's kind of a no-win situation. Especially if you include pictures -- many times they won't even read the words, they'll look at the pictures and then start calling you names, even if you methodically document your settings and procedures...

Regardless, I'll get time on one, and I'll tell people exactly how it performs. If that meets with their wishes or disagrees with 'em, I can't help that. The thing is what it is. :)

[Tim Le]

This CMOS thingie that they're on to is fast frame rates and cheap chips with low power consumption. Makes a lot of sense for cheap camcorders/cell phone cameras. Makes less sense for something like the Infinity. Makes sense for Red in that they wanted a cheap price tag and fast frame rates. Makes sense for the EX1 in that they want massive quantities at a cheap price.

In bottom-of-the-line cameras, maybe. In top-line, guys like Dalsa are using CCD, and as you pointed out, a Sony engineer said that the strategy is CCD for the broadcast stuff, CMOS for the cheaper stuff. That makes a lot of sense.

Yep, exactly. And the CMOS revolution isn't about more cost, it's about less cost, which is why people haven't done it.

Actually, my point was that many of the top-of-the-line cameras are using CMOS and I doubt it's about cheap chips. It's about all the other advantages like lower power consumption, lower noise, higher sensitivity, multi-formats, and high frame rates. Examples include those Ikegami EFP cameras, ARRI D-20 and Vision Research Phantom 65. None of these cameras are cheap and each of these companies cite inherent CMOS advantages as to why they chose it.

It seems like the only drawback is a rolling shutter. But if you can achieve a snapshot shutter on a CMOS then I don't see why you wouldn't use it. It could be a technical reason or a business reason. For example, if global shutter is patented by a few companies (like Micron who has their own system) then the other companies who make sensors (like Sony or Canon) might not want to license it.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I'll evaluate it, but I haven't decided yet as to whether I'd do a full-fledged review. I've learned that people only want to read what they want to hear in a review. If you agree with their preconceived notions they applaud you, if you disagree with their preconceived notions then you're a shill or a liar or some other vile thing. And of course there's people on both sides of every fence, so by and large it's kind of a no-win situation. Especially if you include pictures -- many times they won't even read the words, they'll look at the pictures and then start calling you names, even if you methodically document your settings and procedures...

Regardless, I'll get time on one, and I'll tell people exactly how it performs. If that meets with their wishes or disagrees with 'em, I can't help that. The thing is what it is. :)

That's why I like your reviews.

You just tell it how you see it and let the cards lie where they may! :beer:

[KeeganFlynn]

It seems like the only drawback is a rolling shutter. But if you can achieve a snapshot shutter on a CMOS then I don't see why you wouldn't use it. It could be a technical reason or a business reason. For example, if global shutter is patented by a few companies (like Micron who has their own system) then the other companies who make sensors (like Sony or Canon) might not want to license it.

RED uses a global shutter, no?

[ullanta]

By the way, it is possible to have a CMOS sensor with a global shutter. Apparently this is common in industrial cameras for machine vision. I'm sure there must be trade-offs though...probably one of them being higher cost because the pixel structure is more complicated.

Sensitivity, too - the added transistors for global shuttering significantly impact the percentage of the area of each pixel that can gather light.

[TheMusician]

:)Sensitivity, too - the added transistors for global shuttering significantly impact the percentage of the area of each pixel that can gather light.


I guess that to compensate, they'll just have to give us bigger chips... say, 2/3rds of an inch? Hey, a guy can dream can't he? :)

[marco0782]

Barry, claiming that the Arri D-20 uses CMOS to save money is ridiculous.

[LuckyStudio 13]

When the mini RED comes out in a short few years. Everyone here in this forum will be pimpin' CMOS.

Yes, I can tell the future and you mark my word :)

[Barry_Green]

Actually, my point was that many of the top-of-the-line cameras are using CMOS and I doubt it's about cheap chips.
What top-of-the-line cameras use CMOS? Infinity isn't anywhere near top of the line, it's the bottom of the Thomson line. The EX1 isn't anywhere near the top of the Sony line, it's the bottom of the CineAlta line (and Sony's already said they will use CCD for the top of the market, CMOS for the bottom).

