HVX vs. PMW-EX1

[scorsesefan]

How does the Sony compare to the HVX200(or A) in 24pN mode? I was under the illusion that Panasonic invented 24p technology, but a salesman at B&H told me I was wrong. I looked it up and apparently SONY did invent it for Lucas on one of the Star Wars prequels. Also, why doesn't Panasonic introduce an inexpensive 2/3" chip camera? I was very impressed by EX1's low light capability/contrast handling and shallow DOF.
Any opionions?

[David Saraceno]

The Panasonic AG-HPX500 is under $10K sans lens. Some are using very inexpensive lens with the cam.

As to who invented 24p, I'm not certain what you are asking. For me, at least, it's doesn't matter.

There are trade offs with any cam.

For example, the EX1 utilizes a rolling shutter with CMOS imagers. The HVX200 uses a global shutter with 3-CCDs.

2/3-inch sensors usually are better low light and produce a shallower DOF.

For us, we'll take the 1/3-inch sensors in the HVX200 and not have to deal with the rolling shutter and long GOP.

From what I've read, the EX1 is only a half stop faster than the HVX200a.

But I'll take 100mbps over 35 mbps

[DerrickTempleton]

the EX1 is only 1/2" CCD, not 2/3". But that's still a great improvement. You can achieve much shallower DOF with a stock EX1 than a stock HVX.

[William_Robinette]

I have use both enough to chime in here.

Either will allow you to take breath-taking pictures. If you cannot (with this level of camera) you are in the wrong industry.

I like the ergonomics of the HVX better, and it handles much better in your hands. The menu system makes more sense to me and the implementation of things like changing camera modes is better (IMO). It also has the color and skin tone reproduction "mojo" Panasonic has been serving up since the DVX100 was introduced. P2 is rock solid and I love the workflow.

The EX seems to have an edge (from my non-scientific tests) in dynamic range, it hold on to highlights well and you can drag stuff out of the shadows with little noise rearing it head. If I was going for the "looking out the window" picture quality, I would pick up an EX-1 any day over the HVX. It is sharp, very low noise, yet the images are a tad sterile for my taste. The LCD on the EX puts the HVX in the ground. It's just phenomenal. SxS works, it's fine.

[doondoon]

The Panasonic AG-HPX500 is under $10K sans lens. Some are using very inexpensive lens with the cam.

As to who invented 24p, I'm not certain what you are asking. For me, at least, it's doesn't matter.

There are trade offs with any cam.

For example, the EX1 utilizes a rolling shutter with CMOS imagers. The HVX200 uses a global shutter with 3-CCDs.

2/3-inch sensors usually are better low light and produce a shallower DOF.

For us, we'll take the 1/3-inch sensors in the HVX200 and not have to deal with the rolling shutter and long GOP.

From what I've read, the EX1 is only a half stop faster than the HVX200a.

But I'll take 100mbps over 35 mbps

There is NO long GOP "issue" with the EX1. I haven't seen the codec broken yet.
The HVX doesn't shoot at 100mbps in 720p/n mode. It's something like 40mbps per second and I believe the question was in regard to 720p/n. Yes there is a rolling shutter with the EX1 when there are strobes, but there is noise and poor lowlight performance with the HVX-200.
They're both great cameras that shine different situations.
the thing that really matters most is the person using it.
How are your lighting and composition skills ?

[John Godden]

How does the Sony compare to the HVX200(or A) in 24pN mode? I was under the illusion that Panasonic invented 24p technology, but a salesman at B&H told me I was wrong. I looked it up and apparently SONY did invent it for Lucas on one of the Star Wars prequels. Also, why doesn't Panasonic introduce an inexpensive 2/3" chip camera? I was very impressed by EX1's low light capability/contrast handling and shallow DOF.
Any opionions?

Do a google search for "HVX vs EX1 dvxuser". There are 2-3 very long threads re this issue on this site. These threads all get locked after about 10 pages of :furious3:..

cheers
JohnG

[puredrifting]

I own an HVX-200 and have been recently shooting a lot for a client who owns an EX-1. Bottom line, I like both cameras and would ideally use them in different situations. The EX-1 blows the HVX away in having a cleaner signal, more dynamic range, better lens, LCD and tons more resolution.

That said, IMHO, EX-1 is also close to useless for shooting high speed action with fast pans, the rolling shutter artifacts must be seen to be believed. I was shooting a baseball game with the EX-1 and 720/24P with 60 frames. Everytime I panned from base to base or base to home, the entire picture leans at a radical angle, it looks like Jello-cam. Horrendous for sports, auto racing, fast on set action with whip pans for stunts, etc. Useless for that. If you don't shoot fast action, flashing lights, strobes, etc. the EX-1 has a superb picture. It looks really nice for interviews. I too agree that the colors and just the feel of the picture are not as appealing to me as the HVX is. Limited technology like everything else under about $10,000.00. But the lens is so good as is the LCD screen. Sony did some things really right on this camera but the rolling shutter artifacts make the camera a no go for my work, I shoot a lot of action, sports, stunts, fast pans, flashing lights.

HVX is a great camera. Lens is just okay though and the LCD is legendary for how poor it is but using the focus magnification, you can get by. The picture is much noisier but it rarely bugs me. The colors are superb and the ergonomics are far superior to the Sony for me. I came from the DVX-100 and the HVX is a just an HD version basically. I love mine but will be trading it in for an HPX-170 for the lower noise levels, SDI out, three diferent focusing aids, etc. Plus smaller and lighter is a big help for me, I fly with the camera all over the world and the lighter weight is a big positive.

Either camera is a great tool, but they both have their shortcomings. Honestly, the best would be to own and use both for different situations. If ALL I shot were interviews, I would use the EX-1, it is better in low light, better with the Letus, etc. But I shoot a lot more than interviews.

Best,

Dan

[Justyn]

I'd also invite anyone with an EX to take a chopper ride with one and see the wonderful jellovision at work.

[David Saraceno]

There is NO long GOP "issue" with the EX1. I haven't seen the codec broken yet.



Others have identified that there are issues.

http://www.dv.com/reviews/reviews_item.php?articleId=196603837

Also see the post by Richard Ladkani about two pages ahead. This is what I was referring to as the "issue" with Long GOP and possibly shutter.

And color space is different. As someone said elsewhere:

"Colorspace wise the HVX has it on the EX1.... "

[Barry_Green]

Regarding noise and sensitivity, although I haven't had a chance to put them side by side, I have tested them both and I'd dare say that the 200A and EX1 about equal in those regards. (unless shooting 1080i; the EX1 is about a half stop faster than the 200A in 1080i).

[Angelcyk]

Hey Barry, You say the EX1 also shoots 1080i? I know it shot in 1080p but I didn't know it had both options.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, the EX1 does 1080p at 1 to 30fps, 1080/50i, 1080/60i, and 720p at 1 to 60 fps.

[puredrifting]

I'd also invite anyone with an EX to take a chopper ride with one and see the wonderful jellovision at work.

Hey Justin:

We could copyright that term, ©JelloVision and Sony could use it in future EX-1 advertisments? What do you think, wlll it work?

This was my only real disappointment with the camera, too bad. It's almost "there" but not quite.

Dan

[alexdias]

I've been a long time HVX user and owner and I recently sold my camera package after I finished filming a long feature length project. So I'm quite familiar with all the pros and cons of the HVX.

The last 2 months I've done some work with The EX-1 and I'm really impressed by the the LCD quality. I'll easily say that my work was dramatically improved by the clarity and sharpness of the view and it was a joy after the dimmed and poor image of the HVX lcd.
The lens also seemed to have a superior performance. The focus ring is for real and the zoom control are smoother and more precise. Other than that they look similar.
The work flow of the SxS is identical to the P2 on the field, I missed my old P2Store which I loved. But the cameras came with 3 16gig cards so no problems here.
The controls and menu seemed clear and simple enough. The adjustments were very sophisticate and after a few tests I had a very pleasant 'filmic' look and the 1/2-inch sensors are an excellent improvement on DOF.
The images were incredibly clean and sensitivity is superior to the HVX200.

Most of these shoots were locked down tripod situations and 85% of my own work is handheld, I make documentaries. So these experiences were not very useful for me, but I'll say my general impression of this camera is very positive and considering all pros and cons if you can afford the extra $ go for the EX-1.
btw, this is not an easy endorsement for me, I was a hard core DVCPRO HD supporter, but that's the reality of this market right now.

I have some time before I buy another camera and I'm glad I don't have to choose right now. I've also filmed with the HPX500 and of course I loved but the size is a big deal for me, it is a hassle to travel with and is much more intrusive than smaller cams. The 200A solved some important issues but the EX-3 is expected in July...

[TimurCivan]

"for thoes dream sequences..... JelloVision "

Haha...

They are both great. im buying an EX1 for a specific job where high resolution is needed, and the Cmos issues wont be a problem. they both rock. they each have theri quirks. if you want quirk free you need 80K and a HPX3000....

[scorsesefan]

thanks for the responses... I'm shooting red carpet interviews for my job and have to grab available light or possibly from an onboard light. Being a DVX user I naturally gravitate towards the HVX (similar controls and Panny's rock!), but I'm worried about lack of light sensitivity (on this and future shoots). I know the 200a's have addressed this problem, but we will probably have to buy a 200, as our budget is slated for $4700 for camera ($5099 - $400 at B&H).

[scorsesefan]

Before anyone jumps on it!... the EX1 is, like, $6500 right?

[doondoon]

Hey Justin:

We could copyright that term, ©JelloVision and Sony could use it in future EX-1 advertisments? What do you think, wlll it work?

This was my only real disappointment with the camera, too bad. It's almost "there" but not quite.

Dan

About a month ago I was shooting with the EX1 on a pair of skis probably at about 30-35 MPH at times and then on a snowmobile at even higher speeds (no problem). Two weeks ago I was in a helicopter over downtown Los Angeles with no gyro stabilization head (once again no problem). Perhaps the "JelloVision" footage you saw came from a bad camera or a lousy operator?

Have you spent any real time with the camera ?

I don't mean to be always defending the EX1 on these boards (I know it's a panasonic website)... but it seems like there is unfair and inaccurate information spread around from some HVX fanboys.

For the record I own two HVX-200's and can't wait the the HPX-170... I also have an EX1. They all excel in different places. It's more about YOUR limitations and not the cameras.

[doondoon]

thanks for the responses... I'm shooting red carpet interviews for my job and have to grab available light or possibly from an onboard light. Being a DVX user I naturally gravitate towards the HVX (similar controls and Panny's rock!), but I'm worried about lack of light sensitivity (on this and future shoots). I know the 200a's have addressed this problem, but we will probably have to buy a 200, as our budget is slated for $4700 for camera ($5099 - $400 at B&H).

If you're shooting a red carpet event then that would be a situation to use the HVX and not the EX1. You will see rolling shutter when the strobes from the cameras. Also, aren't those events usually flooded with lots of light?
You'll be fine with the HVX.

[Kholi]

I think Dan posted a pretty fair asessment on the EX-1 just a page prior. Even the RED exhibits wobble and I've seen it first hand from personal use. CMOS is CMOS at this point in time. If the wobble is okay for you then cool. Its been established that the image does wobble however.

"fanboy" works both ways and is a term usually spat out on biases to begin with.

In regards to the neverending debate on this camera versus that: if it don't make dollars then it don't make sense. The HVX200 line will continue to do dominate the market regardless of resolution. DVCproHD will continue to expand regardless of what may be considered flawed or outdated. If you have the choice and you don't really deal with clients directly then you have the ability to go with whatever you like. If you don't have the money to own both and this market is what puts Candy in your coat pocket then all of the numbers don't matter. The 200a and upcoming hpx170 will be the bread winner.
Perspective: I couldve rented a major client a RED ONE package foe the same price as my HVX200A + Ultimate package on a two different occasions in which I enacted as DP. Needless to say my 200A is officialy paid off after three to four weeks of ownership and Im now simply waiting for the HPX170 and a Convergent Designs box.

Perhaps if I could survive doing just my own work I would choose an ex1 or even an xha1. The proofs in the pudding and I would hope you want the pudding to be in your pocket.

About a month ago I was shooting with the EX1 on a pair of skis probably at about 30-35 MPH at times and then on a snowmobile at even higher speeds (no problem). Two weeks ago I was in a helicopter over downtown Los Angeles with no gyro stabilization head (once again no problem). Perhaps the "JelloVision" footage you saw came from a bad camera or a lousy operator?

Have you spent any real time with the camera ?

I don't mean to be always defending the EX1 on these boards (I know it's a panasonic website)... but it seems like there is unfair and inaccurate information spread around from some HVX fanboys.

For the record I own two HVX-200's and can't wait the the HPX-170... I also have an EX1. They all excel in different places. It's more about YOUR limitations and not the cameras.

[puredrifting]

About a month ago I was shooting with the EX1 on a pair of skis probably at about 30-35 MPH at times and then on a snowmobile at even higher speeds (no problem). Two weeks ago I was in a helicopter over downtown Los Angeles with no gyro stabilization head (once again no problem). Perhaps the "JelloVision" footage you saw came from a bad camera or a lousy operator?

Have you spent any real time with the camera ?

I don't mean to be always defending the EX1 on these boards (I know it's a panasonic website)... but it seems like there is unfair and inaccurate information spread around from some HVX fanboys.

For the record I own two HVX-200's and can't wait the the HPX-170... I also have an EX1. They all excel in different places. It's more about YOUR limitations and not the cameras.

I shot the ©JelloVision myself. Have I spent any time with the camera? The first week I had it, I spend about six hours going through the excellent Vortex Media EX-1 DVD so that I would understand all of the functions of the camera. I am also a former Z1 user so I am more than familiar with Sony low end HD cameras. I shot a four camera cast reunion with a TV show with the EX-1, shot two baseball games, shot a music festival, twelve single camera interviews plus tests with resolution charts, the Letus with and without the optimized achromat. I would estimate that I have shot with the EX-1 in the past three months more than most EX-1 owners have shot since they have owned their cameras.

While I like the HVX and have made a lot of money with it, I am more of a fanboy of the Varicam and the F900, those are the cameras that I regularly use that I really am excited about as I am about the upcoming 2700. The HVX is a good camera for the money but is noisy, has a so-so lens, terrible lcd. The EX-1 is a good camera for the money but has rolling shutter artifacts, limited color space and an arcane menu system.

As far as the information I observed when shooting the camera being inaccurate, (how can artifacting be inaccurate if it's 'there'?) I don't think so. The camera has weird and obvious artifacts on any fast pans, end of story. Go shoot a footbal, baseball game or any kind of car racing, I have shot all three with the EX-1. Useless for those types of shoots, the artifact is not subtle, it's very noticeable. and bizarre looking. I have shot with three different EX-1s in the past month and they all exhibit it. It was most noticeable when shooting baseball, in 720/24P at 60 frames per second. On the pans from home to first and third to home, even my 13 year old daughter, who was in the edit bay and occasionally edits her own stuff, observed the effect and asked, "what filter did you use in FCP so get that weird rubbery look?" She knew nothing about the rolling shutter, or even which camera I shot it on so there you have it. When an audience notices the effect and remarks on it, unsolicited, that is a drawback and limitation. Depending on what you are shooting, perhaps a dealbreaker, perhaps not.

