EX3 $8320 at B&H

[philip bloom]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/563219-REG/Sony_PMW_EX3_PMW_EX3_XDCAM_EX_HD_CAMCORDER.html

makes the UK price really suck!

[LuckyStudio 13]

Goodbye Canon XL H1.

[Elton]

Wait'll you price out the cost of a good 1/2" HD wide angle lens.

The EX3 looks like the H1, but look out for rolling shutter issues, particularly in 24p mode. They're real if you want to do anything handheld with quick movement.

[Kholi]

So the 13K price tag didnt stick? That's an insane price... it's barely that much more than an EX-1....

Misprint?

[Dan Clark]

I'd love one of those puppies. I wonder is that price includes a lens? (Yes it shows a lens, but...)

Dan.

[Steve Shovlar]

Yes it definately comes with a lens. If there is that much difference in price between the USA and UK I will hop on a cheap flight to NY in the autumn.

[philip bloom]

you should take orders steve...and a big suitcase

[Lenilenapi]

I'm sure the prices outside US will equalise.

[philip bloom]

doubt it. they didnt with the ex1

[utako.o]

please o pretty please let this not be a typographical error that gets corrected when the store reopens on the 11th.

[Lenilenapi]

No kidding how much more was it in the UK? and why?

[ddp]

please o pretty please let this not be a typographical error that gets corrected when the store reopens on the 11th.

OT:

Has anyone else noticed that B & H seems to be closed for some kind of holiday just about every month?
What's up with that........

[utako.o]

last month was Passover, this month is a more obscure holiday

http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday0.htm

[Lenilenapi]

Us Jews are party animals and those guys at B&H take every one seriously.
No working on a holiday. Its got something to be said for it.

Doesn't seem to hurt business.

Lenny Levy

[nsoltz]

The festival is Shavuot, and those of us who are somewhat less observant than the Chassidic group who own B&H will surf the web on the festival.

But learning that the street price of the EX3 will be under $8400 is the best (and perhaps only) Shavuot present I have received.

At one point the B&H guys would accept web orders on the Sabbath or festivals. They now follow a more stringent position which forbids even passive sales. I doubt, however, they refuse to accept interest and dividends which accrue on holy days!

Yes... let's hope that this is not a typo.

[Lenilenapi]

= I doubt, however, they refuse to accept interest and dividends which accrue on holy days!

If you weren't apparently from the tribe i think this could look objectionable, but i'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

Hey who could blame a god that pays you on your day off. But perhaps this thread is going afield.

Lenny

[ddp]

[QUOTE=nsoltz;1300654]........ I doubt, however, they refuse to accept interest and dividends which accrue on holy days!
/QUOTE]

And I doubt atheist refuse holiday pay for Christmas......:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

[SPZ]

If this sticks, this is a great cam at the right price.

I'm certainly taking a second look at this camera.

[Kholi]

I'm with you, SPZ. u_u; Sadly. The removable lens option and that it COMES with a lens at this price makes me pretty much succumb to the second camera theory.

This + B4 + Ultimate ... sigh. AND my birthday is in July... how sad for my wallet.

[Mattykins]

Well that saves a significant amount of money than going for the HPX500. Especially since this has Native 24P recording.

Hmm...(looks at bank statement...frowns)

[jls4]

Now if we can only convince the Letus Guys to go lower with the price on the new Ultimate. Let's see Sony says $13,000 but retails for $8,400 - 64% of the original price tag. So that would mean the Ultimate says $4500 but could we get it for $2900?

Think you can work some magic Phillip?

[ben1000]

Howdy...

If anyone is selling their EX1 to get an EX3, please drop me a line and let me know. I'm looking for one...

Best,

Ben

[alexberman]

Same thing here. If anyone is looking to sell their EX1 to go towards a EX3, please pm me.

[LuckyStudio 13]

Confirmed Ex3 MSRP $9999. Street price $8320.
comes with 1x free 8 gig SXS card. NO free 8 gig SXS card rebate though. Available end of July.

[Guest_717]

u_u; Dang. Panasonic is gettin' ripped.

[Steve Shovlar]

Fantastic price for what will be an ass kicking camera. I will defnately be getting one, and all I need to do now is find out how much they will be in the UK.

If there is that much of a difference, NY here I come. £400 for 3 nights inc flights and decent hotel. The saving will make it well worth it.

So what will be Panasonics response? I don't think they will have one, certainly not immediately. Which is a shame as if there is tough competition we all win. Think at the moent its game, set and match to Sony.

[DavidChia]

Confirmed Ex3 MSRP $9999. Street price $8320.
comes with 1x free 8 gig SXS card. NO free 8 gig SXS card rebate though. Available end of July.


Hoo Hoo Hoo, :Drogar-Happy(DBG):

Looks like it might be a Christmas trip for me again this December...

[LuckyStudio 13]

by the way, i got confirmation from an official SOny Dealer and not from B&H. So yes, the price is indeed $8320 which include:

the cam body
the lens
1x 8 gig SxS card.

1/2" Full HD Cam mini shoulder mount cam
TC/IN/OUT
Interchangeable Lens
high res LCD
Flippable image for you with a non flip 35mm adapter
external HD option

Not to mention with the size and the weight of this camera (compared to say the hpx500), you dont have to spend $$$$$$$ for new tripod, $$$$ pro batt & charger, a more expensive Steadicam with higher capacity weight or paying major $$$$ for underwater housing. You get all the luxury of a pro 2/3" cam without all the hassle and 2/3" price. Save the money for the 2/3" Scarlet instead.

[ecking]

Is the ex1 price gonna drop then because this makes the 3 less than two grand more.

[SPZ]

2 things I can see Panasonic doing:

1- Bundle the HPX500 with an HD lens for 11 000 USD, or Developing a Leica Dicomar for the HPX500 bringing it to 10 000 USD.

2- Bring Down the HPX500 body with rebates to 6000 USD.

This would be a fantastic deal, and great for us end users. As of now, being my next camera purchase next November (decided to keep original HVX200 for the moment), my decision is leaning towards an EX3.

[puredrifting]

Yeah, Abel has them for a similar price, the price is legit. I wonder if Sony scanned the boards and saw all of us laughing at an EX-3 for $13k list. Nobody would have bought or at least very few. For $8k, that seem like decent value.

Why can't Sony put a global shutter on the EX-3? That would make it basically pretty close to the perfect camera. But with the rolling shutter artifacting, I'll have to take a pass. Company I am shooting a lot for has two EX-1s and I can use them daily. EX-3 looks nice but not for my style.

I wish buying an HPX 500 didn't add up to so much, it really is amazing how an $8,000.00 body will end up costing you $30k out of pocket.

Dan

[Mattykins]

SPZ, I don't think either one of those options would be economically viable. Perhaps the second one would make more sense.

I would love for that to happen, odds are it won't. Interesting how the market works though.

The HPX500 I was very interested in. Until I realized it would kill me before I had it running. And for that money I would buy something else.

I've never had a problem with the CMOS chip, even with my HV20.

[alexdias]

I really can't understand how people do not have issues with the rolling shutter.
I read amazing things about the EX-1, the first 2 times I used it was on a tripod and I felt in love. Awesome LCD, sharp images and very sensitive. Hand down better than the HVX.
Next time I shot handheld and it was a disaster.
I'm quite stable and conservative with my moves. 25% of the footage was unusable.
The EX-3 is the perfect camera, if you always use it on a tripod.

[LuckyStudio 13]

I really can't understand how people do not have issues with the rolling shutter.

The EX-3 is the perfect camera, if you always use it on a tripod.

I dont know bro, maybe you can email Doug Liman, Steven Soderbergh, Peter Jackson & Tony Richmond and ask them how they can live with a rolling shutter digital camera.

Unless you are doing a 'Blair witch revival", You can also mount the camera on a steadicam.

The rolling shutter thing is way overblown on "internet forums". If you shoot exclusively a lot of events and music videos, then CCD cameras are more suitable for your needs. I have yet had a shoot on a "controlled environment" that deemed a rolling shutter camera useless.

Lets be sure of one thing, THERE ARE NO PERFECT CAMERA OUT THERE. IF SUCH ANIMAL EXISTS, EVERYBODY ALREADY HAVE 2 OF EM.

Learn your camera, knows its weaknesses and take advantage of its pluses.

[Kholi]

2 things I can see Panasonic doing:

1- Bundle the HPX500 with an HD lens for 11 000 USD, or Developing a Leica Dicomar for the HPX500 bringing it to 10 000 USD.

2- Bring Down the HPX500 body with rebates to 6000 USD.

This would be a fantastic deal, and great for us end users. As of now, being my next camera purchase next November (decided to keep original HVX200 for the moment), my decision is leaning towards an EX3.

You and I wish. But that ain't gonna happen. Panasonic isn't as cut-throat as Canon and now Sony. They would be cutting into their "other markets" by making the HPX500 any cheaper than it is and right now it's pretty much "Hey this is a 2/3" vs 1/2" and DVCproHD ah ooh ah hey".

Dan's right, the HPX500 expensive is a hefty one.

[alexdias]

Lets be sure of one thing, THERE ARE NO PERFECT CAMERA OUT THERE. IF SUCH ANIMAL EXISTS, EVERYBODY ALREADY HAVE 2 OF EM.

Learn your camera, knows its weaknesses and take advantage of its pluses.

Agreed. I'm 100% with you on it.

I don't want to create more controversy. I was just very surprised how substantial and present this issue was. I'm talking about my own experience, if so what I have read before on the net was mostly good news.
And like I said my moves are anything but Blair Witch. Trust me on that.
Mainly, I was disappointed because I really liked the camera otherwise.

