EX3 $8320 at B&H

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.

fans.jpg


Anyways, sorry if I got anyone riled up.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I don't think anyone's riled up.

Much like in this image posted before.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!).
 
A couple of comments... one is that 'incredible quick pans' is no-no for any kind of camera. It's just bad videography.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Buck Forester said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
kyrre said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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