MY Limitations? I shot the footage, I hooked up the EX-1 to a Hi-Def monitor via SDI and I observed. That's a pretty straightforward workflow, huh? Sharper, better latitude and very pleasing picture but it sucks for high speed pans and fast motion. It's a cheap camcorder, it makes nice pictures, I would use it for interviews or more sedate movement in a heartbeat. I am beginning a whole round of documentary interviews for Paramount which will be shot on the EX-1 as they require 1080 origination, not just 1080 master delivery and dealing with the short 1080 runtimes of the P2 cards is a joke. The company I am shooting for has three HVXs and two EX-1s. So we are shooting with the EX-1. I am happy about it, no problem. I like your camera, you are obviously an EX-1 fanboy so I am on your team. But if the project was shooting a car chase or a baseball game, wrong tool for the job.

©JelloVision exists. Now all we have to worry about is a lawsuit from Kraft Foods for usurping their product name.

D

[PaPa]

I think Dan posted a pretty fair asessment on the EX-1 just a page prior. Even the RED exhibits wobble and I've seen it first hand from personal use. CMOS is CMOS at this point in time. If the wobble is okay for you then cool. Its been established that the image does wobble however.

"fanboy" works both ways and is a term usually spat out on biases to begin with.

In regards to the neverending debate on this camera versus that: if it don't make dollars then it don't make sense. The HVX200 line will continue to do dominate the market regardless of resolution. DVCproHD will continue to expand regardless of what may be considered flawed or outdated. If you have the choice and you don't really deal with clients directly then you have the ability to go with whatever you like. If you don't have the money to own both and this market is what puts Candy in your coat pocket then all of the numbers don't matter. The 200a and upcoming hpx170 will be the bread winner.
Perspective: I couldve rented a major client a RED ONE package foe the same price as my HVX200A + Ultimate package on a two different occasions in which I enacted as DP. Needless to say my 200A is officialy paid off after three to four weeks of ownership and Im now simply waiting for the HPX170 and a Convergent Designs box.

Perhaps if I could survive doing just my own work I would choose an ex1 or even an xha1. The proofs in the pudding and I would hope you want the pudding to be in your pocket.



man, paid off in that short amount of time? What do you do, i must know!

[alexdias]

I'm surprise how many people own both cameras!

That's the solution if you can afford.
$$$

Kholi, I mostly worked for myself and my films don't tend to have a lot of fast action on it. But when choosing a camera one wants the best possible combination of practicability and performance. Of course same goes for the "bread and butter" case.

I was very surprised after working a few times if the EX-1. The LCD by itself made an incredible difference in my confidence framing, exposing, etc... But to get an expected "jellovision" effect must be infuriating.

Anyways the debate moves on... Which is all good fanboys!

[rladkani]

Hi there

I have been posting a thread on creativecow about the blurrs on the EX1 copmared to the HVX201 and the Z7.

The thread is

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/142/858581

But as I don't want to make publicity for creativecow here's my first post again.
I am also uploading alot of clips right now. Takes some time but I will let you know the link very soon.

Hi

I recently tested the Ex1 to the Sony HVR Z7 to the Panasonic HVX201AE and found some very interesting problems regarding the EX1. We shot all kinds of scenes incl. Indoors, Outdoors, Sunset, Dusk all in 25p...and watched all the results on a Baselight System projected in 2k on a big cinema screen. The tests were done for an upcoming cinema documentary.

At first we all loved the EX1 for sharpness, latitude, color rendition and especially for its low-light capabilities. But all this love went away when we looked at shots were the camera moved. On slow pans across f.e. a green grass in the foreground and a city in the background the image suddenly went totally blury. At first we thought the camera was out of focus but as soon as the camera stopped the stellar sharpness was back. On the next telephoto pan across the city skyline all detail was lost as long as the camera moved. It was just a big blur. But it wasn't motion blurr due to the 25p it was a compression issue. On a shot watching cars drive through the frame the cars looked like ghost images. Totally unsharp but when I started panning with the cars the were totally sharp again. What was the worst though was panning across a field of grass. All detail was gone as long as the camera moved and it was back when the camera stopped. But the killer was when shooting handheld on a second day of tests. The person was walking and as log as he moved with the camera everyting wa fine but as soon as the camera would move out of sync with the person he went blurry.Again it did not look like motion blur. When looking at it in single frames we noticed that only every 8th frame was totally sharp everything else was blurred. We compared all this to identical shots with a Sony HVR Z7 on HDV and the problem was negligible. You could see some motion blurs but nothing that would feel unnatural. The images on the Z7 remained sharp throughout much of the shots even though both cameras use LongGop encoding. When contemplating about this problems my conclusion is that the EX1 due to its higher resolution also has a stronger compression. When the camera starts moving the compression suddenly kicks in and makes it highly visible. Even minor, very slow movements cause this problem. We watched the footage on a 25foot screen which made it highly visible but even on a 42" Plasma a home it was very noticeable. I am deeply disappointed about this as this LongGop Issue makes the EX1 unusable for big screen projects. The HDV performed much better even though it didn't have the latitude. But compared on a splitscreen with the EX1 it seems to be the better choice.

Has anybody seen this problem or any thoughts about it? I would have preferred the EX1 because it also offer 60p slowmo and is very good in low light. But I can't live with these blurr issues unless some solution is found.

Best wishes

Richard Ladkani


www.richardladkani.com (http://www.richardladkani.com)

[Kholi]

man, paid off in that short amount of time? What do you do, i must know!

Not as much as some of our users but enough. I've only been doing commercial and narrative work. I've personally done very little talking heads stuff, the brunt of my income is derived from short films and commercial work... would love to do some music videos.

On commercial: one of the biggest talking head facilitators in the industry, Guthy-Renker, LLC-- responsible for Proactiv and a ton of other infamous productions-- just informed us this past week that they would like to move their entire post production workflow to DVCproHD and P2 Media. These guys generate, without exaggeration, millions of dollars in revenue each year and over the past year working exclusively with GRC I've been able to go into the talking heads industry at a completely different level. Although I do know of one particular Cinematographer that also works for these guys that's shooting RED ONE, they've specifically asked for the quality and efficiency of the DVCProHD P2 Workflow.

I'm excited about that, and it's just another testament to Panasonics post workflow expanding.

[Kholi]

I'm surprise how many people own both cameras!

That's the solution if you can afford.
$$$

Kholi, I mostly worked for myself and my films don't tend to have a lot of fast action on it. But when choosing a camera one wants the best possible combination of practicability and performance. Of course same goes for the "bread and butter" case.

I was very surprised after working a few times if the EX-1. The LCD by itself made an incredible difference in my confidence framing, exposing, etc... But to get an expected "jellovision" effect must be infuriating.

Anyways the debate moves on... Which is all good fanboys!

I personally couldn't go the route of owning two cameras (reconsidering this for the impending release of Scarlet in 2010 ~ 2011) but if you CAN do that then that's having the best of both worlds.

You should always choose what's best for yourself. I chose to grab the newest version of the camera that's currently hot in the market, still-so after about two years. I guess some would say "if you're good you can sell any camera."... why make it hard on yourself if that's where the money comes from?

In all fairness, however, I AM going to be using the nanoFlash to stretch the HPX170 a little further than it's standard capacity, so perhaps that's like owning two cameras in one.

[John Godden]

Hi there

snip
All detail was gone as long as the camera moved and it was back when the camera stopped. But the killer was when shooting handheld on a second day of tests. The person was walking and as log as he moved with the camera everyting wa fine but as soon as the camera would move out of sync with the person he went blurry.

snip

Richard Ladkani


www.richardladkani.com (http://www.richardladkani.com)

Hi Richard

I've seen similar blur issues with the HV20 while panning (slowly) across green grass. As soon as the slow pan stopped the image sharpened right up. My tests with the HVX didn't have this blatant blur effect while doing slow pans of fine grass.

I suspect this blur issue is related to long GOP without enough BW. Not sure if it's strictly a CMOS issue. Perhaps the experts can chime in here.

regards
JohnG

[reem12]

Koli, if you could answer a real important question for me I'd realy appreciate it.

I have both the canon a1 and the new hvx200a in which is definitey better with grain and low light, but I'm contemplating sending the hvx200a back because the images that i'm getting out of my a1 and sgpro are top notch to me, so my question to you is, since you used both of these cams, which one would you be more confident in shooting with if it were your own feature film, and how do you think the color otf the a1 would hold up in comparison to the new hvx200a? any help is appreciated.

[Kholi]

Koli, if you could answer a real important question for me I'd realy appreciate it.

I have both the canon a1 and the new hvx200a in which is definitey better with grain and low light, but I'm contemplating sending the hvx200a back because the images that i'm getting out of my a1 and sgpro are top notch to me, so my question to you is, since you used both of these cams, which one would you be more confident in shooting with if it were your own feature film, and how do you think the color otf the a1 would hold up in comparison to the new hvx200a? any help is appreciated.

If you would've asked me this question pre-200A I wouldn't have had a single problem saying Canon XH-A1. At the moment, all things considered, both cameras are on par with each other. The 200 wasn't, and that was because of it's lowlight performance and EXCESSIVE amount of noise. Ugh.

The A1, to me, still resolves a bit more detail than the 200 line-up and I really like the H1, G1, and A1's overall image aesthetic. It's different than the 200 but not bad. Yet, at this point I'd rather shoot a feature with a 200A. Specifically because the noise floor's a lot better and that means a much better path toward color grading and image manipulation in post altogether. The A1's image, while it actually holds up decently, won't give you the same flexibility in post. And a large chunk of beauty, as far as video is concerned, is achieved in post.

So for a feature? At this point in time? A1 vs HVX200A? I'd definitely go 200A and the best adapter/lenses combination I could get my hands on.

In the very near future my answer's gonna be: HPX170 + nanoFlash + Best Adapter + Best Glass.

[reem12]

Thanks koli for the good info.

[rladkani]

ok finally the uploads have completed. Now let's talk about what we see here.

EX1 compared to the HVR Z7

Please check this link

http://www.richardladkani.com/cameratest_main/cameratest/index.html

You will find about 10 shots aswell as screenshots taken from the same footage.
you will have to download the quicktimes as source to see it in its original quality and full screen. Just click download on the detail page of the movieclip.

Let's see what you have to say to these clips.

All the best
Richard

www.richardladkani.com

[PaPa]

I guess my questions resonates more to: How did you find such gigs? Personal friends? Did you whore yourself out? Puts ads in the papers? How did you find your resources?

[doondoon]

As far as the information I observed when shooting the camera being inaccurate, (how can artifacting be inaccurate if it's 'there'?) I don't think so.

This is exactly the way I see it too. Only the artifacting is NOT there in my footage.

And I'm NOT a sony fanboy. I really don't care what camera I'm using as long as it's the right TOOL for the job. Having said that I own more Panasonic gear than any other brand... and yes, like you I shoot on much bigger cameras for big fancy companies... so I'm not sweating it in "that" respect... but who really cares anyway?

I just find it irritating when people start regurgitating little bits of mis-information about equipment (no matter what it is) when they really haven't had much practical experience with it. It is clear that you're not one of these people. One thing I can say for certain is that we've had different experiences with the EX1 in terms of your JelloVision.

I haven't personally seen it.. at least the JelloVision will give all the HVX fanboys more ammunition to defend the holy grail (which they may not even own or use)... but hey at least they're part of something.

We're all involved in a soap opera and I'm just as guilty as the next guy.
Please excuse me, I'm missing the Jerry Springer show.:2vrolijk_08:

[scorsesefan]

I guess my question now is why can't Panasonic introduce bigger chips at the HVX price level? Are they afraid of taking business away from their higher end cameras?

[Kholi]

I guess my questions resonates more to: How did you find such gigs? Personal friends? Did you whore yourself out? Puts ads in the papers? How did you find your resources?

Everything's referral and repeat client.

I wish I would've started doing all of this earlier on but it's only been just over 2 1/2 years for me. I was lucky enough to start in Camera Department working for a company here in LA and my supervisor was a DGA guy that taught me quite a bit in just months.

Just got an HVX200 the first chance I had and started shooting for people, the more you do it the more-often paying work comes along. Not to say I don't do favors, though! I'll still go out and shoot for pennies for a friend or if the project is exceptional. However, I rarely ever lowball my services. I'm not the greatest ever but I'm confident in what I do know and tend to stick with my requested rates.

One thing that constantly happens with people in our arena is that they feel that they need to sell themselves as a "cheap" alternative. You NEVER sell on cost. EVER. People are willing to pay for results, and to be frank they're gonna give you a headache until they get results so why shouldn't they pay for it? The only time you should ever break your rate should be when you feel that you want to do this person or that person a favor. You really like them, you believe in their cause, or you just plain out want to work. Make sure the headache is worth it because there WILL be a headache at some point or another.

[David Saraceno]

I just find it irritating when people start regurgitating little bits of mis-information about equipment (no matter what it is) when they really haven't had much practical experience with it.

However, that is the nature of internet forum.

Unless the OP specifics limits responses to exclusively first hand opinions, many of us may have anecdotal experiences as well, such as viewing footage, exchanging information with those that have shot it, and reading on line reviews by respected and objective reviewers.

Just because you haven't used a cam doesn't mean you have learned something you can contribute about its capabilities.

The trick of course is to flesh out fact from opinion. I've and I am certain others have read some reviews of the EX1 that basically mask a reviewer's guide issued by Sony.

I think the cam is great, and wish Panasonic with incorporate larger sensors with the DVCProHD codec, a better LCD, and many of the features available in the Sony -- even at its price point. That would be nice.

[doondoon]

However, that is the nature of internet forum.


I think the cam is great, and wish Panasonic with incorporate larger sensors with the DVCProHD codec, a better LCD, and many of the features available in the Sony -- even at its price point. That would be nice.

Yes it is. it's my addiction :Drogar-Dolar(DBG):

Yeah, I wish panasonic would give us a body (about the size/ form factor of the HVX) with a removable lens, 1/2" cmos chip with global shutter) and 100mbps codec... but there is no hope in that regard at least for like another few years.

I'm certain they won't because a camera like that would probably canibalize (or at least cut into) the bigger cams in their line up.

Looks like the EX3 is going to be close. Perhaps this camera in unison with the P+S adapter "c" (for compact), a nice 35-cine zoom and the new convergent design flash box (when 10-bit is available) will be an amazing set up. The only obvious problem being price for all this stuff... and then why not just shoot on RED. Which is what most people requiring these kinds of specs are doing anyway.

[Kholi]

Because RED is not universal. And it won't cost as much as a RED ONE working package to begin with. The highest concentration of RED ONE cameras is in Los Angeles. Of those only a handful are claiming all of the RED ONE work. Ask a private RED ONE owner how work is going lately. Bring a handkerchief.

And Panasonic won't be giving you anything CMOS until CMOS can match CCD for universal applications. It can't. If you want 1/2" and the rest of that then Sony will be your best bet, if you want something that's universal then the 200A or HPX500 is your choice.

Furthermore, the HVX200 already shoots 100mpbs. More mis-information being spread. The 720p stream is always 60p, it strips out the uneeded frames in pN leaving you with 40% of the data left. This is not to say that "it's 40mbps", it's doing the same thing you would do if you shot 720p24p and dumped the remainder of the data.

I will say an A+ for Mike and Co's XDR and soon-to-be nanoFlash for any system sub HPX2000/3000 with SDI. A camera like the EX-1 can surely benefit from having a better codec altogether, the 170's sure to be a blast with either unit connected.