[alexdias]

You and I wish. But that ain't gonna happen. Panasonic isn't as cut-throat as Canon and now Sony. They would be cutting into their "other markets" by making the HPX500 any cheaper than it is and right now it's pretty much "Hey this is a 2/3" vs 1/2" and DVCproHD ah ooh ah hey".

Dan's right, the HPX500 expensive is a hefty one.

I'm looking forward to learn the prices of the new series of low cost 2/3" lenses form Canon and Fuji.
Even then we're talking about some 25K + for a full package.

[jls4]

I really can't understand how people do not have issues with the rolling shutter.
I read amazing things about the EX-1, the first 2 times I used it was on a tripod and I felt in love. Awesome LCD, sharp images and very sensitive. Hand down better than the HVX.
Next time I shot handheld and it was a disaster.
I'm quite stable and conservative with my moves. 25% of the footage was unusable.
The EX-3 is the perfect camera, if you always use it on a tripod.

What I decided to do was to have 2 different cameras going forward. This is what I think everyone's talking about - there is no perfect camera. Get an EX1 or EX3 for dollys, stead shots, close ups, and anything that doesn't involve lots of movement and strobing. Then buy a used XL-H1 or HVX200 for quick pans, movement shots, strobing shots, etc. I think it can work well because with all of that movement you won't be able to see a loss in resolution.

I shot my last movie with the Sony V1U which is a CMOS sensor that delivers to tape. I also shot a wedding with it as well and every time the flash of the photographer went off the was the rolling artifact was visable. When we shot the movie, we never had a problem.

Great thing is that once you get your package together, you can use the monitors, letus35, etc on both cameras. And if you only need the second for every blue moon typs of use, then you should be able to get through most applications. - But I'm basically a movie person. I only do video to support the movie stuff I do.

[Sumfun]

Why can't Sony put a global shutter on the EX-3? That would make it basically pretty close to the perfect camera.


I would add 4:2:2 video 4 channels of audio on the new 50Mbps codec to my wish list.

[samsara]

and the winner is:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=888969#post888969

[samsara]

ex3 + nanoflash + relay+35mm adapter = pretty close to the perfect camera or maybe to much Frankestein to be perfect !

[Kholi]

nanoFlash indeed. I also agree with the second cam theory but its such a hassle. We are all blessed and cursed as shooters.

[mcgeedigital]

2 things I can see Panasonic doing:

1- Bundle the HPX500 with an HD lens for 11 000 USD, or Developing a Leica Dicomar for the HPX500 bringing it to 10 000 USD.

2- Bring Down the HPX500 body with rebates to 6000 USD.

This would be a fantastic deal, and great for us end users. As of now, being my next camera purchase next November (decided to keep original HVX200 for the moment), my decision is leaning towards an EX3.

The existing rebate bought the HPX down to $7999. You're NOT going to see it much lower than that for some time. It was a screaming deal and is why I jumped on it. Found a nice HD Angenieux wide angle lens on ebay and I'm off to the races for under $17k.

[Andrew McMillan]

Okay so wait

Body 8k
Batteries 1k (after shopping around)
3 32 g cards 3k, 4k ?
RR mattebox filters 1K
Panny monitor 3k
Lens 3-5k tops. Low end hd or nice used sd.

If you wiggle and sqirm you can get something nice under 20.

[Andrew McMillan]

Oh then later on

LeX 1k
relay 4.5k
zeiss nikon lenses 4k

Still not bad.

[puredrifting]

Don't forget $5k to $8k for a tripod worthy of this beauty, the HPX. That's what knocks me out of the HPX-500 race, I come in around $25k to $28k. Too much for the ever shrinking budgets I get.

Dan

[mcgeedigital]

Okay so wait

Body 8k
Batteries 1k (after shopping around)
3 32 g cards 3k, 4k ?
RR mattebox filters 1K
Panny monitor 3k
Lens 3-5k tops. Low end hd or nice used sd.

If you wiggle and sqirm you can get something nice under 20.

Already had the other stuff from other cameras. No squirming required.

[Grug]

The EX3 isn't really on the same level as the HPX-500 with a decent lens, but then considering the price differential that's not really surprising.

It has to be said though, if you can kit up an EX3 with something like Mike Schell's FlashXDR/nanoFLASH and a good 35mm adapter for a reasonable price you'll have one VERY nice little motion-picture camera on your hands (though it would require additional investment in 35mm lenses).

[SPZ]

Sounds good, very good.

Will there be a Panasonic answer? Its a shame that Panasonic will likely be reactive, and not Proactive towards this. Which means only if the EX3 sells well will they attempt going to similar territory.

So no HPX500 price drop or an interchangeable lens HPX170 or a new model. Its all about business and market share, after all...

I would like to see more agressive SxS products from Sony.

Off topic question: Whats the weight of the Sony Ex3? lighter or heavier than an XL-1?

[DCSensui]

I really can't understand how people do not have issues with the rolling shutter.
I read amazing things about the EX-1, the first 2 times I used it was on a tripod and I felt in love. Awesome LCD, sharp images and very sensitive. Hand down better than the HVX.
Next time I shot handheld and it was a disaster.
I'm quite stable and conservative with my moves. 25% of the footage was unusable.
The EX-3 is the perfect camera, if you always use it on a tripod.

I shoot almost all of our fishing show handheld and I just got a call today from a large international distributor who said it was going into their catalog. Hopefully some network will pick it up.

If the EX1 had a serious problem with a rolling shutter, I wouldn't have gotten comments like "fantastic and beautiful scenery". Especially since 2/3 of the show was shot handheld on boats.

My shutter speeds are set between 1/40 and 1/60. Nothing out of the ordinary. I do use a shoulder mount to help stabilize the camera so that might be part of the trick.

However I did notice that if I tried to slow down a shot in After Effects and used Pixel Motion interpolation I'd end up with odd distortions. Otherwise, nothing but good-looking footage that color corrected and graded nicely n Apple's Color application.

[Andrew McMillan]

who knows you could skimp out and get a 1.5k bogen.

On a another forum we played with the Idea of an HPX 300 1/2 P2 camera. kida of like folllowing the sony dsr series.

I wish people would stop talking about good glass on the 500 though. If your even considering the 500 your not going to have the cash for some good glass.

Pure drifting, maybe you need squirm a little more, eh?
I guess we all have to keep looking for Hunter's magic SD ebay lens right?

[Grug]

I wish people would stop talking about good glass on the 500 though. If your even considering the 500 your not going to have the cash for some good glass.

Huh? The 17x Fujinon that's being packaged with most HPX-500's is a terrific piece of glass, it doesn't cost the world and the results from it speak for themselves.

Again, the HPX-500 isn't in the same price-class as the Sony 1/2" cameras - so obviously if your budget stretches to an EX1 or an EX3 in a pinch you're never going to be able to consider the 500 in the first place.

[Mattykins]

The rolling shutter thing was blown was out of proportion in forums. I've never ever had a problem working with CMOS chips.

As for Panasonic being reactive. It's the nature of the industry. They will come out with something new soon. Just as Sony came out with something nice. Sony does have the CineAlta line on their side. (which always impresses me).

But, everyone comes out with newer and better cameras every other day it seems. Only a matter of time before Panasonic does the same.

[puredrifting]

The rolling shutter thing was blown was out of proportion in forums. I've never ever had a problem working with CMOS chips.

Depends on what you are shooting. I shot a baseball game and most of the base steals and tracking with runners coming in to home were unusable. I shot 60fps stuff and it was horrible. Not a little skewing, a lot, like the shot was made through Jello, hence the new name for the footage ©JelloVision. Go and shoot car racing with it. Unusable. Basically anything with high speed continuous panning is going to look weird.

I have nothing agianst the EX-1, I am shooting four projects with it as we speak. It makes really nice images, amazing lens and lcd, it's a nice machine. But for high speed action, it is a bad choice. For skateboarding, skiing, motor sports, tennis, baseball, football, most high speed action sports, it is going to disappoint you. The effect isn't subtle, numerous people have seen the footage and not knowing anything about it, have asked me how I made it look "all bent".

As far as Dean's fishing, totally makese sense, shooting a fishing show would not involved high speed continuous pans. Same with shooting jet skis, if you were tracking them in a boat. The effect comes out when the camera itself is being whipped around, not the subject as much. Subtle skewing wouldn't be a big deal but the bending of the picture about 40 degrees does make it a big limitation.

Dan

[Sumfun]

Dan, could you please post some footage of the Jellovision? I'm thinking about getting the EX1, but some of my work does involve action shots.

[Buck Forester]

Depends on what you are shooting. I shot a baseball game and most of the base steals and tracking with runners coming in to home were unusable. I shot 60fps stuff and it was horrible.


I've seen in other forums where people have made this claim about the EX1, but each time it was then shown the user was not shooting properly (shutter, format, etc.) because others say they use it frequently for fast action with excellent results. I have seen race car footage, air show footage, etc., that looked sweet with the EX1, so these kinds of comments are always confusing. I think you really have to know the settings on this camera and what each setting is ideal more so than other cameras in this price range and lower. I've even seen stunning night time fireworks footage with the EX1 with zippo rolling shutter effect.

I'm not saying this as an EX1 defender because I'm not loyal to any single brand... yet, ha! But you have to ask yourself why some people get amazing footage with the EX1, even fast action stuff, while others say it's crap for fast action. I have to conclude it's 'knowledge' of the camera and 'how' to shoot it in each circumstance. No offense to those making the claims it sucks in certain circumstances (although I'm sure it would be bad for constant bright flash situations that fill the frame), but otherwise properly shot I think this camera will do you good if you learn it, inside and out.