Red, yes -- the top of their line is CMOS. But it's also the only product in their lineup. And what's the big thing about Red? Its price tag. :thumbsup: If the Red was $350,000 (like the Sony F35) would anyone be all that excited about it?

It's about all the other advantages like lower power consumption, lower noise, higher sensitivity, multi-formats, and high frame rates.
Lower noise? Nope, CMOS is higher noise. Higher sensitivity? Sorry, no, CMOS is a lot slower (goes hand-in-hand with it being higher noise; you can't rate CMOS up because the noise becomes an issue). Plus the additional space on the chip for the transistors reduces the light-sensitive area. CMOS is slower than CCD, head-to-head.

Higher frame rates and lower power draw? Yep. And no smear. And the fact that they can be stamped out of silicon using high-yield (and therefore low cost) production techniques. Those are the advantages for CMOS, but there are lots of drawbacks. Dalsa's published a series of papers that compare CMOS against CCD, they make for interesting reading.

In short, there is no clear-cut winner. CMOS has been around for 30 years now, and yet everyone used CCD up until the last couple of years. CMOS was not a competitive technology. It's only now getting to the point where it can be viewed as competitive.

Examples include those Ikegami EFP cameras, ARRI D-20 and Vision Research Phantom 65. None of these cameras are cheap and each of these companies cite inherent CMOS advantages as to why they chose it.
The D20, I'll grant you. EFP cameras? No, not buying it. The Phantom? They had to go CMOS because of the frame rates. And the Infinity probably went CMOS (they were initially CCD) because they had *massive* power issues and heat issues. Going CMOS let them cut the power draw, which would directly correlate to less heat generation too.

It seems like the only drawback is a rolling shutter.
It's a problem, but not the only problem. Again, look at the Dalsa papers for perhaps the best comparison information.

But if you can achieve a snapshot shutter on a CMOS then I don't see why you wouldn't use it. It could be a technical reason or a business reason. For example, if global shutter is patented by a few companies (like Micron who has their own system) then the other companies who make sensors (like Sony or Canon) might not want to license it.
I think almost all of my resistance to CMOS would disappear with a global shutter or mechanical shutter.

[Barry_Green]

RED uses a global shutter, no?
No. Rolling.

[Stevet]

Red, yes -- the top of their line is CMOS. But it's also the only product in their lineup. And what's the big thing about Red? Its price tag. :thumbsup: If the Red was $350,000 (like the Sony F35) would anyone be all that excited about it?


Still, $17,000 USD for just a RED camera body is a lot of $$$$ for many. I'm not sold on CMOS is only offered as low end solutions, that's for sure.

[Barry_Green]

Still, $17,000 USD for just a RED camera body is a lot of $$$$ for many. I'm not sold on CMOS is only offered as low end solutions, that's for sure.
Trust me, I know it's a lot -- I'm due to shell that out this month. (and it's more like $50,000, all in, with some cheap glass and an appropriate tripod.)

It's not that CMOS is "only for low end", I'm not saying the Red One is "low end", but come on -- the Red One is priced less than a half-inch Sony F330. The buzz about the Red is because of the price. I'm also not saying that the EX1 is "low end". But when faced with a choice, every manufacturer that offers both CCD and CMOS has, as far as I know, always chosen CCD for the high end, and only offered CMOS in the lower-cost end of their product line.

[Stevet]

But when faced with a choice, every manufacturer that offers both CCD and CMOS has, as far as I know, always chosen CCD for the high end, and only offered CMOS in the lower-cost end of their product line.

True, It's been that way in the lower end market.
I also believe there have been advances in this technology, we'll have to wait and see where this takes us.

I also admit that the EX1, like every othere camera looks great on paper, but it's not until you get your hands on a camera that you realize the tradeoffs.

With all these cameras, (especially sub $10K), we have to learn to use the camera to make the best we can out of it.

Barry, I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the RED.
A coworker is due to get one in two weeks here in the Phoenix area.

I'm looking forward to checking it out. He did mention that the overall cost and the additional workflow requirement really pump up your total cost. I see it has for yourself.