[puredrifting]

I would not swear that this is the final word, but I read somehwere a quote from Mike Curtis or Jan or someone alluding to we will not see 1/2" or 2/3" CCDs in a package as small as the HPX-170/HVX-200A because of heat buildup and power requirements. That is supposed to be one big advantage of the CMOS imager, it needs less power and generates less heat than a CCD.

So unless Panasonic is willing to increase the size of the HVX/HPX cameras, I don't think that we will see larger than 1/3" CCDs. I cannot wait to try the HPX-170 and see what Panasonic can get out of the better new chipset.

Dan

[David Saraceno]

Not a fan of rolling shutters or CMOS chips.

But I am waiting for the HPX170.

[puredrifting]

Perhaps it was just me, but even after going through the entire Vortex EX-1 DVD and spending about an hour with the menus, I cannot get colors that are nearly as pleasing to my eye as my HVX. Not that Sony colors are bad, they are quite good but definitely not the same feel and look as the HVX, even with tweaking a lot. Tried some "recipes" that I found on some other EX-1 boards as well and well, nothing made me go, "wow".

But definitely looks sharper, cleaner and very different than the HVX as well.

Dan

[Kholi]

Consider that the XDCAM EX Codec is a Full Raster Codec along the lines of the HF10, etc. It should appear sharper because you're not throwing away the extra resolution that DVCproHD does.

I seriously can't wait for the convergent box to test this theory out, but I'm banking on a very noticable resolution leap. Will that be true? Time will tell.

[reem12]

For some reason I've never gotten past the fact that the ex1 just plaine looks like sharp video to me. Even when people apply all the different filters and color corrections I'm still not impressed, and have yet to see a clip from it that makes me say this looks like film.

Koli I've posted this question already but will ask here since i've gotten no response yet. Does the canon a1 have more lattitude then the hvx 200a? It seems like the highlights tend to blow out quicker on the hvx opposed to the canon a1.

[Kholi]

The answer to that depends souly on which gamma you're using on the HVX200(A). The most Dynamic Range you can eck out of the HVX200 is in CineD, second CineV. If you have an A1 and 200A I suggest comparing with the 200A in CineD as the noise floor is so low that it's useable here. Also try CineV, it's less noisier than CineD and then BPress which is the least noisiest of all the gammas.

Color Matrix may vary.

[ulisses]

I recorded many videos with DVX100a and HVX200, now I recorded 2 videos with the EX1.
The EX1 is sharp, I had nice light setup with HMI's , kinos, etc and after tweaking about 1 hour the camera, trying all gamma, reducing detail, adjusting color matrix, lowering pedestal, blacks, etc, etc, etc, it looks like video.
I can't get the EX1 to look like film, the Pana colors are cinematic and the texture is nice right from the camera.
Of course I can tweak the EX1 image in Post.
It is strange, but EX1 colors look correct, a beautiful image, but nothing compared to the Pana texture.
The EX1 is a true high definition camera, easy to check all image details in a large HD monitor, but looks like a sony handcam camera, video in all aspects.
Nice to broadcast sports and high definition images.
I'm not convinced yet, that's all.

Thanks,
Ulisses

[Barry_Green]

I guess my question now is why can't Panasonic introduce bigger chips at the HVX price level?
Perhaps for the same reason that nobody else can either?

[reem12]

Think I'll be keeping my hvx200a. some want the detail, I myself want the film look.
.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Consider that the XDCAM EX Codec is a Full Raster Codec along the lines of the HF10, etc. It should appear sharper because you're not throwing away the extra resolution that DVCproHD does.


And Kholi you have hit upon why Richard is seeing what he is seeing with the movement in the EX1 footage. There is so much data, a full raster with no elegant prefilter to get rid of the non-contributing high frequencies, and it still has to fit into a 35mb package. In other words, 40% more info than that required on the 355 XDCAM HD camera. The way any of the XDCAM or HDV long GOP algorithms work is if there is too much detail and too much motion, meaning that the changes on the individual Predictive or Bi-directional is more than the codec can handle, it has no choice but to give away resolution. That is its first plan of saving itself. The same would happen in AVCHD but the algorithm is different in the structure.

See in MPEG2 the picture is broken down to equally sized 8 X 8 blocks and the MPEG4 AVCHD is variable on a moments notice, 4 X 4, 8 X 8, whatever the picture calls for, very intuitive. This is why AVCHD needs a little more horse-power to run, but also explains why Sony said in their own white paper on the AVCHD codec that 9 mbs in AVCHD is equal to HDV. It is an awesome codec and when you start using the codec at 21mbs, it is amazing what it looks like, this is where the HMC150 should step in and be very competitive with any long GOP small camera.

Moving to the I-Frame, or what I like to call Frame Independent resolution cameras the codecs are vastly easier to predict what is going to happen with the picture. I mean you wouldn't find a filmmaker take a camera out and not know what his film stock is going to do to the images. I-Frame is very predictable, motion blus is motion blur. Between CMOS and the Long GoP codecs, you really have a hard time predicting what is going to happen. There is a music video posted under the EX1 forum and the music isn't bad but the video is all over the map. Not that it isn't whell shot, but the CMOS is like working hard to just crush the man's efforts. Its a video about a guy coming home from the service. Frankly I just don't understand how you work with a camera that calls to be the "director." It frankly needs to say, you have to shoot this in this way with this camera or you will have these artifacts. Crazy. In the DVCPRO HD or the AVC-Intra codec(this has the variable thing I mentioned before, but is I-Frame) that softness goes away and the CCD makes the outcome predictable.

Panasonic may come out with a CMOS camera because the customers that don't know are buying the CMOS cameras and one could lead oneself to believe that what is being purchased is accepted. I can only hope that they figure out how to control the rolling shutter.

And Richard, the HDV cameras do the same thing, I saw it the first time I saw the Z1 footage in Park City. It was a football game and the scrimmage line was good but the crown in the background grew mushy, then cleared when the action stopped. You should take another look at the HVX201, and figure out how to use like the firestore, or the 32 GB cards in 720P 24Pn are 1 1/2 hours each. None the less 32 minutes in full frame rate isn't bad either and the codec is as easy to work with as DV.

All the best,

Jan

[SPZ]

Quoting Jan:

Panasonic may come out with a CMOS camera because the customers that don't know are buying the CMOS cameras and one could lead oneself to believe that what is being purchased is accepted. I can only hope that they figure out how to control the rolling shutter.

END QUOTE

This is worrying indeed, Jan. I hope you didn't confirm to us that the next cameras from Panasonic Broadcast on the HVX price range will follow the CMOS route...(after the HPX170...)

[Jan_Crittenden]

Not really, but sometimes things are out of my control and the factory does what it thinks it has to do. Many people and there are a good number of them seem to find the issue with the rolling shutter something that they can work around, sort of yeah "I brought the wrong film stock but I can make this shot work if we block it this way."

There is a lot of pressure for the resolution of a CMOS imager which you cannot get on a CCD. My take is that it isn't what you make it is what you keep that counts and that works with the audience I have in front of me but not to the thousands that aren't there to review the examples. People understand the simplicity of numbers but not the ramifications of them. I have many picture that show the artifacts, but it may be the "new" artifact of the CMOS era. I am not saying that it is a fact that we are getting a CMOS, but I just have been in the business long enough that I know better than to say never.

Best,

Jan

[SPZ]

Not really, but sometimes things are out of my control and the factory does what it thinks it has to do. Many people and there are a good number of them seem to find the issue with the rolling shutter something that they can work around, sort of yeah "I brought the wrong film stock but I can make this shot work if we block it this way."

There is a lot of pressure for the resolution of a CMOS imager which you cannot get on a CCD. My take is that it isn't what you make it is what you keep that counts and that works with the audience I have in front of me but not to the thousands that aren't there to review the examples. People understand the simplicity of numbers but not the ramifications of them. I have many picture that show the artifacts, but it may be the "new" artifact of the CMOS era. I am not saying that it is a fact that we are getting a CMOS, but I just have been in the business long enough that I know better than to say never.

Best,

Jan

Well, at least we know the care for a filmic image, the cinegamma technology and the fantastic codecs (avc intra and dvcproHD) will continue to give an edge in the cmos driven era...

Sincerely, the EX1 and 3 were in my radar for a very long time, but the Sony video look is just not acceptable for me.

Its true you can do wonders in post, but there's just an organic uniformity to the Cine D Picture of the HVX/HPX that I can't find in other video cameras on the price range. Its the way the colors are handled, the highlights, the dinamic range and even the bokeh of the stock lens.

This Jan, we can expect, even if Panasonic goes the Cmos route, right?

[alexdias]

That can be a killer combo, DVCPRO HD on 1/2inch CMOS with Panasonic filmic look.

[TimurCivan]

i want a foveon chip....... ;)

[Neil Burner]

please no cmos with rolling shutter...

[ulisses]

Some years ago I thought about using a Digital Photo Camera to record movies, using the nice resolution and DOF, probably Red was thinking about it as well :)

Rolling Shutter should be critical in some situations, but what we mainly see are tests making rolling shutter visible.
I really don't think today EX1 rolling shutter is too bad, I recorded 3 videos with the EX1 and didn't get any visible rolling shutter problem.
Maybe Barry could release a Rolling Shutter Pan Speed Table :)
It is great to have the extra resolution to work on post, even for chroma-keys.
So cmos can be a personal / project preference, but should be nice the"DVCPRO HD on 1/2inch CMOS with Panasonic filmic look" combination as an option.

Ulisses

[shaun1970]

Wow, all these issues to be squabbled over.
Whats a few pixels here and there,,,,,,geez I love my DVX! Just so simple.
Prosumer HD is soooo immature its not funny!

[karapetkov]

i want a foveon chip....... ;)


That's definitely the future, but I wonder how long will it take?

[falves1]

Is there a release date for the HPX 170? I want to buy one even if the wise men of the world vote on the EX1.
please reply, if you donn't mind, to falves1@hotmail.com

[PaPa]

should this not be the 200a versus EX1?

[Jan_Crittenden]

The AG-HPX170 will ship in September.

[puredrifting]

Hi Jan:

I know it's difficult to plan for this but you do realize that there will be a MASSIVE demand for the HPX-170? Do you feel that this will be a repeat of some past product rollouts like the original HVX-200, where a tiny trickle was released in December of '05 but it was difficult to actually buy one until well into the Spring of '06?

I am not counting on an unshipped product but I am wondering if the factory realizes how many people will want an HPX-170 on September 1? I hope that they can produce enough to where we can actually get our hands on one before 2009. I know the HVX was sort of a, "let's hold our breath and see if people want to buy one" because it was so new and radically groundbreaking. The HPX-170 will have a built in audience of probably at least half of all HVX owners will want one, if not more, plus all of the newbies who will see the ads and will want to jump on the bandwagon. I can see B&H and other retailers taking pre-orders soon for hundreds of them or even thousands of them. Multiply that by all of the other retailers and specialty VARs and you will have a massive demand on your hands I am positive.

Also want to thank you so much for being available to speak with us and for working hard to implement all of the features that we request here, it truly is unprecedented in the world of video gear to have a huge manufacturer actually listen, unlike your competitors. Just want you to know that you are well appreciated in the community and we are so happy you are here.

All my best,

Dan

[David Saraceno]

The AG-HPX170 will ship in September.

Hey Jan, do you anticipate that supply will meet demand?

In other words, will companies be on allocation or do you anticipate that there will be sufficient quantity initally?

[ProjX v2.0]

should this not be the 200a versus EX1?

Has there been any side-by-side low light shootouts posted between the EX1 and the 200A yet?

[djembeplay]

The largest appeal the HVX had for me is it's 4:2:2 color space. That is, until I started dont a little more research reading old posts and looking into more detailed definitions of color space.

The EX1 has 1920x1080 sensors. A 4:2:0 color space divides the horizontal AND vertical chroma resolution by 2. So... after the compression, you end up with a 960x540 chroma resolution in 1080p.

The HVX has 960x540 sensors. From what I read, the pixel shifting technique of the HVX only affects the Y' (luma) resolution. So that means the maximum chroma resolution coming from the sensors must be equal to their native resolution, 960x540.

This is the same chroma resolution as the EX1 footage after it has been compressed to a 4:2:0 color space...

Now, I'm not sure about this at all, but is the HVX's chroma resolution then furthar downsampled when it is stored in it's 4:2:2 DVCPro codec? A 4:2:2 color space takes the available chroma information and divides the horizontal resolution in half (as opposed to horizontal AND verticle with a 4:2:0 color space). So does that leave us with a chroma resolution equivalent to somewhere around 480x540 on the HVX when shot at full 1080p?

So, to conclude, it looks like the effective color space on the HVX is equal to if not worse than that of the EX1 (and, again, I am referring to when the EX1 is recorded straight to it's cards in 4:2:0. It would of course be even better recorded through its HD-SDI outs with a 4:2:2 color space).

Correct me if I'm wrong about anything here...

[djembeplay]

Another thought-

The HVX doesn't reach a full 1920x1080 resolution from it's pixel shifting technique, does it? Isn't it something like 1280x1080?

If so, that would meant that the Y' (luma) resolution would only be 1280x1080. Of course, this can be upsampled to your hearts desire, but the effective resolution would remain the same... 1280x1080.

Now, the EX1 shoots in a full 1920x1080, and the Y' (luma) is not compressed in a 4:2:0 color space (the number at the beginning represents luma space and '4' equals full resolution / uncompressed).

So now you're also looking at a 1920x1080 luma resolution with the EX1 versus a 1280x1080 luma resolution with the HVX.

Luma (gamma, brightness) is hardly ever compromized in compression techniques because the eye is much more sensative to brightness changes than it is color changes... thus, compressing chroma may not be visible to the human eye, but it would be much more likely that compressing luma (brightness) would have a visable detriment to the overall image.

I'm saying this because it seems that the difference between the EX1's 1920x1080 luma resolution and the HVX's 1280x1080 luma resolution would be visable... possible more-so than the difference in chroma resolution.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi,

There is no argument that when you start out with a stationary object and the cameras are at 1080, the EX1 looks sharper. Move the object and things start to change. Both of these quotes by dj are indicative of watching too many of the Sony presentations. The words are very much what they say. They make it sound as though the number of color samples is what is important to cut the green screen. Let me put it this way, 4:2:2 is a ratio. It doesn't matter what the numbers are, it is a ratio of color to luminance to its own signal. That's it. You can compare how many this to that all day long and it doesn't change the necessary numbers in the ratio.

And when the signal comes off of the CCDs, remember it is an analog signal not a digital one like the CMOS, it is initially sampled in the 1080P mode and all processing happens there prior to the recording.

Thanks,

Jan

[djembeplay]

Na, I haven't watched any Sony presentations. I just found out that the EX1 / EX3 exists about a week ago. I've been working a lot and have been out of the 'camera tech' loop for a bit. I came back on to do a little research because I'm going to be buying a new camera.

Are the things I said the kind of things that Sony says in their presentations?

I'm saying all this very openly... as in, I'm not positive about it myself, but putting out there what it looks like based on my own research.

The number comparisons are important to me because I do quite a bit of greenscreen work. Plus we all know that talking about them boosts our egos as we feel inteligent in a collegiate sort of way :).