[cpaek72]

Thanks to this post, I just got an RMA from b&h to exchange my ex1 for the ex3. By the way guys, check out http://vimeo.com/1135874 for some footage I shot this weekend. Mind you this was my first time out with this camera, but I'm pretty happy with the results.

They are both spec commercials that need to get edited down, but you can view the long version online now.

[Andrew McMillan]

How much is the fuji 17x by it self.

[Buck Forester]

Hey cpaek72, did you add the vignetting in post? There's a lot of it on that footage. I just was wondering if that's an effect you were after and added it, or if it just came out that way. You have some nice footage by the way.

[cpaek72]

Hey, I went a little overboard in post. First time using magic bullet, so I'll be updating that spec spot soon with a 60. Thx.

[Buck Forester]

"Overboard" is subjective. Some people really like the vignette look, or the soft edges, etc. I see it a lot especially when people shoot with the 35mm adapters. It's all a matter of taste (I'm not a fan of it myself but that's just me). I like tack sharp edge-to-edge, but then again I'm not shooting cinematic 'emotional' footage, I'm shooting more wilderness adventure, documentary, focusing on the beauty of the wilds so I need to go wide and deep most of the time. I was just concerned because, as you know, some of the earlier EX1 versions had a vignetting issue and yours was showing a lot of it... but if you did it in post, that's cool. I had to return my first EX1 due to a broken eye cup that shipped DOA, my new one should be here any day and the serial number on it is in the 6000+ range so I'm excited to get a fresh cam. Hopefully I'll have some footage up and running before too long.

[Dan Clark]

Depends on what you are shooting. I shot a baseball game and most of the base steals and tracking with runners coming in to home were unusable. I shot 60fps stuff and it was horrible. Not a little skewing, a lot, like the shot was made through Jello, hence the new name for the footage ©JelloVision. Go and shoot car racing with it. Unusable. Basically anything with high speed continuous panning is going to look weird.
...
Dan

Dan,

I've read about this issue, but I haven't seen any footage. I'd like to see what it looks like. Can you post a clip on Vimeo with camera settings?

Thanks,

Dan.

[editorforhire]

You could rent some lenses and find out which one suits your needs best. It might be difficult in a small market, but you can have the lens shipped from NYC, Chicago, LA or some other large market. Buy the HPX500 camera body, rent the lens that best suits the project.

[mcgeedigital]

Dan,

I've read about this issue, but I haven't seen any footage. I'd like to see what it looks like. Can you post a clip on Vimeo with camera settings?

Thanks,

Dan.

Not Dan, but this is what it looks like:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w305/mcgeedigital/xdcam-flash_test1.jpg

[mcgeedigital]

I shot a BUNCH of footage of welding for a client with the HVX/HPX. ALL of it would have looked like that.

[Buck Forester]

If I'm not mistaken, Dan wasn't asking about the rolling shutter effect from flashes, but 'motion' effects.

Regarding lots of frame-filling flashing lights and CMOS, no doubt about that issue. But at the same time, and for me what I consider a worse problem for what I'll be shooting, is that streaming vertical smear line you get from lights at night on CCD based chips. Like shooting a guy with a headlamp, or even a streetlight... you get that obnoxious line that shoots vertically across the frame. That would be much more of a problem for what I'll be shooting than lots and lots of footage of frame-filling flash causing rolling shutter problems.

[Grug]

How much is the fuji 17x by it self.

About $6,600 USD (though it's almost $9,800 AUD - but then Australians always get jibbed on these things). With the CAC correction it has the lens performs really well for the money, breathes a little, but again at this price point it's to be expected.

[mcgeedigital]

http://ieba.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fans.jpg
http://www.appliedcolorscience.com/golfswing03_ec02_8280_f1_4U221.jpg

[Huy Vu]

Different cameras have different degree of wobbling, those looks like extreme cases. The RED for example is a CMOS design, but you don't hear too many people complaining about that.

[weixiang623]

matt g, what is making you stick with the ex1 if you are experiencing all these problems? would you go 170 instead of ex1(3)

[Noel Evans]

what I consider a worse problem for what I'll be shooting, is that streaming vertical smear line you get from lights at night on CCD based chips. Like shooting a guy with a headlamp, or even a streetlight... you get that obnoxious line that shoots vertically across the frame. That would be much more of a problem for what I'll be shooting than lots and lots of footage of frame-filling flash causing rolling shutter problems.

HPX is very good in this regard.

Thats a 1k HMI at about 8 feet away. Sorry about the image size

http://www.scarlet-films.com/HPX/HMI.jpg

[LuckyStudio 13]

judging a motion video camera with frame grabs is like judging a SLR still camera with its "movie mode".

[Barry_Green]

HPX is very good in this regard.

Thats a 1k HMI at about 8 feet away. Sorry about the image size
The 500 is one of the best for smear resistance, because the larger the pixels, the less smear you'll get. There's always a tradeoff;e, but bigger picels = more smear resistance. 2.2mpix may make a sharper imag.

[Sumfun]

Different cameras have different degree of wobbling, those looks like extreme cases. The RED for example is a CMOS design, but you don't hear too many people complaining about that.

Red has the same rolling shutter problems that the EX1 has. Red scans the sensor a little faster to help reduce the effects, but they are still there. I think one reason you don't see as many complaints is that the Red camera is used in more controlled situations (as in a movie or commercial), so you don't have fast pans or strobe lights.

There are many discussions over at Reduser.net. Here's a thread from this site illustrating the rolling shutter artifacts on a Red camera (go to post #35). Judge for yourself.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=118686&highlight=rolling+shutter&page=4

[Otis Grapsas]

Pixel size is important, but technology is a lot more important. Kodak CCD get inferior smear to the best Sony CCD sensors, even though the pixel is larger. There is a spec for smear in sensor datasheets. -120dB or -98dB or whatever.

I think smear is only a problem if it is too easy to get it. If street lights or candles make it appear. If it only appears with sun or direct car headlights, it's not a big deal.

I think all tv productions that need cameras on planes, helicopters, race cars, extreme sports rigs etc use CCD because rolling shutter is not acceptable in these shots. On the other hand, a smooth crane shot or a slow tripod pan is ok with CMOS, so it can work fine in drama. But you don't want to run with rolling shutter on your shoulder. Very active camera work, or unstable camera work that wants to look like an amateur clip is not a good idea.

[Otis Grapsas]

Two of my favourites on camera mounting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWOT81XVeJw

How it shows with little camera motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azG8YKSBQgI

It's not ideal for my next cinema verite car chase flic:)

[Justyn]

You do read about workflow issues with the Red and issues doing motion tracking as I've seen on some forums. I think you'd get the same if you were doing motion tracking on the EX. As stated, somethings are better for others. I have a friend shooting interviews and corporate vids and the EX is perfect for him.. but when he had to shoot the Lexus 24 hour race, it was all global shutter cams.

[LuckyStudio 13]

I think all tv productions that need cameras on planes, helicopters, race cars, extreme sports rigs etc use CCD because rolling shutter is not acceptable in these shots.

Pretty funny you would say that, since the Sony promo video shot on airplanes pulling 6G with the EX1 was as perfect as any footage shot with any CCD global shutter cams.

[Otis Grapsas]

Pretty funny you would say that, since the Sony promo video shot on airplanes pulling 6G with the EX1 was as perfect as any footage shot with any CCD global shutter cams.

I would expect a promo to look fine. Smooth acceleration is not important at all in this. It does not come and go in fractions of a second like it happens when hard mounting on a car with stiff suspension, a small airplane or a bike. Rolling shutter has practically zero shock tolerance. It can't be fixed in post either.

[puredrifting]

Pretty funny you would say that, since the Sony promo video shot on airplanes pulling 6G with the EX1 was as perfect as any footage shot with any CCD global shutter cams.

Hi:

I have the Sony EX-1 demo DVD. All of the BG in the plane POV shots where they are demonstrating high G force stability have "the Earth" as a BG. You really can't see the skewing if the BG is an entire section of the planet from the air as much, you really only notice the skewing on vertical objects like buildings, fence posts or people standing in the frame as you pan past them.

Dan

[Otis Grapsas]

You mean this?

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcamexsite/resource.events.bbsccms-assets-micro-xdcam-events-xdcamvideogallery.shtml

This was shot mostly with ccd cameras although there is EX1 on the title. PDW-F350 and F355.

Do you have a link?

EDIT: Is it a fisheye shot? You do need ultra wide to hide the rolling shutter because the visibility depends on frame % change/motion from one frame to the next. Same as with stabilization issues.

""To capture some of the most dramatic footage, we attached a fisheye lens adaptor to the XDCAM-EX1 and mounted it inside the cramped cockpit of Patty Wagstaff's plane"

[LuckyStudio 13]

Dan,

Wouldnt we be able to see the inside of the cockpit to be "skewed" ? especially since the cam was mounted behind the lady's seat.

[Otis Grapsas]

You will only see skew if there is relative motion between the camera and the object. The inside of the cockpit is exactly at the same position of the frame at all times and the camera mounting is obvioulsly pretty good (no shocks). The wide angle, the rotating motion and the extreme distortion hides the rolling shutter artifacts on everything else (things that actually change from frame to frame).

[Noel Evans]

judging a motion video camera with frame grabs is like judging a SLR still camera with its "movie mode".

In this case Buck had made reference to vertical smear and I wanted to show an example of a shot with HPX shooting into a HMI. You dont need a video reference for an example of this. I was merely trying to be of assistance.