[Barry_Green]

My Red is supposed to come out this month, so yeah, we'll see. Should be fabulous, but I'm going into it with eyes wide open. I've talked to enough people who've used it that I don't have the starry-eyed syndrome. To say I'm worried about the rolling shutter would be a true statement, that's for sure. That's about all I'm worried about on it though, and part of why I've become so obsessed with rolling shutters. I gave my HV20 away because I couldn't stand the rolling shutter so I wouldn't use it. It's a fine product for many uses but I just didn't trust it. I HATE the idea that your camera can screw you over when you don't expect it, so I obsess over how/when/where.

For my Red uses, I'm not shooting red carpet events, nor is it going to be strapped to a mountain bike (and besides, the thing's so heavy that vibration won't likely be much of a problem for it). But for handycams, I think it's more of an issue. In any case, Red says they "fixed" the rolling shutter problems, so I'm very curious to see if they have, and how.

As far as the Red goes: people just have to understand that it's not anything like any video camera on the market; in fact it's *not* a video camera. It's a digital film camera that uses an entirely different workflow. No it's not a "true" 4K, it's more like 3K. I'm okay with that, as it's still way better than anything else, surely way better than anything anywhere near the price. Heck, when I put in the reservation I was happy with the concept of 1080p @ 35mm DOF, so 3K worth of "true" res is a bonus. No it's not 1,000 ISO, it's more like 160. That's not ideal, but it's not bad and especially considering you can get T1.3 lenses, it's workable. It's not noise-free, there's some issues with noise. I understand they're working on that and improving it.

It's like I say with all these things -- put away manufacturer hype and go in with your eyes wide open. There are no miracles here, there are only tradeoffs. There are tradeoffs in every product. Know what's important to you, and how each product performs, and you can then be empowered to choose the right product for you.

[Stevet]

Thanks Barry.
One thing for sure, the RED is an investment. The company will stand by their camera and get it right for their users. I wish the big guys would follow suit with this mentality.

[Tim Le]

What top-of-the-line cameras use CMOS?

Okay, let's not say top-of-the-line since we'll be splitting hairs. Let's just say very high performance cameras. So there's the ARRI D20, all Phantom cameras, RED One and the Ikegami HDK-79EC. That covers both the high-end digital cinema and high-end broadcast markets.


Red, yes -- the top of their line is CMOS. But it's also the only product in their lineup. And what's the big thing about Red? Its price tag.

I think Jim would disagree. He said he set out to design the best camera he could--something that even if he only sold one to himself, he would want it. Do you think a billionaire with all the design and financial resources at his disposal would compromise his camera with a CMOS sensor (if it was inferior) just to make it cheap? Makes no sense.

Lower noise? Nope, CMOS is higher noise. Higher sensitivity? Sorry, no, CMOS is a lot slower

You must be thinking of old stereotypes. Times change and technology improves. This white paper (http://hdtv.videotechnology.com/HDTV-CMOSvsCCD.htm) states:

Designers of CMOS-based sensors reduce noise while eliminating the classic noise vs. resolution trade because the pixel-based amplifier’s bandwidth better matches the imager sampling frequency. The CMOS output buffer’s noise is usually negligible. In practice, therefore, CMOS can circumvent the “3 dB per octave” increase in noise that is experienced with CCD sensors and the associated degradation in camera S/N.
The sensitivity of today’s best CMOS sensors matches the sensitivity of the comparable CCD devices since the amount of light collected at each pixel is now roughly equal. Specifically, when deep submicron CMOS processes are used to design and fabricate the sensor, the photon collection efficiency of a CMOS pixel supporting progressive image formation is significantly higher than for a progressive CCD at the 5 micron pixel pitch that produces 2/3 inch HDTV sensors.Also, subjectively it seems that people are reporting that the EX1 is rated at ASA 800 and it's more sensitive and less noisy than the CCD based F350. High-end DSLRs also use CMOS. The Nikon D3 is being universally praised for low noise at very high ISO speeds.

And the fact that they can be stamped out of silicon using high-yield (and therefore low cost) production techniques. Those are the advantages for CMOS, but there are lots of drawbacks. Dalsa's published a series of papers that compare CMOS against CCD, they make for interesting reading.

I read those papers and DALSA contradicts some of your own conclusions, especially about CMOS being cheap chips. They state CMOS chips are often just as expensive as CCDs because of the greater process adaption, but they are available for high-performance applications.

The D20, I'll grant you. EFP cameras? No, not buying it.