It makes sense to me that more raw pixels would yield better greenscreen results... there is just more detail available to draw a finer line between the subject and the background. And, as you said, color space is a ratio to luminance. Luminance is usually not compressed and is equal to the full res signal. Thus, the higher resolution the signal, the higher resolution the chroma should be, right?

[djembeplay]

Don't get me wrong though, I've seen amazing green-screen work come from both cameras.

[puredrifting]

I ran tests last week with green screens I shot on the HVX-200 and the EX-1. IMHO, they key equally well. The compositor said there was no difference on his end in pulling clean keys with footage from either camera.

Was kind of surprising to me but I was glad that I can shoot with either without worrying about how the key will look.

Dan

[Jimmyalenius]

There is a lot of talk about EX1 having problem with flashing light and fast movement. I have now done a couple of tests with my stroboscope run in different speeds and I can't find any problems with the shutter method on the EX1.

Is there a specific light situation that trigger the effect?

Regards / Jimmy

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi,

I have seen some Green screen done with the EX1 and it isn't bad, but I have yet to see singular blond hairs that are blowing in the wind get cut on a 4:2:0 camera. This I have seen on the HVX200. On the EX1 I see a sort of a rigid line not as bad as the HDV stuff but I see a rigidity that I don't see on the HVX/DVCPRO HD material. Some things are easier to key than others, but one of the worst is blond hair blowing in the wind.

And yes DJ, that is exactly what the Sony presentation says, that because the EX1 has as many color samples as the HVX, it will key just like the HVX. And that just isn't how it works. 4:2:2 is a ratio, that is the reason for the colons, 4 samples of luma, 2 of red, 2 of blue.

Jimmy, The inexpensive CMOS Chips, read EX1 through the Red, have a rolling shutter, and you should know how and why this will come into play while you are shooting or you will come back from a shoot where it has happened thinking you have it in the can and have one of the worst experiences while you are watching your footage. as perhaps some will be really unuseable. Go to Google, type in EX1 and Rolling Shutter. See what others have experienced and then compare their experiences to what you do and see if you can recreate it. Knowledge will help you.

Best

[djembeplay]

Right, 4:2:2 is a ratio... that's the basis of what I have been elaborating on. This ratio is dependent on initial resolution... And, although pixel shifting boosts the luma of the HVX, the chroma resolution starts at 960x540, half that of the EX1.

Now, in proportion to the initial, uncompressed resolution, there is a 25% chroma resolution difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2. The 50% difference in initial resolution outweighs the 25% color space difference between the two compressions.

In theory, the HVX would need to record in 4:4:4 to match the chroma resolution of the EX1 recorded in 4:2:0.

So, I'm not surpised that the keys from the EX1 are being reported to be as good as the HVX. I'm actually suprised the HVX keys as well as the EX1...



Now, this is in theory... like a lab test. There are other factors like, as you mentioned, the supposed resolution drop with fast movement on the EX1... although if it only drops a couple hundred lines, it wouldn't make much difference to my point.

Also, as you mentioned, the CCDs output an analogue signal versus a digital signal with the CMOS... although I don't know what difference this would make if the signal is captured in a definite pixel resolution anyways. I mean, in the audio world, playing vinyl has advantages because the source (the record) it's self is analogue, so there is no definite limit to the bandwidth... But it makes more sense to carry a signal of digital origin through a digital signal...

Having everything processed in 1080p after the signal is captured sounds nice... but you couldn't boost the resolution of what was originally captured in the first place.

Jan, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to stir up an argument nor am I sitting in any specific 'camp' so to speak. I just need to type it as it seems clear to me... This way others can be informed and/or I can be corrected.

[djembeplay]

Also... What is the big deal about rolling shutter? I saw an example of this in slow motion when a camera flash was recorded... I almost laughed because, based on the footage I watched, this might be the biggest 'non-issue' I've ever seen so much fuss about.

I suppose if you are recording a wedding or something with a ton of camera flashes, and you want to play the footage back at 3 fps, then it might be a concern. For me, though, I can't see myself shooting around camera flashes enough to worry about it. Based on the footage I watched, I'm really not even worried about the times I will be around camera flashes.

Perhaps I'm misinformed on this one though.

[David Saraceno]

Do a search on the internet/google about rolling shutter and the EX1.

It's hardly an "non issue" for what is reported there, and at a bunch of other boards.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi DJ,

See the problem is that everyone looks at the pixel count on a CCD and assumes that there is a one to one relationship to what is recorded. That is why I am very clear to bring up that only in a CMOS is there the potential for this as it is a digital signal. An analog signal is presented to the digital domain at 1080P. So referencing the chips as the "count factor" isn't rally relavant.

Compairing a camera that is recording at a 4:2:0 color at a long GOP to a camera that is doing 4:2:2 in I-frame only at 100mbs, is really apples and oranges. I have seen some good examples over on the EX1 form but nothing like the good examples I have seen from the HVX. Singular blond hair blowing in the wind. That needs chroma resolution. Oh and BTW, you should read the white paper on how the HVX gets more resolution out of its CCDs that its count, because yes we can add to the resolution:

Tech Paper - AG-HVX200's Advanced Progressive CCDs under the support and resources tab of the HVX200 http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=93120&catGroupId=14569&surfModel=AG-HVX200&displayTab=R


And yes the rolling shutter would nail your footage to the firing line if you were 1. shooting a red carpet event, 2. shooting a press conference, 3.a wedding, 4. wante vertical buildings in your panning shots. Do a little more research as David suggests. Keep in mind that between the rolling shutter and the long GOP, you may not alway "know" what you footage is going to look like and the place to find out that it is unuseable is in the edit suite. Not good. This is not to say that some footage that has been shot with the EX1 camera is bad, some of it is quite lovely, but so far i haven't seen too much that would qualify for much more the credit rolls. Just talking about the pace of it here.

Best regards,

Jan

[alexdias]

I have been taken by this comparison for the last 2 months.
My first impression of the EX-1 couldn't be better. I really like the LCD the VF the sharpness, the menu after a few days seemed very smart and complete. The finals results were substantially better than the ones I was getting with my HVX200.
Then I did a whole day of handheld. No big vertical buildings, no flash photography, no fast pans, just plain verite documentary style. And... There're problems.
The producer got disappointed I was very concerned. At the end we were able to save most of the footage and the issue was minimized. The part that was "clean" looked amazing, better than anything I have shot with the HVX, but the stress was to big.
Just go ahead and rent both camera and see which one works for you better.

[djembeplay]

I think that's a good idea... renting both cameras and trying them, that is.

Does pixel shift technology increase chroma resolution? I was assuming it didn't based on only one opinion, so I'm not sure actually.

Maybe it's in those white papers...

[djembeplay]

I just looked at more EX1 'rolling shutter' footage examples... It still seems like a pretty small issue to me. I also downloaded some footage of Red exibiting the same problem. It's like when you are using a film camera and you're using lights that are out of sync with the shutter. Film cameras show some diagonal artifacts on pans sometimes too...

People were saying you can almost completely, if not completely eliminate the rolling shutter anyways by setting the shutter to "0", or turn it off, which lets the camera default the shutter speed to whatever the frame rate is. I haven't used the camera yet though, so I'm not exactly sure what they are talking about with this yet...

I know in my own shooting, I typically am never around flashing lights of weddings, red carpet events, police cars, strobe lights, planes, UFOs, etc. I also almost never shoot handheld... I usually set up more controlled shots on a tripod / track. So, sure, I could see how someone who typically shoots flashing things like this in most of their work would benefit from an HVX which won't have these 'rolling shutter' issues.

Most of my shots will greatly benefit from the higher resolution, less noisy image that the EX1 can render. The benefit of this far outweighs the seldom detraction of the possible rolling shutter and skew issues.

But, ya, that is of course an assessment based completely on my own shooting style / preferences.

[TedRR]

My first impression of the EX-1 couldn't be better. Then I did a whole day of handheld. No big vertical buildings, no flash photography, no fast pans, just plain verite documentary style. And... There're problems.
The producer got disappointed I was very concerned. At the end we were able to save most of the footage and the issue was minimized. The part that was "clean" looked amazing, better than anything I have shot with the HVX, but the stress was to big.


Thanks for the balanced evaluation. Too many people only voice good or bad as if there is no grey. Both are decent cameras. So try them out, know what you need and get what works for you.

[Bob88]

I've been shooting for 20 years, mostly with Sony cameras and other 2/3" cameras.
My work has been on every major TV network and many cable networks. I had a Panasonic DVX100A and also a Sony Z1. When the EX1 came out I was excited about it primarily because of the 1/2" chips. I wanted to like it. I seriously thought I was ready to buy it. Then I got an EX1 to use for a week and a half. I borrowed a friends HVX200 and went and shot the same things with both cameras. The EX1 clearly has a cleaner, sharper picture than the HVX 200 and more latitude. Maybe the HVX 200A reduces the EX1's advantage here. The EX1 lens is excellent. But in my opinion the camera body is pretty horrible. Very hard to hand hold. Tiny buttons in awkward places. No way to use a remote focus or iris. I could almost live with that except that is shoots MPEG2 and even though it is at a higher data rate than regular HDV, I can clearly see the compression artifacts in water and when panning. I have a Z1 and am pretty tired of HDV compression. Some shots with light to dark gradients are almost unusable for me because of the compression and that's before any processing. The 50% higher data rate of the EX1 is not enough to solve all the compression problems. I could also see CMOS rolling shutter artifacts on tall vertical objects. I tried to match the colors that the HVX makes by using the EX1's extensive menu controls. I came close but couldn't get it "just right". I've been tweaking cameras for a long time. Some things the Sony EX1 allows you to do in menus is very, very good. But the bottom line was the picture. I shot a shiny black truck with both the EX1 and the HVX. The EX1 delivered three different shades of black all mixed with magenta. When the driver opened the door, the light changed and the door was really off. The HVX delivered very nice deep rich blacks. No weird colors. Everything I shot with both cameras was far better to my eye with the HVX than the EX1. I could never completely dial out the "Sony video look" out of the EX1. The HVX is more film like and the colors really pop by comparison. If you have the opportunity to look at both cameras shooting the same thing, I think you'll see the difference. Resolution isn't everything. As far as I'm concerned, it's no contest. The EX1 isn't in the same league as the HVX as far as picture is concerned. For me the HVX makes a much better picture and that's what's it's all about.

[Buck Forester]

I had typed an amazing response, maybe the best post ever written on any forum in the history of the internets, but I am retracting it based on impulse. ha!

Both cameras will do you justice and both kick arse.

[ChipG]

I have footage of the hvx doing "dare do I say it" JELLOVISION....TOO

I'm through shooting my DOC and will be buyng, 2 EPICS & 4or 5 Scarlets for POV shots next year. (Providing I can get them)

Ohh ya, the guy from the Disco channel is sending me a check this week for my hvx...

Off topic but has this board died out? Not like it used to be..... Hmmmm. glad to se everyone moving on and maybe Panasonic will get the message in the next 5 years...

[David Saraceno]

Off topic but has this board died out? Not like it used to be..... Hmmmm. glad to se everyone moving on and maybe Panasonic will get the message in the next 5 years...

Yep, it's dead.

Long live dvxuser.com.

[alexdias]

I have footage of the hvx doing "dare do I say it" JELLOVISION....TOO


I would love to see that.

Is it available for posting?

[djembeplay]

Mmmm... Jello.

I had jellovision once. I was living in the woods and ate some weird mushrooms...

[ChipG]

Mmmm... Jello.

I had jellovision once. I was living in the woods and ate some weird mushrooms...

If you Pee on your camera it will kill the fungi....Without one frame dropped :)

[Reflex Films]

i;ve said it before and i'll say it agian

The editing demands of DCVpro HD are FAR less than HDV.

This has meant my ageing ( power pc mac -2 and a bit years old now) editing system is fast and productive working in DVC pro HD - i nearly went for the ex1 - but i would have had to renew my desktop as well to cope with the format - and go to intermediate encoding.

When i try and tweak hdv on the timeline i spend forever in render queues - which kills trial and error experimenting to get the perfect cut / color correction / ramp / fade / transition.

My hvx has been a real super trooper for the last 4 months - including lots of handheld heli stuff with tons of motion going through the frame (waves and water - really tricky stuff for an hdv coded to keep up with) - i have also done alot of color correction and keying - the dvcpro hd codec laps it up.

Dont forget that percieved quality is far more influenced by contrast and color pop than by resolution - some of my prettiest footage ever has been capttured by a 1 chip camera with beatiful lighting - i'm just not that concerned with resolution - and i dont think the everyday viewer is either.

In short i'm 1 stoked HVX user - think of the hvx as a tank- and the ex1 as a miata - it might be a little flashier - but the tank just reliably goes places the miata cant follow.

[Derrick_SA]

First off, I think everyone should find a camera that works for them

Second, taste also only takes you so far before you can't argue technology.

I mean how could you even try and compare

Panasonic's DVCProHD, 100Mb/s with INTRAFRAME recording on the HVX200 and 4:2:2 color sampling

to

Sony's XDCAM-EX, Long-GOP, rolling shutter, 35Mb/s VBR, with a 4:2:0 color space?

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the HVX records A LOT MORE information that the sony.

that said, each of those camera's will have it's place wherer it will out perform the other,

but for me the advantages that comes along with the HVX as a camera, and the DVCProHD codec can not be beat in that price range. your experience might be different.

- Derrick

[henry cho]

i think once you've gotten to know a camera, it's hard to give up the stuff that really works for you. that seems to be the case for hvx users and 4:2:2. having used an ex1 fairly extensively now, it would be really, really hard for me to give up the rez, dynamic range, low-light capability, true manual lens, and the fact that i can pack 23 min of footage on an 8GB card, all despite my perioidic frustrations with the camera. problem now is i want MORE, not less. that said, i agree you always want to pick the right tool for the job. hell, i told someone to buy a dvx recently... because it was the right camera for the job.

[booth]

See now I'm in a quandary. I was going to get an EX1 and couple it with my M2, and later upgrade to a Letus extreme. However... Now the HPX170 is on its way I'm not sure whether I should go with that. Exactly how clean is the HPX170 in low light compared with the EX1 - and would I be able to shoot a documentary style film in available light.

I know I could with the EX1, but the EX1 for me looks like very high rez video. I wish I could get my hands on an EX1 for a weekend to see if we could make the image more filmic - at present I haven't seen any examples of anyone making it look filmic.

[Ted Spencer]

For now you'll have to ask that question about the HVX200a since the 170 doesn't exist yet in production form. I can tell you that the 200a is a hell of a lot better in low light than the 200. I'm sure someone else can give you the story on it vs the EX1.

[Barry_Green]

The 170 is in the same general class as the EX1 for noise and sensitivity (in 1080p). The EX1 is going to be brighter and cleaner in 1080i.

[booth]

Sounds good Barry, I hope they make the LCD a little sharper and a trade-in for my HVX200 will be possible.

[Kholi]

The 170 is in the same general class as the EX1 for noise and sensitivity (in 1080p). The EX1 is going to be brighter and cleaner in 1080i.

Barry is correct. EX1 is still slightly cleaner at -3dB of gain but the noise characteristics are very low.

I've got a shot from the 200A where I ramp the gain to 3dB, 6dB, and then 3dB to 9dB and I promise ya that 9dB is acceptable with the 200A if you were totally fine with the original 200's noise level.

