EX3 $8320 at B&H

You mean this?

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-...ts-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"
 
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.
 
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).
 
Dxmetal said:
judging a motion video camera with frame grabs is like judging a SLR still camera with its "movie mode".
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Noel Evans said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Buck Forester said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
DREWjoseph82 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top