Ikegami started using CMOS in some cameras back in 2004. The latest Ikegami HDK-79EC is being used on mobile production trucks:

http://ikegami.com/IKEGAMI_and_F&F_US_OPEN_FINAL.html
http://ikegami.com/IKEGAMI_BEXEL_FINAL.html
http://ikegami.com/IKEGAMI_YES_PRODS_FINAL.html



And the Infinity probably went CMOS (they were initially CCD) because they had *massive* power issues and heat issues. Going CMOS let them cut the power draw, which would directly correlate to less heat generation too.

You make it sound like Thomson chose CMOS as a band-aid. That's an unfair characterization. According to this press release: "The 2/3-inch 1920 x 1080 active pixel Xensium HD sensor will first be used in production models of the Grass Valley Infinity™ Digital Media Camcorder, and the Xensium line of imagers will become a standard in future generation Grass Valley camera products across a broad range of applications."

It's a problem, but not the only problem. Again, look at the Dalsa papers for perhaps the best comparison information.

Every high-end DALSA imaging chip used for cinema or photography is CCD. They only make CMOS for machine vision. DALSA apparently likes CCD. Other people like CMOS. Nothing wrong with that too.

[Barry_Green]

I think Jim would disagree. He said he set out to design the best camera he could--something that even if he only sold one to himself, he would want it. Do you think a billionaire with all the design and financial resources at his disposal would compromise his camera with a CMOS sensor (if it was inferior) just to make it cheap? Makes no sense.
Well, with all due respect, I don't think Jim would disagree with me at all. There are obviously compromises involved in the Red design, specifically to meet a price point. If he set out to build the greatest thing in the universe, price as no object, would he have settled on where he did? Maybe, but I doubt it. Part of the goal of the Red design, from day one, was to make it affordable so that guys like us (DVXUser members) could buy it. That was always part of the design philosophy. Price was always a foremost consideration in the Red design.



You must be thinking of old stereotypes. Times change and technology improves. This white paper (http://hdtv.videotechnology.com/HDTV-CMOSvsCCD.htm) states:
Could be. Most of what I've been reading is the Dalsa papers, and they are a couple of years old by now. Even Sony, though, when they introduced the V1U, admitted that a Z1/FX1 would perform better under lower illumination levels. And every CMOS camera other than the EX1 has proven to be substantially slower than the CCD equivalent. And the EX1, I believe, gets its sensitivity/noise performance through aggressive noise reduction processing, not through innate sensor sensitivity.

Also, subjectively it seems that people are reporting that the EX1 is rated at ASA 800 and it's more sensitive and less noisy than the CCD based F350.
Many people are. Adam Wilt said it was 320. I asked him how, since everyone else says 800, and he said "I have no answer for you, all I know is that every which-way I tested it, it was 320." He will hopefully be providing a more thorough report in the future that will address this 1.5-stop discrepancy.

I read those papers and DALSA contradicts some of your own conclusions, especially about CMOS being cheap chips. They state CMOS chips are often just as expensive as CCDs because of the greater process adaption, but they are available for high-performance applications.
Yes, but when you go with the 3T design, that's when they become cheap. And that's what everyone is using so far, are they not? CMOS can be designed to be a lot more complex, and it can be designed to use a global shutter, but both of those mean more expense.

In any case, you're always going to have a system that's designed to hit a certain price point. That's the fundamental nature of product design. You calculate your projected price point and your desired performance, and then you compromise and tradeoff until you get as close as you can to both.

You make it sound like Thomson chose CMOS as a band-aid. That's an unfair characterization.
I don't think it's an unfair characterization at all. I also don't know if it's true, but it sure seems to be, and if I had to bet on it I'd bet on it. Thomson was screwed, they were stuck with a design that wasn't going to come out. It was way too hot and had way way too much power draw, it was extraordinarily heavy, and people started saying that the joke was "the reason they named it 'infinity' is because that's when it would come out." By going with CMOS they were probably able to greatly cut the power consumption, which should also cut the heat output, which would help them solve two of their three problems. Weight is the third, don't know what they'll do about that.

and the Xensium line of imagers will become a standard in future generation Grass Valley camera products across a broad range of applications."
How is this inconsistent with anything? Of course they're going to use this thing anywhere and everywhere they can now, they developed it, they have it, why not use it? Unless the market has a backlash against it, of course.