[FrankC]

I still have to go back to what Buck said...I see a lot of operator error when using this camera. The EX1 takes some learning. The many menus and their tree's can be daunting until you can use them as second nature and be able to problem solve quickly by virtue of shear experience with the camera.

[LuckyStudio 13]

In this case Buck had made reference to vertical smear and I wanted to show an example of a shot with HPX shooting into a HMI. You dont need a video reference for an example of this. I was merely trying to be of assistance.

i am talking about the golf swing and the table fan example. Its ridiculous, especially the one with the table fan. The rotors are moving so fast that there is not a chance anyone can see the skew on video.

[Noel Evans]

AH ic what you mean. And Id tend to agree that in those two samples in motion it wouldnt bother me.

[Barry_Green]

Have you seen the fan in video? It's bizarre, it totally turns the blades to rubber and morphs 'em all over the place. The guys who posted that article posted a video clip on DVInfo way back when, and if you'd seen the video you certainly would be complaining about it.

[puredrifting]

Waiting for Vimeo to finish loading a shot that shows the ©JelloVision effect. Will put up the link as soon as its finished. The link says that because Vimeo has high demand, it will take 160 minutes to process the video.

Dan

[Buck Forester]

Have you seen the fan in video? It's bizarre, it totally turns the blades to rubber and morphs 'em all over the place. The guys who posted that article posted a video clip on DVInfo way back when, and if you'd seen the video you certainly would be complaining about it.


I honestly don't mean to be defending the EX1, but I think anyone can find a bad aspect based on certain settings on pretty much any camera and post it in a forum and make people go, "EwwWWww, if that's what the camera shoots like, no way jose am I touching it". That's my whole point. I've seen very bad and very good footage of all kinds of cameras now in these various forums. I think it's more the knowledge of the shooter than the actual camera. I've seen very bad footage and complaints about the EX1, and then I get worried because that's the camera I was looking at, and then someone jumps in and says, "well, of course, at that setting, you'll get that effect, check out this footage", etc. When the pros jump in with the right camera settings, it pretty much diffuses the argument. So many times I've seen people complain (and rightfully so from their perspective) that the EX1 doesn't do certain types of motion well, and it's then asked what their settings were and they go, "duh, that's why". This camera has lots of options for shooting various kinds of footage. It's not perfect, but it's sweet.

Before I bought my EX1 (the replacement just arrived today, woo hoo!) in my ignorance my heart would sink each time someone said something bad about the camera because it was the camera I finally wanted, through lots of research, and it would get me wondering "maybe I should go with such and such instead" or "maybe I'll wait for the next big industry electronics show to see what's gonna be announced", etc. Then a real pro would come on and say, "well of course it'll look like that at the settings you're using". And I've seen some amazing footage, properly shot, of the same stuff that others say it doesn't do well. Same with the HVX200... people would rave about it and others would say it looks really bad. I've come to the conclusion it's more about the user than the camera itself. If every time you shot a moving fan, or a golfer swinging a club, and it looked like those images in the posted stills, nobody would ever buy this trashy piece of crap camera. Instead, the camera is being gobbled up by professional videographers all over the world successfully shooting this kind of footage day in and day out. If you reeeally know how to use the camera, know it's strengths and weaknesses and use the settings to maximize the conditions (which admittedly I don't yet... haven't even fired mine up), you'll have few worries. That said, I understand the frustration of people experiencing this as they work with the camera and learn it and I'm glad they're posting this stuff in forums because it's a learning experience for me too. Gracias. I'll sit down now.

[puredrifting]

Hi all:

Here is some ©JelloVision for you http://www.vimeo.com/1167949

Sony EX-1
720 24P shot at 60 fps
180 degree shutter
XDCAM EX 35Mbps

I don't think that this effect can be mitigated with settings or higher shutter speed, I also tried some shots with 1/250 with the same result, it just strobes more instead of smearing but the same effect is visible. If I held the camera steady and the runners ran through the shot, it looked fine. Obviously on swinging the bat, the bat looked like rubber as well.

I first noticed it when panning from third to home. Then I thought it was sort of bizarre looking. It is visible even on slightly slower pans but not as much. I can't think of a way to shoot many sports where there is rapid camera panning and not get this effect.

Enjoy!

Dan

[Buck Forester]

Okay, not to sound critical or anything, but... WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? ha! <---keeding You are panning that camera like a madman. Why would anyone pan so fast with absolutely no subject to follow? I'm a 'still' photographer and if I panned my still camera like that, with no subject, at that speed, I'd get meaningless blur. Can you think of any situation where you'd subject someone, even your ex-girlfriend who cheated on you, to watch footage like that? :Þ The footage you just showed does not concern me at all because there's no practical situation where that would be the case.

I just went to Vimeo and perused a couple 'motion' shooting scenes that do not exhibit what you're showing. Here's the link: http://www.vimeo.com/ex1/page:12 The first and third videos (biking and auto racing) have some pans thrown in here and there and I am not seeing your jello effect.

And here's another from Vimeo, 2nd one down - train footage, which is technically not 'panning' but is very fast motion with no jello effect http://www.vimeo.com/ex1/page:9

I know from my still photography if you're tracking a high speed subject (let's say a sprinting cheetah) the background goes blurry while the subject is sharp, which is where the eye focuses. If you took out the cheetah, you'd just have a crappy shot, period, unless, of course, you got a blurry shot of Bigfoot in the background.

I do appreciate you taking the time to post the footage.

[LuckyStudio 13]

This was taken with the rolling shutter hv20 camera. IMHO, this should be about as 'shaky and as fast of a pan' that is appropriate for *my* needs. If you freeze a frame, I am sure something will be skewed (the trees on the background maybe), however as an entire motion pic clip, it is surely acceptable in my book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8n5Qp5RuoA

and of course, on the internet you will get plenty of examples like this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qC0_nIUq9s

The camera was probably left on the body of the golf cart itself when that footage was taken. Now think, even with CCD cameras or any global shutter cameras, would you have subject the camera to any vibration when you are filming ??

Just like everything else on the Internet, pause for a few and think of what you are reading or what they want you to believe. But no, if you do event filming or shoots involving strobes and flashes, stay away from Rolling Shutter cameras, everything else under normal circumstances and PRACTICAL shooting condition, I am fortunate to have not had a condition where a rolling shutter camera poses a problem and rendered the footage useless.

[puredrifting]

Okay, not to sound critical or anything, but... WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? ha! <---keeding You are panning that camera like a madman. Why would anyone pan so fast with absolutely no subject to follow? I'm a 'still' photographer and if I panned my still camera like that, with no subject, at that speed, I'd get meaningless blur. Can you think of any situation where you'd subject someone, even your ex-girlfriend who cheated on you, to watch footage like that? :Þ The footage you just showed does not concern me at all because there's no practical situation where that would be the case.

I just went to Vimeo and perused a couple 'motion' shooting scenes that do not exhibit what you're showing. Here's the link: http://www.vimeo.com/ex1/page:12 The first and third videos (biking and auto racing) have some pans thrown in here and there and I am not seeing your jello effect.

And here's another from Vimeo, 2nd one down - train footage, which is technically not 'panning' but is very fast motion with no jello effect http://www.vimeo.com/ex1/page:9

I know from my still photography if you're tracking a high speed subject (let's say a sprinting cheetah) the background goes blurry while the subject is sharp, which is where the eye focuses. If you took out the cheetah, you'd just have a crappy shot, period, unless, of course, you got a blurry shot of Bigfoot in the background.

I do appreciate you taking the time to post the footage.

Hi Buck:

I saw the effect on the first pan from third to home tracking a runner. When I noticed it, I did this panning back and forth on purpose to illustrate the effect.

No, I would not subject anyone to waving a camera back and forth as video, I purposely shot it illustrate the effect with people like those of you here and at work where they own this camera and asked me what I thought about it. The point wasn't to show good photography, the point was to show the skewing effect. The faster you pan, the more pronounced the effect, the slower the pan, the less pronounced but it is still there and still noticeable to anyone with an eye.

Also, you are confusing "meaningless blur" with skewing, they are two different things. You can rationalize how this defect wouldn't affect how you shoot all you want, that's fine but the point is that the camera does this and it does show up in various sports situations like Soccer, Baseball, motorsports, almost anything you would shoot with a long lens, fast panning and slow motion. If you take the panning I did and insert a runner or a ball, it doesn't change to alter what the EX-1 is doing to the BG.

Yes, I was not tracking runner in this shot, if it's that important to you, I can search the footage and find a shot where I was tracking a runner or I was also tracking the ball from the pitcher to the catcher. But that would be meaningless because the effect is identical. The effect also shows up with high speed shutter.

In my experience, the EX-1 is not a good camera for shooting high speed pans. You can, of course, not be concerned with it and shoot all of the fast pans you want with it, no problem. I am just expressing my opinion about it. I will check out the other clips you linked to later, have to run to an appointment.

Best,

Dan

[Buck Forester]

Hey puredrifting, no worries. I can guarantee you though that NO ONE can ran that fast, ha! If you watch professional sports and pro sports coverage, you will not see outrageous pans like that, it's just bad footage period. Even without any kind of rolling shutter effect, your footage you just posted was unpractical and unwatchable and not useable. I know you were doing it "for" the effect, but that's not real world. I could show you the effect of how bad the EX1 does underwater without any kind waterproof housing too, ha! (I hope you're having as much as me in this discussion!) :Þ

Secondly, why is this happening so much with you, but not others? Did you see any of the videos I linked? Fast moving cars, high speed trains looking out the window, etc., with no jello effect. I've seen lots of good sports coverage shot with this camera (admittedly not at unwatchable speeds like you showed) but very practical footage panning vehicles, bicyclists, birds in flight, etc. and this effect did not show. The only thing I can deduce from this is either a) you have a bad production model b) you're not using the proper settings. Unless you have some other magical reason why others can get sweet panning footage with the EX1 and you can't? I really don't know. I'm not saying the rolling shutter doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not a big issue if you're shooting correctly at all levels (camera settings and 'good' footage). The EX1 is a professional camera and is definitely best to be shot in a "professional" way.