[Justyn]

See now I'm in a quandary. I was going to get an EX1 and couple it with my M2, and later upgrade to a Letus extreme. However... Now the HPX170 is on its way I'm not sure whether I should go with that. Exactly how clean is the HPX170 in low light compared with the EX1 - and would I be able to shoot a documentary style film in available light.

I know I could with the EX1, but the EX1 for me looks like very high rez video. I wish I could get my hands on an EX1 for a weekend to see if we could make the image more filmic - at present I haven't seen any examples of anyone making it look filmic.


with the adapter it does look quite filmic with a nice narrow DOF. Also since it's so sharp, I'd say that it's good for that type of work. I still would consider the 170 though as that cam might be the shiznitz...

[booth]

Thanks guys, perhaps I should wait for the HPX170. How much higher in rez is the HVX200A/HPX170 compared to the HVX200. Anyone know?

[djembeplay]

...I mean how could you even try and compare

Panasonic's DVCProHD, 100Mb/s with INTRAFRAME recording on the HVX200 and 4:2:2 color sampling

to

Sony's XDCAM-EX, Long-GOP, rolling shutter, 35Mb/s VBR, with a 4:2:0 color space?

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the HVX records A LOT MORE information that the sony.

- Derrick


No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 100mb/s is more information than 35Mb/s.

It DOES take an intelligent, objective researcher to look deeper into the issues and weigh out how different aspects of a camera tie into eachother instead of isolating 'just the facts'.

For example, as I said before, the EX1 records color at 1920x1080, which is then downsampled to 960x540 with the 4:2:0 color space. Well the HVX sensors are at a native resolution of 960x540. Since pixel shift only affects the luma channel, this is the native chroma resolution. It matches the compressed EX1 chroma resolution, and thats BEFORE it's compressed by DVCProHD.

So, given DVCProHD compression has the capacity to record more chroma resolution than Sony's compression, the actual chroma resolution recorded is weighed down by other elements of the camera.

As an extreme example, if I fed two pixels of information to a 100mb/s DVCProHD 1080p 4:2:2 compression, I would have many many pixels being recorded but they are only representing the two pixels they are being fed. So, one could say that, based on 'just the facts', there are 2,073,600 pixels recorded. But, when the whole of the system is weighed in, you are really only recording an effective resolution of 2 pixels.

So, personally I would rather have the 35mb/s Sony compression with the EX1. It effectively records the same color resolution as the uncompressed HVX signal... more after the HVX signal is compressed by DVCProHD... and it does this at 35mb/s vs. 100mb/s, allowing me to store more information. Also, as technology naturally evolves, newer compressions have become excellent performers... The negative effects of using a long GOP are just about non-existent now... The canon A1 was quite good with HDV. Now, the Sony is even better with XDCam. It makes the argument against long GOP seem like a moot point these days. VBR is a good thing... its the same as encoding MP3s with VBR as opposed to 320kbps CBR. You get the same quality as the CBR, only you intelligently don't take up space recording blank information at a given time sample.

I would say the rolling shutter thing is the strongest argument against the EX1. But, again, unless your planning on shooting a bunch of footage with camera flashes or strobe lights... it's not really going to be an issue. Also, RED has the same rolling shutter arifacts. Also, film cameras can exibit a very similar behavior if there is a light source with a frequency out of sync with the shutter. In film days, if it was going to be an issue in your shot, it was standard to replace lights with ones that would sync with the shutter or adjust the shutter to the lights. I heard the rolling shutter can be almost completely eliminated with the EX1 anyways by just turning off the 'digital shutter' and letting it equal the frame rate.

No, I'm not working for Sony. I've owned a DVX for years and like Panasonic cameras. It just seems like people are using 'narrow-vision' arguments against what looks to be an amazing new piece of equipment. So, in Sony's defense, please look deeper into how different elements of a camera interact and affect each other instead of being swept up in these rhetorical 'hit-and-run' arguments that repeat specific individual facts about one element of an entire system.

Also, try to get a grasp on just how small these quirks are that are commonly argued over.

[Barry_Green]

Thanks guys, perhaps I should wait for the HPX170. How much higher in rez is the HVX200A/HPX170 compared to the HVX200. Anyone know?
About the same.

[booth]

Ah, I thought that the rez had been upped slightly. Still a good camera, but this again makes me rethink my purchase later in the year. Also I saw some very good footage from the EX1 today, which made me rethink whether it can be made to look filmic.

[ChipG]

Hey guys,

Sorry for sounding negative about Panasonic in a previous post, I guess I was just expecting more upgrades to the HVXA.

I decided not to sell my HVX, actually I couldn't bring myself to part with it... It has been an amazing camera for my purposes and has been through heavy rain, 15+ tornadoes, mud, dirt, dust & sand blowing at 80+ mph, 120 mph tornado RFD from an F4, dropped in several fields, blown over on the tripod a dozen times and one car crash. I must say I have never had a frame dropped or an image lost and after a cleanup it looks and performes like brand new. It has performed flawlessly for the 350 hours on it.

[Jan_Crittenden]

No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 100mb/s is more information than 35Mb/s.

However you don't seem to recognize and give credit to the fact that the MPEG2 algorithm does give very feathery edges to the hard line required for the Key. With color on every other line vertically, this could be a problem in cutting the key.


It DOES take an intelligent, objective researcher to look deeper into the issues and weigh out how different aspects of a camera tie into each other instead of isolating 'just the facts'.

But you do seem to look at only facts, like the EX1 has a 1920 X 1080 image and the HVX is less and you totally diss the effect of the spatial offset, and not the total picture that the facts make up. Research requires the capacity to understand the impact of the numbers and not just the numbers. It requires an in depth understanding of how the Long GOP works and the 8 X 8 blocks that the HDCAM EX and HDV make; have in their contribution on the camera's output. If you were not going to go to the record portion and were only going to look at the HDSDI of the EX1, I would say certainly it would have more resolution and would cut a pretty nice key, but the recording format which is what the 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 reference, means that in 4:2:0 you only have color on every other line, not every line like 4:2:2.




For example, as I said before, the EX1 records color at 1920x1080, which is then downsampled to 960x540 with the 4:2:0 color space. Well the HVX sensors are at a native resolution of 960x540. Since pixel shift only affects the luma channel, this is the native chroma resolution. It matches the compressed EX1 chroma resolution, and thats BEFORE it's compressed by DVCProHD.

This has only impact on the generating of the signal to the quantizing process but has little to do with the recording process. You need to study up on the recording process. 4:2:0 means in its ration that every other line has a color sample, 4:2:2 means that every line has a color sample. If the compression scheme has to deal with a lot of motion, this is where it is going to take the greatest hit.


So, given DVCProHD compression has the capacity to record more chroma resolution than Sony's compression, the actual chroma resolution recorded is weighed down by other elements of the camera.

And having every 15th frame as the only frame that is there in its entirety with all of the others just being the changes is how comforting? What if there are more changes than the resolution can handle. I mean jeez, on their 355 camera they did a prefilter to 1440 X 1080 to optimize the XDCAM codec, but with the XDCAM EX now there is 40% more information to make it into the same 35Mbs bit bucket. Seems like more compression to me. If you can use the facts to prove me wrong, I stand here willing to listen how a Log GOP of 15 frames is going to produce pictures that are better than an I-Frame Codec. And keep in mind during your argument, please tell me how that 4:2:0 every other line of color is going to make it all better than a 4:2:2 codec which has color definition on every line.

And before you waste all of that typing skill, I suggest that you just go try the cameras, because all of this number mumbo-jumbo does not make you money, pictures do. Never having to say you are sorry that you camera cannot take that shot as blocked, counts.


As an extreme example, if I fed two pixels of information to a 100mb/s DVCProHD 1080p 4:2:2 compression, I would have many many pixels being recorded but they are only representing the two pixels they are being fed. So, one could say that, based on 'just the facts', there are 2,073,600 pixels recorded. But, when the whole of the system is weighed in, you are really only recording an effective resolution of 2 pixels.

I am not arguing the resolution of the two cameras. The EX1 has more as long as the camera is standing still and you are not recording to the codec on the camera. If you are moving the camera and recording the codec, well it changes and you have no control over it. In fact you don't even get to see what it is doing unless you review each shot.


So, personally I would rather have the 35mb/s Sony compression with the EX1. It effectively records the same color resolution as the uncompressed HVX signal... more after the HVX signal is compressed by DVCProHD... and it does this at 35mb/s vs. 100mb/s, allowing me to store more information.

Here you are just simply misinformed. You need to look at the fact that HD starts at 994Mbs in uncompressed HD and then you have to look at which signal has less information when all is said and done. The DVCPRO HD codec does a prefilter to reduce the amount of compression. The EX, well it doesn't, so more to compress, more compression artifacts. And remember once you have given away the information, ie. in a long GOP scheme, you do not get it back, even if you choose to edit in an intermediate codec.



Also, as technology naturally evolves, newer compressions have become excellent performers... The negative effects of using a long GOP are just about non-existent now... The canon A1 was quite good with HDV. Now, the Sony is even better with XDCam. It makes the argument against long GOP seem like a moot point these days. VBR is a good thing... its the same as encoding MP3s with VBR as opposed to 320kbps CBR. You get the same quality as the CBR, only you intelligently don't take up space recording blank information at a given time sample.


Long GOP only gets better when the VBR gets down to the Block level like in AVCHD. In the newer MPEG4 codes where the blocks are variable in size, and the codec doesn't have to make the same repeated compression on the same color in every location that is where the improvements have really come. MPEG2 is MPEG2, and just because you think it is better that I-Frame only codecs doesn’t make it true and even AVCHD is not better than an I-Frame Codec. Just not true, more efficient, sure but I am not a member of that club that says before distribution I should give away the details that may prove to be important. And I also want to be the one deciding when to give that away. I don't want my camera to be making those choices; I want to think about that compression after my production is finished. But back to the AVCHD, go read the Sony white paper on the AVCHD codec and let us know what you think. In a nutshell it says that the 9Mbs of AVCHD is roughly equivalent to the HDV codec. MPEG2 is old, old old.



I would say the rolling shutter thing is the strongest argument against the EX1. But, again, unless your planning on shooting a bunch of footage with camera flashes or strobe lights... it's not really going to be an issue.

How about pans on vertical buildings cause skew, or compositing a moving image where the geography of the image is changed due to the cmos artifact. And you don't always have control about some things that happen, in verite or documentary work.


Also, RED has the same rolling shutter artifacts.

And frankly that only reinforces my entire argument, but we aren't talking about a Red here. We are talking about cameras under $7000.


Also, film cameras can exhibit a very similar behavior if there is a light source with a frequency out of sync with the shutter. In film days, if it was going to be an issue in your shot, it was standard to replace lights with ones that would sync with the shutter or adjust the shutter to the lights. I heard the rolling shutter can be almost completely eliminated with the EX1 anyways by just turning off the 'digital shutter' and letting it equal the frame rate.

If wishes were horses. Film cameras have a sync input signal. Show me the sync input signal on the EX1. And yes I have read where people have used them with some sort of reference but that is when the sync is known to happen, what about the out of your control flashes. And because it happens on film cameras does that mean that it is a desirable thing. I don’t think so.


No, I'm not working for Sony. I've owned a DVX for years and like Panasonic cameras. It just seems like people are using 'narrow-vision' arguments against what looks to be an amazing new piece of equipment. So, in Sony's defense, please look deeper into how different elements of a camera interact and affect each other instead of being swept up in these rhetorical 'hit-and-run' arguments that repeat specific individual facts about one element of an entire system.


That said, how about the fact that the CMOS is more sensitive to Infra-Red, making black different shades of purple, brown or green dependent how much infrared is part of the light source. This is a fact. Or how long does it take to go from record to play back or vice versa on the EX1. Well that would be 14 seconds from PB to REC, and 11 Seconds to PB from record. In P2, is less than 2 seconds from PB to REC and lest than 1 sec. the PB. And these are facts. A camera purchase is important and should be about more that a 1920 X108 CMOS imager and the ability to wrangle the numbers to make it sound viable. It is not what you make but it is about what you keep and what you are able to show your customer at the end of the shooting day.



Also, try to get a grasp on just how small these quirks are that are commonly argued over.

They are not small quirks when it comes to the user interface and the overall system. We haven't even started to discuss the metadata workflow which adds an entire layer of power to the P2 system. Point is, as a camera that has resolution, the EX1 has resolution, but it is not a stic point it is a moving point and it can vary depending on what you are shooting.

A CCD is a more consistant output, do that research, even the manufacturers of both, Dalsa, say this is true. Ask Juan Matiniez who stated in his article about the differences. He basically said if you are at the high end of digital cinematography, CCD is the choice for you, but at the low end, well CMOS is good enough. I don't happen to agree, but then I have CCDs at the low end to offer.

No imager is a system all unto itself, the rest of the system must be taken into consideration.

Best regards,

Jan

[SPZ]

Jan, excelent post, and very insightful information on how codecs and ccd's/cmos work. This type of info is what makes dvxuser such a unique place for us independent producers/filmmakers.

A question to you: What do you think of the benefits of new capture boxes like the convergent design Nanoflash? Will a HPX 170/500 be benefiting for using this box trough the HD-SDI port to its 100 mbit 4:2:2 long GOP codec, or its 160 mbit intraframe mpeg 2 codec vs DVCPRO HD (p2) for absolute picture quality? This is obviously just for independent filmmaking scenario, not for ENG, due to the amount of time needed to convert the files to editable (prorez?) format in NLE's, as well as file management.

Just talking pure, raw, image quality recording, will it be that much of a difference?

[Derrick_SA]

Jan, your knowledge is really astounding, and matched by your passion for the panasonic product. It makes buying panasonic gear so much better to know all these things.

thanks for that,
Derrick

[djembeplay]

Hey Jan,

Wow, that was quite the cross-fire post you made there. Although my last post was not aimed towards you, I do appreciate the info.

I can't help but be slightly taken back by some assumptions you made regarding my last post. For instance, "You need to study up on the recording process. 4:2:0 means in its ration that every other line has a color sample, 4:2:2 means that every line has a color sample." I'm not sure why you would state that I need to study up on this when I explained it perfectly. Your description is correct also, but just not as detailed. 4:2:2 records a color sample for every horizontal line, but not every verticle line.

Also, "And keep in mind during your argument, please tell me how that 4:2:0 every other line of color is going to make it all better than a 4:2:2 codec which has color definition on every line." If you would please read my post closer, I never stated a 4:2:0 color space will 'make is all better' than a 4:2:2 color space. Obviously a 4:2:2 color space is desirable. What I was saying is that if, when taking all other aspects of a camera into consideration, I get just as good or better results with one camera recorded at 4:2:0 than another one recorded at 4:2:2, I would gladly take the 4:2:0. If that same camera recorded in 4:2:2 (which the EX1 can) I would of course preferably use that.

Also, "and just because you think it is better that I-Frame only codecs doesn’t make it true and even AVCHD is not better than an I-Frame Codec." Lol, again... I never said that I thought GOP was better than I-Frame.

I didn't understand this, "And frankly that only reinforces my entire argument, but we aren't talking about a Red here. We are talking about cameras under $7000." How does me mentioning that Red has these issues as well only reinforce your argument? The price difference is part of my point... RED is obviously amazing as well as very pricey. It also yields the same rolling shutter problems as the EX1.... meaning these issues aren't necessarily those of an inferior camera.