Every high-end DALSA imaging chip used for cinema or photography is CCD. They only make CMOS for machine vision. DALSA apparently likes CCD. Other people like CMOS. Nothing wrong with that too.
And Dalsa's where I've been getting some of my info, which may explain why I am quite an advocate of CCD. But in all actuality, it was my HV20 that turned me against rolling-shutter CMOS, and it is the substantial price tag of the Red that I'm getting that has me figuring out anything and everything I can about the rolling shutter.

If you like a rolling shutter, hey, more power to you, I'm sure there will be many more rolling-shutter CMOS choices in the future too. But just because more people are using it, that does not inherently mean it doesn't have issues! The issues will remain, the issues are present. When they actually *do* fix them such that there are no issues, I'll gladly embrace it. Until then, I think people should at least be aware of what these systems do and how they perform, so they can make an informed choice.

I mean, look -- I could turn the argument around and say HDV is the lowest-quality recording format ever introduced to record a high-def signal. And you could say "HDV can't be so bad, because major companies like Sony and Canon and JVC use it, and Sony sells HDV product in its BROADCAST lineup" and etc... Simple fact of the matter is, HDV is the lowest-quality way to record an HD signal that's ever been released, and if you disagree with that then we really can't discuss much further. Just because Sony uses it, does not mean that it was chosen because it's high quality! It was chosen because it fit on the existing tape structure, and the companies wanted to use the existing hardware that they had. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HDV IS USELESS. But it is unquestionably the lowest-quality HD recording system ever introduced. And it was not developed for ultimate quality (even if a camera that costs 50% more than an EX1, the XLH1, uses it!) It was developed, I believe, because they had a 25-megabit target to hit, they had a price point they had to hit, and they fiddled and waggled and finagled until they found a way to cram an HD signal into the available space that was given 'em.

And it works surprisingly well, most of the time. Sometimes it falls apart, but usually it works well. Sound familiar? These rolling-shutter CMOS chips are inexpensive and they work surprisingly well, most of the time. But sometimes they fall apart. It is the tradeoff you have to face.

[StMad]

And the EX1, I believe, gets its sensitivity/noise performance through aggressive noise reduction processing, not through innate sensor sensitivity.




What are you referring to here? On 0db (or -3) or when adding gain?

It's difficult to believe Adam's 320iso result is indicative of the production model. If Sony did NR tweaking (after Adam's test) to increase sensitivity, with no apparent side effect...that's a pretty impressive achievement. It'd be interesting to learn more.

[Tim Le]

Well, with all due respect, I don't think Jim would disagree with me at all. There are obviously compromises involved in the Red design, specifically to meet a price point. [SNIP] Part of the goal of the Red design, from day one, was to make it affordable so that guys like us (DVXUser members) could buy it. That was always part of the design philosophy. Price was always a foremost consideration in the Red design.

I doubt choosing between CCD and CMOS would have changed the price that much. It's inexpensive not because of the choice of sensor, but because there are no moving mechanical parts (like a spinning shutter), no optical viewfinder, and no huge corporate overhead. Time and time again the RED team has said they set out to built the most badass camera they could--a camera capable and worthy enough to shoot the most high-end applications imaginable, like Hollywood movies. Although cost probably was a design consideration at some level, I sincerely doubt they intentionally "crippled" it with a rolling shutter just to hit a price-point that guys like DVXUser members could afford. Doing so would make the camera look bad in those high-end applications like VFX work and anywhere the rolling shutter would cause a problem.

How is this inconsistent with anything? Of course they're going to use this thing anywhere and everywhere they can now, they developed it, they have it, why not use it? Unless the market has a backlash against it, of course.

You said that when faced with a choice, every manufacturer that offers both CCD and CMOS has, as far as you know, always chosen CCD for the high end, and only offered CMOS in the lower-cost end of their product line. So I'm just saying Thomson has chosen CMOS for all of their cameras going forward.

Barry, it seems like the core of your argument is that these companies are shoving us this rolling shutter CMOS business and its limitations because they're inexpensive chips and it's saving them money.