Still, I'd like to see your comments on why other people can get good non-jello footage? What are they doing different, in your opinion?

[DREWjoseph82]

I found this video on youtube showing the "jello effect" as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii4g-PxRpuM

The reason it stood out to me is because of how little the camera is actually moving - which i would say is comparable to using the camera handheld.

As far as that footage you posted, Buck, Im not sure why they didnt show any problems but I remember hearing a podcast from the FreshDV guys and they nearly laughed at how bad footage was from a moving car.

The "jello effect" is obviously a drawback to the rolling shutter that this and other cams use and it clearly shows up in some situations. Its not simply a product of using the camera "unprofessionally."

[Kholi]

Dang that does look kinda scary. I guess it's just situations when you choose to use.

[Buck Forester]

Hi Drew! No doubt you can make jelly out of footage if you shake the crud out of it. If it was THAT bad, this camera wouldn't sell, period. Thousands of people are using, many in professional applications, without this effect. What are they doing right? From experience on all these various forums, I find 'bad' EX1 footage primarily from 1) people who rent the EX1 for a day or a coupla days 2) know someone who has one and shot it for a few hours. 3) fanboys of other brands that are quick to point out flaws of competing models. THAT is where you finding the vast majority of horrendous footage.

There is no way, even most pros, can really get to know a camera by borrowing one for a day and making such assumptions. Example, there is a guy named Richard who went to each different forum site (I know of 3 or 4) and said how unusable the EX1 footage was when it came to panning/motion. And he knows what he's doing, he's not a rookie. He was ready to send the camera back as 'crap'. Then it was pointed out to him he wasn't using the right setting on the shutter (this was after about 50 people jumped in and said, "ya, it's crap". Then a couple "real pros" with experience with the camera, matter of factly, asked him all his settings and finally he saw what he was doing wrong and now loves the camera.

Read this to see what I'm talking about http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/142/858676 It happens all the time. People panic and post something, only to have it shown they weren't shooting it correctly. As an informed buyer, I investigated ALL these things and found fantastic footage shot without the effects of those who have had troubles.

I could get a HVX and shoot a night scene with a headlamp and if one time the headlamp causes a vertical smear, and post it online as unuseable and call it crap, that doesn't define the camera. It goes both ways. I don't care about brands, Sony, Panny, JVC, I just want the best camera for what I'm doing. I don't like to see unfair/uninformed bashing because at first it had me in a yo-yo because I was trying to decide which camera to choose.

It didn't take me long to know the difference between "had it for a day..." shooters; fanboy comments; people with an agenda comments; and the real informed pros.

If the jello effect was even a FRACTION as bad as that YouTube video and Dan's video when shot properly using the right settings, this camera would not be the hottest thing going. Look all around you at footage being posted daily, with lots of motion... and then people point to a couple of absurdly shot jello footage and say, "see, this is how this camera shoots motion". It's simply not true because I've seen otherwise. I've seen wildlife footage, race car footage, sports footage, biking footage, skating footage, without showing jello effect. Good, professional footage. If you wobble the crap out of the camera handheld while panning at absurd rates while bungy jumping off a spiraling helicopter, sure. Ha! Or if you simply use the wrong settings. I think a lot of hobbyists are buying these cameras and finding it more complicated than their easier point-and-shoot and then getting upset that they aren't replicating footage they've seen others shoot.

I don't say this as an EX1 defender even though it sounds like it... I simply say it as people jump on this stuff when the see someone's crappy footage from a You Tube video (it happens with all cameras, not just the EX1), or someone renting the camera for a day and post footage, and they neglect the other 500 footage clips that are shot well that don't show the crap.

As far as that footage you posted, Buck, Im not sure why they didnt show any problems but I remember hearing a podcast from the FreshDV guys and they nearly laughed at how bad footage was from a moving car.

See, this is exactly what I mean. No offense, but if you're seeing good footage from the EX1 with fast motion, and you say, "I'm not sure why they didn't show any problems", and then you point to "problems" because someone else said it's bad under the same circumstances... doesn't that HONESTLY make you think? Like... maybe some people are skilled and some haven't figured out the camera? Or does every once in a while Sony make an EX1 that doesn't show the same effects? Ha! I guess I'm one that has seen it can be done when shot propertly, so I want to shoot at their level and get the same results, instead of going, "well, someone on You Tube showed some skewing so it must be crap". And so-and-so backed it up with some comments, so I'm gonna forget the good footage I saw and simply say, "I don't know how they shot it so well, but still, it's bad in that situation". Doesn't make sense to me.

The "jello effect" is obviously a drawback to the rolling shutter that this and other cams use and it clearly shows up in some situations. Its not simply a product of using the camera "unprofessionally."

I simply argue if you know the camera inside and out and shoot 'good' footage to begin with (I would not pay to watch Dan's extreme rapid panning or that You Tube test footage, which, by the way, doesn't look bad at the end with the different setting, but still, who'd be shaking a camera like that? C'mon! Not a paying client and not a broadcast tv show!) If your goal is to force rolling shutter, you will succeed. If your goal is to shoot professionally using the camera wisely, you will succeed. If your market/audience is a paying client, you wouldn't shoot that stuff anyway with ANY kind of camera - including ccd based chips, if your market/audience is showing forced skewing in a video forum, then hey.

[Dan Clark]

I found this video on youtube showing the "jello effect" as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii4g-PxRpuM

The reason it stood out to me is because of how little the camera is actually moving - which i would say is comparable to using the camera handheld.

As far as that footage you posted, Buck, Im not sure why they didnt show any problems but I remember hearing a podcast from the FreshDV guys and they nearly laughed at how bad footage was from a moving car.

The "jello effect" is obviously a drawback to the rolling shutter that this and other cams use and it clearly shows up in some situations. Its not simply a product of using the camera "unprofessionally."

Just curious... Is this completely related to rolling shutter? Or is it partially related to "abusing" an optical image stabilizer. I.e., if you turned off the optical image stabilizer, would you get this result?

Regards,

Dan.

[DREWjoseph82]

I understand what you mean, but your argument of "oh it doesnt do that if you know the camera and how to use it" really isnt an excuse. The simple fact of the matter is that this is an issue for the rolling shutter cameras. You seem to act like the problem does not even exist, when it obviously does.

Just because you wouldnt shoot footage in that manner for a paying client does not at all mean that a situation where the rolling shutter could affect someone else would not present itself.

I am fully aware that the EX1 and EX3 are great high quality cameras and produce excellent images, especially when used in a professional manner. Hell I would use one in a second. But you just cant continue to defend them with the argument "well no one would shoot that way" because you never know...someone might need to.

And just to clarify, I am not here to "EX3 bash." I am in fact a potential buyer of one. But I understand that certain cameras have certain shortcomings, this being one of them.

-Drew

[Buck Forester]

I understand what you mean, but your argument of "oh it doesnt do that if you know the camera and how to use it" really isnt an excuse.


And Drew, I understand what you mean too, but with all due respect, you simply saying "As far as that footage you posted, Buck, I'm not sure why they didnt show any problems but I remember hearing... (insert something bad)" isn't an excuse either, is it? Aren't you the least bit curious why some people can shoot fast motion well with the EX1, while others turn it into jelly? There has got to be a reason. My exhaustive research watching EX1 footage shows the jello effect is more a user problem than a CMOS problem, otherwise we wouldn't see good motion footage with the EX1 at all. I'm not in denial that skew 'can' be a problem with CMOS chips, but it's not an effective problem when shot well at the right settings (unless you provoke it with absurd footage/wrong settings). That's all I'm saying.

Just one question for you... in your honest opinion, why are many people able to shoot good motion footage with the EX1, and others (which are always high profile shown in forums) unable to do so?

[Mattykins]

I kinda have to agree with Buck. I've had the HV20 since it first came out. Praised in the beginning until the rolling shutter became an issue. I along with everyone else began to panic. But I've never been able to recreate the issue at hand.

Every camera has some type of issue. There is not a perfect camera. No camera is without issue. They are kinda like people. :p

But honestly, I don't think personally the issue is that great of one. If you are looking for a near perfect camera front the money to buy an F23. 2/3 CCD camera. Tack a digiprime on it, and you have one hell of an image. But that will cost you nearly half a mil to get running with a full set of digiprimes and zooms.

This is a sub 10k camera. It's not going to be perfect. You get what you pay for. And really, the rolling shutter is hardly on my list for reasons to not use a camera in a cinematic setting. If that were the case, no one would use a RED either.

[DREWjoseph82]

Of course I am curious. And from what I have seen the "jelly-ing" occurs when the camera is moved/panned quickly with lots of straight vertical lines in the frame - not so much when the subjects in frame are moving while the camera is stationary/pans slowly.

The two videos you posted, the BMX and Nascar one, do not have incredibly quick pans with many vertical lines in the same shot. That may be a reason why you are not seeing it. I cant comment on the exact reasons because I just dont know for sure.

But the reason people are so quick to point out problems with technology is because everyone knows what the camera can do, its what its limits are that is what people really need/want to know.

