EX1 footage, etc.

Well I tell you what we can all agree on gents - that nothing made out here should persnally impune on anyone - and that this topic, while touching some nerves is basically unconstructive and should best be locked...
 
Buck Forester said:
My question is this...why don't we see footage of this caliber (Phillip Bloom) from other shooters??

There's a big difference between camera specs and talent, as I'm sure you're aware. You could have some garage band with the best equipment in the world and they might still sound like crap, and give the Eagles some battered acoustic guitars and they will create magic. If you give Greg Brady and Ansel Adams the same high-end camera, are you gonna expect the same results? I've seen some stunning EX1 footage and some crappy footage. I don't judge the camera itself (no matter which camera or manufcaturer) based on just the footage I see posted online (although I do check out as much as I can, it helps). If you're a good videographer, you can make this camera sing (but you could on pretty much any other camera too). If you need high-def specs, the EX1 certainly has the specs. If you need CCD attributes more than CMOS attributes, then that's a whole nuther thing. I'll be shooting wilderness stuff and I want the highest quality in a backpackable camcorder I can get, and the Sony EX1 stands out spec wise as the camcorder of my choice. What I end up doing with it won't be the praise or fault of the camcorder, it will be what I can create. I know I could do well with the HVX200 too, but the specs alone would limit some of my marketing choices. But you have to realize the person behind the camera has much more to do with the results than the camera itself.
Click to expand...

wise words Buck. I was talking to someone today who runs a company and they had two different shooters in for a project, shooting on f900s. One set of rushes were mind blowing the other looked like it was shot on a dsr 570. A good camera can make a huge difference but not as much as a good shooter can.
 
Last edited:
One other thing. I am going to go NAB this year and am more than happy to meet and talk to anyone about what I like and dislike about any of my equipment. Am bringing my EX1 and Letus with, after all there will be a lot of cracking stuff for me to film out there and am MORE than happy to go through my set up with anyone who wants me to and give them tips about using 35mm adaptors. These cameras and adaptors have literally changed my life work wise, opening up doors which before now were not just closed but completely off my radar. That is what is great about these forums, it crosses borders and people all over the world get to see your work.

This thread started off basically being incredibly negative, lets turn it around and show people there is great footage out there, lets just be patient. People are only just getting the cameras.
 
Last edited:
"this topic, while touching some nerves is basically unconstructive and should best be locked..."

What??? Why??? I didn't mean to insult anyone or cause any problems here. I can't believe how this blew up. The fact that I touched such a nerve makes me question this even more...There's a lot of money to be made by these companies who are selling these cameras. God forbid I question if someone who has BEEN PAID BY SONY might actually be working for Sony...Why should this be deleted? I definitely don't think that what I wrote warranted name calling from a 'Senior Member' either. "Troll."

It's absolutely ridiculous.

The way I see it is this. If you don't want people thinking that you might work for a company, then don't accept pay to speak on behalf of that company. If you don't like people questioning you, then this is one way to avoid it. You should have thought about it before you accepted pay to speak on behalf of that particular product. You can like one product better than another and endorse it. But don't act so offended when people jump to the logical conclusion that there's A CHANCE that you're working with that company or you're 'in it's pocket.' Anyone who wouldn't think that at least for one second is a fool.

You don't work for Sony. Fine. All I said was that I wanted to see more good footage before I buy. AND YES...I questioned whether there's a possibility that you do.

From this reaction, you'd think that I said that I was going to kill someone.
 
now mate you are getting bloody ridiculous and offending me. i asked Barry not to close this. I have not asked to close it.

You contradict yourself a lot in the last statement. You are making the thread negative and stirring up bad feeling, nobody else is. You know something I can't be bothered with this.

Enjoy it. I am done with this. Life is too short to continue to with this pettiness. I have said enough of this subject. I don't think it makes any difference to you. Good luck and I hope you never work for any commercial client at any stage in your career as you will be in danger, justifiably so apparently of being in the pocket of that client. After all Sony were just my client this week, like Showcase cinemas are next week and Femfresh ladies "down there" freshener are the week after. Look forward to you telling people don't listen to Phil Bloom, he's paid by Femfresh and says the product really works!!
 
Last edited:
Well okay fair do, but philadvxphia we know blooms got some work from sony based on the quality of his promo-reels. I think its fair that the speed and energy with which youve produced your reels bloom could credibly raise an eyebrow over partiality given yourself being hired by Sony.

However, i don't understand philadvxia where your criticism is supposed to lead overall? It's rather not god a point - unless you just wanted to highlight this criticism, or an expression of frustration perhaps at the marketing taking place and why it might all seem so misleading?

You are an apolagist for the crits levelled against the ex bloom, just like for example i would be accused of for being so towards the hvx yep ;) The partiality of my comments would be scrutinised far more if however, i was going on about the superiority of the hvx, making great clips avoiding its weaknesses and getting paid work by panny.