My argument is that it's not necessarily about saving money but there is something else driving this move to CMOS in very high-end imaging applications. Maybe it's the low power consumption, maybe it's image quality, maybe it's the format flexibility, maybe it's something else...but I doubt it's cost because these high-end cameras are hugely expensive.

I honestly don't know what it cost to make a high-quality CMOS sensor but I doubt it's much cheaper than CCD like you keep repeating. Maybe it's cheaper with mass-produced, low resolution, low quality cellphone CMOS sensors, but to get high-quality CMOS sensors that can compete with CCDs, there is probably much more to it. DALSA's own paper seems to agree:

The production cost per unit of processes silicon does not strongly favor one technology over the other (as originally thought). The extensive process engineering and number of fabrication steps to bring CMOS image quality to levels comparable with CCDs require much more expensive wafer processing than was originally projected. Cost is often more strongly influenced by the business economics and competitive motivations of a particular foundry, rather than by the choice of the technology itself.

[ullanta]

Folks, keep in mind also that "cost" is relative. Saying "CMOS is cheaper" doesn't mean CMOS is "cheap" or a CMOS chip is cheap for a given application. It means that it tends to be cheaper than CCD for the same application. That is, a 35mm-equivalent sensor is not "cheap" either in CMOS or CCD - but the CMOS may have enough of a cost advantage to make a product feasible that wouldn't be feasible with CCDs. And, it's not just the chip - it's the support hardware, the power/heat management, board complexity, etc.

------

A history question - I have (well, in a basement 3,000 miles away) an OLD consumer camera. It's a JVC, from the era when the VHS deck was slung over your shoulder and the handheld camera attached by cable - early 1980's. I'm pretty sure it was CMOS. Was there not an era when CMOS was more popular for video imagers?

[ullanta]

Although cost probably was a design consideration at some level, I sincerely doubt they intentionally "crippled" it with a rolling shutter just to hit a price-point that guys like DVXUser members could afford. Doing so would make the camera look bad in those high-end applications like VFX work and anywhere the rolling shutter would cause a problem.


Argh! The old "intentional crippling"! Stop it!

Cost is always a design consideration. As is sensitivity, noise, heat. EVERY design is a compromise. Not making a device unrealistically perfect is NOT intentional crippling. No camera can be perfect. Especially at reasonable prices. Design trade-offs are not "intentional crippling". It's the opposite - a "heroic" struggle to find a way to make a better product that will be reliable, at a reasonable cost.

There aren't many CMOS cameras out there with global shutters. Clearly some of the trade-offs involved are considered unacceptable at this point. Would you trade 2 or 3 stops of sensitivity for a global shutter? 4 or 5? Would you pay $100,000 rather than $20,000, and would that be worth it? The most "bad ass" camera for indie filmmakers certainly implies cost as a MAJOR factor. A $300,000 camera would not be at all useful for most of the target market.

[Barry_Green]

It's inexpensive not because of the choice of sensor, but because there are no moving mechanical parts (like a spinning shutter), no optical viewfinder, and no huge corporate overhead.
I'd say the main thing that's lowered the price is the distribution mechanism. Not having dealers and regional sales companies eliminates two points of markup. But will this only-sold-in-L.A. model "work" for them long-term? We'll see.

I sincerely doubt they intentionally "crippled" it with a rolling shutter just to hit a price-point that guys like DVXUser members could afford.
Your words, not mine. I don't think they "crippled" anything, I think they set out to make the very best system they possibly could.

But here's the thing: at the time the Red was designed, did anyone even know what kind of impact a rolling shutter would have on the footage? Or, do you think that if they had it to do all over again, they'd make the same choice? I doubt it, but only they know for sure.

I still see people asking "what is a rolling shutter?" and certain posters who like to present themselves as all that knowledgeable still think it's related to a little slanting here and there. Skew is, IMO, the least objectionable of the rolling shutter artifacts.

In some ways the EX1 will be a test bed for whether rolling shutter is a problem or not. It's the first mass-market camera that someone might try to do some actual work with. So as more of them hit the user's hands, over the course of the next six to 12 months we should see some results as to whether it's much-ado-about-nothing, or whether it's a real issue.

Nice thing with Red is that it's modular and upgradeable. If the rolling shutter turns out to be a problem, they can design a new sensor and substitute it. Don't know of any other systems that were designed with that capability in mind, and it's something that makes me a little less hesitant about accepting the existing rolling-shutter design.