This is a sub 10k camera. It's not going to be perfect. You get what you pay for. And really, the rolling shutter is hardly on my list for reasons to not use a camera in a cinematic setting. If that were the case, no one would use a RED either.
The camera is not only intended for use as a cinematic camera, however. For someone like me, who likes to shoot sports, this is a potential downfall.

If there is some end all way around the problem, please tell me, I would be grateful to know. But again, "not shooting like that" is not an end-all solution.

-Drew

[Mattykins]

Well Drew, I understand the camera isn't only for cinematic settings.

I've used the HV20 in concerts as a B-Cam, which involved whip pans to lock in on an interesting shot. I've shot paintball events with it. When players are running at full speed and I am tracking them with the camera. And whip panning when someone makes a move. I've shot amateur BMX. I've shot skateboarding. Shot skiing. And I think that might be all I've shot with it sports wise and events wise. And I have never ever had that issue with the camera. Like I said above and in a different thread. I cannot recreate the issue if my life depended on it. I've never had an issue. Never noticed it. Sold my DVDs, they never noticed it. Motion tracked with it. Composited with it. Never had an issue.

Thats an HV20, stock, CMOS chip. So I have no idea what to tell you. I mean if it is such a big deal with the potential for issue...buy a different camera. An XL2, DVX, HVX, all camera without the CMOS chip.

[DREWjoseph82]

To be honest it is not really that huge of an issue for me. I just got drawn into the debate because of Buck's "well just dont shoot like that" response. I have no issues with the camera, I only wanted to make a point - which is that the skewing is not just some user error, but just something inherent to the CMOS chips that shows up in certain situations - much like the vertical smear of CCDs. You may not have witnessed it, but it still happens.

Much like in this image posted before.

http://ieba.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fans.jpg

Anyways, sorry if I got anyone riled up.

-Drew

[Buck Forester]

The two videos you posted, the BMX and Nascar one, do not have incredibly quick pans with many vertical lines in the same shot.


A couple of comments... one is that 'incredible quick pans' is no-no for any kind of camera. It's just bad videography. It''s not watchable footage. Again, if you watch professional sports on TV, notice their camera work even on fast moving events... they are not doing 'incredible quick pans' even with $500,000 cameras... they are positioning themselves for well-thought out angles and shooting aesthetically watchable footage without making us dizzy or sick with zippy pans. That's what I mean by "pro" footage... using the basic principles of good shooting.

Also, did you see the train footage I linked? There are vertical lines screaming past the window with no visible skewing.

But the reason people are so quick to point out problems with technology is because everyone knows what the camera can do, its what its limits are that is what people really need/want to know.

Yes, and I'm glad they have done so because it's been a great learning process for me. Mostly it's made me realize that most of these negative effects are more user related than equipment related. What you see on forums are often people who are upset or have a problem, which is also the magic of forums, because you can get some great assistance. I love this place and the other video forums and when I have problems (which I know I will, ha!) I'll post my 'issues' in hopes of a remedy.

I guess I'm going through this discussion right now because there are probably lots of people like me. They're wanting to get into high-def videography and are spending lots of times in forums reading and gobbling all they can to learn this stuff and choose a camera. I spent a few months reading everything I could about the cameras, and my choice was narrowed down to the HVX and the EX1. I think I'd prefer the intraframe aspects of the HVX, but I need 'true' high-def, native 1920x1080 pixels, so I went with the Sony. I'm no Sony fanboy.

But to all those deciding on a camera and aren't familiar with all this stuff and they're agonizing every time someone posts something crappy about a camera they're leaning towards, I just want to let them know, no matter what camera it is, is you'll find crappy footage and great footage and the primary DIFFERENCE is the people shooting them. So don't be disheartened and go back and forth and back and forth, post by post, on what camera to get. Ha! Been there done that. There's pretty much always a good reason why you're seeing bad and good footage. Whatever camera you get, feel good about it because it is good despite what a fanboy or a what a post or thread in a forum might say about it. The biggest limitations in these cameras is not spending the time to really know how to technically shoot the camera and how to shoot good footage.

[Buck Forester]

I don't think anyone's riled up.


Much like in this image posted before.



I can pretty much guarantee in your "fan" still image if someone knows how to shoot the fan under the right conditions with the right settings, you won't even see that on a "still". Can you tell us exactly which settings you were using for that 'still'? As a 'still' photographer, I can post images here of a fan and either show movement based on my shutter speed and aperture, or crank up the ISO with a fast lens and freeze it. I can show you a whole range of still images with various effects. What does that prove? That settings make a difference.

[Buck Forester]

Drew, when I get up and running with my EX1 I'll do a similar shoot of a moving fan. I'll show you the skew version, and I'll show you the version with no skew, same camera, different settings. Then I'll go outside to a park show you footage of my little son running and show you jello, and I'll show you the same footage with no jello. I'm not anticipating this to be a difficult thing to do. But hey, if it is, I'll be honest and let you know (plus I'll send my camera back, ha!).

[DREWjoseph82]

A couple of comments... one is that 'incredible quick pans' is no-no for any kind of camera. It's just bad videography.
Yes I am aware of this. "Incredibly" was a bad choice of words.

Also, did you see the train footage I linked? There are vertical lines screaming past the window with no visible skewing.
I think this has to do with the subjects moving in frame, and not the camera moving. Puredrifting stated that with his baseball footage players running through were fine, but the panning caused it to show.

I think I'd prefer the intraframe aspects of the HVX, but I need 'true' high-def, native 1920x1080 pixels, so I went with the Sony.
I wont comment too much on this, but I think the phrase "true high def" is thrown around a bit too much with this camera when being compared to the HVX. Im no Panasonic fanboy either.

The biggest limitations in these cameras is not spending the time to really know how to technically shoot the camera and how to shoot good footage.
I whole heartedly agree. The CMOS does have its limitations which a person can work around as long as you know them, which is what I have been saying all along. If this is what you have been getting at all along then Im sorry for all this debate. To me, the way you worded things sounded like you sort of dismissed the CMOS issues as completely user error (instead of actual limitations of the chip) is why I commented in the first place.

The Sony's are great cameras and Im not trying to discourage people from purchasing them.

-Drew

[DREWjoseph82]

I don't think anyone's riled up.



I can pretty much guarantee in your "fan" still image if someone knows how to shoot the fan under the right conditions with the right settings, you won't even see that on a "still". Can you tell us exactly which settings you were using for that 'still'? As a 'still' photographer, I can post images here of a fan and either show movement based on my shutter speed and aperture, or crank up the ISO with a fast lens and freeze it. I can show you a whole range of still images with various effects. What does that prove? That settings make a difference.

I dont know the settings used, the photo is from a page earlier in the thread and is not mine.

But various shutter speeds could not do this alone. A slower or faster shutter would affect ALL of the fan's blades equally (assuming they are moving at the same speed). It would not cause one of the blades to stretch out like that.

-Drew

[Buck Forester]

I think this has to do with the subjects moving in frame, and not the camera moving. Puredrifting stated that with his baseball footage players running through were fine, but the panning caused it to show.

Two quick comments on this (I should be doing other things, but this is sorta fun, ha!). 1) I've seen lots of panning footage that doesn't show skew like this, there has got to be a reason for it other than saying it's CMOS only. 2) This is my ignorance, but can you tell me the difference in skewing effects whether the camera is panning rapidly, or if the camera is on something moving very rapidly? If I understand correctly (and I might not be) skewing is caused by the top of the frame being processed first and working its way down, showing the leaning effect. If vertical lines are rapidly being processed as they move across the frame, what difference is there between the rapid lines coming from panning or moving across the frame while on a moving platform (like a train?).

But various shutter speeds could not do this alone. A slower or faster shutter would affect ALL of the fan's blades equally (assuming they are moving at the same speed). It would not cause one of the blades to stretch out like that.

What I'm trying to say is that if the fan is shot properly in the first place, all the blades would be non-skewed. The still image would show the fan as a, well, fan. You HAVE to know, Drew, that if this was the case and everytime a fan was in a scene and it looked like that skewed image, it would be absurdly ridiculous. I could hear Directors screaming in the distance, "NOOoOOOO!!! Who put that fan in there? It just ruined our entire shoot! AHHHhhhh!!!. Ha ha! Seriously. People making movies would say, "Yes, I'll do this shoot for you, but you don't have any fans around do you?" To look at one skewed fan shot, posted in a forum, not knowing who shot it nor what the settings were, and even THINK this would be the case for how the Sony EX1 shoots all fans, to me is remarkable. No offense.

[Tim Naylor]

Okay, not to sound critical or anything, but... WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? ha! <---keeding You are panning that camera like a madman. Why would anyone pan so fast with absolutely no subject to follow? I'm a 'still' photographer and if I panned my still camera like that, with no subject, at that speed, I'd get meaningless blur. Can you think of any situation where you'd subject someone, even your ex-girlfriend who cheated on you, to watch footage like that? :Þ The footage you just showed does not concern me at all because there's no practical situation where that would be the case.



It's hardly a radically fast pan. Subject or no subject to follow, that jello vision is pretty bad. I shoot mostly fiction for feature and some broadcast and that pan rate is nothing unusual or "non-pro". Pans are part of the business, especially when you're tracking action on a long lens, panning off a lookover, following a driveby, etc.. Often we pan faster and still get "pro" footage.

Tim Naylor - DP
www.timnaylor.com

[DREWjoseph82]

I dont see how you can think it is anything other than a CMOS problem actually. You certainly dont see this kind on thing on any CCD footage. And since the only real variable here is CMOS vs CCD, I can only come to the conclusion that it is a CMOS issue.

As far as camera panning vs subject moving, Im not sure. Im only going off of observations from footage I have seen. It was just something I had noticed.