Thats just the way the cookie crumbles bloom, but i dont see the point or cause for anyone to get personal with you, but i think its naive to feign offence over the validity of that scrutiny. I think theres no justifcation though for anyone to come hard on anyone personally though - that is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
PhilaDvXphia,

I guess I understand your concerns, but you should really read a lot of posts by a user before you make any conclusions. Philip is an artist, he uses both Brevis and Letus, Sony and Canon and JVC, is very talented, and is clearly in noone's pocket if that is your concern(and truly none of our business). But more importantly adressing your initial question, posting footage is not really an easy thing. Do you have your own high-bandwidth website? Can you post uncompressed footage because that is what most people want? Do you have time to run lots of tests for the curious, color grade them, render them, upload them? I've noticed that you have never posted footage her for the readers here yourself. Why? So far your posts are mostly about Youtube, in which I am sure the EX1 will work just fine. I guess I am just saying that what you are asking for is difficult, time consuming, so if you REALLY have concerns, take some initiative and go check out the camera for yourself. Ask things in a non-accusatory way or a way that doesn't imply dishonesty on an internet forumn and you will get much better answers to your questions.
 
Last edited:
what's with all this Bloom? My name is Phil or Philip.

As I said I can't be bothered defending my name and reputation. There are people out there who trust me and that's good enough for me, anyone else, tough.

This sort of thing makes me think it is time for me to to take a break from this forum. It seems my speed and energy and quality of my work makes me a valid target for questions about my partiality. It takes all the fun out of it for me!
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that you asked to close it. The quote was from lawriejaffa.

We're talking about endorsing camera companies for money. Not working for commercial clients, which is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY different.

AND you're not the only one who is offended here. I was attacked for insinuating that you might possibly work for a company that paid you to speak on their behalf. Like that's so wrong of me.

Forget this. I'm done too. I've had it with the childish name calling along with the unwarranted attacks that I've encountered ever since I posted this thread.
 
I'm guessing that by you making the claim that Philip, who on his own, bought a Sony camera and posted good footage and got a lot of attention because of the results of his skills combined with the camera, and was thereafter contacted by Sony (not "hired" by Sony) to use his usual consulting fees to speak on his experiences using the camera, that is not being bought-out by Sony. The footage speaks for itself.

I'm not one to get into these kinds of discussions, but if you're not liking the footage you're seeing out there, then no worries, don't get the EX1. I'm seeing the footage out there too (I can tell if someone really knows what they're doing or not just by the kind of footage I'm seeing, regardless of camera model) and I like what I'm seeing. You've seen what it can do if you're good (Philip's stuff) and you can see what it looks like if you don't know what you're doing. If you have the time and don't need a different camera asap, simply wait a few months and I'm sure you'll see plenty more stuff online, ranging from crap to amazing.

You got the responses you did because, intended or not, the tone of your post was accusatory. If you simply asked Philip the nature of his relationship with Sony, I would guess he'd be honest and straight up, as he has been. But to dismiss his footage (which you admittedly like) because Sony paid his usual and customary consulting fees to talk about this product has nothing to do with his original choice of the EX1 nor the footage he created using it, nor all the comments he made prior to Sony even contacting him. It's all on his website. And no, I don't know Philip from Adam, I've just seen his website - in case you think he's paying me to make these comments :^D
 
Adam Wilt has released his review of a production EX1 (he reviewed a prototype in late 2007). He notes many of the issues others have noted (rolling shutter, etc) and a few more (knee handles highlights oddly, can be avoided though). His findings mirror in most cases what we've been finding at FreshDV, namely that it is a very unique and powerful camera that has a caveats that may or may not affect your particular needs and workflow. Adam also rated the ISO and dynamic range, something we weren't able to test. The six-page review is a very good read, I suggest you check it out here if you are interested at all in the EX1.
 
PhilaDvXphia said:
We're talking about endorsing camera companies for money. Not working for commercial clients, which is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY different.
.
Click to expand...


I am not endorsing Sony, I am endorsing the EX1. Like I endorse my Honda Accord. Like I endorse Hendricks Gin. Products that I like and recommend to people. The difference being that I was paid for three days to answer questions about the EX1 on the Sony stand as I said I was at pains to point out to everyone that I am not a Sony employee I am a DP hired by Sony for this conference as I am an experienced EX1 user. They needed me as most of the employees there knew just the bare facts about it.

This quote "God forbid I question if someone who has BEEN PAID BY SONY might actually be working for Sony" goes to my statement about working for a commercial client.

Buck, thanks for pointing out that very valid statement. Sony asked me to do this gig about 3 weeks ago. Well after I had shot everything bar South Bank and Dungeness. Your usual fee is heading into your paypal account as we speak...(how do you get invisotext on here?!)