Doing so would make the camera look bad in those high-end applications like VFX work and anywhere the rolling shutter would cause a problem.
You are very correct on this, and that's what I'm worried about. Unlike a lot of people, I'm supposed to plunk down $50,000 within the next 30 days on one of these systems, and I am quite concerned about it. Unfortunately for me, my reservation's coming up so quickly that the camera really hasn't had a chance to be thoroughly vetted yet, which leaves me in the position of having to jump into an unknown system. Not a comfortable position to be in.

But if you think I'm just gonna say "well, Red's a big company and so there won't be any problem at all", you're nuts. There are issues or there aren't. I have no reason to think the Red won't be affected; in fact I've seen some examples on it already. But if anyone's managed to get a handle on it and control it, it's probably Red. Even Russ Andersson said that he expects Red to have solved the problems. But if they haven't then yes, Red would indeed look bad in high-end apps like VFX work.


So I'm just saying Thomson has chosen CMOS for all of their cameras going forward.
I see what you're saying. I don't agree, of course -- they can say they intend to use it, but let's see if anything hits the fan over the course of the next six to 12 months. GM might have thought they were gonna sell a lot of diesel cars, too, but it didn't turn out that way because the engines melted. If the customers reject rolling shutters, you can bet that Thomson and others will get off that train real quick.

Barry, it seems like the core of your argument is that these companies are shoving us this rolling shutter CMOS business and its limitations because they're inexpensive chips and it's saving them money.
Not really. I mean, yes I do think that unwitting customers are getting shoved something at them that is designed primarily to save the manufacturers money, yes, but that's the main aim of, say, the HV20 or EX1 or other mass-market lower-cost product. I don't think the Red chose it because of that, I think they designed the best thing they could and, at the time, they didn't necessarily even know what impact the rolling shutter would have on 'em. And now that they have seen what happens, they've taken active steps to minimize it as much as they can.

Instead, the core of my argument is that people are praising the CMOS sensor as the second coming of all holiness, when in reality it's just another alternative, one that's got several compromises in it, compromises that do not best serve the high-end market. So we're seeing CMOS rolled out primarily in low or lower-end gear.

Regardless, the crux of my point in even bringing this up, and trying to educate people, is this: these new camcorders do not behave the way the old ones did. There has been a fundamental change. And that change can result in some very unexpected artifacts in your footage, including the ability to ruin shots. If you know about this and willingly choose it, go right ahead. But if you don't know about it and you end up getting screwed by it, you're going to be quite angry. So I'm just letting people know what can happen, and under what type of circumstances it can happen.

I really, really, really, really don't see what's wrong with that...

[harddrive]

A history question - I have (well, in a basement 3,000 miles away) an OLD consumer camera. It's a JVC, from the era when the VHS deck was slung over your shoulder and the handheld camera attached by cable - early 1980's. I'm pretty sure it was CMOS. Was there not an era when CMOS was more popular for video imagers?
My memories of that era are that the cameras such as you describe were tube based - a single vidicon if I remember correctly. My feeling is that it was the emergence of viable CCD technology that meant it was possible to form a one piece (consumer) camcorder unit - it was the tube technology that drove such as JVC to make it as a two piece unit.

I can only say that if I'd been handed an EX1 in the mid 80's, I wouldn't have refused it on the grounds of a rolling shutter........:)

[Barry_Green]

Well, yeah -- because the old tube cameras pretty much behaved the same way as a rolling shutter... :thumbsup:

[Tim Le]

I was being sarcastic about the "crippling," hence the quotes. I design products for a living so I am well aware of the trade-offs and compromises that engineers make when designing a product. Cost is only one of many considerations that need to be prioritized. In some applications (mission-critical ones) cost is very low in the priority. There you design it to do what it has to do it just cost what it has to cost. Examples that spring to mind include aircraft parts, spacecraft and very high-end movie production equipment. I'm not saying RED did not consider cost at all, but for other guys like ARRI, I don't see it being a big factor when their target market already has very large budgets. One thing I noticed about RED was they did not prioritized weight reduction early on.

Regardless, the crux of my point in even bringing this up, and trying to educate people, is this: these new camcorders do not behave the way the old ones did... I really, really, really, really don't see what's wrong with that...