In regards to the fan, I was just using it as an example of what a rolling shutter could produce. I have not tested shooting fans in every situation, but as you can see, it obviously could present to be a problem.

I am not saying that "OMG the CMOS is going to kill your footage!!! DONT BUY!!!" But I am not disillusioned to think that the CMOS is without problems or limitations.

I'll end my part of this debate with my original point: The CMOS does have its limitations (rolling shutter artifacts and skewing) which a person can work around as long as you know them and the situations in which they will present themselves.

Thanks,

Drew

[Buck Forester]

It's hardly a radically fast pan. Subject or no subject to follow, that jello vision is pretty bad.


Well, Tim, I guess that's subjective then. That pan to me was insane. I watch TV and movies just like everyone else and I ever saw pans like that (which I don't) I would dive for the remote and change the channel, either that or I'd dive for a bucket and hurl in it, ha!

Here's some basic videography shooting tips from the Adobe website:
-------------------------------------------------------
Avoid fast pans and snap zooms

These moves fall into MTV and amateur video territory. Few circumstances call for such stomach-churning camerawork. In general, it’s best to minimize all pans and zooms. As with a shaky camera, they remind viewers that they’re watching TV.

http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=467717&seqNum=2
---------------------------------

Often we pan faster and still get "pro" footage.

Well, if so, then make sure you're shooting it properly and with the right settings and you'll be okay. I see good 'action' pans with the EX1, but they're shot correctly.

[kyrre]

I gotta side with Buck Forester here. The whole CMOS-shutter stuff is blown out of proportions. Fine, you see artifacts on footage like that steroid-ehanced panning posted by driftingforever, but you would probably never encounter these issues under pratical, realistic circumstances.

[Buck Forester]

I dont see how you can think it is anything other than a CMOS problem actually. You certainly dont see this kind on thing on any CCD footage. And since the only real variable here is CMOS vs CCD, I can only come to the conclusion that it is a CMOS issue.



I guess we're going in circles, Drew, because I think we're talking on different levels and not understanding each other. What I'm saying is yes, CMOS can have rolling shutter issues (that's not a matter of opinion, that's just fact), but the footage you see in these forums, and pictures like that fan, do not reflect properly shot footage coming from the EX1. If so, who would buy this piece of crap? If you can't even shoot a situation where there's a lousy fan in the room, ha!, then it's useless. If you can't shoot a car driving by, or a guy running, then who would buy this crappy camera? It's OBVIOUSLY not as shown in these forums when properly shot or it wouldn't be an insanely popular camera, even used by professionals. And even more obviously is the footage all over the place you seem to dismiss that does not show these artifacts, and say, "I don't know how they did it, but look at this...".

I'll end my part of this debate with my original point: The CMOS does have its limitations (rolling shutter artifacts and skewing) which a person can work around as long as you know them and the situations in which they will present themselves.

Hey, we agree! That's been my original point too. The footage you see posted in forums is extreme, is absolute worst case scenario, and most of if it shot with improper settings and could be avoided and is way over-hyped. There's gazillions of hours of great footage to back this up.

[alexdias]

I gotta side with Buck Forester here. The whole CMOS-shutter stuff is blown out of proportions. Fine, you see artifacts on footage like that steroid-ehanced panning posted by driftingforever, but you would probably never encounter these issues under pratical, realistic circumstances.

I receptively disagree here. My experience was exactly the opposite. I shot handheld with very conservative moves, my camera work is praised by it's stability and preciseness.
I found the rolling shutter issues very problematic. The sample posted made look too drastic, I wish I have access to my footage but unfortunately I don't.
I'll say no more.

[Buck Forester]

alexdias, what are you doing different than all the amazing EX1 footage we see out there? Especially if your moves are conservative. That's all I gotta ask. I'm really curious. Something is making some people's footage wonderful, and some people's bad. What are your thoughts on why?

[Buck Forester]

See Phillip Blooms experience with the rolling shutter issue.

----------------------------------------------------

http://exposureroom.com/members/philipbloom.aspx/blogs/post/164/

Shooting clean I put it lots of high speed shutter, to give it a Tony Scott/ Saving Private Ryan feel. The downside to this was it showed off the limitations of the rolling shutter in the ex1 quite badly. Although only on REALLY crazy whip pan reframes, I span the camera around so fast this is what I caught.

Pretty nasty! But I did loads of proper whips pans and didn’t get any of this. So basically To get this I had to have lots of high speed shutter in and really crazily spin the camera around.

This is the only time I have come across this, as I said, it’s a combination
of shutter and exaggerated movement. Don’t let it put you off the camera!
I was so pleased with the end results. I was handheld all the time, no shoulder mount and worked great. Here is a small edit I have knocked together for fun of some of the shots. Am cutting the actual story on Monday.

-------------------------------------------------------

[henry cho]

thanks for the clip dan.

i'm using the ex1 now (and have an hv20 in the kit), and rolling shutter, tho it hasn't been a major issue for us, can definitely impact a shoot, so i think it's wise not to completely dismiss it and plan around it where it might be a problem.

i've had a love-hate relationship with this camera since i got it. picture was always gorgeous, but the camera's idiosyncrasies would sometimes drive me absolutely batty. most of the initial quirks have been worked out on sony's end and i get a better understanding of the camera every day i use it, so i'm definitely leaning more love these days (seriously, the manual everything lens rocks). if i were shooting a lot of handheld docs or events, i might consider other camera options first.

and you can still whip-pan scorsese style with the ex1. just turn shutter off when you're going to do it. voila... no jello. you'll be shooting 1/24 in 24p, so, unless that's the way you want to shoot, remember to switch shutter back on when you're done.

[puredrifting]

thanks for the clip dan.

i'm using the ex1 now (and have an hv20 in the kit), and rolling shutter, tho it hasn't been a major issue for us, can definitely impact a shoot, so i think it's wise not to completely dismiss it and plan around it where it might be a problem.

i've had a love-hate relationship with this camera since i got it. picture was always gorgeous, but the camera's idiosyncrasies would sometimes drive me absolutely batty. most of the initial quirks have been worked out on sony's end and i get a better understanding of the camera every day i use it, so i'm definitely leaning more love these days (seriously, the manual everything lens rocks). if i were shooting a lot of handheld docs or events, i might consider other camera options first.

and you can still whip-pan scorsese style with the ex1. just turn shutter off when you're going to do it. voila... no jello. you'll be shooting 1/24 in 24p, so, unless that's the way you want to shoot, remember to switch shutter back on when you're done.

I'll have to try that Henry.

Thanks,

Dan

[HowdyDoo]

As a filmmaker that currently owns BOTH an HVX and an EX1 I can honestly say the cameras are both equal in their flaws.

The cons:

EX-1: Rolling Shutter / Poor Ergonomics

HVX200: Terrible Noise in Low Light / Almost UNUSABLE LCD

I think the two biggest problems with these cameras are the Ex1's rolling shutter and the HVX's LCD. However, after using the EX1, I can't stand going back to the HVX. I miss the HVX's film-like colors a great deal, but its LCD is an abomination and I can't believe I put up with it for so long. What's the point of shooting HD when you can't even monitor your footage properly? I'd rather risk having my footage occasionally ruined by a rolling shutter than to risk all of my footage being slightly out of focus because the monitor on the camera reads like a crappy tube television from 1987.

That said, if the HVX had a better LCD, I'd probably go with the HVX because I do so love those vivid, saturated colors. I don't want to purchase a Marshall because I don't want my rig locked down. I like my camera light and free.

[Otis Grapsas]

The explanation regarding smear and rolling shutter distortions from Sony are interesting:

CCD: A vertical band appears when recording a bright subject. This phenomenon is called the smear effect. This is not a malfunction.

CMOS: The subject passing by the frame very fast appears crooked. This is called the focal plane phenomenon. This is not a malfunction.

Google search of "focal plane phenomenon" produces no results. A remarkably well planed and completely irrelevant choice of words to describe a well documented problem of CMOS that is called rolling shutter. Strange:) Do other manufacturers include a warning or expanation on rolling shutter in their user guides at all? I believe consumers deserve a warning on the box. If my mobile will produce crooked video (low frame rates make it worse) I deserve to know.

If they said "rolling shutter" instead in the manual, http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/ would appear first on a google search.

[Huy Vu]

Nobody likes to put negative warnings out about their products. One negative bullet point will stick out above all else, and produces fear in potential consumer. This isn't just Sony, every manufacturer does it. Does Letus or Cinevate tells us that stopping down too much will allow the GG to show? Does Panasonic tells us that the HVX's LCD sucks? Every product has weaknesses and you'll only hear about it from actual users like the ones on this forum.

The problem is that everyone is always looking for the camera for all seasons, and something like that just doesn't exists. Sure, rolling shutter is a problem, but not everybody shoots using ultra highspeed pans, and a great deal of people never experienced the skewing effects. It's just like when everybody was afraid of getting an HDV camera because they heard that under high-action scenes, the image would start to break up. There are situations where it does that, but 95% of the time the camera works just fine because you're not working in those environments. Same deal with the CMOS rolling shutter. Do research on it, decide whether it'll affect the kind of work that you do and whether you can live with it. It's always best to have the opportunity to try out the camera first before making a decision, as specs often don't tell the whole story. I've used the HVX and the A1 side-by-side, and my personal conclusion is that the A1 is the better camera, despite the specs that says otherwise. This is why I dislike threads that try to pit one camera versus another. It all comes down to personal preferences and you just end up bickering over the dumbest details.

[DavidChia]

What is good for you might not be good for me... so just shoot and do the best of what each camera has to offer.