I tried to diffuse things earlier but it made no difference. It was your opening statement that caused the problems. If you had left that out this could have been a constructive thread.
 
Last edited:
mjeppsen said:
Adam Wilt has released his review of a production EX1 (he reviewed a prototype in late 2007). He notes many of the issues others have noted (rolling shutter, etc) and a few more (knee handles highlights oddly, can be avoided though). His findings mirror in most cases what we've been finding at FreshDV, namely that it is a very unique and powerful camera that has a caveats that may or may not affect your particular needs and workflow. Adam also rated the ISO and dynamic range, something we weren't able to test. The six-page review is a very good read, I suggest you check it out here if you are interested at all in the EX1.
Click to expand...

i too recommend this review. I also recommend Matts hour long chat with his colleague and pros and cons.
 
Anyone who has read even a few weeks worth of Phil's posts will see how he has been learning the camera with the rest of us, and that he got one of the first ones, and that he's a quick study, and an excellent shooter.

And, like me, he's partial to the camera that's best for his needs. Everything I've read of Phil's shows his excitement about the camera - not for Sony but for one of its cameras. I understand his desire to educate about it because I have the same desire. It's very strange to attack him for it.

This board has so much brand partiality (aka fanboyism) that it's part of the culture. Not everyone who owns and likes a particular camera has a religious affinity for it.

It would never occur to me to love a particular manufacturer of industrial video equipment over another, and yet everyone here assumes that those of us with genuine excitement over what is a breakthrough production tool have some ulterior reason for raving about the product.

Brand love is a weird quirk on this site. It's far more common to find the love of teaching and knowledge sharing out in the real world than it is to find the love of a particular brand name.

From what I have read from Mr. Bloom, Its clear that he loves what he does and loves to share what he knows.
 
Buck Forester said:
... Philip, who on his own, bought a Sony camera and posted good footage and got a lot of attention because of the results of his skills combined with the camera, and was thereafter contacted by Sony (not "hired" by Sony) to use his usual consulting fees to speak on his experiences using the camera, that is not being bought-out by Sony. The footage speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
In a similar vein, StillMotion was creating visually interesting footage/photos for their clients with the Canon/Brevis combo and Canon DSLRs long before Canon Canada contacted them and ended up sponsoring them (their video footage was used by Canon in a national DSLR commercial). I find it refreshing that companies are realizing outside talent can in some cases deliver more impressive work than they can internally.
 
PhilaDvXphia - please stop immediately and look at what you've done. You've caused a valued member of this forum to not want to post here anymore and share his work and knowledge which he enjoys doing. That kinda thing pisses me off. I sincerly hope he doesnt stop posting here because of this.
 
It the artist, not the paint.

Philip is a gifted DP who knows the strengths of his kit and how to use them.

People who are SO enamored with the latest and greatest cameras that they overlook the artistry of composition, exposure and timing have my utter disdain.

PhilaDvXphia, where is some of YOUR work that we can stand in awe of?
 
Unfortunately your original post is still in the quotes. Oh well!

I understand your original intention and question, it just was worded very badly and then instead of dropping it you carried on defending your statement.

Yes, there needs to be more good footage posted. In time there will be and if you are still undecided what camera to buy i can only offer you this advice...look at what is important to you. The pros and cons of the two cameras that you are deciding between. Read the reviews like the one linked to above by Matt but most importantly go somewhere and USE one. If it means hiring one for a day then do that, or, just go somewhere where they have one and play with it, ask if you can shoot some footage with the salesmen outside, bring your laptop, dump the footage and see what you think. It's a lot of money, you gotta get it right. I bought blindly and was lucky. But you obviously need reassurance so go do it!

You are in Pennsylvania, not sure of the dealers there but you can always get a train up to B&H or somewhere similar in NYC where they will have them and if a short play isn't enough, as I said hire one for the day and test it in every possible way you can. Then you can be sure it is for you or not.

You wanna know something very revealing. The main guy at Sky HD in London spoke to me yesterday. He is blown away by it. He put it up against a 750 HDCAM and was shocked at how good it was. But he doesn't want to approve it for full HD acquisition. He will end up having to, but the reason he doesn't is it opens up the floodgates for high quality broadcast-able HD contents shot by amateurs. The reality shows, the low quality docs. All hand held wobble vision. He wanted to keep HD beautiful. The z1 25mbs was not good enough and he had an easy excuse to refuse it but the ex1 puts him in a quandary. For me this says it all about the cameras. This really is the cheapest HD camera out there that broadcasters are going to fully accept for 100% acquisition. I agree with him in a way, I had hoped the advent of HD meant a return to quality looking TV, not all the self shot PD 150 stuff we have been seeing. I was hoping for Planet Earth type stuff or docos with soundos. i think the ex1 and whatever Panny bring out next will kill that and it just means we see a lot of badly shot HD stuff on our nice big LCDs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top