Nothing wrong with that and I agree that everyone should be aware of the limitations of their equipment. But that's not what this recent debate was about. Your comments a few posts back painted a picture of CMOS as being not well suited to high-end work.

Comments like..."[CMOS] Makes a lot of sense for cheap camcorders/cell phone cameras. Makes less sense for something like the Infinity"..."What top-of-the-line cameras use CMOS?"...."EFP cameras? No, not buying it"...."Nope, CMOS is higher noise. Higher sensitivity? Sorry, no, CMOS is a lot slower"..."every manufacturer that offers both CCD and CMOS has, as far as I know, always chosen CCD for the high end, and only offered CMOS in the lower-cost end of their product line."

Some of these statements appear to be based on inaccuracies and/or outdated information so I chose to correct you.

Btw, for some time now, Ikegami has been selling CMOS cameras that are used in EFP sports applications and it seems no B.S. has hit the fan since Bexel and mobile trucks are buying more of them. I think Thomson will be alright.

[ullanta]

My memories of that era are that the cameras such as you describe were tube based - a single vidicon if I remember correctly. My feeling is that it was the emergence of viable CCD technology that meant it was possible to form a one piece (consumer) camcorder unit - it was the tube technology that drove such as JVC to make it as a two piece unit.


Actually, it was a 3-piece unit! Camera - VHS-Deck - Tuner. I can't track anything like it down on the web. However, after you said "Vidicon", the word "Saticon" popped into my head as something that was written on it; but none of the Saticon cams on the web are the one I had. Now I'm just obsessed - anyone know a model number or anything to help me track this down? The camera connected to the VHS deck with a high-pin-count (I'd guess around 30) round connector...

Anyway, yeah, it seems certain it was a tube, though I do think it said CMOS... but who knows for what?

[Tim Le]

It's either a vacuum tube camera or a CCD. CCDs came right after tube cameras. It couldn't have been CMOS, which came much later. I believe the first consumer CMOS video camera was the Sony DCR-PC1000 in 2005.

Some retro camera history: http://www.digicamhistory.com/1970s.html

Maybe you saw something else on the camera like MOSFET or something like that.

[ullanta]

It's either a vacuum tube camera or a CCD. CCDs came right after tube cameras. It couldn't have been CMOS, which came much later. I believe the first consumer CMOS video camera was the Sony DCR-PC1000 in 2005.

Some retro camera history: http://www.digicamhistory.com/1970s.html

Maybe you saw something else on the camera like MOSFET or something like that.


Nice page... but still not there! Yes, I'm pretty sure it must've been a Saticon tube. But, you know, I am and was a techie, and wouldn't confuse CMOS for MOSFET... I think... I just wonder if somewhere other than the imager they were advertizing some sort of CMOS tech... just curious. The camera itself was small, held like a modern small video camera rather than with the pistol grip on a lot of the cameras of the early 80s... it was more modern-looking than the boxy things pictured, too.

[Illya Friedman]

I honestly don't know what it cost to make a high-quality CMOS sensor but I doubt it's much cheaper than CCD like you keep repeating.

I also don't know all the costs are for sensor manufacturing, as that's not my area of expertise. I do know that irregardless of sensors type, features (like rolling and global shutters) as well as performance and fill factor will greatly affect manufacturing costs.

I've heard (and I hear my share of both substantiated and unsubstantiated talk) that CMOS sensors >can< be far less expensive to manufacture. And while CMOS performance has increased in recent years there's some very good reasons why the current best digital cinema sensor in the world is a CCD.

A high fill factor is extremely important for performance, so it might be good to know the fill factor of any sensor your interested in evaluating. I make a point of asking the question whenever I meet a manufacturer who knows, or ought to know.

There's some very good reading here (http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp)for those that are interested:

http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

I.

[rockoblm]

I'm typically a reader, and not a comment person (I guess a lurker), but I gotta say, the pissing matches on this forum are down right annoying!

[Tim Le]

I'm typically a reader, and not a comment person (I guess a lurker), but I gotta say, the pissing matches on this forum are down right annoying!

Sorry about that. Looking back now, you're right, it was annoying. Although my intent was to correct factual information or provide new information, the back-and-forth debating just created a lot of noise.