"MPEG2 is old, old old." I forgot, how old is DVCPro again? Also, aren't there improvements constantly made within a codec such as MPEG2 or MPEG4? For example, there are variations of MPEG4 codecs and within each of those there are quality adjustments. My only point here is that it is a moot point... not that MPEG2 is somehow 'better' than DVCPro.

"But you do seem to look at only facts, like the EX1 has a 1920 X 1080 image and the HVX is less and you totally diss the effect of the spatial offset, and not the total picture that the facts make up." That is what I am trying to do... look at the total picture that the facts make up... again, which the facts make up. I have not "dissed" the spatial offset effect at all. I have repeatedly said that I am under the impression that this only affects LUMA and not CHROMA. I also said, correct me if I am wrong about this...

"No imager is a system all unto itself, the rest of the system must be taken into consideration." Lol, this is exactly the basis of what I have been talking about. Surely the imager has A LOT of influence on the rest of the system.

I'm sorry for the defensive nature of this... It feels like you scewed my words and are generalizing me as a sort of 'wall' to argue against. Also, it seems obvious to me that you choose offensive wording, as if I am very ignorant and blindly opinionated... For example, "And before you waste all of that typing skill, I suggest that you just go try the cameras...". I mean, come on Jan, how could I not take offense to that when we are on a discussion board? I'm only trying to state what the picture seems to be to me and to open discussion so I can learn more based upon what I have written. I'm not playing the "I know all" card... Perhaps you are quick on the defense though as you work for Panasonic and most likely have interests to protect *shrug*.

Annyywaaayys... I'm in an area where I can't rent both cameras, so the web is my only resource to make a purchase. I like the images out of the EX1 much better than the HVX so far. I've downloaded a few "HVX vs. EX1" comparison clips, often involving a good amount of movement, and not only did the EX1 not exibit any of the motion artifacts we are talking about here, it still looked sharper with more lattitude. I enjoy the colors from both... neither look inferior to the other to me. Also, I have keyed greenscreen footage from the EX1, and it looks amazing... just as good as the HVX.

How do you think the HPX170 will compare to the EX1/3 when both are recorded to the same compression via HD-SDI?

Thanks.

P.S., Lets not throw poop at eachother... there's too much to learn.

[Jan_Crittenden]

I can't help but be slightly taken back by some assumptions you made regarding my last post. For instance, "You need to study up on the recording process. 4:2:0 means in its ration that every other line has a color sample, 4:2:2 means that every line has a color sample." I'm not sure why you would state that I need to study up on this when I explained it perfectly. Your description is correct also, but just not as detailed. 4:2:2 records a color sample for every horizontal line, but not every verticle line.

Hi,

I think the reason that I came back a little strong is that you seemed to imply that with just a little research one can come to the conclusion that the EX1 is a better camera. The only way I could concede that is if it were true. And I didn't get that you explained it perfectly because it is not the horizontal lines we are talking about. It is the vertical lines, or to be clear the 1080 lines or the 720 lines, not the 1920 or the 1280. So ito rephrase my post I say 4:2:0 is every other vertical line, 4:2:2 is every vertical line.


I get just as good or better results with one camera recorded at 4:2:0 than another one recorded at 4:2:2, I would gladly take the 4:2:0. If that same camera recorded in 4:2:2 (which the EX1 can) I would of course preferably use that.

But the EX1 cannot, some external device from it can, it cannot do this itself.

I frankly cannot say that the asumption is true that you can get as good or better with a CMOS imager, 4:2:0 and long GOP. Just not possible.



Also, "and just because you think it is better that I-Frame only codecs doesn’t make it true and even AVCHD is not better than an I-Frame Codec." Lol, again... I never said that I thought GOP was better than I-Frame.

Then why would you say you could get better results? You cannot take the camera without the recorder, unless of course you will always be tethered to another device. This is a little impracticle, and expensive.


I didn't understand this, "And frankly that only reinforces my entire argument, but we aren't talking about a Red here. We are talking about cameras under $7000." How does me mentioning that Red has these issues as well only reinforce your argument? The price difference is part of my point... RED is obviously amazing as well as very pricey. It also yields the same rolling shutter problems as the EX1.... meaning these issues aren't necessarily those of an inferior camera.

Your previous words seemed to indicate that because the Red also had the same issues that some how that makes it okay. Again it is the internet that doesn't allow me to see the rest of your communication. See, I would be pretty unhappy if I spent that much money on a camera only to discover that it had these issues. I ask people whether they know what a rolling shutter is , and it is amazing how few do not know and they once they own it it is all theirs and they have to figure out the work around.



"MPEG2 is old, old old." I forgot, how old is DVCPro again? Also, aren't there improvements constantly made within a codec such as MPEG2 or MPEG4? For example, there are variations of MPEG4 codecs and within each of those there are quality adjustments. My only point here is that it is a moot point... not that MPEG2 is somehow 'better' than DVCPro.

Actually the only company working on MPEG2 is Sony and from here it looks mostly like bandaids. MPEG2 is older than DVCPRO. The MPEG4 family is the new kid on the block and offers the greatest future growth in long GOP and in intra-frame as well. And keep in mind that much of the MPEG2 out there is in the form of a delivery codec, not a production codec.



"No imager is a system all unto itself, the rest of the system must be taken into consideration." Lol, this is exactly the basis of what I have been talking about. Surely the imager has A LOT of influence on the rest of the system.

Actually the imager is only about half of it, if the codec can't handle it, the imager isn't worth it. And actually too much can make a Codec that can't hanle the resolution perform even worse.



I'm sorry for the defensive nature of this... It feels like you scewed my words and are generalizing me as a sort of 'wall' to argue against. Also, it seems obvious to me that you choose offensive wording, as if I am very ignorant and blindly opinionated... For example, "And before you waste all of that typing skill, I suggest that you just go try the cameras...". I mean, come on Jan, how could I not take offense to that when we are on a discussion board?

I do not mean to be offensive but you seemed to be taking on an air of authority when you say what you did. Your referencing the facts etc. But the facts that you chose to reference are only a small portion of the system. I apologize for coming on strong but I have heard these arguments from a number of people that understand that 1920 X 1080 is a larger number and that somehow that is going to be better regardless of the rest of the system, and I tried in previous attempts to lead you to a fuller understanding. It seemed as though you were choosing to believe that with a larger chip set it would be better, and frankly that would be true if the recording end were the same and they were both CCDs. But in this case they are not. I offended you, it wasn't my intention. People get in my face all the time on the internet, and I am afraid perhaps I took a lesson from them, sorry. My intention was to get you to look at the entire system. I still suggest that you somehow go and try the cameras. You can rent from a distance. Rental guys do this all the time.


I'm only trying to state what the picture seems to be to me and to open discussion so I can learn more based upon what I have written. I'm not playing the "I know all" card... Perhaps you are quick on the defense though as you work for Panasonic and most likely have interests to protect *shrug*.

Well I do work for Pansonic, but I do also feel a responsibility in education. I do feel that I have a "pay it forward" responsibility to the folks that helped me to understand including my late husband, Philip Livingston. (Google him, quite the technologist) I am quick to the defense, but I am interested in the facts about the entire system and the problem that I have with the internet is that when other people read an exchange, there is a point at which they stop coming back to slog on through the saga. Your last post left me with the feeling that if I didn't know any better then I would probably buy your argument that the two would be of comparable quality in all areas. Now that would have been a superficial reading , but it is one that readers could make. Your analysis had faults in it and I didn't want others to assume that what you said was factually correct, because no one else knows who you are or your depth of experience. You do write fairly well and you make a good argument so I felt the need to clearly draw out where the problems were. I apologize if I came on a little strongly.


Annyywaaayys... I'm in an area where I can't rent both cameras, so the web is my only resource to make a purchase. I like the images out of the EX1 much better than the HVX so far. I've downloaded a few "HVX vs. EX1" comparison clips, often involving a good amount of movement, and not only did the EX1 not exibit any of the motion artifacts we are talking about here, it still looked sharper with more lattitude. I enjoy the colors from both... neither look inferior to the other to me. Also, I have keyed greenscreen footage from the EX1, and it looks amazing... just as good as the HVX.


And here I can only say, there are lots of examples of the EX1 where there are problems in the footage. And the images that I have seen with the EX1 in green screen are not bad but I have seeen much better off of a 4:2:2 codec with I frame only. So again it may be that I am at 38 years in this business having gotten my start in 1974, so I have a time and an experience bias that you probably do not have.



How do you think the HPX170 will compare to the EX1/3 when both are recorded to the same compression via HD-SDI?

The EX1/3 will have more res on the CMOS than the HPX170 and I would say if you wanted to cart around the $14,000 AJ-HD1400, DVCPRO HD VTR, it would look pretty good. Then you would only have to overcome the CMOS artifacts. But in general that is not the program, you buy a camera and with it you buy the codec as you need to walk around with it.



P.S., Lets not throw poop at eachother... there's too much to learn.

I do agree. There is a lot to learn and there is so few resources at the very beginning end of the learning curve to help full bring one to the understanding of the rest of it. Sorry for being in your face, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, and that isn't necessarily where i had assumed in a couple of places. I still feel that if you had the chance to look at the two cameras and work with them, it would indeed be better. I just don't know that that is really possible, as there is time that is required to learn either camera.

Anyhow, I wish you good luck and hope that you continue to learn about the technologies as it is no longer an easy go out and buy a DV camcorder kind of a world. There is so much more to understand, and then there is the point that buying something and working with it is the only teacher that you can get.

All the best,

Jan

[SPZ]

Hi,


Actually the only company working on MPEG2 is Sony and from here it looks mostly like bandaids. MPEG2 is older than DVCPRO. The MPEG4 family is the new kid on the block and offers the greatest future growth in long GOP and in intra-frame as well. And keep in mind that much of the MPEG2 out there is in the form of a delivery codec, not a production codec.

......................


The EX1/3 will have more res on the CMOS than the HPX170 and I would say if you wanted to cart around the $14,000 AJ-HD1400, DVCPRO HD VTR, it would look pretty good. Then you would only have to overcome the CMOS artifacts. But in general that is not the program, you buy a camera and with it you buy the codec as you need to walk around with it.

All the best,

Jan

I do not want to sound like the Devil's Advocate here, but what if he was to carry with him a Convergent design Nanoflash and recording to 4:2:2 100 Mbit LONG GOP Mpeg 2? What would that look like compared to DVCPRO HD? Pushing it more to the extreme, what would it look like in the 160mbit 4:2:2 Intraframe MPEG2 vs DVCPRO HD? It would be full raster 1920x1080, I presume... And all this in a portable , belt trasnportable device.

Of course, you wouldn't get native FCP editing with these codecs, so this wouldn't be ideal for fast, ENG like applications, but I would really like to know your take on this form of Mpeg2. I believe your opinion is that Mpeg2 is obsolete. Then how does this 4:2:2 Intraframe 160mbs Mpeg2 codec compare to dvcpro HD?

I ask this not as a Sony Camera owner, but as someone trying to clear my head on where to go on my future camera purchase. Currently, I'm on the fence of going for an HPX170, HPX500+ SD lens or EX3. I invested a lot in P2 and have been working with an HVX for almost 2 and a half years. Love the workflow, but want the best quality possible.

[Jan_Crittenden]

I am not familiar with the Nanoflash unit, and so with that I would have to ask what is the implementation at the NLE level and with all of the extra data, the issue of storage becomes even larger. I haven't seen the codec so I don't have an opinion. My experience has been honed through the adoption of a codec on the many flavors of the NLEs that are out there and how well the codec hold up.

The firt thing I would say is to carefully test the workflow. We know the EX1 workflow is similar, but not the same as the P2. As an example, I know I can review and switch to record within 2 seconds of that playback in P2. In EX it is a full14 seconds, what is it in the Nano. And how do you monitor the nano? and is that a disk or flash? Truly not up on it. But you need to evaluate the product in application, see how it handles itself upon transcode because you won't be editing nativiely. Go from there.

Best,

Jan

[djembeplay]

Hey Jan,

I appreciate the peaceful response. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I know there is definitly a sloth of people who 'get in your face' and are generally offensive... Internet communication is tough in that we cannot hear the tonations of eachother's words which says a lot about where a person is coming from.

Thanks for furthar clarifying where you are coming from... I understand better now. Perhaps I was out of line accusing you of being biased because you work for Panasonic.

About the resolution of 4:2:2... I had forgotten whether it was the vertical or horizontal lines that drop in half. Thanks for clarifying.

Anywho, I think your right that at this point the only way I am going to be able to tell any more is to just try both cameras. I didn't know that there were rental places that will send cameras... good to know.

Do you know of any place around Ithaca, NY that rents by any chance?

Oh, one last thing... about the HD-SDI recording... I was thinking in terms of a nanoflash as the other poster mentioned... they are light.

[ChipG]

Does anyone care if I through in Politics and Religion?

[Shane Ross]

I was under the illusion that Panasonic invented 24p technology, but a salesman at B&H told me I was wrong. I looked it up and apparently SONY did invent it for Lucas on one of the Star Wars prequels.

I didn't get into reading this whole thread, as it is the same 'ol same 'ol, but I did want to set the record straight here. The 24p technology for video was invented by Robert at FILMLOOK (http://www.filmlook.com/). The technology is licensed to various camera manufacturers.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Shane,

Robert did not invent 24PA, Panasonic did, and yes we paid him but for a liscense but only because that was cheaper than continuing to feed the lawyers. ;-)

Best,

Jan

[Jan_Crittenden]

I appreciate the peaceful response. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I know there is definitly a sloth of people who 'get in your face' and are generally offensive... Internet communication is tough in that we cannot hear the tonations of eachother's words which says a lot about where a person is coming from.

Exactly, so from now on if I say something that is in your face, think of me as Yoda telling you a riddle to solve your problem but my riddle is a little more blunt. ;-)


Thanks for furthar clarifying where you are coming from... I understand better now. Perhaps I was out of line accusing you of being biased because you work for Panasonic.

Mny people do not know why I do this as you really don't see many manufacturers out here relating to customers and trying to help. I try to give back to the world what it has given me, and that is in recognition of all of the great technologists that took their valuable time to explain it to me, yet one more time. I don't do charity work at the hospital, or hang at the local church doing pancake breakfasts, that isn't me. Helping where I can on these boards is my contribution back to the world. And yes I work for Panasonic, and am grateful they don't have a problem with my being here.


About the resolution of 4:2:2... I had forgotten whether it was the vertical or horizontal lines that drop in half. Thanks for clarifying.

It is a point to remember and the way to remember is that when you are doing a greenscreen you are generally trying to place people in the scene. People are vertical. I think the most tell tale on a green screen is the hair, because my hair defies anything but 4:2:2, blond, curly and fuzzy. Helmut hair is the tell-tale for me, if there are no singular wisps of hair, more likely it is 4:2:0.



Anywho, I think your right that at this point the only way I am going to be able to tell any more is to just try both cameras. I didn't know that there were rental places that will send cameras... good to know.

Do you know of any place around Ithaca, NY that rents by any chance?



We have dealers that also do rentals in a number of cities. How close are you to Albany? I know I could look at a map but I am in a hotel room in LA and about to go jump in the shower to get ready for a show. Send me a private message with your email in it and I will respond by email.