[Kholi]

As a filmmaker that currently owns BOTH an HVX and an EX1 I can honestly say the cameras are both equal in their flaws.

The cons:

EX-1: Rolling Shutter / Poor Ergonomics

HVX200: Terrible Noise in Low Light / Almost UNUSABLE LCD

I think the two biggest problems with these cameras are the Ex1's rolling shutter and the HVX's LCD. However, after using the EX1, I can't stand going back to the HVX. I miss the HVX's film-like colors a great deal, but its LCD is an abomination and I can't believe I put up with it for so long. What's the point of shooting HD when you can't even monitor your footage properly? I'd rather risk having my footage occasionally ruined by a rolling shutter than to risk all of my footage being slightly out of focus because the monitor on the camera reads like a crappy tube television from 1987.

That said, if the HVX had a better LCD, I'd probably go with the HVX because I do so love those vivid, saturated colors. I don't want to purchase a Marshall because I don't want my rig locked down. I like my camera light and free.


HVX200A -- Find one and compare. :B Ballgame is a different one.

I had EX1 and 200A Side by side and I can tell ya right-off: There are no differences in 24p Cadence when both are set to the same Shutter Speed. The 200A murders the EX1 in color representation down to the Reds. The EX1 murders the 200A in image clarity and resolution. The 200A manages to look three dimensional while the EX1 looks more two dimensional. The rolling shutter exists in the same panning environments as the HVX200A, but are not bad enough to deter most from purchasing.

The EX1 is the ugliest camera on the planet, the HVX200A ergonomics are "alright" still.

If I had the money I would own both without question.

[Mattykins]

I think the overall idea here is that a perfect camera doesn't exist sub 150,000 for body alone. Each has flaws...it just depends on how much of an issue you think things are. Personally CMOS will never distract me since I personally think it's crap and was overblown by two or three clips online. I own both CCD and CMOS cams. It depends on what you think you need.

[seunosewa]

I always shoot with a wide open shutter anyway, so it's a non-issue for me.

[Tim Naylor]

Wide open shutter?

[Buck Forester]

Quick question... when people mention they like the color of the HVX better, don't you guys tweak and grade color in post? In still photography I use Photoshop to tweak color/contrast/sharpening, etc. to get my final desired image. Doesn't the video editing software essentially do the same? I have Final Cut Studio 2 and a new Mac Pro but I just got it a few days ago and haven't even had time to mess with it yet. It's always preferred to start with a great image (in digital RAW it's not quite as important), but I'm assuming (read hoping, ha!) that I'll be able to nail my colors in editing. Am I missing something? Gracias.

[Otis Grapsas]

CMOS will provide tons of affordable resolution with a compromise in color richness and rolling shutter issues. CMOS will not replace CCD because these factors are very important. XDCAM EX CMOS is nice but if the money is available one can get XDCAM HD CCD, the high end HDCAM cameras from Sony with the I-Frame format are 100% CCD and their recently introduced super35 sensor camera is CCD. Panasonic is 100% CCD even in cheap consumer models and still sells quite well vs the very high resolution and larger sensor CMOS due to the very good color reproduction, even in this pixel peeping era and market segment. Serious prosumer camcorders from Canon are CCD also and CMOS is only available for cheap consumer models. Rolling shutter is obviously important and CCD is considered superior by the designers of the big manufacturers.

[Buck Forester]

I respectfully disagree about CCD vs CMOS. I think CMOS is where a lot of focus/investment will be (and currently is), sort of like 'film vs digital' and 'CRT vs LCD', it's the way of the future. Not to say CMOS is better than CCD right now, but I think that's just where things are headed. What do I have to substantiate this? Nothing but my gut feeling. Admittedly my gut is bigger than I'd like it to be right now. But I have a crystal ball on order from B&H (they're backordered), so when it arrives I'll let you know for sure.

[alexdias]

No Buck, you are not missing anything. It's just that the post fix (or 'look' if you will) have limitations. Specially if we're talking FCP. Even Color, which will take forever rendering in a long project, is limited. Maybe a DaVinci, Pablo or some other suite like that.
I believe when people refer to better colors on the HVX they are mentioning the 'organic' (aka filmic) look that the Panasonic cameras have.
It's very hard to achieve this 'look' on post, but not impossible.
I found the tweaked EX-1 close but not there.

As far as changing the shutter speed for pans and fast moving pace, it's also not so simple. Philip's footage is very impressive. One of the main reasons I started looking at this camera was because of his work. At the same time, usually, it's a very manipulated look. He's fantastic grading his footage. I really appreciate his work.

I take a different approach, most of my work is done with available light and I try to minimize the camera work as much as I can. So no "private ryan" nor heavy grading for me.

[Buck Forester]

Thanks, alex! I also prefer as minimal post work as necessary. We'll see how it goes.

Hey, through this discussion I became a "Senior Member" around here, ha! I got a little prolific there.

[Otis Grapsas]

The rolling shutter problem will eventually be solved Buck. The main problem is the extra cost of global reset and the required memory besides each pixel (up to three transistors for each of millions of pixels). These added components increase cost, noise and optical requirements. The whole point of CMOS was to avoid CCD component and implementation cost so I doubt we will see good sensitive global shutter chips in affordable cameras soon. When global shutter becomes feasible in cheap cameras I bet the maufacturers will rush to show how "unnacceptable" rolling shutter was. Till then they will try to avoid discussing the issue. I wonder how much longer will Panasonic manage to afford 3ccd and its costly optics on the sub $1000 cameras. I guess they are a very romantic company:)

[pgs]

I always shoot with a wide open shutter anyway, so it's a non-issue for me.

Seunosewa you say you use a wide open shutter. Does this reduce the rolling shutter effect.

I'm looking to purchase 3 ex1's for an extreme sports documentary. So speed, some panning, lots of slo mo and suttle dollies and zip lines.

Don't want to spend the dough on the cameras if the footage is going to be ugly. I want the larger sensor and lens of the ex 1 but if the better camera for insuring not getting any bad footage I'm willing to go with panasonic with the smaller ccd .

[Otis Grapsas]

If you are getting three, it makes sense to rent one for a couple of days.

[Andrew McMillan]

David chai You have a dsr 370 and an ex1. I have two dsr 300's. So I am a little courious as to how you think to two compare.

[basspig]

Hi all:

Here is some ©JelloVision for you http://www.vimeo.com/1167949

Sony EX-1
720 24P shot at 60 fps
180 degree shutter
XDCAM EX 35Mbps




One has to also consider that this was obviously shot overcranked (I'm guessing 60/24 and so the panning was most likely more than twice as fast as shown in the video. And that's a fast whip-pan. This slo-mo video captures the effect and makes it plain and obvious, but I much doubt that this kind of situation will occur in most filmmaking.
I thought I'd mention that, since it seems no one mentioned the slo motion recording and it's ability to enhance this particular anomaly.

[lawriejaffa]

Personally i think the best advantage of having slow mo is the exact ability to film fast things (in slow mo) with sometimes necessary fast cam work. After all, for any action cinematography or sports that would be the point (fast shutter/ slow mo, fast cam movements) at least to an extent anyway.

I remember saying it from the start, the ex makes pretty pics till u start moving it about too much. Bloom's stuff is great, but honestly, i've yet to see one clip that doesnt comprise of thoughtful looking close ups and wide shots in slow mo (all on the tripod!)

Wheres the super action hand cam ninja clip ;) ive yet to see any action style cinematography off the tripod with the ex ;P

My concern for any big screen project, is for any slight skewing unnoticed... stuff like that.

Theres a few micro features shot on the EX - including a very professional looking effort (in the UK) so, that I look forward too!

[Huy Vu]

S Does this reduce the rolling shutter effect.


Shutterspeed does nothing. Have it as low or high as you want, it's still gonna be there.

[henry cho]

a high shutter speed will only exacerbate the effect. the ex1 has a "shutter off" switch on the body below the lens. flipping this switch, your shutter speed becomes your framerate. this should minimize some effect of rolling shutter, especially flashes. if you're shooting 24p, your framerate effectively becomes 1/24, with all the benefits and problems that entails.

[Otis Grapsas]

The problem is always there but on 1/24 you actually get some full frame (global) exposure time. Very short exposure times make the problem extremely obvious because even lines that are close together do not get any common exposure time. The horror clips are usually at pretty fast exposures, probably auto shutter in daylight.

[thxdave]

Duhhh. It finally dawned on me that this "rolling shutter" issue is almost exactly the same problem you have with traditional focal plane shutters on a 35mm camera. For example, when you were shooting with an electronic flash, your cameras' shutter speed could not exceed a given setting (typically 1/60th, 1/125th) because you HAD to have the entire film aperture open to receive the light from the strobe. Exceed those shutter speeds and your strobe would only illuminate the sliver of film that was open to the incoming light. Can anyone else confirm (not that I'm doubting you, Henry) that the shutter "speed" of the EX1 does indeed follow the frame rate when you turn the shutter off? This would at least give you a fighting chance to capture an entire "frame" of video when a strobe goes off.

[chrisccw]

Thank you for your vimeo video. I bought two EX1's for several projects in April and May, debated about upgrading because I love these cameras, but your video put me over the top--ordered two EX3's today. I do lots of two cam shoots and now time-code slaving will be simple. Looks like there are lots of buyers for the EX1's--most people don't need all the features of the EX3 and they can save a few thousand bucks with the EX1. Both are amazing pieces of technology. Thanks again for your review.

[falves1]

I just called B&H and it is not available yet. They say July. is there any confirmed business in the Us that has the camera?