EX3 $8320 at B&H
- Thread starter philip bloom
- Start date
HowdyDoo
Well-known member
Ex1-HVX-Both Flawed
Ex1-HVX-Both Flawed
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.
Ex1-HVX-Both Flawed
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
Carbonite Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Mattykins
Cute Member
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.
Tim Naylor
Veteran
Wide open shutter?
Buck Forester
Well-known member
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
Carbonite Member
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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
Well-known member
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.
Hey, through this discussion I became a "Senior Member" around here, ha! I got a little prolific there.
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
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
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
Carbonite Member
If you are getting three, it makes sense to rent one for a couple of days.
Andrew McMillan
Well-known member
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
Veteran
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
Veteran
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!
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 ;PMy 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!