Oh, one last thing... about the HD-SDI recording... I was thinking in terms of a nanoflash as the other poster mentioned... they are light.

Keep in mind that whatever they are doing and I seriously do not have an opinion, you need to fully understand the workflow and what you are walking into before you go there. Questions to ask, what is the compression algorithm that they are uisng, remember that uncompressed HD at 8 bit is 994Mbs. So if their recording is 100, what did they throw away? How do you edit the product, and since that is likely not to be native, what will be your intermediate codec? How much "machine" will you need to edit it? What is the plan on metadata, keep in mind that what ever you record will need storage and that storage will continue to grow. When you have 300TBs on the shelf how are you going to find anything? It is in the metadata, this is BTW, is one place where P2 really excels as you can load in before you record anything. I am a believer that if you create good work in this business it is alive and will likely make more than one contibution to your life's work. Not being able to find it is really a pain.

Hope this helps,

Jan

[David Saraceno]

and yes we paid him but for a liscense but only because that was cheaper than continuing to feed the lawyers. ;-)

Best,

Jan

Lawyers need to eat as well.

:)

[David Saraceno]

Ithaca is in the Finger Lakes region, and Albany is north of the city.

It's about 185 miles

[Justyn]

I can say one thing for sure.. Look at the time and energy Jan spends on this forum and in general. I dare anyone to get a Sony guy to come here and do the same. They have horrible customer service. Always have... but it would be nice if they popped in even 1/100th of the time that Jan has.

Jan was one of the reasons I jumped to the HVX as an early adopter. She's so candid, straight up and giving of her time. I think the guy from Red has done the same thing after her example..


Congrats and kudos for someone caring to share her knowledge!

[David Saraceno]

Jan has been especially visible since the release of the two new models.

Glad to see it.

Now if we could get a solid idea of what the 170 is going to sell for and if a card is bundled, it would be Christmas in June!!

[scorsesefan]

Haven't read all the posts, but the intensity of debate here is awesome!... There are a lot of opinions on this site (some more biased than others), but here's mine: I can't afford to shoot film, so I shoot video. I love the way film looks. Panasonic cameras look the most "filmic" of all the cameras I've used/seen footage of. This includes the EX1. How does Panasonic do it? Who the f*** knows? (OK, I sort of DO know, but I want to believe in magic)... Another thing is they're tough. I recently did a shoot where one of the camera men used a 100B, and committed many operator errors. I was told by my boss to find documentation that it was equipment failure. I couldn't... I think I let an overzeolous B&H salesman sway my belief in Panny's momentarily, but my first video camera was a Panny, and I have a feeling my last one will be as well.

p.s. I still think Panasonic should look into larger CCD's at the HVX price point

[LuckyStudio 13]

Jan is most helpful and patience *official* person around. I sure appreciate all her wisdom and help. I still hope that the hpx170 would have 50/60 hz switch, as it will be a great B cam with the hpx500.

[Buck Forester]

The question of the day for me... with all due respect, if the Panasonic Rep consistently argues the limitations of CMOS chips, then why is Panasonic putting CMOS chips in their latest 'just announced' cameras?

http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=260737&modelNo=Content06182008020838075&surfModel=Content06182008020838075

Yes, these are only their higher-end consumer models, but 1) don't they care about their consumer-model customers... why subject them to the limitations of CMOS? 2) It would seem that operators of cameras at the consumer level would be much more prone to rolling shutter issues because they don't know this stuff (nor do they typically care) and are less apt to use stabilizers and tripods or shoot carefully planned shots. They're just chasing their kid around Disneyland with the camera... why would do this, especially when the Panasonic Rep here keeps making cases against CMOS chips?

Seriously, I'm a little confused. Not meant to start any CCD vs. CMOS war, but it just seems odd? If Jan has the time, I'd really like her direct input. Thanks.

[Barry_Green]

I'll let Jan answer for herself, but to clarify: Jan has no involvement with anything that Panasonic Consumer does. She only has responsibility and influence with what Panasonic Broadcast does.

[David Saraceno]

Two entirely different markets altogether.

and Jan is not and to my knowledge ever been involved with the consumer division.

[Buck Forester]

Thanks for the clarification, Barry. I wasn't sure what her role is... if she officially represents Panasonic, or is a Rep and speaking off the cuff, etc. If she speaks for a certain division, then apparently Panasonic as a 'company' is not on the same page with CMOS? I dunno. It would just seem to me that if any group would have the most issues with rolling shutter, it would be fully-auto point-n-shooters of the consumer market.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if within a couple of years Panasonic will be offering CMOS models in the range of the EX1 market (hopefully even better than the EX1, I'll probably be in the market for an upgrade by then, depending on how well Scarlet is reviewed). But I could be wrong, especially if Jan has anything to do with it! :)

[Buck Forester]

Two entirely different markets altogether.



True, but my question is if Panasonic is not big on CMOS, why would they be so apt to put an inferior chip in a camera when they already make cheaper CCD-based models for consumers? Why would they subject them to it if it's not necessary. Don't they care about their quality with the consumer market? And if anyone is gonna shoot a shot from a pogo stick or chase a kid around handheld, wouldn't it be the consumer market who doesn't know better? I'm just saying.

[Barry_Green]

Same reason people put in "700x Digital Zoom". Numbers sell. Same reason the term "FULL HD" even exists and gets slapped on products.

But in Broadcast, at least to broadcasters, that kind of nonsense doesn't go too far. Broadcasters test the products thoroughly and buy what works.

On the "prosumer" end, well, there's some blurring of the lines there, because a product like the HVX is aimed at the broadcast and professional market, and lots of high-end consumers step in here too. So if they were going to do a CMOS-anything anytime soon, I'd expect it in the little 1/3" range.

Besides, that's really the place where CMOS holds a tangible advantage over CCD, is in a small high-def chip; the amount of pixels you can cram in there can, for many people, offset the drawbacks of a rolling shutter. In the bigger chips there isn't any problem with heat or pixel-cramming, so there's not much advantage (in a broadcast, 2/3" design) to go looking at CMOS.

[Buck Forester]

Panasonic already makes cheaper CCD consumer models. It just seems, Barry, that if CMOS is as bad as stated so often here, especially when it comes to wobble and skew and all the rolling shutter effects, if anyone is gonna wobble and whip pan the crud out of a little tiny handheld palmcorder, it'll be worst case scenario in this consumer market Panasonic is placing them in.

I don't know... that's why I was wondering what Jan might have to say. She works for a different division, but it's the same company. When I read her stuff about CMOS I'm thinking why in the heck would her company even go that route in their latest cameras? It would seem odd, within the same company, that one division would curse a component while another would embrace it and put it in their lastest offering? From the stuff I've read here, you can't simply "offset" the drawbacks of rolling shutter by having better lowlight capabilities or something, because I keep hearing how 'any' motion with CMOS induces some level of rolling shutter, and simple pans or walking handheld renders footage unuseable. What good are the other touted benefits of CMOS if half the footage is jello? Seriously, I'm just trying to reconcile this stuff in my mind. Not that it's a huge deal, I'm just curious.

[John Godden]

Panasonic already makes cheaper CCD consumer models. It just seems, Barry, that if CMOS is as bad as stated so often here, especially when it comes to wobble and skew and all the rolling shutter effects, if anyone is gonna wobble and whip pan the crud out of a little tiny handheld palmcorder, it'll be worst case scenario in this consumer market Panasonic is placing them in.

I don't know... that's why I was wondering what Jan might have to say. She works for a different division, but it's the same company. When I read her stuff about CMOS I'm thinking why in the heck would her company even go that route in their latest cameras? It would seem odd, within the same company, that one division would curse a component while another would embrace it and put it in their lastest offering? From the stuff I've read here, you can't simply "offset" the drawbacks of rolling shutter by having better lowlight capabilities or something, because I keep hearing how 'any' motion with CMOS induces some level of rolling shutter, and simple pans or walking handheld renders footage unuseable. What good are the other touted benefits of CMOS if half the footage is jello? Seriously, I'm just trying to reconcile this stuff in my mind. Not that it's a huge deal, I'm just curious.

I'd bet that a VERY high percentage of consumers buying one of these cheap HD/AVCHD handycams would NEVER notice the wobble or rolling shutter effects. Face it, these cams are designed on the cheap for a buying segment that doesn't have a clue about real high def capture.

JohnG

[Barry_Green]

Panasonic already makes cheaper CCD consumer models. It just seems, Barry, that if CMOS is as bad as stated so often here, especially when it comes to wobble and skew and all the rolling shutter effects, if anyone is gonna wobble and whip pan the crud out of a little tiny handheld palmcorder, it'll be worst case scenario in this consumer market Panasonic is placing them in.
Yes, Panasonic makes cheaper CCD models. Do you know what people whine about them? Spatial Offset. Not enough pixels. Blah blah blah. You can't fit more pixels onto a CCD without either a) going with interlaced, or b) cutting the maximum frame rate. So, just like everyone else in the marketplace, Panasonic has apparently decided to roll out some CMOS models in the bottom of the line.


When I read her stuff about CMOS I'm thinking why in the heck would her company even go that route in their latest cameras?
Me too.


It would seem odd, within the same company, that one division would curse a component while another would embrace it and put it in their lastest offering?
Welcome to the world of corporate politics. Watch Sony badmouth AVC-HD out one side of their mouth, and out the other side they'll say that 9 megabits of AVC-HD is equivalent to 25 megabits of MPEG-2. Watch them proclaim how nobody needs 4:2:2, that 4:2:0 is plenty, and the next thing you know they're introducing 4:2:2. Watch them proclaim how long-GOP is all you need and intraframe is old and pointless -- and then, simultaneously, watch them introduce an intraframe-only codec in their highest quality recording system (HDCAM-SR). Watch them go around badmouthing intraframe all around the country and, indeed, all around the world -- while conveniently forgetting that their own DV, DVCAM, MPEG-IMX, Digital BetaCam, HDCAM, and HDCAM-SR products are ALL INTRAFRAME. Watch Sony for years say Solid State recording is stupid and will never catch on, and then (out the other side of their mouth) they introduce solid state recording in both SxS and CompactFlash form factors.

It happens.


because I keep hearing how 'any' motion with CMOS induces some level of rolling shutter
That is because it does. It is unavoidable. The question is whether it rises to a level of whether anyone will notice. The milder the motion, the less likely it is to be an issue, the more the motion, the more it can become an issue.


and simple pans or walking handheld renders footage unuseable.
No you haven't, nobody's ever said that, and to imply so is to bait the conversation for flaming. Please don't do that. Nobody has ever said that a "simple pan" has rendered footage "unusable." Walking handheld definitely causes more jello with CMOS than with CCD, you can verify that for yourself by just taking a CMOS camera and a CCD camera side by side for a walk. The CMOS will be more jello-y. The question is whether the jello is enough for you to care about.

Also, it depends on the performance of the rolling shutter. The EX1 performs better than an HV20, and both of them perform better than an Aiptek. Go try walking around with an Aiptek and see if you get acceptable footage.


What good are the other touted benefits of CMOS if half the footage is jello?
A good question. The exact same question I keep asking. Because UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CMOS footage can turn to jello, or skew, or get scrolling bands through it; under all circumstances flashes and strobes will result in partial frame exposures. To deny that would be insane. So I continue to advise people to find out WHAT those circumstances are, and either guarantee that they can avoid those circumstances, or shop for something other than CMOS.

It is a reasonable stance, regardless of those who try to paint it otherwise.

Rolling-shutter CMOS is a useful technology which is appropriate for many scenarios, and fails under CERTAIN conditions. It may, over time, improve to where it is a non-issue (such as CCDs have improved their smear performance to where, in 2/3" cameras, it is largely a non-issue). While we are in the early days, it behooves users to educate themselves about the situation.

And yeah, I'm getting a little tired of this.

[Buck Forester]

And yeah, I'm getting a little tired of this.

Barry, I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm seriously just wondering about the apparent contradiction is all. It's not an attack, nor does a defense need to be made. I'm a logical guy... I like things explained, and I like things consistent. I am just seeing an 'apparent' inconsistenty here. And I'm not making a statement pro or con about CMOS. That was a totally different discussion. :)


Because UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CMOS footage can turn to jello, or skew, or get scrolling bands through it; under all circumstances flashes and strobes will result in partial frame exposures. To deny that would be insane.

Barry, I'm not denying anything. I think you're mistaking what I'm asking. In fact, in this case, I'm GIVING YOU the rolling shutter issue. I'm asking that given rolling shutter exists, why is Panasonic going that route when they've been arguing 'for' their CCD chips all along. And you underlined and extra-fonted UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES... and that's my point... the circumstances (market) that Panasonic is utilizing these CMOS chips seems to be worst case scenario for rolling shutter effects. People who aren't aware of such issues and would shoot untripodded (is that a word? ha!) or shaky handheld footage. I'm not making any argument pro or con about CMOS chips... I'm simply asking about why Panasonic would go this route when they're very own 'pro' department says CMOS has a lot of serious short comings.


Rolling-shutter CMOS is a useful technology which is appropriate for many scenarios, and fails under CERTAIN conditions.

I'm not arguing this at all... I'm just saying, isn't this one of those scenarios where they're highly likely fail? Consumer high-def camcorders?


No you haven't, nobody's ever said that, and to imply so is to bait the conversation for flaming. Please don't do that.

Barry, I'm not flaming at all. You've got me all wrong here. I'm going by what you wrote about CMOS chips, and that ANY movement will trigger wobble or rolling shutter and it's a matter of what you can find acceptable or not. Perhaps 'unuseable footage' was a bit strong, my apology, but personally I find any 'wobble' in my footage unuseable, but I'm sure a consumer might not think so.

I'm not arguing CMOS vs CCD or trying to put anyone on the defensive. Heck, I wish my EX1 was intraframe, I much prefer the concept of intraframe. I'm simply inquiring (not in an attacking way) as to why Panasonic and Panasonic-lovers have been so pro-CCD and are quick to point out the bad points of CMOS, and then Panasonic is putting CMOS in their latest camera models. Simple as that.


Watch Sony badmouth AVC-HD out one side of their mouth, and out the other side they'll say that 9 megabits of AVC-HD is equivalent to 25 megabits of MPEG-2.

I'm not attacking Panasonic in any regard, nor am I defending Sony (I honestly have no brand loyalty so my question is not motivated by such things... well, to be honest I do have brand loyalty to General Mills... to come out with Cheerios, Wheaties, and Lucky Charms has won me over). Barry, I think you've got me tagged wrong. Call me unbranded, call me looking to be fair, call me curious, and call me logical. I come to this forum site (and others) in a sincere quest to learn this whole digital realm. I find the site, and your information, most useful. Sure, sometimes I feel like I have to sort through some levels of bias to find the nugget, but that just comes with the territory.

If it's corporate politics, and chasing the buck, that's fine. I was just curious.


Panasonic has apparently decided to roll out some CMOS models in the bottom of the line.

I'm not sure I'd call a $1,000+ camera "bottom of the line", they certainly have a few lower end cameras, but I see your point. I've seen a few mfgs over my time employ latest technology upgrades to their lower/mid range product line and 'watch', and get the bugs out... we'll see what's going on here with Panasonic. I'm not sure.

And from John Godden"

I'd bet that a VERY high percentage of consumers buying one of these cheap HD/AVCHD handycams would NEVER notice the wobble or rolling shutter effects. Face it, these cams are designed on the cheap for a buying segment that doesn't have a clue about real high def capture.

You may be right... but I wouldn't call them 'cheap' though, the HDC-HS100 is suggested retail of $1,299.95, but we know street value will most likely be less. At that price point, someone will probably be pretty excited to see the image their grand will get them. I'm guessing, going from Panasonic's pro division evaluation of CMOS, they'll probably see substantial wobble and rolling shutter, especially since many of them will be shooting footage prone to it, and will notice it. But I could be wrong. Which is why I was curious about Panasonic's take on it. Maybe Jan can give some insight, but maybe she's just as surprised as everyone else, I don't know how things work over there. Gracias for taking the time to respond! Happy shooting!

[mico]

I'd bet that a VERY high percentage of consumers buying one of these cheap HD/AVCHD handycams would NEVER notice the wobble or rolling shutter effects. Face it, these cams are designed on the cheap for a buying segment that doesn't have a clue about real high def capture.

JohnG

I'm one of those people that purchased a AVCHD consumer cam. I work professionally in the film business. Yesterday i was at the NHRA qualifying races with my avchd cam. I whipped panned cars going over 300mph, walked around handheld. Lots of action shots and you know what? No jello effect, skew was there but unless I'm going frame by frame unnoticeable.

The images this canon HF10 cam captured were glorious. Much much better than my now sold HVX200. Have your opinions but cmos works. I suggest you give it a try before you generalize.

[John Godden]

I'm one of those people that purchased a AVCHD consumer cam. I work professionally in the film business. Yesterday i was at the NHRA qualifying races with my avchd cam. I whipped panned cars going over 300mph, walked around handheld. Lots of action shots and you know what? No jello effect, skew was there but unless I'm going frame by frame unnoticeable.

The images this canon HF10 cam captured were glorious. Much much better than my now sold HVX200. Have your opinions but cmos works. I suggest you give it a try before you generalize.

Talk is cheap! Post your stuff!

[lawriejaffa]

My god $1000 is def the bottom of the line for video cams... i mean hell if their not buck what is?!

Maybe its just the exchange rate... but 1000$ ain't nothing, so for the flawed benefits cmos can deliver, it seems a natural course to include them in consumer fare and isnt at all surprising that panny has. It certainly doesn't disregard the flaws inherit presently in that technology.

If Panny comes out with a professional cam that uses cmos (without any improvement over what we see presently in its application) then I will eat my own private parts ;)

[SPZ]

I am not familiar with the Nanoflash unit, and so with that I would have to ask what is the implementation at the NLE level and with all of the extra data, the issue of storage becomes even larger. I haven't seen the codec so I don't have an opinion. My experience has been honed through the adoption of a codec on the many flavors of the NLEs that are out there and how well the codec hold up.

The firt thing I would say is to carefully test the workflow. We know the EX1 workflow is similar, but not the same as the P2. As an example, I know I can review and switch to record within 2 seconds of that playback in P2. In EX it is a full14 seconds, what is it in the Nano. And how do you monitor the nano? and is that a disk or flash? Truly not up on it. But you need to evaluate the product in application, see how it handles itself upon transcode because you won't be editing nativiely. Go from there.

Best,

Jan

Thanks Jan. Like I said, for TV, Broadcast, nothing beats P2. However, for independent film, these new recorders seem to provide the possibility of using codecs that where only available for 20k + cameras.

Its true, the Nonoflash is not out yet, but theoretically, Mpeg2 at 100 mbps LONG GOP should look better than DVCPRO HD 100mbps. Of course, its Long GOP, wich would mean the need to convert to a Intraframe, more efficient codec for editing- I imagine Prores 4:2:2.

Now 160 mbps Mpeg2 Intraframe 4:2:2, theoreticaly, should even be better than HDCAM, the industry standard at High End HD Broadcast capture (yes, there's HDCAM SR).

[Buck Forester]

My god $1000 is def the bottom of the line for video cams... i mean hell if their not buck what is?!

Hola, lawriejaffa! I was just looking at Panasonic's line of camcorders and they have numerous models, such as 3CCD mini-DV models, in the $300-$400 range, and even in their "new" high-def consumer camcorders they have models with suggested retail of $799 and a couple at $899... so coming in at $1,299 for this latest CMOS jobber is actually the "high" end of the consumer models. And these other models are CCDers, so they're throwing in a couple new CMOSers at the highest end of their consumer line.



Maybe its just the exchange rate... but 1000$ ain't nothing...


Well that's obviously relative... it ain't nothing for a pro cam, but for someone looking to shoot grandma and grandpa's 50th wedding anniversary, it might be a big investment for them.


so for the flawed benefits cmos can deliver, it seems a natural course to include them in consumer fare and isnt at all surprising that panny has. It certainly doesn't disregard the flaws inherit presently in that technology.

See, this is what's making my point and has me rubbing my chin. To say it's a natural course to include "flawed" benefits in consumer fare sorta rubs me wrong, if indeed one thinks CMOS is flawed to begin with. Would you put 'flawed' chips in a camcorder, even a cheap one, when you already have "good" chips in the same price range and even lower? I would just think a company values its customers throughout the product line and wouldn't deliver a product they don't believe in because of inherent flaws of a single component, especially when that component is already reliably made. I'm just not following the logic on this one. No slams, just no make-um sense-um to me-um.


If Panny comes out with a professional cam that uses cmos (without any improvement over what we see presently in its application) then I will eat my own private parts ;)

THAT is something I do NOT want to see, ha! Not even if you shot it with an EX1 on a vibrating bed! I can almost guarantee you that Panny will come out with some sort of CMOS broadcast camera... at least as an optional product on the market with their CCD stuff... maybe with a better CMOS but not one that still won't exhibit the inherent traits of CMOS. But if I'm wrong I ain't munchin' my private parts. No way jose.

[ChipG]

I can say one thing for sure.. Look at the time and energy Jan spends on this forum and in general. I dare anyone to get a Sony guy to come here and do the same. They have horrible customer service. Always have... but it would be nice if they popped in even 1/100th of the time that Jan has.

Jan was one of the reasons I jumped to the HVX as an early adopter. She's so candid, straight up and giving of her time. I think the guy from Red has done the same thing after her example..


Congrats and kudos for someone caring to share her knowledge!

I agree!

This has been one of THE best threads on this board since "Hydra"...

Thought it was slow.... My fault!

[RDykmans]

This has been one of THE best threads on this board since "Hydra"...



or since the VX1000 came out and the BetaSP guys all went nuts! ;-)

Based on what I've seen to date I like the Sony a lot.

[David Saraceno]

Talk is cheap! Post your stuff!

I'd also like to see it.

We saw some pretty bad stuff on that cam just panning the backyard when we had one.

It was a $150.00 restocking fee lesson.

[Sumfun]

Its true, the Nonoflash is not out yet, but theoretically, Mpeg2 at 100 mbps LONG GOP should look better than DVCPRO HD 100mbps. Of course, its Long GOP, wich would mean the need to convert to a Intraframe, more efficient codec for editing- I imagine Prores 4:2:2.

Now 160 mbps Mpeg2 Intraframe 4:2:2, theoreticaly, should even be better than HDCAM, the industry standard at High End HD Broadcast capture (yes, there's HDCAM SR).

According to the press release from Convergent Design (link below), it looks like the Nanoflash also supports 100Mbps 4:2:2 I-frame only recording. I think this would be attractive to EX1 owners because they can get better compression ratio and color space. But I'm not sure how much it would benefit HPX170 owners because the color space is already 4:2:2, and the offset CCD's may not show any improvement at full 1920x1080 resolution. We'll have to see when the products come out. Also, you have to weigh the $3,500 price tag against any perceived gain in picture quality.

http://www.convergent-design.com/downloads/nanoFlash/Convergent%20Design%20unveils%20nanoFlash.pdf

[Kholi]

It's up to 160mpbs I-Frame and 100mbps Long-GOP.

How much of a difference the Full 1080p makes is to be determined by testing both DVCProHD and the SONY Codec at the exact same times. Sadly, neither of these units (170 and nanoFlash) will be available until September. =\

[lawriejaffa]

Yep Buck well cmos on a broadcast cam etc, will be fine when and if they can get rid of the issues or dramatically reduce them.

I mean hell I would'nt kick a Red out of bed for f*rting! ;) But its the difference between its useage and skill of most of their operators that make the issues less relevant for Reds than for EX cams.

What I like about the EX is full raster imaging - and hell, for a lot of my cinematography (on tripod or with less movement) then that could be just fine. But i think for its true potential to be met, it has to be used in much the way philip bloom produces his ex promo clips.

Once we've got an hpx500, when im in the states i may well pick one up eventually (so long as i can test it first!) So despite my partisan sounding tone, there is a lot I like about the EX.

[John Godden]

I'd also like to see it.

We saw some pretty bad stuff on that cam just panning the backyard when we had one.

It was a $150.00 restocking fee lesson.

LOL.................. I'm sure it cost me a bit more $150 when I dumped my HV20 after about 2 months. At this point, I prefer to just consider it a bad dream.

Perhaps, there's a consumer CMOS cam that doesn't have these problems. ???

[mico]

Talk is cheap! Post your stuff!

You know whats cheaper than talk. People that say post your stuff thinking they're going to see the true quality of images from a certain cam from a compressed upload rather than doing the right thing and test these cams for yourself.

Anyway heres the footage so you can look for issues. NHRA qualifying, right at the start gate where the Nitro cars rattle your bones. These are just random images I selected for movement. The only stabilizers I used were my hands and a monopod for these. No post processing of any kind was done, only AvCHD to prores for FCP then to mp4 for vimeo.

http://www.vimeo.com/1215218

[David Saraceno]

You know whats cheaper than talk. People that say post your stuff thinking they're going to see the true quality of images from a certain cam from a compressed upload rather than doing the right thing and test these cams for yourself.

Hey. I bought the cam, and tested it

And I returned that cam and paid a restocking fee.

So who's on first?

[RDykmans]

Mico, I downloaded the larger version and while you could see a little skew (going frame by frame) on some of the pans before it blurred out nicely, I sure didn't find it objectionable. If anything that may have added to the overall sense of acceleration. Thanks for posting that up.

[mico]

Mico, I downloaded the larger version and while you could see a little skew (going frame by frame) on some of the pans before it blurred out nicely, I sure didn't find it objectionable. If anything that may have added to the overall sense of acceleration. Thanks for posting that up.

Exactly. You and I see it the same.

[Buck Forester]

Psssst... Jan, any thoughts about Panasonic's consumer division going CMOS, despite what their more knowledgeable (I'm assuming anyway) broadcast division says? Just curious, if you choose not to answer, that's okay. This is not a 'baiting' question, more just a curiosity, given your stance on CMOS and knowing the attributes of CMOS would more likely be noticeable with the shooting style of consumers.

I'm just wondering if you saw my earlier question or not. Don't worry, this'll be my last time asking it here... I'm not trying to pester you about it, just wondering if you saw the question. Gracias mi amigas!

[Jan_Crittenden]

Psssst... Jan, any thoughts about Panasonic's consumer division going CMOS, despite what their more knowledgeable (I'm assuming anyway) broadcast division says? Just curious, if you choose not to answer, that's okay. This is not a 'baiting' question, more just a curiosity, given your stance on CMOS and knowing the attributes of CMOS would more likely be noticeable with the shooting style of consumers.

No problem in asking, it is the CONSUMER division and not a division that has customers expecting to bill for the video that they produce. Consumers are not as picky as production people and their clients, so no I see that as a natural progression over there. We may well end up with it in the broadcast division as well, but before that happens I hope that they can at least address the worst of the issues.

Hope that answers your question, Buck,

Jan

[Buck Forester]

Super mucho gracias, Jan! My oft-inept brain doesn't necessarily follow the logic that consumers are okay with rolling shutter issues because they're not getting paid for it, but that's just gonna hafta do. It's all bueno. Thanks again! - El Bucko

[Kholi]

Super mucho gracias, Jan! My oft-inept brain doesn't necessarily follow the logic that consumers are okay with rolling shutter issues because they're not getting paid for it, but that's just gonna hafta do. It's all bueno. Thanks again! - El Bucko

It's a 1000.00 dollar camera. How much work will someone with a 1000.00 be making with that camera versus someone with a 6k setup, then 10k, then 20k?

[Buck Forester]

Kholi, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you're understanding what I'm asking.

My point is if Panasonic doesn't think very highly of CMOS chips and they have serious limitations when it comes to rolling shutter, don't they 'care' about their consumer level customers too? I don't get the "well, they're not selling the footage so it can look wobbly and skewy". Why subject them to rolling shutter issues? Consumers are more likely to induce rolling shutter effects than pros because of how they handle the cameras. Panasonic already makes fine 3-CCD chip cameras in this price range, even cheaper ones... why then all of a sudden put chips in their cameras that will go jelly-up?

If Aunt Shirley spends $1,000 on a 3-chip CMOS camera, Shirley she'll care about her footage even if she doesn't intend to sell it? My question was about consistency in caring about customers, that's all.

It's just marketing and corporate politics and all that, as Barry said. At least that's the best answer I can think of.

[SPZ]

We may well end up with it in the broadcast division as well, but before that happens I hope that they can at least address the worst of the issues.

Hope that answers your question, Buck,

Jan

So, Jan, Panasonic Broadcast can go Cmos even though these issues are not addressed? Don't you have anything to say about this in the development process?

Is it THAT expensive to go for a 1/2 CCD 1280x720 chip or a 1440x1080, or a foveon HD approach vs going Cmos?

[David Saraceno]

This is an interesting discussion until we got to the whole consumer CMOS portion, at least to me.

Consumers have less discriminating tastes and usually a lower budget.

I think Jan has explained the reasoning. Panasonic is in the market to make money.

CMOS for $1k cameras is a money maker - otherwise Panasonic wouldn't offer it.

At least that's one view.

[Buck Forester]

This is an interesting discussion until we got to the whole consumer CMOS portion, at least to me.

Consumers have less discriminating tastes and usually a lower budget.

I guess everyone finds different interest in things. I just found it 'interesting' that Panny is putting CMOS in $1,200 cams and asked Jan about it since she's no fan of CMOS. This whole thread was pretty much "Panny is good and CMOS isn't" and then they are on track for CMOS themselves.


We saw some pretty bad stuff on that cam just panning the backyard when we had one.

It was a $150.00 restocking fee lesson.

And you make another 'interesting' point. At least to me anyway. You bought a CMOS camera that was HALF the price of this new Panny one and you disliked it so much you sent it back. Trust me, you must, if a 'consumer' is spending $1,200 on a 3-chip CMOS camera (over twice the going rate for what you had), yes, they will have less discriminating tastes but they won't be completely stupid. "Wow, look at grandma jiggle", "hey cool, the bridge is leaning at a 45 degree angle and the cars aren't even falling off, woo hoo!".


CMOS for $1k cameras is a money maker - otherwise Panasonic wouldn't offer it.

Bingo. It was just curious the discrepancies between Jan (works for Panny) lambasting CMOS chips whenever they are put into movement, and then seeing the same company (yes, different division) enthusiastically brag/promote/market about the amazing quality of their latest CMOS cameras. Seemed odd. That's all. No big deal. Case closed.